Natalee Holloway & the president.

I used to tune in to fox news now and again. Natalee Holloway seems to be
the focus there these days, boring. I can remember when a talented talk show
host, Jerry Williams, if you are from the boston area, died after going on
and on about seat belts. Well, now he is really dead and because of that
seatbelt nonsense he didn't check out at the top of his career.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Natalee Holloway's disappearence is tragic
but it's time to move on. This crap happens everyday.

The other obsession seems to be Mrs. Sheehan and her stand outside the Bush
ranch in texas. Big deal, she's boring too.

I have come to the conclusion that Sean Hannity of Fox News is the worlds
biggest asshole/idiot. Second place goes to the Coullter woman that loves
the scent of Hannity's underwear.

I can't understand the success of the O'Reilly Factor but, hey, Jerry
Springer is a star too and I place them in the same category. Howard Stern
too! Worthless bunch. At least every once in awhile howard would have the
perfect looking babe come on and take all of her clothes off, try that on
sirous radio.

The popularity of these types of shows disappoint me, I thought America was
smarter than that.

Hannity said the the Iraqi's now have a constitution (not the last time I
looked) and that the Iraqi's are better off because of your president bush
(are they). He went on to say that nobody wants to talk about these things.
Well, Mr. Hannity, where are the WMD, where is the honesty?
Mrs. Sheenan's son did die for a lie. Halliburton got the no bid contract.

Why aren't the presidents daughters in harms way? They should be in Iraq
changing oil in the jeeps. Until they are there then he doesn't care about
your children, only his. Fuck him and his lies.

I have almost always voted republican but I didn't vote for bush. I'm glad.
I don't care if howard dean runs next election, I will not vote for a
republican again for some time. If you do, you don't know what's goimg on
around you, or maybe you do. My next vote will go to Ms. Clinton.

Bad things appear to be coming, buckle up.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>I used to tune in to fox news now and again. Natalee Holloway seems to be
>the focus there these days, boring. I can remember when a talented talk
>show host, Jerry Williams, if you are from the boston area, died after
>going on and on about seat belts. Well, now he is really dead and because
>of that seatbelt nonsense he didn't check out at the top of his career.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think that Natalee Holloway's disappearence is
> tragic but it's time to move on. This crap happens everyday.
>
> The other obsession seems to be Mrs. Sheehan and her stand outside the
> Bush ranch in texas. Big deal, she's boring too.

Crazy people are always fun to watch.

>
> I have come to the conclusion that Sean Hannity of Fox News is the worlds
> biggest asshole/idiot. Second place goes to the Coullter woman that loves
> the scent of Hannity's underwear.

I think Hannity is great and AC is not only hot but right on.

>
> I can't understand the success of the O'Reilly Factor but, hey, Jerry
> Springer is a star too and I place them in the same category. Howard Stern
> too! Worthless bunch. At least every once in awhile howard would have the
> perfect looking babe come on and take all of her clothes off, try that on
> sirous radio.

O'Reilly does appear to be a lot of schtick.

>
> The popularity of these types of shows disappoint me, I thought America
> was smarter than that.

What are those good shows that you remember? There is far, far more
intellect on the right than the left, e.g. Sheehan, Boxer, Kennedy, etc.

>
> Hannity said the the Iraqi's now have a constitution (not the last time I
> looked) and that the Iraqi's are better off because of your president bush
> (are they). He went on to say that nobody wants to talk about these
> things. Well, Mr. Hannity, where are the WMD, where is the honesty?
> Mrs. Sheenan's son did die for a lie. Halliburton got the no bid contract.

SH had WMD. Do you want to dispute that? There was no evidence these WMD
were destroyed. Do you have evidence they were? SH and his sons were
Hitler like. Do you want to dispute that? The world is better with a free
Iraq. Do you want to dispute that?


>
> Why aren't the presidents daughters in harms way? They should be in Iraq
> changing oil in the jeeps. Until they are there then he doesn't care about
> your children, only his. Fuck him and his lies.

Like Kerry's "war wounds?" Bush has never lied.


>
> I have almost always voted republican but I didn't vote for bush. I'm
> glad. I don't care if howard dean runs next election, I will not vote for
> a republican again for some time. If you do, you don't know what's goimg
> on around you, or maybe you do. My next vote will go to Ms. Clinton.

So we now know what you are not for, what are you for? What educational
level did you achieve?

>
> Bad things appear to be coming, buckle up.
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Ed wrote:

> I used to tune in to fox news now and again.

How much were you paid to watch or punished not to watch?

> I have come to the conclusion that Sean Hannity of Fox News
> is the worlds biggest asshole/idiot. Second place goes to the
> Coullter woman that loves the scent of Hannity's underwear.

Do you have any proof that Ann Coulter is in reality a woman? In every
photo and video I've seen of her, she looks like a transexual or
transvestite, and rumor has it that her temper is caused by problems
balancing her hormone dosages.

> I can't understand the success of the O'Reilly Factor but, hey, Jerry
> Springer is a star too and I place them in the same category. Howard Stern
> too! Worthless bunch.

Misters Stern and Springer only pretend to be trash. You should see
Springer's British nighttime talk show.

At least Bill O'Reilly's gave us Buzzergate. Of course it makes his
book, The O'Reilly Factor For Kids, an especially creepy gift.

> Why aren't the presidents daughters in harms way?

Only the little people serve in wars.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:

> Bush has never lied.

About what?

WMDs - lied
Vietnam record - lied
Business embezzlement - lied
Drug use - lied
Girlfriends' abortions - lied

George W. Bush is the biggest liar to ever occupy the White House, and
that includes Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton.

Only the stupidest Republicans and biggest liars support George W.
Bush.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Anger? Support
"Norm De Plume" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> Bush has never lied.
>
> About what?
>
> WMDs - lied
> Vietnam record - lied
> Business embezzlement - lied
> Drug use - lied
> Girlfriends' abortions - lied
>
> George W. Bush is the biggest liar to ever occupy the White House, and
> that includes Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton.
>
> Only the stupidest Republicans and biggest liars support George W.
> Bush.
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

>> I have come to the conclusion that Sean Hannity of Fox News is the worlds
>> biggest asshole/idiot. Second place goes to the Coullter woman that loves
>> the scent of Hannity's underwear.
>
> I think Hannity is great and AC is not only hot but right on.

It's good to see that you're not fussy and easy to please. I think Norm got
it right in his post.

>> The popularity of these types of shows disappoint me, I thought America
>> was smarter than that.
>
> What are those good shows that you remember? There is far, far more
> intellect on the right than the left, e.g. Sheehan, Boxer, Kennedy, etc.

Why would Hannity invite someone on his show only to ask them questions and
not allow them to answer? Strange. O'Reilly does the same thing. I can't
understand why anyone with a differing viewpoint would want to waste their
time being a guest. We need more shows like "Meet the Press" and more
journalists like Tim Russett.

>> Hannity said the the Iraqi's now have a constitution (not the last time I
>> looked) and that the Iraqi's are better off because of your president
>> bush (are they). He went on to say that nobody wants to talk about these
>> things. Well, Mr. Hannity, where are the WMD, where is the honesty?
>> Mrs. Sheenan's son did die for a lie. Halliburton got the no bid
>> contract.
>
> SH had WMD. Do you want to dispute that? There was no evidence these WMD
> were destroyed.

I don't dispute it, they got them from us. It doesn't matter if he had them
or not. Where was US intelligence on this one? How many Iraqi's were on
those planes on 9/11? How many Iraqi terrorist were captured or killed in
Afghanistan?

> SH and his sons were Hitler like. Do you want to dispute that?

Yes I do, I don't think taking over the world was in their game plan. He was
a cruel dictator but that's hardly a reason to invade a country.

> The world is better with a free Iraq. Do you want to dispute that?

I don't see any difference, could you point them out to me?

>> Why aren't the presidents daughters in harms way? They should be in Iraq
>> changing oil in the jeeps. Until they are there then he doesn't care
>> about your children, only his. Fuck him and his lies.
>
> Like Kerry's "war wounds?" Bush has never lied.

I'm not a Kerry fan but he wouldn't have attacked Iraq for no reason.

>> I have almost always voted republican but I didn't vote for bush. I'm
>> glad. I don't care if howard dean runs next election, I will not vote for
>> a republican again for some time. If you do, you don't know what's goimg
>> on around you, or maybe you do. My next vote will go to Ms. Clinton.
>
> So we now know what you are not for, what are you for?

Getting and keeping insanity out of the White House. We may never have a
completely honest and up front government but this is rediculous.

Have you seen the polls. Bush's popularity is in the toilet. Support for the
war is in the toilet.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think that Natalee Holloway's disappearence is
> tragic but it's time to move on. This crap happens everyday.
>

Natalee Holloway is getting the attention only because she was a pretty,
young
and blonde.

Buck toothed, ugly kids come up missing every day, yet we never hear about
them.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Ed wrote:
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>
>>>I have come to the conclusion that Sean Hannity of Fox News is the worlds
>>>biggest asshole/idiot. Second place goes to the Coullter woman that loves
>>>the scent of Hannity's underwear.
>>
>>I think Hannity is great and AC is not only hot but right on.
>
>
> It's good to see that you're not fussy and easy to please. I think Norm got
> it right in his post.
>
>
>>>The popularity of these types of shows disappoint me, I thought America
>>>was smarter than that.
>>
>>What are those good shows that you remember? There is far, far more
>>intellect on the right than the left, e.g. Sheehan, Boxer, Kennedy, etc.
>
>
> Why would Hannity invite someone on his show only to ask them questions and
> not allow them to answer? Strange. O'Reilly does the same thing. I can't
> understand why anyone with a differing viewpoint would want to waste their
> time being a guest. We need more shows like "Meet the Press" and more
> journalists like Tim Russett.
>
>
>>>Hannity said the the Iraqi's now have a constitution (not the last time I
>>>looked) and that the Iraqi's are better off because of your president
>>>bush (are they). He went on to say that nobody wants to talk about these
>>>things. Well, Mr. Hannity, where are the WMD, where is the honesty?
>>>Mrs. Sheenan's son did die for a lie. Halliburton got the no bid
>>>contract.
>>
>>SH had WMD. Do you want to dispute that? There was no evidence these WMD
>>were destroyed.
>
>
> I don't dispute it, they got them from us. It doesn't matter if he had them
> or not. Where was US intelligence on this one? How many Iraqi's were on
> those planes on 9/11? How many Iraqi terrorist were captured or killed in
> Afghanistan?
>
>
>>SH and his sons were Hitler like. Do you want to dispute that?
>
>
> Yes I do, I don't think taking over the world was in their game plan. He was
> a cruel dictator but that's hardly a reason to invade a country.
>
>
>>The world is better with a free Iraq. Do you want to dispute that?
>
>
> I don't see any difference, could you point them out to me?
>
>
>>>Why aren't the presidents daughters in harms way? They should be in Iraq
>>>changing oil in the jeeps. Until they are there then he doesn't care
>>>about your children, only his. Fuck him and his lies.
>>
>>Like Kerry's "war wounds?" Bush has never lied.
>
>
> I'm not a Kerry fan but he wouldn't have attacked Iraq for no reason.
>
>
>>>I have almost always voted republican but I didn't vote for bush. I'm
>>>glad. I don't care if howard dean runs next election, I will not vote for
>>>a republican again for some time. If you do, you don't know what's goimg
>>>on around you, or maybe you do. My next vote will go to Ms. Clinton.
>>
>>So we now know what you are not for, what are you for?
>
>
> Getting and keeping insanity out of the White House. We may never have a
> completely honest and up front government but this is rediculous.
>
> Have you seen the polls. Bush's popularity is in the toilet. Support for the
> war is in the toilet.
>
>
>
>
>
How can even 40% approve of Bush?

He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting in
the deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men
women and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the
USA more unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.

He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.

Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is still
fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis are
now marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting the
western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.

600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without
charges, trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends.
Other captives have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.

At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run a
record budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened
and sunk against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years
the stock market has gone exactly nowhere.

Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all masochists?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:depojo$rhr$
> Ed wrote:
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>>I have come to the conclusion that Sean Hannity of Fox News is the
>>>>worlds biggest asshole/idiot. Second place goes to the Coullter woman
>>>>that loves the scent of Hannity's underwear.
>>>
>>>I think Hannity is great and AC is not only hot but right on.
>>
>>
>> It's good to see that you're not fussy and easy to please. I think Norm
>> got it right in his post.
>>
>>
>>>>The popularity of these types of shows disappoint me, I thought America
>>>>was smarter than that.
>>>
>>>What are those good shows that you remember? There is far, far more
>>>intellect on the right than the left, e.g. Sheehan, Boxer, Kennedy, etc.
>>
>>
>> Why would Hannity invite someone on his show only to ask them questions
>> and not allow them to answer? Strange. O'Reilly does the same thing. I
>> can't understand why anyone with a differing viewpoint would want to
>> waste their time being a guest. We need more shows like "Meet the Press"
>> and more journalists like Tim Russett.
>>
>>
>>>>Hannity said the the Iraqi's now have a constitution (not the last time
>>>>I looked) and that the Iraqi's are better off because of your president
>>>>bush (are they). He went on to say that nobody wants to talk about these
>>>>things. Well, Mr. Hannity, where are the WMD, where is the honesty?
>>>>Mrs. Sheenan's son did die for a lie. Halliburton got the no bid
>>>>contract.
>>>
>>>SH had WMD. Do you want to dispute that? There was no evidence these
>>>WMD were destroyed.
>>
>>
>> I don't dispute it, they got them from us. It doesn't matter if he had
>> them or not. Where was US intelligence on this one? How many Iraqi's were
>> on those planes on 9/11? How many Iraqi terrorist were captured or killed
>> in Afghanistan?
>>
>>
>>>SH and his sons were Hitler like. Do you want to dispute that?
>>
>>
>> Yes I do, I don't think taking over the world was in their game plan. He
>> was a cruel dictator but that's hardly a reason to invade a country.
>>
>>
>>>The world is better with a free Iraq. Do you want to dispute that?
>>
>>
>> I don't see any difference, could you point them out to me?
>>
>>
>>>>Why aren't the presidents daughters in harms way? They should be in Iraq
>>>>changing oil in the jeeps. Until they are there then he doesn't care
>>>>about your children, only his. Fuck him and his lies.
>>>
>>>Like Kerry's "war wounds?" Bush has never lied.
>>
>>
>> I'm not a Kerry fan but he wouldn't have attacked Iraq for no reason.
>>
>>
>>>>I have almost always voted republican but I didn't vote for bush. I'm
>>>>glad. I don't care if howard dean runs next election, I will not vote
>>>>for a republican again for some time. If you do, you don't know what's
>>>>goimg on around you, or maybe you do. My next vote will go to Ms.
>>>>Clinton.
>>>
>>>So we now know what you are not for, what are you for?
>>
>>
>> Getting and keeping insanity out of the White House. We may never have a
>> completely honest and up front government but this is rediculous.
>>
>> Have you seen the polls. Bush's popularity is in the toilet. Support for
>> the war is in the toilet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> How can even 40% approve of Bush?
>
> He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting in the
> deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men women
> and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the USA more
> unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.

The war was necessiary. It removed the threat of SH and is attempting to
establish a democarcy in the middle east



>
> He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
> organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
> recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
> Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.

Completely false. SH was a threat.

>
> Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is still
> fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis are now
> marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting the
> western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.

False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large percentage of the
populace voted?

>
> 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without charges,
> trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other captives
> have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.

False again.

>
> At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run a record
> budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened and sunk
> against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years the stock
> market has gone exactly nowhere.

Spending is too high, but the the rest of your statements are false.

>
> Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
> masochists?

Bush was easily the best choice.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> How can even 40% approve of Bush?

Many republicans or democrats are loyal to their party, the candidate is
secondary. They will always vote the party. Surely you must have some of
that in the UK.

> He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting in the
> deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men women
> and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the USA more
> unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.

The figures I saw said 100,000 Iraqi's in Baghdad alone. U.S. military
deaths as of 8/18/2005 stood at 1,861. More have been killed since then.

> He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
> organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
> recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
> Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.
>
> Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is still
> fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis are now
> marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting the
> western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.

Some are, some aren't, an argument could be made either way but that's not
the point.

> 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without charges,
> trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other captives
> have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.

I know.

> At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run a record
> budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened and sunk
> against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years the stock
> market has gone exactly nowhere.

It's true that jobs are leaving the country but I don't blame government for
that.
As far as the stock market goes, it's true that it has gone nowhere over 5
years but I also don't blame Bush for that. 2003 was a very good year for
the market, 2004 was also very good. The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index
Fund did 31.35% & 12.52% respectively and we could see positive returns for
2005, I hope anyway. The down years of 2000 - 2002 were a result of the
stock market mania that melted down starting in 2000.

> Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
> masochists?

Some say that Americans didn't vote him in, that Gore won the first
election.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Gary C" <> wrote
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I think that Natalee Holloway's disappearence is
>> tragic but it's time to move on. This crap happens everyday.
>>
>
> Natalee Holloway is getting the attention only because she was a pretty,
> young
> and blonde.
>
> Buck toothed, ugly kids come up missing every day, yet we never hear about
> them.

Her parents are very good at keeping the story alive but Fox News is
obsessed with it.
You sure are right though, there are plenty of missing kids that nobody will
ever hear about.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>> How can even 40% approve of Bush?
>
> Many republicans or democrats are loyal to their party, the candidate is
> secondary. They will always vote the party. Surely you must have some of
> that in the UK.
>
>> He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting in the
>> deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men women
>> and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the USA
>> more unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.
>
> The figures I saw said 100,000 Iraqi's in Baghdad alone. U.S. military
> deaths as of 8/18/2005 stood at 1,861. More have been killed since then.

Do you think it was better they lived under SH? I would trade 100K,
including myself, to free myself from SH and establish democracy.

>
>> He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
>> organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
>> recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
>> Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.
>>
>> Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is still
>> fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis are now
>> marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting the
>> western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.
>
> Some are, some aren't, an argument could be made either way but that's not
> the point.
>
>> 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without
>> charges, trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other
>> captives have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.
>
> I know.
>
>> At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run a
>> record budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened
>> and sunk against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years
>> the stock market has gone exactly nowhere.
>
> It's true that jobs are leaving the country but I don't blame government
> for that.
> As far as the stock market goes, it's true that it has gone nowhere over 5
> years but I also don't blame Bush for that. 2003 was a very good year for
> the market, 2004 was also very good. The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index
> Fund did 31.35% & 12.52% respectively and we could see positive returns
> for 2005, I hope anyway. The down years of 2000 - 2002 were a result of
> the stock market mania that melted down starting in 2000.

