On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 13:51:38 -0400, DSK wrote:

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.

Doug, I know you have claimed to be a conservative before, but your
contributions since have said the opposite. You constantly take the
opposite side on practically every issue. That you'd vote for a
liberal over the president is even more telling. You're hardly a
conservative.


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.

I generally favor the preservation of the economy over environmental
concerns, when it can be shown that additional conservation measures
have reached the point of diminishing returns.

I don't agree that the burden of paying for toxic cleanup should be
borne by the people. It should be paid by the offending company. Bush
gets a strike for that one.

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...

I am totally in favor of the no child left behind initiative,
especially teacher accountability. I would also revoke tenure, to give
teachers "incentive" to continue to push without the temptation to
slack off, if they feel that their job is "locked".

I favor selective educational choices, especially the voucher idea. By
giving the people the choice of where their tax money goes, it forces
school to become competitive, and ultimately the kids will benefit.


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?

No one is "begging" the U.N to do anything. If anything Bush is
capitulating under public pressure that we stop assuming the total
burden for this operation.

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

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

So what's this the old moral equivalency arguments? How does the
involvement of one or two private corporations negate and invalidate
the indiscretions of sovereign nations to the point that sound
judgement may have been impaired due to risk of exposure, and the
cessation of their windfalls?


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!

What's your point? That we once had diplomatic relations with Saddam?
What, are we not allowed to change our minds once the threat against
us is revealed?


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.

I never thought otherwise. You can't trust news sources 100% either
way. But I believe in the objectives of this country, and I believe
that steps need to be taken to rid the world of a very REAL terrorist
threat. I am highly skeptical of people and "news" sources who
continually throw mud at the mission for obvious agenda driven
motives.



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.

No just blinders which are 180 degrees out of phase.


When mistakes are made, I will admit to them.

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

Because I don't believe in absolutes, and I believe that everyone
shares the responsibility to protect themselves from potentially
dangerous situations. I do not believe that everyone has the ultimate
responsibility to "protect" everyone else, beyond reasonable means.
Otherwise, no activity could be undertaken without a considerable
liability risk.

In life, sometimes **** happens. Sometimes you might spill hot coffee
in your lap, slip on a sidewalk, run over your foot with the lawn
mower, or get hit by a boat wake on a crowded waterway. Conservatives
understand this and take their lumps. Liberals are always looking to
deflect the ultimate responsibility to someone else, and then look to
turn a tragedy into a windfall.


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

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

Like I said, I'm not 100% behind every one of Bush's policies. But I
agree with his plan to fight terrorism, and he seems genuine in his
resolve and compassion for the welfare of this country. Despite his
faults, I'd rather vote for someone who shares at least the majority
of my personal values, than someone who shares a very few.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:


Doug, I know you have claimed to be a conservative before, but your
contributions since have said the opposite. You constantly take the
opposite side on practically every issue. That you'd vote for a
liberal over the president is even more telling. You're hardly a
conservative.

Really...I'd bet that in the upcoming election, exit polls will reveal
that some number of Conservatives will be voting for Kerry instead of
Bush. I know a couple myself who have voted for only Republican
presidential candidates since Nixon who will be voting for Kerry.

Apparently not ALL Republican Conservatives are part of the BORG.

(P.S. I'd bet that John McCain won't vote for Bush.)



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

Dave Hall wrote:
Doug, I know you have claimed to be a conservative before, but your
contributions since have said the opposite. You constantly take the
opposite side on practically every issue.

Not at all. You seem to believe that a "conservative" must mindlessly
suck up all the malarkey pushed forth by Buch & Cheney.

I follow a number of conservative principles. I believe that if you give
up on following principles where convenient, then you don't really have
principles. Bush & Cheney have violated those principles time & time
again, plus they are shameless hypocrits. Plus I have always had a
distaste for Bible-thumpers getting into politics. There you have it.
Bush is not worthy of my vote, therefor I'm not giving it to him. It's a
matter of principle.

The fact that you cannot see beyond shallow partisan brinksmanship
proves that you're stupid, not that you're conservative.

I generally favor the preservation of the economy over environmental
concerns, when it can be shown that additional conservation measures
have reached the point of diminishing returns.

How about the stripping away of all conservation enforcement?
Here's a challenge for you... look up the number of suits filed by the
EPA to force polluting businesses to cease illegal pollution since Bush
was inaugurated. Now compare to say nine years earlier.

