| |
Main
Date: 04 Mar 2007 16:01:17
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Hey Chung
|
On 4, 12:45 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> Phil Holman wrote:
> >> There are lots of questions that could have been better than the one
> >> that was asked, but the startling thing was that the responses
> >> received from the bloggers were 59 to 0.
>
> > Extreme but what would you expect from an extremely biased sample
> > selection.
>
> Well, the interesting thing isn't that biased samples produce odd results:
> it's that the sample was selected according to position on a political, not
> scientific, spectrum. One could easily expect that opinions on the war, on
> the President's performance, or on Democratic legislator's motivations would
> be affected. That's dog bites man stuff. But what was the a prior
> expectation about their position on a scientific topic? I wouldn't have
> expected this litmus test to have performed so well.
>
> But I guess I'm naive because I was also pretty surprised about the divide
> on the estimates of excess mortality in Iraq. Those estimates appear to have
> about as much support as the AGW stuff does by professionals in their
> respective fields.
Dumbass -
The discrepancies between the Lancet Study which claimed 650,000
deaths and the DoD figures was about 12 to 1. Look at what the Iraq
Study Group found.
From:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec07/0,4670,IraqIntelligence,00.html
The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.
"On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."
<snip ><end>
There is also about a 12 to 1 ratio there. Explains it. If the
incident doesn't involve US personnel, it doesn't count as a death.
BTW, I put in a report from Faux News just so the idiots in here don't
start screaming about the evil, inaccurate liberal media.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Mar 2007 22:11:53
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 11, 10:53 am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> I said I'm INCLINED to think that. But I know I'm wrong. The American
> public seems to have no particular problem with Guantanamo Bay and Jose
> Padilla. There's no reason to believe they are capable of being roused
> over anything at all.
>
> Mea culpa. I haven't written my Congressman in over a year either.
Congressional staffers do say that writing to your
Congressman does have an impact (so long as you remember
that they are basically sorting the letters into "pro"
and "con" and not reading them in detail).
However, they also say that IM'ing your Congressman
gets a more immediate response.
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 09:33:00
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 9, 7:30 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On 6, 11:08 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
> >>> wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this shit just
> >>> gets recycled and they expect different results.
> >>> Bill C
> >> At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
> >> everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
> >> war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.
>
> >> But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
> >> do to get re-elected.
>
> > To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
> > genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
> > worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
> > relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
> > Castro are heroes and great men, and cos and Pinochet are scum.
> > Bill C
>
> If we look, we can find those who admire Hitler. We could call those
> people the "Far Right", if you like.
>
Yeah I could go for that. They have no shortage of nutcases but, this
goes along with Ryan's comments, I'm in college central and there are
very few protesters out here wearing "Reagan Revolution" t-shirts.
> Castro is no Hitler, but it's still pretty looney to believe in his
> greatness.
>
As Ryan said, and probably even more here given the politics, Both
Castro and Gueverra rank right up there with, or better than Mother
Theresa and Ghandi.
> When you view the world as "left" and "right" it sometimes makes it hard
> to differentiate the crazy from the sane.- Hide quoted text -
Unfortunately getting past the "labels" seem to be a maturing process
that, being cynical it seems to me that MOST, people never reach.
Labels are needed as a language shortcut for large generalisations,
but have all the inacuracy inherent in doing that.
>
TK is a perfect example of someone SO hung up on the label that he'll
make ANY excuse and ignore any fact to support and protect his label.
Don't know anyone else on RBR who does that, to that extreme, but do
know a bunch here in the Valley.
With everything that's come out in the last week or so, even Tom's
gotta be having a hard time supporting this bunch of clowns.
Especially since they've trashed a ton of core stuff hte "right" is
supposed to care about.
I think decent, rational people, like most everyone here has no
problem seeing that There are real evil scumbags from all ideologies.
It's sick when people support them just because they say the right
words, especially when their actions are just the opposite of what
they are saying.
You can apply that to both Bush and Castro and their supporters.
They'd NEVER abuse the Patriot Act, and there are WAY too many
safeguards built in for THAT to happen, right??? Isn't that what they
all said?
Now how about prosecuting The FBI director and everyone around him,
along with everyone who was supposed to have oversight of this.
