| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 156 days to go.. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
In article , rgrew176
@aol.com says... Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction You've completely missed the point Dave. No one questions the possibility the WMDs were there. The complaint is how we went there to solve the problem. No consensus, no coalition, no use of diplomacy. A march to war on trumped up information (leave WMDs behind a moment), beating the drums ever louder -- foregoing diplomatic resolutions for a **** you, get out of my way, he's toast approach. It's the unilateral approach that has America completely responsible militarily, monetarily, ethically, morally responsible for the outcome. Our kids lives and our cash at risk. Bush is finally getting around to the true ambition of this administration, to shove democracy down the throats of the mideast. As many of the rec.boats contributors have been telling you and others, the basis of this action can be found in the treatises written by the political alliance known as Project for the New American Century. It's based on the 1970s movement initiated by Kissinger and has as its founding premise the idea that controlling the mideast is manditory if the US expects to remain the only superpower. It's not about having control of the oil product, it's about holding sway in the territory. That insures it doesn't fall into the wrong hands and the ability to have a hand in determining world oil pricing. Now, you are finally hearing Bush's long term plan. It's not about terrorism or Osama bin Laden. It's about influencing control over the region. So, the American public has been sold a bill of goods based on a movement that was in place long before the events of 911. Bush and Rice decided within days to use the events to draw Iraq into the the fray. So, have fun pointing at trees Dave, but don't forget to notice the forest. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
jps wrote:
In article , rgrew176 @aol.com says... Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction You've completely missed the point Dave. No one questions the possibility the WMDs were there. Oh really? It was not that long ago that you were on that bandwagon where you were claiming that there were no WMD and that the war "was all about oil". The complaint is how we went there to solve the problem. No consensus, no coalition, no use of diplomacy. We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us. A march to war on trumped up information According to which facts? (leave WMDs behind a moment), beating the drums ever louder -- foregoing diplomatic resolutions for a **** you, get out of my way, he's toast approach. Diplomacy had been going on for the last 12 years. Technically, since the conditions of the UN resolution which ended the Gulf war, have been violated, we were doing nothing more than finding Saddam in default, and resuming what we stopped 12 years ago. It's the unilateral approach that has America completely responsible militarily, monetarily, ethically, morally responsible for the outcome. Our kids lives and our cash at risk. Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your premise is flawed. Bush is finally getting around to the true ambition of this administration, to shove democracy down the throats of the mideast. And that's a bad thing? That people have self determination? Would they rather have someone tell them what to do and threaten their families if they don't? As many of the rec.boats contributors have been telling you and others, the basis of this action can be found in the treatises written by the political alliance known as Project for the New American Century. Even if true, what is fundamentally wrong with getting everyone on the same page? There would be less potential for conflict if we were all allowed the same freedoms. It's based on the 1970s movement initiated by Kissinger and has as its founding premise the idea that controlling the mideast is manditory if the US expects to remain the only superpower. Not exactly. It's not about US supremecy as it is about global cohesion. It's not about having control of the oil product, it's about holding sway in the territory. What happened to your old "it's about the oil" cry? That insures it doesn't fall into the wrong hands and the ability to have a hand in determining world oil pricing. Now, you are finally hearing Bush's long term plan. It's not about terrorism or Osama bin Laden. It's about influencing control over the region. We don't "control" our own country. Control implies a dictatorship-like regime. Establishing a freely elected democracy is hardly "controlling" it. We might be pushing history along a little faster, but the end result is worth it. So, the American public has been sold a bill of goods based on a movement that was in place long before the events of 911. Bush and Rice decided within days to use the events to draw Iraq into the the fray. Again, where are your facts? Who is your "deep throat"? So, have fun pointing at trees Dave, but don't forget to notice the forest. I find it curious, although not that all surprising that you don't find it the least bit disengenuous that those quoted people have shifted their viewpoints so radically and in such a partisan way. Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
WaIIy wrote:
The leftists clouded obsession with power and control renders all fairness and reasonable thought null and void. Coming from a flatliner like "Wally," this has to be one of the funniest posts ever. Come on, Wally, admit it: you've never had an *actual* thought in your entire life. There's nothing in your head that wasn't programmed into it by the BORG who control *your* president. -- Email sent to is never read. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us. A coalition could be considered: 1) Other countries sending soldiers. 2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance. Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution. The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with security. A coalition is NOT: 1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn. So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a "coalition"? Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your premise is flawed. In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present day, you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S. president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't cooperate. Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2? |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us. A coalition could be considered: 1) Other countries sending soldiers. 2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance. Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution. The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with security. A coalition is NOT: 1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn. So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a "coalition"? Why, it would be identical with the way the Bush Administration describes it, of course. Dave is a mindless supporter of and beliver in the Bush Administration. -- Email sent to is never read. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 You know, I'm surprised that a Bush apologist would ever post this. Look at the statement by Clinton. In 1998, Clinton is concerned about denying Iraq "the capacity to develop" weapons of mass destruction. By one means or another. Just a few years later, Bush announces that Iraq has been stockpiling all sort s of evil crap for many years, has a huge pile that he's just aching to dump on the US, and that our only course of action is a military invasion and a regime change. You know what is so easily overlooked anymore? That "accounting" for the WMD that the US demanded and that Iraq delivered last winter. The enormously detailed, several thousand page document that Bush dismissed as "all lies!" almost as soon as it was received. So far, the evidence (or lack of same) suggests that the Iraqi accounting was a lot more accurate than Bush's characterization of same as a "lie." |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still, way short of 40 countries. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still, way short of 40 countries. It was a misuse of the word "coalition" from the get-go. The current Bush-shippers were trying to get the public to recall the "coalition" put together by Bush I, which truly was a coalition, and to conclude that a similar worldwide effort was taking place in 2003. The current Bush-shippers love to play word games with Boobus Americanus and, as you can see by the posts of many of the right-wingers here, they are successful. There are very, very few "coalition" forces in Iraq these days, and this is a direct result of the failure of the Bush-shippers "diplomatic" efforts and their failure and unwillingness to get the UN directly involved in a major way. In fact, the current Bush-shippers offered some major bribes to potential "coalition" forces to get them to commit troops. In almost all cases, the offer of bribery failed. Bush himself is a liar, a coward, and a cheat of the first magnitude. These days he may be "loyal" to his wife, but he certainly isn't loyal to what have been considered the traditional American virtues and values. The idiot has eroded our position all over the world. He will be recalled years from now as one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States. But, hey, he does give his fellow right-wingers The Big Erection. -- Email sent to is never read. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"thunder" wrote in message
