OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

...and my name really is Blondie.

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
>

I saw Bush yesterday and he was slinging this crap about how Iraq was the
center of terrorism, it is vital in the effort agaist terrorism.

Well, you know what, it wasn't until he blew it up. It is now.
We're over the 2000 mark now, 2000 kids killed fighting for nothing.

And that Ann Coulter that you think is so hot, she looks anorexic to me. She
can't weigh more than 80 pounds. She should purge on you.


She needs someone to take care of her. She's sick and it's not limited to
her body.

This is hot....

AC is not.

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

Obviously strong women scare you, esp. good looking, blond, and Republican
women. She is right on the money. I guess you prefer Kerry's wife? LOL!



"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>
> I saw Bush yesterday and he was slinging this crap about how Iraq was the
> center of terrorism, it is vital in the effort agaist terrorism.
>
> Well, you know what, it wasn't until he blew it up. It is now.
> We're over the 2000 mark now, 2000 kids killed fighting for nothing.
>
> And that Ann Coulter that you think is so hot, she looks anorexic to me.
> She can't weigh more than 80 pounds. She should purge on you.
>
>
> She needs someone to take care of her. She's sick and it's not limited to
> her body.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

I bet your favorite part of the chicken is the wishbone.



"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Obviously strong women scare you, esp. good looking, blond, and Republican
> women. She is right on the money. I guess you prefer Kerry's wife? LOL!
>
>
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>>
>>
>> I saw Bush yesterday and he was slinging this crap about how Iraq was the
>> center of terrorism, it is vital in the effort agaist terrorism.
>>
>> Well, you know what, it wasn't until he blew it up. It is now.
>> We're over the 2000 mark now, 2000 kids killed fighting for nothing.
>>
>> And that Ann Coulter that you think is so hot, she looks anorexic to me.
>> She can't weigh more than 80 pounds. She should purge on you.
>>
>>
>> She needs someone to take care of her. She's sick and it's not limited to
>> her body.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: This is hot....

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:36:12 -0400, "Ed" <> wrote:

>
>
>AC is not.
>

not exactly a fund but I guess you must play once in a while

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:

>

> 'Bush is quoted as saying "We found the weapons of mass
> destruction,"'

> 'Reading all of what Bush said makes clear he was referring
> both to "weapons" and to "manufacturing facilities" and was
> still clinging to what intelligence officials had told him
> about Iraqi mobile laboratories that supposedly were used for > manufacturing biological weapons.'

> 'In the end, neither weapons nor manufacturing facilities were > found. Bush was wrong about the mobile laboratories, of
> course.'

So NoEd, are you saying that Baby Bush didn't lie because he was too
stupid to know the truth?

I've asked many Baby Bush supporters this: If WMDs really had been
found in Iraq, why hasn't Baby Bush come out and said, since the time
U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said that no WMDs had been found, that
WMDs had been found? I don't mean buried in the middle of a speech or
with ambiguous weasel words ("weapons of mass destruction program
related activity") but as the main part of an address to the whole
nation. Why didn't he go on prime time TV and announce, "My fellow
Americans, United States weapons inspectors have found weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, and this was why it was so important to remove
Saddam Hussein from power". He hasn't said anything like that, and
10,000 weapons inspectors have spent nearly a year and $600 million
without finding WMDs.

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

Ed wrote:

> And that Ann Coulter that you think is so hot, she looks anorexic to me. She
> can't weigh more than 80 pounds. She should purge on you.
>
>
> She needs someone to take care of her. She's sick and it's not limited to
> her body.

Apparently she's one of those sexually ambiguous people, and the poor
regulation of her hormone pills, along with a cocaine habit, causes her
to act crazy. Many closeted homosexual men find her attractive,
including Rush Limbaugh (his old nights in Philadelphia).

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

NoEd wrote:

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

> > And that Ann Coulter that you think is so hot, she looks anorexic to me.
> > She can't weigh more than 80 pounds. She should purge on you.
> >

> Obviously strong women scare you, esp. good looking, blond, and Republican
> women. She is right on the money. I guess you prefer Kerry's wife? LOL!

If you think that 6' and 90 lbs., ET hands, an adam's apple the size of
a grapefruit, and a voice as smooth as Harvey Fierstein's is "hot",
then you ma be a closeted gay. I'm not saying that she looks lika a
tranny, but she's even been stopped twice by security when trying to
enter women's restrooms. Then there's her cocaine habit, which
combined with her hormone dosage problems results in a sparkling
personality and highly lucid thinking.

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

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

> then you ma be a closeted gay.

NoEd, the hammer humper, is from San Francisco.
What's that tell you?

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

She's hot. Sorry.


"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> "Ed" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>
>> > And that Ann Coulter that you think is so hot, she looks anorexic to
>> > me.
>> > She can't weigh more than 80 pounds. She should purge on you.
>> >
>
>> Obviously strong women scare you, esp. good looking, blond, and
>> Republican
>> women. She is right on the money. I guess you prefer Kerry's wife? LOL!
>
> If you think that 6' and 90 lbs., ET hands, an adam's apple the size of
> a grapefruit, and a voice as smooth as Harvey Fierstein's is "hot",
> then you ma be a closeted gay. I'm not saying that she looks lika a
> tranny, but she's even been stopped twice by security when trying to
> enter women's restrooms. Then there's her cocaine habit, which
> combined with her hormone dosage problems results in a sparkling
> personality and highly lucid thinking.
>

Re: This is hot....

<> wrote in message
news:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:36:12 -0400, "Ed" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>AC is not.
>>
>
> not exactly a fund but I guess you must play once in a while

Out of respect for the group I selected one with clothes on :)

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

Apparently you to have a problem with good looking aggressive women. I was
not surprised that Ed did; he knows women like that will expose his many
weaknesses, i.e. a tough veneer that can be cracked like an egg shell. But
the fact still remains, Bush did not lie.

Ann Coulter has no problem attracting men.


"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Ed wrote:
>
>> And that Ann Coulter that you think is so hot, she looks anorexic to me.
>> She
>> can't weigh more than 80 pounds. She should purge on you.
>>
>>
>> She needs someone to take care of her. She's sick and it's not limited to
>> her body.
>
> Apparently she's one of those sexually ambiguous people, and the poor
> regulation of her hormone pills, along with a cocaine habit, causes her
> to act crazy. Many closeted homosexual men find her attractive,
> including Rush Limbaugh (his old nights in Philadelphia).
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>>
>
>> 'Bush is quoted as saying "We found the weapons of mass
>> destruction,"'
>
>> 'Reading all of what Bush said makes clear he was referring
>> both to "weapons" and to "manufacturing facilities" and was
>> still clinging to what intelligence officials had told him
>> about Iraqi mobile laboratories that supposedly were used for >
>> manufacturing biological weapons.'
>
>> 'In the end, neither weapons nor manufacturing facilities were > found.
>> Bush was wrong about the mobile laboratories, of
>> course.'
>
> So NoEd, are you saying that Baby Bush didn't lie because he was too
> stupid to know the truth?

I saying factcheck verified he didn't lie.

>
> I've asked many Baby Bush supporters this: If WMDs really had been
> found in Iraq, why hasn't Baby Bush come out and said, since the time
> U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said that no WMDs had been found, that
> WMDs had been found? I don't mean buried in the middle of a speech or
> with ambiguous weasel words ("weapons of mass destruction program
> related activity") but as the main part of an address to the whole
> nation. Why didn't he go on prime time TV and announce, "My fellow
> Americans, United States weapons inspectors have found weapons of mass
> destruction in Iraq, and this was why it was so important to remove
> Saddam Hussein from power". He hasn't said anything like that, and
> 10,000 weapons inspectors have spent nearly a year and $600 million
> without finding WMDs.
>

You're asking the wrong question. Did Bush know BEFORE removing SH that
there were no WMD? Even the liberal media thought he still had them. Do
you dispute he did have them? This issue of whether GWB lied is dead.
Your left with disliking him because he is a Republican.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Your left with disliking him because he is a Republican.

I usually vote republican, why do I dislike him.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Who knows.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> Your left with disliking him because he is a Republican.
>
> I usually vote republican, why do I dislike him.
>
>

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

On 2005-10-08, NoEd <> wrote:
> Ann Coulter has no problem attracting men.

She did when she lived in DC. She moved to Miami because there weren't
enough "real men" for her.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:
> "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>'Bush is quoted as saying "We found the weapons of mass
>>>destruction,"'
>>
>>>'Reading all of what Bush said makes clear he was referring
>>>both to "weapons" and to "manufacturing facilities" and was
>>>still clinging to what intelligence officials had told him
>>>about Iraqi mobile laboratories that supposedly were used for >
>>>manufacturing biological weapons.'
>>
>>>'In the end, neither weapons nor manufacturing facilities were > found.
>>>Bush was wrong about the mobile laboratories, of
>>>course.'
>>
>>So NoEd, are you saying that Baby Bush didn't lie because he was too
>>stupid to know the truth?
>
>
> I saying factcheck verified he didn't lie.
>
>
>>I've asked many Baby Bush supporters this: If WMDs really had been
>>found in Iraq, why hasn't Baby Bush come out and said, since the time
>>U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said that no WMDs had been found, that
>>WMDs had been found? I don't mean buried in the middle of a speech or
>>with ambiguous weasel words ("weapons of mass destruction program
>>related activity") but as the main part of an address to the whole
>>nation. Why didn't he go on prime time TV and announce, "My fellow
>>Americans, United States weapons inspectors have found weapons of mass
>>destruction in Iraq, and this was why it was so important to remove
>>Saddam Hussein from power". He hasn't said anything like that, and
>>10,000 weapons inspectors have spent nearly a year and $600 million
>>without finding WMDs.
>>
>
>
> You're asking the wrong question. Did Bush know BEFORE removing SH that
> there were no WMD? Even the liberal media thought he still had them. Do
> you dispute he did have them? This issue of whether GWB lied is dead.
> Your left with disliking him because he is a Republican.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Of course Bush knew there were no WMDs. He could scarcely conceal his
boredom when the UN Inspectors kept saying they had found nothing. He
was not interested because he already knew there was nothing to find
from years of overflying with spy planes and satellite observations.
Also that was not the real criterion he was working to anyway, just the
public one.

I knew there were no WMDs and said so on this NG. Millions of other
British, American, French, German, Spanish etc. people knew it too as
there was not a shred of evidence for WMDs. If you thought there were
any then you were naive enough to believe government propaganda. Does
that make me a Democrat, whatever that is? We don't have them in the UK.
We can tell truth from lies though.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Who knows.

I think it's because he doesn't represent us. He does what he pleases.

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> She's hot. Sorry.

You don't have to apologize. They say there's someone for everyone.
To each their own I guess.
With Halloween around the corner I'm seeing people all over the place
hanging up skeletons, you must be very excited. Nothing like a boney chest
to turn you on.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"MichaelC" <> wrote

>> Millions of other
>> British, American, French, German, Spanish etc. people knew it too as
>> there was not a shred of evidence for WMDs. If you thought there were
>> any then you were naive enough to believe government propaganda. Does
>> that make me a Democrat, whatever that is? We don't have them in the UK.
>> We can tell truth from lies though.
>
> I doesn't appear that way.

It most certainly appears that way.

> But, no matter -- what about the more important
> reasons for being over there? Know anything about the history of the
> region
> and the Muslim Salafist movement?

If you lost a brother, a son, a wife, a dad over there come back and ask us
if Iraq was what Bush made it out to be. There were no WMD found so he
swithched to how evil SH was, how oppressed the Iraqi people were. He said
whatever he thought would grow support for his mission. Billions out the
window, terrorists that weren't terrorists before, 2000 American kids blown
up, tens of thousands of Iraqi's blown up. Is it better now?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:di9bbr$8ec$
> NoEd wrote:
> > "larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
> > news:
> >
> >>NoEd wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>>'Bush is quoted as saying "We found the weapons of mass
> >>>destruction,"'
> >>
> >>>'Reading all of what Bush said makes clear he was referring
> >>>both to "weapons" and to "manufacturing facilities" and was
> >>>still clinging to what intelligence officials had told him
> >>>about Iraqi mobile laboratories that supposedly were used for >
> >>>manufacturing biological weapons.'
> >>
> >>>'In the end, neither weapons nor manufacturing facilities were > found.
> >>>Bush was wrong about the mobile laboratories, of
> >>>course.'
> >>
> >>So NoEd, are you saying that Baby Bush didn't lie because he was too
> >>stupid to know the truth?
> >
> >
> > I saying factcheck verified he didn't lie.
> >
> >
> >>I've asked many Baby Bush supporters this: If WMDs really had been
> >>found in Iraq, why hasn't Baby Bush come out and said, since the time
> >>U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said that no WMDs had been found, that
> >>WMDs had been found? I don't mean buried in the middle of a speech or
> >>with ambiguous weasel words ("weapons of mass destruction program
> >>related activity") but as the main part of an address to the whole
> >>nation. Why didn't he go on prime time TV and announce, "My fellow
> >>Americans, United States weapons inspectors have found weapons of mass
> >>destruction in Iraq, and this was why it was so important to remove
> >>Saddam Hussein from power". He hasn't said anything like that, and
> >>10,000 weapons inspectors have spent nearly a year and $600 million
> >>without finding WMDs.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You're asking the wrong question. Did Bush know BEFORE removing SH that
> > there were no WMD? Even the liberal media thought he still had them.
Do
> > you dispute he did have them? This issue of whether GWB lied is dead.
> > Your left with disliking him because he is a Republican.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Of course Bush knew there were no WMDs.

