Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Bomb attacks in London England
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55403 is a reply to message #55386] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 09:00   |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
s what the world needs to learn.
On 9 Jul 2005 00:49:58 +1000, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>>and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil was?
>>>
>>>Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized the region
>>>and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by the UN
>>>resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in power.
>>I
>>>don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment.
>>
>>Well perhaps not exactly the same circumstances, but lets face it, you guys
>>were allies with Iraq with the same dude in power, as was the case with
>Afghanistan/Taliban.
>>Not that I should be complaining, either to you, or GWB, that this scenario
>>has changed. I guess I just don't look over history and think how you guys
>>are the crusaders for peace always. Historically you have had a number of
>>questionable alliances, IMO.
>
>Hey, you guys were once allies with Stalin, who then became the
>enemy of the entire free world!!!!
>
>(OK, I know we were allies with him against Germany too, but I'm
>just trying to illustrate the point that this is not such an
>uncommon occurrence, and certainly not one that's exclusive to
>the United States).
>
>Neili don't know, if you listen to people/media stations that lean to the
direction other than the one being criticized, then the possibility of
the bbc being linked to an opinion not shared by those opposing it,
then a certain amount of dissatisfaction is expressed although later
denied by both sides.
On 8 Jul 2005 23:48:16 +1000, "Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>>Interesting... I don't know anybody who hates the BBC;
>
>Well maybe I'm casting a generalization from very little. I know for sure
>that at one point at least I gave a BBC link to someone on this group when
>asked for a "credible media report" with respect to something, and assumed
>the BBC would be fine as an example, being an ally in Afghanistan and Iraq
>etc, but was told in no uncertain terms that they were way out there.
>
>Perhaps I've taken one event and cast a stereotype, in which case I withdraw
>my statement.
>
>I find it interesting that you consider your media left though, but it's
>too late in the night to persue this from here. I'd be interested to hear
>more on what makes you say that though.
>
>Cheers,
>Kim.BINGO!
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ir8tc19g6qma0u1hm96i3fgkmf4f9lavas@4ax.com...
> i'm gonna hate myself for this but...you can't give somebody poison
> gas then complain the that they may use/use/or have used it.
> eventually the "lesser of two evils" will always bite you in the ass.
> and that imo is what the world needs to learn.
>
> On 9 Jul 2005 00:49:58 +1000, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>>>and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil was?
>>>>
>>>>Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized the
>>>>region
>>>>and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by the UN
>>>>resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in
>>>>power.
>>>I
>>>>don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment.
>>>
>>>Well perhaps not exactly the same circumstances, but lets face it, you
>>>guys
>>>were allies with Iraq with the same dude in power, as was the case with
>>Afghanistan/Taliban.
>>>Not that I should be complaining, either to you, or GWB, that this
>>>scenario
>>>has changed. I guess I just don't look over history and think how you
>>>guys
>>>are the crusaders for peace always. Historically you have had a number of
>>>questionable alliances, IMO.
>>
>>Hey, you guys were once allies with Stalin, who then became the
>>enemy of the entire free world!!!!
>>
>>(OK, I know we were allies with him against Germany too, but I'm
>>just trying to illustrate the point that this is not such an
>>uncommon occurrence, and certainly not one that's exclusive to
>>the United States).
>>
>>Neil
>
unfortunately one sides considers it an unfortunate consequences of
war and the other side considers it a necessary consequences of war;
in either case the dead are still dead.
On 8 Jul 2005 23:19:32 +1000, "Neil" <OIUIOU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Dedric Terry <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> well, if the US/allies would stop killing their women and children and
>>> bombing their country into a god-forsaken moonscape maybe they wouldn't
>>> be so upset with us.
>>>
>>> just a thought....
>>>
>>> jef
>>
>>That's a nicely wrapped and media-induced anti-war bandwagon banner if I
>>ever saw one.
>>
>>Just remember this is the same terrorist organization (al Quaeda) that is
>>killing Iraqi officials, citizens, Egyptian diplomats (any diplomats
>>actually) and trying to derail any semblance of government in Iraq. All
>in
>>the name off...??? What exactly? Does anyone know why they would bomb
>>London to get Britain out of Iraq, and derail the Iraqi government at the
>>same time? There is no logic in cutting off one's nose to spite one's face,
>>unless it really isn't your face after all...
>>
>>Only one answer: terrorists don't represent anyone's best interests other
>>than their own - not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Islam. And I'm pretty sure
>>they don't have any idea what their interests are, other than any reason
>to
>>kill. This is the essence of evil. It isn't a political agenda, it's a
>>perverse counter-moral agenda that can't be requited or quenched until it
>>has complete control.
>>
>>Blaming the bombings on the US and its' allies is like saying terrorist
>have
>>just as much right to express themselves by killing innocent men, women
>and
>>children as we do to own an iPod with our favorite tunes (I don't own one,
>>but bin Laden probably does).
>>
>>No offense Jef - you are entitled to your opinion - just expressing mine.
>
>
>Well-said... what pisses me off the most about this sort of
>thing is that - and this goes for London, the World Trade Center
>(both times), the bombings in Spain, etc, - is that they're
>attacking innocent people. This is not the same as colllateral
>damage in a war zone (which is no less tragic, don't get me
>wrong), it's completely different - they have a greivance with
>the policies of our country, or with those of England, or
>whoever; so they kill a bunch of average guys on their way to
>work, or women dropping their kids off at daycare. Those people
>don't make the rules, they live under them. Then they
>rationalize it by saying that we're all infidels anyway, so we
>all deserve to die. It's just such a twisted set of beliefs.
>Somehow, I don't think that's what Mohammed had in mind.
>
>NeilDear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an attack
due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we went
in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions. As for poison
gas, this wqas a party that everyone was invited toin the 70's and 80's and
which was subsequently banned. Sadaam is the only guy around who saw fit to
use this stuff. Doesn't really recommend him as Mr., custodian,now does it?
However, like I said before, doesn't matter about the WMD. Does matter about
him refusing to abide by the terms and conditions of U
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55405 is a reply to message #55392] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 09:10 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;>>>power.
> >>>I
> >>>>don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment.
> >>>
> >>>Well perhaps not exactly the same circumstances, but lets face it, you
> >>>guys
> >>>were allies with Iraq with the same dude in power, as was the case with
> >>Afghanistan/Taliban.
> >>>Not that I should be complaining, either to you, or GWB, that this
> >>>scenario
> >>>has changed. I guess I just don't look over history and think how you
> >>>guys
> >>>are the crusaders for peace always. Historically you have had a number
of
> >>>questionable alliances, IMO.
> >>
> >>Hey, you guys were once allies with Stalin, who then became the
> >>enemy of the entire free world!!!!
> >>
> >>(OK, I know we were allies with him against Germany too, but I'm
> >>just trying to illustrate the point that this is not such an
> >>uncommon occurrence, and certainly not one that's exclusive to
> >>the United States).
> >>
> >>Neil
> >
>
>
>Found it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/eval
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55407 is a reply to message #55387] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 09:15 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
e interface.
> The CPU specs are on the low side, but I run cubase and halion on a laptop
>with lower specs so I bet it would be cool for lots of stuff.
>
>ChuckUnky 55,
twas a general statement not directed and anyone in particular. kinda
like me talking to myself in a crowded room...which i do a lot much to
sleeping with fists chagrin.
"Now I'm gonna go sit on a bridge and pick my banjo," wifey and i
just bought deliverance the other day...damn good movie. the guy with
his arm on backwards reminds me of me when i swim.
;o)
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:49:53 -0600, "Mr Simplicity"
<animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
>
>Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an attack
>due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we went
>in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions. As for poison
>gas, this wqas a party that everyone was invited toin the 70's and 80's and
>which was subsequently banned. Sadaam is the only guy around who saw fit to
>use this stuff. Doesn't really recommend him as Mr., custodian,now does it?
>However, like I said before, doesn't matter about the WMD. Does matter about
>him refusing to abide by the terms and conditions of UN sanctions which
>provided *serious consequences* for his removal if said sanctions weren't
>honored. Serious consequences have been administered and he's gone.
>
>Now I'm gonna go sit on a bridge and pick my banjo,
>
>;o)
>
>
>"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
>news:42cea68b@linux...
>> BINGO!
>>
>> "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ir8tc19g6qma0u1hm96i3fgkmf4f9lavas@4ax.com...
>> > i'm gonna hate myself for this but...you can't give somebody poison
>> > gas then complain the that they may use/use/or have used it.
>> > eventually the "lesser of two evils" will always bite you in the ass.
>> > and that imo is what the world needs to learn.
>> >
>> > On 9 Jul 2005 00:49:58 +1000, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55408 is a reply to message #55406] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 10:49 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
was?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized the
>> >>>>region
>> >>>>and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by the
>UN
>> >>>>resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in
>> >>>>power.
>> >>>I
>> >>>>don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment.
>> >>>
>> >>>Well perhaps not exactly the same circumstances, but lets face it, you
>> >>>guys
>> >>>were allies with Iraq with the same dude in power, as was the case with
>> >>Afghanistan/Taliban.
>> >>>Not that I should be complaining, either to you, or GWB, that this
>> >>>scenario
>> >>>has changed. I guess I just don't look over history and think how you
>> >>>guys
>> >>>are the crusaders for peace always. Historically you have had a number
>of
>> >>>questionable alliances, IMO.
>> >>
>> >>Hey, you guys were once allies with Stalin, who then became the
>> >>enemy of the entire free world!!!!
>> >>
>> >>(OK, I know we were allies with him against Germany too, but I'm
>> >>just trying to illustrate the point that this is not such an
>> >>uncommon occurrence, and certainly not one that's exclusive to
>> >>the United States).
>> >>
>> >>Neil
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>waddaya tryin' to do here...kill the mood...geeze...o yeah, hi chuck.
On 8 Jul 2005 22:59:26 +1000, "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>Have anny of you guys seen the hush media pc? It's a 1U high pc that looks
>like a really slick high end stereo component.
>
>I'm bringing it up because the case is made from a single block of milled
>aluminum with cooling fins carved into the sides. Passive heat pipes move
>heat from the internal components and transfer it to the fins.
>
>There are no active cooling components whatsoever, and as a result it is
>completely, absolutely utterly silent.
>
>Of course you can't run paris on it, but I would bet that it would make a
>decent sample player/vst host if combined with a decent fire-wire interface.
> The CPU specs are on the low side, but I run cubase and halion on a laptop
>with lower specs so I bet it would be cool for lots of stuff.
>
>ChuckDear Daddy Dead Dane,
Wheres Osama?
Just to put things in perspective...
Osama killed 3000 US civilians.
US has killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42cebcb2@linux...
> Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
>
> Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an
> attack
> due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we
> went
> in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions. As for
> poison
> gas, this wqas a party that everyone was invited toin the 70's and 80's
> and
> which was subsequently banned. Sadaam is the only guy around who saw fit
> to
> use this stuff. Doesn't really recommend him as Mr., custodian,now does
> it?
> However, like I said before, doesn't matter about the WMD. Doe
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55411 is a reply to message #55408] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 12:05 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;are the crusaders for peace always. Historically you have had a number
> of
>> >>>questionable alliances, IMO.
>> >>
>> >>Hey, you guys were once allies with Stalin, who then became the
>> >>enemy of the entire free world!!!!
>> >>
>> >>(OK, I know we were allies with him against Germany too, but I'm
>> >>just trying to illustrate the point that this is not such an
>> >>uncommon occurrence, and certainly not one that's exclusive to
>> >>the United States).
>> >>
>> >>Neil
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:42cecf6a$1@linux...
> Dear Daddy Dead Dane,
>
> Wheres Osama?
>
> Just to put things in perspective...
>
> Osama killed 3000 US civilians.
>
> US has killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians.
PS. the 100,000 civilian deaths is a widely publicized estimate.
Confirmed deaths based on hospital records and such is 30,000.
So, the US has killed 10x as many Iraqi civilians as Osama did on 911, but
for some unknown reason, most people dont really care or consider them
humans."Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42cebcb2@linux...
> Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
>
> Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an
> attack
> due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we
> went
> in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions.
BTW, the UN sanctions is the flimsiest excuse for a war EVER. (Nevermind
that those very UN sanctions destroyed the country anyway)
*************************************************
General admits to secret air war
Jun 26, 2005
Michael Smith
Times Online (UK)
THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq
war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers
that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle
of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war
Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied
aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully
selected targets" before the war officially started.
The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied
victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start
the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly
zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W
Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.
Moseley's remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times that
showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in
leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as "spikes of activity to put
pressure on the regime".
Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17,
2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern
no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities.
A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a
meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the
foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral Sir
Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was carrying
out the bombing.
But Moseley's remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped in
southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a part
in the bombing as American aircraft.
Details of the Moseley briefing come amid rising concern in the US at
the war. A new poll shows 60% of Americans now believe it was a mistake.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.htmlSorry friends, I couldn't hold me:-(
As I
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55413 is a reply to message #55408] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 12:09 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
because GWB jr. saying it's not good for American echonomi at
all, so therefore he will not sign at all. I think most of you American
didn't know at all that it was one of the biggest American oilfirms(I didn't
remember the name right now) that get him on these thoughts.
So, as I can understand with my old brain, the US gouvernment have big
problems yet with their credibility in most part of the world, with their
echonomical behavings against other nations and the earth.
So for me it's really understandable how the hate are growing more and more
in some parts of the world, as we now have seen in London too....
.....Where will it be the next time, maybe Cobenhagen, maybe Rome, maybe....
.....America, isn't it time to take away the dollars from Bush's eyes and let
him see the light in the darkness of a real world?....
erlilo
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:42cebcb2@linux...
> Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
>
> Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an
attack
> due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we
went
> in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions. As for
poison
> gas, this wqas a party that everyone was invited toin the 70's and 80's
and
> which was subsequently banned. Sadaam is the only guy around who saw fit
to
> use this stuff. Doesn't really recommend him as Mr., custodian,now does
it?
> However, like I said before, doesn't matter about the WMD. Does matter
about
> him refusing to abide by the terms and conditions of UN sanctions which
> provided *serious consequences* for his removal if said sanctions weren't
> honored. Serious consequences have been administered and he's gone.
>
> Now I'm gonna go sit on a bridge and pick my banjo,
>
> ;o)
>
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> news:42cea68b@linux...