... On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:16:58 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. Don't forget the Australians. They had special forces in Iraq. Still, way short of 40 countries. Right. I forgot them. That makes 4 countries. Maybe Dave's right about a coalition. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... We had a coalition of over 40 countries. While we were the big dog in the pond, we were hardly alone. In fact, had it not been for France Genrmany and Russia, the UN would likely have gone along with us. A coalition could be considered: 1) Other countries sending soldiers. 2) Other countries sending any other kind of material assistance. Spain sent a hospital ship, which I understand made a great contribution. The British sent troops. Recently, Poland and Ukraine have assisted with security. Then there is Italy and Australia. Turkey provided some support as well. How many countries does it take to be considered a "coalition" by your definition? A coalition is NOT: 1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn. And I can find this in which dictionary? Or are you speculating again? So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a "coalition"? A group of countries united toward a common goal. Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your premise is flawed. In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present day, you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S. president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't cooperate. Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2? Does it really matter? Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
jps wrote:
In article , says... On 11 Nov 2003 07:02:52 GMT, (RGrew176) wrote: Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 They don't forget. The leftists clouded obsession with power and control renders all fairness and reasonable thought null and void. Do we really think Harry believes half the stuff he posts here and in other groups (under different names) as a paid democratic party shill? Of course not, he and they don't care. The recent memo which the democrats don't deny is easy recent proof of any means to their ends, which is power and control. And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact. You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those "editorials" which support your biased viewpoint? In reality (which is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal motives for what he says here so speculative. The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism. And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is even more outrageous. And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is even more outrageous. My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and you break out of your box to your true remailing self. Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. The sad irony is that you can't even see it. Dave Have a nice day. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
In article ,
says... jps wrote: In article , says... On 11 Nov 2003 07:02:52 GMT, (RGrew176) wrote: Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 They don't forget. The leftists clouded obsession with power and control renders all fairness and reasonable thought null and void. Do we really think Harry believes half the stuff he posts here and in other groups (under different names) as a paid democratic party shill? Of course not, he and they don't care. The recent memo which the democrats don't deny is easy recent proof of any means to their ends, which is power and control. And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact. You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those "editorials" which support your biased viewpoint? I cut and paste for your edificcation. You're showing little, if any signs of progress. In reality (which is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal motives for what he says here so speculative. The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism. What does this have to do with Wilbur speculating on Harry's personal motives? Harry is a person who's stating his opinions. The Bush administration isn't. Do you portend to know more about the motives of the Bush Admimistration than Joe blow from Hackensack? Have you read the New American Century doctrine? Do you know who Ken Lay is? Blue Skies, No Child Left Behind, Terrorists and those who harbor them? What is there to know other than this? And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is even more outrageous. And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is even more outrageous. There's research and reasoning behind journalism. There's nothing but innuendo, hate and assumed conclusion behind Rush. Taken apart, it's nothing. Wilbur made a bunch of assumptions about Harry and then came to a conclusion based on those assumption. Your logic is flawed, your loyalties are clear. You have nothing in that head resembling independent thought. Dave, did you ever approach your wife to ask her if she thinks the government shoud have a say is whether she should procreate or not. My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and you break out of your box to your true remailing self. Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. I don't remail vile crap. If I write it I post it under my own handle. The sad irony is that you can't even see it. See what? See, I'm using your logic now. The sad part of this is that you'd spend so much time mounting such weak arguments. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Then there is Italy and Australia. Turkey provided some support as well. How many countries does it take to be considered a "coalition" by your definition? Turkey wanted to send troops, against our wishes, because we felt it would cause friction with the Kurds, remember? Turkey was ****ed off at us for months. If I recall, they didn't even want us using their air space. A coalition is NOT: 1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn. And I can find this in which dictionary? Or are you speculating again? You want a dictionary which tells you what a word does NOT mean??? Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca plants and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return, unless they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of the coalition? So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a "coalition"? A group of countries united toward a common goal. But, what about the specific "40" figure? That's what your president is claiming. Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your premise is flawed. In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present day, you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S. president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't cooperate. Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2? Does it really matter? It certainly does matter, if a large portion of the American people believe that 40 countries are behind this. No aspect of a war should be built on lies. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
jps wrote:
And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact. You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those "editorials" which support your biased viewpoint? I cut and paste for your edificcation. You're showing little, if any signs of progress. Your biased opinions are not enlightening. That you pass them off as fact is intellectually irresponsible. In reality (which is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal motives for what he says here so speculative. The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism. What does this have to do with Wilbur speculating on Harry's personal motives? Principle. Something you should "edify" yourself on. Harry is a person who's stating his opinions. The Bush administration isn't. No, but you claiming certain things about the Bush Administration's motives is stating your opinion. And like in your example of Wilbur and Harry, you know nothing about it. Do you portend to know more about the motives of the Bush Admimistration than Joe blow from Hackensack? No, and I don't attempt to present myself as if I do. Have you read the New American Century doctrine? Do you know who Ken Lay is? Blue Skies, No Child Left Behind, Terrorists and those who harbor them? Yes, so what's your point? Can you prove any of these alleged "connections"? Until you can, you're only speculating. What is there to know other than this? If you had any character and intellectual honesty, you'd already know the answwer to this. And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is even more outrageous. And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is even more outrageous. There's research and reasoning behind journalism. There's nothing but innuendo, hate and assumed conclusion behind Rush. Again, your opinion. Most of what I've heard Rush state, are true happenings. He may spin them a little more to appeal to certain emotions, but the underlying factoid is true. And calling the liberals for the manipulative, scheming, divisive, and conniving weasels that they are, is not "hate" it's bringing appalling activities into the public light. Taken apart, it's nothing. Wilbur made a bunch of assumptions about Harry and then came to a conclusion based on those assumption. Much like you do when you read (and then post here) the political tripe that you think is "objective journalism". Your logic is flawed, your loyalties are clear. You have nothing in that head resembling independent thought. My logic is, as always, sound. That you cannot see that you are guilty of the same things that you accuse others of is almost laughable. Dave, did you ever approach your wife to ask her if she thinks the government shoud have a say is whether she should procreate or not. Did you ask your wife whether she thinks the government should take more of her money to feed and care for illegal aliens? My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and you break out of your box to your true remailing self. Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. I don't remail vile crap. If I write it I post it under my own handle. But it's still crap. The sad irony is that you can't even see it. See what? See, I'm using your logic now. The sad part of this is that you'd spend so much time mounting such weak arguments. But at least my arguements are based on more than speculative opinions. Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Then there is Italy and Australia. Turkey provided some support as well. How many countries does it take to be considered a "coalition" by your definition? Turkey wanted to send troops, against our wishes, because we felt it would cause friction with the Kurds, remember? Turkey was ****ed off at us for months. If I recall, they didn't even want us using their air space. But they eventually capitulated. And they had always supported our position. A coalition is NOT: 1) 40 countries whose sole contribution was an agreement not to publicly criticize our plan, in return for which they'd get some sort of financial aid, or not have existing aid reduced or withdrawn. And I can find this in which dictionary? Or are you speculating again? You want a dictionary which tells you what a word does NOT mean??? If you knew any logic, you could then infer that since you know what something is NOT, then there must be a difinitive definition of what something IS, in order to make that comparision. My dictionary provides the following meaning of the term coalition: "An alliance or union, especially a temporary one" Not one specific number of participants is mentioned. So, once again, your premise is flawed. Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca plants and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return, unless they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of the coalition? I am not aware of any contribution made by Columbia. I doubt that "making farmer's children ill" was the intent behind what they did. That sounds like more typical liberal spin. It sounds more like increased efforts to stem drug production and traffic. A good thing IMHO. So, where does the number 40 come from, Dave? What is YOUR definition of a "coalition"? A group of countries united toward a common goal. But, what about the specific "40" figure? That's what your president is claiming. That is the number that's been quoted. Since no one credible has publically disputed this easily verifiable number, I can only assume that it's accurate. But again, in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter whether that number is 40 or 30 or 50, or even 10? It's still a coalition in any case. Since we did not "go it alone", it was not unilateral. Therefore your premise is flawed. In terms of sheer numbers of soldiers placed in harm's way from the first day of battle, the British were the only ones who contributed, in addition to the aforementioned medical contribution by Spain. If you'll read some history going back to World War II, and as far forward as the present day, you'll run across the term "the special relationship" used by every U.S. president and every British prime minister. Because of that "special relationship", it'll be a cold day in hell when we and the British don't cooperate. Does a coalition consist of 2-1/2? Does it really matter? It certainly does matter, if a large portion of the American people believe that 40 countries are behind this. No aspect of a war should be built on lies. No one has proven that this was not the true number. You stating it as if it was a "lie" is based only your own speculation. On the other hand, if the true number turns out to be 38, are you going to jump up and down and scream "See! I told you it was a lie!". Again, what's the difference really? Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca plants and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return, unless they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of the coalition? I am not aware of any contribution made by Columbia. I doubt that "making farmer's children ill" was the intent behind what they did. That sounds like more typical liberal spin. It sounds more like increased efforts to stem drug production and traffic. A good thing IMHO. 1) They were asked to participate with soldiers. They did not. No big deal. Lots of countries said "no, thanks". 2) In the same way congressman will write a piece of legislation regarding highway funds, and tag on some totally unrelated nonsense declaring a National Tampon Day, the Colombians negotiated more aid for their anti-drug exercises. A number of African countries also negotiated more aid, in return for....what? Probably an agreement to vote a certain way if we ever consult the U.N. again on terrorism issues. None of this is surprising, but it shouldn't be called a "coalition". 3) News you're not aware of: Drug lords in Colombia force small farmers to plant coca mixed in with food crops. The government spots the coca plants from the air and drops herbicides on them. People are reporting lots of health problems which are known to the companies which make these herbicides. The companies are not claiming the stuff is safe on food crops. It's the type of stuff highway crews sometimes use to control weeds. It's not meant to be used anywhere near food crops. 4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may still have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of drug laws. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"jps" wrote in message
... Appalling activities like Head Start.....snip Head Start is pure nonsense. If infants can't earn a living and buy their own damned baby formula or day care, I say phuck 'em. It makes no sense to introduce people to welfare at such a young age. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
jps wrote:
In article , says... jps wrote: And, as usual, you attempt to state opinion as fact. You mean like the way you do when you cut and paste all those "editorials" which support your biased viewpoint? I cut and paste for your edificcation. You're showing little, if any signs of progress. Your biased opinions are not enlightening. That you pass them off as fact is intellectually irresponsible. I do not "pass them off as fact" I merely post them to perhaps soften your thick skull. You're probably not the best subject. If the information that you present, is full of obvious bias and hides a hidden agenda, how does that convince me to consider it with anything more than the skepticism it deserves? In reality (which is difficult enough for you) you know nothing about Harry and speculating on his being a paid political operative and his personal motives for what he says here so speculative. The same way that you know nothing about the inner workings of the Bush Adminmistration or the war on terrorism, other than what you read in the speculative tripe that you pass off as "objective" journalism. What does this have to do with Wilbur speculating on Harry's personal motives? Principle. Something you should "edify" yourself on. WTF are you talking about? Principle? How are these two things related by principle? The Bush Administration's policies are stated publicly and we have plenty of smart people's insight from which to draw. I don't know how you could consider Wilbur an expert on Harry's private affairs since Harry doesn't publish them nor is it in any way obvious the nature of his motivation other than as a past time. Harry "publishes" his opinions every time he hits the send key on this newsgroup. He's as easy to read as all those "smart" people you allude to, who you seem to feel have the inside track to the inner workings of the Bush administration. In other words neither are any more credible. Get the picture yet? You are the one who needs edifying on Principles. Talk to your wife about the government's desire to control her reproductive rights. Let us all know what she says and tell us about how your