|
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
Sounds like you have already made up your mind what the truth is, and don't
want anything to change your mind. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you say "WMD's"? ;-) After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought around to say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear. We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that exonerates our motives for invading Iraq. They say truth is the first casualty of war. First causualty of politics too, unfortunately. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
|
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
In article , gould0738
@aol.com says... Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you say "WMD's"? ;-) After enough interrogation, Saddam Hussein will eventually be brought around to say anything and everything the administration hopes to hear. We'll all switch from a position that the lying ******* couldn't tell the truth if his life depended on it to believing every syllable he utters that exonerates our motives for invading Iraq. They say truth is the first casualty of war. First causualty of politics too, unfortunately. Don't agree Chuck. I think he's decided it's better to stick around and vindicate himself (at least as far as WMDs are concerned). He may prove to be Bush's unwinding if he's free to speak. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue, then
the election is already over. Remeber 1/3 of America was never so sure about the WMD, but bought in to "get Saddam". Not to mention that there is no proof one way OR the other. The cup is 1/2 ___________ . I'm more intersted in how much *money* Saddam pumped into France, Germany, and Russia to buy their votes. And iF there are WMD's - I wanna know where they went. Remember Saddam was sure ACTING guilty of something, the way he treated the UN inspectors. -W "jps" wrote in message ... Don't agree Chuck. I think he's decided it's better to stick around and vindicate himself (at least as far as WMDs are concerned). He may prove to be Bush's unwinding if he's free to speak. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
"jps" wrote in message ... In article , says... Aljazeera sounds an awful lot like Al Jazirah...a town in Syria that I suspect you'll be hearing a lot more about in the near future. Can you say "WMD's"? ;-) I don't think you should ask me to "say WMD" since that's the role of our Commander in Chimp. Lip service. No proof. Even the head of weapons inspections says Saddam likely destroyed them as he has said. Who? Blix? Puh-leeeze. David Kay says otherwise...and he's the current "head of weapons inspections". Perhaps this is why Saddam has chosen to stay alive. His testimony may be the last laugh in his feud with the Bush clan. Or perhaps he's a pussy and has decided to save his own life in exchange for info about al Qaeda and the weapons. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
"Clams Canino" wrote in message news:leLDb.130513$_M.671166@attbi_s54... If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue, then the election is already over. Remeber 1/3 of America was never so sure about the WMD, but bought in to "get Saddam". Not to mention that there is no proof one way OR the other. The cup is 1/2 ___________ . I'm more intersted in how much *money* Saddam pumped into France, Germany, and Russia to buy their votes. And iF there are WMD's - I wanna know where they went. Dayr Az-Zawr in Syria's Al Jazirah province...but that only narrows it down to 600 square miles...and we don't have troops in Syria to look for 'em...at least not yet. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
NOYB wrote:
Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation forces". As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi... I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those "accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em. The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are. Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying Forces." There even were medals issued to individual soldiers to mark such service. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:12:51 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
NOYB wrote: Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation forces". As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi... I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those "accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em. The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are. Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying Forces." There even were medals issued to individual soldiers to mark such service. No quibbling, no nothing, just a lie. As I said, you have shown yourself to be devoid of integrity. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation forces". As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi... I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those "accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em. The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are. Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying Forces." Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off too early in declaring the end to major operations? Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation forces". As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi... I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those "accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em. The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are. Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying Forces." Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off too early in declaring the end to major operations? Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow. War? What war? There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago. There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months? We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest. You should have taken some history classes. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation forces". As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi... I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those "accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em. The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are. Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying Forces." Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off too early in declaring the end to major operations? Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow. War? What war? There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago. There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months? We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest. You should have taken some history classes. We are no more occupiers of Iraq than we were occupiers of Paris after kicking the Germans out. Wake up, Harry. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation forces". As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi... I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those "accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em. The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are. Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying Forces." Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off too early in declaring the end to major operations? Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow. War? What war? There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago. There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months? We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest. You should have taken some history classes. We are no more occupiers of Iraq than we were occupiers of Paris after kicking the Germans out. Wake up, Harry. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD Wow. You're much dumber than I thought. The Germans occupied Paris. We occupied Germany. We liberated Paris from the Germans, NOT from the French. And we occupied Japan. In fact, we used to refer to Japan as Occupied Japan for many years. We have occupied Iraq. We have not liberated Iraq from outsiders. Iraq was controlled by Iraqis. Now, aside from insurgent actions, it is controlled by Americans. We are calling the shots there. We have occupied Iraq. Buy yourself a good dictionary. The United States is the occupying power in Iraq. We will be occupying Iraq for some time. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:
[snip] Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us, except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons of mass destruction before the war. If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct word is *taxpayers'*. John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you. Joe Parsons What did Saddam use on the Kurds? |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:34 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation forces". As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi... I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those "accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em. The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are. Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying Forces." Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off too early in declaring the end to major operations? Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow. War? What war? There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago. There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months? We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest. You should have taken some history classes. We are no more occupiers of Iraq than we were occupiers of Paris after kicking the Germans out. Wake up, Harry. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD Wow. You're much dumber than I thought. The Germans occupied Paris. We occupied Germany. We liberated Paris from the Germans, NOT from the French. And we occupied Japan. In fact, we used to refer to Japan as Occupied Japan for many years. We have occupied Iraq. We have not liberated Iraq from outsiders. Iraq was controlled by Iraqis. Now, aside from insurgent actions, it is controlled by Americans. We are calling the shots there. We have occupied Iraq. Buy yourself a good dictionary. The United States is the occupying power in Iraq. We will be occupying Iraq for some time. And we liberated Iraq from a despot. Are we into name-calling now, Harry? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:53:34 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:38:44 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Every other news agency refers to the troops as "US soldiers, US forces, or coalition forces". Aljazeera constantly refers to them as "occupation forces". As for the protestors in Tikrit and Ramadi... I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that those are the very same bad guys who keeping taking pot shots at our troops. Perhaps we can have one of those "accidental" bombings drop right in the middle of 'em. The correct term is occupation forces. That's what they are. Perhaps you ought to google the term and learn that after WW I and WW II the allied forces called themselves "Occupied Forces," and "Occupying Forces." Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially become "occupation forces". I thought you said that Bush shot his mouth off too early in declaring the end to major operations? Also, what do you think about bombing the protestors that are voicing support for Hussein? I'm sure most of 'em are up to no good anyhow. War? What war? There's no war between the United States and Iraq. There's just Bush's war on Iraq. The uniformed Iraqi armed forces surrendered months ago. There's been no head of state in Iraq for what, seven or eight months? We're occupying Iraq. Occupation is the action of taking possession of a place or of land; seizure, as by military conquest. You should have taken some history classes. We are no more occupiers of Iraq than we were occupiers of Paris after kicking the Germans out. Wake up, Harry. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD Wow. You're much dumber than I thought. The Germans occupied Paris. We occupied Germany. We liberated Paris from the Germans, NOT from the French. And we occupied Japan. In fact, we used to refer to Japan as Occupied Japan for many years. We have occupied Iraq. We have not liberated Iraq from outsiders. Iraq was controlled by Iraqis. Now, aside from insurgent actions, it is controlled by Americans. We are calling the shots there. We have occupied Iraq. Buy yourself a good dictionary. The United States is the occupying power in Iraq. We will be occupying Iraq for some time. And we liberated Iraq from a despot. Are we into name-calling now, Harry? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD Well, we deposed Hussein. It remains to be seen what becomes of Iraq. There's no shortage of despots in those Moslem countries. We are occupying Iraq as an occupying force. You can dance that around the head of a pin as many times as you like, but we still have occupied Iraq and are the occupying force. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:27:35 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Are you implying that the war is over? Because that is when they officially become "occupation forces". Not technically correct. We have been avoiding the use of the term occupation, as it opens a can of worms. http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh107a1.htm And from: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php " In fact, it appears that no State has ever formally applied the IVth Geneva Convention to territory under its control. The laws of occupation, as they were then, were not applied to the allied occupation of Germany after World War II on the grounds that the Reich no longer existed and therefore there was no previous sovereign whose rights needed protection." |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