> > BINGO!
> >
> > "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ir8tc19g6qma0u1hm96i3fgkmf4f9lavas@4ax.com...
> > > i'm gonna hate myself for this but...you can't give somebody poison
> > > gas then complain the that they may use/use/or have used it.
> > > eventually the "lesser of two evils" will always bite you in the ass.
> > > and that imo is what the world needs to learn.
> > >
> > > On 9 Jul 2005 00:49:58 +1000, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil was?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized the
> > >>>>region
> > >>>>and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by
the
> UN
> > >>>>resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in
> > >>>>power.
> > >>>I
> > >>>>don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment.
> > >>>
> > >>>Well perhaps not exactly the same circumstances, but lets face it,
you
> > >>>guys
> > >>>were allies with Iraq with the same dude in power, as was the case
with
> > >>Afghanistan/Taliban.
> > >>>Not that I should be complaining, either to you, or GWB, that this
> > >>>scenario
> > >>>has changed. I guess I just don't look over history and think how you
> > >>>guys
> > >>>are the crusaders for peace always. Historically you ha
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55415 is a reply to message #55408] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 12:38 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
has been jumping all over this since June 26th.
Come to think of it, that's all I have been hearing about so I'm sure it's
true. I'll bet not one of these 391 "carefully
> selected targets" weas an anti aircraft battery illegally placed in the no
fly zone. They were surely all on top of civillian hospitals.............no
wait.........that's where Sadaam's troops were garrisoned........among the
civilian population. Hmmmmm..........perhaps if they hadn't used them for
shields, there wouldn't have been the civilian casualties you mention. This
was Sadaam's stated strategy from the beginning.........and it worked. He
got a lot of his own people killed so folks like you could spout this kind
of idiocy.
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:42ced6d1$1@linux...
>
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:42cebcb2@linux...
> > Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
> >
> > Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an
> > attack
> > due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we
> > went
> > in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions.
>
> BTW, the UN sanctions is the flimsiest excuse for a war EVER. (Nevermind
> that those very UN sanctions destroyed the country anyway)
>
> *************************************************
>
> General admits to secret air war
>
> Jun 26, 2005
>
>
> Michael Smith
> Times Online (UK)
>
> THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq
> war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British
officers
> that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the
middle
> of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
>
> Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war
> Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied
> aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391
"carefully
> selected targets" before the war officially started.
> The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the
allied
> victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to
start
> the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
>
> If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly
> zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W
> Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted
illegally.
>
> Moseley's remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times
that
> showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55416 is a reply to message #55408] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 12:41 |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
was described in
> leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as "spikes of activity to
put
> pressure on the regime".
>
> Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17,
> 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern
> no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic
minorities.
>
> A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a
> meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the
> foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral Sir
> Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was carrying
> out the bombing.
>
> But Moseley's remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped
in
> southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a
part
> in the bombing as American aircraft.
>
> Details of the Moseley briefing come amid rising concern in the US
at
> the war. A new poll shows 60% of Americans now believe it was a mistake.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html
>
>Deej, I know you're a smart man, and as more and more people open their
eyes, I believe you will too.
Bush went to war for one primary reason... because he made up his mind to do
so. The rest is just programming, which you so eloquently have repeated
verbatim.
http://www.ericblumrich.com/right.html
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42ceedf7$1@linux...
> I'm sure this is 100% true and credible and that's why the left wing media
> has been jumping all over this since June 26th.
>
> Come to think of it, that's all I have been hearing about so I'm sure it's
> true. I'll bet not one of these 391 "carefully
>> selected targets" weas an anti aircraft battery illegally placed in the
>> no
> fly zone. They were surely all on top of civillian
> hospitals.............no
> wait.........that's where Sadaam's troops were garrisoned........among the
> civilian population. Hmmmmm..........perhaps if they hadn't used them for
> shields, there wouldn't have been the civilian casualties you mention.
> This
> was Sadaam's stated strategy from the beginning.........and it worked. He
> got a lot of his own people killed so folks like you could spout this kind
> of idiocy.
>
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> news:42ced6d1$1@linux...
>>
>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
>> news:42cebcb2@linux...
>> > Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
>> >
>> > Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an
>> > attack
>> > due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we
>> > went
>> > in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions.
>>
>> BTW, the UN sanctions is the flimsiest excuse for a war EVER.
>> (Nevermind
>> that those very UN sanctions destroyed the country anyway)
>>
>> *************************************************
>>
>> General admits to secret air war
>>
>> Jun 26, 2005
>>
>>
>> Michael Smith
>> Times Online (UK)
>>
>> THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the
>> Iraq
>> war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British
> officers
>> that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the
> middle
>> of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
>>
>> Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war
>> Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003
>> allied
>> aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391
> "carefully
>> selected targets" before the war officially started.
>> The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the
> allied
>> victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to
> start
>> the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
>>
>> If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly
>> zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W
>> Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted
> illegally.
>>
>> Moseley's remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times
> that
>> showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in
>> leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as "spikes of activity to
> put
>> pressure on the regime".
>>
>> Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17,
>> 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern
>> no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic
> minorities.
>>
>> A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a
>> meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the
>> foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral
>> Sir
>> Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was carrying
>> out the bombing.
>>
>> But Moseley's remarks, and figures for the amount
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55417 is a reply to message #55415] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 14:20 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
of bombs dropped
> in
>> southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a
> part
>> in the bombing as American aircraft.
>>
>> Details of the Moseley briefing come amid rising concern in the US
> at
>> the war. A new poll shows 60% of Americans now believe it was a mistake.
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html
>>
>>
>
>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42ceedf7$1@linux...
>> selected targets" weas an anti aircraft battery illegally placed in the
>> no
> fly zone. They were surely all on top of civillian
> hospitals.............no
I dont see any anti-aircraft battery in this video. Do you?
Erling, I actually think you're correct here.
"erlilo" <erlilo@online.no> wrote in message news:42ced6fc@linux...
> Sorry friends, I couldn't hold me:-(
> As I see it, UN have allways had problems to do any sanctions because of
the
> veto rights that the biggest echonomical nations have.
The UN security council is where the veto lies, but it's a powerful force
and it is, as you are saying here, used for the self interest of thd nation
wielding it.
Why aren't America
> generally talking about these FACTS when talking about how problematic it
is
> with UN. So for me, it's not UN's fault at all, it's much more these big
> nations that nearly allways are making their own rights if their
echonomical
> structure are loosing money to other parts. So if there's any statistic
over
> which of these countries that have used the vetoright most up against the
> years, I think we'll see US and the not existing Sovjet at the big top.
I think you need to consider China as potentially the biggest future player
in the security council.
It's
> all about echonomy, or the "fuckin'"money that we allways want more of;-(
> So I think we here are seeing most of the problems and not generally with
> UN, as it's a great trying to do something with the big problems in the
> world. But with nations like US, there isn't any chance at all to do
> something, if there isn't any money to make on the problems at the end!
Agreed. Even with all the billions of our tax dollars and private dointions
we we give away in foriegn aid, we still have our own interests in mind
ultimately, as does France, Russia, China and the other members of the UN.
Thing is, I don't see them wasting anything close to what we wste in the
name of humanitarianism and they aren't hated nearly as much as we are so
perhaps we should shut off the faucet.
> Have a look at the problems the rest of the world are having with the
Kyoto
> protocol, just because GWB jr. saying it's not good for American echonomi
at
> all, so therefore he will not sign at all. I think most of you American
> didn't know at all that it was one of the biggest American oilfirms(I
didn't
> remember the name right now) that get him on these thoughts.
Well, if the other emergintg industrial nations like China and India were
held to an equivalent standard, we might be a bit more inclined to look at
this seriously. One thing you might be forgetting here is that, like it or
not, America became the behemouth that it is by virtue of having to stop tow
world wars and then keep the sovitet Union and china from overrunning the
rest of the planet. I'm sorry, but in a large way, the rest of the world
that hates us, actually created us by making the same stupid, shortsighted,
pacifistic decisions about appeasing aggressors that the current Euro states
are making right now.
> So, as I can understand with my old brain, the US gouvernment have big
> problems yet with their credibility in most part of the world, with their
> echonomical behavings against other nations and the earth.
You are correct. I think it's time to start getting ourselves more
uninvolved with the rest of the world and start taking the money that we are
pouring down the humanitarian rathole and put our
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55418 is a reply to message #55417] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 14:25 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
domestic industries back
on a solid footing so that we can quit sending our jobs to China, India and
Indonesia. I alwso imagine3 we could take the money that we are squndering
on those who hate our guts and use it to develop new energy technology to
that we can stop ruining the environment. We'll leave it to the EU to deal
with the emerging industrial nations who want to burn as much sulphurous
coal anddenude the remaining forests of the world. I think it's high time we
got started. We could start by assigning our seat at the UN security council
to Iran. Then the world could look to their riches and magnaminity when
there is a catastrophe somewhere instead of carping at us because we're so
evil.
> So for me it's really understandable how the hate are growing more and
more
> in some parts of the world, as we now have seen in London too....
> ....Where will it be the next time, maybe Cobenhagen, maybe Rome,
maybe....
I hope not. A lot of the money I hopeto save with my new plan will go toward
makeing sure our borders are controlled, illegals are documented and no more
illegals enter. That might make things a bit safer around here. You guys
carry on with the *one big happy world thing* without us. We've tried it. It
doesn't work.
>
> ....America, isn't it time to take away the dollars from Bush's eyes and
let
> him see the light in the darkness of a real world?....
>
> erlilo
Like I said..........I'm all for it.........and as usual, I'm sure France
will still be there when they need us.
Regards,
Deej
>
>
>
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:42cebcb2@linux...
> > Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
> >
> > Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an
> attack
> > due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we
> went
> > in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions. As for
> poison
> > gas, this wqas a party that everyone was invited toin the 70's and 80's
> and
> > which was subsequently banned. Sadaam is the only guy around who saw fit
> to
> > use this stuff. Doesn't really recommend him as Mr., custodian,now does
> it?
> > However, like I said before, doesn't matter about the WMD. Does matter
> about
> > him refusing to abide by the terms and conditions of UN sanctions which
> > provided *serious consequences* for his removal if said sanctions
weren't
> > honored. Serious consequences have been administered and he's gone.
> >
> > Now I'm gonna go sit on a bridge and pick my banjo,
> >
> > ;o)
> >
> >
> > "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> > news:42cea68b@linux...
> > > BINGO!
> > >
> > > "rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ir8tc19g6qma0u1hm96i3fgkmf4f9lavas@4ax.com...
> > > > i'm gonna hate myself for this but...you can't give somebody poison
> > > > gas then complain the that they may use/use/or have used it.
> > > > eventually the "lesser of two evils" will always bite you in the
ass.
> > > > and that imo is what the world needs to learn.
> > > >
> > > > On 9 Jul 2005 00:49:58 +1000, "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the problem where the oil
was?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Because the *problem* was Sadaam, who had already destabilized
the
> > > >>>>region
> > > >>>>and invaded one of our allies, Kuwait and had refused to abide by
> the
> > UN
> > > >>>>resolutions that were the conditions that allowed him to remain in
> > > >>>>power.
> > > >>>I
> > > >>>>don't see that scenario anywhere else at the moment.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Well perhaps not exactly the same circumstances, but lets face it,
> you
> > > >>>guys
> > > >>>were allies with Iraq with the same dude in power, as was the case
> with
> > > >>Afghanistan/Taliban.
> > > >>>Not that I should be complaining, either to you, or GWB, that this
> > > >>>scenario
> > > >>>has changed. I guess I just don't look over history and think how
you
> > >
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55420 is a reply to message #55416] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 14:48 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;>just trying to illustrate the point that this is not such an
> > > >>uncommon occurrence, and certainly not one that's exclusive to
> > > >>the United States).
> > > >>
> > > >>Neil
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>Yeh......I've seen the *Awwww dude* video before. There are others I could
show you. Of course, those who put this up don't consider the fact that
there may have been credible intelligence that these were
combatants........but I'm sure it was probably just a bunch of children
heading to a birthday party.
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:42cef0f1@linux...
>
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:42ceedf7$1@linux...
> >> selected targets" weas an anti aircraft battery illegally placed in the
> >> no
> > fly zone. They were surely all on top of civillian
> > hospitals.............no
>
> I dont see any anti-aircraft battery in this video. Do you?
>
>
>
>You might be right. Something tells me that militants probably wouldn't
stroll down the middle of the street like that but I dont know.
Obviously you're willing to sacrifice anyone if Bush says its OK... fuck
that.
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42cef8cb@linux...
> Yeh......I've seen the *Awwww dude* video before. There are others I could
> show you. Of course, those who put this up don't consider the fact that
> there may have been credible intelligence that these were
> combatants........but I'm sure it was probably just a bunch of children
> heading to a birthday party.
>
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> news:42cef0f1@linux...
>>
>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
>> news:42ceedf7$1@linux...
>> >> selected targets" weas an anti aircraft battery illegally placed in
>> >> the
>> >> no
>> > fly zone. They were surely all on top of civillian
>> > hospitals.............no
>>
>> I dont see any anti-aircraft battery in this video. Do you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>I'm
>just trying to illustrate the point that this is not such an
>uncommon occurrence, and certainly not one that's exclusive to
>the United States.
I'm not trying to make out that the U.S. is the only country that does this.
In fact I doubt there is a country that *doesn't* ally with evil when it
suits.
My point is simply that freeing people from a brutal dictator just doesn't
fit the pattern. Historically, brutal dictators are usually retty much allowed
to do there thing (by all countries, not just the U.S.) unless they annoy
people by starting to invade other countries etc. Hence when someone says
"we're doing this to rid the world of a brutal dictator" I go "Hmm, that
doesn't sound right"....
Cheers,
Kim.And it's FREE, too! (try the preset called "Ice Plate"):
http://www.dasample.com/stats/download.php?id=21
NeilHi Mr. Simplicity,
Unfortunately, Iraq is very much about oil for the US - big US oil companies.
And, leaving Iraqi oil in the ground, or burning it in bombed pipelines
is exactly what they want to do. This whole war was about destabilizing
the Middle East so that oil prices would rise and make billions for George's
friends, screwing everyone else in the process.