principles match up. You really area a one hit wonder aren't you? What difference does it make what my wife thinks? She might think that it's ok to shoot liberals on sight, but that doesn't make it right does it? Harry is a person who's stating his opinions. The Bush administration isn't. No, but you claiming certain things about the Bush Administration's motives is stating your opinion. And like in your example of Wilbur and Harry, you know nothing about it. Do you portend to know more about the motives of the Bush Admimistration than Joe blow from Hackensack? No, and I don't attempt to present myself as if I do. Likewise, my opinions are my opinions. The fact that I present them strongly doesn't preclude that "fact." Right, and especially, it does not give those opinions any more credibility than Wally's opinion of Harry. Have you read the New American Century doctrine? Do you know who Ken Lay is? Blue Skies, No Child Left Behind, Terrorists and those who harbor them? Yes, so what's your point? Can you prove any of these alleged "connections"? Until you can, you're only speculating. Speculating based on stated ambitions and the results of those ambitions? That's not speculation, it's opinion. Look up the definitions and get "edified." Maybe you should take your own advice, since you seem to hold a very narrow definition of the term "speculation". Would you feel more comfortable with the term "conjecture"? Whatever the case, an opinion formed by conjecture is not necessarily a credible one. What is there to know other than this? If you had any character and intellectual honesty, you'd already know the answwer to this. Again, go ask your wife about her rights to reproduce or not. Until then, don'talk to me about "intellectual honesty." Yours seems to come straight from the Republican doctrine. My wife would never terminate a pregnancy. She considers it to be murder, as do I. I am a conservative. My views reflect the notion that people assume a degree of personal responsibility for the actions that they engage it. That means playing the cards you are dealt, and not looking to pass the blame off onto other vague entities. A major philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. You probably cast yourself as a "conservative." I have news for you, the Republicans are anything but conservative at this point in history. What would you know about conservatives or republicans? You seem to formulate your opinions based on the opinions of other biased reporters who are anything but impartial. You think conservatives are akin to "nazis". If you only knew how laughable that is to a true conservative. Perhaps you should take this opportunity to "edify" yourself. Once again, you should follow your own advice. And then, just like Rush, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is even more outrageous. And then, just like the numerous leftist news sources that you regularly quote, you use your ill-formed fantasy to make a conclusion, which is even more outrageous. There's research and reasoning behind journalism. There's nothing but innuendo, hate and assumed conclusion behind Rush. Again, your opinion. Most of what I've heard Rush state, are true happenings. He may spin them a little more to appeal to certain emotions, but the underlying factoid is true. And calling the liberals for the manipulative, scheming, divisive, and conniving weasels that they are, is not "hate" it's bringing appalling activities into the public light. Appalling activities like Head Start, protecting the environment, desiring equal education for all, hoping to protect people from cultural and race discrimination, protecting the middle class, trying to create education and jobs for people that'll be more than poverty wage based, etc.??????? How about creation division along socio-economic and racial lines by instituting programs which single out people based on nothing more than skin color or gender? How about the redistribution of wealth from those who worked hard for it, to those who dont? How does increasing income taxes to the middle class protect it? How do you propose the government "create" jobs, when there is no market for them.? Do you know anything about a free market economy? Do you understand what is happeneing in the world, as we become more and more globalized? Have you seen the latest rift where Bush now has to decide whether to lift tariffs on imported steel, or face retaliatory tarriffs placed on our exports by the EU? Do you have any understanding at all that we are not the only player in this market, and can not just "make jobs happen"? I suppose you would then cripple the ability of the remaining manufacturing businesses by requiring them to comply with all sorts of environmental regulations. Do you want jobs, or a squeaky clean environment? If these companies decide that the cost of environmental compliance is greater than the coist to move offshore, who do you blame when they do move off-shore? Can you, in all honesty, blame GWB for the low wages and cheap labor in places like Malaysia? Are American businesses supposed to, out of some sense of duty, remain here, at a competative disadvantage, while foreign companies clean our clocks with cheaper goods? What utopian planet are you spending time on? Wake up man! Things will never be what they were. We have to move forward and adapt to the emerging market, not cry to get back the old one. There's no culture of greed in the liberal doctrine as in the Republican, it's about looking out for others and the world we live in. Right! Liberals want to impress their utopian ideals onto everyone whether they like it or not. Freedom is a farce to liberals. They claim to favor freedom, but the reality is that freedom is what gives people the incentive and the ambition to rise above the common person. Once someone does that, they are demonized as one of the "evil" rich, and subject to liberal scorn and increased taxes. Get a ****ing clue Dave. Rush is there to rip things apart and sell little tiny ideas to dense idiots like yourself. Some day you might wake up and smell the real world for what it is, rather than what you'd like to see. The problem with liberal ideals is that they rely on people to "do the right thing" on their own. Since people will only do what they have to do unless they are forced to, the only way liberal ideals can be implemented is by government mandate; AKA socialism. Socialism removes all incentive to better oneself, because it removes the rewards for doing so. Socialism is nothing more than the breeding ground of mediocrity. Taken apart, it's nothing. Wilbur made a bunch of assumptions about Harry and then came to a conclusion based on those assumption. Much like you do when you read (and then post here) the political tripe that you think is "objective journalism". You rag on me about reading "objective journalism" That's "subjective journalism". There's no objectivity in the biased crap you post. when you listen to the crap that Rush spews??? I don't listen to Rush. I prefer Hannity. He's much more skilled at debate, and presents his points logically. And like that old saying, what's one man's trash (or crap), is another man's treasure (or objective journalism). I find it hypocritical of you to call what I listen to as "crap", while presenting your version of the same as "objective". The only difference is your perspective, and what you want to believe. Since I beleive that a person should be his own master, and be responsible and entitled to the fruits of their efforts and the consequences of failure, I tend to sign on to conservative ideals. I don't believe it's society's or the government's place to make those choices for us. He's admitted publicly that half the **** he comes up with is simply to ignite people and keep his listenership. And the other half is truth. At least journalists are trying to do honest work. You're kidding right? Rush is a bold faced liar. And you can prove this, with something more substantive than the opinions of people with an axe to grind? Did you ask your wife whether she thinks the government should take more of her money to feed and care for illegal aliens? Yes, she's in favor. She wants to make certain kids are fed and given a proper education. Then she should adopt them herself so that she can continue to "help" people to weaken the gene pool, while the rest of us let the chips fall where they would naturally. Now, go ask your wife about her reproductive rights and what the government should be able to demand of her. You're beginning to sound like a broken record. My opinion is that you don't have a clue and that you're only here to yank people's chains. That is until someone refers to you as a worm and you break out of your box to your true remailing self. Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. I don't remail vile crap. If I write it I post it under my own handle. But it's still crap. That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I just thank God it's yours and not mine. It makes it no less valid. Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca plants and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return, unless they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of the coalition? I am not aware of any contribution made by Columbia. I doubt that "making farmer's children ill" was the intent behind what they did. That sounds like more typical liberal spin. It sounds more like increased efforts to stem drug production and traffic. A good thing IMHO. 1) They were asked to participate with soldiers. They did not. No big deal. Lots of countries said "no, thanks". 2) In the same way congressman will write a piece of legislation regarding highway funds, and tag on some totally unrelated nonsense declaring a National Tampon Day, the Colombians negotiated more aid for their anti-drug exercises. A number of African countries also negotiated more aid, in return for....what? Probably an agreement to vote a certain way if we ever consult the U.N. again on terrorism issues. None of this is surprising, but it shouldn't be called a "coalition". File this under the heading "splitting hairs". 3) News you're not aware of: Drug lords in Colombia force small farmers to plant coca mixed in with food crops. Sounds like a problem that the Columbian government should stop. If of course, they're really not a silent party to it. The government spots the coca plants from the air and drops herbicides on them. People are reporting lots of health problems which are known to the companies which make these herbicides. The companies are not claiming the stuff is safe on food crops. It's the type of stuff highway crews sometimes use to control weeds. It's not meant to be used anywhere near food crops. So the problem becomes one of if you want good food, don't plant illegal drug crops. Stop doing that and the problem goes away. 4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may still have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of drug laws. Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of the health of their fellow countrymen. I would organize a revolt against these drug lords, and put the blame for the conmtamination where it belongs, on their shoulders. They need to be run out of Dodge on rails. At some point, when the choice becomes one of living healthy or growing drugs crops, the choice will become easier. Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... 3) News you're not aware of: Drug lords in Colombia force small farmers to plant coca mixed in with food crops. Sounds like a problem that the Columbian government should stop. If of course, they're really not a silent party to it. The drug lords kill anyone they want, including judges, military officers, journalists. The government cannot stop it. The government spots the coca plants from the air and drops herbicides on them. People are reporting lots of health problems which are known to the companies which make these herbicides. The companies are not claiming the stuff is safe on food crops. It's the type of stuff highway crews sometimes use to control weeds. It's not meant to be used anywhere near food crops. So the problem becomes one of if you want good food, don't plant illegal drug crops. Stop doing that and the problem goes away. Do I need to explain everything to you? If they refuse to plant, they're murdered, or they "go away on trips" on never come home. Which newspaper did you say you read regularly, from front to back? 4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may still have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of drug laws. Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of the health of their fellow countrymen. That's roughshoD. And, the druglords do anything they want because they're better equipped than the Colombian military. We continue giving money to the military, but it seems to vanish. I would organize a revolt..... ....and you'd end up tied to the wall of a hut in the jungle, until your captors decided to either kill you or cut you loose. They kill most of their captives. Here's a crazy thought, although you'll never follow through because you're a unpatriotic little pussy: Write to your representatives and tell them 30 years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more money for Colombia. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Tourists Taken in Colombia Shown in Video
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/inte...apped-Tourists ..html Organize a revolt, Dave. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
A little more "local flavor" from South American, Dave:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...6A35752C1A9659 C8B63 World Briefing | Americas: Ecuador: Account Of Arms Trafficking Rejected By Juan Forero (NYT) The government said its ambassador to Colombia would not be returning to his post until Colombia's president, Álvaro Uribe, offered an explanation for his assertion that rogue Ecuadorean military officers had furnished Colombian leftist rebels with a rocket launcher used in a failed assassination attempt last month. The government recalled the ambassador on Friday, after Mr. Uribe said the weapon used by rebels who tried to kill the president of the Colombian cattlemen's association had come from the Ecuadorean military. Ecuadorean Army officers vigorously denied the charge, and Ecuador's president, Lucio Gutiérrez, a former colonel, has supported them, saying Mr. Uribe has shown no proof to back his claim. Juan Forero (NYT) |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
More background info to help Dave when he "organizes a revolt". All articles
were published within the past 30 days. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...08EDDA90994DB4 04482 FOREIGN DESK | October 23, 2003, Thursday Bolivian Leader's Ouster Seen As Warning on U.S. Drug Policy By LARRY ROHTER (NYT) 1257 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 1 , Column 1 ABSTRACT - Overthrow of Pres Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada of Bolivia is potentially crippling blow to Washington's anti-drug policy in Andean region; United States officials minimize importance of drug issue in Sanchez de Lozada's downfall, but many Bolivians and analysts say coca problem is intimately tied to broader issues of impoverishment and disenfranchisement that stoked explosive resentments in Bolivia and fueled month of often violent protests before he stepped down; Bolivian officials recall that Pres Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada told Pres Bush last year that he would push ahead with plan to eradicate coca but that he needed more money to ease impact on farmers, or he would be overthrown; recall that Bush merely wished him good luck; Dr Eduardo Gamarra, Bolivian scholar at Florida International Univ, says events in Bolivia are warning that US drug policy may sow still wider instability in region; US has earmarked $211 million for 'alternative development' program for coca farmers, but critics claim that amount is not enough to compensate all of those whose livelihoods have been destroyed by eradication campaign; photo (M) ================================================== ==== http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...1A15753C1A9659 C8B63 October 22, 2003, Wednesday FOREIGN DESK World Briefing | Americas: Colombia: Mass Arrests Of Politicians Hundreds of police officers and soldiers rounded up at least 25 politicians with suspected ties to leftist guerrillas in raids across the state of Arauca, one of the most violent regions of Colombia. Rights groups denounced the arrests as a government attempt to stifle opposition ahead of elections on Sunday for municipal and state offices. Those arrested included the mayor of the city of Arauca, the president of the regional assembly, a candidate for state governor and five candidates for mayors of towns in the province. Two former Arauca governors were arrested in Bogotá. The attorney general, Luis Camilo Osorio, acknowledged that the timing of the arrests was ''uncomfortable'' while the defense minister, Martha Lucía Ramírez, said, ''Unfortunately, terrorist groups have infiltrated the Department of Arauca at every level.'' October 21, 2003, Tuesday ================================================== ==== http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...2A15753C1A9659 C8B63 FOREIGN DESK World Briefing | Americas: Colombia: Rebel Leader Killed Government troops killed a guerrilla commander accused in the kidnapping in February of three Americans identified as Defense Department contractors, the army said. The rebel, Edgar Gustavo Navarro, second in command of a unit of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, was killed in a gunfight near San Vicente del Caguán, 175 miles southwest of Bogotá. It was doubtful that his death would affect the hostages, who are being guarded by the guerrilla group's high command and who have become potentially valuable leverage for the rebels. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
|
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
jps wrote:
In article , says... My wife would never terminate a pregnancy. She considers it to be murder, as do I. I am a conservative. My views reflect the notion that people assume a degree of personal responsibility for the actions that they engage it. That means playing the cards you are dealt, and not looking to pass the blame off onto other vague entities. A major philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. Your arguments are ill-formed in unsubstantial. I can't afford the time to banter with you. In other words, you are in denial and are unprepared to back up what you believe with anything that resembles logic or rationality. You beliefs are based on superficial sound byte re-enforcement, based on biased opinions of other equally sincere but misguided people. Are you capable of an independant thought or are all of your premises based on cut-N-paste articles? You've avoided answering the question at least 100 times. Does your wife believe the government should be able to command her to bring her pregnancy to full term? They don't have to, since she feels that terminating it early is akin to murder. But since we don't try to prevent murder by forbidding people from coming into contact with one another I guess, by the same token, the government should not prevent people from seeking an abortion. But if someone does it, they should be arrested for murder. Why is the issue of abortion the only one where liberals favor a person's right to choose? When it comes to programs like education, healthcare, retirement, the right to carry arms, etc, you prefer government mandates. Seems a bit duplicitous doesn't it? I can pretty much guarantee you won't answer the question because you probably don't know the answer yourself. And, just so you know, I consider this pure speculation. No assertion of "fact." And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong. Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... 3) News you're not aware of: Drug lords in Colombia force small farmers to plant coca mixed in with food crops. Sounds like a problem that the Columbian government should stop. If of course, they're really not a silent party to it. The drug lords kill anyone they want, including judges, military officers, journalists. The government cannot stop it. Then who is really in charge? Why should thugs be allowed to get away with the things that they do? It's the same thing as what is going on in the middle east. Why should thugs be allowed to hold the civilized world hostage to their demands, while operating above the law, and with little regard for their fellow humans? All the while, those who would seek to end this sort of rogue tyrrany are prevented from doing so by humanitarian restraint. The government spots the coca plants from the air and drops herbicides on them. People are reporting lots of health problems which are known to the companies which make these herbicides. The companies are not claiming the stuff is safe on food crops. It's the type of stuff highway crews sometimes use to control weeds. It's not meant to be used anywhere near food crops. So the problem becomes one of if you want good food, don't plant illegal drug crops. Stop doing that and the problem goes away. Do I need to explain everything to you? If they refuse to plant, they're murdered, or they "go away on trips" on never come home. Which newspaper did you say you read regularly, from front to back? I know that. The point is, and the one you are trying to make here is that the druggies threaten the farmers. The government poisons the crops. So rather than put the blame on the drug lords for causing the problem in the first place, you cite their seeming invincibility as a justification for the government to just allow them to grow illegal crops, and to show compassion for the farmers by not attempting to enforce the law You do know what message that would send don't you? 4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may still have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of drug laws. Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of the health of their fellow countrymen. That's roughshoD. And, the druglords do anything they want because they're better equipped than the Colombian military. We continue giving money to the military, but it seems to vanish. Gee, maybe GWB should send in the next group of troops there huh? I would organize a revolt..... ...and you'd end up tied to the wall of a hut in the jungle, until your captors decided to either kill you or cut you loose. They kill most of their captives. Who would plant the crops if all the farmers are dead? Here's a crazy thought, although you'll never follow through because you're a unpatriotic little pussy: How do you know how patriotic I am? I support our effort to erradicate terrorism, and I'm not critical of our leaders' intentions for petty reasons when a united front is necessary to achieve this goal. So what's your excuse? Write to your representatives and tell them 30 years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more money for Colombia. I don't agree. We need to form a combined task force to sweep in and burn the druggies out. Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... The drug lords kill anyone they want, including judges, military officers, journalists. The government cannot stop it. Then who is really in charge? Why should thugs be allowed to get away with the things that they do? It's the same thing as what is going on in the middle east. Why should thugs be allowed to hold the civilized world hostage to their demands, while operating above the law, and with little regard for their fellow humans? All the while, those who would seek to end this sort of rogue tyrrany are prevented from doing so by humanitarian restraint. Why should thugs be allowed to get away with the things that they do? Dave, there are countries in South America, Central America and Africa which have been that way since I first became clearly aware of history, in the mid 1960s. Ever heard the term "banana republic"? It's got nothing to do with clothing stores. Most intelligent historians attribute the problem to the Cold War, when the U.S. and the USSR said "eenie meenie minie mo" and chose which little countries were going to be their "allies". Meaning: We both wanted a few friendly places to park our spies. By doing so, we labeled the countries as "right" or "left". And, within each country various factions labeled each other that way. Even the Catholic church earned a different label depending on which country was doing the labeling and how powerful the clergy was in terms of influencing the local "jefe" (boss). We and the Soviets sent arms to these countries. Many of them are still buying arms from us. We set up a cycle that may never end. If YOU can come up with a solution, you'll win a Nobel prize. But you'll have to become better informed. Humanitarian restraint? Who do you feel is subject to that in Colombia? Do I need to explain everything to you? If they refuse to plant, they're murdered, or they "go away on trips" on never come home. Which newspaper did you say you read regularly, from front to back? I know that. The point is, and the one you are trying to make here is that the druggies threaten the farmers. The government poisons the crops. So rather than put the blame on the drug lords for causing the problem in the first place, you cite their seeming invincibility as a justification for the government to just allow them to grow illegal crops, and to show compassion for the farmers by not attempting to enforce the law You do know what message that would send don't you? Let me see if I understand: You have herbicides which the manufacturer honestly says will make people hideously ill if used on food crops. You use it anyway, knowing full well that you will sicken your own citizens. What message does THAT send? "You have a choice of being killed quickly by criminals, or killed slowly by your own government. Choose." Is that the message? 4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may still have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of drug laws. Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of the health of their fellow countrymen. That's roughshoD. And, the druglords do anything they want because they're better equipped than the Colombian military. We continue giving money to the military, but it seems to vanish. Gee, maybe GWB should send in the next group of troops there huh? Pretend you're the president. Please describe clearly the reason you'd give the American people for such a military action. I would organize a revolt..... ...and you'd end up tied to the wall of a hut in the jungle, until your captors decided to either kill you or cut you loose. They kill most of their captives. Who would plant the crops if all the farmers are dead? I was referring not to the farmers, but to government officials, clergy, foreign reporters and workers. Are you aware that 3 American civilians are still being held hostage down there? I thought you told me that you DO read or listen to legitimate news sources. Read the link below. This was on 60 Minutes a month or so ago. The story's been kept sort of quiet because our government has some other weird reason for not wanting to move on it. http://www.heldhostageincolombia.com/synopsis.html Here's a crazy thought, although you'll never follow through because you're a unpatriotic little pussy: How do you know how patriotic I am? I support our effort to erradicate terrorism, and I'm not critical of our leaders' intentions for petty reasons when a united front is necessary to achieve this goal. So what's your excuse? Write to your representatives and tell them 30 years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more money for Colombia. I don't agree. We need to form a combined task force to sweep in and burn the druggies out. Yeah. OK, Dave. We'll just sweep right in there. Do you know that opium's being grown again on a large scale basis in Afghanistan, and we know about it? As a longtime knowledgable gardener, you know that in many parts of that country, there's little else that'll grow well enough to be of economic use to the natives. You really are a mess. Beginning this weekend, you will begin reading the Sunday NY Times and Washington Post from beginning to end. And, you'll listen to both the morning and evening NPR news broadcasts. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