I also think the unemployment rate is below the Clinton "glory years."
There are plenty of jobs, they are just not in manufacturing. Eventually,
robots will do all or very close to all the manufacturing. Just like there
are few farmers relative to the populations they feed. China in 10 - 20
years could be on the scrap heap.

>
>> Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
>> masochists?
>
> Some say that Americans didn't vote him in, that Gore won the first
> election.
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:depojo$rhr$
>
>>>
>>>Have you seen the polls. Bush's popularity is in the toilet. Support for
>>>the war is in the toilet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>How can even 40% approve of Bush?
>>
>>He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting in the
>>deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men women
>>and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the USA more
>>unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.
>
>
> The war was necessiary. It removed the threat of SH and is attempting to
> establish a democarcy in the middle east
>
What was "the threat of SH"? He had no WMDs, no nuclear, no biological,
no chemical weapons. All he did have was the odd rocket that could only
manage 150 miles, hardly enough to get out of Iraq, a few old Russian
tanks, rocket propelled grenades and small arms. Just what was the
threat to America 6000 miles or so away? That he would wiggle his
mustache at you?

>
>
>
>>He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
>>organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
>>recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
>>Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.
>
>
> Completely false. SH was a threat.
>
What is false? Osama Bin Laden is still at large and his Al Qa'eda a
going concern. Bush could not catch them so he attacked someone else
instead who had no connection to 9/11. I suppose he had to be seen to be
doing something, however inept.

SH a threat? How? America is a superpower with enough WMDs to destroy
the whole planet while SH had none and virtually no conventional arms
either. He was just a pussy cat compared to Bush.

>
>>Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is still
>>fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis are now
>>marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting the
>>western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.
>
>
> False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large percentage of the
> populace voted?
>
Only the Shia and Kurds voted. The Sunni boycotted it. That's not
democracy. Why should they accept a system forced on them by an invading
army? If China conquered the USA would you be happy to take part in a
one-candidate communist style election because the Chinese preferred it?
The Sunni will now reject the American imposed "constitution" and, in
fact have already rejected it. Where does America go from here?
>
>>600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without charges,
>>trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other captives
>>have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.
>
>
> False again.
>
You've not heard of Guantanamo Bay then? It's in Cuba. Or of similar
prisons in Afghanistan and other countries expressly set up to deprive
the captives of their legal rights. How many of the captives have been
charged with any crime, brought to trial and found guilty?
>
>>At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run a record
>>budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened and sunk
>>against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years the stock
>>market has gone exactly nowhere.
>
>
> Spending is too high, but the the rest of your statements are false.
>
They are all true. Try reading the papers or watching TV.
>
>>Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
>>masochists?
>
>
> Bush was easily the best choice.
>
From all the brilliant businessmen and scientists in America he was
really the best you could find?
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

>> The figures I saw said 100,000 Iraqi's in Baghdad alone. U.S. military
>> deaths as of 8/18/2005 stood at 1,861. More have been killed since then.
>
> Do you think it was better they lived under SH? I would trade 100K,
> including myself, to free myself from SH and establish democracy.

That's one out of 100,000. I suppose you would also sacrifice your family.
All beside the point. We had no reason to invade Iraq. If we are to invade
every country with WMD or those that just don't like us then we have a long
list don't we.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:deq48s$3fr$
> NoEd wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:depojo$rhr$
>>
>>>>
>>>>Have you seen the polls. Bush's popularity is in the toilet. Support for
>>>>the war is in the toilet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>How can even 40% approve of Bush?
>>>
>>>He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting in the
>>>deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men women
>>>and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the USA
>>>more unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.
>>
>>
>> The war was necessiary. It removed the threat of SH and is attempting to
>> establish a democarcy in the middle east
>>
> What was "the threat of SH"? He had no WMDs, no nuclear, no biological, no
> chemical weapons. All he did have was the odd rocket that could only
> manage 150 miles, hardly enough to get out of Iraq, a few old Russian
> tanks, rocket propelled grenades and small arms. Just what was the threat
> to America 6000 miles or so away? That he would wiggle his mustache at
> you?

Everyone believed he STILL had WMDs, plus he could have still aquired them.
The world is better off without SH.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
>>>organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
>>>recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
>>>Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.
>>
>>
>> Completely false. SH was a threat.
>>
> What is false? Osama Bin Laden is still at large and his Al Qa'eda a going
> concern. Bush could not catch them so he attacked someone else instead who
> had no connection to 9/11. I suppose he had to be seen to be doing
> something, however inept.

Becasue OBL has not been caught proves nothing, and the subsequent attacks
proves there is truely a war on terror. By the way, Clinton couldn't catch
him.


>
> SH a threat? How? America is a superpower with enough WMDs to destroy the
> whole planet while SH had none and virtually no conventional arms either.
> He was just a pussy cat compared to Bush.

He invaded Kuwait, remember? Crazy people with money and power are a
threat.

>
>>
>>>Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is still
>>>fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis are now
>>>marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting the
>>>western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.
>>
>>
>> False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large percentage of
>> the populace voted?
>>
> Only the Shia and Kurds voted. The Sunni boycotted it. That's not
> democracy. Why should they accept a system forced on them by an invading
> army? If China conquered the USA would you be happy to take part in a
> one-candidate communist style election because the Chinese preferred it?
> The Sunni will now reject the American imposed "constitution" and, in fact
> have already rejected it. Where does America go from here?

So? It was still vote, and Im not sure that is true. They are writing and
voting on the constitution now.

>>
>>>600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without
>>>charges, trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other
>>>captives have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.
>>
>>
>> False again.
>>
> You've not heard of Guantanamo Bay then? It's in Cuba. Or of similar
> prisons in Afghanistan and other countries expressly set up to deprive the
> captives of their legal rights. How many of the captives have been charged
> with any crime, brought to trial and found guilty?


I heard of it, and your claim is false.

>>
>>>At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run a
>>>record budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened
>>>and sunk against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years
>>>the stock market has gone exactly nowhere.
>>
>>
>> Spending is too high, but the the rest of your statements are false.
>>
> They are all true. Try reading the papers or watching TV.

I do read the papers. May be you should try something other than the left
wing rags you read.


>>
>>>Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
>>>masochists?
>>
>>
>> Bush was easily the best choice.
>>
> From all the brilliant businessmen and scientists in America he was really
> the best you could find?

Better than Kerry, that was choice. I am sorry of your inferiority complex
and angst about the US. Live with it.


>>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Sure we can if we choose to. Evil should be confronted and eliminated, if
possible. Yes, we have the right to eliminate evil.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>>> The figures I saw said 100,000 Iraqi's in Baghdad alone. U.S. military
>>> deaths as of 8/18/2005 stood at 1,861. More have been killed since then.
>>
>> Do you think it was better they lived under SH? I would trade 100K,
>> including myself, to free myself from SH and establish democracy.
>
> That's one out of 100,000. I suppose you would also sacrifice your family.
> All beside the point. We had no reason to invade Iraq. If we are to invade
> every country with WMD or those that just don't like us then we have a
> long list don't we.
>
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Sure we can if we choose to. Evil should be confronted and eliminated, if
> possible. Yes, we have the right to eliminate evil.

Your reply doesn't go with my post?

Anyway, if evil is to be confronted where ever it is found then many people
in the world think that is right here in the US. People in the middle east
and elsewhere believe we are the terrorists.

> "Ed" <> wrote
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>>> The figures I saw said 100,000 Iraqi's in Baghdad alone. U.S. military
>>>> deaths as of 8/18/2005 stood at 1,861. More have been killed since
>>>> then.
>>>
>>> Do you think it was better they lived under SH? I would trade 100K,
>>> including myself, to free myself from SH and establish democracy.
>>
>> That's one out of 100,000. I suppose you would also sacrifice your
>> family.
>> All beside the point. We had no reason to invade Iraq. If we are to
>> invade
>> every country with WMD or those that just don't like us then we have a
>> long list don't we.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Sure we can if we choose to.

How would we pay for it?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Values are not relative, so it doesn't matter what they think. Charles
Manson thinks he is right.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Sure we can if we choose to. Evil should be confronted and eliminated,
>> if
>> possible. Yes, we have the right to eliminate evil.
>
> Your reply doesn't go with my post?
>
> Anyway, if evil is to be confronted where ever it is found then many
> people in the world think that is right here in the US. People in the
> middle east and elsewhere believe we are the terrorists.
>
>> "Ed" <> wrote
>>>
>>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>>> The figures I saw said 100,000 Iraqi's in Baghdad alone. U.S. military
>>>>> deaths as of 8/18/2005 stood at 1,861. More have been killed since
>>>>> then.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think it was better they lived under SH? I would trade 100K,
>>>> including myself, to free myself from SH and establish democracy.
>>>
>>> That's one out of 100,000. I suppose you would also sacrifice your
>>> family.
>>> All beside the point. We had no reason to invade Iraq. If we are to
>>> invade
>>> every country with WMD or those that just don't like us then we have a
>>> long list don't we.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

At least then you agree evil should be defeated.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Sure we can if we choose to.
>
> How would we pay for it?
>
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Values are not relative, so it doesn't matter what they think. Charles
> Manson thinks he is right.

If you get a chance to watch CNN's presentation of "Dead Wrong", don't miss
it. They show documents that indicate the "facts" leading up to the war
would be tailored to fit the administrations agenda. The "proof" they used
that SH was on track to develop nuclear weapons was his purchases of high
strenght 3"x3' aluminum tubes. Tubes that one CIA analyst "with very limited
knowledge of nuclear science" said were going to be used to produce weapons
grade nuclear material. After being told by nuclear scientists that the
tubes were most likely going to be used for rockets and not to develop
nuclear weapons because they were "the right size for rockets and the wrong
size and material for producing nuclear weapons" they went forward with
their version to build support for the war.


>
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>> Sure we can if we choose to. Evil should be confronted and eliminated,
>>> if
>>> possible. Yes, we have the right to eliminate evil.
>>
>> Your reply doesn't go with my post?
>>
>> Anyway, if evil is to be confronted where ever it is found then many
>> people in the world think that is right here in the US. People in the
>> middle east and elsewhere believe we are the terrorists.
>>
>>> "Ed" <> wrote
>>>>
>>>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> The figures I saw said 100,000 Iraqi's in Baghdad alone. U.S.
>>>>>> military
>>>>>> deaths as of 8/18/2005 stood at 1,861. More have been killed since
>>>>>> then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think it was better they lived under SH? I would trade 100K,
>>>>> including myself, to free myself from SH and establish democracy.
>>>>
>>>> That's one out of 100,000. I suppose you would also sacrifice your
>>>> family.
>>>> All beside the point. We had no reason to invade Iraq. If we are to
>>>> invade
>>>> every country with WMD or those that just don't like us then we have a
>>>> long list don't we.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> At least then you agree evil should be defeated.

I don't agree that we should go looking the world over to find what we
perceive to be evil and then destroy it.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:depojo$rhr$

> Completely false. SH was a threat.

Then why didn't Colin Powell think so? He said Saddam was under
control, and what mad dictator wouldn't be if half his country was
internationally declared a "no-fly zone" and patrolled constantly by
armed military planes? Even Brent Scowcroft, the foreign policy
advisor for The Real President Bush, was against going to war against
Iraq, and you can't contest his military or conservative credentials.

> > Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam
> > he is still fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being
> > grateful, Iraqis are now marching in demos holding up
> > pictures of Saddam and rejecting the western-style
> > democracy he is trying to foist on them.
>
> False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large
> percentage of the populace voted?

Why have 80% of the U.S. casualties occurred since the "peace"? That's
roughly 1500 times the number killed by German insurgents after WWII.

> > 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without charges,
> > trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other captives
> > have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.

> False again.

What about that Iraqi POW general who was killed while being tortured
by the U.S.?

> > Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
> > masochists?
>
> Bush was easily the best choice.

Only compared to Saddam, Kim, and Osama. The real reason he's
President is because dumb people outnumber smart people.

Baby Bush was one of the very few presidential candidates who was
obviously the worst choice -- dumb, got everything only because of Dad,
accomplished absolutely nothing on his own, never matured (still a man
boy), comitted fraud, and has no talent except for memorizing names and
being a vindictive bully.

Baby Bush was such an obvious bad choice that if WWIII erupts from his
mistakes, I'm going after every one of you who supported him because
you people should have known better, and you're responsible for that
cretin sending the U.S. down the toilet and letting China become the
world leader.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:deq48s$3fr$

>> The war was necessiary. It removed the threat of SH and is attempting to
>> establish a democarcy in the middle east

What threat? A weak dictator whose country was being bombed daily for
over a decade (U.S. and British patrols shot about once a day), that
had no WMDs, and that didn't support Islamist terrorists (CIA said Iraq
was the only Middle East country with no Al Quada presense, the other
being Israel) was no threat to anybody but other Iraqis. Use some
sense and see the obvious for a change. The war in Afghanistan has
been necessary, but the Iraqi war is doing nothing but recruiting
terrorists and sapping our military strength, much to the delight of
not only Al Quada but also China. But you probably don't mind having
the world led by a brutal dictatorship rather than by a great
democracy. Worse, you probably don't understand how much worse the
world will be if that happens.

> Everyone believed he STILL had WMDs, plus he could have still aquired them.
> The world is better off without SH.

Is the world better off with the current situation in Iraq? Why or why
not?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:

> I also think the unemployment rate is below the Clinton "glory years."
> There are plenty of jobs, they are just not in manufacturing.

You "think"? The unemployment rate during the Clinton years dipped to
as low as 4.2% for the year. You need to check your facts better, not
only about unemployment but also about Saddam, WMDs, and Baby Bush.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:

> At least then you agree evil should be defeated.

What if an attempt to wipe out evil makes it worse?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote

> NoEd wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:depojo$rhr$
>
>> Completely false. SH was a threat.
>
> Then why didn't Colin Powell think so?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:deq48s$3fr$
>
>>> The war was necessiary. It removed the threat of SH and is attempting
>>> to
>>> establish a democarcy in the middle east
>
> What threat? A weak dictator whose country was being bombed daily for
> over a decade

He was not weak.

(U.S. and British patrols shot about once a day), that
> had no WMDs, and that didn't support Islamist terrorists (CIA said Iraq
> was the only Middle East country with no Al Quada presense, the other
> being Israel) was no threat to anybody but other Iraqis.

Not true

Use some
> sense and see the obvious for a change.

I do see the obvious.

The war in Afghanistan has
> been necessary, but the Iraqi war is doing nothing but recruiting
> terrorists and sapping our military strength, much to the delight of
> not only Al Quada but also China.

Left wing claptrap. More has been achieved in Iraq than in Afganistan. If
you are for Afganistan, how can you be against Irag?


But you probably don't mind having
> the world led by a brutal dictatorship rather than by a great
> democracy. Worse, you probably don't understand how much worse the
> world will be if that happens.

So you think China will take over the world? Huh? They can't feed their
people.


>
>> Everyone believed he STILL had WMDs, plus he could have still aquired
>> them.
>> The world is better off without SH.
>
> Is the world better off with the current situation in Iraq? Why or why
> not?
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:depojo$rhr$
>
>> Completely false. SH was a threat.
>
> Then why didn't Colin Powell think so?

I fairly sure he thought so. I don't think he agreed with the means to
remove this threat.

He said Saddam was under
> control, and what mad dictator wouldn't be if half his country was
> internationally declared a "no-fly zone" and patrolled constantly by
> armed military planes? Even Brent Scowcroft, the foreign policy
> advisor for The Real President Bush, was against going to war against
> Iraq, and you can't contest his military or conservative credentials.
>
>> > Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam
>> > he is still fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being
>> > grateful, Iraqis are now marching in demos holding up
>> > pictures of Saddam and rejecting the western-style
>> > democracy he is trying to foist on them.
>>
>> False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large
>> percentage of the populace voted?
>
> Why have 80% of the U.S. casualties occurred since the "peace"? That's
> roughly 1500 times the number killed by German insurgents after WWII.

Your statement is a non sequitur.


>
>> > 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without
>> > charges,
>> > trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other
>> > captives
>> > have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.
>
>> False again.
>
> What about that Iraqi POW general who was killed while being tortured
> by the U.S.?

As has been reported many times, the prisons are better now than under SH.


>
>> > Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
>> > masochists?
>>
>> Bush was easily the best choice.
>
> Only compared to Saddam, Kim, and Osama. The real reason he's
> President is because dumb people outnumber smart people.
>
> Baby Bush was one of the very few presidential candidates who was
> obviously the worst choice -- dumb, got everything only because of Dad,
> accomplished absolutely nothing on his own, never matured (still a man
> boy), comitted fraud, and has no talent except for memorizing names and
> being a vindictive bully.
>
> Baby Bush was such an obvious bad choice that if WWIII erupts from his
> mistakes, I'm going after every one of you who supported him because
> you people should have known better, and you're responsible for that
> cretin sending the U.S. down the toilet and letting China become the
> world leader.
>


Why don't you just come out and admit you simply don't like Bush. If it
were not the war you would find something else to bitch about.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Removing SH was the right thing to do. Bush believed SH still had WMD.
There is absolutely no proof that he didn't think and believe that. You
need to make the case that EVEN if there were no WMD then he would have
still went. To say that the intelligence was wrong therefore Bush lied is
disingenuous. No evidence has ever been produced showing that Bush and
Blair knew that SH had no WMD. Period.



"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Values are not relative, so it doesn't matter what they think. Charles
>> Manson thinks he is right.
>
> If you get a chance to watch CNN's presentation of "Dead Wrong", don't
> miss it. They show documents that indicate the "facts" leading up to the
> war would be tailored to fit the administrations agenda. The "proof" they
> used that SH was on track to develop nuclear weapons was his purchases of
> high strenght 3"x3' aluminum tubes. Tubes that one CIA analyst "with very
> limited knowledge of nuclear science" said were going to be used to
> produce weapons grade nuclear material. After being told by nuclear
> scientists that the tubes were most likely going to be used for rockets
> and not to develop nuclear weapons because they were "the right size for
> rockets and the wrong size and material for producing nuclear weapons"
> they went forward with their version to build support for the war.
>
>
>>
>>
>> "Ed" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>>
>>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>> Sure we can if we choose to. Evil should be confronted and eliminated,
>>>> if
>>>> possible. Yes, we have the right to eliminate evil.
>>>
>>> Your reply doesn't go with my post?
>>>
>>> Anyway, if evil is to be confronted where ever it is found then many
>>> people in the world think that is right here in the US. People in the
>>> middle east and elsewhere believe we are the terrorists.
>>>
>>>> "Ed" <> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The figures I saw said 100,000 Iraqi's in Baghdad alone. U.S.
>>>>>>> military
>>>>>>> deaths as of 8/18/2005 stood at 1,861. More have been killed since
>>>>>>> then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think it was better they lived under SH? I would trade 100K,
>>>>>> including myself, to free myself from SH and establish democracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's one out of 100,000. I suppose you would also sacrifice your
>>>>> family.
>>>>> All beside the point. We had no reason to invade Iraq. If we are to
>>>>> invade
>>>>> every country with WMD or those that just don't like us then we have a
>>>>> long list don't we.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Is SH a perceived evil? Is Cuba a perceived evil? Is Iran a perceived
evil? Is OBL a perceived evil? I know you like to think so, but you can't
have it both ways. All you have is empty claims.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> At least then you agree evil should be defeated.
>
> I don't agree that we should go looking the world over to find what we
> perceive to be evil and then destroy it.
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

The old Berkeley "violence begets violence" argument. Let all the bad guys
go because if you stop them you create more bad guys. Weak and hackneyed.