Bingo


I don't agree that the burden of paying for toxic cleanup should be
borne by the people. It should be paid by the offending company. Bush
gets a strike for that one.

Just one?


I am totally in favor of the no child left behind initiative,
especially teacher accountability. I would also revoke tenure, to give
teachers "incentive" to continue to push without the temptation to
slack off, if they feel that their job is "locked".

How do you feel about the fact that this forces teachers to spend
professional time away from students? How do you feel about the fact
that the "no child left behind inititative" is basically another
unfunded mandate?


I favor selective educational choices, especially the voucher idea. By
giving the people the choice of where their tax money goes, it forces
school to become competitive, and ultimately the kids will benefit.

OK, first on the list should be to give me a choice. I have no kids, yet
I am forced to pay for taxes to support public schools. When that choice
is presnted to me also, then I'll favor vouchers. Until then, it's just
a fancy way to cheat me into paying for poor kids schools while rich
people skate out of a civic duty.



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.

So? It's the only game in town for international diplomacy... unless
you're a rogue nation.

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


No one is "begging" the U.N to do anything.

Oh really? What were all those headlines about Bush going before the U.N
to "demand" they play a greater role in peacekeeping? I guess it's a
matter of what you ignore and how the headlines are worded.

... If anything Bush is
capitulating under public pressure that we stop assuming the total
burden for this operation.

Bush capitulates to public pressure? I thought he was a bold leader with
vision, who paid no attention to polls?

Can you get the story straight once in a while, and not contradict
yourself quite so often? It might help.



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

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


So what's this the old moral equivalency arguments? How does the
involvement of one or two private corporations negate and invalidate
the indiscretions of sovereign nations to the point that sound
judgement may have been impaired due to risk of exposure, and the
cessation of their windfalls?

Are you saying that the Bush Administration did not exercise sound
judgement due to the cessation of their windfalls, and/or the prospect
of greater windfalls to come? If so I agree.

In any event, "the moral equvalency argument" is a clever rhetorical
trick for denouncing the fact I've stated, which is that Bush, Cheney, &
Rumsfeld have all had at least as much business dealing with Saddam
Hussein as Russia & France.


What's your point? That we once had diplomatic relations with Saddam?

No, that the biggest reason why Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld were so sure
that Saddam had WMDs is that they are the ones who sold 'em to him. And
they probably kept the receipts.

What, are we not allowed to change our minds once the threat against
us is revealed?

Listen stupid, in 1988 an Iraqi jet fired two missiles into a U.S. Navy
warship, killing several of my friends. Iraq was a threat under the
Reagan Administration. Why wait untill now and pretend it's about
terrorism? I don't know for sure, but the whole episode stinks. It looks
very very fishy. And since the whole Bush crew has a history of war
profiteering there is darn good reason to be suspicious... unless you
are mindlessly swallowing all their malarkey...

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


Because I don't believe in absolutes

You don't believe in anything Dave. You think that it's OK to abandon
your principles the moment you can profit by doing so.


... I believe that everyone
shares the responsibility to protect themselves from potentially
dangerous situations.

In that case, wear a helmt all the time. Somebody might shoot a gun
straight up in the air, not caring where the bullet falls.

If you make a wake, you are just as responsible for any harm done by it
as would be a person who discharges a firearm is responsible for where
the bullet ends up.


In life, sometimes **** happens.

Great philosophy. It's a poor excuse for moral laziness, but maybe it
sounds cool.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

Ever read a book? You
know, those things with words printed on paper?

I just wrote down Dave's answer on a piece of paper, folded it up, and put
it under my keyboard. Let's see what happens. :-)

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 07:38:50 -0400, DSK wrote:

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?

1. Removal of an unstable and ruthless dictator who had already proven
that he is unwilling to respect borders, and has no compassion for
even his own people.

2. By removing Saddm, and helping to create a self determining
government in Iraq, the people will eventually come to appreciate the
opportunity that we provided for them, and will hopefully become an
ally.

3. A stable democratic Iraq, provides a sharp contrast to the barbaric
state of some of its neighbors, and may provide an inspiration to
other Arabs to rise up against their oppressive governments (With our
help of course).

4. Happy, self deterministic people are the antithesis of terrorism.



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.

I don't either, but it seems that only you anti-Bush guys seem to be
making up this "for profit" statistic and citing it as the truth.


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.

The war on terrorism has many facets. You obviously cannot see beyond
the here and now. Yet you call me stupid....

Dave

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 08:08:07 -0400, DSK wrote:

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...

