A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:



Lynn Tegrity wrote:

If the US was more like the rest of the world then we would not be
powerful and so influential in the world.

If the U.S. was more like the rest of the world, we wouldn't have had so
many wars involving the U.S. and so many dirty wars started because of
the U.S. influence.

Right. You would have had one war, and you would now be speaking German and
Seig Heiling Der Furher.

Or, alternatively, you would have had two wars, and you would now be
speaking Russian...if you were still alive and not buried in a mass grave
somewhere in the Urals.

Thumbing your nose at the US and its military power and policies is easy for
you, and you have US military power and policies to thank for your ability
to thumb your nose at all, ingrate.


If all the other countries in
the world was more like the US then we would not be the most powerful
and influential country in the world because they would be the US's equal.

There used to be the Soviets, who had the military advantage up untill
the late seventies,

Which the US single-handedly defeated thanks to Ronald Regan.

and right now China and the EU are catching up with
the U.S. economically with big steps.

And we're making sure that they are directly tied to our interests by making
them dependent on the teat of US consumerism.


If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more
countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars.

We have never engaged in an illegal or unjust war. But, if France and
Germany (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't want to help in Iraq,
that's fine, we'll do it alone...and then we'll enjoy the fruits of victory
alone too. Not a drop of Iraqi oil or dollar in reconstruction contracts for
the EU...excepting perhaps Britain. Everybody else can pound sand.


The citizens of the United States should always vote what is best for
our country, not what is best for other countries.

The citizens of most countries vote for what is good for them, however,
there is not necessarily a discrepancy between voting what is good for
you and what can also be good for most other people. The joke is that
the citizens of the U.S. have a tendncy to vote for what seems to be
good for them right now, conveniently forgetting the long term
detrimental effects,

On whom?

or pushing their long term negative effects down
the throats of future generations.

Well, that's the thing about future generations, they don't have any rights,
so their interests are subordinate to the present needs of the people who
are actually alive.

Very egoistical thinking that will
burden your children, grandchildren and maybe even more with the
irresponsible financial and environmental behaviour of the current
generation.

That's what you get when you come late to the table.


Talking about behaving anti-socially...

Well, anti-socialistically anyway.


The world should not dictate to the US what type of government we have.

The world won't, the rest of the world will just start to recognise it
for the selfish double standard lying warmongers that the U.S.
administration really is.

Fine by me. They should particularly remember the "warmongers" part, and
they should fear us and do what they can to avoid raising our ire.



The Kyoto treaty is an example of the world trying to stop our
technological growth and our strong economy.

What strong economy?

It's a watered down version of what could be done to do the very least
to limit the wholesale destruction and pollution of our environment.

This is such claptrap. There is no "wholesale destruction and pollution" of
the US environment. The water and air are cleaner than they've been in a
hundred years, there are more trees now than existed prior to the arrival of
Eurpoeans on the continent, animals and habitat are better protected here
than nearly anywhere else on the planet. The list goes on and on. Your claim
is nonsense.

Since the average U.S. citizen uses up five times as much energy per
person as the rest of the western world

Which we use to produce ten times more productive economic output of the
rest of the world.

and causes a similarly
staggering amount of pollution that isn't just limited to the U.S.,

Hogwash and balderdash.

who
are you to tell others that you can keep going on this egoistical course
without doing anything to limit the impact for everyone else?

We're the most powerful, influential nation on the planet, that's who we
are. We like it that way. After the rest of the world limits their CO2
emissions to zero, then we'll see if the Kyoto Protocols have any real
impact on the false specter of "global warming." If the link is actually
proven, and it's shown that worldwide CO2 reductions have a beneficial
impact on the environment, then you can come to us and demand that we do the
same. Until then, the Kyoto Protocols are more about disadvantaging the US
economy as "retribution" for our success by sour-grapes nations who would do
anything to damage our economy, even if they don't have to do anything to
reduce their own impacts. Kyoto was just like the UN...a bunch of malcontent
petite lords trying to drag down the King just because he's the King.

Sorry, not going to play that game. Get your **** together, prove that it's
necessary by achieving real benefits first, then you can come to us and ask
us to participate.