"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> At least then you agree evil should be defeated.
>
> What if an attempt to wipe out evil makes it worse?
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> So you think China will take over the world? Huh? They can't feed their
> people.

China
GDP $7.262 trillion
Growth rate 9.1%
Military manpower available males age 18-49: 342,956,265

U.S.
GDP $11.75 trillion
Growth rate 4.4%
Military expenditure as a % of GDP 3.3%
Military manpower available males age 18-49: 67,742,879

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

As far as I know Cuba doesn't bother anyone and Castro is loved by his
people.


"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Is SH a perceived evil? Is Cuba a perceived evil? Is Iran a perceived
> evil? Is OBL a perceived evil? I know you like to think so, but you
> can't have it both ways. All you have is empty claims.
>
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>> At least then you agree evil should be defeated.
>>
>> I don't agree that we should go looking the world over to find what we
>> perceive to be evil and then destroy it.
>>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> The old Berkeley "violence begets violence" argument. Let all the bad
> guys go because if you stop them you create more bad guys. Weak and
> hackneyed.

You never said if you'd sacrifice your family to end terrorism or to stop a
SH, just 100K other people.

OBL will surrender himself and all terrorism will stop if NoEd will give up
his family to the terrorist headsman. You imply that you would do this. Am I
mistaken?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

You better start learning Chinese. What a hand ringer.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> So you think China will take over the world? Huh? They can't feed their
>> people.
>
> China
> GDP $7.262 trillion
> Growth rate 9.1%
> Military manpower available males age 18-49: 342,956,265
>
> U.S.
> GDP $11.75 trillion
> Growth rate 4.4%
> Military expenditure as a % of GDP 3.3%
> Military manpower available males age 18-49: 67,742,879
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

I would agree that is as far as you now. Cuba once allow Russian nukes to
be pointed at the US and his people attempt to swim to the USA. Why don't
you defect to Cuba?


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> As far as I know Cuba doesn't bother anyone and Castro is loved by his
> people.
>
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> Is SH a perceived evil? Is Cuba a perceived evil? Is Iran a perceived
>> evil? Is OBL a perceived evil? I know you like to think so, but you
>> can't have it both ways. All you have is empty claims.
>>
>>
>> "Ed" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>>
>>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>> At least then you agree evil should be defeated.
>>>
>>> I don't agree that we should go looking the world over to find what we
>>> perceive to be evil and then destroy it.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Of course I would. I'm too old to join and my son is only 3. Using your
logic, should the US have gotten involved in WWII, esp. against the Germans?
They were only attacking England and they had not did really hurt us.

You appear to be a wacky old greaser that was lucky enough to have a family
who can put up with your obstinacy.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> The old Berkeley "violence begets violence" argument. Let all the bad
>> guys go because if you stop them you create more bad guys. Weak and
>> hackneyed.
>
> You never said if you'd sacrifice your family to end terrorism or to stop
> a SH, just 100K other people.
>
> OBL will surrender himself and all terrorism will stop if NoEd will give
> up his family to the terrorist headsman. You imply that you would do this.
> Am I mistaken?
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

>I would agree that is as far as you now. Cuba once allow Russian nukes to
>be pointed at the US and his people attempt to swim to the USA. Why don't
>you defect to Cuba?

I can't speak Spanish.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Of course I would. I'm too old to join and my son is only 3. Using your
> logic, should the US have gotten involved in WWII, esp. against the
> Germans? They were only attacking England and they had not did really hurt
> us.

Try again when you're sober. I don't know what "and they had not did really
hurt us" means.
Germany only attacked England? Click here, idiot:


At least I better understand where you are coming from.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

You understood what I said. The Germans never attacked the mainland yet we
went to war. My question is did you favor US troop involvement against
Hitler? If you did then how can you not support a war on terror, including
Iraq and possibly Iran? If you didn't favor US troop involvement against
Hitler, then you are a whacked out pacifist and the conversation is over.

By June 6, 1944, the Germans occupied nearly all of Europe except for the UK
and probably a few other small pockets. So at that point really the US had
no need to go to war; Germany had taken Europe. There simply was no
justification to go to war esp. since American soldiers, many of them, would
be killed trying to kick out the Germans. Besides why should we bail out the
Brits, the French, and the Reds/Russians, we had done that in WWI. This is
your logic. I know you will not address the issue because you are caught
in an inconsistency. You can't simply blow me off as you do others.

Evil with power can't really be contained. It must be defeated one way or
another. The left and the hate Bush crowd blank out on this truth.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Of course I would. I'm too old to join and my son is only 3. Using
>> your logic, should the US have gotten involved in WWII, esp. against the
>> Germans? They were only attacking England and they had not did really
>> hurt us.
>
> Try again when you're sober. I don't know what "and they had not did
> really hurt us" means.
> Germany only attacked England? Click here, idiot:
>
>
> At least I better understand where you are coming from.
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:
> You understood what I said. The Germans never attacked the mainland yet we
> went to war. My question is did you favor US troop involvement against
> Hitler? If you did then how can you not support a war on terror, including
> Iraq and possibly Iran? If you didn't favor US troop involvement against
> Hitler, then you are a whacked out pacifist and the conversation is over.
>
> By June 6, 1944, the Germans occupied nearly all of Europe except for the UK
> and probably a few other small pockets. So at that point really the US had
> no need to go to war; Germany had taken Europe. There simply was no
> justification to go to war esp. since American soldiers, many of them, would
> be killed trying to kick out the Germans. Besides why should we bail out the
> Brits, the French, and the Reds/Russians, we had done that in WWI. This is
> your logic. I know you will not address the issue because you are caught
> in an inconsistency. You can't simply blow me off as you do others.
>
Your history of WW2 is as bad as your ideas on the Iraq war. The USA had
been at war with the Axis powers, Germany, Japan and Italy since the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7 1941. US troops invaded North
Africa on 7-8 Nov 1942. The US bombed Holland, Germany and other
occupied countries from 1942 onwards. They did not actually invade
Europe until D-Day on June 6 1944 but had been at war for 2 1/2 years by
then. Once again all your "facts" are wrong, but what's new?

> Evil with power can't really be contained. It must be defeated one way or
> another. The left and the hate Bush crowd blank out on this truth.
>
A lot of the world, probably including a billion Muslims, considers that
"Evil with power" is America under Bush. The great Satan. You spend too
much time wrapped up in American propaganda. As Ed has said, most
Americans are not even sure where cities in America are and have no clue
about other countries. You need to get out more. When did you last go
abroad and where?

> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Of course I would. I'm too old to join and my son is only 3. Using
>>>your logic, should the US have gotten involved in WWII, esp. against the
>>>Germans? They were only attacking England and they had not did really
>>>hurt us.
>>
>>Try again when you're sober. I don't know what "and they had not did
>>really hurt us" means.
>>Germany only attacked England? Click here, idiot:
>>
>>
>>At least I better understand where you are coming from.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Using your logic:
The Saudi's have or have had terrorist camps.
The men who carried out the 9/11 attacks were Saudi's.
OBL is Saudi.
Let's invade Iraq.



"NoEd" <> wrote

> You understood what I said. The Germans never attacked the mainland yet
> we went to war. My question is did you favor US troop involvement against
> Hitler? If you did then how can you not support a war on terror,
> including Iraq and possibly Iran? If you didn't favor US troop
> involvement against Hitler, then you are a whacked out pacifist and the
> conversation is over.
>
> By June 6, 1944, the Germans occupied nearly all of Europe except for the
> UK and probably a few other small pockets. So at that point really the US
> had no need to go to war; Germany had taken Europe. There simply was no
> justification to go to war esp. since American soldiers, many of them,
> would be killed trying to kick out the Germans. Besides why should we bail
> out the Brits, the French, and the Reds/Russians, we had done that in WWI.
> This is your logic. I know you will not address the issue because you
> are caught in an inconsistency. You can't simply blow me off as you do
> others.
>
> Evil with power can't really be contained. It must be defeated one way or
> another. The left and the hate Bush crowd blank out on this truth.
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>> Of course I would. I'm too old to join and my son is only 3. Using
>>> your logic, should the US have gotten involved in WWII, esp. against the
>>> Germans? They were only attacking England and they had not did really
>>> hurt us.
>>
>> Try again when you're sober. I don't know what "and they had not did
>> really hurt us" means.
>> Germany only attacked England? Click here, idiot:
>>
>>
>> At least I better understand where you are coming from.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
> news:

> The war was necessiary. It removed the threat of SH and is attempting
> to establish a democarcy in the middle east
> >
> > What threat? A weak dictator whose country was being bombed daily for
> > over a decade
>
> He was not weak.

I mean militarily. How Saddam and the romance novels he wrote made you
swoon over him is another matter.

> (U.S. and British patrols shot about once a day), that
> > had no WMDs, and that didn't support Islamist terrorists (CIA said Iraq
> > was the only Middle East country with no Al Quada presense, the other
> > being Israel) was no threat to anybody but other Iraqis.
>
> Not true

True. You just aren't informed. You need to listen to the real
experts, those who served in war or spent their lives studying the
Middle East, not fringe academics who persuaded Drunk Boy to make the
biggest mistake of the century.

> Use some sense and see the obvious for a change.
>
> I do see the obvious.

Nonsense. You've been Jane Fonda wrong about Iraq, WMDs, terrorism,
and Baby Bush.

> > The war in Afghanistan has been necessary, but the Iraqi
> > war is doing nothing but recruiting terrorists and
> > sapping our military strength, much to the delight of
> > not only Al Quada but also China.

> Left wing claptrap. More has been achieved in Iraq than in Afganistan. If
> you are for Afganistan, how can you be against Irag?

It's only logical -- Afghanistan was the home base of Al Quada and was
supported by its Taliban government and therefore deserved to be
attacked after Al Quada attacked us. OTOH Iraq was weak because it was
essentially penned in by British and American military overflights, it
had no WMD programs since the early 1990s, had no involvement with
Islamist terrorists (Pan Arab Nationalists hate fundamentalists,
especially when they're the main threat to their power), was abiding by
UN arms limitations (in a grumbling way, about as well as can be
realistically expected from a power-mad dicatator), and was the only
majority-Muslim nation in the Middle East without an Al Quada presense.
Why should the U.S. attack a country so weak and that hadn't attacked
us?

> > you probably don't mind having the world led by a brutal
> > dictatorship rather than by a great democracy. Worse,
> > you probably don't understand how much worse the world
> > will be if that happens.

I'm being realistic, Pollyanna. The world is a rotten place full of
ultra-red states, and there's no such thing as a real superpower that
can instantly transform the world into a paradise. The road to
democracy in the Middle East isn't through Bagdhad but through
Jerusalem because the biggest sore spot with the Arab is the state of
Israel, and once the Israeli-Palestinian situation is settled, the Arab
nations will lose any moral authority they have to hate Israel and
blame them for their internal problems. Also a Palestinian democracy
will make it hard for Arab dictatorships to continue to justify their
grips on their people. It's much easier to bring democracy to the
Palestinians because they're much more unified than the Iraqis (no talk
of splitting up into three different nations), and the Palestinian
territory is much smaller and has far fewer people, meaning it won't
cost nearly as much to fix as Iraq will.

> So you think China will take over the world? Huh? They can't feed their
> people.

Their people aren't starving, and they're importing food for the same
reason we are -- foreign food is cheaper, and they can pay for it.

Pollyanna, you're again being naive if you don't realize that China is
going to start pushing around the world soon. They're going to have
the money to do it, and they're already establishing commercial
presenses all around the world -- look at what they're doing in Africa
now and using their influence there to prevent Japan from becoming a
permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Do you understand?
China is what the USSR would have been if it had money.

Bill Clinton understood how China was important, and that's why in the
late 1990s he started to negotiate with Far East nations for military
basing rights, now up to 200 different locations. Even Vietnam has
invited us to reestablish our base at Camron Bay, and we should accept
their offer, taking care not to make it seem like a unilateral power
grab (get Japan, Russia, and India in on the deal as well).

The way Baby Bush has been fouling up with Iraq and burning his bridges
with our strong allies (Western Europe, Japan) and our potential strong
allies (India, Russia) is only accelerating our fall from world power,
and this is especially bad because there may not be anybody to replace
us and keep the democratic world unified against China and
authoritarianism in general.

> Everyone believed he STILL had WMDs, plus he could have still aquired
> them. The world is better off without SH.

> > Is the world better off with the current situation in Iraq?
> > Why or why not?

Do you care to answer that? Because it's a lot more important than
whether Saddam is still in power or not.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>

>>
>>Evil with power can't really be contained. It must be defeated one way or
>>another. The left and the hate Bush crowd blank out on this truth.
>>
It's easy to think of an example where "Evil with power" was contained
very successfully, to contradict your statement above. After WW2 the
USSR under Stalin and other dictators including Brezhnev and up to
Andropov threatened to destroy the west and had the means to do so with
huge armed forces and nuclear ICBMs.

The west contained this menace for decades by maintaining equal armed
forces for mutual deterrence until the communist empire collapsed under
economic forces. If anyone was evil it was Stalin who killed millions of
his fellow countrymen and threatened nuclear strikes on western cities.
He actually had WMDs and seemed prepared to use them. He also captured a
large part of Europe up to Berlin and enforced communist rule,
destroying the lives of millions and the economies of many countries
that are still trying to recover.

No one would argue that Saddam was a nice man but compared to people
like Stalin and Hitler who were really evil and a threat to the world he
was a harmless pussy cat who was powerless to threaten any other country.

It's the old problem with America, that now the other military super
power has declined and there is no other country to counterbalance them,
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. From being the country that saved
the world in two world wars and withstood the communist threat for
decades in the cold war they have now become the terrorists themselves.

Why not attack the evil USSR? Because they could defend themselves.

Why attack Iraq? Because they were defenceless. We are into school bully
territory here.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:

> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
> news:

> At least then you agree evil should be defeated.

> > What if an attempt to wipe out evil makes it worse?

> The old Berkeley "violence begets violence" argument. Let all the bad guys
> go because if you stop them you create more bad guys. Weak and hackneyed.

Don't be so simple-minded. I'm not a pacifist, and I've said that the
war in Afghanistan was justified. But with Iraq we don't have enough
soldiers to win the peace, and Baby Bush doesn't want to take the
domestic political risks to fix this because that would be admitting a
mistake, and he's not man enough to ever admit that.

Originally I thought the U.S. was going to go into Iraq with 500,000
soldiers, for ten years and spend a trillion dollars to turn the
country into a model democracy, but we're not, so those 1800+ deaths
are going to be a waste. I thought that the Iraqi elections early this
year were a turning point for the good, but it seems that our lack of
soldiers took that away too.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:


> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:

> > You never said if you'd sacrifice your family to end terrorism
> > or to stop a SH, just 100K other people.

> > OBL will surrender himself and all terrorism will stop if
> > NoEd will give up his family to the terrorist headsman.
> > You imply that you would do this. Am I mistaken?

> Of course I would. I'm too old to join and my son is only 3.

My son is 3, too, but unlike you I've freely admitted that I've avoided
military service because I'm a chickenhawk. You should admit the same.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote to Ed:

> You understood what I said. The Germans never attacked the mainland yet we
> went to war. My question is did you favor US troop involvement against
> Hitler? If you did then how can you not support a war on terror, including
> Iraq and possibly Iran? If you didn't favor US troop involvement against
> Hitler, then you are a whacked out pacifist and the conversation is over.

This is a poor comparison. Hitler was a threat to the U.S. while
Saddam wasn't (after all he had no WMDs and wasn't supporting
international terrorism, contrary to what Republican party daily
marching order memos say). Saddam was a lot more like a very, very
weak Stalin.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Ed wrote:

> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote
>
> > NoEd wrote:

> > Completely false. SH was a threat.

> > > Then why didn't Colin Powell think so?
>
>

Initially I actually believed Dubya when he and other administration
officials said that Saddam had WMDs and supported terrorism. What
changed my mind was Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. It was
totally unconvincing, not at all like Adlai Stevenson telling the U.N.
a generation earlier about Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. I thought
that if I couldn't believe somebody as credible as Powell, then there
had to be serious shortcomings in the administration's case for war.

When Powell joined this administration, he not only thought that Iraq
was under control but also that we should normalize relations with Iraq
and even with Iran and work hard on an Israeli-Palestinian solutoin.
Soon after 9/11, Powell told Baby Bush that we had the support of the
whole world (Iraq and North Korea were about the only holdouts) but
that the support would disappear if we went to war with Iraq.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> NoEd wrote:
>
>
>>"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
>>news:
>
>
>>At least then you agree evil should be defeated.
>
>
>>>What if an attempt to wipe out evil makes it worse?
>
>
>>The old Berkeley "violence begets violence" argument. Let all the bad guys
>>go because if you stop them you create more bad guys. Weak and hackneyed.
>
>
> Don't be so simple-minded. I'm not a pacifist, and I've said that the
> war in Afghanistan was justified. But with Iraq we don't have enough
> soldiers to win the peace, and Baby Bush doesn't want to take the
> domestic political risks to fix this because that would be admitting a
> mistake, and he's not man enough to ever admit that.
>
> Originally I thought the U.S. was going to go into Iraq with 500,000
> soldiers, for ten years and spend a trillion dollars to turn the
> country into a model democracy, but we're not, so those 1800+ deaths
> are going to be a waste. I thought that the Iraqi elections early this
> year were a turning point for the good, but it seems that our lack of
> soldiers took that away too.
>
Why would more soldiers and an enforced democracy be better? Suppose the
Chinese had invaded Iraq and installed a communist government reporting
to Beijing? Or Iran had invaded and set up a Fundamental Islamic
government under Sharia law? Or Saudi Arabia had invaded and restored
the monarchy from Mesopotamian times? What business is it of any other
country how Iraq chooses to govern itself, provided it does not invade
or threaten other countries?

