An example for you all to look up to

It's about a woman race driver in Iran. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm

It's about a woman race driver in Iran. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm

Three Qs: 1. If women can't drive on the street in these extremist lands, how come it's okay to drive on race tracks? 2. Where in the Koran does it say a burka is ok as a helmet? 3. Why does she sit so close to the wheel? "Connected" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It's about a woman race driver in Iran. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm

Steve Smith wrote:> Three Qs: > > 1. If women can't drive on the street in these extremist lands, how come > it's okay to drive on race tracks? Stop right there, pal! Iran is no more extremist than the USA in terms of religion. I know because I've been to both counties. Get your facts right before you start slagging off other cultures.

Last time I checked, whoo from nowhere, the government doesn't ENFORCE any religion in the U.S., unlike Iran. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:30:34 GMT, Whoo <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Steve Smith wrote:> Three Qs: >> >> 1. If women can't drive on the street in these extremist lands, how come >> it's okay to drive on race tracks? > >Stop right there, pal! Iran is no more extremist than the USA in terms >of religion. I know because I've been to both counties. > >Get your facts right before you start slagging off other cultures.

Whoo wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Steve Smith wrote:> Three Qs: >> >> 1. If women can't drive on the street in these extremist lands, how come >> it's okay to drive on race tracks? > > Stop right there, pal! Iran is no more extremist than the USA in terms > of religion. I know because I've been to both counties. > > Get your facts right before you start slagging off other cultures.

And Ive been to Canada and Mexico. That makes me an expert on religion in both Canada and Mexico? I dont think so... Anyone with a modicum of COMMON SENSE can see you are so far off base that you cant even see the base anymore... Mitch -- Remove "nospam." to reply. SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

I lived among Iranians for 5 years. I didn't find them exactly liberal when it came to women's rights, whatever other virtues their culture may posess (and there are many). "Whoo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_rBZd.246$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Steve Smith wrote:> Three Qs: > > > > 1. If women can't drive on the street in these extremist lands, how come > > it's okay to drive on race tracks? > > Stop right there, pal! Iran is no more extremist than the USA in terms > of religion. I know because I've been to both counties. > > Get your facts right before you start slagging off other cultures.

Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusing that an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and without a helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8rDZd.10896$[email hidden]... > Whoo wrote: > > > Steve Smith wrote:> Three Qs: > >> > >> 1. If women can't drive on the street in these extremist lands, howcome

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >> it's okay to drive on race tracks? > > > > Stop right there, pal! Iran is no more extremist than the USA in terms > > of religion. I know because I've been to both counties. > > > > Get your facts right before you start slagging off other cultures. > > > And Ive been to Canada and Mexico. That makes me an expert on religion in > both Canada and Mexico? I dont think so... > > Anyone with a modicum of COMMON SENSE can see you are so far off base that > you cant even see the base anymore... > > Mitch > -- > Remove "nospam." to reply. > SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a

Steve Smith wrote: > Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. apologies from me to you, Steve, having a very bad day here.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:41:51 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusing that >an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new >Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and without a >helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. "Leftist BBC" - Fuck off!

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:38:04 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I lived among Iranians for 5 years. I didn't find them exactly liberal when >it came to women's rights, whatever other virtues their culture may posess >(and there are many). Well, you ain't exactly liberal yourself when you call the BBC "leftist" dickwad.

I posted this story because it was about a woman race driver and you dorks have to turn it into a political argument. Dickheads.

Okay, then; "a-little-to-the-right-of-Oswald-Mosely BBC" "Connected" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:41:51 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusingthat > >an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new > >Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and without a > >helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. > > "Leftist BBC" - Fuck off!

Connected wrote: > I posted this story because it was about a woman race driver and you > dorks have to turn it into a political argument. Dickheads. well, shit happens

"Connected" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It's about a woman race driver in Iran. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm Congrats to Laleh. Smart, fast and hot - what more can you ask for?

"Ian Thorpe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:y5MZd.29566$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Connected" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> It's about a woman race driver in Iran. >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm > > Congrats to Laleh. Smart, fast and hot - what more can > you ask for? >

Someone who can cook and serve her master.

"Connected" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > It's about a woman race driver in Iran. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm Finally western stupidity, ignorance and decadence reachs the fundamentalist middle east :( Get in the kitchen bitch!

Don't mind them, Steve. They'd fail to see the humour in anything unless it was labelled "This Is Funny". Bruce. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:z7FZd.94003$[email hidden]... > Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes.

I shoulda known better.... "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4237b472$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Don't mind them, Steve. > They'd fail to see the humour in anything unless it was labelled "This Is > Funny". > > Bruce. > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:z7FZd.94003$[email hidden]... > > > Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. > >

I shoulda known better....

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Don't mind them, Steve. > They'd fail to see the humour in anything unless it was labelled "This Is > Funny". > Bruce. > > Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes.

Byron Forbes wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "Connected" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>It's about a woman race driver in Iran. >> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm > > > Finally western stupidity, ignorance and decadence reachs the > fundamentalist middle east :( > > Get in the kitchen bitch! > >

lol!

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>It's about a woman race driver in Iran. >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm > Finally western stupidity, ignorance and decadence reachs the > fundamentalist middle east :( > Get in the kitchen ***!

lol!

Byron Forbes wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> "Ian Thorpe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:y5MZd.29566$[email hidden]... > >>"Connected" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:[email hidden]... >> >>>It's about a woman race driver in Iran. >>> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm >> >>Congrats to Laleh. Smart, fast and hot - what more can >>you ask for? >> > > > Someone who can cook and serve her master. > >

serve him to who?

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:36:37 -0800, Connected <[email hidden]> wrote: >I posted this story because it was about a woman race driver and you >dorks have to turn it into a political argument. Dickheads. If you even own a car in Iran, you're probably in the top 5 race drivers in the country.

Tim O wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:36:37 -0800, Connected > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>I posted this story because it was about a woman race driver and you >>dorks have to turn it into a political argument. Dickheads. > > > If you even own a car in Iran, you're probably in the top 5 race > drivers in the country. > >

http://www.iranlink.addr.com/tehran.jpg

They *are* ants - we haven't taken off yet. "artie beamer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aZ3_d.30731$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Tim O wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:36:37 -0800, Connected > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > >>I posted this story because it was about a woman race driver and you > >>dorks have to turn it into a political argument. Dickheads. > > > > > > If you even own a car in Iran, you're probably in the top 5 race > > drivers in the country. > > > > > http://www.iranlink.addr.com/tehran.jpg

"Whoo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:M6%Zd.441$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Byron Forbes wrote: > >> "Ian Thorpe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:y5MZd.29566$[email hidden]... >> >>>"Connected" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>news:[email hidden]... >>> >>>>It's about a woman race driver in Iran. >>>> >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4349341.stm >>> >>>Congrats to Laleh. Smart, fast and hot - what more can >>>you ask for? >>> >> >> >> Someone who can cook and serve her master. > serve him to who?

LOL. Very good!

You americans have not the slightest clue about what is left and right. Politically, that is. The only people claiming otherwise are americans. Period. ---A--- Steve Smith wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Okay, then; "a-little-to-the-right-of-Oswald-Mosely BBC" > > "Connected" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:41:51 GMT, "Steve Smith" >><[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >>>Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusing > > that > >>>an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new >>>Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and without a >>>helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. >> >>"Leftist BBC" - Fuck off! > > >

But Steve: Is she really sitting too close to the wheel? I have heard that a racing car driver need a good elbow angle (90) to get the agility and speed needed for a racing car... And, since she is not wearing a helmet, maybe she took it off and put on the burka prior to the photo session? What do I know. A burka may even be very comfortable under a helemt... I would *think* that even moslems have the common sense to protect their head when racing. ;-) And, finally, what's wrong in racing a Lincoln LS? I am positively *sure* racing a racing specced Lincoln on the limit is huge fun, and I would do it without even thinking about the wage. Hehehe ---A--- Steve Smith wrote:

Quoted text (38 lines)

> Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusing that > an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new > Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and without a > helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8rDZd.10896$[email hidden]... > >>Whoo wrote: >> >> >>>Steve Smith wrote:> Three Qs: >>> >>>>1. If women can't drive on the street in these extremist lands, how > > come > >>>>it's okay to drive on race tracks? >>> >>>Stop right there, pal! Iran is no more extremist than the USA in terms >>>of religion. I know because I've been to both counties. >>> >>>Get your facts right before you start slagging off other cultures. >> >> >>And Ive been to Canada and Mexico. That makes me an expert on religion in >>both Canada and Mexico? I dont think so... >> >>Anyone with a modicum of COMMON SENSE can see you are so far off base that >>you cant even see the base anymore... >> >>Mitch >>-- >>Remove "nospam." to reply. >>SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a > > >

You can't decide what should be talked over and what should not, you know. Freedom of speech, you know. One of the things we praise, if not worship in the west. And what happens if everybody says the same thing, because the owners tell them to? What is the freedom of speech worth then? ---A--- Connected wrote: > I posted this story because it was about a woman race driver and you > dorks have to turn it into a political argument. Dickheads.

In article <d1e40q$7ci$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Asgeir Nesoen) wrote: > You americans have not the slightest clue > about what is left and right. Having the best equipped armed forces on the planet means never having to to think too hard. The same applied to us Brits a hundred years or so ago; to the Romans two thousand years ago, and to many other transient empires back through history. The accents may change but the ignorance of 'Might is Right' never does. I prescribe twelve laps of the Nurburgring in a Cooper to take our minds off the hopeless human condition ;-) Andrew McP

Your fix/prescription should be applied a little more often in our world, mind you! :-D ---A--- Andrew MacPherson wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> In article <d1e40q$7ci$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Asgeir > Nesoen) wrote: > > >>You americans have not the slightest clue >>about what is left and right. > > > Having the best equipped armed forces on the planet means never having to > to think too hard. The same applied to us Brits a hundred years or so ago; > to the Romans two thousand years ago, and to many other transient empires > back through history. The accents may change but the ignorance of 'Might > is Right' never does. > > I prescribe twelve laps of the Nurburgring in a Cooper to take our minds > off the hopeless human condition ;-) > > Andrew McP >

Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > And what happens if everybody says the same thing, because the owners > tell them to? What is the freedom of speech worth then? We're trying that approach here in the US now, I'll get back to you on how it works out. Don McCorkle

Anyone interested in going into business? Selling fire-proof burkas? "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:d1e4kp$837$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (57 lines)

> But Steve: > Is she really sitting too close to the wheel? I have heard that a racing > car driver need a good elbow angle (90) to get the agility and speed > needed for a racing car... > > And, since she is not wearing a helmet, maybe she took it off and put on > the burka prior to the photo session? What do I know. A burka may even be > very comfortable under a helemt... I would *think* that even moslems have > the common sense to protect their head when racing. ;-) > > And, finally, what's wrong in racing a Lincoln LS? I am positively *sure* > racing a racing specced Lincoln on the limit is huge fun, and I would do > it without even thinking about the wage. Hehehe > > ---A--- > > Steve Smith wrote: >> Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusing >> that >> an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new >> Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and without a >> helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. >> >> "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:8rDZd.10896$[email hidden]... >> >>>Whoo wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Steve Smith wrote:> Three Qs: >>>> >>>>>1. If women can't drive on the street in these extremist lands, how >> >> come >> >>>>>it's okay to drive on race tracks? >>>> >>>>Stop right there, pal! Iran is no more extremist than the USA in terms >>>>of religion. I know because I've been to both counties. >>>> >>>>Get your facts right before you start slagging off other cultures. >>> >>> >>>And Ive been to Canada and Mexico. That makes me an expert on religion >>>in >>>both Canada and Mexico? I dont think so... >>> >>>Anyone with a modicum of COMMON SENSE can see you are so far off base >>>that >>>you cant even see the base anymore... >>> >>>Mitch >>>-- >>>Remove "nospam." to reply. >>>SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a >> >>

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:52:36 +0100, Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>You can't decide what should be talked over and what should not, you know. >Freedom of speech, you know. One of the things we praise, if not worship in the >west. > >And what happens if everybody says the same thing, because the owners tell them >to? What is the freedom of speech worth then? > >---A---

Fine, have it your way and hijack my thread.

