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

http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in shit, thank you for your stupidity. David G Fisher

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

Quoted text (16 lines)

> On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:14:02 -0400, "David G Fisher" > <[email hidden]> reckoned: > > >http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > > > >"Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it > >did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > > > >Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in > >shit, thank you for your stupidity. > > > >David G Fisher > > > > Hey, take it to the flight-sim group where they love this kind of OT > stuff.

David, Ive always enjoyed racing you but bringing this political BS here is pushing me to the limits of my restraint. I dont killfile many but I can't take this Liberal party spin much longer... As mentioned this crap has pretty much ruined CSIPGF-S (Flight Sim NG) and I like RAS way to much to let it drive me away from here. Just get over it already. Mitch "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > > "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it > did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > > Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in > shit, thank you for your stupidity. > > David G Fisher > >

"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:HONDa.25882$[email hidden]... : I'm not a fan of all the OT mindless stuff, but that article was pretty : useful. It seems like everyone has totally forgotten about the "reason" : there was a war.. Even I just sort of assumed they found something by now. : : Mike : http://mikebeauchamp.com : : "John Stanley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message : news:[email hidden]... : > On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:14:02 -0400, "David G Fisher" : > <[email hidden]> reckoned: : > <snip> : : They have found things that make the action/war more than nesecarry (sp). Mass graves, items stolen from Kuwait, weapons that supposedly did not exist and were banned by the U.N., millions of dollars in bank accounts and private stashes that could have fed the starving people of Iraq, Saddam's refusal to acceed to the U.N. sanctions and force his population to endure over a decade of hardship. I could go on for a while here. This was a bad place in the world and we have seen proof ( yes, I could look up the info to back this up) that Al Qaida were present and operating in the country. Why was it a bad idea to attack? I personally do not believe that everyone has to agree with what happened, I am glad that we no longer have pilots flying daily missions over Iraq to ensure the safety of the world. I am glad that the U.N. has ended economic sanctions imposed on the country of Iraq. I am glad that there is one more place in the world where people have hope for tomorrow. -- McWhom -----------------------------------------------------------------

Mitch_A wrote: > David, Ive always enjoyed racing you but bringing this political BS here is > pushing me to the limits of my restraint. I dont killfile many but I can't > take this Liberal party spin much longer... As mentioned this crap has > pretty much ruined CSIPGF-S (Flight Sim NG) and I like RAS way to much to > let it drive me away from here. Just get over it already. I agree! Take it to the proper place, Dave, and while you're at it, forking stay there!

David G Fisher wrote: > http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > > "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it > did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > > Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, Nothing new there then, sadly! > and those still alive living in > shit, thank you for your stupidity. Yeah, what a shame you aren't in charge and making those big decisions! What would your first big policy decision be, to ban Nascar?

Gerry Aitken wrote: > > Yeah, what a shame you aren't in charge and making those big decisions! > What would your first big policy decision be, to ban Nascar? I would, then I would set up an AussieV8 !!! series instead 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--

Mitch, The thread was clearly labeled.You didn't have to read it. Fuck the politics. Fuck the liberals/conservatives. This is about something a billion times more important than any of that childish bullshit. David G Fisher "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7VNDa.660$[email hidden]... > David, Ive always enjoyed racing you but bringing this political BS hereis > pushing me to the limits of my restraint. I dont killfile many but Ican't

Quoted text (12 lines)

> take this Liberal party spin much longer... As mentioned this crap has > pretty much ruined CSIPGF-S (Flight Sim NG) and I like RAS way to much to > let it drive me away from here. Just get over it already. > > Mitch > > > "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > > > > "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but

it

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > > > > Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in > > shit, thank you for your stupidity. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > >

"David G Fisher" wrote... > <snip> > "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. > Security Council, but it did help convince many > Americans that Saddam was a real threat." Indeed... nothing yet. Even a little too clean for my liking. > Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those > still alive living in shit, thank you for your > stupidity. I think it was a stupid thing to do on every level as well, no question, but there's no need for this sort of vitriol. It's highly inappropriate for this group. Jan. =---

> Fuck the politics. Fuck the liberals/conservatives. > > This is about something a billion times more important than any of that > childish bullshit. So why post it in a car simulators newsgroup ?

> They have found things that make the action/war more than nesecarry (sp). > Mass graves, items stolen from Kuwait, weapons that supposedly did notexist > and were banned by the U.N., millions of dollars in bank accounts and > private stashes that could have fed the starving people of Iraq,Saddam's > refusal to acceed to the U.N. sanctions and force his population to endure > over a decade of hardship. I could go on for a while here. This was abad > place in the world and we have seen proof ( yes, I could look up the infoto > back this up) that Al Qaida were present and operating in the country. > Why was it a bad idea to attack? I personally do not believe thateveryone > has to agree with what happened, I am glad that we no longer have pilots > flying daily missions over Iraq to ensure the safety of the world. I am > glad that the U.N. has ended economic sanctions imposed on the country of > Iraq. I am glad that there is one more place in the world where peoplehave > hope for tomorrow. > Correct. See, it never was only the WMD that triggered all this. It was pushed to the top of the media agenda, true, but there were always many other terrible crimes against humanity that this dick-tator had to answer for. Good riddance.