It is insular US thinking to suppose that a system that works in the
west, like democracy, must be suitable for a middle eastern country with
different traditions and ways of doing things and a more varied ethnic
and religious mix. Iraq had a military dictatorship under Saddam for the
very good reason that it had evolved as the system that worked for them.

Can you name a single working democracy in the middle east, apart from
Israel, which is a western state translated to the east? The nearest
they get to it is probably Egypt, until you notice that President
Mubarak has been in power for 20 years so far and intends to stand again
and they are now talking about changing the election rules to give
someone else a chance. It's the President-for-life system that is almost
universal throughout the middle east and Africa, unless they have a
King-for-life or Sultan-for-life as in Saudi Arabia or Brunei.

The essence of democracy is that the defeated groups consent to be
governed by the winners. With the three different ethnic and religious
groups in Iraq this will not happen. The Sunni (20%) under their leader
Saddam used to rule Iraq by military force over the Shia (60%) and the
Kurds (20%). Any system of democracy will inevitably give a government
dominated by the Shia, leaving the Sunni in a permanent minority and
powerless, and with the Shia free to settle old scores. Iraqis pay no
tax and all the government money comes from oil. As it happens all the
oil is in the North under the Kurds and the South under the Shia. The
Sunni in the middle have little or no oil in their area. As the whole
country is an artificial grouping cobbled together by the British in
1919 who pulled out in 1932 finding the country ungovernable, there is
no particular reason why these different groups should want to stay
together.

The Kurds want to get back the other Kurdish land and people now in
Turkey and form a separate country, Kurdistan, financed by their oil
revenues. The Shia would like to split off and ally with the Shia in
Iran. The Sunni would like to return to past rule and do not want Iraq
to split or they lose all the oil revenues and just have a large patch
of desert to their name. So the Sunni will have no truck with this
democracy thing which will give the wrong answer. They boycotted the
election, have been a reluctant participant in the talks on the
constitution and now intend to reject the constitution, which gives them
less than nothing. Hence the insurgency and daily death toll of 25 or so.

If Bush or his advisers had spent half an hour with an atlas and an
Encyclopedia before getting into this they could have saved thousands of
American and Iraqi lives.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

larry moe 'n curly <> wrote:

> especially when they're the main threat to their power), was abiding by
> UN arms limitations (in a grumbling way, about as well as can be
> realistically expected from a power-mad dicatator), and was the only
> majority-Muslim nation in the Middle East without an Al Quada presense.
> Why should the U.S. attack a country so weak and that hadn't attacked
> us?

Good points! The most unsettling aspect of this is how divorced some
folks are from reality on this matter. A few fun facts:

- JFK in the 1960's feared a shitte dominance in Iraq and
ordered the CIA to install the Baath party in Iraq. He was
afraid that Shiite dominance in Iraq would embolden Iran.

- Jimmy Carter in 1979, although no fan of Hussein opened
dialogues with him because he feared the radical shiite
leadership of Iran and needed an ally in the region.

- Ronald Reagan, although no fan of Hussein, armed the guy
because he knew Iran was a greater threat to the US and
he needed him on our side.

- HW Bush went to war with Iraq and left Hussein in power.
While no fan of Hussein, he knew that a SECULAR BAATHIST
party in charge of Iraq is bad for Iraqi's & good for
American interest

Now we have a Shiite dominance in the Iraqi gov't. The Kurds want
out. The Baathists/Sunni's are largely the insurgency with assistance
from neighboring nations.

Not too long ago, member of the new Iraqi gov't went to Iran and basically
swore allegiance with them. How is this a victory for the US? For decades,
republican & democratic presidents have dealt with the reality of this
situation.

How did radical Shiite Islam become a friend of our nation?

Look, I'm all for war & defending this great country & most Americans are
not that far apart on ths. If we had casualty rates like this in Afghanistan
I guranty you we would have a draft by now or on their own thousands of young
Americans signing up and prepared to die to defend us. As it is, most
Americans know better. Bush misunderstood the problem from the beginning
& stil doesn't grasp it.


-Mike

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

larry moe 'n curly <> wrote:
> totally unconvincing, not at all like Adlai Stevenson telling the U.N.
> a generation earlier about Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. I thought
> that if I couldn't believe somebody as credible as Powell, then there
> had to be serious shortcomings in the administration's case for war.
> When Powell joined this administration, he not only thought that Iraq
> was under control but also that we should normalize relations with Iraq
> and even with Iran and work hard on an Israeli-Palestinian solutoin.
> Soon after 9/11, Powell told Baby Bush that we had the support of the
> whole world (Iraq and North Korea were about the only holdouts) but
> that the support would disappear if we went to war with Iraq.

Powell has given interviews abroad and spoken more candidly on the
matter. He favored removal of Sadaam but wanted to keep the Baath
party in charge. Wish I had the link for this.

If you look at people who have actually served time and fought wars
you'll find that they're much more reasonable about this:

- Colin Powell
- John McCain
- Chuck Hagel
- etc..etc..etc..

It's the chicken hawk right that doesn't get it. Go to war with
other people's children's because it feels good.

Go figure.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

David Wilkinson <> wrote:
> Your history of WW2 is as bad as your ideas on the Iraq war. The USA had

I think 'NoEd' reads a lot of stuff like the Weekly Standard, National
Review etc..etc...

Those magazines are horrible when it comes to citing historical precedents.

It's a talking point now to say "When Pearl Harbor happened, we went
to war with Germany!".

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

David Wilkinson <> wrote:
> constitution and now intend to reject the constitution, which gives them
> less than nothing. Hence the insurgency and daily death toll of 25 or so.
> If Bush or his advisers had spent half an hour with an atlas and an
> Encyclopedia before getting into this they could have saved thousands of
> American and Iraqi lives.

Or if they just looked at how many soldiers your country lost when
it went into Iraq to colonize. Was it 28,000?

I've got a question for you. What in the world was Tony Blair thinking?
Really, Bush may not have been at all familiar with Iraq's history but
Blair & everyone in your country must be aware of what your country's
history with Iraq is.

So what does Blair get out of this? Why did he support this? So many
folks around here refer to Blair as George Bush's "poodle". Does he
get the same kind of treatment back home?

-Mike

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Mike Stone wrote:
> larry moe 'n curly <> wrote:

> Not too long ago, member of the new Iraqi gov't went to Iran and basically
> swore allegiance with them. How is this a victory for the US? For decades,
> republican & democratic presidents have dealt with the reality of this
> situation.
>
> How did radical Shiite Islam become a friend of our nation?

Iran is the big winner from the war on terrorism (they hated the
Taliban -- Islamic fundamentalists are not all of a feather) and the
war on Iraq (we got rid of their enemy, Saddam). Now if Baby Bush had
done as Powell suggested long ago and improved relations with Iran in
the first place, maybe we wouldn't be in such a weak position. Of
course he had really listened to Powell, we wouldn't have started the
Iraqi war.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

David Wilkinson wrote:
> larry moe 'n curly wrote:

> > Originally I thought the U.S. was going to go into Iraq with 500,000
> > soldiers, for ten years and spend a trillion dollars to turn the
> > country into a model democracy, but we're not, so those 1800+ deaths
> > are going to be a waste.

> Why would more soldiers and an enforced democracy be better? Suppose the
> Chinese had invaded Iraq and installed a communist government reporting
> to Beijing? Or Iran had invaded and set up a Fundamental Islamic
> government under Sharia law? Or Saudi Arabia had invaded and restored
> the monarchy from Mesopotamian times? What business is it of any other
> country how Iraq chooses to govern itself, provided it does not invade
> or threaten other countries?

I don't know if a much larger force would lead to permanent peace and
democracy, but if we're going to commit a humongous mistake by starting
an unjustified war, at least we should do it right so that at least
some good comes from it. A larger military force could have
established peace and security more quickly and therefore give the
Iraqis more hope, meaning fewer of them would have joined the
insurgency.

Of course because Baby Bush invaded Iraq without good cause, other
countries will be able to more easily justify their own unilateral
hostilities, something I'm sure that China realizes. Thanks, Baby Bush
-- you should kept drinking and snorting because then your personal
tragedy would have stayed personal rather than become a burden for all
of us.

> Can you name a single working democracy in the middle east, apart from
> Israel, which is a western state translated to the east? The nearest
> they get to it is probably Egypt, until you notice that President
> Mubarak has been in power for 20 years so far and intends to stand again
> and they are now talking about changing the election rules to give
> someone else a chance. It's the President-for-life system that is almost
> universal throughout the middle east and Africa, unless they have a
> King-for-life or Sultan-for-life as in Saudi Arabia or Brunei.

How about Lebanon, until Syria invaded it in the 1970s?

> If Bush or his advisers had spent half an hour with an atlas and an
> Encyclopedia before getting into this they could have saved thousands of
> American and Iraqi lives.

Baby Bush's foreign policy team consists of PhDs who are perfectly
ignorant in their specialties. Around 2000, Henry Kissinger wrote a
"Foreign Policy For Dummies" type book. People thought that it was
strange for Kissinger to do that, but he actually wrote it for Baby
Bush.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Mike Stone wrote:
> David Wilkinson <> wrote:
>
>>constitution and now intend to reject the constitution, which gives them
>>less than nothing. Hence the insurgency and daily death toll of 25 or so.
>>If Bush or his advisers had spent half an hour with an atlas and an
>>Encyclopedia before getting into this they could have saved thousands of
>>American and Iraqi lives.
>
>
> Or if they just looked at how many soldiers your country lost when
> it went into Iraq to colonize. Was it 28,000?
>
> I've got a question for you. What in the world was Tony Blair thinking?
> Really, Bush may not have been at all familiar with Iraq's history but
> Blair & everyone in your country must be aware of what your country's
> history with Iraq is.
>
> So what does Blair get out of this? Why did he support this? So many
> folks around here refer to Blair as George Bush's "poodle". Does he
> get the same kind of treatment back home?
>
> -Mike

What was in it for Blair? Good question. I really don't know, except he
may have thought his role as Bush's poodle gave him some sort of
reflected glory as being an ally of the world's only super power
President. For some reason known only to themselves Americans are
supposed to think Blair is some kind of womderman and the UK as their
only true ally. Neither is anywhere near the truth. Very large parts of
the British public regard Blair as a liar who tried to deceive them over
Iraq, and in fact did deceive Parliament into supporting him by telling
lies in speeches and in writing. It is all of a piece with his other
policies where failure has been almost universal and his substitute for
results and progress has been an army of spin doctors who try to mislead
the press and public, putting out false information and statistics.

The actual benefit to the UK from the attack on Iraq has been negative
in all fields. At least Bush got a tenuous grip on the oil, subject to
insurgents blowing up the plant and pipelines. The UK got nothing to
compensate for over 100 troops killed and many more injured, and huge
amounts of money wasted. Blair's reputation, such as it was, is in
tatters and no one now believes anything he says. He made it worse by
setting up several public inquiries on aspects of the war run by his
cronies who produced unbelievable whitewash accounts of events that no
one else accepted.

I think he expected at one stage that he would lead the European support
for the attack and act as a kind of leader and European spokesman to
America, passing easily from spokesman to later President of Europe, but
he got a nasty shock when France and Germany refused to back him. As
Chirac cannot stand him this is now definitely a non-runner.

Yet another Blair miscalculation was the scenario that Saddam would be
toppled in a few weeks, then he and Bush would be acclaimed as heroes,
Iraq would hold elections and would become a democracy friendly to the
west and he would be seen as a world statesman.

As for UK/Iraq history, I doubt whether Blair had any knowledge of it or
interest if he had. He has shown no respect for tradition in Parliament
or the House of Lords, doing his best to ignore and if possible destroy
both. He would like to destroy the monarchy and destroy Britain as a
country by taking us into Europe and abandoning the pound for the Euro.

No, "St. Tony" or "Princess Tony" as the papers refer to him, has few
friends over here. If you want him you can have him. As a failed lawyer
and politician he is not good for much. How about a job walking Bush's
real poodle?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>
>> The war was necessiary. It removed the threat of SH and is attempting
>> to establish a democarcy in the middle east
>> >
>> > What threat? A weak dictator whose country was being bombed daily for
>> > over a decade
>>
>> He was not weak.
>
> I mean militarily. How Saddam and the romance novels he wrote made you
> swoon over him is another matter.
>
>> (U.S. and British patrols shot about once a day), that
>> > had no WMDs, and that didn't support Islamist terrorists (CIA said Iraq
>> > was the only Middle East country with no Al Quada presense, the other
>> > being Israel) was no threat to anybody but other Iraqis.
>>
>> Not true
>
> True. You just aren't informed. You need to listen to the real
> experts, those who served in war or spent their lives studying the
> Middle East, not fringe academics who persuaded Drunk Boy to make the
> biggest mistake of the century.

I am informed, it is you who can't factor out you dislike of Bush.


>
>> Use some sense and see the obvious for a change.
>>
>> I do see the obvious.
>
> Nonsense. You've been Jane Fonda wrong about Iraq, WMDs, terrorism,
> and Baby Bush.

No I have been 100% right.

>
>> > The war in Afghanistan has been necessary, but the Iraqi
>> > war is doing nothing but recruiting terrorists and
>> > sapping our military strength, much to the delight of
>> > not only Al Quada but also China.
>
>> Left wing claptrap. More has been achieved in Iraq than in Afganistan.
>> If
>> you are for Afganistan, how can you be against Irag?
>
> It's only logical -- Afghanistan was the home base of Al Quada and was
> supported by its Taliban government and therefore deserved to be
> attacked after Al Quada attacked us.

There are no terrorist in Iraq? Are we limited to just attacking Al Quada?

OTOH Iraq was weak because it was
> essentially penned in by British and American military overflights, it
> had no WMD programs since the early 1990s, had no involvement with
> Islamist terrorists (Pan Arab Nationalists hate fundamentalists,
> especially when they're the main threat to their power), was abiding by
> UN arms limitations (in a grumbling way, about as well as can be
> realistically expected from a power-mad dicatator), and was the only
> majority-Muslim nation in the Middle East without an Al Quada presense.
> Why should the U.S. attack a country so weak and that hadn't attacked
> us?

Because SH was thought to have WMD and has shown he will use them, Iraq was
and could have been a base for terrorism, and finally, a democratic country
in the middle east is a great weapon against terrorism.


>
>> > you probably don't mind having the world led by a brutal
>> > dictatorship rather than by a great democracy. Worse,
>> > you probably don't understand how much worse the world
>> > will be if that happens.
>
> I'm being realistic, Pollyanna. The world is a rotten place full of
> ultra-red states, and there's no such thing as a real superpower that
> can instantly transform the world into a paradise.

Of course not. Who thinks this?

The road to
> democracy in the Middle East isn't through Bagdhad but through
> Jerusalem because the biggest sore spot with the Arab is the state of
> Israel, and once the Israeli-Palestinian situation is settled, the Arab
> nations will lose any moral authority they have to hate Israel and
> blame them for their internal problems.

No. It is through Bagdad.

Also a Palestinian democracy
> will make it hard for Arab dictatorships to continue to justify their
> grips on their people. It's much easier to bring democracy to the
> Palestinians because they're much more unified than the Iraqis (no talk
> of splitting up into three different nations), and the Palestinian
> territory is much smaller and has far fewer people, meaning it won't
> cost nearly as much to fix as Iraq will.

Many of the Palestinians want to push Isreal into the sea. Is pease really
possible there? The Palestinian leader/terrorist had his chance under
Clinton for peace but rejected it.

>
>> So you think China will take over the world? Huh? They can't feed their
>> people.
>
> Their people aren't starving, and they're importing food for the same
> reason we are -- foreign food is cheaper, and they can pay for it.
>
> Pollyanna, you're again being naive if you don't realize that China is
> going to start pushing around the world soon. They're going to have
> the money to do it, and they're already establishing commercial
> presenses all around the world -- look at what they're doing in Africa
> now and using their influence there to prevent Japan from becoming a
> permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Do you understand?
> China is what the USSR would have been if it had money.

What do you mean "pushig around the world?"


>
> Bill Clinton understood how China was important, and that's why in the
> late 1990s he started to negotiate with Far East nations for military
> basing rights, now up to 200 different locations. Even Vietnam has
> invited us to reestablish our base at Camron Bay, and we should accept
> their offer, taking care not to make it seem like a unilateral power
> grab (get Japan, Russia, and India in on the deal as well).

Ok. Like I thought you dislike Bush and are a democrat.

>
> The way Baby Bush has been fouling up with Iraq and burning his bridges
> with our strong allies (Western Europe, Japan) and our potential strong
> allies (India, Russia) is only accelerating our fall from world power,
> and this is especially bad because there may not be anybody to replace
> us and keep the democratic world unified against China and
> authoritarianism in general.

You shouldn't really care about "burning bridges" in Europe. Japan sent
troops.


>
>> Everyone believed he STILL had WMDs, plus he could have still aquired
>> them. The world is better off without SH.
>
>> > Is the world better off with the current situation in Iraq?
>> > Why or why not?
>
> Do you care to answer that? Because it's a lot more important than
> whether Saddam is still in power or not.
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

His points are irrelevant, just as the fact that SH was at one time aided by
the US.

"Mike Stone" <> wrote in message
news:jIDQe.52973$
> larry moe 'n curly <> wrote:
>
>> especially when they're the main threat to their power), was abiding by
>> UN arms limitations (in a grumbling way, about as well as can be
>> realistically expected from a power-mad dicatator), and was the only
>> majority-Muslim nation in the Middle East without an Al Quada presense.
>> Why should the U.S. attack a country so weak and that hadn't attacked
>> us?
>
> Good points! The most unsettling aspect of this is how divorced some
> folks are from reality on this matter. A few fun facts:
>
> - JFK in the 1960's feared a shitte dominance in Iraq and
> ordered the CIA to install the Baath party in Iraq. He was
> afraid that Shiite dominance in Iraq would embolden Iran.
>
> - Jimmy Carter in 1979, although no fan of Hussein opened
> dialogues with him because he feared the radical shiite
> leadership of Iran and needed an ally in the region.
>
> - Ronald Reagan, although no fan of Hussein, armed the guy
> because he knew Iran was a greater threat to the US and
> he needed him on our side.
>
> - HW Bush went to war with Iraq and left Hussein in power.
> While no fan of Hussein, he knew that a SECULAR BAATHIST
> party in charge of Iraq is bad for Iraqi's & good for
> American interest
>
> Now we have a Shiite dominance in the Iraqi gov't. The Kurds want
> out. The Baathists/Sunni's are largely the insurgency with assistance
> from neighboring nations.
>
> Not too long ago, member of the new Iraqi gov't went to Iran and basically
> swore allegiance with them. How is this a victory for the US? For
> decades,
> republican & democratic presidents have dealt with the reality of this
> situation.
>
> How did radical Shiite Islam become a friend of our nation?
>
> Look, I'm all for war & defending this great country & most Americans are
> not that far apart on ths. If we had casualty rates like this in
> Afghanistan
> I guranty you we would have a draft by now or on their own thousands of
> young
> Americans signing up and prepared to die to defend us. As it is, most
> Americans know better. Bush misunderstood the problem from the beginning
> & stil doesn't grasp it.
>
>
> -Mike
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Right, so...what you're saying is...he's not that popular :0 ?