Actually, on another page on the BBC's site, she *is* wearing a helmet (center of the page): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/default.stm "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:iAA_d.35785$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Anyone interested in going into business? Selling fire-proof burkas? > "Asgeir Nesoen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:d1e4kp$837$[email hidden]... > > But Steve: > > Is she really sitting too close to the wheel? I have heard that a racing > > car driver need a good elbow angle (90) to get the agility and speed > > needed for a racing car... > > > > And, since she is not wearing a helmet, maybe she took it off and put on > > the burka prior to the photo session? What do I know. A burka may even

be > > very comfortable under a helemt... I would *think* that even moslemshave > > the common sense to protect their head when racing. ;-) > > > > And, finally, what's wrong in racing a Lincoln LS? I am positively*sure*

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > racing a racing specced Lincoln on the limit is huge fun, and I would do > > it without even thinking about the wage. Hehehe > > > > ---A--- > > > > Steve Smith wrote: > >> Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusing > >> that > >> an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new > >> Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and without

a

Quoted text (37 lines)

> >> helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. > >> > >> "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:8rDZd.10896$[email hidden]... > >> > >>>Whoo wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Steve Smith wrote:> Three Qs: > >>>> > >>>>>1. If women can't drive on the street in these extremist lands, how > >> > >> come > >> > >>>>>it's okay to drive on race tracks? > >>>> > >>>>Stop right there, pal! Iran is no more extremist than the USA in terms > >>>>of religion. I know because I've been to both counties. > >>>> > >>>>Get your facts right before you start slagging off other cultures. > >>> > >>> > >>>And Ive been to Canada and Mexico. That makes me an expert on religion > >>>in > >>>both Canada and Mexico? I dont think so... > >>> > >>>Anyone with a modicum of COMMON SENSE can see you are so far off base > >>>that > >>>you cant even see the base anymore... > >>> > >>>Mitch > >>>-- > >>>Remove "nospam." to reply. > >>>SuSE 9.2 Pro KDE 3.3.2a > >> > >> >

Steve Smith wrote: > Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusing that > an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new > Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and without a > helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. Post-emasculation by our "new labour" (= "old tory"), I'd struggle to think of our beloved Auntie as "leftist" :-)

Yeah, well, they refuse to call suicide bombers by their rightful monikers, instead naming them "freedom enthusiasts" or "Valhalla aspirants" or some such rubbish. They had to jettison one of their directors recently for making unfounded allegations that Blair had knowingly misled the Brits abt. Iraq (the suicide scientist). The crack that he's Bush's "poodle" is closer to the mark. There now; I've done it - stepped in poo (politics). Yes, the Bebe is left of center, as is most of the U.S. media (NYT, CBS), with the notable exceptions of Fox and radio (exc. Clear Channel). We're very, very opinionated over here, but not stupid. "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusingthat > > an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new > > Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and withouta > > helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. > > Post-emasculation by our "new labour" (= "old tory"), I'd struggle to > think of our beloved Auntie as "leftist" :-)

oh come on Steve - left of centre in the US is extreme right in Europe - now there, you got me involved! CBS left? CBs had the countdown to the bombing of Baghdad with their anchors salivating at the thought of the bombs falling - they are as left as Hitler was a National Socialist! "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:n8V0e.95880$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (29 lines)

> Yeah, well, they refuse to call suicide bombers by their rightful > monikers, > instead naming them "freedom enthusiasts" or "Valhalla aspirants" or some > such rubbish. They had to jettison one of their directors recently for > making unfounded allegations that Blair had knowingly misled the Brits > abt. > Iraq (the suicide scientist). The crack that he's Bush's "poodle" is > closer > to the mark. There now; I've done it - stepped in poo (politics). Yes, > the > Bebe is left of center, as is most of the U.S. media (NYT, CBS), with the > notable exceptions of Fox and radio (exc. Clear Channel). We're very, > very > opinionated over here, but not stupid. > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Steve Smith wrote: >> > Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it amusing > that >> > an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new >> > Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and without > a >> > helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. >> >> Post-emasculation by our "new labour" (= "old tory"), I'd struggle to >> think of our beloved Auntie as "leftist" :-) > >

Two words, Alex: Gunga Dan (as in "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" Oh, that's right, he's gone. I wonder why.... Could it be SATAN?) "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:q7Y0e.85660$[email hidden]... > oh come on Steve - left of centre in the US is extreme right in Europe -now

Quoted text (8 lines)

> there, you got me involved! CBS left? CBs had the countdown to the bombing > of Baghdad with their anchors salivating at the thought of the bombs > falling - they are as left as Hitler was a National Socialist! > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:n8V0e.95880$[email hidden]... > > Yeah, well, they refuse to call suicide bombers by their rightful > > monikers, > > instead naming them "freedom enthusiasts" or "Valhalla aspirants" or

some

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > such rubbish. They had to jettison one of their directors recently for > > making unfounded allegations that Blair had knowingly misled the Brits > > abt. > > Iraq (the suicide scientist). The crack that he's Bush's "poodle" is > > closer > > to the mark. There now; I've done it - stepped in poo (politics). Yes, > > the > > Bebe is left of center, as is most of the U.S. media (NYT, CBS), with

the

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > notable exceptions of Fox and radio (exc. Clear Channel). We're very, > > very > > opinionated over here, but not stupid. > > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > >> Steve Smith wrote: > >> > Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it

amusing > > that > >> > an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new > >> > Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel andwithout

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > a > >> > helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. > >> > >> Post-emasculation by our "new labour" (= "old tory"), I'd struggle to > >> think of our beloved Auntie as "leftist" :-) > > > > > >

Leave Gunga Dan alone - he looked good in his turban twenty years before they'd come into fashion - anyway, he's from Tyexas - whaddya expect!? "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wgZ0e.153281$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (51 lines)

> Two words, Alex: Gunga Dan (as in "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" Oh, > that's right, he's gone. I wonder why.... Could it be SATAN?) > > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:q7Y0e.85660$[email hidden]... >> oh come on Steve - left of centre in the US is extreme right in Europe - > now >> there, you got me involved! CBS left? CBs had the countdown to the >> bombing >> of Baghdad with their anchors salivating at the thought of the bombs >> falling - they are as left as Hitler was a National Socialist! >> "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:n8V0e.95880$[email hidden]... >> > Yeah, well, they refuse to call suicide bombers by their rightful >> > monikers, >> > instead naming them "freedom enthusiasts" or "Valhalla aspirants" or > some >> > such rubbish. They had to jettison one of their directors recently for >> > making unfounded allegations that Blair had knowingly misled the Brits >> > abt. >> > Iraq (the suicide scientist). The crack that he's Bush's "poodle" is >> > closer >> > to the mark. There now; I've done it - stepped in poo (politics). >> > Yes, >> > the >> > Bebe is left of center, as is most of the U.S. media (NYT, CBS), with > the >> > notable exceptions of Fox and radio (exc. Clear Channel). We're very, >> > very >> > opinionated over here, but not stupid. >> > >> > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > news:[email hidden]... >> >> Steve Smith wrote: >> >> > Sorry, I didn't mean to veer into politics. I just thought it > amusing >> > that >> >> > an Iranian woman is being presented by the leftist BBC as "the new >> >> > Schumacher" sitting in a Lincoln LS, too close to the wheel and > without >> > a >> >> > helmet. Sorry if I stepped on anybody's religious toes. >> >> >> >> Post-emasculation by our "new labour" (= "old tory"), I'd struggle to >> >> think of our beloved Auntie as "leftist" :-) >> > >> > >> >> > >

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:22:11 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >We're very, very >opinionated over here, but not stupid. That's a matter of opinion.

Steve Smith wrote: > Yeah, well, they refuse to call suicide bombers by their rightful monikers, > instead naming them "freedom enthusiasts" or "Valhalla aspirants" or some > such rubbish. They had to jettison one of their directors recently for > making unfounded allegations that Blair had knowingly misled the Brits abt. > Iraq (the suicide scientist). Well, I'd certainly have chosen a word other than "unfounded" - in politics more so than anywhere else there's no smoke without fire. Dyke actually quit, but primarily in order that the BBC could undergo its own reform. I'd hate to line in a country where the BBC was "reformed" by new labour. We get all the news that's approved to hear by either Tony or Rupert. Still, if that were the case I'm sure we'd have "found" WMD in Iraq, Dr. Kelly would have been murdered by Al Quaeda, and the French wouldn't have won the world cup. One man's freedom fighter and all that....

No, John, unless yer deaf, dumb, blind and amoral, there are differences of both degree and kind between terrorists like the ones who blew up the school children in Beslan and the "Freedom Fighters" who took back their country in Ukraine and are attempting to do so in Lebanon, despite the politically-correct non-stance the BBC is trying to indoctrinate its audience to believe. In you, it seems, they've succeeded. Hmmmpf! "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > Yeah, well, they refuse to call suicide bombers by their rightfulmonikers, > > instead naming them "freedom enthusiasts" or "Valhalla aspirants" orsome > > such rubbish. They had to jettison one of their directors recently for > > making unfounded allegations that Blair had knowingly misled the Britsabt.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > Iraq (the suicide scientist). > > Well, I'd certainly have chosen a word other than "unfounded" - in > politics more so than anywhere else there's no smoke without fire. Dyke > actually quit, but primarily in order that the BBC could undergo its own > reform. > > I'd hate to line in a country where the BBC was "reformed" by new > labour. We get all the news that's approved to hear by either Tony or > Rupert. Still, if that were the case I'm sure we'd have "found" WMD in > Iraq, Dr. Kelly would have been murdered by Al Quaeda, and the French > wouldn't have won the world cup. > > One man's freedom fighter and all that....

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:30:27 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >No, John, unless yer deaf, dumb, blind and amoral, there are differences of >both degree and kind between terrorists like the ones who blew up the school >children in Beslan and the "Freedom Fighters" who took back their country in >Ukraine and are attempting to do so in Lebanon, despite the >politically-correct non-stance the BBC is trying to indoctrinate its >audience to believe. In you, it seems, they've succeeded. Hmmmpf! The BBC just reports the news as it happens. Get off the meds. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi.html

Steve Smith wrote: > No, John, unless yer deaf, dumb, blind and amoral, there are differences of > both degree and kind between terrorists like the ones who blew up the school > children in Beslan and the "Freedom Fighters" who took back their country in > Ukraine and are attempting to do so in Lebanon, despite the > politically-correct non-stance the BBC is trying to indoctrinate its > audience to believe. In you, it seems, they've succeeded. Hmmmpf! Interesting argument - agree with you or accept that I'm deaf, dumb and blind? Russia was/is attempting to do in Chechnya what the US is doing in Iraq and now Iran (that's not over by a *long* way). The US promises tens of millions of dollars to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan looking for oil out of the Caspian sea. Russia's own route to the Caspian Sea oil lies through Chechnya, hence Putin's own "war on terrorism". In Chechnya the Russians have attacked villages, blown up white flag convoys. used weapons banned under the Geneva convention. But they are "our allies" - Putin is Bush's "new close friend" - therefore the "freedom fighters" become "the terrorists". I may not agree with their methods, but then I don't agree with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Mosul, or countless other atrocities. Right is not the sole preserve of one side, and one incident does not change any entire country into terrorists. They are still the wronged.

What rubbish! Wronged in whose eyes? "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > .....one incident does not change any entire country into terrorists. Theyare still the wronged.

What rubbish! Wronged in whose eyes? are still the wronged.

Exactly, Bruce. Are we supposed to weep for Al Qaida, too? "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4247cbbf$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> What rubbish! > Wronged in whose eyes? > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > .....one incident does not change any entire country into terrorists.

They > are still the wronged. > >

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> What rubbish! > Wronged in whose eyes? > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > >>.....one incident does not change any entire country into terrorists. They > are still the wronged.