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gLPDa.39681$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "David G Fisher" wrote... > > <snip> > > "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. > > Security Council, but it did help convince many > > Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > > Indeed... nothing yet. Even a little too clean for my liking. > > > Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those > > still alive living in shit, thank you for your > > stupidity. > > I think it was a stupid thing to do on every level as well, no question,

but > there's no need for this sort of vitriol. It's highly inappropriate forthis > group. > > Jan. > =--- Where exactly is the vitriol, Jan? In the article? David G Fisher

"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bbohes$bkr8k$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Fuck the politics. Fuck the liberals/conservatives. > > > > This is about something a billion times more important than any of that > > childish bullshit. > > So why post it in a car simulators newsgroup ?

This is the continuation of an earlier discussion which many here contributed to. You know that, so why ask a silly question? Results are in (no WMD, just lies and idiotic behavior resulting in innocent people being killed and mutilated), and some need to admit they were wrong and apologize for the things they said. It's called accountability. Maybe you asked me why have I started this thread because you don't like the idea of accountability when it comes to this issue? David G Fisher

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > > "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it > did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > > Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in > shit, thank you for your stupidity. > > David G Fisher > >

It was all about Bush's determination to avenge his father. I do think, however, that the world is a better place without Saddam, seeing that he was quite a cruel dictator who murdered millions. And also, when a country's government is toppled, it takes years and years (probably a decade) for stability to return. So while Saddam's ouster is not doing much to help the suffering of the living Iraqis, the future of the county looks brighter because of it. As long as another tyrant doesn't replace the old, that is. This idea that we were going into Iraq to rid the country and the world of these weapons was a pretext. Apparently, however, we did gain some intelligence about Terrorism, which is good. The reason for the pretext, of course, was to try to get UN support. And while we couldn't say the possible real reason (which probably even Bush wouldn't admit to or never actually knew), we should have at least made the terrorist connection, since we didn't get UN support anyhow. Alanb

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:14:02 -0400, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > >"Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it >did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > >Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in >shit, thank you for your stupidity.

What convinced Americans that Saddam was a threat was when Bush gave 100 speeches with the words 9/11 and Iraq linked together in them. If Bush suggested the possibility that Canada were involved in 9/11 he'd have 70% approval for bombing them tommorrow, without any sort of evidence. Jason

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:14:02 -0400, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > >"Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it >did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > >Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in >shit, thank you for your stupidity.

You're right, they're living, the kids are out of jail, or really, the gulag, and the Kurds aren't being assaulted daily by that psycho. I guess you'd like to go back to the good old days. The days when Blix was running around unsure if he was set to have lobster or filet mignon for dinner while Iraqis starved...we gave him a tremendous amount of time, didn't we? They found a mass grave with kids the other day. And finally, I don't recall seeing threads on usenet about the proof required of Bill Clinton to blow up the aspirin factory in the Sudan because it contained *WMD*. back then. Everyone agreed that Saddam was a bad guy. Bill even flung many cruise missiles toward Saddam...not a peep out of anyone. Do you remember that? > >David G Fisher >

Gee David, You seem to be replying in a defensive manner to anyone that disputes your right to post this in here, yet you have failed to reply to my post which I believe stated many valid reasons for the war to have taken place. Despite what the media may want you to believe this was never a one issue war. >Fuck the politics. Fuck the liberals/conservatives. >Maybe you asked me why have I started this thread because you don't likethe idea of accountability when it comes to this issue? >Where exactly is the vitriol, Jan? In the article? vitriol? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vitriol Check out definition #2 Uhm, yeah. I would call it vitriol. -- McWhom -----------------------------------------------------------------

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > <snip> Take it to alt.politics or alt.politics.usa please. There is a newsgroup hierarchy for a reason. Thank you.

"mcwhom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Gee David, > You seem to be replying in a defensive manner to anyone that disputes > your right to post this in here, yet you have failed to reply to my post > which I believe stated many valid reasons for the war to have taken place. If you really believe what you wrote, then there isn't much to say to you on this issue.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >Where exactly is the vitriol, Jan? In the article? > > > vitriol? > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vitriol > > Check out definition #2 > > Uhm, yeah. I would call it vitriol.

Read my original post to which Jan replied and show me exactly where the vitriol is. Because I said "stupidity"? Stupidity is defined as: 1. lack of intelligence: lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense 2. rashness or thoughtlessness: extremely rash or thoughtless behavior No vitriol there. So where is it? You're acting like the White House now. Insisting things exist, but ultimately unable to show any proof. David G Fisher

