rec.autos.simulators

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:12:03

Can you clarify for me Mitch, I guess the delusional foam is getting in
my eyes :-)

Are you saying those millions of victims do not in fact exist? Are you
saying there are not millions of them? Or are you saying they do exist,
but they're not victims and deserved to die?

Remember many people of the UN resigned in horror of this, and the
"genocide" quote was theirs. So if you think they've made some error
with their arithmetic and thrown away their careers for nothing, you'd
better call and tell them.

Start with the 5000 Iraqi children who died every day as a result of the
sanctions - this was the genocide to which the UN referred. Can you tell
me that they are actually alive, why the number of 5000 is incorrect, or
why they are not innocent victims and actually deserved to die?

> Time to wipe that foam off your mouth now John. You sound quite delusional.
> Yea those MILLIONS of innocent victims of the evil USA... <rolls eyes>

> Mitch

> .

>>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, it
>>>was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc.

>>Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide?
>>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As the
>>saying goes, that's like f***ing for ***ity....

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:13:24

Mitch, you avoided the response. You said the US gave more aid than
anyone else, I provided inforation to prove that was a fallacy.

Will you respond to that, or can you agree with the facts I provided?

> The world is a difficult confusing place full of liars and con men that only
> have their own interest in mind. These people exist in EVERY government in
> every corner of the world not just the US gov as you insinuate.

> You can tell yourself all you want that Saddam was a grreat guy but anyone
> with any common sense knows better.

> Despite the doom and gloom of you and your party affiliates Iraq is a better
> place now and freedom is infectious throughout the ME. Its still to early
> to know how it will turn out but right now things look pretty good, which
> makes your argument seem even more marginal.

> Mitch

> that is what you and most US people want, and

>>it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening.

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:18:11

>>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes,

> it

>>>was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc.

>>Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide?
>>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As
>>the saying goes, that's like f***ing for ***ity....

> And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place,
> besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ? Try to keep up
> with the facts, eh ?

JP, you are raving.

Let's say your local jury (equivalent to the UN) decides you are under
house arrest, but that you are to be allowed food and medicine. Now
let's say I veto that (equivalent to US and UK) and will not allow even
food and medicine to you. Half your family dies of starvation or
preventible disease.

Are you pissed at the judge for making the judgement, or at me for
applying it far more stringently and killing your family?

Don't pin it to the UN sanctions, they were designed not to slaughter
people, and that is why the *UN* themselves blamed the US and the way
the sanctions were being applied for the genocide.

*READ* what people write to you, don't just see what you want to see.
I've explained the above already more than once.

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:22:02

Don't try and pigeon-hole me into your nice little theories - you have
no idea. If you can't keep your predjudice out of a discussion, keep
yourself out of a discussion.

I'd have thought it was obvious after a lifetime on usenet, that you
will never change the other person's view, and if you set out with that
in mind you are just wasting your time. Geberally the fruitful
discussions are those that elicit sufficient quality of response that
you can challenge your OWN beliefs and learn something new for yourself.
That at least is what I hope for.

> Yah, because that SOCIALIST Society you live in is so great at expanding the
> quality of life </sarcasm>. Hmmm, wonder how many jobs have been created in
> that Socialist Leaning Western Europe over the past 20 years? Let's just
> say we have created more jobs in the past 5 years than all of Western Europe
> has in the past 20 years.

> The truth comes out: Socialist

> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com

>>>I know that the US generally think that the high oil prices are OPEC's
>>>fault, yes. But it is not. And it is soooo pathetic watching the brooding
>>>and pouting: "They won't pump enough oil so that we can use *way, *way*
>>>more than we have ourselves for the prices that we want. Booohoooooooo!"

>>>JFYI, this is just the lovely, lovely mechanisms of capitalism: Demand
>>>and Availability. LOL!!!

>>>I eagerly await the times when oil is so expensive that you americans
>>>will have to let your SUV in the garage and take the bus to work. I
>>>*eagerly* await it! And it is not that far off in the future either!!!