Kidding.

Americans like Blair because he's British and we are always
attracted to people with fancy accents.

Plus, he's been given a hard time by the press there and can
actually answer questions - maybe not honestly - but he does
a better job than Bush.


David Wilkinson <> wrote:

> What was in it for Blair? Good question. I really don't know, except he
> may have thought his role as Bush's poodle gave him some sort of
> reflected glory as being an ally of the world's only super power
> President. For some reason known only to themselves Americans are
> supposed to think Blair is some kind of womderman and the UK as their
> only true ally. Neither is anywhere near the truth. Very large parts of
> the British public regard Blair as a liar who tried to deceive them over
> Iraq, and in fact did deceive Parliament into supporting him by telling
> lies in speeches and in writing. It is all of a piece with his other
> policies where failure has been almost universal and his substitute for
> results and progress has been an army of spin doctors who try to mislead
> the press and public, putting out false information and statistics.
>
> The actual benefit to the UK from the attack on Iraq has been negative
> in all fields. At least Bush got a tenuous grip on the oil, subject to
> insurgents blowing up the plant and pipelines. The UK got nothing to
> compensate for over 100 troops killed and many more injured, and huge
> amounts of money wasted. Blair's reputation, such as it was, is in
> tatters and no one now believes anything he says. He made it worse by
> setting up several public inquiries on aspects of the war run by his
> cronies who produced unbelievable whitewash accounts of events that no
> one else accepted.
>
> I think he expected at one stage that he would lead the European support
> for the attack and act as a kind of leader and European spokesman to
> America, passing easily from spokesman to later President of Europe, but
> he got a nasty shock when France and Germany refused to back him. As
> Chirac cannot stand him this is now definitely a non-runner.
>
> Yet another Blair miscalculation was the scenario that Saddam would be
> toppled in a few weeks, then he and Bush would be acclaimed as heroes,
> Iraq would hold elections and would become a democracy friendly to the
> west and he would be seen as a world statesman.
>
> As for UK/Iraq history, I doubt whether Blair had any knowledge of it or
> interest if he had. He has shown no respect for tradition in Parliament
> or the House of Lords, doing his best to ignore and if possible destroy
> both. He would like to destroy the monarchy and destroy Britain as a
> country by taking us into Europe and abandoning the pound for the Euro.
>
> No, "St. Tony" or "Princess Tony" as the papers refer to him, has few
> friends over here. If you want him you can have him. As a failed lawyer
> and politician he is not good for much. How about a job walking Bush's
> real poodle?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:deua3a$i44$
> NoEd wrote:
>> You understood what I said. The Germans never attacked the mainland yet
>> we went to war. My question is did you favor US troop involvement
>> against Hitler? If you did then how can you not support a war on terror,
>> including Iraq and possibly Iran? If you didn't favor US troop
>> involvement against Hitler, then you are a whacked out pacifist and the
>> conversation is over.
>>
>> By June 6, 1944, the Germans occupied nearly all of Europe except for the
>> UK and probably a few other small pockets. So at that point really the
>> US had no need to go to war; Germany had taken Europe. There simply was
>> no justification to go to war esp. since American soldiers, many of them,
>> would be killed trying to kick out the Germans. Besides why should we
>> bail out the Brits, the French, and the Reds/Russians, we had done that
>> in WWI. This is your logic. I know you will not address the issue
>> because you are caught in an inconsistency. You can't simply blow me off
>> as you do others

>>
> Your history of WW2 is as bad as your ideas on the Iraq war. The USA had
> been at war with the Axis powers, Germany, Japan and Italy since the
> Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec 7 1941. US troops invaded North
> Africa on 7-8 Nov 1942. The US bombed Holland, Germany and other occupied
> countries from 1942 onwards. They did not actually invade Europe until
> D-Day on June 6 1944 but had been at war for 2 1/2 years by then. Once
> again all your "facts" are wrong, but what's new?

You didn't miss the point; you understood it. Why should have the US
invaded Europe when Germany really was not threat to the US?

>
>> Evil with power can't really be contained. It must be defeated one way
>> or another. The left and the hate Bush crowd blank out on this truth.
>>
> A lot of the world, probably including a billion Muslims, considers that
> "Evil with power" is America under Bush. The great Satan. You spend too
> much time wrapped up in American propaganda. As Ed has said, most
> Americans are not even sure where cities in America are and have no clue
> about other countries. You need to get out more. When did you last go
> abroad and where?

As I have said before, values are not relative. Do you have any references
that mainstream Muslims favor terrorism? I have not been to Europe since
the 1991. Again, my point has been made. By the way, most Americans don't
really care what left wing Eurpeans think. John Kerry did.






>
>> "Ed" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Of course I would. I'm too old to join and my son is only 3. Using
>>>>your logic, should the US have gotten involved in WWII, esp. against the
>>>>Germans? They were only attacking England and they had not did really
>>>>hurt us.
>>>
>>>Try again when you're sober. I don't know what "and they had not did
>>>really hurt us" means.
>>>Germany only attacked England? Click here, idiot:
>>>
>>>
>>>At least I better understand where you are coming from.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>
>> At least then you agree evil should be defeated.
>
>> > What if an attempt to wipe out evil makes it worse?
>
>> The old Berkeley "violence begets violence" argument. Let all the bad
>> guys
>> go because if you stop them you create more bad guys. Weak and hackneyed.
>
> Don't be so simple-minded. I'm not a pacifist, and I've said that the
> war in Afghanistan was justified. But with Iraq we don't have enough
> soldiers to win the peace, and Baby Bush doesn't want to take the
> domestic political risks to fix this because that would be admitting a
> mistake, and he's not man enough to ever admit that.

Did we invade Afghanistan because the country was a threat? Is was more
backward than Iraq and we knew they had no WMD. Did we invade to simply
catch one man, OBL? Seems stupid doesn't it and a waste.

>
> Originally I thought the U.S. was going to go into Iraq with 500,000
> soldiers, for ten years and spend a trillion dollars to turn the
> country into a model democracy, but we're not, so those 1800+ deaths
> are going to be a waste. I thought that the Iraqi elections early this
> year were a turning point for the good, but it seems that our lack of
> soldiers took that away too.

This is your hope and opinion. Iraq will most likely be a democratic becon
in the ME. What if this becomes reality, would you then support the war in
Iraq?


>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Iraq will most likely be a democratic becon in the ME. What if this
> becomes reality, would you then support the war in Iraq?

No. It doesn't matter what happens in the future. What matters are the lies
that got us there to begin with. Why you can't grasp that is beyond me.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Ed wrote:
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>
>>Iraq will most likely be a democratic becon in the ME. What if this
>>becomes reality, would you then support the war in Iraq?
>
>
> No. It doesn't matter what happens in the future. What matters are the lies
> that got us there to begin with. Why you can't grasp that is beyond me.
>
>
He can't grasp anything about the Iraq situation, really. Even admitting
the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is beyond him. He can't see that democracy
will not work in Iraq because the Sunni will not accept its adverse
effects on them. We used to call it living in cloud cuckoo land over here.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd <> wrote:
> His points are irrelevant, just as the fact that SH was at one time aided by
> the US.

Answer the question NoEd:

>> How did radical Shiite Islam become a friend of our nation?

I hope you're just a troll. If you are, you're really good at
stirring stuff up. If not, let's hope you didn't reproduce.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

David Wilkinson <> wrote:
> He can't grasp anything about the Iraq situation, really. Even admitting
> the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is beyond him. He can't see that democracy
> will not work in Iraq because the Sunni will not accept its adverse
> effects on them. We used to call it living in cloud cuckoo land over here.

If we elect a democrat in '08 guys like NoEd will blame them for
Iraq. If they don't blame the democrats, they'll blame the "media"
for undermining the war support.

Bottom line, these guys are just nuts:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will
-- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's
actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what
we do.''

- a senior White House aide, reported by Ron Suskind

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Mike Stone" <> wrote in message
news:BdGQe.54294$
> NoEd <> wrote:
>> His points are irrelevant, just as the fact that SH was at one time aided
>> by
>> the US.
>
> Answer the question NoEd:
>
>>> How did radical Shiite Islam become a friend of our nation?

Give me some context and I will see if I can pass your quiz.

>
> I hope you're just a troll. If you are, you're really good at
> stirring stuff up. If not, let's hope you didn't reproduce.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

I grasp your opinion. There were no lies. Prove it!

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Iraq will most likely be a democratic becon in the ME. What if this
>> becomes reality, would you then support the war in Iraq?
>
> No. It doesn't matter what happens in the future. What matters are the
> lies that got us there to begin with. Why you can't grasp that is beyond
> me.
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

We will see.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:deva25$e1l$
> Ed wrote:
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Iraq will most likely be a democratic becon in the ME. What if this
>>>becomes reality, would you then support the war in Iraq?
>>
>>
>> No. It doesn't matter what happens in the future. What matters are the
>> lies that got us there to begin with. Why you can't grasp that is beyond
>> me.
> He can't grasp anything about the Iraq situation, really. Even admitting
> the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is beyond him. He can't see that democracy
> will not work in Iraq because the Sunni will not accept its adverse
> effects on them. We used to call it living in cloud cuckoo land over here.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd <> wrote:
>
> Give me some context and I will see if I can pass your quiz.
>

The context of the world today.

Why are we better off with a shiite muslim majority that emboldens
Iran? How does helping Iran make your kids safer?

Here's a peace offering NoEd. Hope you enjoy:

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
> news:

David Wilkinson wrote:

> Completely false. SH was a threat.
> >
> > Then why didn't Colin Powell think so?
>
> I fairly sure he thought so. I don't think he agreed with the means to
> remove this threat.

That doesn't make sense because he wanted to normalize relations with
Iraq.

>> > Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam
>> > he is still fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being
>> > grateful, Iraqis are now marching in demos holding up
>> > pictures of Saddam and rejecting the western-style
>> > democracy he is trying to foist on them.

> False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large
> percentage of the populace voted?

> > Why have 80% of the U.S. casualties occurred since the "peace"? That's
> > roughly 1500 times the number killed by German insurgents after WWII.
>
> Your statement is a non sequitur.

It's completely relevant because Iraq is still at war, unlike Germany
even one week after V-E day. As for the Iraqi election earlier this
year, the turnout was high because for a few days the U.S. gave the
Iraqi citizens the peace and security they had wanted and needed --
think of how much better the country would be if Baby Bush had sent in
enough soldiers to do that from the beginning.

You're wrong about the pro-Saddam demonstrators. Just a few minutes
ago, I saw what were purported to be demonstrators in Saddam's
birthplace, Tirkit, demonstrating against the new Iraqi constitution
and holding up pictures of their hero, Saddam.

>> > 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years
>> > without charges, trial or access to legal aid or their
>> > families or friends. Other captives have been humiliated,
>> > tortured and even killed.

> False again.

> > What about that Iraqi POW general who was killed while being tortured
> > by the U.S.?

> As has been reported many times, the prisons are better now than under SH.

What happened to your claim that no prisoners had been killed? Were
you wrong again?

> Bush was easily the best choice.

> > Only compared to Saddam, Kim, and Osama. The real reason he's
> > President is because dumb people outnumber smart people.

> > Baby Bush was one of the very few presidential candidates who was
> > obviously the worst choice -- dumb, got everything only because of Dad,
> > accomplished absolutely nothing on his own, never matured (still a man
> > boy), comitted fraud, and has no talent except for memorizing names and
> > being a vindictive bully.
> >
> > Baby Bush was such an obvious bad choice that if WWIII erupts from his
> > mistakes, I'm going after every one of you who supported him because
> > you people should have known better, and you're responsible for that
> > cretin sending the U.S. down the toilet and letting China become the
> > world leader.

> Why don't you just come out and admit you simply don't like Bush.

Are you Chamber of Commerce stupid or something? I've said over and
over that I hated Baby Bush and have never tried to hide my opinion.
Like every right wing kook you'll probably try to tag me as a liberal
or a Democrat for that, but I also hated Clinton (not nearly as much),
and I voted for Dole instead.

> If it were not the war you would find something else to bitch about.

Even the most partisan supporters of Baby Bush, provided that they're
not cult members or thoroughly dishonest, have to admit that he has a
lot more shortcomings than normal for a president and no greatness at
all.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Freeing Iraq and allowing them to choose their own constitution is helping
Iran? That is ridiculous. That brings up a good question, what should be
done about Iran given they have WMD?


"Mike Stone" <> wrote in message
news:FDOQe.57355$
> NoEd <> wrote:
>>
>> Give me some context and I will see if I can pass your quiz.
>>
>
> The context of the world today.
>
> Why are we better off with a shiite muslim majority that emboldens
> Iran? How does helping Iran make your kids safer?
>
> Here's a peace offering NoEd. Hope you enjoy:
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> That brings up a good question, what should be done about Iran given they
> have WMD?

Nothing.

Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Egypt, France,
India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea,
Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan, Syria,
Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, and UK all possess WMD and there may be
other countries as well. What should be done about these?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Ed wrote:
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>
>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about Iran given they
>>have WMD?
>
>
> Nothing.
>
> Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Egypt, France,
> India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea,
> Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan, Syria,
> Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, and UK all possess WMD and there may be
> other countries as well. What should be done about these?
>
>
Don't forget the big WMD holder. The USA.

This is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on cities in
other countries and chemical weapons like agent orange and napalm in
Viet Nam.

And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.

That brings up a good question, what should be done about America given
they have WMD?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd <> wrote:
> Freeing Iraq and allowing them to choose their own constitution is helping
> Iran? That is ridiculous. That brings up a good question, what should be
> done about Iran given they have WMD?

They don't have WMD. They're 10yrs away from having a nuclear reactor
to create energy and 10yrs away from converting their uranium into
anything weaponized.

You still haven't answered the question. Again, you're either really
good at trolling, or someone who should be sterilized :)

Did you enjoy the comic book?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> Ed wrote:
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about Iran given they
>>>have WMD?
>>
>>
>> Nothing.
>>
>> Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Egypt, France,
>> India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea,
>> Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan,
>> Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, and UK all possess WMD and
>> there may be other countries as well. What should be done about these?
> Don't forget the big WMD holder. The USA.

I didn't list us because NoEd wants us to be the aggressor. Even Bush isn't
so inept that he'd attack himself.

> This is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on cities in other
> countries and chemical weapons like agent orange and napalm in Viet Nam.

All is fair in love and war. Agent orange and napalm are not WMD. Agent
orange wasn't even a weapon.

> That brings up a good question, what should be done about America given
> they have WMD?

Come get us.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Mike Stone" <> wrote

> NoEd <> wrote:
>> Freeing Iraq and allowing them to choose their own constitution is
>> helping
>> Iran? That is ridiculous. That brings up a good question, what should be
>> done about Iran given they have WMD?
>
> They don't have WMD. They're 10yrs away from having a nuclear reactor
> to create energy and 10yrs away from converting their uranium into
> anything weaponized.

Well, they do have WMD, just not nuclear weapons. Chemical & biological.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Ed <> wrote:
>
> Well, they do have WMD, just not nuclear weapons. Chemical & biological.

Do they now? I wasn't aware of that. I do know it's pretty much confirmed
that they can't weaponize their nuclear materials for at least 10yrs.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Ed wrote:
> "Mike Stone" <> wrote
>
>
>>NoEd <> wrote:
>>
>>>Freeing Iraq and allowing them to choose their own constitution is
>>>helping
>>>Iran? That is ridiculous. That brings up a good question, what should be
>>>done about Iran given they have WMD?
>>
>>They don't have WMD. They're 10yrs away from having a nuclear reactor
>>to create energy and 10yrs away from converting their uranium into
>>anything weaponized.
>
>
> Well, they do have WMD, just not nuclear weapons. Chemical & biological.
>
>
Surely this is just Iraq 2. The US wants Iran's oil so call them a
threat and that gives an excuse to invade. No one is going to fall for
the same lies again, are they?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df1t31$mup$

[snip]

> And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
> turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.

David:

You keep making this crazy accusation but you never back it up with any
credible proof.

-herb

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df29og$asg$
> Ed wrote:
> > "Mike Stone" <> wrote
> >
> >
> >>NoEd <> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Freeing Iraq and allowing them to choose their own constitution is
> >>>helping
> >>>Iran? That is ridiculous. That brings up a good question, what should
be
> >>>done about Iran given they have WMD?
> >>
> >>They don't have WMD. They're 10yrs away from having a nuclear reactor
> >>to create energy and 10yrs away from converting their uranium into
> >>anything weaponized.
> >
> >
> > Well, they do have WMD, just not nuclear weapons. Chemical & biological.
> >
> >
> Surely this is just Iraq 2. The US wants Iran's oil so call them a
> threat and that gives an excuse to invade. No one is going to fall for
> the same lies again, are they?

Yeah, War has turned out to be a great way to get free oil from Iraq.

-herb

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:df1t31$mup$
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
>
>
> David:
>
> You keep making this crazy accusation but you never back it up with any
> credible proof.
>
> -herb
>
>
Herb

You must be joking! Rumsfeld himself was in charge of supplying Saddam
with chemical and biological weapons and encouraging him to wage war on
Iran. When that war was over Saddam still had some of the weapons over
and used them to put down a rebellion by the Kurds. Why do you think the
US was so confident Saddam had WMDs? Because the US had supplied them to
him. They pretended not to notice he had either used them all up or
decommissioned them long before the US invasion of Iraq. You must be the
only American who does not know this. I am sure Ed will verify it,
probably with references.