I do believe that my (I am American, for better or worse) President stated initially that the *reason* for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, was because Hussein and the Government of Iraq were aggressively pursuing and in possession of, *Weapons of Mass Destruction* (in violation of UN Sanctions) and were a *Clear and Present Danger* to the United States of America, therefore a *Preemptive invasion* was warranted. *Regime Change* and *Liberation* became the new message after *Shock and Awe* failed to accomplish its mission. Now I am not in Hussein's corner one bit, but we condemn a President which lied about getting his rocks off in the Oval Office, while congratulating a President that unleashed the American Military on a Sovereign Nation under very shaky, dubious and beginning to appear as false circumstances. And then, began to manipulate the American Public with the *Regime Change* and *Liberation* themes, which has appeared to be politically successful so far. I don't know which scares me more, the people who mindlessly march behind either the Republican or Democratic Parties, or the incredibly short memories and even shorter attention span of the American Public ("Look at the Kitty", for any Robin Williams Fans). By the way, thanks for posting the Link Mr. Fisher, I would not have seen it otherwise. On Another Note: Is RASCAR any good ? I have been lurking here since N4 days when I " discovered sim racing. Somewhat jaded on the Open Setup scene and wondering if maybe "Fixed" setup racing would be better. I always read through the posts for whatever the race is for the week, they can be very illuminating, if not entertaining. Thanks, If you got this far and Flame On if you must ! "mcwhom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > > Gee David, > You seem to be replying in a defensive manner to anyone that disputes > your right to post this in here, yet you have failed to reply to my post > which I believe stated many valid reasons for the war to have taken place. > Despite what the media may want you to believe this was never a one issue > war. > > >Fuck the politics. Fuck the liberals/conservatives. > > >Maybe you asked me why have I started this thread because you don't like > the idea > of accountability when it comes to this issue? > > >Where exactly is the vitriol, Jan? In the article? > > > vitriol? > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vitriol > > Check out definition #2 > > Uhm, yeah. I would call it vitriol. > > -- > McWhom > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >

"Jason Moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:14:02 -0400, "David G Fisher" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > > > >"Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it > >did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > > > >Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in > >shit, thank you for your stupidity. > > What convinced Americans that Saddam was a threat was when Bush gave > 100 speeches with the words 9/11 and Iraq linked together in them. > > If Bush suggested the possibility that Canada were involved in 9/11 > he'd have 70% approval for bombing them tommorrow, without any sort of > evidence. > > Jason

How do you thing they'd feel after someone showed them where Canada.....and the U.S......were located on a map? David G Fisher

Mitch_A wrote: > David, Ive always enjoyed racing you but bringing this political BS here is > pushing me to the limits of my restraint. I dont killfile many but I can't > take this Liberal party spin much longer... Mitch, If you are going to killfile David then at least do it for the right reason: that it's *totally* off-topic and only causing flamewars, not because he posted something that doesn't agree with your thinking. Freedom o'speech and the other guys right to said freedom, y' know? (Actually, he does have some point, 'liberal' or not - still nothing found! I'm surprised too. I guess Saddy had destroyed all his stuff beforehand. Kinda clever in a cunningly evil way really) Now, WMD is no GPL, so back to the usual flames ;) Regards, Ruud

just to add fuel to the fire. go ahead, flame me, killfile me, whatever. this recent interview with Richard Butler. Its quite frightening. the relevance to wmd's is the last two questions. you want the interview with Richard Butler May 14 2003 http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php3?archive=1&artmon=5&arty=2003# for those who don't want to read the whole transcript heres the relevent part MARK DAVIS: Well, while I have you here I'll get you to put your Iraq hat on for a moment. Are you surprised that the Americans haven't found any weapons of mass destruction so far? RICHARD BUTLER: No, I'm not, Mark. There's no doubt that unaccounted for weapons existed when Saddam threw me and my team out in 1998 and, indeed, when Hans Blix, my successor, made his last reports. But I think what we are seeing now is the very strong possibility that towards the end, just before the war began, Iraq either began to destroy those weapons or moved them out possibly to Syria. Destroyed them in the way that it started, you'll remember, to destroy the al-Samoud missile, in the belief that the weapons wouldn't be of any further use to them and it would be better for their case if they could say - if no weapons were able to be discovered. MARK DAVIS: I mean, this is the incredible point, I suppose. We've just invaded a country, we've killed thousands of people and, despicable as Saddam Hussein may have been, he was probably telling the truth. RICHARD BUTLER: We need to know that, that's what I'm saying. It could well be that at that point, immediately prior to the war when they lodged their 12,000-page document, that we may discover they were telling the truth in the sense that at that time they did destroy those extant weapons. We need to know what the facts are to know whether the weapons of mass destruction justification for the invasion was real or not. It's very, very important. We have four people - the US has four key people in custody now - General Saddi, General Rashid, Tariq Aziz and Dr Germ, Rihab Taha. They know exactly what the facts are. We need to know what they're saying. We need to know on what basis they're being interrogated. We need the truth about those weapons, Iraq's programs, did they give them to terrorists, for example, as has sometimes been claimed. We need the truth behind an invasion and occupation by the United States, and its friends, of Iraq. Richard Butler, we'll have to leave it there but thanks for joining Dateline. I urge you to read the whole transcript though. As a citizen of this planet, it scares me. steve

Goy Larsen wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Gerry Aitken wrote: > >>Yeah, what a shame you aren't in charge and making those big decisions! >>What would your first big policy decision be, to ban Nascar? > > > I would, then I would set up an AussieV8 !!! series instead

LOL!