Joe Parsons wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote: [snip] Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us, except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons of mass destruction before the war. If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct word is *taxpayers'*. John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you. Joe Parsons What did Saddam use on the Kurds? Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
|
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
Act 1: "We can't believe that Iraq no longer has WMD. All we have is Saddam's
word that he got rid of them, and he's a lying snake in the grass all day, every day!" (Protagonist catches Saddam, subjects him to CIA "interrogation" for a week or so) Act 2: "We now know for a fact that we were right all along, and Saddam Hussein had WMD. We have his *personal word* of assurance on the matter, and that's good enough for us!" Standards of evidence often change, depending upon what one is hoping to prove. Had to laugh at the early news reports about Saddam's interrogation. He was described as "not cooperative" because he continued to deny having weapons of mass destruction. The rotten ******* deserves everything he's going to have coming to him, but he may as well realize that he only answer the administration is prepared to accept on the WMD issue is "yes." Whether true or not, it will be politically useful. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
That assumes most of us even care about the political flappings. hehe
We *all* agree he *had* chem / bio weapons. He never provided proof of destruction. If they were destroyed, I want him to prove it. If he sent them away, I wanna know *where*. It's still real simple. Interesing story how the Mossad had planned to ice him in '92 for his stunts shooting scuds at Israel during GW-1. Too bad they didn't follow that through. -W "Gould 0738" wrote in message news:20031217121901.11114.00001152@mb- The rotten ******* deserves everything he's going to have coming to him, but he may as well realize that he only answer the administration is prepared to accept on the WMD issue is "yes." Whether true or not, it will be politically useful. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
|
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
|
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:13:07 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote: [snip] Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us, except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons of mass destruction before the war. If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct word is *taxpayers'*. John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you. Joe Parsons Except in certain circumstances. When one calls another 'stupid', he should at least do so correctly. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:33:06 GMT, "Clams Canino" wrote: That assumes most of us even care about the political flappings. hehe We *all* agree he *had* chem / bio weapons. He never provided proof of destruction. If they were destroyed, I want him to prove it. If he sent them away, I wanna know *where*. It's still real simple. Then you and Bush blundered badly by not letting the inspectors complete their mission before rushing to war. Now that Iraq has been bombed and burned, you have little chance of making YOUR case. BB The burden of proof was/is on Saddam. Not the inspectors. db |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:57:01 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:46:10 -0500, JohnH wrote: On 14 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: John H wrote: all the congratulatory messages from Harry, jps, basskisser, gould, et al. our capture of Saddam. You're not very patient. It's just after 8 AM on the W coast, on a Sunday morning. Go and fornicate yourself, John. Don't you ever dare to post an implication that I don't wish the best for this country and our 300 million fellow citizens. Your screwed up perspective is that you, only you, and those who think exactly like you have the only valid opinions about how our society should run and what direction national policies should take. You shouldn't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. The high percentage of Americans who disagree with your views are not traitors or national enemies. Yes, I'm damn glad he's caught. With the billions of dollars spent on an ill-advised war and the toll the entire adventure has taken on US credibility throughout the world, it's gratifiying to see that we have *something* tangible to show for it. But let me ask you this- does capturing a tyrant suddenly mean that all the statements Bush made to get us into Iraq in the firtst place are suddenly any more true than they were this time yesterday? Let's hope the insurgency tapers off in Iraq. If it does not, people will begin questioning the war more than ever - once the capture of SH is old news. Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you don't to maintain the party line. John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement. But I *can* make an assumption. While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information. Did I deny that possibility? I think I simply stated *my* belief. Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations (as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable to infer his motives. Point granted, to a point. I have no problem with someone inferring any motivation they like. I do have a problem with claiming as fact that which they cannot prove. Their inferences are based on assumptions. The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic, unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data and arrived at their own conclusions. Have you seen me call someone 'unpatriotic'? Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it? Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here. Keep reading. I'm sure you'll find negativity abounding. And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with the bilious Mr. Kraus? That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied. Joe Parsons John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:17:35 -0500, JohnH wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003 07:52:12 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: Joe Parsons wrote in message . .. On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote: [snip] Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us, except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons of mass destruction before the war. If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct word is *taxpayers'*. John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you. Joe Parsons What did Saddam use on the Kurds? Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong. Only for one poster, whose grammar was atrocious and who persists in name-calling. If one is going to call others 'stupid', then he should at least do so correctly. There's a fundamental problem with that kind of approach, John. Anyone who knows me at all knows I consider proper usage to be very important--in both written and spoken communication. I'm constantly trying to get the words right and generally self-edit pretty carefully. But the kind of informal communication that we use in daily speech and on Usenet is typically evaluated by different criteria--and rightly so, I think. If every person contemplating a contribution to a newsgroup thought s/he might be subject to someone's criticism based on *form*, few would venture to post. But there's a tactical reason for not sinking to spelling and grammar flames. Yesterday, you wrote, in response to a post made by "basskisser:" Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand what it is you are trying to say. Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax, rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to parse/decode some moderately convoluted text. Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup. Joe Parsons The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an innoculation against speling flaims. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:41:53 -0500, JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:57:01 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:46:10 -0500, JohnH wrote: On 14 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: John H wrote: all the congratulatory messages from Harry, jps, basskisser, gould, et al. our capture of Saddam. You're not very patient. It's just after 8 AM on the W coast, on a Sunday morning. Go and fornicate yourself, John. Don't you ever dare to post an implication that I don't wish the best for this country and our 300 million fellow citizens. Your screwed up perspective is that you, only you, and those who think exactly like you have the only valid opinions about how our society should run and what direction national policies should take. You shouldn't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. The high percentage of Americans who disagree with your views are not traitors or national enemies. Yes, I'm damn glad he's caught. With the billions of dollars spent on an ill-advised war and the toll the entire adventure has taken on US credibility throughout the world, it's gratifiying to see that we have *something* tangible to show for it. But let me ask you this- does capturing a tyrant suddenly mean that all the statements Bush made to get us into Iraq in the firtst place are suddenly any more true than they were this time yesterday? Let's hope the insurgency tapers off in Iraq. If it does not, people will begin questioning the war more than ever - once the capture of SH is old news. Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you don't to maintain the party line. John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement. But I *can* make an assumption. Of course you can--but assumptions are always best tested before being stated as fact, or qualified in some way. Your statement showed evidence of neither. While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information. Did I deny that possibility? I think I simply stated *my* belief. My sense has been that you accept as fact that the war with Iraq has been based on valid intelligence. That's fine--it's not an unreasonable assumption. But absent facts--facts that are so far not forthcoming--it's still an untested and unproven assumption and is best treated as such. Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations (as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable to infer his motives. Point granted, to a point. I have no problem with someone inferring any motivation they like. I do have a problem with claiming as fact that which they cannot prove. Their inferences are based on assumptions. On this we agree! But (and I mean this with the greatest respect) be sure that you check carefully around your own eye for any cellulose debris. The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic, unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data and arrived at their own conclusions. Have you seen me call someone 'unpatriotic'? No--but the tenor of this kind of argument tends to be that anyone expressing disapproval of our country's current policies and/or administration invariably drifts into that realm. And it's not all that surprising to see that kind of argument, given the consistently nasty tone of these "discussions." Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it? Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here. Keep reading. I'm sure you'll find negativity abounding. And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with the bilious Mr. Kraus? That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied. John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that. Joe Parsons Joe Parsons John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
The mishandling / management of post-war Iraq is a much better issue to
pound. IMHO I thought using WMD as "the reason" to oust Saddam was silly, and risky PR - and said so then. That said, I'd have supported ousting Saddam for *any* reason - real or imagined. I just thought we could do better than "the threat of WMD's" Hell - an assasination attempt on a POTUS was good enought for me, and good enough for a lot of people that were horrified we didn't oust him in GW-1. -W "jps" wrote in message ... In article leLDb.130513$_M.671166@attbi_s54, says... If the *best* the Democrats have to attack Bush with is the WMD issue, then the election is already over. There's plenty more Clams, it's just one nail in the coffin that'll get delivered to Crawford. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
Which "world opinion" was that?