Osama has publicly said that his mission is to bankrupt the US the same way
that he feels he bankrupted the USSR in Afghanistan as payback for Israeli/US
aggression in Lebanon in the 1980s. I’m not defending him or his agenda
AT ALL, but we need to look at our enemies clearly – and our so-called friends
– if we’re going to make good decisions.
Just like Osama, Bush and his friends want to bankrupt the US government
in several ways, too: they want to give as much money as possible to their
corporate friends through reconstruction projects and military contracts,
they want to dismantle, as much as possible, what little social safety-net
the US has, and they want to bleed the American people directly with high
gas and oil prices.
The best way to end social spending and bring the US back to the early 1900s
economically (which seems to be part of the conservative ideology) is to
saddle the government with so much debt that the public simply can’t afford
social programs anymore. He’s intentionally trying to bankrupt the US government
to further entrench the power of his rich friends, and he’s doing a great
job.
There are two things that most so-called conservatives don’t seem to consider.
One, if you don’t redistribute a certain amount of wealth through taxation,
it gets so concentrated that the economy collapses and nobodies wealth is
worth anything anymore. Second, cutting taxes shrinks the economy. Why?
Because individuals, especially rich ones, don’t spend 100% of every dollar
they earn – they save some of it. Governments generally spend every red
cent they bring in. So, when George cuts taxes for his rich friends, the
US economy actually shrinks by the amount that people save and government
would have spent, further contributing the bankrupting of America.
As a Canadian, I’m extremely worried about the direction that the US is heading
in. Bush and the terrorists seem to have the same agenda. There’s no success
for Canada if the US falls apart. I can’t even tell you how heartbroken
and disappointed I was when George won the election. I’ve always believed
in and admired Americans – and I still do – but these are very worrisome
times.
My heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by this senselessness
- American, British, Canadian, Iraqi, and everyone else.
All the best,
Mike Audet
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>Kim,
>
>I hear your arguments and I respect your opinion. I do not, however, agree
>with your opinion. Waiting any longher would have done no good at all (my
>opinion of course) and despite the glee that those opposed to the war feel
>due to there having been no WMD's found, the delay could have easily
>provided the time for disposing of them across the border in Syria or in
the
>desolation of the Iraqi hinterland. I don't think this story is over yet.
I
>do think that those who dislike Bush desperately want it to be over so they
>can point fingers and trumpet their riteousness, all the while bellowing
>that the war was about WMD's and there weren't any found, therefore, the
war
>was unjustified. This is political spin at it's absolute lowest partisan
>level. This war was about justifiably enforcing UN resolutions and in doing
>so, removing a bloodthirsty monster who was a proven menace to stability
in
>the region. Would it have happened if 9-11 hadn't happened? I don't know,
>but I think eventually Sadaam would have succeeded in shooting down one
of
>our aircraft that was enforcing the no-fly zone and we would have done
>something. Obviously the EU, Russia and the UN didn't give a damn about
>anything but oil. It's blatantly obvious that keeping Sadaam in power was
>all about oil. If this was about oil to us, I guarantee we would have half
>a million men over there right now guarding the pipelines and infrastructure
>from border to border and we'd be sucking that teat dry as a bone as we
>speak. As you have so astutely noticed, Americans aren't subtle.
>
>Regards,
>
>Deej
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>>
>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth who
saw
>> any
>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>>
>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
went
>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was clearly
>garbage).
>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted Saddam
>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they noticed
>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
them
>> more oil power.
>>
>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events, politically,
>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
not
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55421 is a reply to message #55419] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 15:06 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It was
>obviouly
>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from tyranny"
>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
if
>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell them
>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>would
>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
as
>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
>waited
>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that eventually
>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>*didn't
>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>charge,
>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>restructured.
>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time before
>> enough c
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55422 is a reply to message #55421] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 15:14 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ountries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate
>for
>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
>countries
>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it
was
>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it. The
>way
>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on
war
>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
>made
>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N. actually
>ended
>> up behind it or not.
>>
>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>
>> This London thing is screwed.
>>
>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>
>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kim.
>
>Your whole line of thought, if correct - especially your 3rd &
4th paragraphs - would mean that Bush is one of the most evil
sonsofbeeatches ever to walk the face of the earth. I find it
hard to believe that in ANY free society, that could be the
case. Dictatorships, yeah, free societies, nah.
Ya know, as a side thought, for awhile there, I was really
starting to feel like we made a mistake by going into Iraq...
that we were hornswaggled, as they say - conned by the Iraqi's
who are NOW in power, and who had their own agenda against
Saddam. Now, with these latest bombings, I'm back to being
all about retribution, since massive force is the only thing
th
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55425 is a reply to message #55376] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 17:06 |
Mike Audet
Messages: 294
Registered: December 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>friends, screwing everyone else in the process.
>
>Osama has publicly said that his mission is to bankrupt the US the same
way
>that he feels he bankrupted the USSR in Afghanistan as payback for Israeli/US
>aggression in Lebanon in the 1980s. I’m not defending him or his agenda
>AT ALL, but we need to look at our enemies clearly – and our so-called friends
>– if we’re going to make good decisions.
>
>Just like Osama, Bush and his friends want to bankrupt the US government
>in several ways, too: they want to give as much money as possible to their
>corporate friends through reconstruction projects and military contracts,
>they want to dismantle, as much as possible, what little social safety-net
>the US has, and they want to bleed the American people directly with high
>gas and oil prices.
>
>The best way to end social spending and bring the US back to the early 1900s
>economically (which seems to be part of the conservative ideology) is to
>saddle the government with so much debt that the public simply can’t afford
>social programs anymore. He’s intentionally trying to bankrupt the US government
>to further entrench the power of his rich friends, and he’s doing a great
>job.
>
>There are two things that most so-called conservatives don’t seem to consider.
> One, if you don’t redistribute a certain amount of wealth through taxation,
>it gets so concentrated that the economy collapses and nobodies wealth is
>worth anything anymore. Second, cutting taxes shrinks the economy. Why?
> Because individuals, especially rich ones, don’t spend 100% of every dollar
>they earn – they save some of it. Governments generally spend every red
>cent they bring in. So, when George cuts taxes for his rich friends, the
>US economy actually shrinks by the amount that people save and government
>would have spent, further contributing the bankrupting of America.
>
>As a Canadian, I’m extremely worried about the direction that the US is
heading
>in. Bush and the terrorists seem to have the same agenda. There’s no success
>for Canada if the US falls apart. I can’t even tell you how heartbroken
>and disappointed I was when George won the election. I’ve always believed
>in and admired Americans – and I still do – but these are very worrisome
>times.
>
>My heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by this senselessness
> - American, British, Canadian, Iraqi, and everyone else.
>
>All the best,
>Mike Audet
>
>
>
>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>Kim,
>>
>>I hear your arguments and I respect your opinion. I do not, however, agree
>>with your opinion. Waiting any longher would have done no good at all (my
>>opinion of course) and despite the glee that those opposed to the war feel
>>due to there having been no WMD's found, the delay could have easily
>>provided the time for disposing of them across the border in Syria or in
>the
>>desolation of the Iraqi hinterland. I don't think this story is over yet.
>I
>>do think that those who dislike Bush desperately want it to be over so
they
>>can point fingers and trumpet their riteousness, all the while bellowing
>>that the war was about WMD's and there weren't any found, therefore, the
>war
>>was unjustified. This is political spin at it's absolute lowest partisan
>>level. This war was about justifiably enforcing UN resolutions and in doing
>>so, removing a bloodthirsty monster who was a proven menace to stability
>in
>>the region. Would it have happened if 9-11 hadn't happened? I don't know,
>>but I think eventually Sadaam would have succeeded in shooting down one
>of
>>our aircraft that was enforcing the no-fly zone and we would have done
>>something. Obviously the EU, Russia and the UN didn't give a damn about
>>anything but oil. It's blatantly obvious that keeping Sadaam in power was
>>all about oil. If this was about oil to us, I guarantee we would have
half
>>a million men over there right now guarding the pipelines and infrastructure
>>from border to border and we'd be sucking that teat dry as a bone as we
>>speak. As you have so astutely noticed, Americans aren't subtle.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Deej
>>
>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth who
>saw
>>> any
>>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>>>
>>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
>went
>>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was clearly
>>garbage).
>>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted Saddam
>>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they noticed
>>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
>them
>>> more oil power.
>>>
>>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events, politically,
>>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
>not
>>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It was
>>obviouly
>>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from tyranny"
>>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
>if
>>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell them
>>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>>would
>>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
>as
>>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
>>waited
>>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that eventually
>>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>>*didn't
>>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>>charge,
>>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>>restructured.
>>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time before
>>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate
>>for
>>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
>>countries
>>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it
>was
>>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it. The
>>way
>>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on
>war
>>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
>>made
>>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N. actually
>>ended
>>> up behind it or not.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>>
>>> This London thing is screwed.
>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55426 is a reply to message #55425] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 17:26 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>
>>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>>
>>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Kim.
>>
>>
>well dont that just say it all
yes bush is bankrupting the country
no we can't go and nuke countries
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42cf19b3$1@linux...
>
> Your whole line of thought, if correct - especially your 3rd &
> 4th paragraphs - would mean that Bush is one of the most evil
> sonsofbeeatches ever to walk the face of the earth. I find it
> hard to believe that in ANY free society, that could be the
> case. Dictatorships, yeah, free societies, nah.
>
> Ya know, as a side thought, for awhile there, I was really
> starting to feel like we made a mistake by going into Iraq...
> that we were hornswaggled, as they say - conned by the Iraqi's
> who are NOW in power, and who had their own agenda against
> Saddam. Now, with these latest bombings, I'm back to being
> all about retribution, since massive force is the only thing
> these extremists seem to understand - or if they don't
> understand it, at least we'll lower their numbers & limit their
> capabilities by that method. So I'm now thinking that a good
> position would be: for every terrorist attack that occurs
> against us or one of our allies, we should nuke an Islamic city.
> One bomb - done. Next? Oh you want to bomb another embassy? OK,
> fine, there goes another Islamic city... bigger bomb this time.
> Trust me, that kind of shit wouldn't last too long before we
> had peace on earth & goodwill towards all men for a good long
> time.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> Neil
>
> "Mike Audet" <mike@mike......com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Mr. Simplicity,
>>
>>Unfortunately, Iraq is very much about oil for the US - big US oil
>>companies.
>> And, leaving Iraqi oil in the ground, or burning it in bombed pipelines
>>is exactly what they want to do. This whole war was about destabilizing
>>the Middle East so that oil prices would rise and make billions for
>>George's
>>friends, screwing everyone else in the process.
>>
>>Osama has publicly said that his mission is to bankrupt the US the same
> way
>>that he feels he bankrupted the USSR in Afghanistan as payback for
>>Israeli/US
>>aggression in Lebanon in the 1980s. I'm not defending him or his agenda
>>AT ALL, but we need to look at our enemies clearly - and our so-called
>>friends
>>- if we're going to make good decisions.
>>
>>Just like Osama, Bush and his friends want to bankrupt the US government
>>in several ways, too: they want to give as much money as possible to
>>their
>>corporate friends through reconstruction projects and military contracts,
>>they want to dismantle, as much as possible, what little social safety-net
>>the US has, and they want to bleed the American people directly with high
>>gas and oil prices.
>>
>>The best way to end social spending and bring the US back to the early
>>1900s
>>economically (which seems to be part of the conservative ideology) is to
>>saddle the government with so much debt that the public simply can't
>>afford
>>social programs anymore. He's intentionally trying to bankrupt the US
>>government
>>to further entrench the power of his rich friends, and he's doing a great
>>job.
>>
>>There are two things that most so-called conservatives don't seem to
>>consider.
>> One, if you don't redistribute a certain amount of wealth through
>> taxation,
>>it gets so concentrated that the economy collapses and nobodies wealth is
>>worth anything anymore. Second, cutting taxes shrinks the economy. Why?
>> Because individuals, especially rich ones, don't spend 100% of every
>> dollar
>>they earn - they save some of it. Governments generally spend every red
>>cent they bring in. So, when George cuts taxes for his rich friends, the
>>US economy actually shrinks by the amount that people save and government
>>would have spent, further contributing the bankrupting of America.
>>
>>As a Canadian, I'm extremely worried about the direction that the US is
> heading
>>in. Bush and the terrorists seem to have the same agenda. There's no
>>success
>>for Canada if the US falls apart. I can't even tell you how heartbroken
>>and disappointed I was when George won the election. I've always believed
>>in and admired Americans - and I still do - but these are very worrisome
>>times.
>>
>>My heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by this senselessness
>> - American, British, Canadian, Iraqi, and everyone else.
>>
>>All the best,
>>Mike Audet
>>
>>
>>
>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>Kim,
>>>
>>>I hear your arguments and I respect your opinion. I do not, however,
>>>agree
>>>with your opinion. Waiting any longher would have done no good at all (my
>>>opinion of course) and despite the glee that those opposed to the war
>>>feel
>>>due to there having been no WMD's found, the delay could have easily
>>>provided the time for disposing of them across the border in Syria or in
>>the
>>>desolation of the Iraqi hinterland. I don't think this story is over yet.
>>I
>>>do think that those who dislike Bush desperately want it to be over so
> they
>>>can point fingers and trumpet their riteousness, all the while bellowing
>>>that the war was about WMD's and there weren't any found, therefore, the
>>war
>>>was unjustified. This is political spin at it's absolute lowest partisan
>>>level. This war was about justifiably enforcing UN resolutions and in
>>>doing
>>>so, removing a bloodthirsty monster who was a proven menace to stability
>>in
>>>the region. Would it have happened if 9-11 hadn't happened? I don't know,
>>>but I think eventually Sadaam would have succeeded in shooting down one
>>of
>>>our aircraft that was enforcing the no-fly zone and we would have done
>>>something. Obviously the EU, Russia and the UN didn't give a damn about
>>>anything but oil. It's blatantly obvious that keeping Sadaam in power was
>>>all about oil. If this was about oil to us, I guarantee we would have
> half
>>>a million men over there right now guarding the pipelines and
>>>infrastructure
>>>from border to border and we'd be sucking that teat dry as a bone as we
>>>speak. As you have so astutely noticed, Americans aren't subtle.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Deej
>>>
>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth who
>>saw
>>>> any
>>>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>>>>
>>>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
>>went
>>>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was clearly
>>>garbage).