Do you also drive your car through your neighbour's lawn,

That would be trespassing....just like all the illegals are doing to us.

throwing your
spent BBQ ashes over his fence

Hey, we asked and he said we could do it if we paid him five bucks, so we
did.

after sending the smoke over into his
garden

Sucks to be downwind, doesn't it?

where the clean launndry was drying

Put your laundry in a clothes dryer instead.

and their children were
playing, ignoring their outcry,

Smack the whiney kids and tell them to enjoy the fragrance of barbecuing
meat while recognizing that the neighbors have every right to barbecue.

because you simply don't care what they
think or say?

Ah, quit your bitching.


One day you will need that neighbour, who has been stupid enough to keep
the company that you work at afloat with his investment money for so
long and they will not help you because you didn't treat them with
respect for so long.

Or not.

The U.S. debt is skyrocketing, the trade balance is
losing roughly a billion and a half dollars a day and the only way
that you will keep afloat is with the help of those insane enough to
think that by investing even more money into that bottomless pit that
your economy has become, it will return their previous investments.

Which it will. It always has. Every time some doom-and-gloom naysayer has
predicted the economic collapse of the US, we've proven them wrong. We'll do
so again.


I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. economy crash will happen within my
lifetime.

It won't. But even if it does, we'll recover and once again take our
rightful place as the preeminent power in the world. That's just the kind of
people we are.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more
countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars.

We have never engaged in an illegal or unjust war.

And exactly where *are* the now infamous WMDs that that misinformed shrub warned
U.S. omniously about, and used as a justification for ATTACKING another soverign
nation?

I've said all along, Dubya attacked Iraq for exactly two reasons:

1. OIL (Obviously)
2. Because Dubya's daddy didn't do it right the first time!

John_Kuthe...


(Glub, please forgive me for 1. perpetuating this inane thread and 2. arguing
with Scott Weiser! ;-) )

A Usenet persona calling itself John Kuthe wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
If the U.S. hadn't alienated so many of the other countries, maybe more
countries would want to be allied with it in its illegal and unjust wars.

We have never engaged in an illegal or unjust war.

And exactly where *are* the now infamous WMDs that that misinformed shrub
warned
U.S. omniously about, and used as a justification for ATTACKING another
soverign
nation?

Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties, and I
imagine the rest of them are in Syria or are buried in the desert somewhere.
After all, he had 12 years to conceal them. I imagine we'll find them
eventually.

Besides, WMDs were not the only, nor even the most persuasive reason for
invading Iraq. If you don't know the other compelling reasons that fully
justified the invasion, it's because you're being willfully ignorant.


I've said all along, Dubya attacked Iraq for exactly two reasons:

1. OIL (Obviously)

Funny how with all that oil, we're not importing much, if any of it.

2. Because Dubya's daddy didn't do it right the first time!

Well, that is absolutely true. Any blame that attaches for casualties
suffered this time can be laid directly at Bush Sr.s door. He should have
wiped Saddam out when he had the chance. It's a pity we had to go back, but
the Asshole of Baghdad had 12 years and innumerable opportunities to comply
with the mandates of the cease fire. He didn't.

The fact that he refused to abide by the cease fire agreement is, in and of
itself, without any other support whatsoever, complete, full and absolute
justification for invading Iraq to depose Saddam. WMD's were just another
brick on the load.


John_Kuthe...


(Glub, please forgive me for 1. perpetuating this inane thread and 2. arguing
with Scott Weiser! ;-) )


I'm like heroin, you just can't resist me...
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
================
Besides, WMDs were not the only, nor even the most persuasive reason
for
invading Iraq. If you don't know the other compelling reasons that
fully
justified the invasion, it's because you're being willfully ignorant.
================

Or, because we choose to ignore Faux News where they've conveniently
re-written history for the Bush propaganda machine. Those of you who
have sipped from the Kool-Aid chalice now parrot this revisionist stuff
like some kind of mantra.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
================
Besides, WMDs were not the only, nor even the most persuasive reason
for
invading Iraq. If you don't know the other compelling reasons that
fully
justified the invasion, it's because you're being willfully ignorant.
================

Or, because we choose to ignore Faux News where they've conveniently
re-written history for the Bush propaganda machine. Those of you who
have sipped from the Kool-Aid chalice now parrot this revisionist stuff
like some kind of mantra.