Wronged in that millions of innocents have died from cancers and we denied them any treatment. Wronged in that we used depleted uranium which caused those cancers. Wronged in that we cleaned up Kuwait, but denied any such help or advice to Iraq, who had no experience of such material, and could do nothing. This is only one example - there are thousands of others. Around Basra it is estimated that 40-48% of the population will develop cancers in the coming years - that's HALF of an entire region. Saddam was a tyrant, but what we have done to his people makes me ashamed to be human, never mind ashamed to be British. How anyone could justify that is beyond me. </rubbish>

This is the kind of rubbish you could have talked about a YEAR ago and you might have been able to keep a straight face. Today what you say is nothing but conspiratorial nonsense without ANY basis in fact or reality. You can somehow try to justify your point of view by comparing the POSSIBILITY of cancer vs the reality of a brutal murdering dictator is actually about the saddest version of a brainwashed nut Ive ever heard or seen. Time to open your eyes to the reality of freedom in Iraq despite your OBVIOUS liberal spin of how bad things are. We wont even talk about how quickly freedom is breaking out ALL OVER the Middle East including Palestine. Yea, GW was wrong..... NOT! SAD! Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted text (15 lines)

> Wronged in that millions of innocents have died from cancers and we denied > them any treatment. Wronged in that we used depleted uranium which caused > those cancers. Wronged in that we cleaned up Kuwait, but denied any such > help or advice to Iraq, who had no experience of such material, and could > do nothing. > > This is only one example - there are thousands of others. Around Basra it > is estimated that 40-48% of the population will develop cancers in the > coming years - that's HALF of an entire region. > > Saddam was a tyrant, but what we have done to his people makes me ashamed > to be human, never mind ashamed to be British. How anyone could justify > that is beyond me. > > </rubbish>

Well enough now. To begin with there are NO WMD in Iraq, so your justification for war was a lie. Secondly, since when does America get to decide what democracy is or is not? Thirdly, if you're so convinced of free Iraq, I suggest a trip to Baghdad for details. Fourth, the fact that depleted uranium KILLS is just that - a fact - and the fact that you would somehow decide that that FACT is a liberal agenda is about as bizarre as saying that evolution is a theory (Kansas, maybe?). More than that, the idea that the US - who armed, encouraged and paid for Saddam's war with Iran in which countless millions were gassed and killed, are suddenly the bringers of democracy to Iraq is laughable. Moreover, the idea that the US - who imposed the Shah on Iran - who was known for his little foibles like democracy and burning woman to death in his private quarters - is now "concerned" with democracy in the middle east is even more bizarre. And let's not forget who armed, trained and paid for Bin Laden and his mujahadeen. And let's not forget who has paid Israel 4 billion dollars a year to continue its racist policies against the Palestinians. And let's not forget, while we're at it, the countless other democracy bringing adventures of the US in Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Iran, Iraq, etc etc - and let's not forget, while we're at it, exactly the type of TYRANTS the US supports to this day in Uzbekistan, Pakistan and all points East. And while we're wondering - spare a thought for the people of Grozny - and the people of Chechnya - who have been viciously cleansed from the face of the earth before you pass judegment on why and how they exact their revenge on your buddies, the Russians. There are consequences in this world for all actions; and while you're considering all of this, do spare a thought for Nelson Mandela, who Cheney called a terrorist. And do, while you're at it, spare a thought for the liberal media's secret agenda of showing Rummie-Dum-Dum shaking hands with the democratic Saddam in the early 80s - at the time when he was at his most brutal, and conducting well-known gas-warfare against the Iranians. No-one asks you to be right or wrong mate; but really, do you have to brag about your shocking devestation of the dispossessed all in the name of extreme right wing bloodlust? "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2_V1e.16237$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (41 lines)

> This is the kind of rubbish you could have talked about a YEAR ago and you > might have been able to keep a straight face. Today what you say is > nothing but conspiratorial nonsense without ANY basis in fact or reality. > > You can somehow try to justify your point of view by comparing the > POSSIBILITY of cancer vs the reality of a brutal murdering dictator is > actually about the saddest version of a brainwashed nut Ive ever heard or > seen. > > Time to open your eyes to the reality of freedom in Iraq despite your > OBVIOUS liberal spin of how bad things are. > > We wont even talk about how quickly freedom is breaking out ALL OVER the > Middle East including Palestine. > > Yea, GW was wrong..... NOT! > > SAD! > > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> Wronged in that millions of innocents have died from cancers and we >> denied them any treatment. Wronged in that we used depleted uranium which >> caused those cancers. Wronged in that we cleaned up Kuwait, but denied >> any such help or advice to Iraq, who had no experience of such material, >> and could do nothing. >> >> This is only one example - there are thousands of others. Around Basra it >> is estimated that 40-48% of the population will develop cancers in the >> coming years - that's HALF of an entire region. >> >> Saddam was a tyrant, but what we have done to his people makes me ashamed >> to be human, never mind ashamed to be British. How anyone could justify >> that is beyond me. >> >> </rubbish> > >

No Steve, but an understanding of how and why Al Qaeda came about is probably a good start to understanding how to rid the world of this scourge. And, btw, bombing Baghdad doesn't quite cut the mustard. And neither does bombing Iran for that matter. Or Syria. Is it really possible, Steve, that the Americans are the only people that can be right? Not sure about you, but last time I checked the US foreign policy is littered with mistakes that have cost millions of innocent lives. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:jzT1e.106318$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Exactly, Bruce. Are we supposed to weep for Al Qaida, too? > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4247cbbf$[email hidden]... >> What rubbish! >> Wronged in whose eyes? >> >> "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> >> > .....one incident does not change any entire country into terrorists. > They >> are still the wronged. >> >> > >

Last I checked American foreign Policy is littered with FREE people the World over. More people with a higher degree of FREEDOM than at any time EVER in the history of mankind, and at the American taxpayers and blood and expense I might add. What is your countries contribution to World Peace and Freedom? Is American foreign Policy always right? I sure wouldnt say that but the good FAR outweighs the bad which your liberal biased hatred blocks entirely from your skewed perspective. Mitch "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:f2_1e.38119$[email hidden]... > last time I checked the US foreign policy is littered with mistakes that > have cost millions of innocent lives.

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2_V1e.16237$[email hidden]... > > You can somehow try to justify your point of view by comparing the > POSSIBILITY of cancer vs the reality of a brutal murdering dictator is > actually about the saddest version of a brainwashed nut Ive ever heard or > seen. I was watching a doco on Vietnam the other day with reguard to agent orange - 500,000 deformed children so far and counting. The vegetation is riddled with agent orange - in all the vegetation/soil - parents pass on a wonderful legacy to their children. There was some footage of a child, about 2 years old, with about an 18inch diameter head - it was literally pinned to it's cot by it's own head - it's own body a mere apendage. Probably the most horrendous thing I've ever witnessed. Many without limbs and too many horror spectacles to beleive. It makes you wonder if you could just as easily been born into their life as you were into your own or your chilren were into theirs. Possiblity? Fabrication? What was the speil for the alleged safety of agent orange back then. Question is - what's worse? Deliberate terrorism that has some purpose and at least contains some deliberateness. Or the pathetic irresponsibility of a bunch of ignorant fools who use weapons provided by those who pay the highest bribe - it's all about the money. Wonder why those twin (commercial) towers were targetted? To the pitiful present day, dago west, money is god - twin towers symbolise god - goodbye statues of western god! I get the feeling little lesson has been learnt however but I'm sure there's plenty of refresher courses on the way. Still though, these refresher courses will continue to be no match for the dedicated, career idiot.

liberal biased hatred? last time I checked, fella, my liberal biased hatred didn't amount to millions of rotting corpses in umarked grave which is what your loving right-wing ideology has brought the world in Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, and on and on and on - and, last time I checked, there isn't one example of US foreign policy - and I mean not ONE - since the end of WW2 and the demise of the liberal agenda in the US - that has turned out in any way positive to the people of the lands that have been touched by the wondrous hands of your loving ideology. Problem is, buddy, the US doesn't give a crap about foreign lands until it is in its interest to care; and then, every time, it will back the tyrants against the people. That's US foreign policy. And defending it by somehow shouting - but we's better than Saddam is already a losing argument. And really, for the good of the good people who still call themselves American, I hope it's a lesson you take on board - because nothing is forever. Not even the goodwill of a world still grateful for WW2. "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Xh_1e.3921$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> Last I checked American foreign Policy is littered with FREE people the > World over. More people with a higher degree of FREEDOM than at any time > EVER in the history of mankind, and at the American taxpayers and blood > and expense I might add. > > What is your countries contribution to World Peace and Freedom? > > Is American foreign Policy always right? I sure wouldnt say that but the > good FAR outweighs the bad which your liberal biased hatred blocks > entirely from your skewed perspective. > > Mitch > > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:f2_1e.38119$[email hidden]... >> last time I checked the US foreign policy is littered with mistakes that >> have cost millions of innocent lives. > >

Oh and my country's contribution to freedom is contained to its own boundaries; unlike you - and the lunatics who run the WHite House - we actually believe in territorial integrity - for ourselves, our neighbours and countries twenty thousand miles away. And last time I checked, my country didn't support Bin Laden, Saddam, Egypt, Pakistan and every other tin-pot dictator we can find. Try some humility fella; the argument that you killing is better than Saddam's is not precisely a winning one. "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mr_1e.38120$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> liberal biased hatred? last time I checked, fella, my liberal biased > hatred didn't amount to millions of rotting corpses in umarked grave which > is what your loving right-wing ideology has brought the world in > Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, > Pakistan, and on and on and on - and, last time I checked, there isn't one > example of US foreign policy - and I mean not ONE - since the end of WW2 > and the demise of the liberal agenda in the US - that has turned out in > any way positive to the people of the lands that have been touched by the > wondrous hands of your loving ideology. Problem is, buddy, the US doesn't > give a crap about foreign lands until it is in its interest to care; and > then, every time, it will back the tyrants against the people. That's US > foreign policy. And defending it by somehow shouting - but we's better > than Saddam is already a losing argument. And really, for the good of the > good people who still call themselves American, I hope it's a lesson you > take on board - because nothing is forever. Not even the goodwill of a > world still grateful for WW2. > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Xh_1e.3921$[email hidden]... >> Last I checked American foreign Policy is littered with FREE people the >> World over. More people with a higher degree of FREEDOM than at any time >> EVER in the history of mankind, and at the American taxpayers and blood >> and expense I might add. >> >> What is your countries contribution to World Peace and Freedom? >> >> Is American foreign Policy always right? I sure wouldnt say that but the >> good FAR outweighs the bad which your liberal biased hatred blocks >> entirely from your skewed perspective. >> >> Mitch >> >> "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:f2_1e.38119$[email hidden]... >>> last time I checked the US foreign policy is littered with mistakes that >>> have cost millions of innocent lives. >> >> > >

> To begin with there are NO WMD in Iraq, so your justification for war > was a lie. History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. What you're saying is only evidence of the fact that the more often and the more stridently you tell a lie, the more people believe it. FOrtunately, we have RECORDS of what was said to us....at least for those of us with the honesty to look at them. > Thirdly, if you're so convinced of free Iraq, I suggest a trip to > Baghdad for details. No, actually I suggest YOU go and stand in a square near where 7 million people voted for the first time and start shouting your views. My guess is you don't get out of the square in one piece. It's easy to deny freedom to others. You just say that we "don't have the right to give them democracy". It's another way of saying 'we got ours, but you can't have yours, because it might make someone I hate look good'. > Fourth, the fact that depleted uranium KILLS is just that - a fact - > and the fact that you would somehow decide that that FACT is a > liberal agenda is about as bizarre as saying that evolution is a > theory (Kansas, maybe?). Dude, you have YET to supply any kind of evidence for this depleted uranium claim. > > More than that, the idea that the US - who armed, encouraged and paid > for Saddam's war with Iran in which countless millions were gassed > and killed, are suddenly the bringers of democracy to Iraq is > laughable. Ah, so you live on the planet where no matter what, all the people you associate with have to be of high character. The realities of the planet are not so black 'n white. I *wish* we lived on Planet utopia and we never had to actually associate with anyone who is not a saint. > And let's not > forget who armed, trained and paid for Bin Laden and his mujahadeen. Blah blah blah. Even if I accept all this drivel, and even if I accept that the US is all entirely to blame, does that exempt us from making it right later? Are we to trust the french to make it right?! > And let's not forget who has paid Israel 4 billion dollars a year to > continue its racist policies against the Palestinians. Yeah, those mean Israelis. Why don't they just take their suicide bombers lying down like good little Jews. Seig Heil, my friend? (If you didn't notice, the sarcasm is being laid down thickly). I'm sure you wish Clinton were back in office, at least he did his bombing from 40,000 feet, damn the consequences. Randy