If it's as sure as you think it is, I expect articles of impeachment to be
filed tomorrow. If they are not, then that's simply opinion stated as if it
were fact, and in lieu of any evidence, it should be added.

> He could scarcely conceal his
> boredom when the UN Inspectors kept saying they had found nothing. He
> was not interested because he already knew there was nothing to find
> from years of overflying with spy planes and satellite observations.

I suspect what you picked up was boredom with having to answer the same
stupid questions from the press.

> Also that was not the real criterion he was working to anyway, just the
> public one.
>
> I knew there were no WMDs and said so on this NG.

You did? Clinton didn't know that. Nobody in the Senate knew that. Nobody in
the House of Reps knew that. Blair didn't know that.Chirac and Schroder
didn't know that. Putin didn't know that. All of these people are on record
as either explicitly confirming their belief that WMD were there, or
implicitly confirming their belief by saying they were waiting for UN
inspector confirmation of what they knew were there.

You might be asking the bigger question: why did all these people, both pro
and con on the invasion issue, conspire to all lie together? (Perhaps you've
stumbled on to a global conspiracy.)

> Millions of other
> British, American, French, German, Spanish etc. people knew it too as
> there was not a shred of evidence for WMDs. If you thought there were
> any then you were naive enough to believe government propaganda. Does
> that make me a Democrat, whatever that is? We don't have them in the UK.
> We can tell truth from lies though.

I doesn't appear that way.But, no matter -- what about the more important
reasons for being over there? Know anything about the history of the region
and the Muslim Salafist movement?

Mike

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "MichaelC" <> wrote
>
> >> Millions of other
> >> British, American, French, German, Spanish etc. people knew it too as
> >> there was not a shred of evidence for WMDs. If you thought there were
> >> any then you were naive enough to believe government propaganda. Does
> >> that make me a Democrat, whatever that is? We don't have them in the
UK.
> >> We can tell truth from lies though.
> >
> > I doesn't appear that way.
>
> It most certainly appears that way.
>
> > But, no matter -- what about the more important
> > reasons for being over there? Know anything about the history of the
> > region
> > and the Muslim Salafist movement?
>
> If you lost a brother, a son, a wife, a dad over there come back and ask
us
> if Iraq was what Bush made it out to be.

First of all, most people who "lost someone" are supportive of the war
effort. They are not wimps, and know that their "feelings" are not, and
should not, be the primary consideration when a President decides to take
the country to war.

Past that, I know exactly what Bush made it out to be. Prior to the
invasion, the NSC published a document (available on the White House website
since late 2002) called the Security Strategy of the United States of
America. It contains, among other things, chapters outlining the reasoning
and conditions of pre-emptive war, and the objective of spreading democracy
when it would enhance the security of the United States.

Having published said document, the MSM and the populace did what they
always do -- ignore substance, preferring to "understand" matters from
canned, sterilized, served-up-cold 20 second television sound bites rather
than do the hard work of unkinking the mess that foreign policies always
are. Ignorance is now bliss, since it permits Bush critics to ignore the
fact that the administration has been talking about democracy as a war goal
for going on three years, and any time (don't disappoint me, now) the
Security Policy is mentioned, the critics do the online equivalent of
sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "NANANANANA" at the top of
their lungs.

The pieces to the puzzle were laid out, both in the document and in
speeches, some of them LONG speeches. They promptly got boiled down to the
simplistic "WMD" by the MSM, first because it was easy to spell, but mostly
because you simply can't put certain explanations and reasoning into a
20-second span, which is all their editors would give them, because they had
to give more time to more important issues like what celebrity is being
tried for what crime.

> There were no WMD found so he
> swithched to how evil SH was, how oppressed the Iraqi people were. He said
> whatever he thought would grow support for his mission. Billions out the
> window, terrorists that weren't terrorists before, 2000 American kids
blown
> up, tens of thousands of Iraqi's blown up. Is it better now?

Not yet, but its a work in progress. Don't touch that dial.

Mike

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"MichaelC" <> wrote in message
news:xRX1f.1587$

> If it's as sure as you think it is, I expect articles of impeachment to be
> filed tomorrow. If they are not, then that's simply opinion stated as if
> it
> were fact, and in lieu of any evidence, it should be added.

In their wisdom, the members of congress realize that impeachment is not a
tool to be used lightly, certainly not for such things as starting wars or
wrecking the nation's economy, but only for extremely serious matters like
sexual play in the oval office.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"Don" <> wrote in message
news:uJZ1f.15036$
> "MichaelC" <> wrote in message
> news:xRX1f.1587$
>
> > If it's as sure as you think it is, I expect articles of impeachment to
be
> > filed tomorrow. If they are not, then that's simply opinion stated as if
> > it
> > were fact, and in lieu of any evidence, it should be added.
>
> In their wisdom, the members of congress realize that impeachment is not a
> tool to be used lightly, certainly not for such things as starting wars or
> wrecking the nation's economy, but only for extremely serious matters like
> sexual play in the oval office.

IIRC, no one's ever been impeached for sexual play in the Oval Office, but
for lying under oath.

Mike

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"MichaelC" <> wrote in message
news:0Y_1f.1841$

> IIRC, no one's ever been impeached for sexual play in the Oval Office, but
> for lying under oath.

Whatever. I guess lying about sex is worse than lying about wars and such.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"Don" <> wrote in message
news:uq%1f.17663$
> "MichaelC" <> wrote in message
> news:0Y_1f.1841$
>
> > IIRC, no one's ever been impeached for sexual play in the Oval Office,
but
> > for lying under oath.
>
> Whatever. I guess lying about sex is worse than lying about wars and such.

I guess proving you lied about anything under oath is worse than a
disgruntled minority thinking you lied without proof.

Mike

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"MichaelC" <> wrote in message
news:HD%1f.1852$

a
> disgruntled minority thinking you lied without proof.

That is similar to what a lot of people said in the early days of Watergate
and Nixon's troubles. Then, in time the minority swelled into a majority.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

On 2005-10-09, MichaelC <> wrote:
> IIRC, no one's ever been impeached for sexual play in the Oval Office, but
> for lying under oath.

The strange thing is that the things Clinton did that broke the law he
didn't get impeached for, and what he was impeached for he didn't do.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"Don" <> wrote in message
news:La02f.6445$
> "MichaelC" <> wrote in message
> news:HD%1f.1852$
>
> a
> > disgruntled minority thinking you lied without proof.
>
> That is similar to what a lot of people said in the early days of
Watergate
> and Nixon's troubles. Then, in time the minority swelled into a majority.

Yes, it is. Then E V I D E N C E was provided that P R O V E D the case in
the minds of the public, and the swelling happened, and the same thing will
happen again if E V I D E N C E appears, I have no doubt.

But, until that time, should such evidence appear, what we have (by
definition) is slander and character assasination.

But, you know, maybe you're just anxious for Dick Cheney to be president.

Mike

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"Greg Hennessy" <> wrote in message
news:
> On 2005-10-09, MichaelC <> wrote:
> > IIRC, no one's ever been impeached for sexual play in the Oval Office,
but
> > for lying under oath.
>
> The strange thing is that the things Clinton did that broke the law he
> didn't get impeached for, and what he was impeached for he didn't do.

The entire situation was surreal, as I recall it.

Mike

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

hi, ed. well this is certainly not the fund alarm board. i see lots of
laughs couped with insights. i am trying to control my posts because i
am almost out of my leauge here. one of theese days i might let it rip.
what do you think, ed? should i post or be silent? neutron

ps. where is the spell check for these boards? thanks. chocolate peanut.

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

how do you tell when george bush lies. answer; his lips move neutron
the chocolate peanut

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

MichaelC wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:di9bbr$8ec$
>
{Snip}
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Of course Bush knew there were no WMDs.
>
>
> If it's as sure as you think it is, I expect articles of impeachment to be
> filed tomorrow. If they are not, then that's simply opinion stated as if it
> were fact, and in lieu of any evidence, it should be added.
>
I would think that millions would like Bush and Blair to be put on trial
for war crimes over their unjustified and illegal attack on Iraq and the
100,000 or so deaths that have resulted. However, they and their
supporters retain control and it will not happen.
>
>>He could scarcely conceal his
>>boredom when the UN Inspectors kept saying they had found nothing. He
>>was not interested because he already knew there was nothing to find
>>from years of overflying with spy planes and satellite observations.
>
>
> I suspect what you picked up was boredom with having to answer the same
> stupid questions from the press.
>
>
>>Also that was not the real criterion he was working to anyway, just the
>>public one.
>>
>>I knew there were no WMDs and said so on this NG.
>
>
> You did? Clinton didn't know that. Nobody in the Senate knew that. Nobody in
> the House of Reps knew that. Blair didn't know that.Chirac and Schroder
> didn't know that. Putin didn't know that. All of these people are on record
> as either explicitly confirming their belief that WMD were there, or
> implicitly confirming their belief by saying they were waiting for UN
> inspector confirmation of what they knew were there.
>
Joshka Fischer the German minister, for one, stood up at the UN and said
bluntly that he just did not believe the case for WMDs because there was
no evidence for it. Hans Blix, the chief UN Inspector said the same
after 100 or so of his UN arms inspectors had been to hundreds of
possible sites in Iraq over about 4 months and found nothing. These
sites were the "most probable" ones according to US and UK intelligence.
I could find US WMDs in about 10 minutes today by driving to the local
US air force base near my house in the UK. It would not take 100
inspectors 4 months!

Obviously Schroeder, Chirac and Putin did not believe their was any
significant threat from Iraq because they opposed the war and refused to
back a further UN resolution in favour of it. Equally Blair did not
believe in it either as he had totally failed to fins any evidence for
WMDs and had to resort to cobbling together a completely false
"Brochure" which was almost immediately discredited and to lying to
Parliament about it.

The arms inspectors must have been running out of places to look. Bush
and Blair were not interested as they knew there were no WMDs but they
had to try to maintain the public story and it was a major problem for
them that it was all crumbling away. Blair kept trying to shift his
ground for the war to what an evil man SH was but the UK press kept
bringing him back to his WMD claims. He is still seen as a liar by a
majority of the British people according to polls.

> You might be asking the bigger question: why did all these people, both pro
> and con on the invasion issue, conspire to all lie together? (Perhaps you've
> stumbled on to a global conspiracy.)
>
>
>>Millions of other
>>British, American, French, German, Spanish etc. people knew it too as
>>there was not a shred of evidence for WMDs. If you thought there were
>>any then you were naive enough to believe government propaganda. Does
>>that make me a Democrat, whatever that is? We don't have them in the UK.
>>We can tell truth from lies though.
>
>
> I doesn't appear that way.But, no matter -- what about the more important
> reasons for being over there? Know anything about the history of the region
> and the Muslim Salafist movement?
>
There are no more important reasons. It is up to the Iraqis how they run
their affairs, what system of government they choose and who is in
power, provided they do not attack other countries. It is no business of
the USA or the UK or any other country. There is no excuse for US
aggression.

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

"neutron" <> wrote

> hi, ed. well this is certainly not the fund alarm board. i see lots of
> laughs couped with insights. i am trying to control my posts because i
> am almost out of my leauge here. one of theese days i might let it rip.
> what do you think, ed? should i post or be silent? neutron
>
> ps. where is the spell check for these boards? thanks. chocolate peanut.

This board is kind of a free-for-all. It's not moderated as you can tell.
You can post anytime you want to about anything you want to. It will get
posted and you might be verbally attacked.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"MichaelC" <> wrote

> First of all, most people who "lost someone" are supportive of the war
> effort. They are not wimps, and know that their "feelings" are not, and
> should not, be the primary consideration when a President decides to take
> the country to war.

Where did you get that information?

> Past that, I know exactly what Bush made it out to be. Prior to the
> invasion, the NSC published a document (available on the White House
> website
> since late 2002) called the Security Strategy of the United States of
> America. It contains, among other things, chapters outlining the reasoning
> and conditions of pre-emptive war, and the objective of spreading
> democracy
> when it would enhance the security of the United States.

That's the joke, and a sad joke it is. Bush used 9/11 as a catalyst to gain
support for his invation. There were NO IRAQI'S involved in 9/11. They had
NO WMD. The US was unprovoked by Iraq.

The minority that was against the Bush war has become the majority. Why is
that?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:diae6j$g32$
> MichaelC wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:di9bbr$8ec$
> >
> {Snip}
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Of course Bush knew there were no WMDs.
> >
> >
> > If it's as sure as you think it is, I expect articles of impeachment to
be
> > filed tomorrow. If they are not, then that's simply opinion stated as if
it
> > were fact, and in lieu of any evidence, it should be added.
> >
> I would think that millions would like Bush and Blair to be put on trial
> for war crimes over their unjustified and illegal attack on Iraq and the
> 100,000 or so deaths that have resulted. However, they and their
> supporters retain control and it will not happen.

Well, that's nothing new. The Malta Conference sold millions of Eastern
Europeans into slavery and death at the hands of the Stalinists, but we
still consider FDR one of our greatest presidents, even though if he had
kept his political fingers from manipulating silver prices, we might have
been able to sit out the war without anyone bothering us.

Of course, all the Jews would have been wiped out, but since you don't care
about Iraqis being mass murdered by Hussein, I'd guess that the Holocaust
wouldn't bother you much, either.

Both actions AND inactions have repercussions. People who cannot stomach
viewing negative repurcussions of any sort, or refuse to look at the larger
pictures which balance positives and negatives, oughtn't, in my mind, watch
politics. They are ill-equipped to do so.