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:13:59 -0400, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote: >How do you thing they'd feel after someone showed them where Canada.....and >the U.S......were located on a map? Oh my, then I think it would jump to 85%. Canada's proximity makes them a clear and imminent danger or something. Didn't Bush's great great great great great grandfather lose a battle in the War of 1812 or something? Maybe we could use that as justification... Jason

It's not that I agree or disagree. This is an issue that hasn't reached an outcome and can go on without any known facts for quite a long time, if ever. Throwing gas on a fire isn't good and thats all this thread has really accomplished. Lets give some time to the Iraqi people to re-discover their lost freedom and regain their country before we make these types of leftwing spin-doctor induced statements. Do you really believe Saddam wasn't trying to gain WMD's? Will this arguement put Saddam Insane back in power? Would you honestly want that? We can argue till were blue in the face but does it really matter? Not in the least! So why rile up 2/3rds of the Americans here in RAS? Thats my point.... I bet I can beat ya at Laguna in a F360, well maybe not but it would be more fun than this ;) Regards, Mitch "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bbp5at$ppu$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > > Mitch, > > If you are going to killfile David then at least do it for the right > reason: that it's *totally* off-topic and only causing flamewars, not > because he posted something that doesn't agree with your thinking. > > Freedom o'speech and the other guys right to said freedom, y' know? > > (Actually, he does have some point, 'liberal' or not - still nothing > found! I'm surprised too. I guess Saddy had destroyed all his stuff > beforehand. Kinda clever in a cunningly evil way really) > > Now, WMD is no GPL, so back to the usual flames ;) > > Regards, Ruud > >

04/06/2003 KurdishMedia.com - By Bryar Mariwani London (KurdishMedia.com) 04 June 2003: A mass grave containing the remains of 200 Kurdish children has been discovered in the liberated Kurdish city of Kirkuk, reported the KDP Arabic daily, Al-Taakhi. "Citizens were discovered on May 30, 2003, in a communal grave close to Debs, in Kirkuk. However, this mass grave was different from other mass graves discovered since the fall of Saddam Hussein�s terrorist regime since it contained the remains of 200 babies, victims of the repression of the Kurdish uprising in 1991," Al-Taakhi noted. "Even the dolls were buried with the children," it added. It is believed that the babies were buried alive. It was also reported in the local media that an adult female person had also been found in the mass grave. It was suggested that she could have been their minder.

My take on all this is i agree with a recent poll done here in a uk newspaper. The question was 'whos the biggest threat to world peace' The choices were the usual bunch hussain, binladen, chirac, blair, bush, schroeder, omah, sharon, tarar, musharaf, arafat. not suprisingly bush was named as person most likely to upset world peace. I strongly believe that the greatest threat to peace at the moment is the american republican party, its cia advisors and the new american century organisation. I wish americans wouldnt believe all the propoganda they are fed and hurry up and vote this guy out of office before he starts any more conflicts dan "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > > "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it > did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > t > Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in > shit, thank you for your stupidity. > > David G Fisher > >

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > > "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it > did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." Blah blah bullshit blah. The WMD issue is only for people who fail to see what was really happening in Iraq. It was designed to convince people that war was the right thing to do, even if those people didn't give a shit about all the terrible things happening in Iraq, like Saddam just dropping chemical weapons on thousands of Kurds just to check that they worked and have a little fun. > Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in > shit, thank you for your stupidity. If you really think their situation is worse than, say, one year ago, then you are quite possibly the most ignorant person on the planet. > David G Fisher Has entered the killfile.

"Dan_Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bbpp2c$c6l0p$[email hidden]... > My take on all this is i agree with a recent poll done here in a uk > newspaper. The question was 'whos the biggest threat to world peace' The > choices were the usual bunch hussain, binladen, chirac, blair, bush, > schroeder, omah, sharon, tarar, musharaf, arafat. not suprisingly bush was > named as person most likely to upset world peace. I strongly believe that > the greatest threat to peace at the moment is the american republicanparty, > its cia advisors and the new american century organisation. I wishamericans > wouldnt believe all the propoganda they are fed and hurry up and vote this > guy out of office before he starts any more conflicts > dan The problem with polls like that is people in countries like ours believe the world currently *is* a peaceful place. So they think starting a war is a threat to the current 'peace', when in fact it is driving us further and further towards a real state of peace. If they made all those people actually travel to some of the worst places in the world and see with their own eyes the brutality and hatred, they would all automatically jump onto Bush's side.