So, in America, it is your claim that you believe that, (a) you didn't go to war over WMD (b) Congress didn't give your Beloved Leader carte blanche to murder over 100,000 Iraqis because of WMD (c) "Bringing Freedom to Nation (x)" is now a legitimate cause for the violation/invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation according to US Law (d) What we have in Iraq is democracy (e) Depleted uranium doesn't kill despite the plethora of evidence from Iraq War 1 (f) The fact that you have dealt with - and continue to deal with - tyrants the world over should in no way mean that you deal with tyrants the world over - now or ever (g) that criticism of Israeli's policy - universally rejected by every nation on earth but for the US - means that the critic is a nazi (h) that it is better to lose 1500 US soldiers - and have 10,000 injured - than bombing from 40,000 feet. (i) that WMD was not the reason for the British and the others of your coalition joining up to your adventure (j) that you never trained Bin Laden (k) that you never trained the mujahadeen in Afghanistan (l) that you never paid for tyrants like Mabuto and the Shah of Iran (m) that you are not paying for tyrants in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, etc etc ... Dude, really - give it up. It's sad having to read this; not even Powell, when he didn't give evidence at the UN about WMD, believed , know what I mean? You're, like, dude, the last person on earth that still believes ... which is convenient, since the, uhm, "Seig Heil" that the world is listening to is from people like you, jackbooted and marching to the tune which we have all heard before, too many times. "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (58 lines)

>> To begin with there are NO WMD in Iraq, so your justification for war >> was a lie. > > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. What you're > saying is only evidence of the fact that the more often and the more > stridently you tell a lie, the more people believe it. FOrtunately, we > have RECORDS of what was said to us....at least for those of us with > the honesty to look at them. > >> Thirdly, if you're so convinced of free Iraq, I suggest a trip to >> Baghdad for details. > > No, actually I suggest YOU go and stand in a square near where 7 > million people voted for the first time and start shouting your views. > My guess is you don't get out of the square in one piece. It's easy to > deny freedom to others. You just say that we "don't have the right to > give them democracy". It's another way of saying 'we got ours, but you > can't have yours, because it might make someone I hate look good'. > >> Fourth, the fact that depleted uranium KILLS is just that - a fact - >> and the fact that you would somehow decide that that FACT is a >> liberal agenda is about as bizarre as saying that evolution is a >> theory (Kansas, maybe?). > > Dude, you have YET to supply any kind of evidence for this depleted > uranium claim. > >> >> More than that, the idea that the US - who armed, encouraged and paid >> for Saddam's war with Iran in which countless millions were gassed >> and killed, are suddenly the bringers of democracy to Iraq is >> laughable. > > Ah, so you live on the planet where no matter what, all the people you > associate with have to be of high character. The realities of the > planet are not so black 'n white. I *wish* we lived on Planet utopia > and we never had to actually associate with anyone who is not a saint. > >> And let's not >> forget who armed, trained and paid for Bin Laden and his mujahadeen. > > Blah blah blah. Even if I accept all this drivel, and even if I accept > that the US is all entirely to blame, does that exempt us from making > it right later? Are we to trust the french to make it right?! > >> And let's not forget who has paid Israel 4 billion dollars a year to >> continue its racist policies against the Palestinians. > > Yeah, those mean Israelis. Why don't they just take their suicide > bombers lying down like good little Jews. Seig Heil, my friend? (If > you didn't notice, the sarcasm is being laid down thickly). > > I'm sure you wish Clinton were back in office, at least he did his > bombing from 40,000 feet, damn the consequences. > > Randy

There was none. Different society, different values, different everything. Not until AFTER, well after, the end of the Vietnam War did any questions about Agent Orange arise and you could still buy the basic constituents over the counter well into the 1970's. My father used to poison blackberries and lantana with 2-4-D and 2-4-5-T....the core of Agent Orange and determined to be carcinogens in the late 70's. But so what? Every generation looks back with the wisdom of hindsight. We (Baby-boomer generation) did it and my parents did it and so did theirs. My kids will do exactly the same because each generation thinks it has the answers to life, the universe and everything. They don't. Bruce. "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4248723c$0$27632$[email hidden]... > > > Possiblity? Fabrication? What was the speil for the alleged safety ofagent orange back then. >

Sorry dude, as of yesterday, I'm done with this useless discussion. I'm staying on sims from today on. If you want to keep believing the tripe that you do, go right ahead, it's always amusing to watch 'useful idiots' work themselves into a lather for the 'cause'. Randy alex martini wrote:

Quoted text (99 lines)

> So, in America, it is your claim that you believe that, > (a) you didn't go to war over WMD > (b) Congress didn't give your Beloved Leader carte blanche to murder > over 100,000 Iraqis because of WMD > (c) "Bringing Freedom to Nation (x)" is now a legitimate cause for > the violation/invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation according to > US Law (d) What we have in Iraq is democracy > (e) Depleted uranium doesn't kill despite the plethora of evidence > from Iraq War 1 > (f) The fact that you have dealt with - and continue to deal with - > tyrants the world over should in no way mean that you deal with > tyrants the world over - now or ever > (g) that criticism of Israeli's policy - universally rejected by > every nation on earth but for the US - means that the critic is a nazi > (h) that it is better to lose 1500 US soldiers - and have 10,000 > injured - than bombing from 40,000 feet. > (i) that WMD was not the reason for the British and the others of > your coalition joining up to your adventure > (j) that you never trained Bin Laden > (k) that you never trained the mujahadeen in Afghanistan > (l) that you never paid for tyrants like Mabuto and the Shah of Iran > (m) that you are not paying for tyrants in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, etc > etc ... > > Dude, really - give it up. It's sad having to read this; not even > Powell, when he didn't give evidence at the UN about WMD, believed , > know what I mean? You're, like, dude, the last person on earth that > still believes ... which is convenient, since the, uhm, "Seig Heil" > that the world is listening to is from people like you, jackbooted > and marching to the tune which we have all heard before, too many > times. > > > > > "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >> To begin with there are NO WMD in Iraq, so your justification for > war >> was a lie. > > > > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you > > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the > > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. What you're > > saying is only evidence of the fact that the more often and the more > > stridently you tell a lie, the more people believe it. > > FOrtunately, we have RECORDS of what was said to us....at least for > > those of us with the honesty to look at them. > > > >> Thirdly, if you're so convinced of free Iraq, I suggest a trip to > >> Baghdad for details. > > > > No, actually I suggest YOU go and stand in a square near where 7 > > million people voted for the first time and start shouting your > > views. My guess is you don't get out of the square in one piece. > > It's easy to deny freedom to others. You just say that we "don't > > have the right to give them democracy". It's another way of saying > > 'we got ours, but you can't have yours, because it might make > > someone I hate look good'. > > > >> Fourth, the fact that depleted uranium KILLS is just that - a fact > - >> and the fact that you would somehow decide that that FACT is a > >> liberal agenda is about as bizarre as saying that evolution is a > >> theory (Kansas, maybe?). > > > > Dude, you have YET to supply any kind of evidence for this depleted > > uranium claim. > > > > > > >> More than that, the idea that the US - who armed, encouraged and > paid >> for Saddam's war with Iran in which countless millions were > gassed >> and killed, are suddenly the bringers of democracy to Iraq > is >> laughable. > > > > Ah, so you live on the planet where no matter what, all the people > > you associate with have to be of high character. The realities of > > the planet are not so black 'n white. I wish we lived on Planet > > utopia and we never had to actually associate with anyone who is > > not a saint. > > > >> And let's not > >> forget who armed, trained and paid for Bin Laden and his > mujahadeen. > > > > Blah blah blah. Even if I accept all this drivel, and even if I > > accept that the US is all entirely to blame, does that exempt us > > from making it right later? Are we to trust the french to make it > > right?! > > > >> And let's not forget who has paid Israel 4 billion dollars a year > to >> continue its racist policies against the Palestinians. > > > > Yeah, those mean Israelis. Why don't they just take their suicide > > bombers lying down like good little Jews. Seig Heil, my friend? > > (If you didn't notice, the sarcasm is being laid down thickly). > > > > I'm sure you wish Clinton were back in office, at least he did his > > bombing from 40,000 feet, damn the consequences. > > > > Randy

Rather a useful idiot than a murderous one mate. "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (110 lines)

> Sorry dude, as of yesterday, I'm done with this useless discussion. > I'm staying on sims from today on. If you want to keep believing the > tripe that you do, go right ahead, it's always amusing to watch 'useful > idiots' work themselves into a lather for the 'cause'. > > Randy > > > alex martini wrote: > >> So, in America, it is your claim that you believe that, >> (a) you didn't go to war over WMD >> (b) Congress didn't give your Beloved Leader carte blanche to murder >> over 100,000 Iraqis because of WMD >> (c) "Bringing Freedom to Nation (x)" is now a legitimate cause for >> the violation/invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation according to >> US Law (d) What we have in Iraq is democracy >> (e) Depleted uranium doesn't kill despite the plethora of evidence >> from Iraq War 1 >> (f) The fact that you have dealt with - and continue to deal with - >> tyrants the world over should in no way mean that you deal with >> tyrants the world over - now or ever >> (g) that criticism of Israeli's policy - universally rejected by >> every nation on earth but for the US - means that the critic is a nazi >> (h) that it is better to lose 1500 US soldiers - and have 10,000 >> injured - than bombing from 40,000 feet. >> (i) that WMD was not the reason for the British and the others of >> your coalition joining up to your adventure >> (j) that you never trained Bin Laden >> (k) that you never trained the mujahadeen in Afghanistan >> (l) that you never paid for tyrants like Mabuto and the Shah of Iran >> (m) that you are not paying for tyrants in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, etc >> etc ... >> >> Dude, really - give it up. It's sad having to read this; not even >> Powell, when he didn't give evidence at the UN about WMD, believed , >> know what I mean? You're, like, dude, the last person on earth that >> still believes ... which is convenient, since the, uhm, "Seig Heil" >> that the world is listening to is from people like you, jackbooted >> and marching to the tune which we have all heard before, too many >> times. >> >> >> >> >> "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >> >> To begin with there are NO WMD in Iraq, so your justification for >> war >> was a lie. >> > >> > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you >> > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the >> > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. What you're >> > saying is only evidence of the fact that the more often and the more >> > stridently you tell a lie, the more people believe it. >> > FOrtunately, we have RECORDS of what was said to us....at least for >> > those of us with the honesty to look at them. >> > >> >> Thirdly, if you're so convinced of free Iraq, I suggest a trip to >> >> Baghdad for details. >> > >> > No, actually I suggest YOU go and stand in a square near where 7 >> > million people voted for the first time and start shouting your >> > views. My guess is you don't get out of the square in one piece. >> > It's easy to deny freedom to others. You just say that we "don't >> > have the right to give them democracy". It's another way of saying >> > 'we got ours, but you can't have yours, because it might make >> > someone I hate look good'. >> > >> >> Fourth, the fact that depleted uranium KILLS is just that - a fact >> - >> and the fact that you would somehow decide that that FACT is a >> >> liberal agenda is about as bizarre as saying that evolution is a >> >> theory (Kansas, maybe?). >> > >> > Dude, you have YET to supply any kind of evidence for this depleted >> > uranium claim. >> > >> > > >> >> More than that, the idea that the US - who armed, encouraged and >> paid >> for Saddam's war with Iran in which countless millions were >> gassed >> and killed, are suddenly the bringers of democracy to Iraq >> is >> laughable. >> > >> > Ah, so you live on the planet where no matter what, all the people >> > you associate with have to be of high character. The realities of >> > the planet are not so black 'n white. I wish we lived on Planet >> > utopia and we never had to actually associate with anyone who is >> > not a saint. >> > >> >> And let's not >> >> forget who armed, trained and paid for Bin Laden and his >> mujahadeen. >> > >> > Blah blah blah. Even if I accept all this drivel, and even if I >> > accept that the US is all entirely to blame, does that exempt us >> > from making it right later? Are we to trust the french to make it >> > right?! >> > >> >> And let's not forget who has paid Israel 4 billion dollars a year >> to >> continue its racist policies against the Palestinians. >> > >> > Yeah, those mean Israelis. Why don't they just take their suicide >> > bombers lying down like good little Jews. Seig Heil, my friend? >> > (If you didn't notice, the sarcasm is being laid down thickly). >> > >> > I'm sure you wish Clinton were back in office, at least he did his >> > bombing from 40,000 feet, damn the consequences. >> > >> > Randy >