David

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:df29og$asg$
>
>>Ed wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Stone" <> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>NoEd <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Freeing Iraq and allowing them to choose their own constitution is
>>>>>helping
>>>>>Iran? That is ridiculous. That brings up a good question, what should
>
> be
>
>>>>>done about Iran given they have WMD?
>>>>
>>>>They don't have WMD. They're 10yrs away from having a nuclear reactor
>>>>to create energy and 10yrs away from converting their uranium into
>>>>anything weaponized.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, they do have WMD, just not nuclear weapons. Chemical & biological.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Surely this is just Iraq 2. The US wants Iran's oil so call them a
>>threat and that gives an excuse to invade. No one is going to fall for
>>the same lies again, are they?
>
>
> Yeah, War has turned out to be a great way to get free oil from Iraq.
>
> -herb
>
>
That's because Bush and his advisers were so wrong in how it would turn
out. Do you expect competence from him?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df2lld$d5i$
>
> That's because Bush and his advisers were so wrong in how it would turn
> out. Do you expect competence from him?

In what area? I would expect he rolls a mean joint and mixes a good
margarita.

-herb

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df2li3$d5i$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:df1t31$mup$
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
> >>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
> >
> >
> > David:
> >
> > You keep making this crazy accusation but you never back it up with any
> > credible proof.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> >
> Herb
>
> You must be joking! Rumsfeld himself was in charge of supplying Saddam
> with chemical and biological weapons and encouraging him to wage war on
> Iran. When that war was over Saddam still had some of the weapons over
> and used them to put down a rebellion by the Kurds. Why do you think the
> US was so confident Saddam had WMDs? Because the US had supplied them to
> him. They pretended not to notice he had either used them all up or
> decommissioned them long before the US invasion of Iraq. You must be the
> only American who does not know this. I am sure Ed will verify it,
> probably with references.
>
> David

Restating your assertion is not proof. The United States has no biological
nor chemical weapons to supply to anyone. We stand ready to assemble such
things on short notice but have none to speak of.

I am sure he used chemical weapons but he did not get them from us. What we
contributed to his war effort was mostly satellite imagery. Perhaps you
have confused us with his European arms suppliers.

-herb

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

David,

I now know that "debating" you is silly given that you have just equated
Iran and the US. I am sorry you don't see the US and the UK as the greatest
source of "the good" in the world today. You are definitely close to being
mad.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df1t31$mup$
> Ed wrote:
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about Iran given they
>>>have WMD?
>>
>>
>> Nothing.
>>
>> Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Egypt, France,
>> India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea,
>> Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan,
>> Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, and UK all possess WMD and
>> there may be other countries as well. What should be done about these?
> Don't forget the big WMD holder. The USA.
>
> This is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on cities in other
> countries and chemical weapons like agent orange and napalm in Viet Nam.
>
> And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
> turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
>
> That brings up a good question, what should be done about America given
> they have WMD?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

David,

Let me present Christopher Hitchen's rejoinder for "You said there were WMDs
in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on
fire."


I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds
to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day,
at the very least five minutes to say that

1. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade
Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad;

2. Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead
American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete
centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of
Qusay Hussein;

3. Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating
to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or

4. Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection
process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a
$2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz.

"And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or
empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of
a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than
enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of
deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein
was no problem."


He further goes on to list ten (10) benifits to the war:

(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many
highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact.
Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the
coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his
organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of
mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the
E.U. but to Blair and Bush.

(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit
transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and
overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.

(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, when
confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting
solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their
commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi
case.)

(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the
word of a psychopathic autocrat.

(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the
region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.

(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in
Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its
autonomy.

(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist
infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly
enlarging this number.

(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and
women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which
training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.



"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df2lld$d5i$
> Herb wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:df29og$asg$
>>
>>>Ed wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mike Stone" <> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>NoEd <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Freeing Iraq and allowing them to choose their own constitution is
>>>>>>helping
>>>>>>Iran? That is ridiculous. That brings up a good question, what should
>>
>> be
>>
>>>>>>done about Iran given they have WMD?
>>>>>
>>>>>They don't have WMD. They're 10yrs away from having a nuclear reactor
>>>>>to create energy and 10yrs away from converting their uranium into
>>>>>anything weaponized.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, they do have WMD, just not nuclear weapons. Chemical & biological.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Surely this is just Iraq 2. The US wants Iran's oil so call them a
>>>threat and that gives an excuse to invade. No one is going to fall for
>>>the same lies again, are they?
>>
>>
>> Yeah, War has turned out to be a great way to get free oil from Iraq.
>>
>> -herb
>>
>>
> That's because Bush and his advisers were so wrong in how it would turn
> out. Do you expect competence from him?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Please.... one war at a time...!!

Arne
..
..
>>>
>>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about Iran given
>>>>they have WMD?
>>>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:
> David,
>
> I now know that "debating" you is silly given that you have just equated
> Iran and the US. I am sorry you don't see the US and the UK as the greatest
> source of "the good" in the world today. You are definitely close to being
> mad.
>
Yes, it was a bit unfair on Iran to tar it with the same brush as the
USA. After all it has no WMDs, has not attacked or invaded any other
countries and, since the exile of the late Shah Rehza Pahlavi (spelling
from memory) has been run on strict religious principles by the
Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khameni. It does not use a disproportionate
amount of the world's resources and poison the atmosphere in doing so.
It does not spend more on arms than any other country and maintain
military bases in 200 of them in order to enforce foreign policies
beneficial to itself. It does not have nuclear missiles targeted on all
major cities round the world on stand by. It does not have spy
satellites and planes watching every other country for signs of military
activity which are minuscule compared to its own. Its citizens lead
virtuous lives according to religious principles, praying five times a
day, and are not known for violent crime, drug taking and trafficking
and general immorality.

Yes, most unfair. My apologies to Iran!

It's that old proverb embodied. You can't see the wood for the trees.
Living in the USA and influenced only by the US media you only get the
US view. As the poet Robbie Burns said:

"Oh, would some god the giftie gi'e us
to see oursel's as others see us"

I keep saying it. You need to get out more.

> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:df1t31$mup$
>
>>Ed wrote:
>>
>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about Iran given they
>>>>have WMD?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing.
>>>
>>>Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Egypt, France,
>>>India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea,
>>>Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan,
>>>Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, and UK all possess WMD and
>>>there may be other countries as well. What should be done about these?
>>
>>Don't forget the big WMD holder. The USA.
>>
>>This is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on cities in other
>>countries and chemical weapons like agent orange and napalm in Viet Nam.
>>
>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
>>
>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about America given
>>they have WMD?
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:df2li3$d5i$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:df1t31$mup$
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
>>>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>David:
>>>
>>>You keep making this crazy accusation but you never back it up with any
>>>credible proof.
>>>
>>>-herb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Herb
>>
>>You must be joking! Rumsfeld himself was in charge of supplying Saddam
>>with chemical and biological weapons and encouraging him to wage war on
>>Iran. When that war was over Saddam still had some of the weapons over
>>and used them to put down a rebellion by the Kurds. Why do you think the
>>US was so confident Saddam had WMDs? Because the US had supplied them to
>>him. They pretended not to notice he had either used them all up or
>>decommissioned them long before the US invasion of Iraq. You must be the
>>only American who does not know this. I am sure Ed will verify it,
>>probably with references.
>>
>>David
>
>
> Restating your assertion is not proof. The United States has no biological
> nor chemical weapons to supply to anyone. We stand ready to assemble such
> things on short notice but have none to speak of.
>
> I am sure he used chemical weapons but he did not get them from us. What we
> contributed to his war effort was mostly satellite imagery. Perhaps you
> have confused us with his European arms suppliers.
>
> -herb
>
>
A couple of minutes search on Google turned up this one among others:

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Herb wrote:

> The United States has no biological nor chemical weapons to
> supply to anyone. We stand ready to assemble such things
> on short notice but have none to speak of.
>
> I am sure he used chemical weapons but he did not get them
> from us. What we contributed to his war effort was mostly
> satellite imagery.

One TV news reports mentioned that at least one shell was discovered
after "mission accomplished" that was reportedly of U.S. origin. It
was maybe 12" or shorter and roughly 3-5" diameter. I don't know about
the accuracy of the report.

In the 1970s, Nixon ordered all U.S. chemical weapons to be destroyed,
but the CIA defied this and kept either the weapons or ingredients
stockpiled. I don't know how long this was maintained.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

David Wilkinson <> wrote:

> That's because Bush and his advisers were so wrong in how it would turn
> out. Do you expect competence from him?

A lot of oil companies were against the invasion of Iraq. They were afraid that
the privatization of oil wells would be a debacle like it was in Russia.

They prefer having the oil run by government. You know, privatize the profits,
socialize the costs and all that good stuff.

From ha'aretz, why Bush-43 does what he does:



Here's the money quote if you don't want to read the whole thing:

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them,
and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem
in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus
on them."

Oh, and Pat Robertson said the same thing. Something to the effect of how Robertson had prayed about Iraq and
God said to him that the invasion would be a debacle. Bush countered and said that God told him it'd be alright
and to go do it.


-Mike

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:
>
David,
>
> Let me present Christopher Hitchen's rejoinder for "You said there were WMDs
> in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants on
> fire."

> 1. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade
> Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad;

Plotting with Saddam and The Brain to take over the world, or just
golfing or attending a relative's bar-mitzva?

> 2. Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead
> American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete
> centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of
> Qusay Hussein;

Until I saw the pictures, I never realized that Maytag made those
things - or that they were coin operated.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

NoEd wrote:

> Freeing Iraq and allowing them to choose their own constitution is helping
> Iran? That is ridiculous.

Iran = Shiite majority in power
Iraq = Shiite majority long repressed, now in power
Iran military currently training Shiite Iraqis in southrn Iraq

It's ridiculous only to the ignorant.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:df2lld$d5i$
> >
> > That's because Bush and his advisers were so wrong in how it would turn
> > out. Do you expect competence from him?
>
> In what area? I would expect he rolls a mean joint and mixes a good
> margarita.

Bush is more likely a straight-from-the-bottle drinker, for efficiency
reasons of course. However recent vacation photos prove he's a failure
at cowboy hat wearing - the thing looked bigger than the helmet
Dukakis wore while riding around in that tank.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

By the time the other side starts affording rejoinders as you did below, the
debate has been won and is now over.


"Norm De Plume" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>>
> David,
>>
>> Let me present Christopher Hitchen's rejoinder for "You said there were
>> WMDs
>> in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . . Blah, blah, pants
>> on
>> fire."
>
>> 1. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade
>> Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad;
>
> Plotting with Saddam and The Brain to take over the world, or just
> golfing or attending a relative's bar-mitzva?
>
>> 2. Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead
>> American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a
>> complete
>> centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of
>> Qusay Hussein;
>
> Until I saw the pictures, I never realized that Maytag made those
> things - or that they were coin operated.
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Yea I know, if "we" could just spend time learning what others think of us
we would see the error of our ways. The left fear the US more than they
fear an Iran with nuclear weapons. There is really nothing to argue at this
point. By the way, who much for foreign aid have the people of New Orleans
have received or have been offered? Ands: ZERO.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df3gmd$d9n$
> NoEd wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> I now know that "debating" you is silly given that you have just equated
>> Iran and the US. I am sorry you don't see the US and the UK as the
>> greatest source of "the good" in the world today. You are definitely
>> close to being mad.
>>
> Yes, it was a bit unfair on Iran to tar it with the same brush as the USA.
> After all it has no WMDs, has not attacked or invaded any other countries
> and, since the exile of the late Shah Rehza Pahlavi (spelling from memory)
> has been run on strict religious principles by the Ayatollahs Khomeini and
> Khameni. It does not use a disproportionate amount of the world's
> resources and poison the atmosphere in doing so.

The US is the most productive country in the world and has the best or one
of the best environmental reconds. You should be complaining about the
thrird work environmental record, including China.


> It does not spend more on arms than any other country and maintain
> military bases in 200 of them in order to enforce foreign policies
> beneficial to itself. It does not have nuclear missiles targeted on all
> major cities round the world on stand by.

This is a good thing.


It does not have spy
> satellites and planes watching every other country for signs of military
> activity which are minuscule compared to its own.

This is a good thing.

Its citizens lead
> virtuous lives according to religious principles, praying five times a
> day, and are not known for violent crime, drug taking and trafficking and
> general immorality.

The country, i.e. Iran, is run by a bunch of religious zealots.



>
> Yes, most unfair. My apologies to Iran!

You should move their.

>
> It's that old proverb embodied. You can't see the wood for the trees.
> Living in the USA and influenced only by the US media you only get the US
> view. As the poet Robbie Burns said:
>
> "Oh, would some god the giftie gi'e us
> to see oursel's as others see us"

Don't you think we know what the left think? Its irrelevant. Confronting
evil is what matters.


>
> I keep saying it. You need to get out more.
>
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:df1t31$mup$
>>
>>>Ed wrote:
>>>
>>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about Iran given
>>>>>they have WMD?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nothing.
>>>>
>>>>Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Egypt, France,
>>>>India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, North
>>>>Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea,
>>>>Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, and UK all possess WMD
>>>>and there may be other countries as well. What should be done about
>>>>these?
>>>
>>>Don't forget the big WMD holder. The USA.
>>>
>>>This is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on cities in other
>>>countries and chemical weapons like agent orange and napalm in Viet Nam.
>>>
>>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
>>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
>>>
>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about America given
>>>they have WMD?
>>
>>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

According to the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, as of March 24, 2005,
the United States has destroyed 11,216 tons of chemical weapons or 35% of
the original stockpile of nearly 31,500 tons of nerve and mustard agents
declared in 1997. Of the weapons destroyed, 500 tons was mustard gas and the
majority was other agents such as sarin (GB) and VX.



Looks like we still have a fair amount. Does that mean Herb is wrong yet
again?
Maybe 40,568,000 pounds is "none to speak of".



"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Herb wrote:
>
>> The United States has no biological nor chemical weapons to
>> supply to anyone. We stand ready to assemble such things
>> on short notice but have none to speak of.
>>
>> I am sure he used chemical weapons but he did not get them
>> from us. What we contributed to his war effort was mostly
>> satellite imagery.
>
> One TV news reports mentioned that at least one shell was discovered
> after "mission accomplished" that was reportedly of U.S. origin. It
> was maybe 12" or shorter and roughly 3-5" diameter. I don't know about
> the accuracy of the report.
>
> In the 1970s, Nixon ordered all U.S. chemical weapons to be destroyed,
> but the CIA defied this and kept either the weapons or ingredients
> stockpiled. I don't know how long this was maintained.
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Yea I know, if "we" could just spend time learning what others think of us
> we would see the error of our ways. The left fear the US more than they
> fear an Iran with nuclear weapons. There is really nothing to argue at
> this point.

There never was an argument with you. You are right and everyone else is
wrong.

> By the way, who much for foreign aid have the people of New Orleans have
> received or have been offered? Ands: ZERO.

Where did you get that information? What was interesting is that all of the
looters being shown in the news are black. I am looking to see if I can find
a white looter and so far I have seen none. I'm sure they are out there but
they are the minority in this case.



>
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:df3gmd$d9n$
>> NoEd wrote:
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I now know that "debating" you is silly given that you have just equated
>>> Iran and the US. I am sorry you don't see the US and the UK as the
>>> greatest source of "the good" in the world today. You are definitely
>>> close to being mad.
>>>
>> Yes, it was a bit unfair on Iran to tar it with the same brush as the
>> USA. After all it has no WMDs, has not attacked or invaded any other
>> countries and, since the exile of the late Shah Rehza Pahlavi (spelling
>> from memory) has been run on strict religious principles by the
>> Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khameni. It does not use a disproportionate
>> amount of the world's resources and poison the atmosphere in doing so.
>
> The US is the most productive country in the world and has the best or one
> of the best environmental reconds. You should be complaining about the
> thrird work environmental record, including China.
>
>
>> It does not spend more on arms than any other country and maintain
>> military bases in 200 of them in order to enforce foreign policies
>> beneficial to itself. It does not have nuclear missiles targeted on all
>> major cities round the world on stand by.
>
> This is a good thing.
>
>
> It does not have spy
>> satellites and planes watching every other country for signs of military
>> activity which are minuscule compared to its own.
>
> This is a good thing.
>
> Its citizens lead
>> virtuous lives according to religious principles, praying five times a
>> day, and are not known for violent crime, drug taking and trafficking and
>> general immorality.
>
> The country, i.e. Iran, is run by a bunch of religious zealots.
>
>
>
>>
>> Yes, most unfair. My apologies to Iran!
>
> You should move their.
>
>>
>> It's that old proverb embodied. You can't see the wood for the trees.
>> Living in the USA and influenced only by the US media you only get the US
>> view. As the poet Robbie Burns said:
>>
>> "Oh, would some god the giftie gi'e us
>> to see oursel's as others see us"
>
> Don't you think we know what the left think? Its irrelevant. Confronting
> evil is what matters.
>
>
>>
>> I keep saying it. You need to get out more.
>>
>>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>> news:df1t31$mup$
>>>
>>>>Ed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about Iran given
>>>>>>they have WMD?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Egypt,
>>>>>France, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar,
>>>>>North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South
>>>>>Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, and UK all
>>>>>possess WMD and there may be other countries as well. What should be
>>>>>done about these?
>>>>
>>>>Don't forget the big WMD holder. The USA.
>>>>
>>>>This is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on cities in
>>>>other countries and chemical weapons like agent orange and napalm in
>>>>Viet Nam.
>>>>
>>>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
>>>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about America given
>>>>they have WMD?
>>>
>>>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Ed wrote:
> According to the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, as of March 24, 2005,
> the United States has destroyed 11,216 tons of chemical weapons or 35% of
> the original stockpile of nearly 31,500 tons of nerve and mustard agents
> declared in 1997. Of the weapons destroyed, 500 tons was mustard gas and the
> majority was other agents such as sarin (GB) and VX.
>
>
>
> Looks like we still have a fair amount. Does that mean Herb is wrong yet
> again?
> Maybe 40,568,000 pounds is "none to speak of".
>
From

the fatal dose of Sarin is 28 mg/kg of bodyweight for a man with
percutaneous application (through the skin). So, assuming the average
person weighs 80 kg, it would take 2.24 gm to kill someone. As there are
28.6*16 = 458 gm in a lb, a lb of Sarin could kill 204 people.

From the figures above the US might have some 38,000,000 lb of the
Sarin and other nerve agents left over. This could kill about 7.8
billion people, which is rather more than the population of the world
and should account for most of the "terrorists". If not, there is
probably enough mustard gas and other chemical agents to kill any that
dodge the Sarin. If there are still survivors, then the 2000 hydrogen
bombs are still available.