> >
> >>He could scarcely conceal his
> >>boredom when the UN Inspectors kept saying they had found nothing. He
> >>was not interested because he already knew there was nothing to find
> >>from years of overflying with spy planes and satellite observations.
> >
> >
> > I suspect what you picked up was boredom with having to answer the same

> > stupid questions from the press.
> >
> >
> >>Also that was not the real criterion he was working to anyway, just the
> >>public one.
> >>
> >>I knew there were no WMDs and said so on this NG.
> >
> >
> > You did? Clinton didn't know that. Nobody in the Senate knew that.
Nobody in
> > the House of Reps knew that. Blair didn't know that.Chirac and Schroder
> > didn't know that. Putin didn't know that. All of these people are on
record
> > as either explicitly confirming their belief that WMD were there, or
> > implicitly confirming their belief by saying they were waiting for UN
> > inspector confirmation of what they knew were there.
> >
> Joshka Fischer the German minister, for one, stood up at the UN and said
> bluntly that he just did not believe the case for WMDs because there was
> no evidence for it.

For one.

> Hans Blix, the chief UN Inspector said the same
> after 100 or so of his UN arms inspectors had been to hundreds of
> possible sites in Iraq over about 4 months and found nothing. These
> sites were the "most probable" ones according to US and UK intelligence.
> I could find US WMDs in about 10 minutes today by driving to the local
> US air force base near my house in the UK. It would not take 100
> inspectors 4 months!

You seem to have forgotten about Hussein's bait and switch games with the
inspectors. By making these statements whilst still admitting that the
Iraqis were tapping their phone lines, that they were obviously expected
whereever they went to inspect, that they didn't have access to all the
documents they wanted, Blix looked like a fool for believing what he did,
and Hussein, inexplicable, "played guilty." These facts MUST be calcuated in
to the overall equation as to why Blix did not recieve his due, if an
accurate picture of the history is to be built.

Secondarily, yes, we know you can find a nuclear bomb if you want to find
one. They're big. There were also looking for bioweapons. They're not big.
>
> Obviously Schroeder, Chirac and Putin did not believe their was any
> significant threat from Iraq because they opposed the war and refused to
> back a further UN resolution in favour of it.

Not obviously. The financial interests of many recipients of the
oil-for-food program, and the financial interests of France, Germany, and
Russia in Iraq were/are also a credible reason why they opposed. (Is there a
country in the world under economic sanctions that the French aren't doing
business with the day AFTER the sanctions are imposed? For their moribund
economy, sanctions are their only growth industry.)

> Equally Blair did not
> believe in it either as he had totally failed to fins any evidence for
> WMDs and had to resort to cobbling together a completely false
> "Brochure" which was almost immediately discredited and to lying to
> Parliament about it.

I'll have to take your word on that, not being abreast of UK politics. If
you've accurately stated the "discredited and lying" accusations, I'd say
your biggest problem isn't Blair, it's the electorate.

>
> The arms inspectors must have been running out of places to look. Bush
> and Blair were not interested as they knew there were no WMDs but they
> had to try to maintain the public story and it was a major problem for
> them that it was all crumbling away. Blair kept trying to shift his
> ground for the war to what an evil man SH was but the UK press kept
> bringing him back to his WMD claims. He is still seen as a liar by a
> majority of the British people according to polls.

What the British think is not germane, and the reasons OTHER than WMD that
were stated before invasion are still factual, and the fact that the UK
press (like the US press) stayed "stuck on stupid" by "bringing him back to
his WMD claims" (which is another way of saying "we've already made up our
minds, don't confuse us with facts) is not to their credit.
>
> > You might be asking the bigger question: why did all these people, both
pro
> > and con on the invasion issue, conspire to all lie together? (Perhaps
you've
> > stumbled on to a global conspiracy.)
> >
> >
> >>Millions of other
> >>British, American, French, German, Spanish etc. people knew it too as
> >>there was not a shred of evidence for WMDs. If you thought there were
> >>any then you were naive enough to believe government propaganda. Does
> >>that make me a Democrat, whatever that is? We don't have them in the UK.
> >>We can tell truth from lies though.
> >
> >
> > I doesn't appear that way.But, no matter -- what about the more
important
> > reasons for being over there? Know anything about the history of the
region
> > and the Muslim Salafist movement?
> >
> There are no more important reasons.

Yes, ignorance is bliss.

Mike

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"MichaelC" <> wrote

> Of course, all the Jews would have been wiped out, but since you don't
> care
> about Iraqis being mass murdered by Hussein, I'd guess that the Holocaust
> wouldn't bother you much, either.

What kind of stupid statement is that?
How does SH behavior in his own country threaten us?
How does it justify the invasion of a country?
Who killed more Iraqi's, SH or the U.S.?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

David Wilkinson wrote:

> Of course Bush knew there were no WMDs. He could scarcely conceal his
> boredom when the UN Inspectors kept saying they had found nothing. He
> was not interested because he already knew there was nothing to find
> from years of overflying with spy planes and satellite observations.

Baby Bush is one of the least-honest U.S. presidents, but I'm afraid
you're grossly underestimating his ignorance and stupidity. Even the
U.S. State Department's intelligence agency, which has had a better
track record than the CIA or DIA, thought that Iraq possessed
non-nuclear WMDs. But many sensible experts who assumed the same,
including Colin Powell, didn't consider Iraq to be a threat anyway.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "MichaelC" <> wrote
>
> > Of course, all the Jews would have been wiped out, but since you don't
> > care
> > about Iraqis being mass murdered by Hussein, I'd guess that the
Holocaust
> > wouldn't bother you much, either.
>
> What kind of stupid statement is that?

Concern for humanity ought to transcend the situation, is the point. Ethical
behavior is ethical behavior, oughtn't change according to circumstance.

> How does SH behavior in his own country threaten us?

Is that your criteria for intervention? Your own personal well being? You
don't think that's a little narcissistic?

> How does it justify the invasion of a country?
> Who killed more Iraqi's, SH or the U.S.?

Don't know. Why doesn't totalitarianism bother you?

Mike

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

MichaelC wrote:

> IIRC, no one's ever been impeached for sexual play in the Oval Office, but
> for lying under oath.

Don't be so naive. That's like saying Martha Stewart was jailed for
lying to prosecutors, not for exploiting inside information --
technically true but beside the real point.

The extremists among the Republicans knew all along that Clinton's
Achille's heel was sex. and they did everything in their power to
exploit that in their attacks. There would have been no impeachment
without sex.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"MichaelC" <> wrote in message
news:Xy92f.15$
>
> Don't know. {snip}
> Mike
>
>

My father taught me: If you don't know what you are talking about,
keep your mouth shut and listen.

My grandfather taught me: This world has more horse's asses,
than horses.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Ed wrote:
> "MichaelC" <> wrote
>
>
>>Of course, all the Jews would have been wiped out, but since you don't
>>care
>>about Iraqis being mass murdered by Hussein, I'd guess that the Holocaust
>>wouldn't bother you much, either.
>
>
> What kind of stupid statement is that?
> How does SH behavior in his own country threaten us?
> How does it justify the invasion of a country?
> Who killed more Iraqi's, SH or the U.S.?
>
>
>
And what has the holocaust got to do with Iraq or anything under
discussion? I can see why he wants to change the subject, having lost
the argument over Iraq, but dragging in something completely unrelated
that happened in Germany 60 years ago seems pointless. What do we get
next? The boxer rising? The French Revolution? Atilla the Hun? Ghengiz
Khan? Did these all justify Bush attacking Iraq?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> MichaelC wrote:
>
> > IIRC, no one's ever been impeached for sexual play in the Oval Office,
but
> > for lying under oath.
>
> Don't be so naive. That's like saying Martha Stewart was jailed for
> lying to prosecutors, not for exploiting inside information --
> technically true but beside the real point.

If its factual, it's not naive.
>
> The extremists among the Republicans knew all along that Clinton's
> Achille's heel was sex. and they did everything in their power to
> exploit that in their attacks. There would have been no impeachment
> without sex.

Tell me what they finally convicted Al Capone on. Murder? Racketeering?
Robbery?

Mike

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

The problem with our Iraqi policy has been a lack of common sense by
our government, like the bad scientist who believes that the frog he
trained to jump on command won't jump after its legs have been chopped
off because it's become deaf, not because it has no legs.

Saddam was about as dangerous as a rabid pit bull that was defanged,
declawed, held on a short leash of heavy steel, surrounded by a high
voltage electric fence behind a mine field with snipers ready to shoot
if the dog tried to escape. IOW he was under control and harmless to
the outside world, and when a dog like that barks, it's best to simply
ignore it.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dib97v$416$
> Ed wrote:
> > "MichaelC" <> wrote
> >
> >
> >>Of course, all the Jews would have been wiped out, but since you don't
> >>care
> >>about Iraqis being mass murdered by Hussein, I'd guess that the
Holocaust
> >>wouldn't bother you much, either.
> >
> >
> > What kind of stupid statement is that?
> > How does SH behavior in his own country threaten us?
> > How does it justify the invasion of a country?
> > Who killed more Iraqi's, SH or the U.S.?
> >
> >
> >
> And what has the holocaust got to do with Iraq or anything under
> discussion? I can see why he wants to change the subject, having lost
> the argument over Iraq,

Oh, you can "win" an argument by simply snipping out all your opponents
pointss? :-)



> but dragging in something completely unrelated
> that happened in Germany 60 years ago seems pointless.

Only if you believe that it's ethically consistent to oppose one monster and
ignore another on the grounds that you own precious skin isn't at risk.
Personally, I try to have more character than that.

Mike

What do we get
> next? The boxer rising? The French Revolution? Atilla the Hun? Ghengiz
> Khan? Did these all justify Bush attacking Iraq?

I see I'll have to use smaller

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"Gary C" <> wrote in message
news:4J92f.34$
>
> "MichaelC" <> wrote in message
> news:Xy92f.15$
> >
> > Don't know. {snip}
> > Mike
> >
> >
>
> My father taught me: If you don't know what you are talking about,
> keep your mouth shut and listen.
>
> My grandfather taught me: This world has more horse's asses,
> than horses.


Sorry, I should have said "Your question is irrelevant to the point.
Military action cannot be judged solely on body counts."

Hope that helps.

Mike

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> And what has the holocaust got to do with Iraq or anything under
> discussion? I can see why he wants to change the subject, having lost the
> argument over Iraq, but dragging in something completely unrelated

That's what I like so much about Herb!! He's expert at that exact practice.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"MichaelC" <> wrote

>> but dragging in something completely unrelated
>> that happened in Germany 60 years ago seems pointless.
>
> Only if you believe that it's ethically consistent to oppose one monster
> and
> ignore another on the grounds that you own precious skin isn't at risk.
> Personally, I try to have more character than that.

Then you've got a big long list for your president don't you.
It's been named the Department of Defense not the Department of Offense. I
like it that way.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

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

>
>
> 'Bush is quoted as saying "We found the weapons of mass
> destruction,"'

> 'Reading all of what Bush said makes clear he was referring
> both to "weapons" and to "manufacturing facilities" and was
> still clinging to what intelligence officials had told him
> about Iraqi mobile laboratories that supposedly were used for
> manufacturing biological weapons.'

> 'In the end, neither weapons nor manufacturing facilities
> were found. Bush was wrong about the mobile laboratories, of
> course.'

> > So NoEd, are you saying that Baby Bush didn't lie because he was too
> > stupid to know the truth?
>
> I saying factcheck verified he didn't lie.

Maybe technically. After all "weapons of mass destruction program
related activity" can refer to weapons scientists just shooting the
breeze about their good ol' days of gassing the Kurds. But in the more
important sense, Baby Bush didn't tell the truth, and he absolutely had
to know this after David Kay publicly said that no WMDs had been found.

> > I've asked many Baby Bush supporters this: If WMDs really had been
> > found in Iraq, why hasn't Baby Bush come out and said, since the time
> > U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said that no WMDs had been found, that
> > WMDs had been found? I don't mean buried in the middle of a speech or
> > with ambiguous weasel words ("weapons of mass destruction program
> > related activity") but as the main part of an address to the whole
> > nation. Why didn't he go on prime time TV and announce, "My fellow
> > Americans, United States weapons inspectors have found weapons of mass
> > destruction in Iraq, and this was why it was so important to remove
> > Saddam Hussein from power".

> You're asking the wrong question. Did Bush know BEFORE removing SH that
> there were no WMD? Even the liberal media thought he still had them. Do
> you dispute he did have them? This issue of whether GWB lied is dead.

Baby Bush's credibility is a dead issue only in the sense that he's
obviously a master of the art of lying an could have mentored not only
Clinton but also Nixon in the subject. His credibility about Iraq an
terrorism is central to our moral authority in the world because we
won't be respected without moral authority, meaning we'll get a lot
less cooperation and aid in the worldwide fight against terrorism or,
worse, in any war against China. You small-minded Chamber of Commerce
types should have thought about that, but instead you're stuck in the
simple-minded basement that sees the whole world in terms of football
games.

Before the Iraqi war, I thought Saddam probably had some chemical and
biological weapons (easy to make), but I was sure he had no nukes (hard
to make). But I believed, as Colin Powell did, that Saddam was no
threat to us because he was under control, something that having half
your country under heavily patrolled no-fly zones will do, and it was
obvious that he wasn't aiding terrorists (Pan Arab Nationalists, like
Saddam, hate Islamist zealots), and even the CIA said Iraq was only one
of two Middle Eastern nations without an al Quada presense, the other
being Israel.

> Your left with disliking him because he is a Republican.