>>>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted
>>>> Saddam
>>>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they
>>>> noticed
>>>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
>>them
>>>> more oil power.
>>>>
>>>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events,
>>>> politically,
>>>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
>>not
>>>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It was
>>>obviouly
>>>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from
>>>> tyranny"
>>>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
>>if
>>>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell
>>>> them
>>>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>>>would
>>>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
>>as
>>>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
>>>waited
>>>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55427 is a reply to message #55426] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 18:07 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>> eventually
>>>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>>>*didn't
>>>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>>>charge,
>>>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>>>restructured.
>>>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time
>>>> before
>>>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate
>>>for
>>>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
>>>countries
>>>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it
>>was
>>>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it. The
>>>way
>>>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on
>>war
>>>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
>>>made
>>>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N. actually
>>>ended
>>>> up behind it or not.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>>>
>>>> This London thing is screwed.
>>>>
>>>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>>>
>>>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Kim.
>>>
>>>
>>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Your whole line of thought, if correct - especially your 3rd &
>4th paragraphs - would mean that Bush is one of the most evil
>sonsofbeeatches ever to walk the face of the earth. I find it
>hard to believe that in ANY free society, that could be the
>case. Dictatorships, yeah, free societies, nah.
How do you think dictatorships come about? I thought it was when some mean-ass
dude comes along and hustles, lies, bribes, and does whatever is required
to get power and take control over a free society.
Not that Bush is likely to be able to become dictator. ;o)
Point is that it's not like once you're a free society you're out of the
woods. Throughout history societies are constantly moving backwards and forwards
from relative freedom to tyranny. Even looking back on the English monarchy
you see some Kings who were good to the people, and others who made life
miserable.
You seem to be suggesting that in a free society, because that supposedly
makes people happy, that nobody will do anything nasty or greedy to mess
it up. I can assure you that's not the case.
Cheers,
Kim."Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>Trust me, that kind of shit wouldn't last too long before we
>had peace on earth & goodwill towards all men for a good long
>time.
LOL!! You're not serious?!?
See, that's what this whole debate has been about. Whether you can get peace
through violence...
There's a song... oh, what's the guy's name... the from the disposable
hero's of hypocracy, anyhow, the line from it is "You can bomb the world
to peices, but you can bomb the world to peace".
You would find that your strategy wouldn't work I think. :o)
Cheers,
Kim. http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/fuel-air-explo sion/
Maybe this??? Lots less radioactivity.........but seriously.............
you're right that Muslims are going to need to get real proactive with their
own. There's some pretty Hitlerian dialog going on in Holland these days
about how to clean up the *Islamic problem*. It's funny about how the Euro's
whine and bitch about how unfair and awful war is, then when the chips are
down.......bingo!!!!!! let's sit around on our collective asses and watch
the Serbs dio a little ethnic housekeeping........oh shit!!!! .......those
meddling Americans came along and saved the Muslims and spoiled all our
fun.............but hell, let's go visit our buddy Sadaam and pick up a few
million barrells of oil while we're there. Those kids who are dying of
starvation and disease due to our turning a blind eye to his violations of
UN sanctions won't care. Hell, they're too busy swatting the flies off their
festering wounds and running to the crapper with disentery.........and just
maybe while we're there we get lucky in a rape room. Whaddaya say guys?
The hypocracy is just unbelievable.
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42cf19b3$1@linux...
>
> Your whole line of thought, if correct - especially your 3rd &
> 4th paragraphs - would mean that Bush is one of the most evil
> sonsofbeeatches ever to walk the face of the earth. I find it
> hard to believe that in ANY free society, that could be the
> case. Dictatorships, yeah, free societies, nah.
>
> Ya know, as a side thought, for awhile there, I was really
> starting to feel like we made a mistake by going into Iraq...
> that we were hornswaggled, as they say - conned by the Iraqi's
> who are NOW in power, and who had their own agenda against
> Saddam. Now, with these latest bombings, I'm back to being
> all about retribution, since massive force is the only thing
> these extremists seem to understand - or if they don't
> understand it, at least we'll lower their numbers & limit their
> capabilities by that method. So I'm now thinking that a good
> position would be: for every terrorist attack that occurs
> against us or one of our allies, we should nuke an Islamic city.
> One bomb - done. Next? Oh you want to bomb another embassy? OK,
> fine, there goes another Islamic city... bigger bomb this time.
> Trust me, that kind of shit wouldn't last too long before we
> had peace on earth & goodwill towards all men for a good long
> time.
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> Neil
>
> "Mike Audet" <mike@mike......com> wrote:
> >
> >Hi Mr. Simplicity,
> >
> >Unfortunately, Iraq is very much about oil for the US - big US oil
companies.
> > And, leaving Iraqi oil in the ground, or burning it in bombed pipelines
> >is exactly what they want to do. This whole war was about destabilizing
> >the Middle East so that oil prices would rise and make billions for
George's
> >friends, screwing everyone else in the process.
> >
> >Osama has publicly said that his mission is to bankrupt the US the same
> way
> >that he feels he bankrupted the USSR in Afghanistan as payback for
Israeli/US
> >aggression in Lebanon in the 1980s. I'm not defending him or his agenda
> >AT ALL, but we need to look at our enemies clearly - and our so-called
friends
> >- if we're going to make good decisions.
> >
> >Just like Osama, Bush and his friends want to bankrupt the US government
> >in several ways, too: they want to give as much money as possible to
their
> >corporate friends through reconstruction projects and military contracts,
> >they want to dismantle, as much as possible, what little social
safety-net
> >the US has, and they want to bleed the American people directly with high
> >gas and oil prices.
> >
> >The best way to end social spending and bring the US back to the early
1900s
> >economically (which seems to be part of the conservative ideology) is to
> >saddle the government with so much debt that the public simply can't
afford
> >social programs anymore. He's intentionally trying to bankrupt the US
government
> >to further entrench the power of his rich friends, and he's doing a great
> >job.
> >
> >There are two things that most so-called conservatives don't seem to
consider.
> > One, if you don't redistribute a certain amount of wealth through
taxation,
> >it gets so concentrated that the economy collapses and nobodies wealth is
> >worth anything anymore. Second, cutting taxes shrinks the economy. Why?
> > Because individuals, especially rich ones, don't spend 100% of every
dollar
> >they earn - they save some of it. Governments generally spend every red
> >cent they bring in. So, when George cuts taxes for his rich friends,
the
> >US economy actually shrinks by the amount that people save and government
> >would have spent, further contributing the bankrupting of America.
> >
> >As a Canadian, I'm extremely worried about the direction that the US is
> heading
> >in. Bush and the terrorists seem to have the same agenda. There's no
success
> >for Canada if the US falls apart. I can't even tell you how heartbroken
> >and disappointed I was when George won the election. I've always
believed
> >in and admired Americans - and I still do - but these are very worrisome
> >times.
> >
> >My heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by this senselessness
> > - American, British, Canadian, Iraqi, and everyone else.
> >
> >All the best,
> >Mike Audet
> >
> >
> >
> >"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
> >>Kim,
> >>
> >>I hear your arguments and I respect your opinion. I do not, however,
agree
> >>with your opinion. Waiting any longher would have done no good at all
(my
> >>opinion of course) and despite the glee that those opposed to the war
feel
> >>due to there having been no WMD's found, the delay could have easily
> >>provided the time for disposing of them across the border in Syria or in
> >the
> >>desolation of the Iraqi hinterland. I don't think this story is over
yet.
> >I
> >>do think that those who dislike Bush desperately want it to be over so
> they
> >>can point fingers and trumpet their riteousness, all the while bellowing
> >>that the war was about WMD's and there weren't any found, therefore, the
> >war
> >>was unjustified. This is political spin at it's absolute lowest partisan
> >>level. This war was about justifiably enforcing UN resolutions and in
doing
> >>so, removing a bloodthirsty monster who was a proven menace to stability
> >in
> >>the region. Would it have happened if 9-11 hadn't happened? I don't
know,
> >>but I think eventually Sadaam wou
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55430 is a reply to message #55426] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 18:27 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;
> >>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events,
politically,
> >>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
> >not
> >>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It
was
> >>obviouly
> >>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from
tyranny"
> >>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
> >if
> >>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell
them
> >>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
> >>would
> >>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
> >as
> >>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
> >>waited
> >>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that
eventually
> >>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
> >>*didn't
> >>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
> >>charge,
> >>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
> >>restructured.
> >>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time
before
> >>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only
procrastinate
> >>for
> >>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
> >>countries
> >>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure it
> >was
> >>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it.
The
> >>way
> >>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent on
> >war
> >>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
> >>made
> >>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N.
actually
> >>ended
> >>> up behind it or not.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
> >>>
> >>> This London thing is screwed.
> >>>
> >>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
> >>>
> >>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Kim.
> >>
> >>
> >
>Hi Neil,
I appreciate your point of view - and very much enjoy these discussion.
I hope that everyone knows that I'm not trying to insult anyone. As a Canadian,
I relish any chance to interact with Americans and get a better understanding
of their points of view.
I do believe that Bush is one evil sonofabitch. There was an article in the
Toronto Star a few years back. Someone studied George Bush's stammering.
Basically, they found that he stammers and misspeaks whenever he talks about
helping poeple, or social justice, or doing good in the world. When he talks
about killing people, or blowing things up, or punishing people, he never
stammers. The conclusion was that he is so disinterested in helping people
or making the world a better place that he can't even keep his attention
on it long enough to complete a sentence. I'm being completely serious about
this.
The trouble with nuking cities is that it will only escalate the violence.
It wouldn't be long until an American city fell to the same fate. Some
nuclear scientist who sympathized with the plight of an arab city would give
a bomb to an extremist, and the rest would be history. Violence begets violence.
Sometimes violence can't be avoided. But, right now, we have a small
group of people that are causing a lot of fear and hurt with a little money
and a small number of crazy "true believers". I think America should be
spending its money on border guards, not cruise missiles.
All the best,
Mike
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>Your whole line of thought, if correct - especially your 3rd &
>4th paragraphs - would mean that Bush is one of the most evil
>sonsofbeeatches ever to walk the face of the earth. I find it
>hard to believe that in ANY free society, that could be the
>case. Dictatorships, yeah, free societies, nah.
>
>Ya know, as a side thought, for awhile there, I was really
>starting to feel like we made a mistake by going into Iraq...
>that we were hornswaggled, as they say - conned by the Iraqi's
>who are NOW in power, and who had their own agenda against
>Saddam. Now, with these latest bombings, I'm back to being
>all about retribution, since massive force is the only thing
>these extremists seem to understand - or if they don't
>understand it, at least we'll lower their numbers & limit their
>capabilities by that method. So I'm now thinking that a good
>position would be: for every terrorist attack that occurs
>against us or one of our allies, we should nuke an Islamic city.
>One bomb - done. Next? Oh you want to bomb another embassy? OK,
>fine, there goes another Islamic city... bigger bomb this time.
>Trust me, that kind of shit wouldn't last too long before we
>had peace on earth & goodwill towards all men for a good long
>time.
>
>Neil
>
>
>
>Neil
>
>"Mike Audet" <mike@mike......com> wrote:
>>
>>Hi Mr. Simplicity,
>>
>>Unfortunately, Iraq is very much about oil for the US - big US oil companies.
>> And, leaving Iraqi oil in the ground, or burning it in bombed pipelines
>>is exactly what they want to do. This whole war was about destabilizing
>>the Middle East so that oil prices would rise and make billions for George's
>>friends, screwing everyone else in the process.
>>
>>Osama has publicly said that his mission is to bankrupt the US the same
>way
>>that he feels he bankrupted the USSR in Afghanistan as payback for Israeli/US
>>aggression in Lebanon in the 1980s. I’m not defending him or his agenda
>>AT ALL, but we need to look at our enemies clearly – and our so-called
friends
>>– if we’re going to make good decisions.
>>
>>Just like Osama, Bush and his friends want to bankrupt the US government
>>in several ways, too: they want to give as much money as possible to their
>>corporate friends through reconstruction projects and military contracts,
>>they want to dismantle, as much as possible, what little social safety-net
>>the US has, and they want to bleed the American people directly with high
>>gas and oil prices.
>>
>>The best way to end social spending and bring the US back to the early
1900s
>>economically (which seems to be part of the conservative ideology) is to
>>saddle the government with so much debt that the public simply can’t afford
>>social programs anymore. He’s intentionally trying to bankrupt the US
government
>>to further entrench the power of his rich friends, and he’s doing a great
>>job.
>>
>>There are two things that most so-called conservatives don’t seem to consider.
>> One, if you don’t redistribute a certain amount of wealth through taxation,
>>it gets so concentrated that the economy collapses and nobodies wealth
is
>>worth anything anymore. Second, cutting taxes shrinks the economy. Why?
>> Because individuals, especially rich ones, don’t spend 100% of every dollar
>>they earn – they save some of it. Governments generally spend every red
>>cent they bring in. So, when George cuts taxes for his rich friends,
the
>>US economy actually shrinks by the amount that people save and government
>>would have spent, further contributing the bankrupting of America.
>>
>>As a Canadian, I’m extremely worried about the direction that the US is
>heading
>>in. Bush and the terrorists seem to have the same agenda. There’s no
success
>>for Canada if the US falls apart. I can’t even tell you how heartbroken
>>and disappointed I was when George won the election. I’ve always believed
>>in and admired Americans – and I still do – but these are very worrisome
>>times.
>>
>>My heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by this senselessness
>> - American, British, Canadian, Iraqi, and everyone else.
>>
>>All the best,
>>Mike Audet
>>
>>
>>
>>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>Kim,
>>>
>>>I hear your arguments and I respect your opinion. I do not, however, agree
>>>with your opinion. Waiting any longher would have done no good at all
(my
>>>opinion of course) and despite the glee that those opposed to the war
feel
>>>due to there having been no WMD's found, the delay could have easily
>>>provided the time for disposing of them across the border in Syria or
in
>>the
>>>desolation of the Iraqi hinterland. I don't think this story is over yet.