What were the peaceful uses of Sarin, by the way, that made it worth
manufacturing this much of it? And why did the USA make it?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df3hd8$e09$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:df2li3$d5i$
> >
> >>Herb wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
message
> >>>news:df1t31$mup$
> >>>
> >>>[snip]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
> >>>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>David:
> >>>
> >>>You keep making this crazy accusation but you never back it up with any
> >>>credible proof.
> >>>
> >>>-herb
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Herb
> >>
> >>You must be joking! Rumsfeld himself was in charge of supplying Saddam
> >>with chemical and biological weapons and encouraging him to wage war on
> >>Iran. When that war was over Saddam still had some of the weapons over
> >>and used them to put down a rebellion by the Kurds. Why do you think the
> >>US was so confident Saddam had WMDs? Because the US had supplied them to
> >>him. They pretended not to notice he had either used them all up or
> >>decommissioned them long before the US invasion of Iraq. You must be the
> >>only American who does not know this. I am sure Ed will verify it,
> >>probably with references.
> >>
> >>David
> >
> >
> > Restating your assertion is not proof. The United States has no
biological
> > nor chemical weapons to supply to anyone. We stand ready to assemble
such
> > things on short notice but have none to speak of.
> >
> > I am sure he used chemical weapons but he did not get them from us.
What we
> > contributed to his war effort was mostly satellite imagery. Perhaps you
> > have confused us with his European arms suppliers.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> >
> A couple of minutes search on Google turned up this one among others:
>
>


David:

Do you really not understand the difference between "facilitating the
acquisition of precursors" and "supplying chemical and biological weapons?"

Far be it from me to defend the likes of Rumsfeld, but "precursors" are
substances that, as this article points out, have civilian as well as
military use.

Europe has offered to sell Iran fuel for its civilian nuclear program (with
our blessing). I guess you would say they are selling dirty bombs to the
Ayatollahs.

-herb

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Herb wrote:
>
> > The United States has no biological nor chemical weapons to
> > supply to anyone. We stand ready to assemble such things
> > on short notice but have none to speak of.
> >
> > I am sure he used chemical weapons but he did not get them
> > from us. What we contributed to his war effort was mostly
> > satellite imagery.
>
> One TV news reports mentioned that at least one shell was discovered
> after "mission accomplished" that was reportedly of U.S. origin. It
> was maybe 12" or shorter and roughly 3-5" diameter. I don't know about
> the accuracy of the report.
>
> In the 1970s, Nixon ordered all U.S. chemical weapons to be destroyed,
> but the CIA defied this and kept either the weapons or ingredients
> stockpiled. I don't know how long this was maintained.
>

There are reports that Jews called in sick on 9/11. That doesn't make them
true. The US maintains a stockpile of chemicals that could be weaponized as
a deterrent.

Who knows what really happened but, providing actual chemical or biological
weapons to the likes of Saddam would be a serious crime against humanity
that should be supported by hard evidence, not innuendo about "precursors."
I daresay we all have chemical weapons precursors under our kitchen sinks.
That does not make us monsters.

-herb

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:df3hd8$e09$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:df2li3$d5i$
>>>
>>>
>>>>Herb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>
> message
>
>>>>>news:df1t31$mup$
>>>>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
>>>>>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>David:
>>>>>
>>>>>You keep making this crazy accusation but you never back it up with any
>>>>>credible proof.
>>>>>
>>>>>-herb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Herb
>>>>
>>>>You must be joking! Rumsfeld himself was in charge of supplying Saddam
>>>>with chemical and biological weapons and encouraging him to wage war on
>>>>Iran. When that war was over Saddam still had some of the weapons over
>>>>and used them to put down a rebellion by the Kurds. Why do you think the
>>>>US was so confident Saddam had WMDs? Because the US had supplied them to
>>>>him. They pretended not to notice he had either used them all up or
>>>>decommissioned them long before the US invasion of Iraq. You must be the
>>>>only American who does not know this. I am sure Ed will verify it,
>>>>probably with references.
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>
>>>
>>>Restating your assertion is not proof. The United States has no
>
> biological
>
>>>nor chemical weapons to supply to anyone. We stand ready to assemble
>
> such
>
>>>things on short notice but have none to speak of.
>>>
>>>I am sure he used chemical weapons but he did not get them from us.
>
> What we
>
>>>contributed to his war effort was mostly satellite imagery. Perhaps you
>>>have confused us with his European arms suppliers.
>>>
>>>-herb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A couple of minutes search on Google turned up this one among others:
>>
>>
>
>
>
> David:
>
> Do you really not understand the difference between "facilitating the
> acquisition of precursors" and "supplying chemical and biological weapons?"
>
> Far be it from me to defend the likes of Rumsfeld, but "precursors" are
> substances that, as this article points out, have civilian as well as
> military use.
>
> Europe has offered to sell Iran fuel for its civilian nuclear program (with
> our blessing). I guess you would say they are selling dirty bombs to the
> Ayatollahs.
>
> -herb
>
>
Herb

As the US apparently has more than enough Sarin and other nerve agents
and mustard gas to kill the whole population of the world, I think they
have gone beyond precursors. I await your explanation of why,

a) unlike Saddam, they have not destroyed all these chemical weapons as
you claimed, and

b) what they made them for in the first place.

Tricky questions, I know, so take your time.

David

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Herb" <> wrote

> Who knows what really happened but, providing actual chemical or
> biological
> weapons to the likes of Saddam would be a serious crime against humanity
> that should be supported by hard evidence, not innuendo about
> "precursors."
> I daresay we all have chemical weapons precursors under our kitchen sinks.
> That does not make us monsters.
>
> -herb

www.google.com you asshole.
If you stopped making rediculous statements I would think it wasn't you.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df4u02$5a3$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:df3hd8$e09$
> >
> >>Herb wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
message
> >>>news:df2li3$d5i$
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Herb wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
> >
> > message
> >
> >>>>>news:df1t31$mup$
> >>>>>
> >>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries
that
> >>>>>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>David:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You keep making this crazy accusation but you never back it up with
any
> >>>>>credible proof.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-herb
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Herb
> >>>>
> >>>>You must be joking! Rumsfeld himself was in charge of supplying Saddam
> >>>>with chemical and biological weapons and encouraging him to wage war
on
> >>>>Iran. When that war was over Saddam still had some of the weapons over
> >>>>and used them to put down a rebellion by the Kurds. Why do you think
the
> >>>>US was so confident Saddam had WMDs? Because the US had supplied them
to
> >>>>him. They pretended not to notice he had either used them all up or
> >>>>decommissioned them long before the US invasion of Iraq. You must be
the
> >>>>only American who does not know this. I am sure Ed will verify it,
> >>>>probably with references.
> >>>>
> >>>>David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Restating your assertion is not proof. The United States has no
> >
> > biological
> >
> >>>nor chemical weapons to supply to anyone. We stand ready to assemble
> >
> > such
> >
> >>>things on short notice but have none to speak of.
> >>>
> >>>I am sure he used chemical weapons but he did not get them from us.
> >
> > What we
> >
> >>>contributed to his war effort was mostly satellite imagery. Perhaps
you
> >>>have confused us with his European arms suppliers.
> >>>
> >>>-herb
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>A couple of minutes search on Google turned up this one among others:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

> >
> > David:
> >
> > Do you really not understand the difference between "facilitating the
> > acquisition of precursors" and "supplying chemical and biological
weapons?"
> >
> > Far be it from me to defend the likes of Rumsfeld, but "precursors" are
> > substances that, as this article points out, have civilian as well as
> > military use.
> >
> > Europe has offered to sell Iran fuel for its civilian nuclear program
(with
> > our blessing). I guess you would say they are selling dirty bombs to
the
> > Ayatollahs.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> >
> Herb
>
> As the US apparently has more than enough Sarin and other nerve agents
> and mustard gas to kill the whole population of the world, I think they
> have gone beyond precursors. I await your explanation of why,
>
> a) unlike Saddam, they have not destroyed all these chemical weapons as
> you claimed, and
>
> b) what they made them for in the first place.

For the same reason that you Brits made nuclear weapons. Are you seriously
planning on using them or selling them to dictators?

>
> Tricky questions, I know, so take your time.
>
> David

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:df4u02$5a3$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:df3hd8$e09$
>>>
>>>
>>>>Herb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>
> message
>
>>>>>news:df2li3$d5i$
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Herb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>>>
>>>message
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>news:df1t31$mup$
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries
>
> that
>
>>>>>>>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>David:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You keep making this crazy accusation but you never back it up with
>
> any
>
>>>>>>>credible proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-herb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Herb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You must be joking! Rumsfeld himself was in charge of supplying Saddam
>>>>>>with chemical and biological weapons and encouraging him to wage war
>
> on
>
>>>>>>Iran. When that war was over Saddam still had some of the weapons over
>>>>>>and used them to put down a rebellion by the Kurds. Why do you think
>
> the
>
>>>>>>US was so confident Saddam had WMDs? Because the US had supplied them
>
> to
>
>>>>>>him. They pretended not to notice he had either used them all up or
>>>>>>decommissioned them long before the US invasion of Iraq. You must be
>
> the
>
>>>>>>only American who does not know this. I am sure Ed will verify it,
>>>>>>probably with references.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Restating your assertion is not proof. The United States has no
>>>
>>>biological
>>>
>>>
>>>>>nor chemical weapons to supply to anyone. We stand ready to assemble
>>>
>>>such
>>>
>>>
>>>>>things on short notice but have none to speak of.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure he used chemical weapons but he did not get them from us.
>>>
>>>What we
>>>
>>>
>>>>>contributed to his war effort was mostly satellite imagery. Perhaps
>
> you
>
>>>>>have confused us with his European arms suppliers.
>>>>>
>>>>>-herb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A couple of minutes search on Google turned up this one among others:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>>>David:
>>>
>>>Do you really not understand the difference between "facilitating the
>>>acquisition of precursors" and "supplying chemical and biological
>
> weapons?"
>
>>>Far be it from me to defend the likes of Rumsfeld, but "precursors" are
>>>substances that, as this article points out, have civilian as well as
>>>military use.
>>>
>>>Europe has offered to sell Iran fuel for its civilian nuclear program
>
> (with
>
>>>our blessing). I guess you would say they are selling dirty bombs to
>
> the
>
>>>Ayatollahs.
>>>
>>>-herb
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Herb
>>
>>As the US apparently has more than enough Sarin and other nerve agents
>>and mustard gas to kill the whole population of the world, I think they
>>have gone beyond precursors. I await your explanation of why,
>>
>>a) unlike Saddam, they have not destroyed all these chemical weapons as
>>you claimed, and
>>
>>b) what they made them for in the first place.
>
>
> For the same reason that you Brits made nuclear weapons. Are you seriously
> planning on using them or selling them to dictators?
>
>
>>Tricky questions, I know, so take your time.
>>
>>David
>
>
>
Why did you claim all the US chemical weapons had been destroyed when
they had not?

The UK had nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the USSR during the cold
war. They might just have been used in retaliation if we had survived a
first strike by the USSR, but actually served their purpose in helping
prevent nuclear war altogether. Now they have no obvious purpose except
as a sort of insurance to deter any future nuclear powers who might try
to put military pressure on us. If we ever have to use them we have lost
anyway. We only have a few devices and it is not certain they would
work, if fired, as it must be decades since we detonated one.

Incidentally, why does the US need 2,000 or so nuclear bombs? A couple
of very small ones by today's standards defeated Japan. Who are you
worried about? Invaders from Mars?

I can't see the case for holding huge stocks of Sarin. Small amounts to
use in developing an antidote, OK, but not enough to destroy the world!
Why this senseless potential overkill with WMDs, far more than is needed
for any conceivable defence? You would do better to spend the money
solving real problems, like moving New Orleans to higher ground or
reducing emissions that are poisoning the atmosphere. Your priorities
are all wrong.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df52fp$pjm$

> Why did you claim all the US chemical weapons had been destroyed when
> they had not?
>
> The UK had nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the USSR during the cold
> war. They might just have been used in retaliation if we had survived a
> first strike by the USSR, but actually served their purpose in helping
> prevent nuclear war altogether. Now they have no obvious purpose except
> as a sort of insurance to deter any future nuclear powers who might try
> to put military pressure on us. If we ever have to use them we have lost
> anyway. We only have a few devices and it is not certain they would
> work, if fired, as it must be decades since we detonated one.
>
> Incidentally, why does the US need 2,000 or so nuclear bombs? A couple
> of very small ones by today's standards defeated Japan. Who are you
> worried about? Invaders from Mars?
>
> I can't see the case for holding huge stocks of Sarin. Small amounts to
> use in developing an antidote, OK, but not enough to destroy the world!
> Why this senseless potential overkill with WMDs, far more than is needed
> for any conceivable defence? You would do better to spend the money
> solving real problems, like moving New Orleans to higher ground or
> reducing emissions that are poisoning the atmosphere. Your priorities
> are all wrong.

David:

Take your first paragraph above but replace nuclear with chemical or
biological and UK with US and you have your supposed answer. I'm not saying
I agree with it but that is the answer.

Do you really believe that the UK only has 1 or 2 nuclear weapons?

All this is beside the point. You are trying to change the subject. You
keep claiming that we gave or sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam
Hussein but you still haven't shown one credible source that claims to have
any evidence that this is the case.

-herb

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Herb" <> wrote

> All this is beside the point. You are trying to change the subject. You
> keep claiming that we gave or sold chemical and biological weapons to
> Saddam
> Hussein but you still haven't shown one credible source that claims to
> have
> any evidence that this is the case.
>
> -herb



Same as above, easier to read:

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

You have to admit its fun!


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Yea I know, if "we" could just spend time learning what others think of
>> us we would see the error of our ways. The left fear the US more than
>> they fear an Iran with nuclear weapons. There is really nothing to argue
>> at this point.
>
> There never was an argument with you. You are right and everyone else is
> wrong.
>
>> By the way, who much for foreign aid have the people of New Orleans have
>> received or have been offered? Ands: ZERO.
>
> Where did you get that information? What was interesting is that all of
> the looters being shown in the news are black. I am looking to see if I
> can find a white looter and so far I have seen none. I'm sure they are out
> there but they are the minority in this case.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:df3gmd$d9n$
>>> NoEd wrote:
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> I now know that "debating" you is silly given that you have just
>>>> equated Iran and the US. I am sorry you don't see the US and the UK as
>>>> the greatest source of "the good" in the world today. You are
>>>> definitely close to being mad.
>>>>
>>> Yes, it was a bit unfair on Iran to tar it with the same brush as the
>>> USA. After all it has no WMDs, has not attacked or invaded any other
>>> countries and, since the exile of the late Shah Rehza Pahlavi (spelling
>>> from memory) has been run on strict religious principles by the
>>> Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khameni. It does not use a disproportionate
>>> amount of the world's resources and poison the atmosphere in doing so.
>>
>> The US is the most productive country in the world and has the best or
>> one of the best environmental reconds. You should be complaining about
>> the thrird work environmental record, including China.
>>
>>
>>> It does not spend more on arms than any other country and maintain
>>> military bases in 200 of them in order to enforce foreign policies
>>> beneficial to itself. It does not have nuclear missiles targeted on all
>>> major cities round the world on stand by.
>>
>> This is a good thing.
>>
>>
>> It does not have spy
>>> satellites and planes watching every other country for signs of military
>>> activity which are minuscule compared to its own.
>>
>> This is a good thing.
>>
>> Its citizens lead
>>> virtuous lives according to religious principles, praying five times a
>>> day, and are not known for violent crime, drug taking and trafficking
>>> and general immorality.
>>
>> The country, i.e. Iran, is run by a bunch of religious zealots.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, most unfair. My apologies to Iran!
>>
>> You should move their.
>>
>>>
>>> It's that old proverb embodied. You can't see the wood for the trees.
>>> Living in the USA and influenced only by the US media you only get the
>>> US view. As the poet Robbie Burns said:
>>>
>>> "Oh, would some god the giftie gi'e us
>>> to see oursel's as others see us"
>>
>> Don't you think we know what the left think? Its irrelevant.
>> Confronting evil is what matters.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I keep saying it. You need to get out more.
>>>
>>>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>>>> message news:df1t31$mup$
>>>>
>>>>>Ed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about Iran given
>>>>>>>they have WMD?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Algeria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Egypt,
>>>>>>France, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Myanmar,
>>>>>>North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, South
>>>>>>Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, and UK all
>>>>>>possess WMD and there may be other countries as well. What should be
>>>>>>done about these?
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't forget the big WMD holder. The USA.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the only country that has used nuclear weapons on cities in
>>>>>other countries and chemical weapons like agent orange and napalm in
>>>>>Viet Nam.
>>>>>
>>>>>And it has supplied chemical and biological weapons to countries that
>>>>>turned out to be "terrorists", like Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>>That brings up a good question, what should be done about America given
>>>>>they have WMD?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

David,

We should not have removed SH because we sold him WMD or because he no
longer had the WMD we sold him? The former argument seems to be analogous
to arguing that since a criminal legally purchased a gun we can't arrest him
if he uses it to rob a bank.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Herb" <> wrote
>
>> All this is beside the point. You are trying to change the subject. You
>> keep claiming that we gave or sold chemical and biological weapons to
>> Saddam
>> Hussein but you still haven't shown one credible source that claims to
>> have
>> any evidence that this is the case.
>>
>> -herb
>
>
>
> Same as above, easier to read:
>
>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Horrible top poster NoEd wrote:

> "Norm De Plume" <> wrote in message
> news:

> Let me present Christopher Hitchen's rejoinder for "You
> said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . .

> 1. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade
> Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad;

> > Plotting with Saddam and The Brain to take over the world, or just
> > golfing or attending a relative's bar-mitzva?

> 2. Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead
> American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a
> complete
> centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of
> Qusay Hussein;

> > Until I saw the pictures, I never realized that Maytag made those
> > things - or that they were coin operated.

> By the time the other side starts affording rejoinders as you did below, the
> debate has been won and is now over.

