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

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.

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.

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

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.

On 18 Dec 2003 01:53:37 GMT, (Gould 0738) 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.


Notice: Comments unworthy of response will be neither confirmed nor denied.

Exactly. Some comments just don't warrant a response. Right now my cat is
sitting on my desk. So what?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

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

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

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.

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