Get over it. Bush WON the election fair and square, albeit by a very
slim margin. Every single recount, both official and unofficial, came
up with the same conclusion.


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.

You speak as if you have something to teach. I'll clue you in - You
don't.


... 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.

I said "modern liberalism". The sort of warped left wing socialist
type that's emerged as today's liberal.


... 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?

Terrorism and those who aid and abet it.


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.

They were pretty much low key and confined to local regions (The IRA
comes to mind). Al Qaeda has raised the ante by declaring war (Jihad)
against the western world (And that's not just the U.S.).



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?

Ask a citizen of Kuwait about the threat. WMD's? Probably buried in
the desert or in Syria. While Saddam had no part in 9/11 directly, he
has had past connections to other terrorist groups. That's a matter of
record.


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

Well, some of the evidence may have been faulty, due to intelligence
blunders not just here but in some other countries as well. The Brits,
the Aussies, and us were pretty much in agreement with the "facts" as
we knew them at the time.

.. 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

"Probably" doesn't cut it.

Saddam's army was no threat to the U.S. His WMD's were gone since the
early 1990s.

You don't know that. You only helplessly cling to that as some sort of
security blanket.

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.

A fairly won election?

Do you have ANY evidence to suggest that the election was anything
other than fair? Every count and recount that I've read shows Bush the
winner.

And you still want to call yourself a conservative? You sound like an
Al Gore lackey.


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).

To soften the army and limit their ability to maneuver and fight back.

By some amazing coincidence, the
contracts to rebuild that infrastructure have been mostly handed to
Halliburton and it's subsidiaries.

Then why are the insurgents kidnapping contractors from a multitude of
nations in order to intimidate them to leave the country? Halliburton
is not the only act in this play. They are concentrating on the oil
infrastructure, as this is their area of expertise. Of course you
won't know that because your biased news sources conveniently leave
out those little details, and continue to promote this theme of "War
for Halliburton profit" idea. More anti-capitalist propaganda.

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.

That 10,000 number has not been confirmed, nor has it been determined
who was killed by whom. Saddam was not above killing his own people
(or hiding behind them) for a political or tactical advantage. Knowing
just how accurate our arms are, I doubt that we had that much
collateral damage.


.... 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?

Yes he was! Do you read anything that doesn't have a leftist spin to
it? Did you not see the terrorist camps that were discovered in
northern Iraq? Do you not remember the money that Saddam pledged to
terrorists who blew up Israeli targets? He has been VERY friendly to
terrorists in the past.

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.

Afghanistan is still on-going. Because it's not front page news on
your liberal rags, doesn't mean that we're not still actively deployed
or that it is "unfinished". Iraq was not a wrong turn. Only those who
lack vision and understanding are unable to make the connection or
understand the dynamics of the plan.


IMHO if you're going to kill 10,000 people you'd better have proof. So
far Bush & Cheney have none.

If you are going to claim 10,000 people, you'd better have proof.


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 was.

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?

If we replaced Halliburton with some other company (assuming there was
another company who could do the work in the time frame required),
would that change your opinion?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 07:38:50 -0400, DSK wrote:

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?

1. Removal of an unstable and ruthless dictator who had already proven
that he is unwilling to respect borders, and has no compassion for
even his own people.

Gosh...that's almost a description of George W. Bush.




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

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:04:00 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
Doug, I know you have claimed to be a conservative before, but your
contributions since have said the opposite. You constantly take the
opposite side on practically every issue.

Not at all. You seem to believe that a "conservative" must mindlessly
suck up all the malarkey pushed forth by Buch & Cheney.

A true conservative would not be so quick to dismiss the position of
the Bush administration as "Malarkey".


I follow a number of conservative principles. I believe that if you give
up on following principles where convenient, then you don't really have
principles. Bush & Cheney have violated those principles time & time
again, plus they are shameless hypocrits

When has Bush given up on following his principles? He's been focussed
on the war on terrorism since 9/11, and has not swayed despite growing
distrust of his leadership.


. Plus I have always had a
distaste for Bible-thumpers getting into politics.

Who's a bible thumper? What, since Bush is religious person (Something
sorely lacking in today's society IMHO), that makes him a "bible
thumper"?


There you have it.
Bush is not worthy of my vote, therefor I'm not giving it to him. It's a
matter of principle.