Follow the money.......... -W wrote in message ... newsflash: Saddam is in custody, and really doesn't have to prove anything about WMD's. Bush certainly does in the court of world opinion. BB |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
To elaborate on that. IMHO "world opinion" is easily bought and sold. I feel that Saddam bought his "French opinion" and we can easily buy some new opinions as well. I also feel that the UN is a "let's bash the US into giving more handouts" debating society as often as it's not. Let's look at what the playing countries really want? Russia wants economic recovery from it's dismal life as the USSR Germany wants to sell it's stuff. France wants to think it's still a relevant power, and sell it's stuff. The Arabs want to keep thier little oil dictatorships propped up, sell oil, and hate Israel. China secretly wants it's brand of communism to rule the world. Japan wants to buy the world, and feel protected by us. The other two English speaking countries (Australia and England) want to stay in bed with us, because it's been a good relationship for all parties concerned so far. And everyone else is either a bit player or wants something for nothing. hehe -W "Clams Canino" wrote in message news:R44Eb.415391$275.1295159@attbi_s53... Which "world opinion" was that? Follow the money.......... -W wrote in message ... newsflash: Saddam is in custody, and really doesn't have to prove anything about WMD's. Bush certainly does in the court of world opinion. BB |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
Joe Parsons wrote:
And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with the bilious Mr. Kraus? That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied. John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that. Joe Parsons Sheesh. Most of the crap you righties post isn't worth a comment from a razor clam. You think because no one stands up to dispute your claim that that makes it true? Second-best giggle of the day. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds"
with the bilious Mr. Kraus? That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied. Notice: Comments unworthy of response will be neither confirmed nor denied. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:10:58 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:41:53 -0500, JohnH wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 23:57:01 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:46:10 -0500, JohnH wrote: On 14 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote: John H wrote: all the congratulatory messages from Harry, jps, basskisser, gould, et al. our capture of Saddam. You're not very patient. It's just after 8 AM on the W coast, on a Sunday morning. Go and fornicate yourself, John. Don't you ever dare to post an implication that I don't wish the best for this country and our 300 million fellow citizens. Your screwed up perspective is that you, only you, and those who think exactly like you have the only valid opinions about how our society should run and what direction national policies should take. You shouldn't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh. The high percentage of Americans who disagree with your views are not traitors or national enemies. Yes, I'm damn glad he's caught. With the billions of dollars spent on an ill-advised war and the toll the entire adventure has taken on US credibility throughout the world, it's gratifiying to see that we have *something* tangible to show for it. But let me ask you this- does capturing a tyrant suddenly mean that all the statements Bush made to get us into Iraq in the firtst place are suddenly any more true than they were this time yesterday? Let's hope the insurgency tapers off in Iraq. If it does not, people will begin questioning the war more than ever - once the capture of SH is old news. Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you don't to maintain the party line. John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement. But I *can* make an assumption. Of course you can--but assumptions are always best tested before being stated as fact, or qualified in some way. Your statement showed evidence of neither. Are you referring to the phrase, "to maintain the party line"? If not, then I don't know to what you are referring. If so, then I will admit to having stated as 'fact' an untested assumption. I should have said, "...to seemingly maintain the party line." While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information. Did I deny that possibility? I think I simply stated *my* belief. My sense has been that you accept as fact that the war with Iraq has been based on valid intelligence. That's fine--it's not an unreasonable assumption. But absent facts--facts that are so far not forthcoming--it's still an untested and unproven assumption and is best treated as such. I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims to the validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that *Bush* believed the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this point in the game, I certainly would question the validity of the intelligence as do many others. Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations (as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable to infer his motives. Point granted, to a point. I have no problem with someone inferring any motivation they like. I do have a problem with claiming as fact that which they cannot prove. Their inferences are based on assumptions. On this we agree! But (and I mean this with the greatest respect) be sure that you check carefully around your own eye for any cellulose debris. And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though they be (at least in this case). The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic, unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data and arrived at their own conclusions. Have you seen me call someone 'unpatriotic'? No--but the tenor of this kind of argument tends to be that anyone expressing disapproval of our country's current policies and/or administration invariably drifts into that realm. And it's not all that surprising to see that kind of argument, given the consistently nasty tone of these "discussions." Thankfully, tendencies don't always lead to the expected fruition. I think you would be hard pressed to find a case where I have called someone unpatriotic for *anything* he/she may have said here. I have accused one person of telling a lie, with reason. Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it? Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here. Keep reading. I'm sure you'll find negativity abounding. And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with the bilious Mr. Kraus? That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied. John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that. For what do I need ammunition. I'm not debating anything. Would you have me list all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa? I'm afraid my ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to look at *this* thread pretty carefully.) Joe Parsons John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:59:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Joe Parsons wrote: And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with the bilious Mr. Kraus? That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied. John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that. Joe Parsons Sheesh. Most of the crap you righties post isn't worth a comment from a razor clam. You think because no one stands up to dispute your claim that that makes it true? Harry, I can now state with complete certainty that you have absolutely no idea what (if any) political predilection I might have. Joe Parsons Second-best giggle of the day. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
|
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:59:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Joe Parsons wrote: And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with the bilious Mr. Kraus? That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied. John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that. Joe Parsons Sheesh. Most of the crap you righties post isn't worth a comment from a razor clam. You think because no one stands up to dispute your claim that that makes it true? Second-best giggle of the day. Because you used the plural, and because you left Joe's name in your follow-up, I assume you are referring to both of us. Upon what do your base your assertion that we are both 'righties'? What are the criteria by which you judge one to be right or left? Do you know my position on the issues of relevance? What issues do you consider relevant for such a judgement? John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:49:06 GMT, Joe Parsons wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:17:35 -0500, JohnH wrote: On 17 Dec 2003 07:52:12 -0800, (basskisser) wrote: Joe Parsons wrote in message . .. On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:35:11 -0500, JohnH wrote: [snip] Absolutely, congratulations on spending billions upon billions, upon billions of taxpayer's money to find a man that posed no harm to us, except for those pesky cardboard drones he had aimed at us!!! By the way, news this morning says that Saddam has stated he had NO weapons of mass destruction before the war. If you are referring to the money of more than one taxpayer, then the correct word is *taxpayers'*. John, spelling/grammar flames are, I believe, *far* beneath you. Joe Parsons What did Saddam use on the Kurds? Nah, he's been throwing those in lately, when he knows he's wrong. Only for one poster, whose grammar was atrocious and who persists in name-calling. If one is going to call others 'stupid', then he should at least do so correctly. There's a fundamental problem with that kind of approach, John. Anyone who knows me at all knows I consider proper usage to be very important--in both written and spoken communication. I'm constantly trying to get the words right and generally self-edit pretty carefully. But the kind of informal communication that we use in daily speech and on Usenet is typically evaluated by different criteria--and rightly so, I think. If every person contemplating a contribution to a newsgroup thought s/he might be subject to someone's criticism based on *form*, few would venture to post. But there's a tactical reason for not sinking to spelling and grammar flames. Yesterday, you wrote, in response to a post made by "basskisser:" Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand what it is you are trying to say. Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax, rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to parse/decode some moderately convoluted text. Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup. Joe Parsons The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an innoculation against speling flaims. See, assumptions can lead one astray. You give me far too much credit. I, in fact, could not, other than in a most general sense, understand what he was trying to say. Therefore, I fully deserve to be placed in your 'unfavorable light'. I think you and I simply disagree on what is 'pure gibberish'. Addressing an argument requires an understanding of the argument. The language used in the argument should, therefore, have some precision. We all make mistakes. But, we don't all call others 'stupid' as we are doing so. John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:48:01 -0500, JohnH wrote:
[snip] Jeees. Where did I make this implication to which you refer? How much do I listen to Rush? I disagree with about 75% of Rush's statements. Catching Saddam has nothing to do with the truth of the statements Bush made. I believe Bush made his statements in good faith. You, et al, don't. Or at least you say you don't to maintain the party line. John, you can't reasonably know anyone's motivation behind making any statement. But I *can* make an assumption. Of course you can--but assumptions are always best tested before being stated as fact, or qualified in some way. Your statement showed evidence of neither. Are you referring to the phrase, "to maintain the party line"? Yes. If not, then I don't know to what you are referring. If so, then I will admit to having stated as 'fact' an untested assumption. I should have said, "...to seemingly maintain the party line." Much more sustainable--even *with* the split infinitive[1]. But you'd be opening a whole new can of worms: you'd have to define whatever it is you're calling the "party line," then defend your definition as being accurate, then defend your contention (even with some wiggle room) that his statements were, in fact, motivated by some doctrinaire concerns, rather than something other. While I agree with your comment with respect to the capture of Saddam, I