So I guess all the mass graves that were found and the fact that Saddam has had tens of thousands of his countrymen killed are all fabricated by "The White House" and evil America? Wake up. If the feel the US was not justified, then I believe you must fell that Saddam was. "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > "mcwhom" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Gee David, > > You seem to be replying in a defensive manner to anyone that

disputes > > your right to post this in here, yet you have failed to reply to my post > > which I believe stated many valid reasons for the war to have takenplace. > > If you really believe what you wrote, then there isn't much to say to youon

Quoted text (20 lines)

> this issue. > > > >Where exactly is the vitriol, Jan? In the article? > > > > > > vitriol? > > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vitriol > > > > Check out definition #2 > > > > Uhm, yeah. I would call it vitriol. > > Read my original post to which Jan replied and show me exactly where the > vitriol is. Because I said "stupidity"? Stupidity is defined as: > > 1. lack of intelligence: lack of intelligence, perception, or common > sense > > > 2. rashness or thoughtlessness: extremely rash or thoughtless

behavior

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > > No vitriol there. > > So where is it? You're acting like the White House now. Insisting things > exist, but ultimately unable to show any proof. > > David G Fisher > >

Sh*t man!! Bush wants to put mini-nukes into the hands of the grunts of the US armed forces. Instead of upholding his obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he wants to throw all that away,and make MORE nukes. If he gets this through Congress, other countries will be saying "well we want them too" No longer will nukes be Tactical weapons(you know the phrase MAD..mutually assured destruction), they will be offensive weapons, just like tanks, cannons, rifles etc.. It seems quite obvious to me who the biggest threat to world peace is. I respect everyones view here that support the Bush administration. I think no less of these people. Its a credit to those people to stand up for what they believe in. Healthy debate on a subject can be done without people getting angry, as long as everyone respects each others view on situations we will now return to our regular viewing, racing simulators.:-) Steve Nick wrote:

Quoted text (30 lines)

> "Dan_Leach" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bbpp2c$c6l0p$[email hidden]... > >>My take on all this is i agree with a recent poll done here in a uk >>newspaper. The question was 'whos the biggest threat to world peace' The >>choices were the usual bunch hussain, binladen, chirac, blair, bush, >>schroeder, omah, sharon, tarar, musharaf, arafat. not suprisingly bush was >>named as person most likely to upset world peace. I strongly believe that >>the greatest threat to peace at the moment is the american republican > > party, > >>its cia advisors and the new american century organisation. I wish > > americans > >>wouldnt believe all the propoganda they are fed and hurry up and vote this >>guy out of office before he starts any more conflicts >> dan > > > The problem with polls like that is people in countries like ours believe > the world currently *is* a peaceful place. So they think starting a war is a > threat to the current 'peace', when in fact it is driving us further and > further towards a real state of peace. If they made all those people > actually travel to some of the worst places in the world and see with their > own eyes the brutality and hatred, they would all automatically jump onto > Bush's side. > >

"redTed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bbohls$btcl7$[email hidden]... > > They have found things that make the action/war more than nesecarry(sp). > > Mass graves, items stolen from Kuwait, weapons that supposedly did not > exist > > and were banned by the U.N., millions of dollars in bank accounts and > > private stashes that could have fed the starving people of Iraq, > Saddam's > > refusal to acceed to the U.N. sanctions and force his population toendure > > over a decade of hardship. I could go on for a while here. This was a > bad > > place in the world and we have seen proof ( yes, I could look up theinfo

Quoted text (7 lines)

> to > > back this up) that Al Qaida were present and operating in the country. > > Why was it a bad idea to attack? I personally do not believe that > everyone > > has to agree with what happened, I am glad that we no longer have pilots > > flying daily missions over Iraq to ensure the safety of the world. I am > > glad that the U.N. has ended economic sanctions imposed on the country

of

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Iraq. I am glad that there is one more place in the world where people > have > > hope for tomorrow. > > > > Correct. > See, it never was only the WMD that triggered all this. It was pushed to

the > top of the media agenda, true, but there were always many other terrible > crimes against humanity that this dick-tator had to answer for. > Good riddance. > Yep everythings fine and dandy over there now. Classic stuff that. Securing what they went there for and all...who's next ?

"Steve Whitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Sh*t man!! Bush wants to put mini-nukes into the hands of the grunts of > the US armed forces. That's the future (and it won't happen anyway, because it's been blown all out of proportion). I was talking about right here, right now.

> >How do you thing they'd feel after someone showed them whereCanada.....and

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >the U.S......were located on a map? > > Oh my, then I think it would jump to 85%. Canada's proximity makes > them a clear and imminent danger or something. Didn't Bush's great > great great great great grandfather lose a battle in the War of 1812 > or something? Maybe we could use that as justification... >

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

> So I guess all the mass graves that were found and the fact that Saddamhas > had tens of thousands of his countrymen killed are all fabricated by "The > White House" and evil America? Wake up. If the feel the US was not > justified, then I believe you must fell that Saddam was. i don't believe he mentioned these mass graves didn't exist, nor did he say Saddam was a fairy princess..

> > So why post it in a car simulators newsgroup ? > > This is the continuation of an earlier discussion which many here > contributed to. You know that, so why ask a silly question? > > Results are in (no WMD, just lies and idiotic behavior resulting ininnocent > people being killed and mutilated), and some need to admit they were wrong > and apologize for the things they said. It's called accountability. Maybe > you asked me why have I started this thread because you don't like theidea > of accountability when it comes to this issue? >Nope..I asked why you posted it in a car simulators newsgroup...you answered. You looking for an argument or something ? Perhaps a little political trolling ?