Time for lots of people to go to jail.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 11 Mar 2007 10:53:03
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Bill C wrote:
> With everything that's come out in the last week or so, even Tom's
> gotta be having a hard time supporting this bunch of clowns.
> Especially since they've trashed a ton of core stuff hte "right" is
> supposed to care about.
> I think decent, rational people, like most everyone here has no
> problem seeing that There are real evil scumbags from all ideologies.
> It's sick when people support them just because they say the right
> words, especially when their actions are just the opposite of what
> they are saying.
> You can apply that to both Bush and Castro and their supporters.
> They'd NEVER abuse the Patriot Act, and there are WAY too many
> safeguards built in for THAT to happen, right??? Isn't that what they
> all said?
> Now how about prosecuting The FBI director and everyone around him,
> along with everyone who was supposed to have oversight of this.
> Time for lots of people to go to jail.
> Bill C
>
Based on what I'm reading on CNN.com right now, I'd say you're wrong
about anyone "having a hard time supporting this bunch of clowns". I
don't see any mention of Patriot Act abuse on CNN.com. One kidnapped
baby was found, a mother who murdered her kids was caught, Kroger's not
selling the "morning after" pill, a 101 year old woman was mugged, etc.
There's got to be an outcry before lots of people go to jail. We're not
seeing that here. I'm inclined to think that we don't have enough
details to get good and righteously indignant. If we knew that the FBI
was pulling records of people who bought the "morning after" pill or
they investigated people who were against the "morning after" pill for
being religious fundamentalists, THEN you'd have your public outcry.
"They pulled some records about some things" wont get you there.
I said I'm INCLINED to think that. But I know I'm wrong. The American
public seems to have no particular problem with Guantanamo Bay and Jose
Padilla. There's no reason to believe they are capable of being roused
over anything at all.
Mea culpa. I haven't written my Congressman in over a year either.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 19:33:58
From: howard kveck
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
In article <1173547980.626235.214200@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >, "Bill
C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> With everything that's come out in the last week or so, even Tom's
> gotta be having a hard time supporting this bunch of clowns.
> Especially since they've trashed a ton of core stuff hte "right" is
> supposed to care about.
I doubt he has a hard time with that at all. When you get to be as much
of an ideologue as he is, it's very easy to find ways to condone that kind
of thing. The first step is to find some way to accuse the "other side" of
doing it first. Then you only have to say that if they (the Bush admin.,
FBI or the people who run Walter Reed, for example) didn't do that stuff,
the terrorists (or commies or whatever) will be emboldened (or whatever).
It's a tribal thing.
>> They'd NEVER abuse the Patriot Act, and there are WAY too many
> safeguards built in for THAT to happen, right??? Isn't that what they
> all said?
The Patriot Act got one hour of debate in Congress prior to being
passed. Most people in the Senate and House hadn't even had a chance to
read any of it.
> Now how about prosecuting The FBI director and everyone around him,
> along with everyone who was supposed to have oversight of this.
That was one of the beautiful things about the Patriot Act: there was
almost no oversight built in, and for a good reason. Bush, Cheney and co.
saw 9-11 as a great opportunity to grab powers that under normal
circumstances they never could.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 05:02:35
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 8, 1:23 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On 7, 9:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Raptor" <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> >news:eso1jq$23j$1@news.xmission.com...
> > > Bill C wrote:
> > >> On 7, 10:05 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
> > >>> mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.
>
> > >> Like PBS Frontline:
> > >>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comment...
> > >> The Center for Arms Control:
> > >>http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.html
> > >> The Center for Defense Information:
> > >>http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm
>
> > > I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
> > > was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
> > > invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening,
>
> > Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.
>
> > > We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
> > > (presumably) doing it pretty damn well.
>
> > My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
> > about suitcase nukes again?
>
> We've been over this before:
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/
> 8f1cbaf9cef1118b>
>
> <http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm>
>
> "Suitcase" nuclear weapons:
> - probably existed
> - are very low yield; nobody's going to cause a
> Hiroshima with one
> - reports of them going missing are unreliable and
> probably not true
> - any portable nuclear weapons that went missing
> in the 1990s are completely inoperable by now
>
> The Center for Arms Control page that Bill linked refers
> to the CNS study I linked above, whose conclusion is
> that old Russian "suitcase" nukes are not a threat but
> we could use more information about what the Russians made
> (good luck getting that from Putin, though, no matter
> what GWB says about seeing into Putin's heart).