>>>Gas prices are escalating as well, and have reached a point in US where
>>>people start converting to other heating sources. However, this is not
>>>OPEC's fault, simply because they don't control the market. The prices
>>>get high because everyone needs it, there is less and less of it, and US
>>>is the biggest consumer on the planet. And while you americans are
>>>concerned with your oil prices, this planet goes to rot, and you ignore
>>>the facts like ignorant heedless children do.

>>Amen, well said.

>>Ram the free market down everyone's throat, then scream and moan when
>>supply and demand pushed oil over $1/gallon. (Then just "fix it" by
>>invading Iraq, Iran (oops, sorry, not yet), change Afghanistan government,
>>etc.

>>By the way, when you guys go to invade Iran, I'm *really, really* sorry
>>about all the chemical weapons we Brits sold them. Just in case that is
>>used as a justification (WMDs and all that), we sold them to Iram after
>>(9/11). I know Bush was talking about "axis of evil" and all that, but
>>money is money, y'know...

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:22:45

Your ex-President said the US is stingy - I did not.

Get YOUR facts straight.

> Well John, what you FAIL to quantify is how much Americans give FREELY and
> not through Government Control. While you guys need someone at the top to
> command you to give, we as a general rule give FREELY as Americans. Your
> numbers only count for Government Aid, not what is given in total by
> American citizens. The next time you imply that Americans as a general rule
> are STINGY, get your facts straight.

> BTW, Just through our GOVERNAMENT not including our citizens, we give 60
> TIMES ($58 Billion more in total) more than Denmark does in forein aid.
> BTW, our country does not have 60 times more citizens than Denmark and
> Denmark has a higher GDP per capita than America... Therefore, based upon
> the higher GDP per capita why isn't Denmark contributing more?

> Bill Bollinger
> www.gsxn.com

>>>Somehow you can just blind yourself of anything good the US has ever

>>done.

>>>Do we make mistakes? Of course we do. But we also contribute much more
>>>than weve taken unlike a majority of the free world.

>>Sorry Mitch, that just isn't true

>>The UN set a target of 0.7% of GDP should be given as aid - this target
>>was recently increased in response to public demands to resolve the
>>tragedies occurring daily in Africa.

>>Top of the foreign aid league is Denmark (1.01% of GDP), and Sweden,
>>Norway and the Netherlands also meet the target. The US gives 0.1% of GDP
>>as aid, as former President Carter described, "we are the stingiest nation
>>of all". We're little better, Britain gives just 0.34%.

>>In the last foreign aid bill passed in the US, 75 million was passed for
>>aif to poor countries (this amounts to one tenth the cost of a B-52!). In
>>the same budget, 1.3 *BILLION* was approved to support the Colombian
>>military (who have one of the world's worst records for human rights
>>violations).

>>>Im not saying this in
>>>an egotistical way Im saying this in defensive way. The US (despite

>>your

>>>clouded nonsense) is a great country and a great collection of people

>>that

>>>want the best for the World and everyone in it.

>>Mitch, I *truly* believe that is what you and most US people want, and
>>it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening.

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 18:25:45

> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all.

New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his
reward for a year's work.

Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a
worker, I can only say good luck to you.

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 19:25:00

> Still, my land is equally bad, so I have little to smile about
> on that score.

Ah, but only four weeks or so to go until we can put a big dent into
Blair's majority. If it drops enough Brown will be able to make his move
and life might get interesting again. We can but hope!

Andrew McP

by JP » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:08:28

> > What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all.

> New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his
> reward for a year's work.

> Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a
> worker, I can only say good luck to you.

<shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a profit
isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked at
their details).

by JP » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:25:36

> >>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes,

> > it

> >>>was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc.

> >>Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide?
> >>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As
> >>the saying goes, that's like f***ing for ***ity....

> > And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place,
> > besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ? Try to keep
up
> > with the facts, eh ?