I'm only confirming your high degree of credibility because you see the
world so clearly, not watered down but straight-up, just like your
drinks. It's your "don't bother me with the truth" attitude that has
made America great.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:df52fp$pjm$
>
>
>>Why did you claim all the US chemical weapons had been destroyed when
>>they had not?
>>
>>The UK had nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the USSR during the cold
>>war. They might just have been used in retaliation if we had survived a
>>first strike by the USSR, but actually served their purpose in helping
>>prevent nuclear war altogether. Now they have no obvious purpose except
>>as a sort of insurance to deter any future nuclear powers who might try
>>to put military pressure on us. If we ever have to use them we have lost
>>anyway. We only have a few devices and it is not certain they would
>>work, if fired, as it must be decades since we detonated one.
>>
>>Incidentally, why does the US need 2,000 or so nuclear bombs? A couple
>>of very small ones by today's standards defeated Japan. Who are you
>>worried about? Invaders from Mars?
>>
>>I can't see the case for holding huge stocks of Sarin. Small amounts to
>>use in developing an antidote, OK, but not enough to destroy the world!
>>Why this senseless potential overkill with WMDs, far more than is needed
>>for any conceivable defence? You would do better to spend the money
>>solving real problems, like moving New Orleans to higher ground or
>>reducing emissions that are poisoning the atmosphere. Your priorities
>>are all wrong.
>
>
> David:
>
> Take your first paragraph above but replace nuclear with chemical or
> biological and UK with US and you have your supposed answer. I'm not saying
> I agree with it but that is the answer.
>
> Do you really believe that the UK only has 1 or 2 nuclear weapons?
>
> All this is beside the point. You are trying to change the subject. You
> keep claiming that we gave or sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam
> Hussein but you still haven't shown one credible source that claims to have
> any evidence that this is the case.
>
> -herb
>
>
Herb

You and NoEd seem to live in a fantasy world where you just ignore facts
you don't like or that reflect badly on the US. Perhaps you are actually
the same person!

I have given you a reference to US Chemical and biological weapons sales
to Saddam and Rumsfeld's role in it. Ed has given you a lot more. It's a
proven and accepted fact, but you affect not to believe it. I don't
write articles for the Washington Post.

Equally true and verifiable is the existence of the Guantanamo Bay
prison in Cuba where the US government has held 600 or so captives
without charge or access to legal aid, families or friends for 3 years.
Some or all may be guilty or innocent. Who knows without charges or
trials? What happened to justice? NoEd just says it is false. Ridiculous!

"My country right or wrong" is an absurd posture when there is freedom
of speech, a free press and the internet and everyone knows what is
going on. The US is still a great country although it has made mistakes.
It has done a lot more good things than bad and the balance must be well
on the positive side. It serves no purpose to try to cover up or ignore
the mistakes. Try being honest instead!

David

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> David,
>
> We should not have removed SH because we sold him WMD or because he no
> longer had the WMD we sold him? The former argument seems to be
> analogous to arguing that since a criminal legally purchased a gun we
> can't arrest him if he uses it to rob a bank.

My name is Ed, not David.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> David,
>>
>> We should not have removed SH because we sold him WMD or because he no
>> longer had the WMD we sold him? The former argument seems to be
>> analogous to arguing that since a criminal legally purchased a gun we
>> can't arrest him if he uses it to rob a bank.
>
> My name is Ed, not David.
>

"My Name Is"

[Chorus: repeat 2X]

Hi! My name is.. (what?) My name is.. (who?)
My name is.. [scratches] Slim Shady
Hi! My name is.. (huh?) My name is.. (what?)
My name is.. [scratches] Slim Shady

Ahem.. excuse me!
Can I have the attention of the class
for one second?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

David Wilkinson <> wrote:
>
> You and NoEd seem to live in a fantasy world where you just ignore facts
> you don't like or that reflect badly on the US. Perhaps you are actually
> the same person!

Conservatives don't believe anything to be legitimate unless Rush Limbaugh,
the Weekly Standard, National Review or Fox News say it's ok to believe
it. They need permission 1st.

They dont' want to acknowledge global warming because "science"
has a "liberal bias", the Senate Republicans who support are also
mocked and laughed at.

The GOP has a huge propaganda system in place and have convinced a lot
of Americans that every piece of information can't be believed unless
it comes from one of their trusted sources. The ones they control.

I work with a real right wing guy. Nicest guy around, but he'll only
get his news from the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh & Frontpagemag.com.

Nothing else can be trusted because of the dread "librul bias". He's
convinced that if Bush cut tax rates to 10% the government would generate
more in tax reciepts. He won't believe that every economist worth his
salt (including a few conservative ones) have discredited the laffer
curve because "schools are too librul & PHd's think they know everything".

He also believes we found WMDs in Iraq.

-Mike

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df658i$scf$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:df52fp$pjm$
> >
> >
> >>Why did you claim all the US chemical weapons had been destroyed when
> >>they had not?
> >>
> >>The UK had nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the USSR during the cold
> >>war. They might just have been used in retaliation if we had survived a
> >>first strike by the USSR, but actually served their purpose in helping
> >>prevent nuclear war altogether. Now they have no obvious purpose except
> >>as a sort of insurance to deter any future nuclear powers who might try
> >>to put military pressure on us. If we ever have to use them we have lost
> >>anyway. We only have a few devices and it is not certain they would
> >>work, if fired, as it must be decades since we detonated one.
> >>
> >>Incidentally, why does the US need 2,000 or so nuclear bombs? A couple
> >>of very small ones by today's standards defeated Japan. Who are you
> >>worried about? Invaders from Mars?
> >>
> >>I can't see the case for holding huge stocks of Sarin. Small amounts to
> >>use in developing an antidote, OK, but not enough to destroy the world!
> >>Why this senseless potential overkill with WMDs, far more than is needed
> >>for any conceivable defence? You would do better to spend the money
> >>solving real problems, like moving New Orleans to higher ground or
> >>reducing emissions that are poisoning the atmosphere. Your priorities
> >>are all wrong.
> >
> >
> > David:
> >
> > Take your first paragraph above but replace nuclear with chemical or
> > biological and UK with US and you have your supposed answer. I'm not
saying
> > I agree with it but that is the answer.
> >
> > Do you really believe that the UK only has 1 or 2 nuclear weapons?
> >
> > All this is beside the point. You are trying to change the subject.
You
> > keep claiming that we gave or sold chemical and biological weapons to
Saddam
> > Hussein but you still haven't shown one credible source that claims to
have
> > any evidence that this is the case.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> >
> Herb
>
> You and NoEd seem to live in a fantasy world where you just ignore facts
> you don't like or that reflect badly on the US. Perhaps you are actually
> the same person!
>
> I have given you a reference to US Chemical and biological weapons sales
> to Saddam and Rumsfeld's role in it. Ed has given you a lot more. It's a
> proven and accepted fact, but you affect not to believe it. I don't
> write articles for the Washington Post.
>
> Equally true and verifiable is the existence of the Guantanamo Bay
> prison in Cuba where the US government has held 600 or so captives
> without charge or access to legal aid, families or friends for 3 years.
> Some or all may be guilty or innocent. Who knows without charges or
> trials? What happened to justice? NoEd just says it is false. Ridiculous!
>
> "My country right or wrong" is an absurd posture when there is freedom
> of speech, a free press and the internet and everyone knows what is
> going on. The US is still a great country although it has made mistakes.
> It has done a lot more good things than bad and the balance must be well
> on the positive side. It serves no purpose to try to cover up or ignore
> the mistakes. Try being honest instead!
>
> David

Again with the change of subject. I am not your strawman. My country is
quite often wrong, especially under it's evil, Republican régime.

I read the Washington Post article (did you?). It said that Rumsfeld may
have facilitated purchase of "precursors" that also have civilian use. What
you have not established is any credible source claiming to have knowledge
that the US HAS weaponized chemical or biological agents let alone sold them
to a third party.

If I missed those words in the article you cited, please quote them.

I went to the ballpark the other day and bought a hot dog (sort of like
long bangers, to you). Right out in the open, they had chemical precursors
to mustard gas for anyone to apply.

-herb

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Isn't it interesting that Herb says you changing the subject. I can't see
where.

As far as the U.S. not having chemical weapons, at least "none to speak of",
I suggest you give Herb this link:

The report was put out by the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency.
Herb will probably reject the like as not credible. The report shows you
with pictures (so Herb can understand) where the stuff is.



"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df658i$scf$
> Herb wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:df52fp$pjm$
>>
>>
>>>Why did you claim all the US chemical weapons had been destroyed when
>>>they had not?
>>>
>>>The UK had nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the USSR during the cold
>>>war. They might just have been used in retaliation if we had survived a
>>>first strike by the USSR, but actually served their purpose in helping
>>>prevent nuclear war altogether. Now they have no obvious purpose except
>>>as a sort of insurance to deter any future nuclear powers who might try
>>>to put military pressure on us. If we ever have to use them we have lost
>>>anyway. We only have a few devices and it is not certain they would
>>>work, if fired, as it must be decades since we detonated one.
>>>
>>>Incidentally, why does the US need 2,000 or so nuclear bombs? A couple
>>>of very small ones by today's standards defeated Japan. Who are you
>>>worried about? Invaders from Mars?
>>>
>>>I can't see the case for holding huge stocks of Sarin. Small amounts to
>>>use in developing an antidote, OK, but not enough to destroy the world!
>>>Why this senseless potential overkill with WMDs, far more than is needed
>>>for any conceivable defence? You would do better to spend the money
>>>solving real problems, like moving New Orleans to higher ground or
>>>reducing emissions that are poisoning the atmosphere. Your priorities
>>>are all wrong.
>>
>>
>> David:
>>
>> Take your first paragraph above but replace nuclear with chemical or
>> biological and UK with US and you have your supposed answer. I'm not
>> saying
>> I agree with it but that is the answer.
>>
>> Do you really believe that the UK only has 1 or 2 nuclear weapons?
>>
>> All this is beside the point. You are trying to change the subject. You
>> keep claiming that we gave or sold chemical and biological weapons to
>> Saddam
>> Hussein but you still haven't shown one credible source that claims to
>> have
>> any evidence that this is the case.
>>
>> -herb
>>
>>
> Herb
>
> You and NoEd seem to live in a fantasy world where you just ignore facts
> you don't like or that reflect badly on the US. Perhaps you are actually
> the same person!
>
> I have given you a reference to US Chemical and biological weapons sales
> to Saddam and Rumsfeld's role in it. Ed has given you a lot more. It's a
> proven and accepted fact, but you affect not to believe it. I don't write
> articles for the Washington Post.
>
> Equally true and verifiable is the existence of the Guantanamo Bay prison
> in Cuba where the US government has held 600 or so captives without charge
> or access to legal aid, families or friends for 3 years. Some or all may
> be guilty or innocent. Who knows without charges or trials? What happened
> to justice? NoEd just says it is false. Ridiculous!
>
> "My country right or wrong" is an absurd posture when there is freedom of
> speech, a free press and the internet and everyone knows what is going on.
> The US is still a great country although it has made mistakes. It has done
> a lot more good things than bad and the balance must be well on the
> positive side. It serves no purpose to try to cover up or ignore the
> mistakes. Try being honest instead!
>
> David

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Ed wrote:
> Isn't it interesting that Herb says you changing the subject. I can't see
> where.
>
> As far as the U.S. not having chemical weapons, at least "none to speak of",
> I suggest you give Herb this link:
>
> The report was put out by the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency.
> Herb will probably reject the like as not credible. The report shows you
> with pictures (so Herb can understand) where the stuff is.
>
>
>
Ed. I don't think Herb wants to know. He is in denial about anything he
does not want to admit, but he still has a sense of humour. Did you see
that line about the mustard on his hot dog being a precursor to mustard
gas? That was a classic.

So, I guess that all the US actually supplied to Saddam was a couple of
crates of French Mustard to go on his burgers. How could the US have
known that his evil chemists would turn it into mustard gas and use it
on the Iranians and Kurds?

And I suppose the Sarin is just Phyllosan gone wrong and was meant to
steady old ladies' nerves. Thank goodness we got that sorted out!

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

LMC, did Mr. Hitchen miss anything? The blame America first crowd, which
you seeming to be a proud member of, needs to really see the world clearly:
the one that acknowledges that evil exists.


"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Horrible top poster NoEd wrote:
>
>> "Norm De Plume" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>
>> Let me present Christopher Hitchen's rejoinder for "You
>> said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . .
>> .
>
>> 1. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade
>> Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad;
>
>> > Plotting with Saddam and The Brain to take over the world, or just
>> > golfing or attending a relative's bar-mitzva?
>
>> 2. Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead
>> American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a
>> complete
>> centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of
>> Qusay Hussein;
>
>> > Until I saw the pictures, I never realized that Maytag made those
>> > things - or that they were coin operated.
>
>> By the time the other side starts affording rejoinders as you did below,
>> the
>> debate has been won and is now over.
>
> I'm only confirming your high degree of credibility because you see the
> world so clearly, not watered down but straight-up, just like your
> drinks. It's your "don't bother me with the truth" attitude that has
> made America great.
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> LMC, did Mr. Hitchen miss anything? The blame America first crowd, which
> you seeming to be a proud member of, needs to really see the world
> clearly: the one that acknowledges that evil exists.

You don't see the world clearly, you are brainwashed. I don't know how it
happened but it did. Evil always existed and always will, what would you do
about it?

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:df8oa1$nhf$

[snip]

> So, I guess that all the US actually supplied to Saddam was a couple of
> crates of French Mustard to go on his burgers. How could the US have
> known that his evil chemists would turn it into mustard gas and use it
> on the Iranians and Kurds?
>
> And I suppose the Sarin is just Phyllosan gone wrong and was meant to
> steady old ladies' nerves. Thank goodness we got that sorted out!

Well, at least you know you are just guessing.

No one disliked that whole Reagan gang more than I (though the current group
of imbeciles makes them look competent by comparison) but I don't have to
imagine evil things that they did while no one was looking.

People like you are giving the real left a bad name with your paranoia and
your willingness to believe rumor and innuendo that concurs with your belief
system. Believe me, these people are evil enough. You don't have to make
up things when they are so blatant.

I'll assume you won't provide a quote because there is no quote to provide.
You and our resident psychotic can just go on agreeing with each other.

-herb

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"Herb" <> wrote
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> I'll assume you won't provide a quote because there is no quote to
> provide.
> You and our resident psychotic can just go on agreeing with each other.

You don't agree with David at all. He's right you know.
You are:
Blind
Stupid
Arrogant
Totally misinformed
Trapped in your pajamas

If Charles Manson got his name on the ballot as democratic nominee you would
vote for him.
You are a waste of time.

You are an airhead, Herbie. You and NoEd are drinking the same water.

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

Continuously seek to destroy it. This is why Bush won.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> LMC, did Mr. Hitchen miss anything? The blame America first crowd, which
>> you seeming to be a proud member of, needs to really see the world
>> clearly: the one that acknowledges that evil exists.
>
> You don't see the world clearly, you are brainwashed. I don't know how it
> happened but it did. Evil always existed and always will, what would you
> do about it?
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Continuously seek to destroy it. This is why Bush won.

How did we come to be called the "evil empire"?





> "Ed" <> wrote

>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>> LMC, did Mr. Hitchen miss anything? The blame America first crowd,
>>> which you seeming to be a proud member of, needs to really see the world
>>> clearly: the one that acknowledges that evil exists.
>>
>> You don't see the world clearly, you are brainwashed. I don't know how it
>> happened but it did. Evil always existed and always will, what would you
>> do about it?
>>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

We didn't.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Continuously seek to destroy it. This is why Bush won.
>
> How did we come to be called the "evil empire"?
>
>
>
>
>
>> "Ed" <> wrote
>
>>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>> LMC, did Mr. Hitchen miss anything? The blame America first crowd,
>>>> which you seeming to be a proud member of, needs to really see the
>>>> world clearly: the one that acknowledges that evil exists.
>>>
>>> You don't see the world clearly, you are brainwashed. I don't know how
>>> it happened but it did. Evil always existed and always will, what would
>>> you do about it?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the president.

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> Completely false. SH was a threat.
>> >
>> > Then why didn't Colin Powell think so?
>>
>> I fairly sure he thought so. I don't think he agreed with the means to
>> remove this threat.
>
> That doesn't make sense because he wanted to normalize relations with
> Iraq.

He wanted to normalize relations with SH? If true, the guy is a quack.
Prove it.

>
>>> > Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam
>>> > he is still fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being
>>> > grateful, Iraqis are now marching in demos holding up
>>> > pictures of Saddam and rejecting the western-style
>>> > democracy he is trying to foist on them.
>
>> False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large
>> percentage of the populace voted?
>
>> > Why have 80% of the U.S. casualties occurred since the "peace"? That's
>> > roughly 1500 times the number killed by German insurgents after WWII.
>>
>> Your statement is a non sequitur.
>
> It's completely relevant because Iraq is still at war, unlike Germany
> even one week after V-E day. As for the Iraqi election earlier this
> year, the turnout was high because for a few days the U.S. gave the
> Iraqi citizens the peace and security they had wanted and needed --
> think of how much better the country would be if Baby Bush had sent in
> enough soldiers to do that from the beginning.
>
> You're wrong about the pro-Saddam demonstrators. Just a few minutes
> ago, I saw what were purported to be demonstrators in Saddam's
> birthplace, Tirkit, demonstrating against the new Iraqi constitution
> and holding up pictures of their hero, Saddam.

Your statement is non sequitor. There were no surrounding countries sending
in terrorist in post war Germany. Again what does the causlty count
comparison mean?

>
>>> > 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years
>>> > without charges, trial or access to legal aid or their
>>> > families or friends. Other captives have been humiliated,
>>> > tortured and even killed.
>
>> False again.
>
>> > What about that Iraqi POW general who was killed while being tortured
>> > by the U.S.?
>
>> As has been reported many times, the prisons are better now than under
>> SH.
>
> What happened to your claim that no prisoners had been killed? Were
> you wrong again?

I never said that. I said they are better, much better now than under SH.

>
>> Bush was easily the best choice.
>
>> > Only compared to Saddam, Kim, and Osama. The real reason he's
>> > President is because dumb people outnumber smart people.
>
>> > Baby Bush was one of the very few presidential candidates who was
>> > obviously the worst choice -- dumb, got everything only because of Dad,
>> > accomplished absolutely nothing on his own, never matured (still a man
>> > boy), comitted fraud, and has no talent except for memorizing names and
>> > being a vindictive bully.
>> >
>> > Baby Bush was such an obvious bad choice that if WWIII erupts from his
>> > mistakes, I'm going after every one of you who supported him because
>> > you people should have known better, and you're responsible for that
>> > cretin sending the U.S. down the toilet and letting China become the
>> > world leader.
>
>> Why don't you just come out and admit you simply don't like Bush.
>
> Are you Chamber of Commerce stupid or something? I've said over and
> over that I hated Baby Bush and have never tried to hide my opinion.
> Like every right wing kook you'll probably try to tag me as a liberal
> or a Democrat for that, but I also hated Clinton (not nearly as much),
> and I voted for Dole instead.

Dole and Bush are very close. You are lost.

>
>> If it were not the war you would find something else to bitch about.
>
> Even the most partisan supporters of Baby Bush, provided that they're
> not cult members or thoroughly dishonest, have to admit that he has a
> lot more shortcomings than normal for a president and no greatness at
> all.
>

He knows that evil must be destroyed, with or without the buy in of anybody
else. There will never be anything Bush will do that you support, other
than quit.