>
> Ben
> RBR Dept. of Known Unknowns- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I couldn't find a fairly new link that I had a while ago from one of
the intel sites on this stuff. It was a report from 2003. As you've
said it's always been pretty sketchy what the "suitcase" nukes
actually are, and if they did exist. Lots of conflicting reports. What
did, and still do exist are ADMs:
http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/madm.htm
(I didn't know we had our own in house expert:
http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.htm
The Davy Crockett (shown here at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in
yland in ch 1961) was the smallest and lightest nuclear weapon
ever deployed by the U.S. military. It was designed for use in Europe
against Soviet troop formations.
Now we know what Davey's been up to on his "walkabouts")
Anyway the report was one on just what had gone missing and was
triggered by confirmed reports and Russian actions on an air force
unit that was selling off it's missiles and parts, and a couple off
whole planes, which was what got them caught. They said they were
doing it because they hadn't been paid in something like 18 months.
The report solidly confirmed 8 ADMs missing and unaccounted for from
a Speznaz base among other things.
The IAEA is also VERY worried along these lines:
http://www.worldmun.org/2006/committees/committee.php?c=18
Topic A: Nuclear Terrorism
Since 1993, there have been over 650 confirmed incidents of
trafficking in nuclear or other radioactive material. Last year alone,
nearly 100 such incidents occurred, 11 of which involved nuclear
material. Almost half of the confirmed incidents involved criminal
activities (e.g.: theft, illegal possession, smuggling, or attempted
illegal sale of the material). As the incidents of reported nuclear
materials trafficking steadily rise, it becomes more and more
important that the IAEA take action to ensure global security and
prevent possible attacks.
The main potential nuclear security risks include: the theft of a
nuclear weapon; the acquisition of nuclear materials for the
construction of nuclear explosive devices; the malicious use of
radioactive sources, including in so-called "dirty bombs," and the
radiological hazards caused by an attack on, or sabotage of, a
facility or a transport vehicle. The IAEA's main points of focus are
prevention, detection and response.
The other major concern is that a lot of this stuff could have, and
has been maintained by scientists who were either abandoned, like the
Russsian military and are doing it for cash, or rogue scientists like
Khan who did it for ideology:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3343621.stm
A large percentage of "experts" absolutely believe that it's a case
of When, Not if. Unfortunately I agree with them. The good thing is
that it's not likely to be worse than Hiroshima at worst, if you can
call that a good thing, and probably much less.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 22:23:06
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 7, 9:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Raptor" <law...@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:eso1jq$23j$1@news.xmission.com...
> > Bill C wrote:
> >> On 7, 10:05 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
> >>> mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.
>
> >> Like PBS Frontline:
> >>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comment...
> >> The Center for Arms Control:
> >>http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.html
> >> The Center for Defense Information:
> >>http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm
>
> > I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
> > was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
> > invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening,
>
> Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.
>
> > We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
> > (presumably) doing it pretty damn well.
>
> My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
> about suitcase nukes again?
We've been over this before:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/
8f1cbaf9cef1118b >
<http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm >
"Suitcase" nuclear weapons:
- probably existed
- are very low yield; nobody's going to cause a
Hiroshima with one
- reports of them going missing are unreliable and
probably not true
- any portable nuclear weapons that went missing
in the 1990s are completely inoperable by now
The Center for Arms Control page that Bill linked refers
to the CNS study I linked above, whose conclusion is
that old Russian "suitcase" nukes are not a threat but
we could use more information about what the Russians made
(good luck getting that from Putin, though, no matter
what GWB says about seeing into Putin's heart).
Ben
RBR Dept. of Known Unknowns
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 08:51:19
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 7 2007 22:23:06 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
>"Suitcase" nuclear weapons:
>- probably existed
>- are very low yield; nobody's going to cause a
> Hiroshima with one
>- reports of them going missing are unreliable and
> probably not true
>- any portable nuclear weapons that went missing
> in the 1990s are completely inoperable by now
And the only succesfully deployed suitcase bomb destroyed an American
Airlines lost luggage center in Nebraska. Some of you may have noticed
that you never got your luggage that week.