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Correct. > > See, it never was only the WMD that triggered all this. It was pushed to > the > > top of the media agenda, true, but there were always many other terrible > > crimes against humanity that this dick-tator had to answer for. > > Good riddance. > > > > Yep everythings fine and dandy over there now. Classic stuff that. > Securing what they went there for and all...who's next ? >

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

In article <[email hidden]>, mcwhom <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (37 lines)

> >"Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in >message >news:HONDa.25882$[email hidden]... >: I'm not a fan of all the OT mindless stuff, but that article was pretty >: useful. It seems like everyone has totally forgotten about the "reason" >: there was a war.. Even I just sort of assumed they found something by now. >: >: Mike >: http://mikebeauchamp.com >: >: "John Stanley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >: news:[email hidden]... >: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:14:02 -0400, "David G Fisher" >: > <[email hidden]> reckoned: >: > ><snip> > >: >: > >They have found things that make the action/war more than nesecarry (sp). >Mass graves, items stolen from Kuwait, weapons that supposedly did not >exist >and were banned by the U.N., millions of dollars in bank accounts and >private stashes that could have fed the starving people of Iraq, Saddam's >refusal to acceed to the U.N. sanctions and force his population to endure >over a decade of hardship. I could go on for a while here. This was a bad >place in the world and we have seen proof ( yes, I could look up the info to >back this up) that Al Qaida were present and operating in the country. >Why was it a bad idea to attack? I personally do not believe that everyone >has to agree with what happened, I am glad that we no longer have pilots >flying daily missions over Iraq to ensure the safety of the world. I am >glad that the U.N. has ended economic sanctions imposed on the country of >Iraq. I am glad that there is one more place in the world where people have >hope for tomorrow. >

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

In article <bbqc7l$castk$[email hidden]>, redTed <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (20 lines)

> >> > Correct. >> > See, it never was only the WMD that triggered all this. It was pushed to >> the >> > top of the media agenda, true, but there were always many other terrible >> > crimes against humanity that this dick-tator had to answer for. >> > Good riddance. >> > >> >> Yep everythings fine and dandy over there now. Classic stuff that. >> Securing what they went there for and all...who's next ? >> >Who said everything's fine and dandy ? Reading between lines is your >specialist subject, I see. Unfortunately, I didn't leave spaces for you to >fill in the gaps with your stupid rhetoric. >Is life better in Iraq now or the majority of people ? Answer YES or NO. >Will life get a lot better in the near future ? >Do the general Iraqi public miss Sadams brutality ? >Who's next.. ? Take your pick. Personally, I hope it's Zimbabwe, followed by >all the other maniacal regimes of the African continent.

My girlfriend is Zimbabwean and indeed she is concerned about what is happening in her country. However, she would be far more concerned at the idea of Bush and Co, ram-raiding the sh*t out of the place, believe me. >Or do you accept >that these regimes have every right to slaughter thousands of their own >people just so long as it doesn't interfere with your lifestyle ? >What reason do you give for USA ,GB and any other countries for not getting >involved in suppressing violent, brutal dictatorships ? >Because change must come from within, otherwise it is not real change. Also, why does war always have to be the only solution? -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

> >Or do you accept > >that these regimes have every right to slaughter thousands of their own > >people just so long as it doesn't interfere with your lifestyle ? > >What reason do you give for USA ,GB and any other countries for notgetting > >involved in suppressing violent, brutal dictatorships ? > > > Because change must come from within, otherwise it is not real change. > Also, why does war always have to be the only solution? So change is coming from within, is it ? On the day they arrest the opposition leader and charge him with treason. Ok.

In article <bbqm04$ccmm1$[email hidden]>, redTed <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >> >Or do you accept >> >that these regimes have every right to slaughter thousands of their own >> >people just so long as it doesn't interfere with your lifestyle ? >> >What reason do you give for USA ,GB and any other countries for not >getting >> >involved in suppressing violent, brutal dictatorships ? >> > >> Because change must come from within, otherwise it is not real change. >> Also, why does war always have to be the only solution? > >So change is coming from within, is it ? On the day they arrest the >opposition leader and charge him with treason. >Ok. > >

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

"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Why shouldn't they have gone to war? Because those reasons you have > listed were NOT the reasons that the war was sold to us on. IMO the war didn't need to be 'sold' to us. The only people who were anti-war were very stupid (IMO) or pop singers who thought they could make a statement and get in the news for a bit more publicity. > Do you really believe that the US and UK would have > been interested in attacking Iraq if all they were concerned about was > the plight of the population? No, but I believe individually, all but the most stupid people would be in favour of that, but of course the governments don't do it because they have some kind of conscience - they wouldn't go to the expense of starting a war if they didn't have anything more concrete to gain from it...

> > > Now who was that South African who got arrested and imprisoned for many > years, when many of their country's people were being abused? Nelson > something or other... Muntz ? I'm sure it began with an "m". So when does the blacklisting of Zimbabwe begin ? As the French(and others) are still keen to hold talks with Mugabe, I don't think the pressure is really on as it was in S.A.