>>I
>>>do think that those who dislike Bush desperately want it to be over so
>they
>>>can point fingers and trumpet their riteousness, all the while bellowing
>>>that the war was about WMD's and there weren't any found, therefore, the
>>war
>>>was unjustified. This is political spin at it's absolute lowest partisan
>>>level. This war was about justifiably enforcing UN resolutions and in
doing
>>>so, removing a bloodthirsty monster who was a proven menace to stability
>>in
>>>the region. Would it have happened if 9-11 hadn't happened? I don't know,
>>>but I think eventually Sadaam would have succeeded in shooting down one
>>of
>>>our aircraft that was enforcing the no-fly zone and we would have done
>>>something. Obviously the EU, Russia and the UN didn't give a damn about
>>>anything but oil. It's blatantly obvious that keeping Sadaam in power
was
>>>all about oil. If this was about oil to us, I guarantee we would have
>half
>>>a million men over there right now guarding the pipelines and infrastructure
>>>from border to border and we'd be sucking that teat dry as a bone as we
>>>speak. As you have so astutely noticed, Americans aren't subtle.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Deej
>>>
>>>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>>>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth who
>>saw
>>>> any
>>>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>>>>
>>>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
>>went
>>>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was clearly
>>>garbage).
>>>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted Saddam
>>>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they noticed
>>>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
>>them
>>>> more oil power.
>>>>
>>>&
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55431 is a reply to message #55426] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 18:27 |
Mike Audet
Messages: 294
Registered: December 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt; It really frustrates me that as I look around those events, politically,
>>>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda, and
>>not
>>>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It
was
>>>obviouly
>>>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from tyranny"
>>>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to care
>>if
>>>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell
them
>>>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>>>would
>>>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
>>as
>>>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S. had
>>>waited
>>>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that eventually
>>>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>>>*didn't
>>>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>>>charge,
>>>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>>>restructured.
>>>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time before
>>>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only procrastinate
>>>for
>>>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag of
>>>countries
>>>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure
it
>>was
>>>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it.
The
>>>way
>>>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent
on
>>war
>>>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would have
>>>made
>>>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N. actually
>>>ended
>>>> up behind it or not.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>>>>
>>>> This London thing is screwed.
>>>>
>>>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>>>>
>>>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Kim.
>>>
>>>
>>
>Hi Mr. Simplicity,
There is certainly a lot of hypocracy out there. The question is whether
war in Iraq made things better or worse. We're never going to have a perfect
world, so we have to focus on making it better - not perfect.
I wish Canada and the rest of the world would get behind the US and help
with security in Iraq. I opposed the war and was so proud that out prime
minister kept us out of it, but it's time to pitch in and help our neighbours
to the south and the Iraqis themselves.
But, it was a mistake to think that you could just send in the army and then
have an election and Iraq would be all wonderful like it is in the US. The
Iraqi society is made up of enough violent religious extreemists who hate
each other that without a very strong central govenment clamping down on
them, there is going to be chaos. And there is. It's just not as simple
as George would like us to believe.
So, what looks like hipocracy from the outside might have really been people
who understood the dificulty involved in sorting out the problems properly
deciding that it was more than they could take on.
All the best,
Mike
All the best,
Mike
"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
> http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/fuel-air-explo sion/
>
>Maybe this??? Lots less radioactivity.........but seriously.............
>you're right that Muslims are going to need to get real proactive with their
>own. There's some pretty Hitlerian dialog going on in Holland these days
>about how to clean up the *Islamic problem*. It's funny about how the Euro's
>whine and bitch about how unfair and awful war is, then when the chips are
>down.......bingo!!!!!! let's sit around on our collective asses and watch
>the Serbs dio a little ethnic housekeeping........oh shit!!!! .......those
>meddling Americans came along and saved the Muslims and spoiled all our
>fun.............but hell, let's go visit our buddy Sadaam and pick up a
few
>million barrells of oil while we're there. Those kids who are dying of
>starvation and disease due to our turning a blind eye to his violations
of
>UN sanctions won't care. Hell, they're too busy swatting the flies off their
>festering wounds and running to the crapper with disentery.........and just
>maybe while we're there we get lucky in a rape room. Whaddaya say guys?
>
>The hypocracy is just unbelievable.
>
>
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42cf19b3$1@linux...
>>
>> Your whole line of thought, if correct - especially your 3rd &
>> 4th paragraphs - would mean that Bush is one of the most evil
>> sonsofbeeatches ever to walk the face of the earth. I find it
>> hard to believe that in ANY free society, that could be the
>> case. Dictatorships, yeah, free societies, nah.
>>
>> Ya know, as a side thought, for awhile there, I was really
>> starting to feel like we made a mistake by going into Iraq...
>> that we were hornswaggled, as they say - conned by the Iraqi's
>> who are NOW in power, and who had their own agenda against
>> Saddam. Now, with these latest bombings, I'm back to being
>> all about retribution, since massive force is the only thing
>> these extremists seem to understand - or if they don't
>> understand it, at least we'll lower their numbers & limit their
>> capabilities by that method. So I'm now thinking that a good
>> position would be: for every terrorist attack that occurs
>> against us or one of our allies, we should nuke an Islamic city.
>> One bomb - done. Next? Oh you want to bomb another embassy? OK,
>> fine, there goes another Islamic city... bigger bomb this time.
>> Trust me, that kind of shit wouldn't last too long before we
>> had peace on earth & goodwill towards all men for a good long
>> time.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>>
>> Neil
>>
>> "Mike Audet" <mike@mike......com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Hi Mr. Simplicity,
>> >
>> >Unfortunately, Iraq is very much about oil for the US - big US oil
>companies.
>> > And, leaving Iraqi oil in the ground, or burning it in bombed pipelines
>> >is exactly what they want to do. This whole war was about destabilizing
>> >the Middle East so that oil prices would rise and make billions for
>George's
>> >friends, screwing everyone else in the process.
>> >
>> >Osama has publicly said that his mission is to bankrupt the US the same
>> way
>> >that he feels he bankrupted the USSR in Afghanistan as payback for
>Israeli/US
>> >aggression in Lebanon in the 1980s. I'm not defending him or his agenda
>> >AT ALL, but we need to look at our enemies clearly - and our so-called
>friends
>> >- if we're going to make good decisions.
>> >
>> >Just like Osama, Bush and his friends want to bankrupt the US government
>> >in several ways, too: they want to give as much money as possible to
>their
>> >corporate friends through reconstruction projects and military contracts,
>> >they want to dismantle, as much as possible, what little social
>safety-net
>> >the US has, and they want to bleed the American people directly with
high
>> >gas and oil prices.
>> >
>> >The best way to end social spending and bring the US back to the early
>1900s
>> >economically (which seems to be part of the conservative ideology) is
to
>> >saddle the government with so much debt that the public simply can't
>afford
>> >social programs anymore. He's intentionally trying to bankrupt the US
>government
>> >to further entrench the power of his rich friends, and he's doing a great
>> >job.
>> >
>> >There are two things that most so-called conservatives don't seem to
>consider.
>> > One, if you don't redistribute a certain amount of wealth through
>taxation,
>> >it gets so concentrated that the economy collapses and nobodies wealth
is
>> >worth anything anymore. Second, cutting taxes shrinks the economy.
Why?
>> > Because individuals, especially rich ones, don't spend 100% of every
>dollar
>> >they earn - they save some of it. Governments generally spend every
red
>> >cent they bring in. So, when George cuts taxes for his rich friends,
>the
>> >US economy actually shrinks by the amount that people save and government
>> >would have spent, further contributing the bankrupting of America.
>> >
>> >As a Canadian, I'm extremely worried about the direction that the US
is
>> heading
>> >in. Bush and the terrorists seem to have the same agenda. There's no
>success
>> >for Canada if the US falls apart. I can't even tell you how heartbroken
>> >and disappointed I was when George won the election. I've always
>believed
>> >in and admired Americans - and I still do - but these are very worrisome
>> >times.
>> >
>> >My heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by this senselessness
>> > - American, British, Canadian, Iraqi, and everyone else.
>> >
>> >All the best,
>> >Mike Audet
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >>Kim,
>> >>
>> >>I hear your arguments and I respect your opinion. I do not, however,
>agree
>> >>with your opinion. Waiting any longher would have done no good at all
>(my
>> >>opinion of course) and despite the glee that those opposed to the war
>feel
>> >>due to there having been no WMD's found, the delay could have easily
>> >>provided the time for disposing of them across the border in Syria or
in
>> >the
>> >>desolation of the Iraqi hinterland. I don't think this story is over
>yet.
>> >I
>> >>do think that those who dislike Bush desperately want it to be over
so
>> they
>> >>can point fingers and trumpet their riteousness, all the while bellowing
>> >>that the war was about WMD's and there weren't any found, therefore,
the
>> >war
>> >>was unjustified. This is political spin at it's absolute lowest partisan
>> >>level. This war was about justifiably enforcing UN resolutions and in
>doing
>> >>so, removing a bloodthirsty monster who was a proven menace to stability
>> >in
>> >>the region. Would it have happened if 9-11 hadn't happened? I don't
>know,
>> >>but I
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55432 is a reply to message #55430] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 18:42 |
Mike Audet
Messages: 294
Registered: December 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
think eventually Sadaam would have succeeded in shooting down
one
>> >of
>> >>our aircraft that was enforcing the no-fly zone and we would have done
>> >>something. Obviously the EU, Russia and the UN didn't give a damn about
>> >>anything but oil. It's blatantly obvious that keeping Sadaam in power
>was
>> >>all about oil. If this was about oil to us, I guarantee we would have
>> half
>> >>a million men over there right now guarding the pipelines and
>infrastructure
>> >>from border to border and we'd be sucking that teat dry as a bone as
we
>> >>speak. As you have so astutely noticed, Americans aren't subtle.
>> >>
>> >>Regards,
>> >>
>> >>Deej
>> >>
>> >>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:42cde2d0$1@linux...
>> >>>
>> >>> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>> >>> >and it's a shame that they are apparently the only ones on earth
who
>> >saw
>> >>> any
>> >>> >merit in enforcing UN resolutions
>> >>>
>> >>> That annoys me too. I'm still anti-bush because I *hate* the way they
>> >went
>> >>> about it... pretending it was an anti-terror thing (which was
>clearly
>> >>garbage).
>> >>> The issue I have too is that to me it seems that GWB and co wanted
>Saddam
>> >>> out not really so much because he was a bad man, but because they
>noticed
>> >>> Saddam was dealing with others, and figured "freeing" Iraq would give
>> >them
>> >>> more oil power.
>> >>>
>> >>> It really frustrates me that as I look around those events,
>politically,
>> >>> every country pretty much seemed to be in it for their own agenda,
and
>> >not
>> >>> for peace. Indeed the same could be said for much of the public. It
>was
>> >>obviouly
>> >>> sold as anti-terror because GWB & co didn't think "free Iraq from
>tyranny"
>> >>> would sell because, simply put, a lot of the public don't seem to
care
>> >if
>> >>> others in some other country miles away suffer, so you have to tell
>them
>> >>> that Iraq pose a threat. See, if GWB hadn't lied about that I *almost*
>> >>would
>> >>> have been on his side... though I still couldn't have stomached that
>> >as
>> >>> he was, to my mind, clearly in it for the oil. I think if the U.S.
had
>> >>waited
>> >>> a little longer, and put a little more pressue on the U.N. that
>eventually
>> >>> the U.N. would have gotten more behind it. I think GWB & co actually
>> >>*didn't
>> >>> want* the U.N. behind them, because by going alone they could be in
>> >>charge,
>> >>> and that would give them more power politically as the country was
>> >>restructured.
>> >>> That's my beleif anyhow. I felt that it was only a matter of time
>before
>> >>> enough countries voted for it in the U.N. They could only
>procrastinate
>> >>for
>> >>> so long. It was big news and the public was watching. A whole swag
of
>> >>countries
>> >>> weren't saying "no" but were saying "wait just a little more". Sure
it
>> >was
>> >>> getting tiresome, but I think holding out would have been worth it.
>The
>> >>way
>> >>> it was handled it came across too much as if GWB was just hell bent
on
>> >war
>> >>> for oil, which I think is true. Holding out a little longer would
have
>> >>made
>> >>> a big difference to the opinions of many IMO, whether the U.N.
>actually
>> >>ended
>> >>> up behind it or not.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anyway, the whole thing is screwed.
>> >>>
>> >>> This London thing is screwed.
>> >>>
>> >>> And I forgot my lunch this morning. DOH!
>> >>>
>> >>> And now we've got a political thread on the main group. DOH DOH!!
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>> Kim.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>Hey Rod - I wish I could have been there - new baby altered my availability
that weekend) - drop me an email if you are back in the area.
Regards,
Dedric
On 7/8/05 8:28 AM, in article 42ce8d7b$1@linux, "Rod Lincoln"
<rlincoln@nospam.kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Couldn't have said it better Dedric. Sorry we didn't get to hang in Co.
> Springs
> when I was out.
> rod
> Dedric Terry <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote:
>>> well, if the US/allies would stop killing their women and children and
>>> bombing their country into a god-forsaken moonscape maybe they wouldn't
>>> be so upset with us.
>>>
>>> just a thought....
>>>
>>> jef
>>
>> That's a nicely wrapped and media-induced anti-war bandwagon banner if I
>> ever saw one.
>>
>> Just remember this is the same terrorist organization (al Quaeda) that is
>> killing Iraqi officials, citizens, Egyptian diplomats (any diplomats
>> actually) and trying to derail any semblance of government in Iraq. All
> in
>> the name off...??? What exactly? Does anyone know why they would bomb
>> London to get Britain out of Iraq, and derail the Iraqi government at the
>> same time? There is no logic in cutting off one's nose to spite one's face,
>> unless it really isn't your face after all...
>>
>> Only one answer: terrorists don't represent anyone's best interests other
>> than their own - not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Islam. And I'm pretty sure
>> they don't have any idea what their interests are, other than any reason
> to
>> kill. This is the essence of evil. It isn't a political agenda, it's a
>> perverse counter-moral agenda that can't be requited or quenched until it
>> has complete control.
>>
>> Blaming the bombings on the US and its' allies is like saying terrorist
> have
>> just as much right to express themselves by killing innocent men, women
> and
>> children as we do to own an iPod with our favorite tunes (I don't own one,
>> but bin Laden probably does).
>>
>> No offense Jef - you are entitled to your opinion - just expressing mine.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/7/05 8:50 AM, in article 42cd40e8@linux, "Jef Knight" <"Jef Knight">
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Nafe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just hear about it...check your news
>>>>
>>>> don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>I'm sure it is cast, then cut to tolerances.