Curtis L. Russell
rbr department of new facts, made to order
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 17:33:47
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>"Suitcase" nuclear weapons:
>>- probably existed
>>- are very low yield;
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> And the only succesfully deployed suitcase bomb destroyed an American
> Airlines lost luggage center in Nebraska. Some of you may have noticed
> that you never got your luggage that week.
I thought their lost luggage got re-routed to the black hole in the centre
of the galaxy (which conveniently also explains the apparent shortage of
dark matter in the universe).
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 09:08:44
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 7, 10:05 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com > wrote:
>
> Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
> mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.
Like PBS Frontline:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comments.html
The Center for Arms Control:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.html
The Center for Defense Information:
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm
>
> The FBI didn't pin the Cole bombing on AQ until after Shrub took office.
> For every other attack they made against us, Clinton reacted
> proportionately. Under Shrub, it was 8 months of nothing. Then 9/11, and
> all of a sudden it's his highest priority.
>
> --
> Lynn Wallace
>
> Jesus loves Osama bin Laden- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lynn it's not whether Clinton reacted properly or not, my feeling is
that he didn't even come close, but whether they had credible intel
buzz beforehand that some of these things were likely going to happen.
Just about everything I've seen says that we had at least some people
warning that actions in these areas were likely, and dismissed them as
not being solid enough to take precautions for.
Bad choices.
I personally would rather take some action, and plan for the worst
case, which is what Congress authorized for Iraq. Rather than
discount, again, the intel and apologize later, again.
Let's face it, until Iraq most of America really didn't give a shit
when US service members were killed by terrorists. "Hey they
volunteered, and it's part of the job. No big deal. With people here
in the Valley cheering dead "fascist scumbags". Lot's of people here
agree with Ward Churchill that we got exactly what we deserved and
it's just too bad it wasn't military getting killed though.
Bush fucked up every way possible, but it would be just as bad, and
you'd be screaming, if they wrote the intel off and we got hit again.
Our history is to NOT take this stuff seriously, right after 9/11
Bush exploited that history to create fear and get what he wanted.
We were wrong in the past, and Bush was wrong.
There were Russian advisors on the ground, in Baghdad, when we
entered the city who were still working with Hussein, operating
equipment that was banned under the UN sanctions, that they had
recently brought in, during the sanctions.
That put's a dent in the credibility of the denials. Blix repeatedly
reported that the Iraqis were NOT cooperating and he couldn't say
what level of cooperation was going on between the Russians and Iraq.
The "Oil for Food" mess proves that the UN had NO credibility, or
accountability as to what was happening. There was every reason to
doubt the ability, or the will of the UN to control Iraq, or even get
any sort of compliance. The French were lobbying to lift everything to
allow ELF, their intelligence service oil company back into Iraq and
the cash to start rolling again.
Bush took advantage of all of this, and twisted the reality to sell a
bill of goods. Congress voted on it based on all of this.
If the UN had been even vaguely credible at any point up until then.
If Hussein hadn't been playing a bluffing shell game. If Russia,
France, and Germany hadn't been pretty openly violating the sanctions
for cash, and lobbying to turn Hussein totally loose with little to no
real oversight. Etc...
Then Bush would've had a much harder sell.
It's scary to see Russia still playing exactly the same game in Iran,
and protecting them while Iran is playing games with the UN and
stalling as much as possible while they scramble to build/get a nuke.
China is protecting Sudan in the UN. China, Russia, and Iran are
happily working with Chavez who is making no secret of wanting to take
Venezuela nuclear. At least it's a little farther away than Cuba was
when Russia gave Castro ICBMs.
In short there was plenty of background that allowed Bush to cook
what he needed to believably. The best lies always contain a kernel of
truth.
Bill C
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 20:55:08
From: Raptor
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Bill C wrote:
> On 7, 10:05 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>> Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
>> mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.
>
> Like PBS Frontline:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comments.html
> The Center for Arms Control:
> http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.html
> The Center for Defense Information:
> http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm
I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening, especially if
said invasion creates more terrorists from other sources and inhibits
our ability to meet all these new threats. We know what we need to do to
prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are (presumably) doing it pretty
damn well.