My father hates Baby Bush much more than I do, and he's a lifelong
Republican, from an ancestory that includes founders of the Republican
party. I'm an independent who voted for Republican Bob Dole for
President in 1996 and against Democrat Bill Clinton. So your statement
is false, and you shouldn't make so many kneejerk ASSumptions.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Why did Hitler's behavior in Europe threaten us?


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "MichaelC" <> wrote
>
>> Of course, all the Jews would have been wiped out, but since you don't
>> care
>> about Iraqis being mass murdered by Hussein, I'd guess that the Holocaust
>> wouldn't bother you much, either.
>
> What kind of stupid statement is that?
> How does SH behavior in his own country threaten us?
> How does it justify the invasion of a country?
> Who killed more Iraqi's, SH or the U.S.?
>
>
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

MichealC,

David W thinks the US is a terrorist nation, Ed is completely crazy, and the
other guy is a drunk. They don't understand that defeating evil is a moral
imperative. I'm surprised they haven't started pointing out your typos.
David didn't want to address the moral question you raised, which I have
raised many times. He new he was trapped; therefore, he attempt to distort
your point.


"MichaelC" <> wrote in message
news:EX92f.18$
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dib97v$416$
>> Ed wrote:
>> > "MichaelC" <> wrote
>> >
>> >
>> >>Of course, all the Jews would have been wiped out, but since you don't
>> >>care
>> >>about Iraqis being mass murdered by Hussein, I'd guess that the
> Holocaust
>> >>wouldn't bother you much, either.
>> >
>> >
>> > What kind of stupid statement is that?
>> > How does SH behavior in his own country threaten us?
>> > How does it justify the invasion of a country?
>> > Who killed more Iraqi's, SH or the U.S.?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> And what has the holocaust got to do with Iraq or anything under
>> discussion? I can see why he wants to change the subject, having lost
>> the argument over Iraq,
>
> Oh, you can "win" an argument by simply snipping out all your opponents
> pointss? :-)
>
>
>
>> but dragging in something completely unrelated
>> that happened in Germany 60 years ago seems pointless.
>
> Only if you believe that it's ethically consistent to oppose one monster
> and
> ignore another on the grounds that you own precious skin isn't at risk.
> Personally, I try to have more character than that.
>
> Mike
>
> What do we get
>> next? The boxer rising? The French Revolution? Atilla the Hun? Ghengiz
>> Khan? Did these all justify Bush attacking Iraq?
>
> I see I'll have to use smaller
>
>
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote
> Why did Hitler's behavior in Europe threaten us?

That doesn't deserve a response.

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

NoEd wrote:

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

>>> And that Ann Coulter that you think is so hot, she looks anorexic to me.
>>> She
>>> can't weigh more than 80 pounds. She should purge on you.
>>>
>>>
>>> She needs someone to take care of her. She's sick and it's not limited to
>>> her body.

> > Apparently she's one of those sexually ambiguous people, and the poor
> > regulation of her hormone pills, along with a cocaine habit, causes her
> > to act crazy. Many closeted homosexual men find her attractive,
> > including Rush Limbaugh (his old nights in Philadelphia).

> Apparently you to have a problem with good looking aggressive women.

Name some. Ann Coulter doesn't count because she's not good-looking,
and it's possible that she's not really a woman. Besides who would be
attracted to anybody with Rush Limbaugh's loutish personality? OTOH if
you're really into touch chicks, here's the real deal:



> I was not surprised that Ed did; he knows women like that
> will expose his many weaknesses,

Not being attracted to anyone who produces sperm is not a weakness.

> i.e. a tough veneer that can be cracked like an egg shell. But
> the fact still remains, Bush did not lie.

Baby Bush has lied and lied and lied all his life. He never had to
work or tell the truth, and he took that priviledge and didn't put in
any effort that he didn't absolutely have to. He's never earned an
honest living or accomplished anything on his own (maintaining sobriety
is not an accomplishment).

> Ann Coulter has no problem attracting men.

Only masochists, gays, and fans of body dysmorphia. Back when I rode
the bus every day, I'd often see a transexual, and Ann Coulter looks a
lot like her than real women.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

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

> > How does SH behavior in his own country threaten us?
>
> Is that your criteria for intervention? Your own personal well being? You
> don't think that's a little narcissistic?

You can't be the world's policeman unless you're a superpower, and in
real life there's no such thing as a superpower that can impose justice
at will, at least not with the level of will we have.

When did you serve in the military? I never have, and I admit to being
a coward.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote

> David W thinks the US is a terrorist nation, Ed is completely crazy, and
> the other guy is a drunk. They don't understand that defeating evil is a
> moral imperative. I'm surprised they haven't started pointing out your
> typos. David didn't want to address the moral question you raised, which I
> have raised many times. He new he was trapped; therefore, he attempt to
> distort your point.

Sometimes I think you're serious, then I think, nah he can't be.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote

> You can't be the world's policeman unless you're a superpower, and in
> real life there's no such thing as a superpower that can impose justice
> at will, at least not with the level of will we have.

That sounds an awful lot like totalitarianism. I think Michael is against
that.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"MichaelC" <> wrote in message
news:Zb12f.13779$

> But, you know, maybe you're just anxious for Dick Cheney to be president.

Perhaps

Bush:Cheney::Nixon:Agnew

Time will tell.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

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

> IIRC, no one's ever been impeached for sexual play in the Oval Office,
> but for lying under oath.

> > Don't be so naive. That's like saying Martha Stewart was jailed for
> > lying to prosecutors, not for exploiting inside information --
> > technically true but beside the real point.
>
> If its factual, it's not naive.

It's factual, like saying that a human being is just a bunch of atoms.

It's naive, like saying that a human being is just a bunch of atoms.

> > The extremists among the Republicans knew all along that Clinton's
> > Achille's heel was sex. and they did everything in their power to
> > exploit that in their attacks. There would have been no impeachment
> > without sex.
>
> Tell me what they finally convicted Al Capone on. Murder? Racketeering?
> Robbery?

There would have been no tax charges against Capone if he hadn't
committed murder, robbery, or racketeering.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:

> Why did Hitler's behavior in Europe threaten us?

He had the most powerful military force in the world, was in the
process of invading and occupying several nations without provocation,
was allied with another militaristic power that was doing the same in
the Far East that had directly attacked us, and Germany wanted to
attack us as well (with an upgraded V-2 rocket, developed at twice the
cost of the U.S. atomic bomb). It's obvious that Iraq hardly compares
to WWII Germany, being far weaker, far less imperialistic (in action if
not in mind), and far less competent.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

MichaelC wrote:
> Well, that's nothing new. The Malta Conference sold millions of Eastern
> Europeans into slavery and death at the hands of the Stalinists, but we
> still consider FDR one of our greatest presidents, even though if he had
> kept his political fingers from manipulating silver prices, we might have
> been able to sit out the war without anyone bothering us.

Read most of Solzenitzen, including the Gulag Archipelago. I remember
later when he was considered on the guest list for a White House party,
how Nancy Reagen dismissed him for being "too dour";--even if his
reception on Moscow airwaves didn't fair long, either, I was smitten.

> Of course, all the Jews would have been wiped out, but since you don't care
> about Iraqis being mass murdered by Hussein, I'd guess that the Holocaust
> wouldn't bother you much, either.

I watched Buried in the Sand - The Deception of America, David Wald,
Narrated by Mark Taylor. You're right about watching politics - it's
not everyone's cup of tea. Rather a nice cozy fire with Camus or
Kafka.

> Both actions AND inactions have repercussions. People who cannot stomach
> viewing negative repurcussions of any sort, or refuse to look at the larger
> pictures which balance positives and negatives, oughtn't, in my mind, watch
> politics. They are ill-equipped to do so.

Oh, it's no doubt deeper, endlessly so, though I'll settle for Satre in
that regard.

> These facts MUST be calcuated in
> to the overall equation as to why Blix did not recieve his due, if an
> accurate picture of the history is to be built.

Very good - though I doubt it will assume Byzantium or French
Revolutionary proportions.

> (Is there a
> country in the world under economic sanctions that the French aren't doing
> business with the day AFTER the sanctions are imposed? For their moribund
> economy, sanctions are their only growth industry.)

Haven't watched that one yet, Gillo Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers.

> What the British think is not germane, and the reasons OTHER than WMD that
> were stated before invasion are still factual, and the fact that the UK
> press (like the US press) stayed "stuck on stupid" by "bringing him back to
> his WMD claims" (which is another way of saying "we've already made up our
> minds, don't confuse us with facts) is not to their credit.

What I'm really struck by is all the inadvertant analogies I see here
and from Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.

> > > and the Muslim Salafist movement?

Saddam's inception and rise through the ranks as henchman-executioner
extraoridinary; a cause his stepfather introduced him to, whom, for
whatever reason, he later murdered?

(I know I've more than likely blundered too ignorantly through the
last, but coming off Tibet and the Dali Lama, around apartheid and Idi
Amin Dada, into Kosovo for ethnic cleansing, genocide and massacres,
out of Kuwait, back into Iraq, this Salafist is something strange to
someone who doesn't subscribe to television.)

-It's a national brithright given the soldier to bitch. -General H.
Norman Schwarzkopf.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

MichaelC wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dib97v$416$
> > Ed wrote:

> > but dragging in something completely unrelated
> > that happened in Germany 60 years ago seems pointless.
>
> Only if you believe that it's ethically consistent to oppose one monster and
> ignore another on the grounds that your own precious skin isn't at risk.
> Personally, I try to have more character than that.

So why did we choose to fight a relatively weak enemy, Iraq, instead of
a much stronger one that seemed to pose a much more serious risk to us,
North Korea?

And which evil do you fight when you can't fight all evil?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
> MichaelC wrote:
>
>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>news:dib97v$416$
>>
>>>Ed wrote:
>
>
>>>but dragging in something completely unrelated
>>>that happened in Germany 60 years ago seems pointless.
>>
>>Only if you believe that it's ethically consistent to oppose one monster and
>>ignore another on the grounds that your own precious skin isn't at risk.
>>Personally, I try to have more character than that.
>
>
> So why did we choose to fight a relatively weak enemy, Iraq, instead of
> a much stronger one that seemed to pose a much more serious risk to us,
> North Korea?
>
That's easy. North Korea has a million troops under arms and they look
well armed and effective. The US has lost twice in that part of the
world and has no certainty of winning at a third attempt. Also North
Korea has no oil so it would be a lot of hassle for nothing. Better to
go for trade sanctions and try to ruin their economy so they can't even
potentially compete with the USA.

More to the point as self-styled "world policeman", why not take on
China? They have a bad human rights record including the various
"revolutions" under Mao and more recently the violent suppression of
incipient democracy at Tienanmen square and they threaten US ally
Taiwan. Hmmm... Perhaps not. They have even more troops than North Korea
and just as well trained, and the bomb, and there are a hell of a lot of
them.

No, just go for someone the US can easily beat (or thought they could!)
who has loads of oil. Like taking candy from a baby!

> And which evil do you fight when you can't fight all evil?
>
You don't really believe that do you? It's just a spin put on US foreign
policy.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat. SH was a far greater
threat.


"larry moe 'n curly" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> Why did Hitler's behavior in Europe threaten us?
>
> He had the most powerful military force in the world,

So.

was in the
> process of invading and occupying several nations without provocation,

That was Europe's problem.

> was allied with another militaristic power that was doing the same in
> the Far East that had directly attacked us, and Germany wanted to
> attack us as well (with an upgraded V-2 rocket, developed at twice the
> cost of the U.S. atomic bomb).

But there was no direct attack the US. Hitler, under your moral compass,
was no threat.

It's obvious that Iraq hardly compares
> to WWII Germany, being far weaker, far less imperialistic (in action if
> not in mind), and far less competent.
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

I'm very serious.

"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> David W thinks the US is a terrorist nation, Ed is completely crazy, and
>> the other guy is a drunk. They don't understand that defeating evil is a
>> moral imperative. I'm surprised they haven't started pointing out your
>> typos. David didn't want to address the moral question you raised, which
>> I have raised many times. He new he was trapped; therefore, he attempt
>> to distort your point.
>
> Sometimes I think you're serious, then I think, nah he can't be.
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dibin4$ci$
> larry moe 'n curly wrote:
>> MichaelC wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:dib97v$416$
>>>
>>>>Ed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>but dragging in something completely unrelated
>>>>that happened in Germany 60 years ago seems pointless.
>>>
>>>Only if you believe that it's ethically consistent to oppose one monster
>>>and
>>>ignore another on the grounds that your own precious skin isn't at risk.
>>>Personally, I try to have more character than that.
>>
>>
>> So why did we choose to fight a relatively weak enemy, Iraq, instead of
>> a much stronger one that seemed to pose a much more serious risk to us,
>> North Korea?
>>
> That's easy. North Korea has a million troops under arms and they look
> well armed and effective. The US has lost twice in that part of the world
> and has no certainty of winning at a third attempt. Also North Korea has
> no oil so it would be a lot of hassle for nothing. Better to go for trade
> sanctions and try to ruin their economy so they can't even potentially
> compete with the USA.

No. The middle east is a more important region for the US. It has nothing
to do with 1950's.

>
> More to the point as self-styled "world policeman", why not take on China?
> They have a bad human rights record including the various "revolutions"
> under Mao and more recently the violent suppression of incipient democracy
> at Tienanmen square and they threaten US ally Taiwan. Hmmm... Perhaps not.
> They have even more troops than North Korea and just as well trained, and
> the bomb, and there are a hell of a lot of them.

