rec.autos.simulators

by **JTBur** » Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:01:30

So I guess all the mass graves that were found and the fact that Saddam has
had tens of thousands of his countrymen killed are all fabricated by "The
White House" and evil America? Wake up. If the feel the US was not
justified, then I believe you must fell that Saddam was.

> > Gee David,
> > You seem to be replying in a defensive manner to anyone that
disputes
> > your right to post this in here, yet you have failed to reply to my post
> > which I believe stated many valid reasons for the war to have taken
place.

> If you really believe what you wrote, then there isn't much to say to you
on
> this issue.

> > >Where exactly is the vitriol, Jan? In the article?

> > vitriol?
> > http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> > Check out definition #2

> > Uhm, yeah. I would call it vitriol.

> Read my original post to which Jan replied and show me exactly where the
> vitriol is. Because I said "stupidity"? Stupidity is defined as:

> 1. lack of intelligence: lack of intelligence, perception, or common
> sense

> 2. rashness or thoughtlessness: extremely rash or thoughtless
behavior

> No vitriol there.

> So where is it? You're acting like the White House now. Insisting things
> exist, but ultimately unable to show any proof.

> David G Fisher

by **Steve Whitt** » Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:10:02

Sh*t man!! Bush wants to put mini-nukes into the hands of the grunts of
the US armed forces. Instead of upholding his obligations under the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he wants to throw all that away,and
make MORE nukes. If he gets this through Congress, other countries will
be saying "well we want them too" No longer will nukes be Tactical
weapons(you know the phrase MAD..mutually assured destruction), they
will be offensive weapons, just like tanks, cannons, rifles etc..
It seems quite obvious to me who the biggest threat to world peace is.

I respect everyones view here that support the Bush administration. I
think no less of these people. Its a credit to those people to stand up
for what they believe in. Healthy debate on a subject can be done
without people getting angry, as long as everyone respects each others
view on situations

we will now return to our regular viewing, racing simulators.:-)

Steve

>>My take on all this is i agree with a recent poll done here in a uk
>>newspaper. The question was 'whos the biggest threat to world peace' The
>>choices were the usual bunch hussain, binladen, chirac, blair, bush,
>>schroeder, omah, sharon, tarar, musharaf, arafat. not suprisingly bush was
>>named as person most likely to upset world peace. I strongly believe that
>>the greatest threat to peace at the moment is the american republican

> party,

>>its cia advisors and the new american century organisation. I wish

> americans

>>wouldnt believe all the propoganda they are fed and hurry up and vote this
>>guy out of office before he starts any more conflicts
>> dan

> The problem with polls like that is people in countries like ours believe
> the world currently *is* a peaceful place. So they think starting a war is a
> threat to the current 'peace', when in fact it is driving us further and
> further towards a real state of peace. If they made all those people
> actually travel to some of the worst places in the world and see with their
> own eyes the brutality and hatred, they would all automatically jump onto
> Bush's side.

by **Nick** » Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:56:19

That's the future (and it won't happen anyway, because it's been blown all
out of proportion). I was talking about right here, right now.

by **Extry** » Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:54:35

Yep everythings fine and dandy over there now. Classic stuff that.
Securing what they went there for and all...who's next ?

by **Extry** » Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:57:36

Roll on Yellowstone Supervolcano - we need
a black sky for the next few hundred years..there's
your weapon of mass destruction...

by **Extry** » Sat, 07 Jun 2003 22:58:59

i don't believe he mentioned these mass graves didn't exist,
nor did he say Saddam was a fairy princess..

by **redTe** » Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:23:29

Nope..I asked why you posted it in a car simulators newsgroup...you
answered.
You looking for an argument or something ? Perhaps a little political
trolling ?

by **redTe** » Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:33:39

Who said everything's fine and dandy ? Reading between lines is your
specialist subject, I see. Unfortunately, I didn't leave spaces for you to
fill in the gaps with your stupid rhetoric.
Is life better in Iraq now or the majority of people ? Answer YES or NO.
Will life get a lot better in the near future ?
Do the general Iraqi public miss Sadams brutality ?
Who's next.. ? Take your pick. Personally, I hope it's Zimbabwe, followed by
all the other maniacal regimes of the African continent. Or do you accept
that these regimes have every right to slaughter thousands of their own
people just so long as it doesn't interfere with your lifestyle ?
What reason do you give for USA ,GB and any other countries for not getting
involved in suppressing ***, brutal dictatorships ?