Dubya
"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42ce91b1$1@linux...
>
> Completely milled out of one big chunk of aluminum? That's a
> whole lotta bauxite! What's the point of that - is it for
> better sound isolation? Seems like that would add a lot of un-
> needed cost to the thing... what do they run, price-wise?
>
> Neil
>
>
>
> "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>>
>>Have anny of you guys seen the hush media pc? It's a 1U high pc that
>>looks
>>like a really slick high end stereo component.
>>
>>I'm bringing it up because the case is made from a single block of milled
>>aluminum with cooling fins carved into the sides. Passive heat pipes move
>>heat from the internal components and transfer it to the fins.
>>
>>There are no active cooling components whatsoever, and as a result it is
>>completely, absolutely utterly silent.
>>
>>Of course you can't run paris on it, but I would bet that it would make
> a
>>decent sample player/vst host if combined with a decent fire-wire
>>interface.
>> The CPU specs are on the low side, but I run cubase and halion on a
>> laptop
>>with lower specs so I bet it would be cool for lots of stuff.
>>
>>Chuck
>"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Cheers,
-Jamie K
http://www.JamieKrutz.com
Kim wrote:
> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>
>>Trust me, that kind of shit wouldn't last too long before we
>>had peace on earth & goodwill towards all men for a good long
>>time.
>
>
> LOL!! You're not serious?!?
>
> See, that's what this whole debate has been about. Whether you can get peace
> through violence...
>
> There's a song... oh, what's the guy's name... the from the disposable
> hero's of hypocracy, anyhow, the line from it is "You can bomb the world
> to peices, but you can bomb the world to peace".
>
> You would find that your strategy wouldn't work I think. :o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.Clinton started the air strikes, not GWB. He talked about it publicly after
his term ended - his reason again was enforcing the no-fly zone.
Did you go to Iraq to see what life was like there before UN sanctions to
say that they destroyed the country? Interesting how Bush-haters
conveniently blame everyone but Saddam for Iraq's problems.
Certainly France, Germany and Russia were perfectly right to defy those
sanctions to turn a profit in Iraq. Oh, that's right they aren't the US, so
they can get away with it - they are politically correct by birthright - the
US isn't.
On 7/8/05 1:38 PM, in article 42ced6d1$1@linux, "justcron"
<justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:42cebcb2@linux...
>> Dear Uncle Ricky and Brother Bud,
>>
>> Please go back and read my posts carefully. They are not defending an
>> attack
>> due to WMD. I do think that it's possible that WMD did exist before we
>> went
>> in, but my posts are talking about violation of UN sanctions.
>
> BTW, the UN sanctions is the flimsiest excuse for a war EVER. (Nevermind
> that those very UN sanctions destroyed the country anyway)
>
> *************************************************
>
> General admits to secret air war
>
> Jun 26, 2005
>
>
> Michael Smith
> Times Online (UK)
>
> THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq
> war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers
> that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle
> of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
>
> Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war
> Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied
> aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully
> selected targets" before the war officially started.
> The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied
> victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start
> the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
>
> If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly
> zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W
> Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally.
>
> Moseley's remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times that
> showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in
> leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as "spikes of activity to put
> pressure on the regime".
>
> Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17,
> 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern
> no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities.
>
> A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a
> meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the
> foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral Sir
> Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was carrying
> out the bombing.
>
> But Moseley's remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped in
> southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a part
> in the bombing as American aircraft.
>
> Details o
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55433 is a reply to message #55395] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 19:19 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
f the Moseley briefing come amid rising concern in the US at
> the war. A new poll shows 60% of Americans now believe it was a mistake.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html
>
>"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote:
>>Trust me, that kind of shit wouldn't last too long before we
>>had peace on earth & goodwill towards all men for a good long
>>time.
>
>LOL!! You're not serious?!?
No, I'm not, but it made a lot of people think dinnit? Truly,
if we did that, I think it would only take about three cities'
worth before the Islams said "ENOUGH!"... give us a break!
And, following that line of thought, if there seems to be no
end in sight to this situation we now find ourselves in, three
cities' worth of destruction would equal less dead than many
more years of terrorist bombings & allied occupation... just
like the end of WWII in the Pacific in the manner we chose,
resulted in less loss of lives for both Japan & the US had we
invaded the Japanese home islands. I really don't want to see
this, though - I would hope that some other solution can be
arrived at, but honestly if I were President, that's what I'd
be pushing for even if I really in my heart didn't want to do
it... see Reagan/Soviets/Star Wars/B1 Bombers/etc... it works
if they know you really mean it.
>See, that's what this whole debate has been about. Whether you can get peace
>through violence...
You can - if you demonstrate enough of it all at once... check
out nearly every victorious campaign in history since the dawn
of man for a reference.
>There's a song... oh, what's the guy's name... the from the disposable
>hero's of hypocracy, anyhow, the line from it is "You can bomb the world
>to peices, but you can bomb the world to peace".
>
>You would find that your strategy wouldn't work I think. :o)
T'would... unfortunately, perhaps, but it would.
Neil"Mike Audet" <mike@mike....com> wrote:
>I do believe that Bush is one evil sonofabitch. There was an article in
the
>Toronto Star a few years back. Someone studied George Bush's stammering.
> Basically, they found that he stammers and misspeaks whenever he talks
about
>helping poeple, or social justice, or doing good in the world. When he
talks
>about killing people, or blowing things up, or punishing people, he never
>stammers. The conclusion was that he is so disinterested in helping people
>or making the world a better place that he can't even keep his attention
>on it long enough to complete a sentence. I'm being comple
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55436 is a reply to message #55415] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 20:07 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
that he stammers and misspeaks whenever he talks
> about
>>helping poeple, or social justice, or doing good in the world. When he
> talks
>>about killing people, or blowing things up, or punishing people, he never
>>stammers. The conclusion was that he is so disinterested in helping
>>people
>>or making the world a better place that he can't even keep his attention
>>on it long enough to complete a sentence. I'm being completely serious
> about this.
>
> He stammers all the time... I don't buy this - it's very
> subjective, but I'll try & notice the next time he speaks about
> something.
>
>
>>The trouble with nuking cities is that it will only escalate the violence.
>
> Nope, one terrorist bombing = one Islamic city nuked. Two
> bombings = two cities nuked. How long do you think it would
> take before the entire Islamic world turned over every
> terrorist? Not long. Not all of them believe in being
> martyrs... many of them just want to live thier lives just like
> we do and some of those people are harboring terrorists just
> because there's no retribution.. once the retribution starts,
> we'd see how many of them want to harbor those bastards any
> longer. Fuck the morality issue when it's an issue of
> survival... at that point there really is no right & wrong, you
> know? Is it wrong for the wolf to kill the deer in order to
> survive? No, the wolf can't farm crops, or go to the store to
> buy canned meat... killing the deer in order to survive isn't
> right or wrong, it just "is". The forebears of modern man & the
> Neanderthals lived in some of the same regions simultaneously
> for a LONG time... was it wrong for Cro-Magnon man to
> outcompete the Neanderthals so that the Neanderthals became
> extinct? No, it just was about survival. When one group
> threatens another to the point where one of those groups' way
> of life is on the verge of ending, then it's all about who has
> the resolve to win, or the means to win & the WILL to employ
> those means. Neanderthals. Rome. American Indians. Tsarist
> Russia, and then Soviet Russia... Just some examples of
> societies & ways of life that have come & gone through the
> ages... you wanna be included in that group?
>
> I'm serious, guys - those of you who think this is lightweight,
> pissy bullshit that's all about oil, or even something that's
> strictly political or about foregin policy are not seeing the
> big picture here. Winds of change DO indeed blow, and this is a
> big one... how long did the last Jihad last (you know, the one
> that started in 1095)?
If you're actually lobbying for an all out war vs the Muslim world, it might
be a viable survival tactic.
The main problem is that we probably wouldn't be the only ones with nukes,
so once we opened pandoras box, we would probably get it dropped right back
on us."Dedric Terry" <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote in message
news:BEF49B85.2CF9%dedric@keyofd.net...
> Clinton started the air strikes, not GWB. He talked about it publicly
> after
> his term ended - his reason again was enforcing the no-fly zone.
OK. The article I posted was regarding a pre-Shock-and-Awe Shock-and-Awe.
> Did you go to Iraq to see what life was like there before UN sanctions to
> say that they destroyed the country? Interesting how Bush-haters
> conveniently blame everyone but Saddam for Iraq's problems.
Yes, I followed the effect of the UN sanctions on Iraq over a long period.
> Certainly France, Germany and Russia were perfectly right to defy those
> sanctions to turn a profit in Iraq. Oh, that's right they aren't the US,
> so
> they can get away with it - they are politically correct by birthright -
> the
> US isn't.
Well they're in the UN too right? I used to be a big fan of the UN, but
the whole organization was profiting off the oil for food.
If they're not trustworthy on that issu
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55438 is a reply to message #55431] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 21:02 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
nant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003
>> allied
>> aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391
>> "carefully
>> selected targets" before the war officially started.
>> The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied
>> victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to
>> start
>> the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.
>>
>> If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly
>> zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W
>> Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted
>> illegally.
>>
>> Moseley's remarks have emerged after reports in The Sunday Times that
>> showed an increase in allied bombing in southern Iraq was described in
>> leaked minutes of a meeting of the war cabinet as "spikes of activity to
>> put
>> pressure on the regime".
>>
>> Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17,
>> 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern
>> no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic
>> minorities.
>>
>> A leaked memo previously disclosed by The Sunday Times, detailing a
>> meeting chaired by the prime minister and attended by Jack Straw, the
>> foreign secretary, Geoff Hoon, the then defence secretary, and Admiral
>> Sir
>> Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff, indicated that the US was carrying
>> out the bombing.
>>
>> But Moseley's remarks, and figures for the amount of bombs dropped in
>> southern Iraq during 2002, indicate that the RAF was taking as large a
>> part
>> in the bombing as American aircraft.
>>
>> Details of the Moseley briefing come amid rising concern in the US at
>> the war. A new poll shows 60% of Americans now believe it was a mistake.
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html
>>
>>
>Hell Cron,
The reason this planet is going to hell in a handbasket is because there are
too many people now competing for too few resources. That's why I'm in favor
of the fuel air bomb instead of the nuke. That 10,000 year half life is a
bitch and I'm too much of a tree hugger to want to kill any more of them. We
hardly have enough as it is now.
;o(
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55439 is a reply to message #55438] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 21:11 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
message
news:42cf4e6e@linux...
>
> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42cf4c57$1@linux...
> >
> > "Mike Audet" <mike@mike....com> wrote:
> >>I do believe that Bush is one evil sonofabitch. There was an article in
> > the
> >>Toronto Star a few years back. Someone studied George Bush's
stammering.
> >> Basically, they found that he stammers and misspeaks whenever he talks
> > about
> >>helping poeple, or social justice, or doing good in the world. When he
> > talks
> >>about killing people, or blowing things up, or punishing people, he
never
> >>stammers. The conclusion was that he is so disinterested in helping
> >>people
> >>or making the world a better place that he can't even keep his attention
> >>on it long enough to complete a sentence. I'm being completely serious
> > about this.
> >
> > He stammers all the time... I don't buy this - it's very
> > subjective, but I'll try & notice the next time he speaks about
> > something.
> >
> >
> >>The trouble with nuking cities is that it will only escalate the
violence.
> >
> > Nope, one terrorist bombing = one Islamic city nuked. Two
> > bombings = two cities nuked. How long do you think it would
> > take before the entire Islamic world turned over every
> > terrorist? Not long. Not all of them believe in being
> > martyrs... many of them just want to live thier lives just like
> > we do and some of those people are harboring terrorists just
> > because there's no retribution.. once the retribution starts,
> > we'd see how many of them want to harbor those bastards any
> > longer. Fuck the morality issue when it's an issue of
> > survival... at that point there really is no right & wrong, you
> > know? Is it wrong for the wolf to kill the deer in order to
> > survive? No, the wolf can't farm crops, or go to the store to
> > buy canned meat... killing the deer in order to survive isn't
> > right or wrong, it just "is". The forebears of modern man & the
> > Neanderthals lived in some of the same regions simultaneously
> > for a LONG time... was it wrong for Cro-Magnon man to
> > outcompete the Neanderthals so that the Neanderthals became
> > extinct? No, it just was about survival. When one group
> > threatens another to the point where one of those groups' way
> > of life is on the verge of ending, then it's all about who has
> > the resolve to win, or the means to win & the WILL to employ
> > those means. Neanderthals. Rome. American Indians. Tsarist
> > Russia, and then Soviet Russia... Just some examples of
> > societies & ways of life that have come & gone through the
> > ages... you wanna be included in that group?
> >
> > I'm serious, guys - those of you who think this is lightweight,
> > pissy bullshit that's all about oil, or even something that's
> > strictly political or about foregin policy are not seeing the
> > big picture here. Winds of change DO indeed blow, and this is a
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55440 is a reply to message #55436] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 21:18 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
big one... how long did the last Jihad last (you know, the one
> > that started in 1095)?
>
> If you're actually lobbying for an all out war vs the Muslim world, it
might
> be a viable survival tactic.
>
> The main problem is that we probably wouldn't be the only ones with nukes,
> so once we opened pandoras box, we would probably get it dropped right
back
> on us.
>
>"Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42cf5171@linux...
> Hell Cron,
>
> The reason this planet is going to hell in a handbasket is because there
> are
> too many people now competing for too few resources. That's why I'm in
> favor
> of the fuel air bomb instead of the nuke. That 10,000 year half life is a
> bitch and I'm too much of a tree hugger to want to kill any more of them.
> We
> hardly have enough as it is now.
I wish it were that simple. That line of thinking leads to letting all the
Africans just die. That line of thinking leads to thinning out even the US
population.
Energy resources can change. Food resources can change. Most of the
resource issues can be understood through the study of Economics, real
economics, not the hijacked fuzzy math version. But ultimately, we're a
society, not an economy. If everyone can just agree to share the land, etc.
theres no reason there can't be peaceful coexistance (UNLESS someone goes
and does something stupid like bombing someone.) Or maybe I'm just a tree
hugger too... I dont know. I know God always takes care of me.
> "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> news:42cf4e6e@linux...