Further, in the range of threats we face, the suitcase nuke is just one,
a lower probability one, and one that's variously easier to thwart than
many others. That's why I call it re-badged scare-mongering rhetoric.
>> The FBI didn't pin the Cole bombing on AQ until after Shrub took office.
>> For every other attack they made against us, Clinton reacted
>> proportionately. Under Shrub, it was 8 months of nothing. Then 9/11, and
>> all of a sudden it's his highest priority.
>>
>> --
>> Lynn Wallace
>>
>> Jesus loves Osama bin Laden- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Lynn it's not whether Clinton reacted properly or not, my feeling is
> that he didn't even come close, but whether they had credible intel
> buzz beforehand that some of these things were likely going to happen.
> Just about everything I've seen says that we had at least some people
> warning that actions in these areas were likely, and dismissed them as
> not being solid enough to take precautions for.
> Bad choices.
But the Cole DID take precautions. Same with Khobar Towers and the
embassies. They were reasonable, but they were inadequate.
More effective would've been to not have our forces in that theater at
the time, but that's a whole set of choices we don't seem ready to make
(and I don't seriously argue for them here). And Clinton's branch
successfully thwarted the Millenium bombing.
I personally feel that we gave AQ the attention it deserved. Even if
Shrub wasn't asleep at the switch, 9/11 might have happened just as
those other attacks did. Plinking a ship or blowing up remote
installations are one thing, calling for an aggressive security and
combat posture but low-scale and somewhat covert. That's what Clinton did.
But 9/11 was over the top and it was time to deploy massively against
the enemy. The French said, "We are all Americans," the whole world
essentially asked us to please shoot straight, and we "invaded"
Afghanistan. I was 100% in favor, and am still in favor of completing
that mission.
> I personally would rather take some action, and plan for the worst
> case, which is what Congress authorized for Iraq. Rather than
> discount, again, the intel and apologize later, again.
We did "take some action," and were "taking some action." Against AQ, we
got caught with our pants down, and it can be argued as you're doing
that we should have been more aggressive all along. I don't know.
There's always a case for not over-reacting to threats. Against Iraq, we
were doing quite well, bombing the place roughly weekly, quarantining
the country, taking no shit from Saddam. Facts as developed indicate
that we were effective.
That's regardless of the intel. Always, we should take action based on
the level of threat combined with the confidence of the info. Re Iraq,
the old aggressive containment strategy was indicated and, as we've
seen, effective. Against AQ, we've learned that we should've been more
aggressive.
> Let's face it, until Iraq most of America really didn't give a shit
> when US service members were killed by terrorists. "Hey they
> volunteered, and it's part of the job. No big deal. With people here
> in the Valley cheering dead "fascist scumbags". Lot's of people here
> agree with Ward Churchill that we got exactly what we deserved and
> it's just too bad it wasn't military getting killed though.
A terrorist attack against a military target IS less objectionable than
one against civilians IMO. The military is prepared, accepts risks, and
is the tip of the spear. Acknowledging that, or that the terrorists may
have justification for wanting to hurt us, doesn't give them permission
to hurt us. It merely provides cause for re-assessing policy and its
implications. If they hit us, we hit back. If we know they want to hit
us, we prepare & try to preempt them.
> Bush fucked up every way possible, but it would be just as bad, and
> you'd be screaming, if they wrote the intel off and we got hit again.
I'm honest. If we had not invaded Iraq, and somehow Saddam decided the
gamble was worth it, and gave terrorists something traceable to him,
then I'd have said, "Oops."
> Our history is to NOT take this stuff seriously, right after 9/11
> Bush exploited that history to create fear and get what he wanted.
I happen to be okay with running some risk. Deploy prudent precautions,
make it quite hard but not impossible to hit you, try to be just nice
enough that no one's determined enough to take advantage. Freedom
involves some risk, and ultimately everyone dies anyway.
> We were wrong in the past, and Bush was wrong.
> There were Russian advisors on the ground, in Baghdad, when we
> entered the city who were still working with Hussein, operating
> equipment that was banned under the UN sanctions, that they had
> recently brought in, during the sanctions.
> That put's a dent in the credibility of the denials. Blix repeatedly
> reported that the Iraqis were NOT cooperating and he couldn't say
> what level of cooperation was going on between the Russians and Iraq.
