rec.autos.simulators

I consider myself pretty conservative. Nothing conservative about
Bush's deficeit financing, nothing conservative about the federal
government trying to tell the state courts how they must rule. Bush
is an ideologue, he is NOT a conservative.

Total fu-king bullshit! Explain how, idiot. "Liberal policies?", you're
gonna have to get a little more specific than that, most of us here can
read and write.

What in hell does that have to do with anything?

I'm sure that you alone are keeping the government solvent. Its all about
your money, ain't it?

Dude, you are really a fu-king ZERO! You make bold ideological
statements that have no basis in fact and you make no attempt to back
up your bullshit. When you're finally shown to be an ignorant ass, you make
some stupid, prideful boast and move on to spew your bullshit in another
group.
WS

PS: I am still waiting to hear how FDR and LBJ ruined an infrastructure
that started deteriorating in the seventies, but if you just rattle off more
mumbo-jumbo I won't waste my time responding to an idiot.

Buh-Bye Bernie!

my time responding to an idiot.

Therefore "The Truth" is that the "Patriot" act does allow exactly that,
and is being used as such. Why is it that YOUR government is allowed to
snoop on you, but you are not allowed to know what they are doing?

Another non-searcher? Use google - you'll find countless campus news
stories, blogs, articles and reports - or do you prefer your "news"
served by Murdoch in sound-bites?

Sorry Mitch, it's matter and anti-matter that supposedly cancel out, not
open insult and then smiley...

I have no party - please remember it. I do so hate when people try to
fill in aspects about me of which they have no knowledge.

I agree that no-one is right or wrong in regards to Iraq, but if you
cannot accept my point on Iraq, please understand my feeling. You say
things are looking better for freedom - I disagree. The US invaded Iraq,
and forced upon the people a style of government and a leader that they
DID NOT CHOOSE. That is not freedom. Forget for a moment if we think it
is in their best interests, it is NOT democratic, it is NOT freedom, and
it is NOT legal.

Imagine if Saddam had the military power of the US, and decided "poor
USA has George Bush as a leader, half the country vote against him -
they need a dictator to solve their problems!". Then he invades, knocks
out the military, and installs a style of government of which his people
approve.

Set aside the response of "we'll kick his ass", and "it'll never happen"
- I know. Point is, it's the reverse of what was done to Iraq, and would
be equally undemocratic and illegal. The people of IRAQ may think
they've done the right thing - under Saddam (pre-sanctions) they had a
literacy rate of overe 90% (prents were fined for not sending their kids
to attain an education), they had no street children as they have now,
their overall level of wellbeing for the population was among the best
in the world (it's now in the bottom 20%). Those people might believe
they were doing the right thing for the US, but that is not the way to
bring it about - you can't make rules then just set them aside. Bringing
"democracy" by undemocratic means is bizarre, no?

Still, time will tell, and it's done now.

You've posted NOTHING but your own words, backed up with nothing.

And if you don't know who comprises the UN security council members, you
are WAY out of your depth.

In this case I will indulge you, but no more - I'm sure you can find
things for yourself. Here is a link to Halliday's first public speech
after his resignation, made at Harvard in 1998.

http://iraqaction.org/oldsite/harvard.html

Because you *are* talking horse manure. I have posted facts and
evidence, quotes and sources. You have cited only things which you
believe to be true. *You* may believe them, but that falls well short of
making them facts.

LOL - every one has been answered.

JP, for the third time. Listen. Post proof of this utter fallacy.

There is no proof, because it did not happen. *I* have axplained to you
where all the money went, and the mechanisms under which it flowed
(controlled by the US). So in the extremely unlikely event of any
pocketing, the US was complicit.

So you would endure the sanctions and allow yourself and your family to
die. Okay, that's a fair answer, since that's what the Iraqis had to do.

Actually the UN said it. China said it. France said it. Kofi Annan said
it. Independent journalists recorded and reported it.

I merely quoted, although I do agree with them.

JP - are you *really* trying to say that the sanctions against Iraq were
not requested by the US, supported by the UK? Honestly? I'm trying to
help you here, I'm trying to help you salvage one tiny thread of
credibility that you have an iota of a clue what you're talking about.

You do know that Blair flew to the US to convince Bush to go this road?
You do know they had press conferences about this? You do know they
tried to spin the lie that "France would veto the sanctions no matter
what". Please tell me you know this?

Er, no - it takes only ONE country. That's why they call it a veto.

Go read up on how the security council works (and see which of the
members has used its veto more times in the past ten years than any other ;

China  :  2
France :  0
UK     :  0
Russia :  1
USA    : 10

What do you think was so important during the last ten years that the US
was the one doing more than 75% of the vetoing...? Hmmm, what was going
on in the last decade....

Quit the insults okay? You don't know me, so don't think you can judge me.

 >  Ok, here's a very small tip of

Well, that's because they didn't.

First off, PLEASE don't take your "news" from Fox, okay? Secondly, you
post me links showing Kofi Annan being *cleared*, the US State
Department supporting this, and Kofi Annan's son looking into his
options as far as suing the people who investigated!

This is "proof" - LOL.

The US was involved in the set up of the sanctions, the controlling of
the sanctions, the sign off of any orders, and with power of veto over
everything which went on. *If* there was a problem (which has been many
times alleged and never proven), a hell of a lot of people in the US
missed it.

Here is resolution 661 - note that medicines and humanitarian aid are
very specifically allowed ;

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0661.htm

Here are some reports on how this was simply ignored ;

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Sanctions_...
http://www.gutlesspacifist.com/coolwars.html

Even Harvard warned of the public health catastrophe which they
predicted would occur, and which was proven correct.

Read the above reports. Oh, and search.

Then click back in the thread and find it.

They're the UN's *proven* numbers, and accepted by your government. You
should tell them they're wrong.

JP, you really need to shut up, it's embarrassing. How can you claims I
haven't posted "any proof at all"? I have posted a LOT, even in this
message. Cited you numbers, provided quotes and sources right to the UN
and your own government. You might not like them, but please don't claim
I've posted nothing to try to strengthen your position. If you can't
strengthen it by fact, don't bother.

Then you should shut up - really.

Yes, the M25 could seriously put a dent on things, although it should
help your skills in GPL traffic! Mind you, even online I reckon most
simmers drive better than I tended to see on the M25.

Yes, I'm discovering that unfortunately. It's not so much the politics
that depress me here, it's people's inability to step aside for a moment
from what they believe in, and objectively look at the process of how
something came about. Thatcher said "there is no such thing as society"
- she is normally quoted badly out of context on this, but I fear the
non-contextual use is becoming the more correct.

Cheers
John

The 0.7% is the target, the 0.1% is the result.

And that is why *Jimmy Carter* (not me) called the US the stingiest
nation on earth. I've never been your president (too Scottish to
qualify), so I'd rather you attributed Jimmy's quotes to Jimmy.

I suspect if you took a vote of all the people in the US and asked them
if Motorola's CEO should get 38 million bucks a year they'd say no.

Id be happy to tilt a p[int or two with ya someday John!

Mitch

different viewpoints, but I do very much

Then fell short by almost 90% - does that raise a little vomit?

I'm actually rather curious what other Brits may say - like our Scottish
so called "parliament", it's a matter of supreme indifference to me.