Mitch_A wrote: > It's not that I agree or disagree. Um, yes it is... (see below) > leftwing spin-doctor induced statements. if it had been a 'right-wing' sort of comment I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have objected so much. Apart from that, the US not having found anything smoking-gun-like can hardly be called 'left-wingish', that's just a fact. Maybe they will find something tomorrow. Maybe not. > So why rile up 2/3rds of > the Americans here in RAS? Thats my point.... Maybe because the real (or at least add-on)reason for starting this particular war was something called "oil", beside "arms sales". Bechtel, Carlyle etc. are sure to profit, Bush isn't being particularly subtle about that either. On the other hand, fact is that the claimed reason for going to Iraq still hasn't been backed up yet... Not that I say it couldn't be backed up tomorrow, though. What I *am* pretty sure of was that it wasn't the only reason for Bush going there... > I bet I can beat ya at Laguna in a F360, well maybe not but it would be more > fun than this ;) Bet you can, since I sure don't have an F360, not even virtual ;) Regards, Rudy

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp > > "Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it > did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat." > > Thousands of dead and mutilated Iraqis, and those still alive living in > shit, thank you for your stupidity. > > David G Fisher

A bunch of lying twats. Hang 'em. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld likes to say. http://www.msnbc.com/news/923227.asp?vts=6620032032 http://www.msnbc.com/news/923165.asp?vts=6620032032 David G Fisher

Damn Troll! -- McWhom ----------------------------------------------------------------- "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... : : "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message : news:[email hidden]... : > http://www.msnbc.com/news/919753.asp :<snipped in an effort to take away David's first amendment rights>

In article <bbqnon$c888q$[email hidden]>, Nick <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (11 lines)

>"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in >message >news:[email hidden]... >> Why shouldn't they have gone to war? Because those reasons you have >> listed were NOT the reasons that the war was sold to us on. > >IMO the war didn't need to be 'sold' to us. The only people who were >anti-war were very stupid (IMO) or pop singers who thought they could make >a >statement and get in the news for a bit more publicity. >

Don't forget the governments of countries who were against it. Were they very stupid? Or did they just have a clearer picture of what was going on here? How can being anti-war be very stupid? We don't appear to be under any kind of threat, and never were, yet you seem to be of the opinion that, if a country can't sort itself out according to the west's criteria for what is acceptable, then it should go in and start killing people and that'll solve everything.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>> Do you really believe that the US and UK would have >> been interested in attacking Iraq if all they were concerned about was >> the plight of the population? > >No, but I believe individually, all but the most stupid people would be in >favour of that, but of course the governments don't do it because they have >some kind of conscience - they wouldn't go to the expense of starting a war >if they didn't have anything more concrete to gain from it... > >

Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that the dominant powers should be allowed to invade any country that they didn't like, just because they felt it would be a better place after being taken over by the west. That sounds like some kind of roadmap for world domination. -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Don't forget the governments of countries who were against it. Were > they very stupid? Or did they just have a clearer picture of what was > going on here? No, they just didn't mind somebody like Saddam Hussein doing tragic things to his people. Which to my mind is pretty damn bad in itself. > How can being anti-war be very stupid? We don't appear to be under any > kind of threat, and never were, yet you seem to be of the opinion that, > if a country can't sort itself out according to the west's criteria for > what is acceptable, then it should go in and start killing people and > that'll solve everything. No, just get rid of the leadership, who are causing the problem, as a last resort. Surely it's not acceptable in the Mid-East to launch chemical weapons on your own population? > Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that the dominant > powers should be allowed to invade any country that they didn't like, > just because they felt it would be a better place after being taken over > by the west. No, I don't want it taken over by the West at all, we're not exactly great examples, just the brutal dictators removed and replaced with people who can stick to the good side of basic human rights is enough for me. We might not be great but at least we have some rules to safeguard the population from the government. > That sounds like some kind of roadmap for world > domination. That sounds like something you heard on a TV show... ;-) Nick

In article <bbtije$dec1u$[email hidden]>, Nick <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (19 lines)

>"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in >message >news:[email hidden]... >> Don't forget the governments of countries who were against it. Were >> they very stupid? Or did they just have a clearer picture of what was >> going on here? > >No, they just didn't mind somebody like Saddam Hussein doing tragic things >to his people. Which to my mind is pretty damn bad in itself. > >> How can being anti-war be very stupid? We don't appear to be under any >> kind of threat, and never were, yet you seem to be of the opinion that, >> if a country can't sort itself out according to the west's criteria for >> what is acceptable, then it should go in and start killing people and >> that'll solve everything. > >No, just get rid of the leadership, who are causing the problem, as a last >resort. Surely it's not acceptable in the Mid-East to launch chemical >weapons on your own population?

