OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:
How many "innocents" died in WWII?

About 30 million. Of course, that includes a lot of Soviet citizens who
were deliberately starved to death by policies of Josep Stalin, but a
good accounting can be given here

http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html

Oh wait, I better ask first... is Grolier's Encyclopedia considered a
source of libby-rull propaganda?


... Should the fact that innocents
often die in war, deter us from the greater common good?

What "greater good" are you talking about? In WW2 we were fighting a
declared war against nation-states. Civilian casualties were a
regrettable strategic necessity, once the imperative of destroying enemy
industries was established. Many people still do not accept it as axiomatic.

In this case, we invaded & occupied a sovereign nation for no logical
reason and with no serious justification... and in the course of that
war our military inadvertently killed over 10,000 civilians. It did
little or nothing to hasten the defeat of enemy armed forces. There was
little or no enemy industry to destroy, indeed we wanted to preserve the
most important (oil) so as to grab it quickly.

Iraqi civilian deaths are a fact that the Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders will
not ever accept, but true nonetheless. Unfortunately this will influence
history for a long time to come.

DSK

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

His policies with regard to the U.N. (now there's a set of flip-flops
you can take to the
beach)?

The U.N is about as politically tainted as they come. They've
showcased their inability to effectively mediate an international
crisis.

In that case, your leader must be politically tainted. He shuns the U.N.
when convenient, and begs them to help when convenient.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Dave Hall wrote:
How many "innocents" died in WWII?

About 30 million. Of course, that includes a lot of Soviet citizens who
were deliberately starved to death by policies of Josep Stalin, but a
good accounting can be given here

http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html

Oh wait, I better ask first... is Grolier's Encyclopedia considered a
source of libby-rull propaganda?

I'm gonna be in Tupper Lake during the week of August 15th. I wonder if we
could get Dave up there for a short visit. Wanna meet? And, what would it
cost to get a few REAL locals to give him a mountain greeting? I'll supply
the prerecorded banjo music.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:
That you refuse to acknowledge "your sides" propaganda is even more
enlightening. You seem to think that you are getting the straight up
honest truth, while I am digesting a heavily spun bunch of propaganda.
Can you not see the arrogance and ignorance in that?

Hey Dave, here is one of the things that proves just how flaming stupid
you are... I am not a liberal and I do not listen to any more liberal
propaganda than you do. Yet, because I disagree with you, and so often
prove you wrong, you think I *must* be a libby-rull.




BTW did you ever look up *any* of Bush's environmental policies? Care to
discuss them?


In which context?

In *any* context. This is an open invitation to look up ONE of
Bush/Cheney's policies, consider it's real impact, and comment on it.
Your pick.


How about his educational policies?


Which ones?

Again... unless you are totally bereft of any intelligance and ability,
it should be really easy to pick one for yourself. You are such a big
fan of President Bush, you should already have a few favorite policies
in mind...


His policies with regard to the U.N. (now there's a set of flip-flops you can take to the
beach)?


The U.N is about as politically tainted as they come.

Oh? In that case, how come Bush/Cheney are now alternatively begging &
demanding that they take a bigger role in Iraq?


.... France, Germany, and Russia had a financial interest in
Saddam's Iraq,

So did Carlyle & Halliburton. Do you think I'm kidding?

http://images.google.com/images?q=Ru...Saddam+Hussein

I guess *all* these photos are faked... the product of lbby-rull
propaganda... Gosh darn it, you can't even trust your own eyes!



And you insist that you're not being hoodwinked...


I maintain that YOU are also being hoodwinked. We may both be to some
degree.

You definitely are... at least you admit it now. Stumbling over too many
facts, are we? The reason why you think I am is that I am not wearing
the same blinders you are.


When mistakes are made, I will admit to them.

You can't even admit responsibility for your boat's wake.

... Bush has made a few
mistakes (Supporting that prescription plan was one) as well.

Please tell him that. He honestly doesn't think so.

DSK

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:58:29 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 14:02:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:04:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to
life,
since they died for nothing.

Which Iraqi's? The ones who were loyal to Saddam, or the ones involved
in the current insurgence?

Dave


No. The innocent ones who got in the way.

How many "innocents" died in WWII? Should the fact that innocents
often die in war, deter us from the greater common good?

Dave


What a kristian thing to say. Some died here, so others should die there.

It's the plain truth of war. I don't understand why so many of you
guys on the left seem to think we can conduct a major military
operation without people dying. It won't happen. We are continually
updating our military technology to minimize the risk to our troops,
and civilians. But no system is perfect, and the reality that people
will ultimately die, should not be a factor when war becomes necessary
to accomplish a worthy goal.

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:

.... and the reality that people
will ultimately die, should not be a factor when war becomes necessary
to accomplish a worthy goal.

I agree. So tell me, what was the "worthy goal" accomplished by invading
Iraq?