The depleted-uranium claim is specious, AFAIK. We have only one weap that uses it: the 30mm Gatling gun on the nose of the A-10 "Warthog" tank buster. Note that altho we used A-10s in Gulf War I (against the Repub Guard's T-72s), we never deployed them during Op Iraq Freedom. Moreover, DU isn't radioactive, so it's unlikely to cause cancer. "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (58 lines)

> > To begin with there are NO WMD in Iraq, so your justification for war > > was a lie. > > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. What you're > saying is only evidence of the fact that the more often and the more > stridently you tell a lie, the more people believe it. FOrtunately, we > have RECORDS of what was said to us....at least for those of us with > the honesty to look at them. > > > Thirdly, if you're so convinced of free Iraq, I suggest a trip to > > Baghdad for details. > > No, actually I suggest YOU go and stand in a square near where 7 > million people voted for the first time and start shouting your views. > My guess is you don't get out of the square in one piece. It's easy to > deny freedom to others. You just say that we "don't have the right to > give them democracy". It's another way of saying 'we got ours, but you > can't have yours, because it might make someone I hate look good'. > > > Fourth, the fact that depleted uranium KILLS is just that - a fact - > > and the fact that you would somehow decide that that FACT is a > > liberal agenda is about as bizarre as saying that evolution is a > > theory (Kansas, maybe?). > > Dude, you have YET to supply any kind of evidence for this depleted > uranium claim. > > > > > More than that, the idea that the US - who armed, encouraged and paid > > for Saddam's war with Iran in which countless millions were gassed > > and killed, are suddenly the bringers of democracy to Iraq is > > laughable. > > Ah, so you live on the planet where no matter what, all the people you > associate with have to be of high character. The realities of the > planet are not so black 'n white. I *wish* we lived on Planet utopia > and we never had to actually associate with anyone who is not a saint. > > > And let's not > > forget who armed, trained and paid for Bin Laden and his mujahadeen. > > Blah blah blah. Even if I accept all this drivel, and even if I accept > that the US is all entirely to blame, does that exempt us from making > it right later? Are we to trust the french to make it right?! > > > And let's not forget who has paid Israel 4 billion dollars a year to > > continue its racist policies against the Palestinians. > > Yeah, those mean Israelis. Why don't they just take their suicide > bombers lying down like good little Jews. Seig Heil, my friend? (If > you didn't notice, the sarcasm is being laid down thickly). > > I'm sure you wish Clinton were back in office, at least he did his > bombing from 40,000 feet, damn the consequences. > > Randy

So, how you liking the sims these days? (Sorry, but I'm AGGRESSIVELY changing the subject back to, ya know, REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS).

All true Bruce - I was just pointing something out - basically that the west are far from angels nor are they a model of responsibility and care. I'm sure all those in Vietnam see the U.S. a terrorists. The U.S. and Australia stuck it's nose into domestic Vietnam affairs and this is one of the results. All in the name of Democracy Vs Communism which is a load of complete bullshit. "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (28 lines)

> There was none. > Different society, different values, different everything. > Not until AFTER, well after, the end of the Vietnam War did any questions > about Agent Orange arise and you could still buy the basic constituents > over > the counter well into the 1970's. My father used to poison blackberries > and > lantana with 2-4-D and 2-4-5-T....the core of Agent Orange and determined > to > be carcinogens in the late 70's. > > But so what? Every generation looks back with the wisdom of hindsight. We > (Baby-boomer generation) did it and my parents did it and so did theirs. > My kids will do exactly the same because each generation thinks it has the > answers to life, the universe and everything. > > They don't. > > Bruce. > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4248723c$0$27632$[email hidden]... >> >> >> Possiblity? Fabrication? What was the speil for the alleged safety of > agent orange back then. >> > >

Yes aggression is your nature I've noticed ;-) "rmagruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > So, how you liking the sims these days? > > (Sorry, but I'm AGGRESSIVELY changing the subject back to, ya know, > REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS). >

Youre mis-interpreting aggression. If anything like me it's not aggression it's AMAZEMENT that an otherwise seemingly normal person can think in the terms youve described yourself in the past few posts. The flight sim ng is known for its left wing lunatics if youre looking for a fight Alex ;) Mitch "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:%xf2e.96054$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Yes aggression is your nature I've noticed ;-) > "rmagruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> So, how you liking the sims these days? >> >> (Sorry, but I'm AGGRESSIVELY changing the subject back to, ya know, >> REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS). >> > >

"Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > No, actually I suggest YOU go and stand in a square near where 7 > million people voted for the first time and start shouting your views. > My guess is you don't get out of the square in one piece. It's easy to > deny freedom to others. You just say that we "don't have the right to > give them democracy". It's another way of saying 'we got ours, but you > can't have yours, because it might make someone I hate look good'. >

To me, this is complete bullshit. NATO is in IRAQ to remove a madman in the name of self defence - this is a legitimate reason anyway. Unfortunately probably most of the reason NATO is there is for U.S. retaliation for 911 - and Iraq fundamentaly had nothing to do with 911. The message is simple - allow yourself to be represented by a madman (Hussein) and this is what will happen. Unfortunately this message is polluted with political agendas and the complete bullshit notion that NATO is in Iraq to do the Iraqis a big favour - utter bullshit.

Are you really comparing the support for allies in the grip of a growing Nazi empire with the essentially unilateral, preemptive attack for bogus reasons of a country that was no threat to US national security? Geez... Marty alex martini wrote:

Quoted text (35 lines)

> A normal person understands that war is a last resort, and one that is taken > because one's nation is in danger. A normal person understands that > democracy is not implemented at the point of a depleted uraniumed bomb. Were > it only so, we'd all be nazis by now. > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:H_f2e.16617$[email hidden]... > >>Youre mis-interpreting aggression. If anything like me it's not >>aggression it's AMAZEMENT that an otherwise seemingly normal person can >>think in the terms youve described yourself in the past few posts. >> >>The flight sim ng is known for its left wing lunatics if youre looking for >>a fight Alex ;) >> >>Mitch >> >> >>"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:%xf2e.96054$[email hidden]... >> >>>Yes aggression is your nature I've noticed ;-) >>>"rmagruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>news:[email hidden]... >>> >>>>So, how you liking the sims these days? >>>> >>>>(Sorry, but I'm AGGRESSIVELY changing the subject back to, ya know, >>>>REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS). >>>> >>> >>> >> > >

<snip> > > I repeat for the LAST time. > The US has done more good in the world than ANY country in the HISTORY of > humanity. <snip> > Mitch ...until GWB. Marty

<snip> > > I'm sure you wish Clinton were back in office, at least he did his > bombing from 40,000 feet, damn the consequences. > > Randy At least Clinton was actually trying to get Bin Laden while the Repugnicans were trying to bring him down for a private indiscretion with a chubby intern. Bush is now known to have ignored the intel showing al-Queda was planning to attack on US soil. Marty

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > But so what? Every generation looks back with the wisdom of hindsight. We > (Baby-boomer generation) did it and my parents did it and so did theirs. > My kids will do exactly the same because each generation thinks it has the > answers to life, the universe and everything. > > They don't.

Actually...it's 42 Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

"Goy Larsen" wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > But so what? Every generation looks back with the wisdom of hindsight. > > We (Baby-boomer generation) did it and my parents did it and so did > > theirs. > > My kids will do exactly the same because each generation thinks it has > > the answers to life, the universe and everything. > > > > They don't. > > Actually...it's 42

Deep thinker that Goy...

A normal person understands that war is a last resort, and one that is taken because one's nation is in danger. A normal person understands that democracy is not implemented at the point of a depleted uraniumed bomb. Were it only so, we'd all be nazis by now. "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:H_f2e.16617$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Youre mis-interpreting aggression. If anything like me it's not > aggression it's AMAZEMENT that an otherwise seemingly normal person can > think in the terms youve described yourself in the past few posts. > > The flight sim ng is known for its left wing lunatics if youre looking for > a fight Alex ;) > > Mitch > > > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:%xf2e.96054$[email hidden]... >> Yes aggression is your nature I've noticed ;-) >> "rmagruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:[email hidden]... >>> So, how you liking the sims these days? >>> >>> (Sorry, but I'm AGGRESSIVELY changing the subject back to, ya know, >>> REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS). >>> >> >> > >

I think this is an agree to disagree thread. GTR on the shelves, GTP released, Thunder Mod for GPL. No time, no time! "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gxh2e.96915$[email hidden]... > A normal person understands that war is a last resort, and one that istaken > because one's nation is in danger. A normal person understands that > democracy is not implemented at the point of a depleted uraniumed bomb.Were

Quoted text (9 lines)

> it only so, we'd all be nazis by now. > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:H_f2e.16617$[email hidden]... > > Youre mis-interpreting aggression. If anything like me it's not > > aggression it's AMAZEMENT that an otherwise seemingly normal person can > > think in the terms youve described yourself in the past few posts. > > > > The flight sim ng is known for its left wing lunatics if youre looking

for > > a fight Alex ;) > > > > Mitch

Tony Rickard wrote: > > I think this is an agree to disagree thread. > > GTR on the shelves, GTP released, Thunder Mod for GPL. No time, no time! Not to mention rFactor on the horizon ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Your so called "Last resort" does not exist in the Liberal mind nor is it part of the Liberal agenda. Anyone with a modicum of common sense realizes the time of last resort was upon us. Maybe you can turn a blind eye to the cancer of terrorism but 9-11 wasnt the only attack on the US by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Bush 41 should have forced Saddam to show up for the surrender and arrested him for crimes against humanity back in 91'. That was the FIRST mistake in Iraq. The Oil for Food scam perpetrated by our European allies was nearly a declaration of War against the US and clearly showed who's side the greedy Euro politicians are on. The Euro media fans the flames against the US even though as time goes by your naive argument looks more and more marginal at best. Even presented with the OVERWHELMING evidence you refuse to give even the slightest benefit of any doubt to GW or the good intentions of the US taxpayer. Despite your blind hatred of GW he showed more GUTS than any politician since Reagan (I bet you hated him too even though he saved Europe from Communism). He knew the political risks involved in his choices to go to Iraq and rid the world of this oppressive dictator once and for all. He knew RIGHT vs WRONG and that along with a nudge towards Peace and Democracy and Freedom will ring throughout the Middle East just as its happened in Europe and South America. You have the GALL to mention the Nazi's? Which BTW Europe as a whole nurtured/fostered and was UNABLE to defend against. Who bailed you out of that one? Remember the Cold War? Naw, too young and idealistic to remember history.. I repeat for the LAST time. The US has done more good in the world than ANY country in the HISTORY of humanity. Just about ANY country you post to the internet from can almost directly thank the US for its freedom. Thats saying something despite your misgivings.... Mitch "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gxh2e.96915$[email hidden]... >A normal person understands that war is a last resort, and one that is >taken because one's nation is in danger. A normal person understands that >democracy is not implemented at the point of a depleted uraniumed bomb. >Were it only so, we'd all be nazis by now.

