rec.autos.simulators

by **John Wallac** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:30:17

>>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.

JP, you do realise that was NOT the assertion?!

No-one asked you to prove anything. The question was whether you have
any interest in challenging your own beliefs, or do you just read
something and believe it forever, spouting it off ad infinitum.

The question is clearly rhetorical, but feel free to have a crack at it
anyway....

If you admire it, try it.

No, I hold myself accountable for my beliefs, and therefore keep them
factual and current. You prefer not to bother.

by **John Wallac** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:41:02

>>>>> 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.

So, I continue to post proof, no change there.

You've backed up *nothing* with evidence so far - I have backed up
everything whenever requested. I appreciate that you take my word for
it, but then I've given you enough evidence that you could hardly do
anything else. You've still got quite a bit of work to do before I take
your word.

Yes, I'm familiar with it - the same as children eating a meal, they
only take the bits they like. They need to be provided with education in
order to learn that the bits they at first resist are really the parts
that do them good and help them grow.

Ironic how that applies mentally as well as physically.

You were the one who took exception to a well known hyperbole, therefore
I ask you reasoning (which once more you cannot provide. A familiar
pattern though, you are consistent in your inability to respond.

Consult your evidence, or look back at my previous posts.

Never mind what people say, what are they DOING!??! Do you see any
action at all? Have you done anything? So how should we construe that
you give a f***? Again, if it were US kids, there would be riots on the
streets. Look at the reaction of the US for less people than that killed
ONCE in 9/11 - imagine that happening once a month, and all the victims
being children. You not only see no reaction of similar magnitude, you
see no reaction at all - your mainstream media doesn't even report it,
nor does ours.

As Martin Luther King said, "A time comes when silence is betrayal."

by **Dave Henri** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:49:01

Anybody who likes Blackadder is more than allright in my book.
dave henrie

by JP » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:55:50

> > 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?

Hehe. As I said, UN officials blaming the US, besides their allegations
of it being the US fault being untrue, is laughable. Hate to see their
breadwagon cut off, is where their interests were.

Read my response. The answers are their. Still and again.

Note the word "I" in my response. Don't see the words "Iraqi people"
anywhere in it. I responded in the same format as your analogy was
constructed.

Show me where I blamed the Iraqi people for the sanctions.

scammed.

Oil/food scam ? Surely you've heard of it ? Btw, you never asked me
before.

Btw, in your example (which is the first I've seen of it, so don't know
where you get the idea of "As I've explained to you....") of where the $
went, you forgot some key players. SH and his cronies, and the various UN
officials involved in the scam, all pocketing $.

Wow, where were you during this time ? SH flaunted the *UN* sanctions
for years, basically since the Gulf War ended, and continued to do so after
1997, when the oil/food program came into place.
Anyway, here's two links to some general info. Just basic stuff from CNN
and FOX. Those two are more or less opposites in philosophy, fyi.

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

http://www.racesimcentral.net/,2933,147435,00.html

Proof ?

Interesting that on one hand in this statement, you complain about the US
leaving SH in power. Yet on the other, you complain now that the US has
taken him out of power.

Anyway, all SH had to do was live up to his end of the *UN* bargain, which
came about because of *his* invasion of Kuwait, which was opposed by the
*UN*, and not corrupt the oil/food program, and the Iraqi's wouldn't have
had to suffer (I won't bother addressing your non-proven numbers listed ).

I've never blamed things on the Iraqis. Show me where I did.

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.

See the links above. For tip of the iceberg starters. Are you seriously
saying the oil/food scam never happened ? You might want to let the Sec.
General know that then, as he thinks it did. (and boy, if anyone should
know....).

Evidence ? So far, I've seen nothing but *your* opinions and theories.

by **Mitch_** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:00:38

John, the UN is more like the OJ Simpson jury and is so wrapped up in
politics that the jury forgot what its job is.

Oil for Food scam has marginalized anything the UN will ever do.

Just to be clear as to what your trying to argue about...

The US is wrong and Saddam was right. The friends of Saddam that live
inside the UN were getting rich off the *** of Iraqi children and somehow
the US is at fault for killing millions during the sanctions?...

You can call it what you want but Iraq is now in its own free hands and its
up to them to join civilized society.

Do you have such deep concern for the Iraqi people or is it blind hatred of
GW and the US that has clouded your viewpoint? Maybe its a slanderous
European media? I dont know but something is wholly wrong across the pond.

Mitch

>> 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?

>>>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.

>> <laughter>

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

> 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.

>> 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 ?

> 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"?

>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

> 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,
>> 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.

> 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.

>> Btw, you still haven't answered my question; who's fault was it that
>> the
>> sanctions existed in the first place ?

> 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.

>> 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.