> The "Oil for Food" mess proves that the UN had NO credibility, or
> accountability as to what was happening. There was every reason to
> doubt the ability, or the will of the UN to control Iraq, or even get
> any sort of compliance. The French were lobbying to lift everything to
> allow ELF, their intelligence service oil company back into Iraq and
> the cash to start rolling again.
> Bush took advantage of all of this, and twisted the reality to sell a
> bill of goods. Congress voted on it based on all of this.
> If the UN had been even vaguely credible at any point up until then.
> If Hussein hadn't been playing a bluffing shell game. If Russia,
> France, and Germany hadn't been pretty openly violating the sanctions
> for cash, and lobbying to turn Hussein totally loose with little to no
> real oversight. Etc...
> Then Bush would've had a much harder sell.
> It's scary to see Russia still playing exactly the same game in Iran,
> and protecting them while Iran is playing games with the UN and
> stalling as much as possible while they scramble to build/get a nuke.
> China is protecting Sudan in the UN. China, Russia, and Iran are
> happily working with Chavez who is making no secret of wanting to take
> Venezuela nuclear. At least it's a little farther away than Cuba was
> when Russia gave Castro ICBMs.
> In short there was plenty of background that allowed Bush to cook
> what he needed to believably. The best lies always contain a kernel of
I can see why people made the decisions and votes they did, I just was
never buying what Shrub was selling. As for Russia and China, we can and
should expect other nations to protect their interests. Crying over it
does no one any good, and our goal should be to simply navigate the
smoothest course through all the competing interests. It's not hard,
it's just beyond the crew we've got ourselves stuck with. This will change.
--
Lynn Wallace
Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 04:07:58
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
"Raptor" <lawall@xmission.com > wrote in message
news:eso1jq$23j$1@news.xmission.com...
> Bill C wrote:
>> On 7, 10:05 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
>>> mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.
>>
>> Like PBS Frontline:
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comments.html
>> The Center for Arms Control:
>> http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.html
>> The Center for Defense Information:
>> http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm
>
> I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
> was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
> invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening,
Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.
> We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
> (presumably) doing it pretty damn well.
My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
about suitcase nukes again?
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 19:24:26
From: Raptor
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Raptor" <lawall@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:eso1jq$23j$1@news.xmission.com...
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> On 7, 10:05 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
>>>> mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.
>>> Like PBS Frontline:
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/russia/suitcase/comments.html
>>> The Center for Arms Control:
>>> http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.html
>>> The Center for Defense Information:
>>> http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/cooperation.cfm
>> I don't need to follow the links to know that it is an actual threat. So
>> was Anthrax, botullism, etc., from Iraq finding its way to the US. But
>> invasion was not necessary to prevent it from happening,
>
> Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.
Every problem looks like a nail to you, every threat requires open
combat. You've got a pretty empty toolbox, like anyone who still
supports Shrub.
>> We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
>> (presumably) doing it pretty damn well.
>
> My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
> about suitcase nukes again?
Radiation detectors at foreign ports and elsewhere, careful tracking of
nukes & fissile material, helping to secure storage, tracking
terrorists, leaning on rogue governments. Oh, and openly fighting Al
Qaeda militarily.
Perhaps only the last one registered with you.
--
Lynn Wallace
Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 19:47:01
From: howard kveck
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
In article <esvpdr$lmg$1@news.xmission.com >, Raptor <lawall@xmission.com> wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > Yes, we could have sent off a stern letter of warning.
>
> Every problem looks like a nail to you, every threat requires open
> combat. You've got a pretty empty toolbox, like anyone who still
> supports Shrub.
Lynn, that's not all that Tom has that's empty.
> >> We know what we need to do to prevent a suitcase nuke attack, and we are
> >> (presumably) doing it pretty damn well.
> >
> > My but you're so forceful. By the way, what exactly is it that we're doing
> > about suitcase nukes again?
>
> Radiation detectors at foreign ports and elsewhere, careful tracking of
> nukes & fissile material, helping to secure storage, tracking
> terrorists, leaning on rogue governments.
To add to what Bill mentioned earlier regarding keeping track of
fissile material in the former Soviet Union, we can thank former
ambassodor to the UN John Bolton for defunding and dragging his feet on
programs that would help round up Soviet nukes and keep them out of the
hands of people who shouldn't have them (like al Qaeda).