See? It took a Deep Thinker like Adams to come up with the answer! Thanks, Uncle. :) Bruce "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Actually...it's 42 >

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > See? > It took a Deep Thinker like Adams to come up with the answer! > > Thanks, Uncle. :) Just call me Desmond, and you're quite welcome Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "goyl at nettx dot no" http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

Yes thanks for the hysterical post; typical. But let's just clear up your ignorance for posterity: 1 - Russia won WW2, not the US. That's why Russia lost 20 million troops - and the US 200,000 2 - Britain fought the war single-handedly after France fell. 3 - France went to war against the Nazis - where were you? 4 - You did not declare war on Nazi Germany - Germany declared war on you. In 41. Two years after they had vanguished most of Europe. Where were you? 5 - GW's granddaddy was arrested by the FBI in the mid 40s for being the Nazi Banker in the US. George W probably learnt right from wrong from him. 6 - Europe does not need to declare war against the US - or vice versa. You have not declared war since the 40s. 7 - The UN was your invention, live with it. 8 - Ronald Reagan is dead. 9 - Ronald Reagan is still dead. "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:N0i2e.16684$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (51 lines)

> Your so called "Last resort" does not exist in the Liberal mind nor is it > part of the Liberal agenda. > > Anyone with a modicum of common sense realizes the time of last resort was > upon us. Maybe you can turn a blind eye to the cancer of terrorism but > 9-11 wasnt the only attack on the US by any stretch of anyone's > imagination. > > Bush 41 should have forced Saddam to show up for the surrender and > arrested him for crimes against humanity back in 91'. That was the FIRST > mistake in Iraq. > > The Oil for Food scam perpetrated by our European allies was nearly a > declaration of War against the US and clearly showed who's side the greedy > Euro politicians are on. > > The Euro media fans the flames against the US even though as time goes by > your naive argument looks more and more marginal at best. Even presented > with the OVERWHELMING evidence you refuse to give even the slightest > benefit of any doubt to GW or the good intentions of the US taxpayer. > > Despite your blind hatred of GW he showed more GUTS than any politician > since Reagan (I bet you hated him too even though he saved Europe from > Communism). He knew the political risks involved in his choices to go to > Iraq and rid the world of this oppressive dictator once and for all. He > knew RIGHT vs WRONG and that along with a nudge towards Peace and > Democracy and Freedom will ring throughout the Middle East just as its > happened in Europe and South America. > > You have the GALL to mention the Nazi's? Which BTW Europe as a whole > nurtured/fostered and was UNABLE to defend against. Who bailed you out of > that one? Remember the Cold War? Naw, too young and idealistic to > remember history.. > > I repeat for the LAST time. > The US has done more good in the world than ANY country in the HISTORY of > humanity. Just about ANY country you post to the internet from can almost > directly thank the US for its freedom. Thats saying something despite > your misgivings.... > > Mitch > > > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:gxh2e.96915$[email hidden]... >>A normal person understands that war is a last resort, and one that is >>taken because one's nation is in danger. A normal person understands that >>democracy is not implemented at the point of a depleted uraniumed bomb. >>Were it only so, we'd all be nazis by now. > >

"Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fth2e.7940$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Goy Larsen" wrote: > > > > But so what? Every generation looks back with the wisdom of hindsight. > > > We (Baby-boomer generation) did it and my parents did it and so did > > > theirs. > > > My kids will do exactly the same because each generation thinks it has > > > the answers to life, the universe and everything. > > > > > > They don't. > > > > Actually...it's 42 > > Deep thinker that Goy...

Yep. He should have warned you that you wouldn't like the answer. ;o) Elrikk

Uh, me no - I was saying that the idea that Iraq was a threat to the US - and therefore a legitimate target for invasion - was spurious at the time and has been proven to be a lie with hindsight and anyone who thinks Iraq was in any way, shape or form a legitimate target for invasion is either (a) deluded (b) Bush (c) ignorant or (d) all of the above. "MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4249c103$0$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (43 lines)

> Are you really comparing the support for allies in the grip of a growing > Nazi empire with the essentially unilateral, preemptive attack for bogus > reasons of a country that was no threat to US national security? > > Geez... > > Marty > > alex martini wrote: >> A normal person understands that war is a last resort, and one that is >> taken because one's nation is in danger. A normal person understands that >> democracy is not implemented at the point of a depleted uraniumed bomb. >> Were it only so, we'd all be nazis by now. >> >> "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:H_f2e.16617$[email hidden]... >> >>>Youre mis-interpreting aggression. If anything like me it's not >>>aggression it's AMAZEMENT that an otherwise seemingly normal person can >>>think in the terms youve described yourself in the past few posts. >>> >>>The flight sim ng is known for its left wing lunatics if youre looking >>>for a fight Alex ;) >>> >>>Mitch >>> >>> >>>"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>news:%xf2e.96054$[email hidden]... >>> >>>>Yes aggression is your nature I've noticed ;-) >>>>"rmagruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>>news:[email hidden]... >>>> >>>>>So, how you liking the sims these days? >>>>> >>>>>(Sorry, but I'm AGGRESSIVELY changing the subject back to, ya know, >>>>>REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS). >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pXk2e.98331$[email hidden]... > Uh, me no - I was saying that the idea that Iraq was a threat to the US - > and therefore a legitimate target for invasion - was spurious at the time > and has been proven to be a lie with hindsight and anyone who thinks Iraq > was in any way, shape or form a legitimate target for invasion is either > (a) deluded (b) Bush (c) ignorant or (d) all of the above. I have no problem with Hussein being ousted and Iraq being invaded - it's just over a decade too late and for all the bullshit reasons. It's like punishing an animal or a child - if you don't do it immediately after they faulter then they don't know why you're hurting them. Any idiot can see what's happened here - the all mighty NATO can't even play a good game of hide and seek and thus can't get Bin Laden so they invade Iraq instead as a pitiful attempt to save face - just too funny really and so befitting of GWB's personality. The power to blow the world up 10 times over and can't even play a childs game of hide and seek - hehehehehehehe. Sophistaced to the point of complete confusion - back to kindergarten children! :)

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:N0i2e.16684$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > Despite your blind hatred of GW he showed more GUTS than any politician > since Reagan (I bet you hated him too even though he saved Europe from > Communism). He knew the political risks involved in his choices to go to > Iraq and rid the world of this oppressive dictator once and for all. He > knew RIGHT vs WRONG and that along with a nudge towards Peace and > Democracy and Freedom will ring throughout the Middle East just as its > happened in Europe and South America. >

Mitch, this is just bullshit. "Guts" is often a word used where "stupidity" is the correct word. The pathetic GWB, who is a perfect microcosm of the complacency and naivety of much of the U.S. military and U.S. ?intelligence? has decided to invade Iraq after him and his goons realised they couldn't get Bin Laden. I'll bet my balls that if Bin Laden had been captured with 6 months or so of 911 that the Hussein family would be living comfortably and quietly in Iraq. In the eyes of those as infintile as he is, GWB is a hero. In the eyes of the inteligent he is a stupid little boy who couldn't get back at his real rival (Bin Laden) so he takes it out on the easy to find, easy to walk over Iraq. That Moore doco on him showed him for the twit he is when news of 911 broke when he was in that classroom with the children (talk about in his element). He sat there and had no idea what to do - I was waiting for him to scream "I want my daddy". It makes you wonder how long he would have sat there had one of his goons not grabbed the idiot by the arm and virtually dragged him out of there. Sorry to tell you buddy, but like Australia you are represented by a clumsy idiot. You see, to get the bitches to vote for them, this is what they need to be - nice little unthreatening, easily manipulated dildos. And this is the glory you wish to share with the world? On behalf of the world - "THANKS MITCH". LOL. Never ceases to amaze me how few people realise that democracy is what you have when you have no leadership. Imagine how stupid you need to be to give bitchs a say in things outside the kitchen and laundry - the west are a bunch of pussies! I hasten to point out that I pay no taxes and refuse to associate myself with democracy (or any idiotic process for that matter) and the idiotic west. I wonder how I'd look with a thrown under my arse and a crown on my head? :)

Hear, hear! Well said. ---A--- alex martini wrote:

Quoted text (52 lines)

> Oh and my country's contribution to freedom is contained to its own > boundaries; unlike you - and the lunatics who run the WHite House - we > actually believe in territorial integrity - for ourselves, our neighbours > and countries twenty thousand miles away. And last time I checked, my > country didn't support Bin Laden, Saddam, Egypt, Pakistan and every other > tin-pot dictator we can find. Try some humility fella; the argument that you > killing is better than Saddam's is not precisely a winning one. > "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:mr_1e.38120$[email hidden]... > >>liberal biased hatred? last time I checked, fella, my liberal biased >>hatred didn't amount to millions of rotting corpses in umarked grave which >>is what your loving right-wing ideology has brought the world in >>Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, >>Pakistan, and on and on and on - and, last time I checked, there isn't one >>example of US foreign policy - and I mean not ONE - since the end of WW2 >>and the demise of the liberal agenda in the US - that has turned out in >>any way positive to the people of the lands that have been touched by the >>wondrous hands of your loving ideology. Problem is, buddy, the US doesn't >>give a crap about foreign lands until it is in its interest to care; and >>then, every time, it will back the tyrants against the people. That's US >>foreign policy. And defending it by somehow shouting - but we's better >>than Saddam is already a losing argument. And really, for the good of the >>good people who still call themselves American, I hope it's a lesson you >>take on board - because nothing is forever. Not even the goodwill of a >>world still grateful for WW2. >>"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:Xh_1e.3921$[email hidden]... >> >>>Last I checked American foreign Policy is littered with FREE people the >>>World over. More people with a higher degree of FREEDOM than at any time >>>EVER in the history of mankind, and at the American taxpayers and blood >>>and expense I might add. >>> >>>What is your countries contribution to World Peace and Freedom? >>> >>>Is American foreign Policy always right? I sure wouldnt say that but the >>>good FAR outweighs the bad which your liberal biased hatred blocks >>>entirely from your skewed perspective. >>> >>>Mitch >>> >>>"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>news:f2_1e.38119$[email hidden]... >>> >>>>last time I checked the US foreign policy is littered with mistakes that >>>>have cost millions of innocent lives. >>> >>> >> > >

You quoting Mike Moore puts an exclamation point on your TRIPE... Indoctrinated Conditioned Brain Washed These are adjectives that accurately describe your political lunacy... You have been proven wrong by what is happening in the Middle East yet you still grasp for straws hoping beyond hope the Terrorists Win just so you can say to GWB "See I told ya so". The problem is you and your leftwingnuts are not smart enough to compete with GW. The Republicans laughs at fools like you as you marginalize yourself out of existence LOLOLOL..... Mitch "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in > That Moore doco on him showed him for the twit he is when news of 911

Quoted text (7 lines)

> broke when he was in that classroom with the children (talk about in his > element). He sat there and had no idea what to do - I was waiting for him > to scream "I want my daddy". It makes you wonder how long he would have > sat there had one of his goons not grabbed the idiot by the arm and > virtually dragged him out of there. > >