So you would vote for a liberal instead? How can a flip flopping
milquetoast like Kerry earn your respect for following principles,
after what he did to his own servicemen after Vietnam? That man is not
worthy of being a senator, let alone president. You claim to be a vet,
why does this not bother you? Have you listened to his 1971 testimony?


The fact that you cannot see beyond shallow partisan brinksmanship
proves that you're stupid, not that you're conservative.

I am a person of principles. I am also a person of logic. The person
who most closely aligns with my own principles is the logical choice.
I do not expect perfection, and Bush is certainly far short of that,
But he's closer to my core beliefs than Kerry.


I generally favor the preservation of the economy over environmental
concerns, when it can be shown that additional conservation measures
have reached the point of diminishing returns.

How about the stripping away of all conservation enforcement?
Here's a challenge for you... look up the number of suits filed by the
EPA to force polluting businesses to cease illegal pollution since Bush
was inaugurated. Now compare to say nine years earlier.

What does that prove exactly? I understand what you are supposing, but
what proof is there?

I don't agree that the burden of paying for toxic cleanup should be
borne by the people. It should be paid by the offending company. Bush
gets a strike for that one.

Just one?

For now.


I am totally in favor of the no child left behind initiative,
especially teacher accountability. I would also revoke tenure, to give
teachers "incentive" to continue to push without the temptation to
slack off, if they feel that their job is "locked".

How do you feel about the fact that this forces teachers to spend
professional time away from students?

For what reason?


How do you feel about the fact
that the "no child left behind inititative" is basically another
unfunded mandate?

So? That's what our tax money is supposed to be used for. Why is it
that every new mandate has to come with funds attached? This is a lean
economy. Learn to get by with less. That's what our bosses are always
telling us. Why should schools be any different?


I favor selective educational choices, especially the voucher idea. By
giving the people the choice of where their tax money goes, it forces
school to become competitive, and ultimately the kids will benefit.

OK, first on the list should be to give me a choice. I have no kids, yet
I am forced to pay for taxes to support public schools.

That complaint is as old as the hills. When I was childless, I felt
the same way. Why should I pay for schools that I'm not using? I guess
it comes down to the fact that if only the people who have kids paid,
the costs for them would be higher. But I guess this is what happens
when the government gets involved in institutions. If you don't like
paying for schools when you don't use them, just wait until the
liberals pass universal healthcare, and you start paying for people
who are sick, while you're still healthy.

When that choice
is presnted to me also, then I'll favor vouchers. Until then, it's just
a fancy way to cheat me into paying for poor kids schools while rich
people skate out of a civic duty.

Please explain how using a voucher is "skating a civic duty"?


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.

So? It's the only game in town for international diplomacy... unless
you're a rogue nation.

Ah! So you believe that since the U.N is the only game in town that we
should be forced to deal with the corruption? The U.N. is still a
great idea, but some clean up needs to be made in their leadership.

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


No one is "begging" the U.N to do anything.

Oh really? What were all those headlines about Bush going before the U.N
to "demand" they play a greater role in peacekeeping? I guess it's a
matter of what you ignore and how the headlines are worded.

... If anything Bush is
capitulating under public pressure that we stop assuming the total
burden for this operation.

Bush capitulates to public pressure? I thought he was a bold leader with
vision, who paid no attention to polls?

At some point you have to make some concessions. Since the U.N.
refused to back us in the war, we didn't want them getting their hands
in the spoils (After all, they did nothing to earn it). But at some
point, we have to realize that it looks better if the rebuilding of
Iraq becomes an international effort.


Can you get the story straight once in a while, and not contradict
yourself quite so often? It might help.

I have no trouble keep any particular story straight. Your problem is
that you apply the same yardstick against all stories. Lest you be
accused of "binary thinking" you have to understand that all these
issues are not black and white.

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

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


So what's this the old moral equivalency arguments? How does the
involvement of one or two private corporations negate and invalidate
the indiscretions of sovereign nations to the point that sound
judgement may have been impaired due to risk of exposure, and the
cessation of their windfalls?

Are you saying that the Bush Administration did not exercise sound
judgement due to the cessation of their windfalls, and/or the prospect
of greater windfalls to come? If so I agree.

Not at all. I'm talking about France, Germany and Russia with their
hands in Iraq's tills.

In any event, "the moral equvalency argument" is a clever rhetorical
trick for denouncing the fact I've stated, which is that Bush, Cheney, &
Rumsfeld have all had at least as much business dealing with Saddam
Hussein as Russia & France.