Hey, don't blame us because you weren't paying attention.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties,

Which were outside the time frame for which the yanks were able
to claim there was a problem with WMDs. The latter only apply
post 1991.

and I imagine the rest of them are in Syria or are buried in
the desert somewhere. After all, he had 12 years to conceal them.

Why would he hide them instead of using them to defend himself? The
obvious nonsense in your claim is that Saddam would rather live in a
spider hole than fight back. They didn't exist - he was just an
asshole that was tried to pretend they existed to impress the
arabs he was trying to influence. The US played to this, just as
they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every
claim about nuclear weapons. It is in the interests of a war
monger to make sure that there is always an enemy.

I imagine we'll find them eventually.

Not likely, since America's given up looking. But then, you've never
let facts interfere with your opinions.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties,

Which were outside the time frame for which the yanks were able
to claim there was a problem with WMDs. The latter only apply
post 1991.

Sez who?


and I imagine the rest of them are in Syria or are buried in
the desert somewhere. After all, he had 12 years to conceal them.

Why would he hide them instead of using them to defend himself?

He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because the
artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did, they
risked nuclear conflict.

The
obvious nonsense in your claim is that Saddam would rather live in a
spider hole than fight back.

You misunderstand the command and control systems in Iraq. Saddam suffered
the typical fate of dictators. As soon as things began to go badly for him,
and his commanders and soldiers saw a probability that the US would prevail,
and that Saddam would be driven into hiding, his commanders and his troops
abandoned him, stripped off their uniforms, dumped their personal arms and
surrendered gladly to US troops.

He didn't fight back effectively because no dictator can who rules by terror
and intimidation when a liberator with a real chance appears.

They didn't exist

They existed. He created them. He used them. He refused to permit unfettered
inspections and engaged in shell-game moving about of them, and he likely
removed them to Syria, along with billions in gold and cash, before the
invasion.

- he was just an
asshole that was tried to pretend they existed to impress the
arabs he was trying to influence.

Then he made a terrible mistake, didn't he.

The US played to this,

We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time. Hindsight
is always 20/20.

just as
they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every
claim about nuclear weapons.

Are you suggesting that we should NOT take North Korea's claim to have
nuclear weapons seriously? How....idiotic of you.

It is in the interests of a war
monger to make sure that there is always an enemy.

We don't have to manufacture enemies, there are plenty of real ones out
there, and the only reason YOU get to spout your crap is because the US has
for decades maintained the balance of power and peace around the world.


I imagine we'll find them eventually.

Not likely, since America's given up looking.

For now. We've got other things to do.

But then, you've never
let facts interfere with your opinions.

You, on the other hand, wouldn't know a fact if it were shoved up your ass.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
==============
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because
the
artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did,
they
risked nuclear conflict.
===================

C'mon! Admit it! You're making this up as you go along. Either that, or
this is Faux News drivel.

Weiser says:
=================
We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time.
=====================

BULL****! Your intelligence agencies may be good (or not), but other
nations do have intelligence agencies as well. How come they were
telling a different tale? They agreed with you on Afghanistan. They
disagreed on Iraq.

And there I was, sitting in a kayak in the Gulf islands, and even I had
this figured out. The lie was transparent.

frtzw906

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
==============
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because
the
artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did,
they
risked nuclear conflict.
===================

C'mon! Admit it! You're making this up as you go along. Either that, or
this is Faux News drivel.

Try CNN and the BBC


Weiser says:
=================
We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time.
=====================

BULL****!

Really? Are you an intelligence agent with independent knowledge of what our
intelligence apparatus knew and when they knew it? I think not.

Your intelligence agencies may be good (or not), but other
nations do have intelligence agencies as well. How come they were
telling a different tale?

You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different
conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam and had a profit
motive to dissuade us from invading.

They agreed with you on Afghanistan. They
disagreed on Iraq.

Who cares? We used OUR intelligence information, which we found more
reliable and credible. Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.


And there I was, sitting in a kayak in the Gulf islands, and even I had
this figured out. The lie was transparent.

Fortunately, you're not in charge of our intelligence system or our country.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found.

Where is your source for this?

--riverman