All you extreme right-wing nuts that seized power in the US can do is to SHOUT really loudly while being bombarded by fact after fact - so insult away, kid, but them facts are them facts and it don't matter how loud you or rush or savage shout, you've already been judged as liars and iraq, in case you missed it on fox, is on the verge of a civil war that will make afghanistan look like a vacation. So keep quoting your little drug-addicted rush, your booze-inspired savage, your coked-up "president", no-one believes you because your ideology has been rejected the world over, your president derided by every people in every land - your ideology's stupidity is matched only by its ignorance, and that is as vast as your econimc debt now aproaching the billions and for which you will pay, you and your kids, and their kids - so laugh away sunshine, in the end, the banks in France have you by the balls so next time you pay your taxes, just remember how much of that goes to the euro-wheenie banks that have bankrolled your idiocy. "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WLB2e.18454$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> You quoting Mike Moore puts an exclamation point on your TRIPE... > > Indoctrinated > Conditioned > Brain Washed > > These are adjectives that accurately describe your political lunacy... > > You have been proven wrong by what is happening in the Middle East yet you > still grasp for straws hoping beyond hope the Terrorists Win just so you > can say to GWB "See I told ya so". > > The problem is you and your leftwingnuts are not smart enough to compete > with GW. The Republicans laughs at fools like you as you marginalize > yourself out of existence LOLOLOL..... > > Mitch > > > > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in > That Moore doco on > him showed him for the twit he is when news of 911 >> broke when he was in that classroom with the children (talk about in his >> element). He sat there and had no idea what to do - I was waiting for him >> to scream "I want my daddy". It makes you wonder how long he would have >> sat there had one of his goons not grabbed the idiot by the arm and >> virtually dragged him out of there. >> >> > >

Mitch_A wrote: > Youre mis-interpreting aggression. If anything like me it's not aggression > it's AMAZEMENT that an otherwise seemingly normal person can think in the > terms youve described yourself in the past few posts. > > The flight sim ng is known for its left wing lunatics if youre looking for a > fight Alex ;) No, that group is a pit full of rightwing nutcases screaming "Revenge", wishing to kill all "towel heads" and asking all "Liberals" to leave the country. I still remember the discussion about having a mod that makes it possible to drop the "Big Bomb" from their simulated bombers. Scary... l8er ronny

aye? "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WLB2e.18454$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> You quoting Mike Moore puts an exclamation point on your TRIPE... > > Indoctrinated > Conditioned > Brain Washed > > These are adjectives that accurately describe your political lunacy... > > You have been proven wrong by what is happening in the Middle East yet you > still grasp for straws hoping beyond hope the Terrorists Win just so you > can say to GWB "See I told ya so". > > The problem is you and your leftwingnuts are not smart enough to compete > with GW. The Republicans laughs at fools like you as you marginalize > yourself out of existence LOLOLOL..... > > Mitch > > > > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in > That Moore doco on > him showed him for the twit he is when news of 911 >> broke when he was in that classroom with the children (talk about in his >> element). He sat there and had no idea what to do - I was waiting for him >> to scream "I want my daddy". It makes you wonder how long he would have >> sat there had one of his goons not grabbed the idiot by the arm and >> virtually dragged him out of there. >> >> > >

Ok, so what reason is GWB pathetic - a) because everything in the Moore doco is true? b) because it is genuine slander and character assasination that Bush fails to address? His failure to bury Moore says to me that not only is it all true but Bush just wants it to go away and be investigated/explored no more b4 more juicy stuff comes out. If GWB is upwards from where you are pal then that's a very sad statement about you! "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:WLB2e.18454$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> You quoting Mike Moore puts an exclamation point on your TRIPE... > > Indoctrinated > Conditioned > Brain Washed > > These are adjectives that accurately describe your political lunacy... > > You have been proven wrong by what is happening in the Middle East yet you > still grasp for straws hoping beyond hope the Terrorists Win just so you > can say to GWB "See I told ya so". > > The problem is you and your leftwingnuts are not smart enough to compete > with GW. The Republicans laughs at fools like you as you marginalize > yourself out of existence LOLOLOL..... > > Mitch > > > > "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in > That Moore doco on > him showed him for the twit he is when news of 911 >> broke when he was in that classroom with the children (talk about in his >> element). He sat there and had no idea what to do - I was waiting for him >> to scream "I want my daddy". It makes you wonder how long he would have >> sat there had one of his goons not grabbed the idiot by the arm and >> virtually dragged him out of there. >> >> > >

"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:n%Z1e.38118$[email hidden]... > Well enough now. > > To begin with there are NO WMD in Iraq, so your justification for war wasa > lie. A fantastic reminder of the lies. http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/ "They have weapons of mass destruction......that is what this war was about.....is about." -- David G Fisher

Mitch_A wrote: > Last I checked American foreign Policy is littered with FREE people the > World over. More people with a higher degree of FREEDOM than at any time > EVER in the history of mankind, and at the American taxpayers and blood and > expense I might add. Mitch, this slaughter has NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that these countries did not wish for.

Randy Magruder wrote: > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is pissed off that Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD = illegal war. Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning.

Randy Magruder wrote: > Sorry dude, as of yesterday, I'm done with this useless discussion. > I'm staying on sims from today on. Or, "crap, I have no argument to that so I'll sprint for the moral high ground" What Alex wrote is BANG on the money there. You paid for the Ba'ath party due to oil. You left Hussein in power due to oil. And you went back and ousted him due to oil. Same as was the case with Suharto in Indonesia (mmmm, lovely rare minerals for the market!), same for Noriega, same for practically every dictator and atrocious regime the world over. It's a world-wide chess game, and the US is playing it. The wierd thing is that given the historical context and various perceptions of how the world can develop, in a broader context I cannot convince myself that the US is wrong to do this (or the UK to ally ourselves to them). I hate every atrocity, every unnecessary genocide and slaughter, but only history will tell if they are justified. The one thing I can't believe is that people still delude themselves is that this does not go on, and that their government just blows kisses around the world and tries to make friends with everyone.

Quoted text (115 lines)

> alex martini wrote: > > >>So, in America, it is your claim that you believe that, >>(a) you didn't go to war over WMD >>(b) Congress didn't give your Beloved Leader carte blanche to murder >>over 100,000 Iraqis because of WMD >>(c) "Bringing Freedom to Nation (x)" is now a legitimate cause for >>the violation/invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation according to >>US Law (d) What we have in Iraq is democracy >>(e) Depleted uranium doesn't kill despite the plethora of evidence >>from Iraq War 1 >>(f) The fact that you have dealt with - and continue to deal with - >>tyrants the world over should in no way mean that you deal with >>tyrants the world over - now or ever >>(g) that criticism of Israeli's policy - universally rejected by >>every nation on earth but for the US - means that the critic is a nazi >>(h) that it is better to lose 1500 US soldiers - and have 10,000 >>injured - than bombing from 40,000 feet. >>(i) that WMD was not the reason for the British and the others of >>your coalition joining up to your adventure >>(j) that you never trained Bin Laden >>(k) that you never trained the mujahadeen in Afghanistan >>(l) that you never paid for tyrants like Mabuto and the Shah of Iran >>(m) that you are not paying for tyrants in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, etc >>etc ... >> >>Dude, really - give it up. It's sad having to read this; not even >>Powell, when he didn't give evidence at the UN about WMD, believed , >>know what I mean? You're, like, dude, the last person on earth that >>still believes ... which is convenient, since the, uhm, "Seig Heil" >>that the world is listening to is from people like you, jackbooted >>and marching to the tune which we have all heard before, too many >>times. >> >> >> >> >>"Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:[email hidden]... >> >>>>To begin with there are NO WMD in Iraq, so your justification for >> >>war >> was a lie. >> >>>History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you >>>actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the >>>Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. What you're >>>saying is only evidence of the fact that the more often and the more >>>stridently you tell a lie, the more people believe it. >>>FOrtunately, we have RECORDS of what was said to us....at least for >>>those of us with the honesty to look at them. >>> >>> >>>>Thirdly, if you're so convinced of free Iraq, I suggest a trip to >>>>Baghdad for details. >>> >>>No, actually I suggest YOU go and stand in a square near where 7 >>>million people voted for the first time and start shouting your >>>views. My guess is you don't get out of the square in one piece. >>>It's easy to deny freedom to others. You just say that we "don't >>>have the right to give them democracy". It's another way of saying >>>'we got ours, but you can't have yours, because it might make >>>someone I hate look good'. >>> >>> >>>>Fourth, the fact that depleted uranium KILLS is just that - a fact >> >>- >> and the fact that you would somehow decide that that FACT is a >> >>>>liberal agenda is about as bizarre as saying that evolution is a >>>>theory (Kansas, maybe?). >>> >>>Dude, you have YET to supply any kind of evidence for this depleted >>>uranium claim. >>> >>> >>>>More than that, the idea that the US - who armed, encouraged and >> >>paid >> for Saddam's war with Iran in which countless millions were >>gassed >> and killed, are suddenly the bringers of democracy to Iraq >>is >> laughable. >> >>>Ah, so you live on the planet where no matter what, all the people >>>you associate with have to be of high character. The realities of >>>the planet are not so black 'n white. I wish we lived on Planet >>>utopia and we never had to actually associate with anyone who is >>>not a saint. >>> >>> >>>>And let's not >>>>forget who armed, trained and paid for Bin Laden and his >> >>mujahadeen. >> >>>Blah blah blah. Even if I accept all this drivel, and even if I >>>accept that the US is all entirely to blame, does that exempt us >>>from making it right later? Are we to trust the french to make it >>>right?! >>> >>> >>>>And let's not forget who has paid Israel 4 billion dollars a year >> >>to >> continue its racist policies against the Palestinians. >> >>>Yeah, those mean Israelis. Why don't they just take their suicide >>>bombers lying down like good little Jews. Seig Heil, my friend? >>>(If you didn't notice, the sarcasm is being laid down thickly). >>> >>>I'm sure you wish Clinton were back in office, at least he did his >>>bombing from 40,000 feet, damn the consequences. >>> >>>Randy > >

Steve Smith wrote: > The depleted-uranium claim is specious, AFAIK. We have only one weap that > uses it: the 30mm Gatling gun on the nose of the A-10 "Warthog" tank buster. > Note that altho we used A-10s in Gulf War I (against the Repub Guard's > T-72s), we never deployed them during Op Iraq Freedom. Moreover, DU isn't > radioactive, so it's unlikely to cause cancer. This happened in the Gulf War, and well over 300 tons were fired, both by A-10s and by tanks. An A-10 round was 300g of solid U-238, and a tank round was 4,500g. There is no need for something to be radioactive in order to cause cancer. In any case, as you know the warheads use Uranium-238 which is a "fertile" isotope, converting readily to (radioactive) plutonium, or to (radioactive) uranium oxide (the problem in Iraq)

Byron Forbes wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> To me, this is complete bullshit. NATO is in IRAQ to remove a madman in > the name of self defence - this is a legitimate reason anyway. Unfortunately > probably most of the reason NATO is there is for U.S. retaliation for 911 - > and Iraq fundamentaly had nothing to do with 911. > > The message is simple - allow yourself to be represented by a madman > (Hussein) and this is what will happen. Unfortunately this message is > polluted with political agendas and the complete bullshit notion that NATO > is in Iraq to do the Iraqis a big favour - utter bullshit.

- NATO didn't go into Iraq, the so-called "coalition" did - The Iraqi people didn't allow themselves to be represented by the Ba'ath party - the CIA put them there and the people had no choice. Now the US took him away and put someone else there - if I was an Iraqi I ight be more than a little concerned that he would also upset them, and a load of us would get slaughtered again in the sake of our own freedom.

Mitch_A wrote: > Just about ANY country you post to the internet from can almost > directly thank the US for its freedom. Why then is the US so universally despised? What the US sees as "help" helps only the US. Read about George Kennan, read about Zbigniew Brzezinski. If you don't understand the people to whom your government listens, how can their actions be interpreted?

David G Fisher wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > A fantastic reminder of the lies. > > http://www.peacecandy.com/gwbush/remindus/ > > "They have weapons of mass destruction......that is what this war was > about.....is about."

A good reminder - looks like the media are our Pavlov.

So youre telling me people dont want freedom? You dont see how absurd that sounds? Of course the oppressive regime doesnt want freedom for its people but to say the people dont want freedom is a giant leap adn to me ridiculous.. Mitch "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Mitch, this slaughter has NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that > these countries did not wish for.