>>
>> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42cf4c57$1@linux...
>> >
>> > "Mike Audet" <mike@mike....com> wrote:
>> >>I do believe that Bush is one evil sonofabitch. There was an article in
>> > the
>> >>Toronto Star a few years back. Someone studied George Bush's
> stammering.
>> >> Basically, they found that he stammers and misspeaks whenever he talks
>> > about
>> >>helping poeple, or social justice, or doing good in the world. When he
>> > talks
>> >>about killing people, or blowing things up, or punishing people, he
> never
>> >>stammers. The conclusion was that he is so disinterested in helping
>> >>people
>> >>or making the world a better place that he can't even keep his
>> >>attention
>> >>on it long enough to complete a sentence. I'm being completely serious
>> > about this.
>> >
>> > He stammers all the time... I don't buy this - it's very
>> > subjective, but I'll try & notice the next time he speaks about
>> > something.
>> >
>> >
>> >>The trouble with nuking cities is that it will only escalate the
> violence.
>> >
>> > Nope, one terrorist bombing = one Islamic city nuked. Two
>> > bombings = two cities nuked. How long do you think it would
>> > take before the entire Islamic world turned over every
>> > terrorist? Not long. Not all of them believe in being
>> > martyrs... many of them just want to live thier lives just like
>> > we do and some of those people are harboring terrorists just
>> > because there's no retribution.. once the retribution starts,
>> > we'd see how many of them want to harbor those bastards any
>> > longer. Fuck the morality issue when it's an issue of
>> > survival... at that point there really is no right & wrong, you
>> > know? Is it wrong for the wolf to kill the deer in order to
>> > survive? No, the wolf can't farm crops, or go to the store to
>> > buy canned meat... killing the deer in order to survive isn't
>> > right or wrong, it just "is". The forebears of modern man & the
>> > Neanderthals lived in some of the same regions simultaneously
>> > for a LONG time... was it wrong for Cro-Magnon man to
>> > outcompete the Neanderthals so that the Neanderthals became
>> > extinct? No, it just was about survival. When one group
>> > threatens another to the point where one of those groups' way
>> > of life is on the verge of ending, then it's all about who has
>> > the resolve to win, or the means to win & the WILL to employ
>> > those means. Neanderthals. Rome. American Indians. Tsarist
>> > Russia, and then Soviet Russia... Just some examples of
>> > societies & ways of life that have come & gone through the
>> > ages... you wanna be included in that group?
>> >
>> > I'm serious, guys - those of you who think this is lightweight,
>> > pissy bullshit that's all about oil, or even something that's
>> > strictly p
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55441 is a reply to message #55439] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 21:24 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
olitical or about foregin policy are not seeing the
>> > big picture here. Winds of change DO indeed blow, and this is a
>> > big one... how long did the last Jihad last (you know, the one
>> > that started in 1095)?
>>
>> If you're actually lobbying for an all out war vs the Muslim world, it
> might
>> be a viable survival tactic.
>>
>> The main problem is that we probably wouldn't be the only ones with
>> nukes,
>> so once we opened pandoras box, we would probably get it dropped right
> back
>> on us.
>>
>>
>
>>That line of thinking leads to thinning out even the US
population.
Hey, I'm equal opportunity all the way amigo. I didn't say there were too
many people other than Americans. There are plenty of dirtbags around
here.........and as for me.....I'm sometimes weary enough of this world to
feel like I wouldn't mind moving over to make room for someone else who's
not.
"justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
news:42cf536e@linux...
> "Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:42cf5171@linux...
> > Hell Cron,
> >
> > The reason this planet is going to hell in a handbasket is because there
> > are
> > too many people now competing for too few resources. That's why I'm in
> > favor
> > of the fuel air bomb instead of the nuke. That 10,000 year half life is
a
> > bitch and I'm too much of a tree hugger to want to kill any more of
them.
> > We
> > hardly have enough as it is now.
>
> I wish it were that simple. That line of thinking leads to letting all
the
> Africans just die. That line of thinking leads to thinning out even the
US
> population.
>
> Energy resources can change. Food resources can change. Most of the
> resource issues can be understood through the study of Economics, real
> economics, not the hijacked fuzzy math version. But ultimately, we're a
> society, not an economy. If everyone can just agree to share the land,
etc.
> theres no reason there can't be peaceful coexistance (UNLESS someone goes
> and does something stupid like bombing someone.) Or maybe I'm just a
tree
> hugger too... I dont know. I know God always takes care of me.
>
>
> > "justcron" <justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote in message
> > news:42cf4e6e@linux...
> >>
> >> "Neil" <OIUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:42cf4c57$1@linux...
> >> >
> >> > "Mike Audet" <mike@mike....com> wrote:
> >> >>I do believe that Bush is one evil sonofabitch. There was an article
in
> >> > the
> >> >>Toronto Star a few years back. Someone studied George Bush's
> > stammering.
> >> >> Basically, they found that he stammers and misspeaks whenever he
talks
> >> > about
> >> >>helping poeple, or social justice, or doing good in the world. When
he
> >> > talks
> >> >>about killing people, or blowing things up, or punishing people, he
> > never
> >> >>stammers. The conclusion was that he is so disinterested in helping
> >> >>people
> >> >>or making the world a better place that he can't even keep his
> >> >>attention
> >> >>on it long enough to complete a sentence. I'm being completely
serious
> >> > about this.
> >> >
> >> > He stammers all the time... I don't buy this - it's very
> >> > subjective, but I'll try & notice the next time he speaks
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55442 is a reply to message #55441] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 21:32 |
justcron
Messages: 330
Registered: May 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
about
> >> > something.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>The trouble with nuking cities is that it will only escalate the
> > violence.
> >> >
> >> > Nope, one terrorist bombing = one Islamic city nuked. Two
> >> > bombings = two cities nuked. How long do you think it would
> >> > take before the entire Islamic world turned over every
> >> > terrorist? Not long. Not all of them believe in being
> >> > martyrs... many of them just want to live thier lives just like
> >> > we do and some of those people are harboring terrorists just
> >> > because there's no retribution.. once the retribution starts,
> >> > we'd see how many of them want to harbor those bastards any
> >> > longer. Fuck the morality issue when it's an issue of
> >> > survival... at that point there really is no right & wrong, you
> >> > know? Is it wrong for the wolf to kill the deer in order to
> >> > survive? No, the wolf can't farm crops, or go to the store to
> >> > buy canned meat... killing the deer in order to survive isn't
> >> > right or wrong, it just "is". The forebears of modern man & the
> >> > Neanderthals lived in some of the same regions simultaneously
> >> > for a LONG time... was it wrong for Cro-Magnon man to
> >> > outcompete the Neanderthals so that the Neanderthals became
> >> > extinct? No, it just was about survival. When one group
> >> > threatens another to the point where one of those groups' way
> >> > of life is on the verge of ending, then it's all about who has
> >> > the resolve to win, or the means to win & the WILL to employ
> >> > those means. Neanderthals. Rome. American Indians. Tsarist
> >> > Russia, and then Soviet Russia... Just some examples of
> >> > societies & ways of life that have come & gone through the
> >> > ages... you wanna be included in that group?
> >> >
> >> > I'm serious, guys - those of you who think this is lightweight,
> >> > pissy bullshit that's all about oil, or even something that's
> >> > strictly political or about foregin policy are not seeing the
> >> > big picture here. Winds of change DO indeed blow, and this is a
> >> > big one... how long did the last Jihad last (you know, the one
> >> > that started in 1095)?
> >>
> >> If you're actually lobbying for an all out war vs the Muslim world, it
> > might
> >> be a viable survival tactic.
> >>
> >> The main problem is that we probably wouldn't be the only ones with
> >> nukes,
> >> so once we opened pandoras box, we would probably get it dropped right
> > back
> >> on us.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>On 7/8/05 10:18 PM, in article 42cf5020$1@linux, "justcron"
<justcron@hydrorecords.compound> wrote:
>
> "Dedric Terry" <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> news:BEF49B85.2CF9%dedric@keyofd.net...
>> Clinton started the air strikes, not GWB. He talked about it publicly
>> after
>> his term ended - his reason again was enforcing the no-fly zone.
>
> OK. The article I posted was regarding a pre-Shock-and-Awe Shock-and-Awe.
>
I got the impression from Clinton's interview on it that there was something
his administration wasn't (couldn't perhaps) telling us about Iraq and why
they started air strikes. To some degree he was blamed for using it to
divert attention from the Monica scandal, but no one really knows I guess.
I really thought that might have been a motivation, but not so much after
hearing him talk about it.
Yes, that was while Toby Keith was working on is prequel to Shock'N Y'all:
Not Quite Shock'n Y'all (Yet).
>> Did you go to Iraq to see what life was like there before UN sanctions to
>> say that they destroyed the country? Interesting how Bush-haters
>> conveniently blame everyone but Saddam for Iraq's problems.
>
> Yes, I followed the effect of the UN sanctions on Iraq over a long period.
>
The effect was of course worse for Iraqis than Saddam and the military -
didn't really bother him, even if it cut into his profit margin a bit. Just
goes to show you can't negotiate with dictators and terrorists.
>> Certainly France, Germany and Russia were perfectly right to defy those
>> sanctions to turn a profit in Iraq. Oh, that's right they aren't the US,
>> so
>> they can get away with it - they are politically correct by birthright -
>> the
>> US isn't.
>
> Well they're in the UN too right? I used to be a big fan of the UN, but
> the whole organization was profiting off the oil for food.
>
They are; and people/nations were benefiting unethically. I agree, it
wasn't right, and probably one reason why the sanctions never worked - they
can't work if major players in the enforcing agency are playing both ends.
Left to the UN, several countries and people would still be benefiting from
starving the Iraqi people - the paradox of the oil for food program.
> If they're not trustworthy on that issue, why should
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55443 is a reply to message #55442] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 21:55 |
Deej [3]
Messages: 181
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I trust them about the
> sanctions? And why should I trust Powell when he lies out his ass at the
> UN? And why should I trust Bush when Powell is his ambassador and BS's his
> credibility and the countries credibility down the toilet?
Can't tell you how or whether to trust the UN. I don't.
>Kim - just an FYI, I didn't get any of my information from news media, but
research through statistics and information from other sources and non-media
government agencies - i.e. the ones that research and push paper rather than
agendas. Just like in any country, there are people here that take most of
what they hear as fact, and in truth, most of what news organizations
publish contains facts, but the key is not extrapolating, or taking on their
extrapolations. Just taking the facts (e.g. bombs hit London yesterday
killing 50 or so, wounding 700 or so), and using even simple common sense
avoids most misinterpretation. The US doesn't tolerate lying or fraudulent
journalists - just ask the NY Times, CBS and the Boston Post. That also
doesn't mean we have a full staff of saints, or crooks in the news
business...in any country. Just people mostly.
Just because Iraq has oil doesn't mean we want it. Some sources say the
earth has 15 years of oil left (excluding anticipated, but unconfirmed oil
sources). Speculation is what it is though.
Also remember the world outside the US (of which I and family members have
been to several parts, and talked with people all over), has it's own
localized view of other countries, including the US. No one understands a
country they don't live in like a native (and just like every other country
we have plenty of people that take one view just because someone told them
it was true). The only source you have for information on who we really are
in the US is movies and the news media - only 1% of that is even close.
Knowing a country's people by being one gives us a perspective and
understanding of reasoning that goes into how we approach things - including
understanding why we make poor decisions sometimes (as all people do).
Case in point: for us here in the US, Australia is where Crocodile Dundee
came from, and where the deadliest snakes, insects and ocean live dwell -
making for a very scary place, especially if you go on a walk-about alone in
search of Kiwi and Koalas. ;-) (a little lightening of the mood).
As far as other brutal leaderships - perhaps you are referring to N. Korea,
parts of Africa, and/or perhaps Iran. N. Korea is a tinderbox that's been
on the US radar for years. We aren't ignoring it - it just isn't in the
world news media because we our actions (or in-action) isn't pissing some
news agency or protest group off. We (as well as other countries) are
watching them and trying to keep a calm balance to avert nuclear disaster
has been done before so the news media isn't really interested. Yes, there
is untold brutality going on there. Stopping a dictator who is working on
building nukes is much easier than stopping one who has them pointed at his
neighborhood. (Saddam was intent on building nukes, per his head nuclear
scientist, but didn't have all the materials yet - apparently thanks in part
to UN and US inspections interestingly enough).
As far as Iran - again a tinderbox. Taking down a dictatorship in a country
positioned for direct military access from a country's ally bases is one
thing, but Iran is another. Though it may be controversial, invading Iraq
makes it easier to defend against Iranian threats (no, not invasion). But
how that plays out in reality remains to be seen. I think there was
significant concern that Iran would invade and conquer Iraq, making it twice
the hotbed of terrorism it is now, and a very oil-rich one too. Bush gets
blamed for acting on his own agenda, but even if ineptly, perhaps we have
played a dangerous chess game with an eventually, retrospectively wise,
albeit costly, move. Just a thought - no way to prove or argue such
speculation.
Africa - the civil wars in Sudan, etc. would be Vietnam X 100 - "jungle"
warfare with warlords and factions with no centralization is a certain
bloodbath. The numbers of people killed in these countries is staggering.
Again, is the US the only one responsible? This has come before the UN, but
what does the UN really do about situations like this - it is a diplomatic
council and it has, and exercises little power other than verbal/written
warnings and slaps on the wrist. I guess the UN would be quite beneficial
to many an elementary school system.
I think the crux of the decision with Iraq is/was that the Middle east has
more potential to inflict damage on the world, either through oil control or
support for terrorism (yes, part of which is actually in Africa and other
countries). No one can predict the future, but I truly believe that without
direct intervention, WWIII would, or will start there. This time, there
won't be much room to argue either way.
Thanks for the engaging and even tempered conversation. It is nice to be
able to converse with neighbors around the globe and learn from each other.
Regards,
Dedric
On 7/8/05 3:29 AM, in article 42ce478d@linux, "Kim"
<hiddensounds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dedric,
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Just breifly, I don't really want to get too far into this right now, but
> just quickly...
>
>> The US only imports about 4.9% of it's imported oil from Iraq.
>
> That may be true right now. That of course doesn't mean you could increase
> your Iraq quoter if you were able to access their oil cheaply.