Personally, I don't think a few millions in profit for certain military
& gov't contractors is a "worthy goal" when it comes to killing 1,000
American servicemen and women, maiming another 10,000; and killing more
than 10,000 Iraqi civilians.

And don't bother saying "the war on terrorism." There is no proved
connection between Iraq and anti-American terrorists. None. Zero. The
empty set. The links between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein are misty
might-bees. Sort of like the WMDs.

DSK

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:13:38 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
How many "innocents" died in WWII?

About 30 million. Of course, that includes a lot of Soviet citizens who
were deliberately starved to death by policies of Josep Stalin, but a
good accounting can be given here

Another glowing example why countries should not be ruled by
oppressive dictatorships; communist, socialist, or fascist.

http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html

Oh wait, I better ask first... is Grolier's Encyclopedia considered a
source of libby-rull propaganda?

Lose the sarcasm. It doesn't help your credibility. Besides, modern
liberalism didn't really start taking off until the 1960's. Although
they have been caught trying to "revise" history.

... Should the fact that innocents
often die in war, deter us from the greater common good?

What "greater good" are you talking about?

That should be plainly obvious. Ridding the world of a threat.

In WW2 we were fighting a
declared war against nation-states. Civilian casualties were a
regrettable strategic necessity, once the imperative of destroying enemy
industries was established. Many people still do not accept it as axiomatic.

So why then should your well crafted thought here, not equally apply
today? Does the fact that the players play by a different set of rules
change the urgency or legitimacy of the mission?


In this case, we invaded & occupied a sovereign nation for no logical
reason and with no serious justification.

The logic and justification are there. The problem is that you refuse
to accept it, for reasons which I'm sure you think are valid, but are
based on little more than your own personal beliefs.


.. and in the course of that
war our military inadvertently killed over 10,000 civilians. It did
little or nothing to hasten the defeat of enemy armed forces.

Saddam's army is history. His WMD program is gone, the citizens of
Iraq have a chance at self governing. We've accomplished many of our
goals. I'm also not so sure that that 10,000 civilian casualty figure
is accurate. How many of those citizens were killed by insurgents, and
Saddam loyalists?

There was
little or no enemy industry to destroy, indeed we wanted to preserve the
most important (oil) so as to grab it quickly.

It's not important to destroy industries. The only reason to cripple
industry is to deprive the enemy the means to continue to wage war. In
the case of Iraq, the war was over so quickly, that there was no need
to knock our manufacturing and other support industries. We're not
there to bring the population to its knees. We only want to remove the
"bad" regime. Oh, and to date, just how much Iraqi oil have we
"grabbed"?

Iraqi civilian deaths are a fact that the Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders will
not ever accept, but true nonetheless. Unfortunately this will influence
history for a long time to come.

I don't understand your duplicity here. In one paragraph you defend
the civilian casualties of WWII as "strategically necessary", yet you
bemoan the same statistic in Iraq. War is war. The goals are the same.
People will die, but the hope is that a greater good will have been
served in the long run. History has validated the cause for WWII. It
will take a few years yet to validate the Iraq war. But ask yourself,
is the world better off with or without Saddam Hussein in power, with
his network of thugs aiding and abetting anti-western terrorists and
covertly developing WMD?

Yes, he's not the only one, but you have to start somewhere. The
bigger question is: are you ready to take the war against terror to
the next level?


Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:29:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
How many "innocents" died in WWII?

About 30 million. Of course, that includes a lot of Soviet citizens who
were deliberately starved to death by policies of Josep Stalin, but a
good accounting can be given here

http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html

Oh wait, I better ask first... is Grolier's Encyclopedia considered a
source of libby-rull propaganda?

I'm gonna be in Tupper Lake during the week of August 15th. I wonder if we
could get Dave up there for a short visit. Wanna meet? And, what would it
cost to get a few REAL locals to give him a mountain greeting? I'll supply
the prerecorded banjo music.

You'd be in for a shock. Mountain and country people tend to
understand the concept of defending liberty. They don't like bleeding
heart liberals. You might be run out of town on the next train to
Paris.......

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:29:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
t...
Dave Hall wrote:
How many "innocents" died in WWII?

About 30 million. Of course, that includes a lot of Soviet citizens who
were deliberately starved to death by policies of Josep Stalin, but a
good accounting can be given here

http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_16.html

Oh wait, I better ask first... is Grolier's Encyclopedia considered a
source of libby-rull propaganda?

I'm gonna be in Tupper Lake during the week of August 15th. I wonder if we
could get Dave up there for a short visit. Wanna meet? And, what would it
cost to get a few REAL locals to give him a mountain greeting? I'll supply
the prerecorded banjo music.

You'd be in for a shock. Mountain and country people tend to
understand the concept of defending liberty. They don't like bleeding
heart liberals. You might be run out of town on the next train to
Paris.......