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2007 12:08:53
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
howard kveck wrote:
> To add to what Bill mentioned earlier regarding keeping track of
> fissile material in the former Soviet Union, we can thank former
> ambassodor to the UN John Bolton for defunding and dragging his feet on
> programs that would help round up Soviet nukes and keep them out of the
> hands of people who shouldn't have them (like al Qaeda).
Don't worry, Kunich is going to be the next US ambassador to the UN.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2007 09:05:49
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
In article <45f3d55d$0$13167$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >, Donald
Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> howard kveck wrote:
> > To add to what Bill mentioned earlier regarding keeping track of
> > fissile material in the former Soviet Union, we can thank former
> > ambassodor to the UN John Bolton for defunding and dragging his feet on
> > programs that would help round up Soviet nukes and keep them out of the
> > hands of people who shouldn't have them (like al Qaeda).
>
> Don't worry, Kunich is going to be the next US ambassador to the UN.
Since Bolton was obviously wearing a wig, for all we know Kunich has
already been UN ambassador.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 05:21:58
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 6, 11:08 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
> > wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this shit just
> > gets recycled and they expect different results.
> > Bill C
>
> At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
> everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
> war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.
>
> But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
> do to get re-elected.
To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
Castro are heroes and great men, and cos and Pinochet are scum.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 16:30:06
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Bill C wrote:
> On 6, 11:08 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
>>> wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this shit just
>>> gets recycled and they expect different results.
>>> Bill C
>> At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
>> everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
>> war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.
>>
>> But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
>> do to get re-elected.
>
> To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
> genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
> worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
> relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
> Castro are heroes and great men, and cos and Pinochet are scum.
> Bill C
>
If we look, we can find those who admire Hitler. We could call those
people the "Far Right", if you like.
Castro is no Hitler, but it's still pretty looney to believe in his
greatness.
When you view the world as "left" and "right" it sometimes makes it hard
to differentiate the crazy from the sane.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 03:44:46
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
In article <LcWdnd_M5KqMYWzYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On 6, 11:08 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
> >>> wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this shit just
> >>> gets recycled and they expect different results.
> >>> Bill C
> >> At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
> >> everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
> >> war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.
> >>
> >> But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
> >> do to get re-elected.
> >
> > To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
> > genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
> > worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
> > relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
> > Castro are heroes and great men, and cos and Pinochet are scum.
> > Bill C
> >
>
> If we look, we can find those who admire Hitler. We could call those
> people the "Far Right", if you like.
>
> Castro is no Hitler, but it's still pretty looney to believe in his
> greatness.
Oh, I wish it were seen that way!
I can't find the original article published in the Toronto Star (a
fairly big newspaper), but Pierre Trudeau's son, Sacha Trudeau, wrote a
rather embarrassing toast of his father's good friend.
I can only find this reposting of one rebuttal of the article:
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/004024.html
Trudeau himself is hardly a fringe lunatic. He's a contributing editor
to Maclean's magazine, which is roughly parallel to Time in the US
(weekly news-and-commentary magazine):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Trudeau
As someone who works at a community college, hardly a day goes by that
there isn't a notice on at least one of the bulletin boards that somehow
praises or supports Fidel.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 21:49:04
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <LcWdnd_M5KqMYWzYnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> On 6, 11:08 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>>>> Bill C wrote:
>>>>> Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
>>>>> wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this shit just
>>>>> gets recycled and they expect different results.
>>>>> Bill C
>>>> At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
>>>> everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
>>>> war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.
>>>>
>>>> But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
>>>> do to get re-elected.
>>> To the people here. The same ones screaming about human rights and
>>> genocide in Sudan, China, etc... won't make a peep over something much
>>> worse because it's convenient for them. Situational ethics and moral
>>> relativism are the bedrocks of the far left. That's why Gueverra and
>>> Castro are heroes and great men, and cos and Pinochet are scum.
>>> Bill C
>>>
>> If we look, we can find those who admire Hitler. We could call those
>> people the "Far Right", if you like.
>>
>> Castro is no Hitler, but it's still pretty looney to believe in his
>> greatness.
>
> Oh, I wish it were seen that way!