All fights cannot be faught. China is a very large trading partner. So you
point is that if all evil is eliminated then no evil should be eliminated?
Also, all conflicts should be approached the same way? Remember Reagan won
the cold war without firing a shot.


>
> No, just go for someone the US can easily beat (or thought they could!)
> who has loads of oil. Like taking candy from a baby!

Are you defending SH?


>
>> And which evil do you fight when you can't fight all evil?
>>
> You don't really believe that do you? It's just a spin put on US foreign

> policy.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote
> But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat. SH was a far greater
> threat.

He was no threat at all. None. You're an idiot.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Ed wrote:
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>>But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat. SH was a far greater
>>threat.
>
>
> He was no threat at all. None. You're an idiot.
>
>
It makes you wonder how old NoEd is and whether he has ever had a
history lesson or read a book. Saying Hitler was no threat while Saddam
was is about as wrong as you can get. Like saying black is white, but he
probably says that too.

He has probably never heard of world war two or how that nice,
unthreatening Mr Hitler's werhmacht over-ran most of Europe, except the
UK, and Russia, killed millions and attempted the genocide of the Jews.
How he linked up with Italy and Japan and invaded Africa and most of the
far East and eventually even attacked the US at Pearl Harbour. How he
invented and used the V1 and V2 missiles and was developing the jet
fighter and atomic bomb. It took the combined forces of the USA, UK,
Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries to
finally defeat him over a 6-year war with vast destruction throughout
Europe and many millions of lives lost. Doesn't NoEd know anything?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> It makes you wonder how old NoEd is and whether he has ever had a history
> lesson or read a book. Saying Hitler was no threat while Saddam was is
> about as wrong as you can get. Like saying black is white, but he probably
> says that too.
>
> He has probably never heard of world war two or how that nice,
> unthreatening Mr Hitler's werhmacht over-ran most of Europe, except the
> UK, and Russia, killed millions and attempted the genocide of the Jews.
> How he linked up with Italy and Japan and invaded Africa and most of the
> far East and eventually even attacked the US at Pearl Harbour. How he
> invented and used the V1 and V2 missiles and was developing the jet
> fighter and atomic bomb. It took the combined forces of the USA, UK,
> Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries to finally
> defeat him over a 6-year war with vast destruction throughout Europe and
> many millions of lives lost. Doesn't NoEd know anything?

I'm just really happy that he's No-Ed.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dibsg8$5i9$

[snip trolls]

> >
> It makes you wonder how old NoEd is and whether he has ever had a
> history lesson or read a book. Saying Hitler was no threat while Saddam
> was is about as wrong as you can get. Like saying black is white, but he
> probably says that too.
>
> He has probably never heard of world war two or how that nice,
> unthreatening Mr Hitler's werhmacht over-ran most of Europe, except the
> UK, and Russia, killed millions and attempted the genocide of the Jews.
> How he linked up with Italy and Japan and invaded Africa and most of the
> far East and eventually even attacked the US at Pearl Harbour. How he
> invented and used the V1 and V2 missiles and was developing the jet
> fighter and atomic bomb. It took the combined forces of the USA, UK,
> Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries to
> finally defeat him over a 6-year war with vast destruction throughout
> Europe and many millions of lives lost. Doesn't NoEd know anything?

David:

One wonders wheter or not you have read a history book, as well.

The alliance between Germany and Japan was nothing more than a piece of
paper. There were no joint operations nor coordination of decision making.
Like the UN charter it was not worth the paper it was printed on.

The simple fact is that Nazi Germany declared war on the United States.

This strategic blunder was undertaken after Pearl Harbor in the vain hope
that Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the Soviet Union. Becasue
they didn't even consider such a move, Stalin was able to move a hundred or
so divisions from the east to the west.

What was left of British forces (then including her "dominions" of Canada,
Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) participated but it was the
"combined forces" of the United States and the Soviet Union that defeated
Germany.

-herb

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

I guess this means that off-topic (i.e. politics) are allowed on this
board. Well I'm from Massachusetts so we don't discriminate against
women who look like men. Even anemic women. Or women that want to marry
women. My employer has added gender identity to our discrimation
policy. Since I have to uphold the policy, I will not make any
derogatory remarks about Anne C. When my employer adds species
preferences to the discrimination policy, I will only have positive
things to say about the joining of one man to one sheep.

Mo

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

neutron, do do not fall for the old "spell checker" trick. It will
change the meaning of your words and make them PC. It will waste
electrons and add useless caps to your post. You will lose your
identity.

I have to go to the supermarket. Buying chocolate peanuts sounds good.
I'll also buy some soy cheese and soy milk. Do they make organic
chocolate peanuts? I'm off to Whole Foods! I'll let you know. Maybe
some tofu too.

I am feeling very guilty about not staying on topic. I think that I'm
having withdrawal symptoms. Ariel Fund, managed by John Rogers, is SR
and would support my employers view on gender identiry. Buy this fund
if you support Ann C's right to look like a man. There I feel much
better now.

Mo

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> MichealC,

> I'm surprised they haven't started pointing out your typos.

He never claimed to be a professional writer.

> He new he was trapped;

OTOH, he isn't a dumb fuck like YOU!

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dibsg8$5i9$
>
> [snip trolls]
>
>
>>It makes you wonder how old NoEd is and whether he has ever had a
>>history lesson or read a book. Saying Hitler was no threat while Saddam
>>was is about as wrong as you can get. Like saying black is white, but he
>>probably says that too.
>>
>>He has probably never heard of world war two or how that nice,
>>unthreatening Mr Hitler's werhmacht over-ran most of Europe, except the
>>UK, and Russia, killed millions and attempted the genocide of the Jews.
>>How he linked up with Italy and Japan and invaded Africa and most of the
>>far East and eventually even attacked the US at Pearl Harbour. How he
>>invented and used the V1 and V2 missiles and was developing the jet
>>fighter and atomic bomb. It took the combined forces of the USA, UK,
>>Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries to
>>finally defeat him over a 6-year war with vast destruction throughout
>>Europe and many millions of lives lost. Doesn't NoEd know anything?
>
>
> David:
>
> One wonders wheter or not you have read a history book, as well.
>
> The alliance between Germany and Japan was nothing more than a piece of
> paper. There were no joint operations nor coordination of decision making.
> Like the UN charter it was not worth the paper it was printed on.
>
> The simple fact is that Nazi Germany declared war on the United States.
>
> This strategic blunder was undertaken after Pearl Harbor in the vain hope
> that Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the Soviet Union. Becasue
> they didn't even consider such a move, Stalin was able to move a hundred or
> so divisions from the east to the west.
>
> What was left of British forces (then including her "dominions" of Canada,
> Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) participated but it was the
> "combined forces" of the United States and the Soviet Union that defeated
> Germany.
>
> -herb
>
>
>
You have missed the point Herb. NoEd thinks Hitler was no threat to
other countries but that Saddam Hussein was such a threat. On a threat
scale of 0 to 10 I would put Hitler at about 10 and SH at about 0.1 or
even 0.01.

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

Hi Mo, and welcome. Yes, it's kind of a free for all here, no moderator.
Serious discussion still get serious response.



"Maurice" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> I guess this means that off-topic (i.e. politics) are allowed on this
> board. Well I'm from Massachusetts so we don't discriminate against
> women who look like men. Even anemic women. Or women that want to marry
> women. My employer has added gender identity to our discrimation
> policy. Since I have to uphold the policy, I will not make any
> derogatory remarks about Anne C. When my employer adds species
> preferences to the discrimination policy, I will only have positive
> things to say about the joining of one man to one sheep.
>
> Mo
>

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

"Maurice" <> wrote

> I am feeling very guilty about not staying on topic.

You would be the only one. I tried once and it didn't work. We lost people
that were strict about it, some of them had valuable input. Such is life.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

> [snip trolls]

You're the troll you idiot.
You may now resume your hiding.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

>> One wonders wheter or not you have read a history book, as well.

Did you learn that at Bates?
Could you tell us what "wheter" means?

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

Ed, I've been indocrinated by Roy. It's hard to break habits.
Actually at best I live on the fringe. neutron corrupted me.

Also I've been caught on a certain board by my higher ed collegues for
using an incorrect term for little people tossing. I was turned in by
neutron. The PC disciplinary board has me on double secret probation.
By defending our new discrimination policy on gender identity, I
believe that I can rehabilitate myself. Have you seen the new bill in
the Mass Legislature making this a constitutional right?

Mo

Re: ...and my name really is Blondie.

"Maurice" <> wrote

> Ed, I've been indocrinated by Roy. It's hard to break habits.
> Actually at best I live on the fringe. neutron corrupted me.
>
> Also I've been caught on a certain board by my higher ed collegues for
> using an incorrect term for little people tossing. I was turned in by
> neutron. The PC disciplinary board has me on double secret probation.
> By defending our new discrimination policy on gender identity, I
> believe that I can rehabilitate myself. Have you seen the new bill in
> the Mass Legislature making this a constitutional right?
>
> Mo

From this state to the city I was born in to the town I live in, it's just
getting silly.
I can't even believe some of the stuff I read in the Lowell Sun these days.
I should have just went ahead and got a job with the city or the state.

Anyway, I sent lead an e-mail asking if you were the Mo from fundalarm, I
think you just answered that.

Just for you.

"NoEd" <> wrote

> She's hot. Sorry.

One more....

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dibvht$epi$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:dibsg8$5i9$
> >
> > [snip trolls]
> >
> >
> >>It makes you wonder how old NoEd is and whether he has ever had a
> >>history lesson or read a book. Saying Hitler was no threat while Saddam
> >>was is about as wrong as you can get. Like saying black is white, but he
> >>probably says that too.
> >>
> >>He has probably never heard of world war two or how that nice,
> >>unthreatening Mr Hitler's werhmacht over-ran most of Europe, except the
> >>UK, and Russia, killed millions and attempted the genocide of the Jews.
> >>How he linked up with Italy and Japan and invaded Africa and most of the
> >>far East and eventually even attacked the US at Pearl Harbour. How he
> >>invented and used the V1 and V2 missiles and was developing the jet
> >>fighter and atomic bomb. It took the combined forces of the USA, UK,
> >>Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries to
> >>finally defeat him over a 6-year war with vast destruction throughout
> >>Europe and many millions of lives lost. Doesn't NoEd know anything?
> >
> >
> > David:
> >
> > One wonders wheter or not you have read a history book, as well.
> >
> > The alliance between Germany and Japan was nothing more than a piece of
> > paper. There were no joint operations nor coordination of decision
making.
> > Like the UN charter it was not worth the paper it was printed on.
> >
> > The simple fact is that Nazi Germany declared war on the United States.
> >
> > This strategic blunder was undertaken after Pearl Harbor in the vain
hope
> > that Japan would reciprocate by declaring war on the Soviet Union.
Becasue
> > they didn't even consider such a move, Stalin was able to move a hundred
or
> > so divisions from the east to the west.
> >
> > What was left of British forces (then including her "dominions" of
Canada,
> > Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) participated but it was the
> > "combined forces" of the United States and the Soviet Union that
defeated
> > Germany.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> >
> >
> You have missed the point Herb. NoEd thinks Hitler was no threat to
> other countries but that Saddam Hussein was such a threat. On a threat
> scale of 0 to 10 I would put Hitler at about 10 and SH at about 0.1 or
> even 0.01.

Once again, Hitler declared war on the United States. Saddam did not.

-herb

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:

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

> Why did Hitler's behavior in Europe threaten us?
> >
> > He had the most powerful military force in the world,
>
> So.

He wouldn't have been a threat without it.

> > was in the process of invading and occupying several
> > nations without provocation,
>
> That was Europe's problem.

Not just their problem. If Hitler had maintained control long enough,
he could have developed a military that we couldn't have defeated.

> > was allied with another militaristic power that was doing the same in
> > the Far East that had directly attacked us, and Germany wanted to
> > attack us as well (with an upgraded V-2 rocket, developed at twice the
> > cost of the U.S. atomic bomb).

> But there was no direct attack the US. Hitler, under your moral compass,
> was no threat.

Nonsensical isolationism. The war against Nazi Germany was a fully
justified and necessary preemptive one.

Maybe you're so pro-Hitler because he was on the conservative side.

> > It's obvious that Iraq hardly compares to WWII Germany,
> > being far weaker, far less imperialistic (in action if
> > not in mind), and far less competent.

> But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat. SH was a far greater
> threat.

Hitler was a big threat to our very existence as a free country, while
Saddam was nothing but a penned-up barking dog.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dibvht$epi$
>
[Snip]
> Canada,
>
>>>Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) participated but it was the
>>>"combined forces" of the United States and the Soviet Union that
>
> defeated
>
>>>Germany.
>>>
>>>-herb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You have missed the point Herb. NoEd thinks Hitler was no threat to
>>other countries but that Saddam Hussein was such a threat. On a threat
>>scale of 0 to 10 I would put Hitler at about 10 and SH at about 0.1 or
>>even 0.01.
>
>
> Once again, Hitler declared war on the United States. Saddam did not.
>
> -herb
>
>
That is the point, Herb. Hitler was more of a threat to the USA than
Saddam. NoEd claims to think otherwise. Saddam never attacked or
threatened the USA.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:

> But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat.
> SH was a far greater threat.

Your degree of ignorance is amazing - and tragic.

What is the level of your education?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:

> But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat.
> SH was a far greater threat.