Dave


Indeed, that must be why the good folk of West Virginia have elected and
re-elected two moderate to liberal Democrats to the U.S. Senate -
repeatedly.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:
Another glowing example why countries should not be ruled by
oppressive dictatorships; communist, socialist, or fascist.

And yet, here you are, cheerfully proclaiming that Bush & Cheney are our
ordained leaders regardless of whether they were elected last time or
"forced" to cancel the election this time...


Lose the sarcasm. It doesn't help your credibility.

Ask me if I care. You are never going to learn anyway. Not about boats,
not about history, and damn sure not about politics.

... Besides, modern
liberalism didn't really start taking off until the 1960's. Although
they have been caught trying to "revise" history.

Like when?

In any event liberalism as a political concept dates back to the
earliest Renaissance. You clearly are not very well educated... well
indoctrinated, maybe, but your education sucks. Ever read a book? You
know, those things with words printed on paper?



... Should the fact that innocents
often die in war, deter us from the greater common good?

What "greater good" are you talking about?


That should be plainly obvious. Ridding the world of a threat.

Like what?



In WW2 we were fighting a
declared war against nation-states. Civilian casualties were a
regrettable strategic necessity, once the imperative of destroying enemy
industries was established. Many people still do not accept it as axiomatic.


So why then should your well crafted thought here, not equally apply
today? Does the fact that the players play by a different set of rules
change the urgency or legitimacy of the mission?

The only players that go by a "different set of rules" are Bush &
Cheney. Terror tactics and suicide attacks have been around since Old
Testament times. Only the ignorant think they are something new.




In this case, we invaded & occupied a sovereign nation for no logical
reason and with no serious justification.


The logic and justification are there. The problem is that you refuse
to accept it, for reasons which I'm sure you think are valid, but are
based on little more than your own personal beliefs.

OK... what was the threat? Where are the WMDs? Where are the links to Al
Queda?

So far, Bush & Cheney have claimed it's all true, but they have provided
no evidence. The 9/11 committee asked them repeatedly.


.. and in the course of that
war our military inadvertently killed over 10,000 civilians. It did
little or nothing to hasten the defeat of enemy armed forces.


Saddam's army is history. His WMD program is gone, the citizens of
Iraq have a chance at self governing. We've accomplished many of our
goals. I'm also not so sure that that 10,000 civilian casualty figure
is accurate.

No, it's probably closer to 15,000

Saddam's army was no threat to the U.S. His WMD's were gone since the
early 1990s. Invading another country to install a democracy is not
acceptable... if that were the case, then the U.N. would be justified in
building a coalition to invade the U.S. based on the 2000 election.



There was
little or no enemy industry to destroy, indeed we wanted to preserve the
most important (oil) so as to grab it quickly.


It's not important to destroy industries. The only reason to cripple
industry is to deprive the enemy the means to continue to wage war. In
the case of Iraq, the war was over so quickly, that there was no need
to knock our manufacturing and other support industries.

So why did we? That is where the "collateral damage" happened, in the
"shock & awe" bombing campaign to knock out Iraq's infrastructure (read:
roads, water & electric utilities). By some amazing coincidence, the
contracts to rebuild that infrastructure have been mostly handed to
Halliburton and it's subsidiaries.

Iraqi civilian deaths are a fact that the Bush/Cheney Cheerleaders will
not ever accept, but true nonetheless. Unfortunately this will influence
history for a long time to come.


I don't understand your duplicity here. In one paragraph you defend
the civilian casualties of WWII as "strategically necessary", yet you
bemoan the same statistic in Iraq. War is war.

You yourself just said, it was not necessary to knock out Iraq's
infrastructure. But we did. And caused 10,000+ civilian casualties doing it.



.... But ask yourself,
is the world better off with or without Saddam Hussein in power, with
his network of thugs aiding and abetting anti-western terrorists and
covertly developing WMD?

Considering the fact that Saddam was not aiding abetting anti-US
terrorists and had no credible WMD program? Or should I consider Bush &
Cheney's smoke and mirrors?



Yes, he's not the only one, but you have to start somewhere. The
bigger question is: are you ready to take the war against terror to
the next level?

I would like to see the U.S. take the war against terrorists to the 1st
level. So far, we did a pretty good job in Afghanistan but left it
unfinished, and then took a horribly wrong turn.

IMHO if you're going to kill 10,000 people you'd better have proof. So
far Bush & Cheney have none. If you're going to divert hundreds of
millions of dollars, billions of man-hours, devote a major part of the
U.S.'s considerable military might, then the goal should be worth it.

It's not.

So far, Bush & Cheney have no proof. They don't even have very good
evidence. And by some great coincidence, the war in Iraq has
tremendously enriched a lot of Cheney's former business partners as well
as completing GWB's personal vendetta against Saddam. If it looks like a
duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... is it really a duck?

Or in this case maybe it's a turkey. But you Bush/Cheney cheerleaders
refuse to see it.

DSK