> JP, you are raving.

I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths
under a UN Security Council sanction.

Interesting analogy. Nothing to do with the facts of course, but
whatever.

Btw, I'd be pissed at myself for putting myself into the situation to
begin with. Responsiblity for one's own actions; maybe it's a foreign
concept to you ?

Given the scam involved (surprised at that, I was not) the UN blaming
anyone for anything related to the oil/food debacle is interesting, to say
the least.

And, as usual, you need to get your facts straight. The US voted against
lifting the sanctions, (because SH wasn't adherring to the sanctions terms,
which the UN itself agreed with)NOT against the oil/food program. Indeed,
the US pushed for keeping the oil/food program and ways to make it more
efficient, i.e., having no sanctions on civilian goods, only those deemed of
military use. The UK proposed similiar items.

Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it that the
sanctions existed in the first place ? Or how about this, the millions of
dollars that did result via the oil/food program that were embezzled by the
UN, various UN related offcials, and SH and his cronies, instead of for
buying food/medicine, etc. as required.........explain how that was the US's
fault.

Instead of going off on another moonbat diatribe, try answering these
direct questions for a change.

Get your facts straight first, and then we'll worry about me.

by JP » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:29:53

> >>> Didn't think so. Figures.

> >>It's now posted - sorry my life got in the way of your predjudice.

> >>It takes two seconds on Google to find anything - you could have easily
> >>found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice
> >>that they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge
> >>mine, and despair for the human race if we ever give that up.

> > Why would I want to google for something, when I wasn't the one making
the
> > assertion ? Interesting "logic".

> Interesting statement. You have no interest in challenging your own

beliefs.

No. I have no interest being told to prove something, when I wasn't the
one making the allegation. Do your own work, in other words.

<shrug> Congrats.

Would appear so. I hold others accountable for doing their own work,
you'd rather do it for them, it seems.

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:33:52

>>Still, my land is equally bad, so I have little to smile about
>>on that score.

> Ah, but only four weeks or so to go until we can put a big dent into
> Blair's majority. If it drops enough Brown will be able to make his move
> and life might get interesting again. We can but hope!

Agreed, but Bush/Kerry, Blair/Brown, fundamentally what's the difference?

To hop back on-topic for a second, there is aerodynamically one
"perfect" shape of car, and all cars naturally evolve toward it (look at
the current crop of F1 and how quickly they clone each other).

I remember (I sound about 100!) when politics was about forming or
joining a party that represented your beliefs, and convincing others of
the validity of those beliefs. These days politicians are more like
companies - where a company exists to make profit by "giving the
consumer what they want", and lots of companies become more and more
alike chasing that goal, so too politicians seem intent only on getting
into power, and moulding their manifesto around whatever they think will
get us to vote for them.

Now either that has turned completely the wrong way around, or else
politicians all think very much alike. Heck the labour party was formed
by people who believed the then governments pandered too much to
landowners and companies - now look at labout, with Tony himself a fan
of Thatcher's approach to market economics.

In anticipation of the inevitable shoe-horning, please note the above
does not represent my own political beliefs - simply my view on the way
politics exists today.

How are you these days anyway Andrew? Still staying in that amazingly
quaint village?

by JP » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:35:06

> >>> To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if

> > not.

> >>To <sic> bad the CIA put the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in power
> >>then, eh? Then you wouldn't have paid to put him in power, and paid for
> >>two wars to get him out.

> > Proof of this assertion ?

> The CIA and the Ba'ath party themselves. The head of the CIA in the
> Middle East, then James Crithfield, said "we regarded it as a great
> victory" (getting the Ba'ath party into power). Ali Saleh Sa'adi,
> Secretary General of the Ba'ath party stated "we came to power on a CIA
> train".

> Every time you have asked for proof (in the obvious hope I can't provide
> and you can give your customary "thought not"), I have provided it. From
> now on, if you care enough about your knowledge being accurate, do your
> own research.