So if the oppressed people of the world want freedom from the previously American supported dictator, they'll just have to accept the death and destruction that the American military will impose...to make them free. Marty http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0705-05.htm Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> So youre telling me people dont want freedom? You dont see how absurd that > sounds? Of course the oppressive regime doesnt want freedom for its people > but to say the people dont want freedom is a giant leap adn to me > ridiculous.. > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Mitch, this slaughter has > NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that > >>these countries did not wish for. > > >

The "freedom" that you talk about is (as these people will see it) an US installed regime, with a US installed puppet president, in search of oil for the benefit of the US. They've been bombed by the US, starved by the US, then bombed again by the US. They were told a pack of lies about needing to die because they had WMDs, they had WMDs used against them and are dying of cancer, and we expect them to be happy when we say "trust us, it'll all be okay". As for the freedom, it comes with strings - embrace also the US free-market economics. Aka, drop your pants and bend over. Look what it did to Indonesia, look at Argentina and Brazil, look at Russia - these countries were financially raped by us when their markets were opened. Is it any wonder they question the desirability of our "freedom". Let's be clear, Saddam was a monster, but if we're getting all misty eyed about the "choice" we're giving the Iraqis, let's actually give THEM the choice. Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> So youre telling me people dont want freedom? You dont see how absurd that > sounds? Of course the oppressive regime doesnt want freedom for its people > but to say the people dont want freedom is a giant leap adn to me > ridiculous.. > > Mitch > > > "John Wallace" <[email hidden]> wrote in > Mitch, this slaughter has > NOTHING to do with a so-called freedom that > >>these countries did not wish for. > > >

John Wallace wrote: > Randy Magruder wrote: > > Sorry dude, as of yesterday, I'm done with this useless discussion. > > I'm staying on sims from today on. > > Or, "crap, I have no argument to that so I'll sprint for the moral > high ground" I'll be happy to take this conversation with you to private e-mail or anywhere else. Don't assume that just because I choose to try to get back to talking racing sims here (I know, the horror!). You know my e-mail address. If you actually want to debate this you know where to reach me. Randy

John Wallace wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Randy Magruder wrote: > > > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you > > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the > > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. > > The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU > address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or > not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is pissed off that > Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD = > illegal war. > > Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a > bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning.

John, while you're looking up my private e-mail address to continue this, you might also read the definition of "Ceasefire agreement". Later. I won't answer any more of your posts HERE Randy

> no WMD = illegal war. > Rather, no WMD = umpopular war. The violation of the Cease Fire agreements signed after the first Gulf war were all the justification the USA needed to launch an attack. In addition, the failure to comply with a whole mess of UN resolutions also gave grounds for war. Finally did not the UN itself authorize force with numerous security council resolutions <what does "serious consequences" mean? Spanking Sadam?>? Granted the so- called final authority was never voted on, but prior votes and resolutions more than authorized the assault. I find it curious that the supposedly bankrupt state of Iraq, cruelly suffering at the hands of UN and thus US sanctions since we all know the USA runs the UN thus the US could ask and receive the final vote at any time and the result would be a unanimous result, could not feed it's people, yet could build dozens of gold lavatoried castles for Sadam. I also find it curious that the countries opposed to the 'final authorization' vote also were countries that seemed to be on the receiving end of the oil for food bribes. I find it odd that close to 10BILLION $$ managed to end up, not in the mouths of starving Iraqi children, but the pockets of French, Russian, & German & Iraqi businessmen and diplomats (strangely enough, Haliburton seems to have not enjoyed that windfall). I find it curious that despite UN weapons sanctions, French and Russian weapons of recent purchase were found inside Iraq. I find it odd that Momar Kadafi suddenly became a scaredy-cat. I find it confusing that the people of Lebannon found their voice after years of Syrian occupation or Egypt allowing democratic voting or even the real enemy, Saudi Arabi agreeing to <Shudder> local elections!! . I find it merely convienant that the country located next to Iraq during the years and years of hide and seek between the Iraqi goverment and the UN weapons inspectors, also shared a similar Bathist goverment. I find it downright odd how many Iraqis are still being killed by those who are neither American nor Iraqi themselves. I further find it confusing that of close to 2 dozen armed conflicts currently simmering around the globe...nearly all include Muslims as one of the armed combatants. Surely the Muslims of Khasmir do not fight for the Palestinians? Do the Muslims of Sri Lanka kidnap children to breed fighters so they can liberate Palestine? Do the Muslim Arabs of Sudan practice genocide upon Black Sudanese for the defense of Islam or the aquistion of the Sudanese oil fields? Do the Muslim fighters of the Phillipines care one whit about Israel's continued existance? Do the Muslim extremists bombing in Malaysia take an oath to defend the Palestinians? Do the Muslim Chechans stand and fight and bomb and kill and stab Russian school children merely to call attention to the suffering of the poor poor Palestinians? Did the Palestinian leaders and widow of Arafat fight over the estate of poor ol Yasser for the few mere pennies he accrued leading one of the poorest non-states in the world, or was he rich beyond the wealth of all his people combined? See John...I told ya I can be paranoid... dave henrie

Well not that I have any intention of continuing this but one little point; the ceasefire agreement was with the UN - not the US. The UN did NOT sanction war, you did. Therefore your war is illegal. What is more, the ceasfire terms were that Iraq disarmed; at the UN, Iraq said they had disarmed and the UN weapons inspectors concurred (as opposed to conquered, which the US did). Therefore the war was illegal; the only people saying Iraq had WMD was the White House - they even said, in what will go down in history as the momentous lie since Hitler's pledge in Munich - to have 'evidence' of WMD in Iraq. Iraq was disarmed; there were no WMD. The US lied. And then invaded, in stark violation of the UN charter and therefore in breach of international law and, therefore, this war was, is and ever shall remain Illegal. "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> John Wallace wrote: > >> Randy Magruder wrote: >> >> > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you >> > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the >> > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. >> >> The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU >> address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or >> not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is pissed off that >> Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD = >> illegal war. >> >> Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a >> bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning. > > John, while you're looking up my private e-mail address to continue > this, you might also read the definition of "Ceasefire agreement". > > Later. I won't answer any more of your posts HERE > > Randy

Speaking of U.S. inventions, what do you think the U.N. is - any idiot can see the U.N. is simply something for the U.S. to divert attention away from itself with. Like dago democracy seeks to con the people into thinking they get a say in things down at the ballot box, the U.N. creates the illusion that a body other than the U.S. is running the show here on earth - big jokes these. Mostly, the U.N. is a U.S. puppet but the U.S. has demonstrated that their approval is only nice, not neccessary. It's pointless to refer to people as criminals when you simply don't have the power to arrest them. "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VD%3e.107688$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> Well not that I have any intention of continuing this but one little > point; the ceasefire agreement was with the UN - not the US. The UN did > NOT sanction war, you did. Therefore your war is illegal. What is more, > the ceasfire terms were that Iraq disarmed; at the UN, Iraq said they had > disarmed and the UN weapons inspectors concurred (as opposed to conquered, > which the US did). Therefore the war was illegal; the only people saying > Iraq had WMD was the White House - they even said, in what will go down in > history as the momentous lie since Hitler's pledge in Munich - to have > 'evidence' of WMD in Iraq. Iraq was disarmed; there were no WMD. The US > lied. And then invaded, in stark violation of the UN charter and therefore > in breach of international law and, therefore, this war was, is and ever > shall remain Illegal. > "Randy Magruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> John Wallace wrote: >> >>> Randy Magruder wrote: >>> >>> > History didn't begin when you woke up this morning. Why don't you >>> > actually go back and read the transcript of Bush's 2002 State of the >>> > Union speech. You'll find a LOT more there than WMD. >>> >>> The legal right to go to war is nothing to do with Bush's SOU >>> address. It is solely to do with the UN resolutions, and whether or >>> not Iraq possessed WMD. It doesn't matter if Bush is pissed off that >>> Saddam drives a Japanese car, or prefers Pepsi over Coke, no WMD = >>> illegal war. >>> >>> Bush can practice all the revisionist history he wants and cite a >>> bajillion other reasons - that doesn't give them meaning. >> >> John, while you're looking up my private e-mail address to continue >> this, you might also read the definition of "Ceasefire agreement". >> >> Later. I won't answer any more of your posts HERE >> >> Randy > >

If you get all your news from the same place, then you're buying in to their reporting slant. Every news agency has it's own bias, if you want to pick the fact from the spin you have to read a few different reports of the same story from different sources. By that I mean, from around the world, not just Fox and CBS. It's interesting that no decent info on the N. Korea nuke situation was from news agencies in the US or UK. The day N. Korea announced they had nukes, the BBC didn't even mention it on their 30 minute news program... If you want a perfect example of sensationalist, completely false reporting from the BBC, check out their top story on Condoleezza Rice at the 9/11 inquiry. They painted her up to be satan's first born, completely ignoring anything resembling 'fact'.

Still smarting from the election, eh? "alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:pXk2e.98331$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (51 lines)

> Uh, me no - I was saying that the idea that Iraq was a threat to the US - > and therefore a legitimate target for invasion - was spurious at the time > and has been proven to be a lie with hindsight and anyone who thinks Iraq > was in any way, shape or form a legitimate target for invasion is either > (a) deluded (b) Bush (c) ignorant or (d) all of the above. > "MartyU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:4249c103$0$[email hidden]... >> Are you really comparing the support for allies in the grip of a growing >> Nazi empire with the essentially unilateral, preemptive attack for bogus >> reasons of a country that was no threat to US national security? >> >> Geez... >> >> Marty >> >> alex martini wrote: >>> A normal person understands that war is a last resort, and one that is >>> taken because one's nation is in danger. A normal person understands >>> that democracy is not implemented at the point of a depleted uraniumed >>> bomb. Were it only so, we'd all be nazis by now. >>> >>> "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>> news:H_f2e.16617$[email hidden]... >>> >>>>Youre mis-interpreting aggression. If anything like me it's not >>>>aggression it's AMAZEMENT that an otherwise seemingly normal person can >>>>think in the terms youve described yourself in the past few posts. >>>> >>>>The flight sim ng is known for its left wing lunatics if youre looking >>>>for a fight Alex ;) >>>> >>>>Mitch >>>> >>>> >>>>"alex martini" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>>news:%xf2e.96054$[email hidden]... >>>> >>>>>Yes aggression is your nature I've noticed ;-) >>>>>"rmagruder" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>>>>news:[email hidden]... >>>>> >>>>>>So, how you liking the sims these days? >>>>>> >>>>>>(Sorry, but I'm AGGRESSIVELY changing the subject back to, ya know, >>>>>>REC.AUTOS.SIMULATORS). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >

Randy Magruder wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> John Wallace wrote: > > >>Randy Magruder wrote: >> >>>Sorry dude, as of yesterday, I'm done with this useless discussion. >>>I'm staying on sims from today on. >> >>Or, "crap, I have no argument to that so I'll sprint for the moral >>high ground" > > > I'll be happy to take this conversation with you to private e-mail or > anywhere else. Don't assume that just because I choose to try to get > back to talking racing sims here (I know, the horror!). You know my > e-mail address. If you actually want to debate this you know where to > reach me.

I apologise if I misjudged your bowing out. E-mail would be good, but probably not on this topic. Neither of us are going to convert the other, and I don't think it's the intention.

Dave Henrie wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>> no WMD = illegal war. >> > > > Rather, no WMD = umpopular war. The violation of the Cease Fire > agreements signed after the first Gulf war were all the justification the > USA needed to launch an attack.

If that's the case, why is the UK being so coy about the legaility of our involvement? Our top legal advisor was told what to say by the government, and has been gagged from talking about it. So we, the public from whom some were selected to go and die, are not allowed to know if the deaths were in a legal cause. The case for war may be proven as interpreted in a John Wayne movie, but under international law it is not proven.