Something that happened over 15 years ago. Why make it an issue now? Why try to use it now as the reason that we rid Iraq of Saddam? There was no urgent need to get in there and prevent this happening today.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that the dominant >> powers should be allowed to invade any country that they didn't like, >> just because they felt it would be a better place after being taken over >> by the west. > >No, I don't want it taken over by the West at all, we're not exactly great >examples, just the brutal dictators removed and replaced with people who >can >stick to the good side of basic human rights is enough for me. We might not >be great but at least we have some rules to safeguard the population from >the government. >

Which is all fine and dandy, but that is not why we invaded. We were sold the idea that we were under threat. If the government(s) of the time can convince us of this once, then who is to say they cannot do so again, just because there is a regime in place that is anti the west and some of the western powers get a little jumpy. I have less qualms over a United National Agreement against human rights atrocities on ones own people, with the aim to remove the dictator in question, but this has to be the initial basis for invasion, not because some countries are getting a little jittery and decide to take it upon themselves to do something about it and then shout about human rights atrocities after they struggle to come up with any proof for their original invasion. >> That sounds like some kind of roadmap for world >> domination. > >That sounds like something you heard on a TV show... ;-) >No. All my own work. I do prefer to make my own mind up on what I accept as truth and how I put things across, rather than regurgitate what I have heard from others. :) Mind you, I can't resist just this one: The first casualty of war is the truth. -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Hcnq$[email hidden]... > >Surely it's not acceptable in the Mid-East to launch chemical > >weapons on your own population? > > Something that happened over 15 years ago. Why make it an issue now? > Why try to use it now as the reason that we rid Iraq of Saddam? There > was no urgent need to get in there and prevent this happening today. No, but we were in there non-preemptively when Saddam started a war back in 1991, and after it was all finished, we took the cowards way out and said that we'd forget all the bad stuff he did and let him stay in power, *if* he obeyed some UN defined rules. He has broken these rules so often that eventually something has to be done, otherwise other rogue states could see that the UN is just pointless and weak. But then thanks to some certain countries, the UN dissolved it's own power and respect, leaving some countries (US, UK, Aus, et al) to break off and do what the UN should have done. I think there was an urgent need to get rid of Saddam, and we gave him over a decade to prove that he was going to stop doing what he was doing, which is a whole bunch of 'last chances', but he didn't change, so something had to be done. Imagine if Hitler hadn't killed himself after all the terrible things he did, and the Allies decided to leave him in power as long as he 'changed his ways'... > >No, I don't want it taken over by the West at all, we're not exactlygreat > >examples, just the brutal dictators removed and replaced with people who > >can > >stick to the good side of basic human rights is enough for me. We mightnot

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >be great but at least we have some rules to safeguard the population from > >the government. > > > > Which is all fine and dandy, but that is not why we invaded. We were > sold the idea that we were under threat. If the government(s) of the > time can convince us of this once, then who is to say they cannot do so > again, just because there is a regime in place that is anti the west and > some of the western powers get a little jumpy.

I wasn't 'sold' anything. The fact is, war is bad, and there are a helluva lot of people in the US and UK who don't really know (or have forgotten) all the bad things Saddam has done, and trying to convince those people that a pre-emptive war is the best course of action is pretty hard. I would have just listed the bad things Saddam has done, compared him to Hitler and then asked everybody to make up their own mind, but it's a lot easier to say "Do you want another 9/11?" to get the public on your side.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I have less qualms over a United National Agreement against human rights > atrocities on ones own people, with the aim to remove the dictator in > question, but this has to be the initial basis for invasion, not because > some countries are getting a little jittery and decide to take it upon > themselves to do something about it and then shout about human rights > atrocities after they struggle to come up with any proof for their > original invasion.

That's fair enough, though the human rights issue was big enough that if they didn't find any WMD as soon as they went in, they could 'fall back' on it as still a perfectly valid reason for getting rid of Saddam. The news media will have long forgotten about The Gulf War, 2003, before they actually find any WMD, but they knew that before they went in. They don't just leave chemical weapons lying around on street corners, even Hans Blix might notice that...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >> That sounds like some kind of roadmap for world > >> domination. > > > >That sounds like something you heard on a TV show... ;-) > > > No. All my own work. I do prefer to make my own mind up on what I > accept as truth and how I put things across, rather than regurgitate > what I have heard from others. :)

It's not often people do that, so fair play to you. Nick

In article <bbuvur$dhv4q$[email hidden]>, Nick <[email hidden]> writes ><big snippage> > >It's not often people do that, so fair play to you. > >Nick >Anyway Nick, cheers for the discussion. It's been interesting, but I fear its starting to drag on a bit too long for this ng. I'm always happy to listen to all sides of the argument, even when perhaps at first they appear completely opposed to my viewpoint. And, at least we didn't resort to just hurling abuse at each other. A rarity on newsnet. There's hope for humanity yet. :) -- Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington) Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :) GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77

"Peter Ives" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > In article <bbuvur$dhv4q$[email hidden]>, Nick > <[email hidden]> writes > > > >It's not often people do that, so fair play to you. > > > Anyway Nick, cheers for the discussion. And to you, buddy. Nick

On 5 Jun 2003 22:12:31 -0500, Squidley wrote: > Is RASCAR any good ? I have been lurking here since N4 days when I " > discovered sim racing. Somewhat jaded on the Open Setup scene and wondering > if maybe "Fixed" setup racing would be better. I always read through the > posts for whatever the race is for the week, they can be very illuminating, > if not entertaining. RASCAR is a good environment to learn N200X racing online proper. Just drop a note in the forum on www.racesimcentral.com to get yourself registered. Looking forward to seeing you on the track! Cheers, uwe PS: for ON-offtopic content: Please all read "Ishmael" by Dan Quinn, but I think I pointed this book out to you before ;-) -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61