Now, you're getting the hang of it. Atta boy. No links of course, but
I'll take your word on it.

I already have the research. Just trying to get you to do it too for a
change. You're learning though. A good thing, eh ?

Oh, I get annoyed at very little in life. Just see no need to respond to
every bit of every message though, if I see no reason to. Simple concept
really.

<wink>

You tell me. You stated it first, so you must have some idea, eh ?

Proof ?

Who says no one gives a *** ? Don't see that anywhere in this thread.

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:38:31

>>> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all.

>>New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his
>>reward for a year's work.

>>Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a
>>worker, I can only say good luck to you.

> <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a profit
> isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked at
> their details).

No profits is surely worse! <g> However there is surely an element of
"how much is enough"? What is the CEO going to do with 38 million that
he couldn't have done with 28 million? Or 18 million?

In Scandinavia CEOs get poaid, on average, 11 times more than the
average salary in their company. Across Europe it's a little higher, but
less than twenty times more is typical.

In the US it's 300 times more.

At what point does it become greed, and should we ever think that is bad?

by JP » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:46:06

> >>> What's wrong with corporate profits ? Just curious is all.

> >>New Motorola CEO fired 38,000 people, and got 38 million dollars as his
> >>reward for a year's work.

> >>Nothing is wrong with profit, but if you think that is good for you as a
> >>worker, I can only say good luck to you.

> > <shrug> Maybe. One thing for certain; a corporation NOT making a
profit
> > isn't good for workers. I.e., Motorola, I would bet (not having looked
at
> > their details).

> No profits is surely worse! <g> However there is surely an element of
> "how much is enough"? What is the CEO going to do with 38 million that
> he couldn't have done with 28 million? Or 18 million?

Definately.

Agreed. One of my "sore points" also, in the current day. Don't know if
your numbers are correct, but that's irrelevant, as overall, the general
situation does exist.

by **John Wallac** » Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:50:25

> I'm raving ? I'm not the one blaming the US for alleged Iraqi deaths
> under a UN Security Council sanction.

Nor am I - it was the two United Nations people who were IN CHARGE of
the operation.

Is it your assertion that you are more qualified to comment on this than
they are?

In what way is it "nothing to do with the facts"? Come on, put up or
shut up, it precisely represents the situation of the UN sanctions as
would be applied to yourself.

In what way could the Iraqi people achieve this? Explain? The US gave
them a ***ous tyrant, then bombed the hell out of them, then starved
them and denied them medicine, then bombed the ***out of them again.
So Einstein, you are in Iraq, no money, not allowed to leave the country
thanks to the sanctions, how would you "take responsibility"?

I'll ask you again - explain this "scam", or stop citing it. As I've
explained to you, with facts, ag=fter paying Kuwait, the UN, various oil
companies and other corporations, Iraq was left with $100 per person per
YEAR to provide electricity, water, medicine and food. So what was scammed.

Sorry JP, *YOU* need to get your facts straight. This occurred
immediately after the resolution was passed. There was no time for
Saddam to flaunt the sanctions, because food and medicine were not
allowed from the moment the sanctions were introduced.

> Indeed,

Utter and total rubbish. The US blocked food and medicine, both of which
were allowed by the sanctions, despite the items being proven to have no
possible link to any form of weapons manufacture.

You can keep trying, but I'm not going to let you away with posting such
lies. Back it up with facts and evidence.

I answered you this. The US put Saddam in power, and the US left Saddam
in power. You can blame it on Saddam, or you can blame it on the US, but
you can't blame it on the poor Iraqi people who did nothing except die
in their millions. They didn't ask for Iraq, the US put him there. They
didn't ask to be starved, but had no choice in that either.

Quote me proof of this nonsense, or quit citing it.

My facts are straight, and I post evidence. From you I see only the same
tired old media spin, which you clearly swallow.

rec.autos.simulators

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"

A lap around "The Ring"