>
>> So, the scenario I (and others) see is that the US is looking
>> at an opportunity for much of the world to break the OPEC hold on prices.
>
> And well that may happen.
>
>> I haven't seen anything in any administration that leads me to believe the
>> US is seeking Iraq's oil
>
> So what are your thoughts specifically on the fact that there are so many
> brutal leaders around the world, and yet the U.S. only chose to "fix" the
> problem where the oil was? Co-incedence? See, that's a big thing for me.
> I just can't for the life of me work out another reason why they chose to
> free Iraq, and not, well Saudi Arabia would be one... bad example maybe
> because they too have oil, but they're long time U.S. allies and totally
> undemocratic. There's no sign of the U.S. saying "We don't like you Saudi's
> because you're not a democracy".
>
> There may be nothing specific you can put your finger on, but I think it's
> important to pay attention to the underlying things.
>
>> Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who don'
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55444 is a reply to message #55440] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 22:05 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t live here.
>
> I think this is a very interesting statement. The reason is because it is
> an exact mirror of what many outside the U.S. would say to yourself... ie.
> Be careful what you hear/read in the news from people who live in the U.S.
>
> One thing is extraordinarily clear, and that is that reports in the U.S.
> suggest a different scenario to reports outside. It is my opinion that it
> is the U.S. sources that are biased, but that doesn't make me correct. As
> I say that please note that most of Australia's media sources are actually
> aligned with the U.S. media sources, but those are the commercial media.
>
> I can't speak for yourself Dedric as I don't know your viewing/media habits,
> but I understand that something like 98% of the reports watched by U.S.
> citizens
> is produced in the U.S. Here in Australia we can watch CNN. We get the NBC
> Today show. It's fairly easy to access news from other places, and I try
> to do so. That does give me a little confidence in my opinion of who is
> biased.
> My viewing, of course, is also mostly Australian, but more on an 75/25 ratio
> than a 98/2 ratio, which gives me some first hand experience in knowing how
> the same event can be reported differently in different countries, and what
> the differences between reports tend to be. I spent about 2 years watching
> CNN for many hours a week. It was then that I learned that CNN is garbage,
> and that our leading news service is too. I went searching for which news
> services actually reported things in a way which made sense in the context
> of actually reporting what happenned without a spin on it. I beleive I now
> have some idea of which sources do and don't fit that.
>
> Of course it is likely that you think you have too, and I can understand
> how that may be the case.
>
> It is my opinion however that there is plenty to be worried about with how
> the U.S. media reports things.
>
> You may have done this already, but to be blunt, until you've done the
> equivilant
> to what I have done, and spent several hours a week for a couple of years
> absorbing news from some other source *outside* your country with an open
> mind, you can't really make a decent judgement. It is obvious that, if you
> only taste your own media (whatever that media) and then taste a different
> one, most people find the different taste displeasing, and that's a worldwide
> phenomenon. The same thing, actually, happens with beer.
>
> Don't ask somebody who only drinks one beer which beer is best. He will,
> almost without fail, name one of the top three selling beers in his particular
> neighbourhood of the planet earth, and tell you that it is the best beer
> on the planet without reservation.
>
> If you want to find the best beer, ask someone who drinks a lot of different
> beers. They can then judge, without bias, whic
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55445 is a reply to message #55380] |
Fri, 08 July 2005 22:29 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
h beer really does compare
> well.
>
> If you want to find the best news service...
>
> I may be underestimating your media experience based on the figures I have
> heard. My experince is that many on this group are better educated in such
> things than, perhaps, the average from their culture.
>
> It seems a little unrealistic though for you to ask me to be careful of media
> sources outside the U.S. I'm a little surprised you didn't, or at least
> appeared
> not to, realise that.
>
> I guess my reply to that is simply that I see plenty of U.S. news direct,
> and plenty of news from other sources internationally, and have an opinion
> that sits somewhere in between. I think that's the best way to be.
>
> What concerns me is that I get the feeling that you don't do the same (though
> I could be wrong), and without a large sample of international sources I'm
> unsure how you can be certain that your sources are always correct.
>
> Why do I always start off planning to be breif, and then write ten pages...
> ;o)
>
> Cheers,
> Kim.> waddaya tryin' to do here...kill the mood...geeze
I think you could probably put an RME madi card and a multihead video card
in one of these and make a pretty decent DAW out of it..........and then use
it to club a liberal over the head.
arrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!! sorry!!!!
;o)
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1mjtc19685953ttamge67doc6gei01t575@4ax.com...
> waddaya tryin' to do here...kill the mood...geeze...o yeah, hi chuck.
>
> On 8 Jul 2005 22:59:26 +1000, "chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Have anny of you guys seen the hush media pc? It's a 1U high pc that
looks
> >like a really slick high end stereo component.
> >
> >I'm bringing it up because the case is made from a single block of milled
> >aluminum with cooling fins carved into the sides. Passive heat pipes
move
> >heat from the internal components and transfer it to the fins.
> >
> >There are no active cooling components whatsoever, and as a result it is
> >completely, absolutely utterly silent.
> >
> >Of course you can't run paris on it, but I would bet that it would make a
> >decent sample player/vst host if combined with a decent fire-wire
interface.
> > The CPU specs are on the low side, but I run cubase and halion on a
laptop
> >with lower specs so I bet it would be cool for lots of stuff.
> >
> >Chuck
>Its f'n SICK.... sick I tell you... sick!!!!Hi all,
The only time I tried to record digitally from a TASCAM DA88 into the IF-442
it's been a fiasco. I've even modified the 442 in order to get a 2.5 v p-p
flow instead of the original 0.5 v p-p.
Today I'm waiting a friend with his Tascam here, and we're gonna try again
with the MEC, this time.
I've read the Paris' manual more carefully, and (please tell me if I'm
wrong) it seems that Paris can be properly ran in sync ONLY if the other
digital device is able to send Midi Time Code.
If that's the truth, it takes a "Smpte to MTC converter": anyone is using
such device with success? What model would you suggest?
Maaany thanksDedric Terry <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote:
>No one understands a
>country they don't live in like a native
This is kind of true, but really, it comes back to the beer point I made
earlier. Nobody understands their local beer like the locals, but honestly,
if you want to know beer you have to taste 1,000 of them. Otherwise you don't
have any perspective upon which to base your opinion. Without outside influence
and experience you'll tend to just assume the way you're living is right
and normal. If you grow up where abuse is the norm, you will likely be that
way too, and not understand how things could be different. Until you have
experienced many cultures you don't truly have any perspective upon which
to look at your own culture. Even though you know it, you know nothing else,
hence you have no perspective upon it. This worries me a little about the
states, that the U.S. generally stays fairly self contained and isolated...
I think not as much on this group as generally, but that is the pattern.
If you look up figures on things like where people holiday, and as I said
before, what media people watch, you'll find that the U.S. tends to keep
to itself. I think generally people on this group are fairly broadminded
compared to their average countryman, possibly in part because discussions
like this have been going for quite a while here. I would certainly admit
I've learned a lot about the perspectives of many in the process, and I'm
sure I'm not the only one.
>Case in point: for us here in the US, Australia is where Crocodile Dundee
>came from, and where the deadliest snakes, insects and ocean live dwell
-
>making for a very scary place, especially if you go on a walk-about alone
in
>search of Kiwi and Koalas. ;-) (a little lightening of the mood).
I can assure you that the biggest threat to me right now is that my housemate
might get drunk and smash a bottle. ;o)
>As far as other brutal leaderships - perhaps you are referring to
I'm not referring to anyone really... just that there's a long list, and
indeed some of the brutal leaderships are listed as allies by, well, lots
of people, as always. Turkey for one example, but I'm not really trying to
make specific examples, just to say that I don't buy the good guy thing.
If I knew someone who constantly tripped up old ladies, and then one day
saw that person helping an old lady cross the street, well I wouldn't buy
the theory that this person was doing it because he was a good guy. I'd be
asking questions like "Is this old lady rich?" and things like that. Now
I'm not blaming the U.S. here for being any worse than anyone else in respect
to this. We live in a world where every country seems to trip up little old
ladies when it suits, and help them across the road when it suits to do that.
Point is when I see this pattern I don't buy any good guy stuff. Yes, it
was the right thing to do. No, I don't beleive it was done *because* it was
the right thing to do, because that pattern just doesn't fit.
>Again, is the US the only one responsible?
No, and as above I'm not trying to blame the U.S. I'm merely pointing out
that in a world where everyone with no exceptions trips up some old ladies
and helps others cross the road, I just don't buy it when someone asks me
to give them a good guy hat because of one example where they did good.
>Thanks for the engaging and even tempered conversation. It is nice to be
>able to converse with neighbors around the globe and learn from each other.
I too am enjoying these discussions, and thank you also. Here's hoping that,
with experience at these discussions, we can all come to a better understanding.
I tend to think if everyone around the world had a little corner like this
full of international friends with whom to exchange views, the world would
become a better place. It's a shame more islamic countries don't have internet
and speak English. While I'm sure discussions would start of fairly chaotic,
I think the world would have a better chance of reahing peace through such
avenues than, for example, through Neil's bomb plan. ;o)
I think so anyhow.
Cheers,
Kim."Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>..........and then use
>it to club a liberal over the head.
>
>arrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!! sorry!!!!
>;o)
OY! I resemble that remark! ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Hehe. Yyyyyyyeees. ;o)
Cheers,
Kim."Mr Simplicity" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>and as for me.....I'm sometimes weary enough of this world to
>feel like I wouldn't mind moving over to make room for someone else who's
>not.
OY! Not so fast amigo!
Who's gonna make me jealous with ridiculous setups, and make me laugh with
ridiculous pets, or less invited critters...
I mean what's the point in me hosting this box here if there's no Deej for
everyone to come and read about!!?!? ;o)
Don't let that coffee coloured dishwashing liquid get you down dude. ;o)
Cheers,
Kim.Kim, I can stand with you on everything you're saying here but I couldn't
write it myself, since I don't write english more than I do right here on
this site. I would have used a week or two to formulate me like you are
doing in a couple of minutes here. If it had been in Norwegian, maybe I
could follow you up:-)
Erling
"Kim" <hiddensounds@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:42cf8458$1@linux...
>
> Dedric Terry <dedric@keyofd.net> wrote:
> >No one understands a
> >country they don't live in like a native
>
> This is kind of true, but really, it comes back to the beer point I made
> earlier. Nobody understands their local beer like the locals, but
honestly,
> if you want to know beer you have to taste 1,000 of them. Otherwise you
don't
> have any perspective upon which to base your opinion. Without outside
influence
> and experience you'll tend to just assume the way you're living is right
> and normal. If you grow up where abuse is the norm, you will likely be
that
> way too, and not understand how things could be different. Until you have
> experienced many cultures you don't truly have any perspective upon which
> to look at your own culture. Even though you know it, you know nothing
else,
> hence you have no perspective upon it. This worries me a little about the
> states, that the U.S. generally stays fairly self contained and
isolated...
> I think not as much on this group as generally, but that is t
|
|
|
|
| Re: Bomb attacks in London England [message #55449 is a reply to message #55445] |
Sat, 09 July 2005 01:01 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
old ladies
> and helps others cross the road, I just don't buy it when someone asks me
> to give them a good guy hat because of one example where they did good.
>
> >Thanks for the engaging and even tempered conversation. It is nice to be
> >able to converse with neighbors around the globe and learn from each
other.
>
> I too am enjoying these discussions, and thank you also. Here's hoping
that,
> with experience at these discussions, we can all come to a better
understanding.
>
> I tend to think if everyone around the world had a little corner like this
> full of international friends with whom to exchange views, the world would
> become a better place. It's a shame more islamic countries don't have
internet
> and speak English. While I'm sure discussions would start of fairly
chaotic,
> I think the world would have a better chance of reahing peace through such
> avenues than, for example, through Neil's bomb plan. ;o)
>
> I think so anyhow.
>
> Cheers,
> Kim."andrea perini" <timeforeaction@interfree.it> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>The only time I tried to record digitally from a TASCAM DA88 into the IF-442
>it's been a fiasco. I've even modified the 442 in order to get a 2.5 v p-p
>flow instead of the original 0.5 v p-p.
> Today I'm waiting a friend with his Tascam here, and we're gonna try again
>with the MEC, this time.
>I've read the Paris' manual more carefully, and (please tell me if I'm
>wrong) it seems that Paris can be properly ran in sync ONLY if the other
>digital device is able to send Midi Time Code.
>If that's the truth, it takes a "Smpte to MTC converter": anyone is using
>such device with success? What model would you suggest?
>
>Maaany thanks
>
>
Andrea,
JL Cooper makes a little smpte to mtc converter box that works
very well for this.
The DA88 with sync card is the "master clock" sending SMPTE out
to the Cooper box and MTC is sent to your PC's MIDI interface
*IN* as PARIS is set to recieve MTC (13.) and transport
set to "lock".
*Note* that enabling MTC for your Computers MIDI interface
in the midi devices menu (13.)and enabling "lock" on PARIS transport (4.)
are the only PARIS
settings needed for PARIS to lock.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Andy Powcan you be less specific? url, description, hint?
justcron wrote:
> Its f'n SICK.... sick I tell you... sick!!!!
>
>http://earth.google.com/
Don
"John" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:42cfc964@linux...
> can you be less specific? url, description, hint?
>
> justcron wrote:
>> Its f'n SICK.... sick I tell you... sick!!!!I use an old Opcode 2port SE. Hooks to the printer port. Works great.
rod
"andrea perini" <timeforeaction@interfree.it> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>The only time I tried to record digitally from a TASCAM DA88 into the IF-442
>it's been a fiasco. I've even modified the 442 in order to get a 2.5 v p-p
>flow instead of the original 0.5 v p-p.
> Today I'm waiting a friend with his Tascam here, and we're gonna try again
>with the MEC, this time.
>I've read the Paris' manual more carefully, and (please tell me if I'm
>wrong) it seems that Paris can be properly ran in sync ONLY if the other
>digital device is able to send Midi Time Code.
>If that's the truth, it takes a "Smpte to MTC converter": anyone is using
>such device with success? What model would you suggest?
>
>Maaany thanks
>
>
>Dedric Terry wrote:
> Clinton started the air strikes, not GWB. He talked about it publicly after
> his term ended - his reason again was enforcing the no-fly zone.
>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 04 02:23:00 PDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01278 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