You're obviously getting a grossly inadequate education
and need to do a great deal of supplemental reading on
your own. www.hnn.us is a good starting point, and it
happens to have a article comparing WWII to the war in
Iraq:

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

SH threatened other countries that supply oil, and he was a threat to
Israel. Hitler at the time was no such threat. There was no reason to
enter the war in Europe given the potential cost.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:did315$7nj$
> Herb wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:dibvht$epi$
>>
> [Snip]
>> Canada,
>>
>>>>Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) participated but it was the
>>>>"combined forces" of the United States and the Soviet Union that
>>
>> defeated
>>
>>>>Germany.
>>>>
>>>>-herb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have missed the point Herb. NoEd thinks Hitler was no threat to
>>>other countries but that Saddam Hussein was such a threat. On a threat
>>>scale of 0 to 10 I would put Hitler at about 10 and SH at about 0.1 or
>>>even 0.01.
>>
>>
>> Once again, Hitler declared war on the United States. Saddam did not.
>>
>> -herb
>>
>>
> That is the point, Herb. Hitler was more of a threat to the USA than
> Saddam. NoEd claims to think otherwise. Saddam never attacked or
> threatened the USA.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Believe it or not I have two masters and am a x-Mensa member. What is
tragic is that the level of dislike of the US given that the US is the
greatest force for good in the history of the world. There was a valid
debate whether to enter the war in Europe. Given the US was still in a
depression, the last thing that was needed was another war in Europe.



"Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat.
>> SH was a far greater threat.
>
> Your degree of ignorance is amazing - and tragic.
>
> What is the level of your education?
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

To revisit the topic of this post: Bush didn't lie. End of story. Removing
SH was the right thing to do: 1) it was morally right, 2) he was threat to
the middle east, and 3) he was a direct threat to the US via terrorism and
WMD.

Hitler had not attacked the US as had not SH. Angry David calls the US a
terrorist nation. He thinks that if all evil cannot be removed then no evil
should be removed. He doesn't have the facts to backup up his anger.




<> wrote in message
news:
>
> NoEd wrote:
>
>> But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat.
>> SH was a far greater threat.
>
> You're obviously getting a grossly inadequate education
> and need to do a great deal of supplemental reading on
> your own. www.hnn.us is a good starting point, and it
> happens to have a article comparing WWII to the war in
> Iraq:
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:

>SH threatened other countries that supply oil, and he was a threat to
>Israel. Hitler at the time was no such threat.

It helped that Hitler died before modern Israel came to exist.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:

> Believe it or not I have two masters and am a x-Mensa member.

I do not, given your language skills as seen here.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:
> To revisit the topic of this post: Bush didn't lie. End of story. Removing
> SH was the right thing to do: 1) it was morally right, 2) he was threat to
> the middle east, and 3) he was a direct threat to the US via terrorism and
> WMD.
>
> Hitler had not attacked the US as had not SH. Angry David calls the US a
> terrorist nation. He thinks that if all evil cannot be removed then no evil
> should be removed. He doesn't have the facts to backup up his anger.
>
>
You are wrong in every respect. Bush did lie. Removing SH was the wrong
thing to do as the present, past and continuing chaos shows. Military
dictatorship is the only form of government that works in Iraq.
"Democracy" is an obvious failure and will continue to be so. The
"Democratic" (read puppet) government would not last 5 minutes if the US
troops withdrew, any more than the similar one in Afghanistan.

Iraq had no WMDs, no air force, no navy and virtually no army and was
incapable of threatening any other country. It was fully contained by US
and UN force and its economy destroyed by sanctions before the war
started. It could not possibly have mounted an attack on the USA as its
biggest rocket had a feeble range of only 120 miles.

There were no terrorists in Iraq as Al Qaeda and SH were opposed. Also
SH was opposed to Iran. US action has allowed real terrorists to grow
and prosper in Iraq so the US is now in much more danger than it was
before. The Shia half of Iraq is much more likely to link up with Iran
than before and Iran to spread its influence over the middle east,
something the US is trying to stop. The US has failed in all its foreign
policy objectives in Iraq as well as causing the deaths of over 2,000 of
its own troops and some 100,000 Iraqis.

Part way through WW2, Hitler's ally, Japan, had attacked the US base at
Pearl Harbour. Hitler's troops had conquered the whole of Europe and
part of Russia and Africa and only the UK was still free and resisting.
The UK would have fallen without US forces entering the war and the
whole of Europe would have become a Nazi dictatorship. The USA might
have been Hitler's next target. Hitler was exterminating all the Jews he
could capture in concentration camps. I presume you have heard of the
holocaust. If you can't see the difference between Hitler and SH then
you need a brain transplant.

The US is behaving as a terrorist nation because it has made an
unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation that neither harmed it nor
threatened it, defeated its army, destroyed its buildings and
infra-structure, destroyed the government and tried to put in a puppet
one subservient to itself, destroyed the army, police and political
institutions, seized the country's resources, oil in this case, and
continues to kill and destroy any of its people who continue to resist
the occupation.

>
>
> <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat.
>>>SH was a far greater threat.
>>
>>You're obviously getting a grossly inadequate education
>>and need to do a great deal of supplemental reading on
>>your own. www.hnn.us is a good starting point, and it
>>happens to have a article comparing WWII to the war in
>>Iraq:
>>
>
>
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:did315$7nj$

> That is the point, Herb. Hitler was more of a threat to the USA than
> Saddam. NoEd claims to think otherwise. Saddam never attacked or
> threatened the USA.

Not only that, but, unless I am mistaken, the USA put Saddam in power in the
first place, mistakenly thinking he would continue to support US interests.
But, come to think of it, didn't the USA originally support Hitler, thinking
he would be be preferable to communism in post-World War I Germany? There
seems to be a parallelism in the two cases, the US puppet turning bad.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote

> Believe it or not I have two masters and am a x-Mensa member.

I don't believe it, btw, I'm an x-Girlsa member, no more of that since I got
married many moons ago.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote

> To revisit the topic of this post: Bush didn't lie. End of story.
> Removing SH was the right thing to do: 1) it was morally right, 2) he was
> threat to the middle east, and 3) he was a direct threat to the US via
> terrorism and WMD.

And don't forget, the best wine grapes come from Antarctica.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:die3ku$nuh$
> NoEd wrote:
>> To revisit the topic of this post: Bush didn't lie. End of story.
>> Removing SH was the right thing to do: 1) it was morally right, 2) he was
>> threat to the middle east, and 3) he was a direct threat to the US via
>> terrorism and WMD.
>>
>> Hitler had not attacked the US as had not SH. Angry David calls the US a
>> terrorist nation. He thinks that if all evil cannot be removed then no
>> evil should be removed. He doesn't have the facts to backup up his
>> anger.
>>
> You are wrong in every respect. Bush did lie.

You need to provide proof. You have none.

Removing SH was the wrong
> thing to do as the present, past and continuing chaos shows.

It does not.


Military
> dictatorship is the only form of government that works in Iraq.

Really? I thought they had a recent vote.

> "Democracy" is an obvious failure and will continue to be so.

See above.

The
> "Democratic" (read puppet) government would not last 5 minutes if the US
> troops withdrew, any more than the similar one in Afghanistan.

We will see.


>
> Iraq had no WMDs, no air force, no navy and virtually no army and was
> incapable of threatening any other country. It was fully contained by US
> and UN force and its economy destroyed by sanctions before the war
> started. It could not possibly have mounted an attack on the USA as its
> biggest rocket had a feeble range of only 120 miles.


The better option was to rid the world of SH. Why didn't we just contain
Hitler. It was tried; it didn't work. Evil cannot be contained.


>
> There were no terrorists in Iraq as Al Qaeda and SH were opposed.

I showed an article there was terrorist in Iraq.

Also
> SH was opposed to Iran.

What do you propose to do with Iran?

US action has allowed real terrorists to grow
> and prosper in Iraq so the US is now in much more danger than it was
> before.

No it hasn't.


The Shia half of Iraq is much more likely to link up with Iran
> than before and Iran to spread its influence over the middle east,
> something the US is trying to stop.

SH kept the populace under control with the end of a gun.


The US has failed in all its foreign
> policy objectives in Iraq as well as causing the deaths of over 2,000 of
> its own troops and some 100,000 Iraqis.

Absolutely false.


>
> Part way through WW2, Hitler's ally, Japan, had attacked the US base at
> Pearl Harbour. Hitler's troops had conquered the whole of Europe and part
> of Russia and Africa and only the UK was still free and resisting.

There is a real debate whether Japan and Germany were allies. It still was
a European problem.


> The UK would have fallen without US forces entering the war and the whole
> of Europe would have become a Nazi dictatorship. The USA might have been
> Hitler's next target. Hitler was exterminating all the Jews he could
> capture in concentration camps. I presume you have heard of the holocaust.
> If you can't see the difference between Hitler and SH then you need a
> brain transplant.

No I don't see it.


>
> The US is behaving as a terrorist nation because it has made an unprovoked
> attack on a sovereign nation that neither harmed it nor threatened it,
> defeated its army, destroyed its buildings and infra-structure, destroyed
> the government and tried to put in a puppet one subservient to itself,
> destroyed the army, police and political institutions, seized the
> country's resources, oil in this case, and continues to kill and destroy
> any of its people who continue to resist the occupation.

You poor angry man. There is really no hope.


>
>>
>>
>> <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat.
>>>>SH was a far greater threat.
>>>
>>>You're obviously getting a grossly inadequate education
>>>and need to do a great deal of supplemental reading on
>>>your own. www.hnn.us is a good starting point, and it
>>>happens to have a article comparing WWII to the war in
>>>Iraq:
>>>
>>
>>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:

> "Johnny Hageyama" <> wrote in message
> news:

> But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat.
> SH was a far greater threat.

> > Your degree of ignorance is amazing - and tragic.
> >
> > What is the level of your education?

> Believe it or not I have two masters and am a x-Mensa member.

I don't believe you. At most you're a high school graduate.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

hello. a mutual fund board where i can post off topics! by any chance
do you know/like bishop fulton sheen's tv program in the 50's called
"life is worth living? did you respect pope john paul 2? do you
believe that christians, muslims and jews are descendents of abraham?
did you know that it is now the official military doctrine of the usa
that "small" 5-15kt nuclear weapons are considered just that- a weapon
but not one of mass destruction that can be used at any time on the
battelfield? are you aware that isreal has about 150 nuclear weapons of
aprx. 250 kt? did you know that bagdad (except the outlying slums) was
one of the most beautiful cities in the world and militarily it was not
necessary to show off our "shock and awe" which was just a bunch of
generals playing with their idea of fireworks? do you know the reason
why sadamm would never even think about wmd in his country? why would
anbody think that now chaney is in office he would divorce himself from
haliburton? george bush did not lie about iraq having wmd. he is too
dependent on the real leaders of this country, wolfowicz, chaney.(
except powell-he wasn't told until after the decision to go to war.) to
make any decisions. well, that's a start. and don't forget to consume,
deny, and most of all fear.. neutron

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:die3ku$nuh$
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>
>
>>SH was opposed to Iran.
>
>
> What do you propose to do with Iran?
>
Nothing. There is no problem.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:difjf2$hm9$
> NoEd wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:die3ku$nuh$
> >
> >>NoEd wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >>SH was opposed to Iran.
> >
> >
> > What do you propose to do with Iran?
> >
> Nothing. There is no problem.

Neville Chamberlain?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:difjf2$hm9$
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:die3ku$nuh$
>>>
>>>
>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>SH was opposed to Iran.
>>>
>>>
>>>What do you propose to do with Iran?
>>>
>>
>>Nothing. There is no problem.
>
>
> Neville Chamberlain?
>
>
I said there were no problems with Iraq, before the invasion. There
weren't. There are now.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:difjf2$hm9$
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:die3ku$nuh$
>>>
>>>
>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>SH was opposed to Iran.
>>>
>>>
>>>What do you propose to do with Iran?
>>>
>>
>>Nothing. There is no problem.
>
>
> Neville Chamberlain?
>
>
Nostradamus?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:

> But the fact remains that Hitler was no threat.
> SH was a far greater threat.

> > You're obviously getting a grossly inadequate education
> > and need to do a great deal of supplemental reading on
> > your own. www.hnn.us is a good starting point, and it
> > happens to have a article comparing WWII to the war in
> > Iraq:

> To revisit the topic of this post: Bush didn't lie.
> End of story. Removing SH was the right thing to
> do: 1) it was morally right, 2) he was threat to
> the middle east, and 3) he was a direct threat to
> the US via terrorism and WMD.

Contrary to the beliefs of Joseph Stalin and George W.
Bush, the truth is not merely something reiterated often
enough, and you've provided no evidence to justify any
of your opinions or statements. Furthermore your
beliefs about Hitler have caused you to lose all your
credibility and make you look like an ignorant fool.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:difrel$q7$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:difjf2$hm9$
> >
> >>NoEd wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
message
> >>>news:die3ku$nuh$
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>NoEd wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>SH was opposed to Iran.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What do you propose to do with Iran?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Nothing. There is no problem.
> >
> >
> > Neville Chamberlain?
> >
> >
> I said there were no problems with Iraq, before the invasion. There
> weren't. There are now.

I thought the question was about Iran (a different country). There, even
the French and Germans, whose opinions about Iraq you seem to admire, claim
that there is, indeed a problem.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:difrel$q7$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:difjf2$hm9$
>>>
>>>
>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>
> message
>
>>>>>news:die3ku$nuh$
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>SH was opposed to Iran.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>What do you propose to do with Iran?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nothing. There is no problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>Neville Chamberlain?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I said there were no problems with Iraq, before the invasion. There
>>weren't. There are now.
>
>
> I thought the question was about Iran (a different country). There, even
> the French and Germans, whose opinions about Iraq you seem to admire, claim
> that there is, indeed a problem.
>
>
I would have thought my meaning was obvious. I was right about Iraq and
the public faces of the US and UK governments were wrong. I am drawing
the conclusion that I am probably right and they are wrong again about
Iran.