In article ,
says... jps wrote: In article , says... My wife would never terminate a pregnancy. She considers it to be murder, as do I. I am a conservative. My views reflect the notion that people assume a degree of personal responsibility for the actions that they engage it. That means playing the cards you are dealt, and not looking to pass the blame off onto other vague entities. A major philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. Your arguments are ill-formed in unsubstantial. I can't afford the time to banter with you. In other words, you are in denial and are unprepared to back up what you believe with anything that resembles logic or rationality. You beliefs are based on superficial sound byte re-enforcement, based on biased opinions of other equally sincere but misguided people. Are you capable of an independant thought or are all of your premises based on cut-N-paste articles? JESUS CHRIST DAVE!!! You're an incredible regurgitator of that which you've been accused. Not even a nice try. I'm on the verge of regarding you as a borg. You've avoided answering the question at least 100 times. Does your wife believe the government should be able to command her to bring her pregnancy to full term? They don't have to, since she feels that terminating it early is akin to murder. But since we don't try to prevent murder by forbidding people from coming into contact with one another I guess, by the same token, the government should not prevent people from seeking an abortion. But if someone does it, they should be arrested for murder. Why is the issue of abortion the only one where liberals favor a person's right to choose? When it comes to programs like education, healthcare, retirement, the right to carry arms, etc, you prefer government mandates. Seems a bit duplicitous doesn't it? I can pretty much guarantee you won't answer the question because you probably don't know the answer yourself. And, just so you know, I consider this pure speculation. No assertion of "fact." And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong. I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire to control her birth rights. You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to come crashing down around you. Dave Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"jps" wrote in message
... And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong. I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire to control her birth rights. You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to come crashing down around you. Dave Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever. He's afraid to talk to his own wife. That'll blow up in his face when the children are grown and out of the house. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Doug Kanter wrote:
"jps" wrote in message ... And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong. I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire to control her birth rights. You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to come crashing down around you. Dave Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever. He's afraid to talk to his own wife. That'll blow up in his face when the children are grown and out of the house. Speculating again? You're good at it, if nothing else. Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
jps wrote:
In article , says... jps wrote: In article , says... My wife would never terminate a pregnancy. She considers it to be murder, as do I. I am a conservative. My views reflect the notion that people assume a degree of personal responsibility for the actions that they engage it. That means playing the cards you are dealt, and not looking to pass the blame off onto other vague entities. A major philosophical difference between liberals and conservatives. Your arguments are ill-formed in unsubstantial. I can't afford the time to banter with you. In other words, you are in denial and are unprepared to back up what you believe with anything that resembles logic or rationality. You beliefs are based on superficial sound byte re-enforcement, based on biased opinions of other equally sincere but misguided people. Are you capable of an independant thought or are all of your premises based on cut-N-paste articles? JESUS CHRIST DAVE!!! You're an incredible regurgitator of that which you've been accused. Which you are evidently equally guilty of. You have yet to substantiate any position you hold with anything more than cut and past articles. You state many times that you diagree with conservate ideals, yet you offer no rational reason why any of us should agree with you. Sound bytes and catch phrases designed to appeal to emotions are hardly evidence enough. When have I ever used cut and paste articles to make my point? You are such a hypocrite, you can't even see it. Not even a nice try. I'm on the verge of regarding you as a borg. And until you can debate the issues with any depth beyond the sound-byte level, I will regard you as a simpleton. You've avoided answering the question at least 100 times. Does your wife believe the government should be able to command her to bring her pregnancy to full term? They don't have to, since she feels that terminating it early is akin to murder. But since we don't try to prevent murder by forbidding people from coming into contact with one another I guess, by the same token, the government should not prevent people from seeking an abortion. But if someone does it, they should be arrested for murder. Why is the issue of abortion the only one where liberals favor a person's right to choose? When it comes to programs like education, healthcare, retirement, the right to carry arms, etc, you prefer government mandates. Seems a bit duplicitous doesn't it? I can pretty much guarantee you won't answer the question because you probably don't know the answer yourself. And, just so you know, I consider this pure speculation. No assertion of "fact." And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong. I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire to control her birth rights. I'll make you a deal. If you can explain to me why a woman's right to kill an unborn child should supercede that child's right to life, and you can function on that level, I'll be more than happy to discuss the dynamics of this issue. I refuse to give you a one dimensional answer to such a multi-dimensional question. And you also need to answer the question I posed to you about why liberals are so gung-ho on the abortion choice issue, but shy away from other issues of choice. Now try to explain that duplicity to me, if you can. You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to come crashing down around you. My self esteem is hardly defined by simple recreational pleasures such as the intellectual equivilent of bitch slapping of emotionally blinded liberals, with logic and rationality. I learned to deal with issues starting as a young child. I am hardly a fragile person, and I don't need "therapy"..... Dave Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever. You are not worthy of an answer until you understand the question. Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... The drug lords kill anyone they want, including judges, military officers, journalists. The government cannot stop it. Then who is really in charge? Why should thugs be allowed to get away with the things that they do? It's the same thing as what is going on in the middle east. Why should thugs be allowed to hold the civilized world hostage to their demands, while operating above the law, and with little regard for their fellow humans? All the while, those who would seek to end this sort of rogue tyrrany are prevented from doing so by humanitarian restraint. Why should thugs be allowed to get away with the things that they do? Dave, there are countries in South America, Central America and Africa which have been that way since I first became clearly aware of history, in the mid 1960s. Ever heard the term "banana republic"? It's got nothing to do with clothing stores. Most intelligent historians attribute the problem to the Cold War, when the U.S. and the USSR said "eenie meenie minie mo" and chose which little countries were going to be their "allies". Meaning: We both wanted a few friendly places to park our spies. By doing so, we labeled the countries as "right" or "left". And, within each country various factions labeled each other that way. Even the Catholic church earned a different label depending on which country was doing the labeling and how powerful the clergy was in terms of influencing the local "jefe" (boss). You've just described the problem, now let's hear the solution. We and the Soviets sent arms to these countries. Many of them are still buying arms from us. We set up a cycle that may never end. If YOU can come up with a solution, you'll win a Nobel prize. But you'll have to become better informed. Like many other liberals, you are excellent at outlining problems, but fall far short on offering up solutions. Instead you spend time ridiculing people who do offer solutions, even if they may have a dubious chance of success. I get the distinct impression that you'd prefer to just leave things go as they are, as you don't want to expend the (admittently enourmous) effort to change things for the better. I know that. The point is, and the one you are trying to make here is that the druggies threaten the farmers. The government poisons the crops. So rather than put the blame on the drug lords for causing the problem in the first place, you cite their seeming invincibility as a justification for the government to just allow them to grow illegal crops, and to show compassion for the farmers by not attempting to enforce the law You do know what message that would send don't you? Let me see if I understand: You have herbicides which the manufacturer honestly says will make people hideously ill if used on food crops. You use it anyway, knowing full well that you will sicken your own citizens. What message does THAT send? "You have a choice of being killed quickly by criminals, or killed slowly by your own government. Choose." Is that the message? It's better than doing NOTHING. 4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may still have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing to do with anyone's opinion of drug laws. Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of the health of their fellow countrymen. That's roughshoD. And, the druglords do anything they want because they're better equipped than the Colombian military. We continue giving money to the military, but it seems to vanish. Gee, maybe GWB should send in the next group of troops there huh? Pretend you're the president. Please describe clearly the reason you'd give the American people for such a military action. To rid the world of deviant thugs who have little respet for law, and for other people. I would organize a revolt..... ...and you'd end up tied to the wall of a hut in the jungle, until your captors decided to either kill you or cut you loose. They kill most of their captives. Who would plant the crops if all the farmers are dead? I was referring not to the farmers, but to government officials, clergy, foreign reporters and workers. Are you aware that 3 American civilians are still being held hostage down there? I thought you told me that you DO read or listen to legitimate news sources. Read the link below. This was on 60 Minutes a month or so ago. The story's been kept sort of quiet because our government has some other weird reason for not wanting to move on it. Maybe because the story is lacking in credibility. There are a lot of "stories" that make the rounds in the leftist propaganda rags. You may think the reason that they rarely see the light of day in the mainstream press, is due to some "vast right wing conspiracy" trying to keep a lid on it. The more obvious reason could be that they lack truth. Write to your representatives and tell them 30 years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more money for Colombia. I don't agree. We need to form a combined task force to sweep in and burn the druggies out. Yeah. OK, Dave. We'll just sweep right in there. Do you know that opium's being grown again on a large scale basis in Afghanistan, and we know about it? As a longtime knowledgable gardener, you know that in many parts of that country, there's little else that'll grow well enough to be of economic use to the natives. So once again, you become the apologist. You'd give them a "pass" on growing substances which are illegal in most countries, and which bring nothing but eventual pain and psychological issues to those who use them, becasue you see no alternative? Maybe in places like Afghanistan, farming should not be their main commercial product. You really are a mess. Beginning this weekend, you will begin reading the Sunday NY Times and Washington Post from beginning to end. And, you'll listen to both the morning and evening NPR news broadcasts. If you can prove to me that these are not the left biased propaganda sources that I know they are, then I might consider it. Otherwise I'll stick to more credible sources. Dave |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Let me see if I understand: You have herbicides which the manufacturer honestly says will make people hideously ill if used on food crops. You use it anyway, knowing full well that you will sicken your own citizens. What message does THAT send? "You have a choice of being killed quickly by criminals, or killed slowly by your own government. Choose." Is that the message? It's better than doing NOTHING. If you were the president of Colombia, you'd continue poisoning your own people because it's better than nothing??? I just want to be clear about what you're saying. Is this correct? Gee, maybe GWB should send in the next group of troops there huh? Pretend you're the president. Please describe clearly the reason you'd give the American people for such a military action. To rid the world of deviant thugs who have little respet for law, and for other people. Whew. You're really close to the edge now. I was referring not to the farmers, but to government officials, clergy, foreign reporters and workers. Are you aware that 3 American civilians are still being held hostage down there? I thought you told me that you DO read or listen to legitimate news sources. Read the link below. This was on 60 Minutes a month or so ago. The story's been kept sort of quiet because our government has some other weird reason for not wanting to move on it. Maybe because the story is lacking in credibility. There are a lot of "stories" that make the rounds in the leftist propaganda rags. You may think the reason that they rarely see the light of day in the mainstream press, is due to some "vast right wing conspiracy" trying to keep a lid on it. The more obvious reason could be that they lack truth. The terrorists permitted one Colombian journalist to film an interview with the captives. This film was shown on TV here, and a copy was given to our state department. The captives' families confirmed that it was their relatives shown in the movie, and the state department positively identified the person who led the journalist into the jungle as a terrorist leader. Try again, Dave. It's real. The state department has commented on it publicly. Write to your representatives and tell them 30 years is long enough to see that a program doesn't work. No more money for Colombia. I don't agree. We need to form a combined task force to sweep in and burn the druggies out. Yeah. OK, Dave. We'll just sweep right in there. Do you know that opium's being grown again on a large scale basis in Afghanistan, and we know about it? As a longtime knowledgable gardener, you know that in many parts of that country, there's little else that'll grow well enough to be of economic use to the natives. So once again, you become the apologist. You'd give them a "pass" on growing substances which are illegal in most countries, and which bring nothing but eventual pain and psychological issues to those who use them, becasue you see no alternative? Maybe in places like Afghanistan, farming should not be their main commercial product. Ooops. You stepped in **** again, Dave. YOUR PRESIDENT is giving Afghanistan a pass, as are our own military leaders, because they know there's no other way. You really are a mess. Beginning this weekend, you will begin reading the Sunday NY Times and Washington Post from beginning to end. And, you'll listen to both the morning and evening NPR news broadcasts. If you can prove to me that these are not the left biased propaganda sources that I know they are, then I might consider it. Otherwise I'll stick to more credible sources. Please name your credible sources. |
O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Doug Kanter wrote: "jps" wrote in message ... And like so many other liberals, you'd be wrong. I'd be right since you didn't answer the question. If you do know her position then the answer is she doesn't accept the right wing's desire to control her birth rights. You'll never admit that because it'd cause your rec.boats world to come crashing down around you. Dave Doug, he did it again. Didn't answer the question, nor will he ever. He's afraid to talk to his own wife. That'll blow up in his face when the children are grown and out of the house. Speculating again? You're good at it, if nothing else. Dave No, Dave. This is a guarantee. Either she'll leave you, or she'll stick around, share the retirement money, and have a real man on the side. Someone who's got the balls to talk to her. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com