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

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

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

by **Mitch_** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:03:00

Speaking of the usenet.... Wouldnt be here if not for your enemies, the
US....

Mitch

> 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 JP » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:04:02

Well, the latest, the UN troops sex scandals in the Congo/Africa don't
help either.

by **Mitch_** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:02:01

Thats the fundamental difference. If WE dont like Motorola we dont buy
Motorola products and soon Motorola will be gone.

Mitch

>>>> 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 **Mitch_** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:11:16

Are you kidding John? You throw some meaningless stats out that are based
in ignorance and havent anything to do with reality yet its the basis of
your entire argument?

You cant put a number on all of the good things the US has done both from
the private and public sector. You take a small percentage of public funds
then expand that into some sort meaningful number, which it isnt.

Mitch

by **Mitch_** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:16:55

Is that a new one? hadnt heard of it yet.

> Well, the latest, the UN troops sex scandals in the Congo/Africa don't
> help either.

by **Mitch_** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:23:54

Well, a conversation with you is the same as talking to a rock so Im off to
the rock garden to talk with ya some more ;)

Mitch

> Er, Randy was just saying that he did NOT want to get into a debate about
> something wierd which he saw as completely obvious.

> As for the 12 years, you better ask the Bush family. The US put Saddam in
> power, so the timing for removing must have a timetable also. Since you do
> question your government, you should get an answer from them on that "real
> soon now"

>> What you dont seem to comprehend is that WE do question our Government.
>> I questioned why the hell it took 12 fn years to get rid of Saddam....

>> Mitch

>>>>I also don't feel like getting into a debate about whether a cloudless
>>>>sky is really blue. Some things just aren't worth investing the effort
>>>>into.

>>>No-one is saying the sky has disappeared.

>>>If you dropped an egg on the floor and there was no shell as you cleaned
>>>it up, I'm guess you'd be fine with that.

>>>Don't ever question your government, there's a good citizen.

by JP » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 02:08:09

> > > 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?

Btw, forgot this the first time; got a cite about these two UN people you
mention, blaming the the US ?

by **Ruud Dingeman** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:40:46

> Speaking of the usenet.... Wouldnt be here if not for your enemies, the
> US....

Spoken like a true drama queen.

(I don't follow this discussion, but I found this 'If you're not with
us, you're against us' rationale simplistic to say the least.)

Regards, Rudy
(GPLRank -24)

by **John Wallac** » Tue, 05 Apr 2005 06:28:10

> Hehe. As I said, UN officials blaming the US, besides their allegations
> of it being the US fault being untrue, is laughable. Hate to see their
> breadwagon cut off, is where their interests were.

No, you said *I* was blaming the US. I don't expect you to admit you
were wrong, so lucky I'm here to keep you straight :-)

As for being afraid their breadwagon was being cut off, can I remind you
that these two gentlemen voluntary *resigned* in horror and protest at
what the sanctions were forcing them to do. i.e. they were firmly on
your "breadwagon", and they CHOSE to get off.

So, once again, your comments are shown as a steaming pile of horse
manure....

JP, they're not. Sorry, you're not going to get out of this one by
stating again and again that you've answered. Explain to me how that
analogy differs from the imposition of the sanctions.

You haven't, because you cannot.

And my response was, if *you* were in the position of that analogy, how
would you get out of it?

And again, you do not (cannot) answer.

You squarely blamed Iraq when you said;

"And who's fault was it that the sanction existed in the first place,
besides it being a *UN* sanction, also endorsed by Europe ?"

Or were you <s***> trying to blame the UN for a sanction demanded by
the US and the UK?!

Sorry JP, not this time. Cite me proof, or quit *** this dead
horse. There is NO PROOF AT ALL that Saddam and his cronies were making
out like bandits with any oil for food money, none at all. EVERYTHING
was paid through the UN, and approved by the security council - that's
the US, the UK, Europe and Canada.

JP, listen carefully. The illegal sanctions of food and medicine were
implemented immediately after the gulf war. Not in 1997.

By the way, when you start relying on Rupert Murdoch for your "facts",
we need to stop talking. How can I have an argument with an unarmed man?

I have already posted this. You prove to me that they were letting food
and medicine through. Or are you saying Saddam was guzzling the food and
using the medicine of an entire nation? Or just slaughtering his own people?

Read, JP, read dear boy. I complained about neither, I merely organised
the facts for you.

You have yet to prove there was any irregularity at all in the oil for
food, and the numbers have been proven by the UN and through
journalistic channels.

Now if you can post me facts about oil for food (anyone locked up for
these illegal activities) and prove to me that Madelaine Albright was
high on *** when she admitted half a million Iraqi children had been
slaughtered, I'll think about responding to your foundationless allegations.

In the meantime, thanks for calling....

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"