The whole Iran thing looks like deja vu all over again (with apologies
to YB). There is the same prize, in the oil resources, and the same
process of accusing them of having WMDs and demonising their leader is
in full swing. They also are being portrayed as an imaginary "threat".
Really! Don't the US learn anything from experience? That is the
official line and what we are supposed to think, but is that really it?

Bush may not have all his marbles but the people behind him who pull his
strings, write the cue cards and help with the long words are bright
enough. One has to conclude that they did indeed anticipate the chaos in
Iraq and are actually not bothered and probably quite happy with the
result. After all the objective was to seize the oil, which they have
done and they continue to hold it. By foisting an unworkable western
system of government on the Iraqis they ensure indefinite chaos, which
in turn ensures the elected Iraqi government will never be able to ask
US troops to leave so the US holds the oil in perpetuity.

If they pull off the same trick in Iran they will get a grip on a second
major oil resource, which can't be bad for the US. Of course a lot of
people will be killed but most of them are not Americans and so are
expendable. Are they even taking in the French and Germans who were too
clever to be tricked last time? You say so But I doubt it and would need
confirmation on that. Of course Blair will try to do whatever he is told
but he could find it a lot more difficult the second time round. His
credibility is shot.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dih1jg$1kj$
> Herb wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> > news:difrel$q7$
> >
> >>Herb wrote:
> >>
> >>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
message
> >>>news:difjf2$hm9$
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>NoEd wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
> >
> > message
> >
> >>>>>news:die3ku$nuh$
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>NoEd wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>SH was opposed to Iran.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What do you propose to do with Iran?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Nothing. There is no problem.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Neville Chamberlain?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I said there were no problems with Iraq, before the invasion. There
> >>weren't. There are now.
> >
> >
> > I thought the question was about Iran (a different country). There,
even
> > the French and Germans, whose opinions about Iraq you seem to admire,
claim
> > that there is, indeed a problem.
> >
> >
> I would have thought my meaning was obvious. I was right about Iraq and
> the public faces of the US and UK governments were wrong. I am drawing
> the conclusion that I am probably right and they are wrong again about
> Iran.
>
> The whole Iran thing looks like deja vu all over again (with apologies
> to YB). There is the same prize, in the oil resources, and the same
> process of accusing them of having WMDs and demonising their leader is
> in full swing. They also are being portrayed as an imaginary "threat".
> Really! Don't the US learn anything from experience? That is the
> official line and what we are supposed to think, but is that really it?
>
> Bush may not have all his marbles but the people behind him who pull his
> strings, write the cue cards and help with the long words are bright
> enough. One has to conclude that they did indeed anticipate the chaos in
> Iraq and are actually not bothered and probably quite happy with the
> result. After all the objective was to seize the oil, which they have
> done and they continue to hold it. By foisting an unworkable western
> system of government on the Iraqis they ensure indefinite chaos, which
> in turn ensures the elected Iraqi government will never be able to ask
> US troops to leave so the US holds the oil in perpetuity.
>
> If they pull off the same trick in Iran they will get a grip on a second
> major oil resource, which can't be bad for the US. Of course a lot of
> people will be killed but most of them are not Americans and so are
> expendable. Are they even taking in the French and Germans who were too
> clever to be tricked last time? You say so But I doubt it and would need
> confirmation on that. Of course Blair will try to do whatever he is told
> but he could find it a lot more difficult the second time round. His
> credibility is shot.

David:

Well, at least I now know how your thought process works: if I was right
before I'm probably right now. I thought you were actually following the
story in the news.

There is one tiny difference with Iran: they really do have a nuclear
enrichment program and don't for a minute deny this fact. The Europeans,
who are taking the lead on this one and who were so right about Iraq are
very troubled about Iran. They are considering referring the matter to the
UN Security council. If it really turns out to be true that the sponsors of
Hezbollah (again, they don't deny that) are building nuclear weapons
capabilities (as the French and Germans suspect) it is not likely that
Israel will suffer it to long exist. This is a very different situation
from Bush and his grudge match with Saddam Hussein.

-herb

PS: Do you really think that we effectively control Iraq's oil? Where is
all of this oil.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Herb wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dih1jg$1kj$
>
>>Herb wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>news:difrel$q7$
>>>
>>>
>>>>Herb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>
> message
>
>>>>>news:difjf2$hm9$
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>>>
>>>message
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>news:die3ku$nuh$
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>SH was opposed to Iran.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What do you propose to do with Iran?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nothing. There is no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Neville Chamberlain?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I said there were no problems with Iraq, before the invasion. There
>>>>weren't. There are now.
>>>
>>>
>>>I thought the question was about Iran (a different country). There,
>
> even
>
>>>the French and Germans, whose opinions about Iraq you seem to admire,
>
> claim
>
>>>that there is, indeed a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I would have thought my meaning was obvious. I was right about Iraq and
>>the public faces of the US and UK governments were wrong. I am drawing
>>the conclusion that I am probably right and they are wrong again about
>>Iran.
>>
>>The whole Iran thing looks like deja vu all over again (with apologies
>>to YB). There is the same prize, in the oil resources, and the same
>>process of accusing them of having WMDs and demonising their leader is
>>in full swing. They also are being portrayed as an imaginary "threat".
>>Really! Don't the US learn anything from experience? That is the
>>official line and what we are supposed to think, but is that really it?
>>
>>Bush may not have all his marbles but the people behind him who pull his
>>strings, write the cue cards and help with the long words are bright
>>enough. One has to conclude that they did indeed anticipate the chaos in
>>Iraq and are actually not bothered and probably quite happy with the
>>result. After all the objective was to seize the oil, which they have
>>done and they continue to hold it. By foisting an unworkable western
>>system of government on the Iraqis they ensure indefinite chaos, which
>>in turn ensures the elected Iraqi government will never be able to ask
>>US troops to leave so the US holds the oil in perpetuity.
>>
>>If they pull off the same trick in Iran they will get a grip on a second
>>major oil resource, which can't be bad for the US. Of course a lot of
>>people will be killed but most of them are not Americans and so are
>>expendable. Are they even taking in the French and Germans who were too
>>clever to be tricked last time? You say so But I doubt it and would need
>>confirmation on that. Of course Blair will try to do whatever he is told
>>but he could find it a lot more difficult the second time round. His
>>credibility is shot.
>
>
> David:
>
> Well, at least I now know how your thought process works: if I was right
> before I'm probably right now. I thought you were actually following the
> story in the news.
>
> There is one tiny difference with Iran: they really do have a nuclear
> enrichment program and don't for a minute deny this fact. The Europeans,
> who are taking the lead on this one and who were so right about Iraq are
> very troubled about Iran. They are considering referring the matter to the
> UN Security council. If it really turns out to be true that the sponsors of
> Hezbollah (again, they don't deny that) are building nuclear weapons
> capabilities (as the French and Germans suspect) it is not likely that
> Israel will suffer it to long exist. This is a very different situation
> from Bush and his grudge match with Saddam Hussein.
>
> -herb
>
> PS: Do you really think that we effectively control Iraq's oil? Where is
> all of this oil.
>
>
To answer your PS first, I guess most of it is still in the ground. The
insurgents have probably been unexpectedly good at blowing up the plant
and pipelines, intimidating the workforce and hampering production. You
can't expect everything to go perfectly! The stuff is still there though
and more can be extracted if the troops ever get a better grip on security.

So Iran may develop a nuclear device. Big deal! How many have the US
got? 2,000+?. And the Israelis? 150? Even the UK have a few if they have
not rusted away. The cheese-eating French certainly have them, and the
Un-democratic communist China, and even Muslim countries like Pakistan.
Ed turned up a list of countries with nuclear bombs a while ago and
there were about two dozen on it.

And what part have nuclear bombs played in conflicts since Nagasaki in
1945? Zilch. How many have been used in later wars? Zilch. How many have
terrorists detonated in major cities? Zilch. They are not actually that
useful are they. If Iran chose to detonate one it would be an expensive
suicide note as other countries could obliterate every major city in
Iran in about 20 minutes and turn the whole place into a slag heap. And
how would that help Iran?

Stop worrying about imaginary bogeymen and things that will not happen.
It is all just a chess game. Iran, like North Korea, hope to impress
others they are in the big time and squeeze trade concessions out of the
US and other countries in exchange for dropping the nuclear activities.
The US hope to avoid giving concessions which will hurt their
manufacturers and farmers and would like to get the oil for nothing and
consolidate their grip on the Middle East. So they all carry on a game
of diplomatic bluff. The main mistake Iran could make is not to develop
the bomb but to get so weak that the US think they could take them out
with very few casualties, as they thought in Iraq and Afghanistan. As
always throughout history, weakness is the danger, not strength.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dih81d$48e$

[SNIP]

> > David:
> >
> > Well, at least I now know how your thought process works: if I was
right
> > before I'm probably right now. I thought you were actually following
the
> > story in the news.
> >
> > There is one tiny difference with Iran: they really do have a nuclear
> > enrichment program and don't for a minute deny this fact. The
Europeans,
> > who are taking the lead on this one and who were so right about Iraq are
> > very troubled about Iran. They are considering referring the matter to
the
> > UN Security council. If it really turns out to be true that the
sponsors of
> > Hezbollah (again, they don't deny that) are building nuclear weapons
> > capabilities (as the French and Germans suspect) it is not likely that
> > Israel will suffer it to long exist. This is a very different situation
> > from Bush and his grudge match with Saddam Hussein.
> >
> > -herb
> >
> > PS: Do you really think that we effectively control Iraq's oil? Where
is
> > all of this oil.
> >
> >
> To answer your PS first, I guess most of it is still in the ground. The
> insurgents have probably been unexpectedly good at blowing up the plant
> and pipelines, intimidating the workforce and hampering production. You
> can't expect everything to go perfectly! The stuff is still there though
> and more can be extracted if the troops ever get a better grip on
security.
>
> So Iran may develop a nuclear device. Big deal! How many have the US
> got? 2,000+?. And the Israelis? 150? Even the UK have a few if they have
> not rusted away. The cheese-eating French certainly have them, and the
> Un-democratic communist China, and even Muslim countries like Pakistan.
> Ed turned up a list of countries with nuclear bombs a while ago and
> there were about two dozen on it.
>
> And what part have nuclear bombs played in conflicts since Nagasaki in
> 1945? Zilch. How many have been used in later wars? Zilch. How many have
> terrorists detonated in major cities? Zilch. They are not actually that
> useful are they. If Iran chose to detonate one it would be an expensive
> suicide note as other countries could obliterate every major city in
> Iran in about 20 minutes and turn the whole place into a slag heap. And
> how would that help Iran?
>
> Stop worrying about imaginary bogeymen and things that will not happen.
> It is all just a chess game. Iran, like North Korea, hope to impress
> others they are in the big time and squeeze trade concessions out of the
> US and other countries in exchange for dropping the nuclear activities.
> The US hope to avoid giving concessions which will hurt their
> manufacturers and farmers and would like to get the oil for nothing and
> consolidate their grip on the Middle East. So they all carry on a game
> of diplomatic bluff. The main mistake Iran could make is not to develop
> the bomb but to get so weak that the US think they could take them out
> with very few casualties, as they thought in Iraq and Afghanistan. As
> always throughout history, weakness is the danger, not strength.

David:

Do you even read my posts before responding? You haven't addressed a single
point that I raised. Instead you go off on another rambling rant on how you
imagine the world works and how evil Bush is (which, by the way, I already
concede).

Are you really saying the French, Germans and British are just pawns in
Bush's game to control Iranian oil?

Are you saying the Israelis will ever let Iran achieve a nuclear capacity?

Are you saying that there are other state sponsors of terrorism that have
nuclear weapons? Who (Besides, of course, the US and UK ;-)?