I would disagree with Bush as having had as many dealings with Iraq.
However, I would agree with Cheney and Rumsfeld, both having served
under previous administrations when Saddam was not yet on our "bad guy
list".


What's your point? That we once had diplomatic relations with Saddam?

No, that the biggest reason why Bush & Cheney & Rumsfeld were so sure
that Saddam had WMDs is that they are the ones who sold 'em to him. And
they probably kept the receipts.

Ah! Now here's a logical conundrum for you. If, as you've said before,
there are no WMD in Iraq (Or in Syria) then that statement is an
obvious lie.

Conversely, if what you say is true (And for the record, I agree with
you), then wouldn't the fact that we sold them many of their WMD in
the past, be proof enough that Saddam had them? So where did they all
go?


What, are we not allowed to change our minds once the threat against
us is revealed?

Listen stupid, in 1988 an Iraqi jet fired two missiles into a U.S. Navy
warship, killing several of my friends.

Yea, so? On June 8th 1967 Israel attacked the USS Liberty, and killed
34 servicemen. We're not attacking Israel are we?

Iraq was a threat under the
Reagan Administration. Why wait untill now and pretend it's about
terrorism? I don't know for sure, but the whole episode stinks.

Yes it does Doug. There are a lot of nefarious political "behind
closed door dealings" that have gone on in the past. Many of those
deals have returned to haunt us later. Much of this has also been
responsible for much of the hatred that many Middle Eastern citizens
harbor for us.

It would be nice if we could take the clarity of hindsight, jump into
a handy time machine and undo the mistakes of our past. But it's not
that easy. We do what we feel is politically expedient at that time in
the present. What we do now will be judged in the annals of history
years from now. We made a mess, and we have to undo it somehow. Short
of surrendering and withdrawing all of our forces from the rest of the
world and keeping to our own borders, there isn't much else we can do.


It looks
very very fishy. And since the whole Bush crew has a history of war
profiteering there is darn good reason to be suspicious... unless you
are mindlessly swallowing all their malarkey...

Every modern political administration made "deals" with countries who
turned out to be on the wrong side of democracy some time later on.
It's hard to accuse the current administration of doing something
that's been a part of our diplomatic process for years now.


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


Because I don't believe in absolutes

You don't believe in anything Dave.

I believe in personal freedom and responsibility.


You think that it's OK to abandon
your principles the moment you can profit by doing so.

How can I abandon my principles if, as you say, I don't believe in
anything? You seem to be an enigma of contradictions.

... I believe that everyone
shares the responsibility to protect themselves from potentially
dangerous situations.

In that case, wear a helmt all the time. Somebody might shoot a gun
straight up in the air, not caring where the bullet falls.

It's not legal to shoot a gun in the air. But the helmet idea is good
though. You might get hit with falling debris from tall buildings,
especially in the winter. Life itself is a risk. Anytime you go out,
you place your life at risk. The more you do, the more risk exposure
you have. Some people understand this and choose to live life anyway,
take precautions to minimize risk, and deal with those times when
"bad" things happen. Other people demand "protection" from risk, and
look to recover financial compensation from tangible entities when
"bad" things happen to them.

If you make a wake, you are just as responsible for any harm done by it
as would be a person who discharges a firearm is responsible for where
the bullet ends up.

I respectfully disagree. Shooting a firearm in the air serves no
purpose (unless you're shooting flying game in season). You cannot
operate a planing hull boat at speed without making a wake, and that
wake travels some distance. It's a part of boating and should be
expected as part of the experience.

If you're operating in close quarters with another vessel and you can
reasonably be expected to be aware of their presence then, as part of
your responsibilities, you need to take corrective measures to reduce
your wake. That should not diminish the responsibility of other boats
from making course changes as necessary to minimize the impact of
another boat's wake on them however.

If you're operating in an open waterway, and your wake travels a fair
distance and into a small cove, and disrupts a small boat drifting
there, should you be responsible, when you aren't aware of their
presence? Should the cumulative effects of boat wakes be considered in
issues such as beach erosion, especially considering the larger
effects of storms?

In life, sometimes **** happens.

Great philosophy. It's a poor excuse for moral laziness, but maybe it
sounds cool.

It's the truth, and it has nothing to do with morality. It just
acknowledges that in life, some things happen which we have little to
no control over. How we deal with those times, defines our character.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

While Saddam had no part in 9/11 directly, he
has had past connections to other terrorist groups. That's a matter of
record.

So have we. We put bin Laden in business in Afghanistan. Remember that
little incident with the Russians?