believe it is still possible for reasonable people to conclude that our incursion into Iraq was sold to the Congress and to the country with faulty information. Did I deny that possibility? I think I simply stated *my* belief. My sense has been that you accept as fact that the war with Iraq has been based on valid intelligence. That's fine--it's not an unreasonable assumption. But absent facts--facts that are so far not forthcoming--it's still an untested and unproven assumption and is best treated as such. I think your 'sense' is leading you astray. I believe I've made no claims to the validity of the intelligence. I have stated that I believed that *Bush* believed the intelligence, and therefore had not lied. At this point in the game, I certainly would question the validity of the intelligence as do many others. I can accept that. Did GWB knowingly misrepresent the intelligence available at the time of the decision to commit our country to war? There's no way to know for certain--but for anyone who might have some level of distrust about Mr. Bush's motivations (as a significant segment of our population does have), it is not unreasonable to infer his motives. Point granted, to a point. I have no problem with someone inferring any motivation they like. I do have a problem with claiming as fact that which they cannot prove. Their inferences are based on assumptions. On this we agree! But (and I mean this with the greatest respect) be sure that you check carefully around your own eye for any cellulose debris. And I greatly appreciate your pointing out the error of my ways, minor though they be (at least in this case). The fact that the inferences of some in that regard might be different from those of others does not mean that those people who oppose our involvement in the Middle East (or the way in which our involvement unfolds) are unpatriotic, unreasonable or unintelligent. It means they have evaluated the available data and arrived at their own conclusions. Have you seen me call someone 'unpatriotic'? No--but the tenor of this kind of argument tends to be that anyone expressing disapproval of our country's current policies and/or administration invariably drifts into that realm. And it's not all that surprising to see that kind of argument, given the consistently nasty tone of these "discussions." Thankfully, tendencies don't always lead to the expected fruition. I think you would be hard pressed to find a case where I have called someone unpatriotic for *anything* he/she may have said here. I have accused one person of telling a lie, with reason. Then I should clarify: I don't mean to imply that *you* have done that--and I can see where you might think that's what I was saying. I apologize. Others here *have*, however, and it's not fair to tar everyone with the same brush. Your bud, Harry, has made several posts without comment on the capture of Saddam. As yet, jps has had no comment. Wonder why? Could it be because they can't come up wit a way to put a negative spin on it? Could it be because they're not particularly interested in the topic? Last time I looked, no one was obligated to weigh in on *very* topic here. Keep reading. I'm sure you'll find negativity abounding. And while I'm at it, what leads you to believe that Chuck Gould is "buds" with the bilious Mr. Kraus? That is an example of an inference based on assumptions. It was not denied. John, I *know* you can find more effective ammunition than that. For what do I need ammunition. I'm not debating anything. Of course you are. Not formally--but you have most assuredly been involved in debating. ould you have me list all the posts in which Gould has supported Harry and vice-versa? You know, I went back quickly to see if I could find cases where that had happened. I didn't find any instances of Gould supporting Krause. He may be aligned on certain issues, sure--but that, in my opinion, is a far cry from "supporting" him, let alone being his "bud." I'm afraid my ISP would balk at the size of the post! (In fact, I think they're starting to look at *this* thread pretty carefully.) Then you really need to think about getting a different ISP. Joe Parsons Joe Parsons John On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD [1] Sorry...one of my often-unreasonable pet peeves. |
Off the Topic. I'm waiting to see...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:04:11 -0500, JohnH wrote:
[snip] Again, please check your punctuation, grammar, and spelling. I cannot understand what it is you are trying to say. Had he written something that was pure gibberish, rather than something that might best (and charitably) described as "sloppy," your complaint might be reasonable. But as it was, it puts you in a doubly unfavorable light: first, as a person who'll resort to flames of grammer, punctuation, spelling and syntax, rather than addressing some argument; or secondly, that you are unable to parse/decode some moderately convoluted text. Neither one advances your argument--just as the ongoing mean-spirited tirades from *both* poles here serve only to further poison the atmosphere in a once-useful and enjoyable newsgroup. Joe Parsons The possible spelling error(s) in this article are intentional. They serve as an innoculation against speling flaims. See, assumptions can lead one astray. You give me far too much credit. I, in fact, could not, other than in a most general sense, understand what he was trying to say. Therefore, I fully deserve to be placed in your 'unfavorable light'. I think you and I simply disagree on what is 'pure gibberish'. Could we agree that his rather convoluted writing in that post would require more effort to decipher than you were willing to expend at that time? Because it *is* possible to decipher it. Addressing an argument requires an understanding of the argument. The language used in the argument should, therefore, have some precision. We all make mistakes. But, we don't all call others 'stupid' as we are doing so. Ah! And therein lies the problem with personal insults and invective! It's not too far removed from the person who whines and complains incessantly about off-topic posting--while contributing to the same off-topicness he decries. I believe there's a place for ****ing people off as an effective argumentation technique--but I have yet to see that place here. I just see people hurling meaningless insults, which draw more of the same. Joe Parsons |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com