Do you understand the terms of the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty? Does
it mean nothing when a country signs a treaty then ignores its obligations
under it? If so, what is your beef with Bush?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dih81d$48e$
> Herb wrote:
>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>> news:dih1jg$1kj$
>>
>>>Herb wrote:
>>>
>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:difrel$q7$
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Herb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>>
>> message
>>
>>>>>>news:difjf2$hm9$
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>>>>
>>>>message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>news:die3ku$nuh$
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>SH was opposed to Iran.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What do you propose to do with Iran?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nothing. There is no problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Neville Chamberlain?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I said there were no problems with Iraq, before the invasion. There
>>>>>weren't. There are now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I thought the question was about Iran (a different country). There,
>>
>> even
>>
>>>>the French and Germans, whose opinions about Iraq you seem to admire,
>>
>> claim
>>
>>>>that there is, indeed a problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I would have thought my meaning was obvious. I was right about Iraq and
>>>the public faces of the US and UK governments were wrong. I am drawing
>>>the conclusion that I am probably right and they are wrong again about
>>>Iran.
>>>
>>>The whole Iran thing looks like deja vu all over again (with apologies
>>>to YB). There is the same prize, in the oil resources, and the same
>>>process of accusing them of having WMDs and demonising their leader is
>>>in full swing. They also are being portrayed as an imaginary "threat".
>>>Really! Don't the US learn anything from experience? That is the
>>>official line and what we are supposed to think, but is that really it?
>>>
>>>Bush may not have all his marbles but the people behind him who pull his
>>>strings, write the cue cards and help with the long words are bright
>>>enough. One has to conclude that they did indeed anticipate the chaos in
>>>Iraq and are actually not bothered and probably quite happy with the
>>>result. After all the objective was to seize the oil, which they have
>>>done and they continue to hold it. By foisting an unworkable western
>>>system of government on the Iraqis they ensure indefinite chaos, which
>>>in turn ensures the elected Iraqi government will never be able to ask
>>>US troops to leave so the US holds the oil in perpetuity.
>>>
>>>If they pull off the same trick in Iran they will get a grip on a second
>>>major oil resource, which can't be bad for the US. Of course a lot of
>>>people will be killed but most of them are not Americans and so are
>>>expendable. Are they even taking in the French and Germans who were too
>>>clever to be tricked last time? You say so But I doubt it and would need
>>>confirmation on that. Of course Blair will try to do whatever he is told
>>>but he could find it a lot more difficult the second time round. His
>>>credibility is shot.
>>
>>
>> David:
>>
>> Well, at least I now know how your thought process works: if I was right
>> before I'm probably right now. I thought you were actually following the
>> story in the news.
>>
>> There is one tiny difference with Iran: they really do have a nuclear
>> enrichment program and don't for a minute deny this fact. The Europeans,
>> who are taking the lead on this one and who were so right about Iraq are
>> very troubled about Iran. They are considering referring the matter to
>> the
>> UN Security council. If it really turns out to be true that the sponsors
>> of
>> Hezbollah (again, they don't deny that) are building nuclear weapons
>> capabilities (as the French and Germans suspect) it is not likely that
>> Israel will suffer it to long exist. This is a very different situation
>> from Bush and his grudge match with Saddam Hussein.
>>
>> -herb
>>
>> PS: Do you really think that we effectively control Iraq's oil? Where
>> is
>> all of this oil.
>>
>>
> To answer your PS first, I guess most of it is still in the ground. The
> insurgents have probably been unexpectedly good at blowing up the plant
> and pipelines, intimidating the workforce and hampering production. You
> can't expect everything to go perfectly! The stuff is still there though
> and more can be extracted if the troops ever get a better grip on
> security.
>
> So Iran may develop a nuclear device. Big deal! How many have the US got?
> 2,000+?. And the Israelis? 150? Even the UK have a few if they have not
> rusted away. The cheese-eating French certainly have them, and the
> Un-democratic communist China, and even Muslim countries like Pakistan. Ed
> turned up a list of countries with nuclear bombs a while ago and there
> were about two dozen on it.

I guess there really is no difference between the US and Iran having nuclear
bombs.

>
> And what part have nuclear bombs played in conflicts since Nagasaki in
> 1945? Zilch. How many have been used in later wars? Zilch. How many have
> terrorists detonated in major cities? Zilch. They are not actually that
> useful are they. If Iran chose to detonate one it would be an expensive
> suicide note as other countries could obliterate every major city in Iran
> in about 20 minutes and turn the whole place into a slag heap. And how
> would that help Iran?
>
> Stop worrying about imaginary bogeymen and things that will not happen. It
> is all just a chess game. Iran, like North Korea, hope to impress others
> they are in the big time and squeeze trade concessions out of the US and
> other countries in exchange for dropping the nuclear activities. The US
> hope to avoid giving concessions which will hurt their manufacturers and
> farmers and would like to get the oil for nothing and consolidate their
> grip on the Middle East. So they all carry on a game of diplomatic bluff.
> The main mistake Iran could make is not to develop the bomb but to get so
> weak that the US think they could take them out with very few casualties,
> as they thought in Iraq and Afghanistan. As always throughout history,
> weakness is the danger, not strength.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

David, why don't you just killfile this troll idiot?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote

> I guess there really is no difference between the US and Iran having
> nuclear bombs.

We are the only ones that ever used them, you'd think Iran would be
concerned about that.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

LOL. I don't think that letting Iran have nukes is a good idea. Call me a
moron.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> David, why don't you just killfile this troll idiot?
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:
> LOL. I don't think that letting Iran have nukes is a good idea. Call me a
> moron.
>
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>David, why don't you just killfile this troll idiot?
>>
>
>
>
Why not?

You are not "letting" Iran have nukes. It is none of your business any
more than when China and all the other two dozen or so countries
acquired them.

Has Iran threatened the USA with them? No.

The principle of nuclear deterrence stands to curb any country using
them, as it did with the communist USSR.

You really should think things through.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Iran would be a threat if they had nukes, and they will have to be taken
away. By the way, I have thought things though. I really think you
should reevaluate your moral compass, then maybe we could have an
intellectual debate rather than you simply spewing your emotional anti US
diatribes.

David you are a complete nut. The fact that you fear the US more than you
fear Iran makes the fact obvious.

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dij7u3$fk0$
> NoEd wrote:
>> LOL. I don't think that letting Iran have nukes is a good idea. Call
>> me a moron.
>>
>>
>> "Ed" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>>>David, why don't you just killfile this troll idiot?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> Why not?
>
> You are not "letting" Iran have nukes. It is none of your business any
> more than when China and all the other two dozen or so countries acquired
> them.
>
> Has Iran threatened the USA with them? No.
>
> The principle of nuclear deterrence stands to curb any country using them,
> as it did with the communist USSR.
>
> You really should think things through.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote

> then maybe we could have an intellectual debate

This is not possible with you. What would be the purpose of it anyway?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Ed wrote:
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>
>>then maybe we could have an intellectual debate
>
>
> This is not possible with you. What would be the purpose of it anyway?
>
>
NoEd's idea of an intellectual debate is to say the equivalent of "Oh no
it isn't!" to every point made, like a pantomime dame, with no evidence
to back it. When that fails he goes over to abuse, calling me a
"complete nut".

A recent poll of the UK public in yesterday's paper said that 57% were
against the Iraq war and thought it was a mistake while 33% supported
it. This shows that far from my being an isolated nutcase, my views are
those of the majority, in the UK at least and quite possibly in the US
as well.

As for being anti-American, NoEd has that wrong as well. I am
pro-American but do not agree with everything they say or do. In
particular US foreign policy is designed exclusively and very sensibly
to benefit the USA and no one could really object to that provided other
countries do not suffer too much as a result. However, sometimes they
do, as in Iraq, and the attempted spin that goes with it is nearly
always difficult to take.

At the moment the heavy-handed US "might is right" approach has
antagonised nearly all the US's past allies and stirred up most of the
Muslim world against it so there is a whole new breed of frustrated
"terrorists" whose main aim is to kill Americans and destroy American
property. It never seems to occur to Americans that this might be their
fault and that just labellings their opponents as "evil" is not going to
solve the problem. There are no "terrorists" trying to blow up the Swiss
or Norwegians or dozens of other inoffensive countries. Try looking for
cause and effect relationships.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote

> NoEd's idea of an intellectual debate is to say the equivalent of "Oh no
> it isn't!" to every point made, like a pantomime dame, with no evidence to
> back it. When that fails he goes over to abuse, calling me a "complete
> nut".

That's why I asked what purpose it would serve.

> A recent poll of the UK public in yesterday's paper said that 57% were
> against the Iraq war and thought it was a mistake while 33% supported it.
> This shows that far from my being an isolated nutcase, my views are those
> of the majority, in the UK at least and quite possibly in the US as well.

An ABC News poll has his disapproval rating at 52% for Iraq, 54% for the
economy, 57% for creating jobs. His overall approval rating is 50%.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

David,

I have provided you evidence of my positions. You will not address the
presented evidence.


"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dilcsn$20q$
> Ed wrote:
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>then maybe we could have an intellectual debate
>>
>>
>> This is not possible with you. What would be the purpose of it anyway?
> NoEd's idea of an intellectual debate is to say the equivalent of "Oh no
> it isn't!" to every point made, like a pantomime dame, with no evidence to
> back it. When that fails he goes over to abuse, calling me a "complete
> nut".

There is nothing else I can say.

>
> A recent poll of the UK public in yesterday's paper said that 57% were
> against the Iraq war and thought it was a mistake while 33% supported it.
> This shows that far from my being an isolated nutcase, my views are those
> of the majority, in the UK at least and quite possibly in the US as well.

How does this prove that Bush and Blair lied?


>
> As for being anti-American, NoEd has that wrong as well. I am pro-American
> but do not agree with everything they say or do. In particular US foreign
> policy is designed exclusively and very sensibly to benefit the USA and no
> one could really object to that provided other countries do not suffer too
> much as a result. However, sometimes they do, as in Iraq, and the
> attempted spin that goes with it is nearly always difficult to take.
>
> At the moment the heavy-handed US "might is right" approach has
> antagonised nearly all the US's past allies and stirred up most of the
> Muslim world against it so there is a whole new breed of frustrated
> "terrorists" whose main aim is to kill Americans and destroy American
> property. It never seems to occur to Americans that this might be their
> fault and that just labellings their opponents as "evil" is not going to
> solve the problem. There are no "terrorists" trying to blow up the Swiss
> or Norwegians or dozens of other inoffensive countries. Try looking for
> cause and effect relationships.

But you still fear the US more than you fear Iran with nukes?

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

NoEd wrote:
> David,
>
> I have provided you evidence of my positions. You will not address the
> presented evidence.
>
Oh, no you haven't! Oh, yes I have!

>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:dilcsn$20q$
>
>>Ed wrote:
>>
>>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>then maybe we could have an intellectual debate
>>>
>>>
>>>This is not possible with you. What would be the purpose of it anyway?
>>
>>NoEd's idea of an intellectual debate is to say the equivalent of "Oh no
>>it isn't!" to every point made, like a pantomime dame, with no evidence to
>>back it. When that fails he goes over to abuse, calling me a "complete
>>nut".
>
>
> There is nothing else I can say.
>
But you are saying it anyway!

>
>>A recent poll of the UK public in yesterday's paper said that 57% were
>>against the Iraq war and thought it was a mistake while 33% supported it.
>>This shows that far from my being an isolated nutcase, my views are those
>>of the majority, in the UK at least and quite possibly in the US as well.
>
>
> How does this prove that Bush and Blair lied?
>
Oh, yes it does!

>
>
>>As for being anti-American, NoEd has that wrong as well. I am pro-American
>>but do not agree with everything they say or do. In particular US foreign
>>policy is designed exclusively and very sensibly to benefit the USA and no
>>one could really object to that provided other countries do not suffer too
>>much as a result. However, sometimes they do, as in Iraq, and the
>>attempted spin that goes with it is nearly always difficult to take.
>>
>>At the moment the heavy-handed US "might is right" approach has
>>antagonised nearly all the US's past allies and stirred up most of the
>>Muslim world against it so there is a whole new breed of frustrated
>>"terrorists" whose main aim is to kill Americans and destroy American
>>property. It never seems to occur to Americans that this might be their
>>fault and that just labellings their opponents as "evil" is not going to
>>solve the problem. There are no "terrorists" trying to blow up the Swiss
>>or Norwegians or dozens of other inoffensive countries. Try looking for
>>cause and effect relationships.
>
>
> But you still fear the US more than you fear Iran with nukes?
>
>
Oh, no I don't!

Irritating, isn't it.

>
>
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote

> David,
>
> I have provided you evidence of my positions. You will not address the
> presented evidence.

If you did I missed it.
Saying Bush didn't lie isn't going to cut it.
Over half of the US thinks he's doing a bad job.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

But I provide support! You and David just site polls and your opinions.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> David,
>>
>> I have provided you evidence of my positions. You will not address the
>> presented evidence.
>
> If you did I missed it.
> Saying Bush didn't lie isn't going to cut it.
> Over half of the US thinks he's doing a bad job.
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

"NoEd" <> wrote

> But I provide support!

You provide nothing.

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

A drunk, an emotional basket case, and a person with a completely broken
moral compass don't like me. What am I to do? LOL!!!!!


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
>> But I provide support!
>
> You provide nothing.
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

Still as vague as ever, NoEd!

I still can't decide whether I am the emotional basket case or the one
with the broken moral compass.

Do I just need some canes to repair the basket or a new moral magnet,
perhaps a new NoEd type that points West-East indicating good and evil,
or should that be evil and good?

NoEd wrote:
> A drunk, an emotional basket case, and a person with a completely broken
> moral compass don't like me. What am I to do? LOL!!!!!
>
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>"NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>
>>>But I provide support!
>>
>>You provide nothing.
>>
>
>
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

I'm not sure what happened to you but I'm greatful that you are part of a
small minority.


"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
>A drunk, an emotional basket case, and a person with a completely broken
>moral compass don't like me. What am I to do? LOL!!!!!
>
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>>> But I provide support!
>>
>> You provide nothing.
>>
>
>

Re: OT: Bush Didn't Lie About WMD

hello, ed. i have to give my two cent here.sorry to disagree with you
but m is right. hitler started a war that took 40 million lives give or
take a few. as stalin said "one death is a tradgedy, a million deaths
is a statistic" the vershd was onto something. by invading iraq we
probable saved a 100 million lives..

i don't know how but i believe it. just because there were not any wmd
doesn't mean there could not have been.

another reason to invade. as far as what is moraly right, what does
Pope John Paul2 or Bishop Sheen or Rev ML King, Phd or Ghandi know
anything about morality? give me a guy like wolfowicz (sp?) or chaney-
now there are people concerned with profits and "what profits a man not
to get the big government contracts and end up in hell" (that's in the
bible somewhere- think before genesis but after romans).

and ed, please do not call him an ignorant fool as this is a grave
insult to the ignorent fools of the world. neutron