by **Peter Ive** » Sun, 08 Jun 2003 02:55:49

>message

>: I'm not a fan of all the OT mindless stuff, but that article was pretty
>: useful. It seems like everyone has totally forgotten about the "reason"
>: there was a war.. Even I just sort of assumed they found something by now.
>:
>: Mike
>: http://mikebeauchamp.com
>:

>: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:14:02 -0400, "David G Fisher"

>: >
><snip>

>:
>:

>They have found things that make the action/war more than nesecarry (sp).
>Mass graves, items stolen from Kuwait, weapons that supposedly did not
>exist
>and were banned by the U.N., millions of dollars in bank accounts and
>private stashes that could have fed the starving people of Iraq, Saddam's
>refusal to acceed to the U.N. sanctions and force his population to endure
>over a decade of hardship. I could go on for a while here. This was a bad
>place in the world and we have seen proof ( yes, I could look up the info to
>back this up) that Al Qaida were present and operating in the country.
>Why was it a bad idea to attack? I personally do not believe that everyone
>has to agree with what happened, I am glad that we no longer have pilots
>flying daily missions over Iraq to ensure the safety of the world. I am
>glad that the U.N. has ended economic sanctions imposed on the country of
>Iraq. I am glad that there is one more place in the world where people have
>hope for tomorrow.

Why shouldn't they have gone to war? Because those reasons you have
listed were NOT the reasons that the war was sold to us on. It was sold
to us on the basis that Iraq had WMD's and were not disarming according
to resolution 144?? Do you really believe that the US and UK would have
been interested in attacking Iraq if all they were concerned about was
the plight of the population? Really, the west couldn't give a toss
about things like that. What drives the likes of the US and UK is their
own wealth and power. Don't try to paint them as saviours of the world
when they are far, far removed from that.
--
Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington)
Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email
If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :)
GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

by **Peter Ive** » Sun, 08 Jun 2003 03:05:32

My girlfriend is Zimbabwean and indeed she is concerned about what is
happening in her country. However, she would be far more concerned at
the idea of Bush and Co, ram-raiding the sh*t out of the place, believe
me.

Because change must come from within, otherwise it is not real change.
Also, why does war always have to be the only solution?
--
Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington)
Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email
If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :)
GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

by **redTe** » Sun, 08 Jun 2003 03:20:34

So change is coming from within, is it ? On the day they arrest the
opposition leader and charge him with treason.
Ok.

by **Peter Ive** » Sun, 08 Jun 2003 03:34:54

Now who was that South African who got arrested and imprisoned for many
years, when many of their country's people were being abused? Nelson
something or other...
--
Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington)
Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email
If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :)
GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

by **Nick** » Sun, 08 Jun 2003 03:48:51

IMO the war didn't need to be 'sold' to us. The only people who were
anti-war were very stupid (IMO) or pop singers who thought they could make a
statement and get in the news for a bit more publicity.

No, but I believe individually, all but the most stupid people would be in
favour of that, but of course the governments don't do it because they have
some kind of conscience - they wouldn't go to the expense of starting a war
if they didn't have anything more concrete to gain from it...

by **redTe** » Sun, 08 Jun 2003 04:32:44

Muntz ? I'm sure it began with an "m".
So when does the blacklisting of Zimbabwe begin ? As the French(and others)
are still keen to hold talks with Mugabe, I don't think the pressure is
really on as it was in S.A.

by **Ruud Dingeman** » Sun, 08 Jun 2003 09:40:25

> It's not that I agree or disagree.

Um, yes it is... (see below)

if it had been a 'right-wing' sort of comment I'm pretty sure you
wouldn't have objected so much.

Apart from that, the US not having found anything smoking-gun-like can
hardly be called 'left-wingish', that's just a fact. Maybe they will
find something tomorrow. Maybe not.

Maybe because the real (or at least add-on)reason for starting this
particular war was something called "oil", beside "arms sales". Bechtel,
Carlyle etc. are sure to profit, Bush isn't being particularly subtle
about that either. On the other hand, fact is that the claimed reason
for going to Iraq still hasn't been backed up yet... Not that I say it
couldn't be backed up tomorrow, though. What I *am* pretty sure of was
that it wasn't the only reason for Bush going there...

Bet you can, since I sure don't have an F360, not even virtual ;)

Regards, Rudy

rec.autos.simulators

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found

OT, But A Fav Subject Here in the Recent Past---STILL No WMD Found