>
> I can't find the original article published in the Toronto Star (a
> fairly big newspaper), but Pierre Trudeau's son, Sacha Trudeau, wrote a
> rather embarrassing toast of his father's good friend.
>
> I can only find this reposting of one rebuttal of the article:
>
> http://www.babalublog.com/archives/004024.html
>
> Trudeau himself is hardly a fringe lunatic. He's a contributing editor
> to Maclean's magazine, which is roughly parallel to Time in the US
> (weekly news-and-commentary magazine):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Trudeau
>
> As someone who works at a community college, hardly a day goes by that
> there isn't a notice on at least one of the bulletin boards that somehow
> praises or supports Fidel.
>
I kind of expect that stuff at colleges. At larger colleges, you get a
collection of all the lunatic fringe.
I guess the Trudeaus are taken more seriously than I would have guessed.
The first thing I thought when you mentioned the name was "I wonder what
garet's been up to lately?" So I googled her. Almost like Teddy
Kennedy allegedly did. The first thing I found was this:
http://tinyurl.com/2vgfk4
Some people never grow up. Her Wikipedia entry implies that she may
have had closer relations with Castro than I care to think about. In
which case, I really don't understand Sasha's admiration for the man.
Too weird.
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 05:18:49
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 7, 12:11 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Add Scooter Libby to the list of fall guys who got tossed to the
> > wolves while the people actually calling the shots, and orchestrating
> > this stuff walk free. Watch 'em tie it up in appeals and then pardon
> > him on the way out the door.
> > He did a lot less than a shitload of those Clinton pardoned, so I'd
> > say it sucks, but that's how the game is played.
>
> None Dare Call It Treason.
>
> --
> Lynn Wallace
>
> Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
That's a very slippery thing to hang on anybody in the legal system.
This though, waddles and quacks just like that duck. Couldn't hang
their asses for that, but there sure as hell is plenty of it to try
and hang their asses on through special prosecuters in the next
administration. One of the real problems is that government clowns
have voted themselves such incredible protection from prosecution for
just about everything that it's ridiculous.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 05:12:13
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung Not talking about Lynn
|
On 7, 8:06 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On 7, 12:11 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > r15...@aol.com wrote:
>> It really amazes me that I end up defending the politicians I like
> least, other than Bush and Co., from the total nutjobs on the wacko
> fringe of their own party.
> I'd bet your a Kucinich supporter.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 05:06:42
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 7, 12:11 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com > wrote:
> r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > On 6, 4:31 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> ... I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
> >> long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
> >> intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
> >> free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
> >> based on solid information.
>
> > No freakin way.
> > Sure everyone assumed Saddam had WMD. But
> > anyone with half a brain cell could also see that the
> > 'intelligence' had been and was being cooked, even
> > then, and it was clear to anyone with half a brain cell
> > that WMD was just the latest in a string of justifications
> > anyway. Many people were talking about this openly
> > and in public at the time. Hillary and Co. cast their
> > votes pro-war because it was the popular thing to
> > do. No free passes.
>
> If you look at what they said during the debate over the AUMF, most
> Democrats were careful to express support for nothing more than a
> strong, unyielding stance against Saddam's Iraq.
>
> But you're otherwise right. Anyone paying close enough attention could
> see that the intel didn't back up the rhetoric, that the justifications
> changed from day to day, and that there was a huge black hole under
> "What happens next."
>
> --
> Lynn Wallace
>
> Jesus loves Osama bin Laden- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Glad you know more about what's being provided in classified briefings
to Congress, and other people in Washington from here than they did.
I'd say that Hillary and folks made the safe choice based on what
they were seeing, Either they were supposed to have forseen the
biggest criminal abuse/misuse of intel since the Spanish American war
and bet that there was no threat, or vote the way they did. Are you
one of the clowns saying that the intel that Al-Q was dangerous was
wrong under Clinton when he did nothing, but suddenly was right under
Bush and he should've done something.
You are a clown, Just like Kunich, it's about ideology. We ignored
intel pointing to something happening leading to 9/11, the USS Cole,
the Khobar towers, the Beirut ine barracks, and I could keep going
but none off that matters to you, even though there was serious
discussion of WMD.
It just as easily have gone the other way. They did nothing, and
Hussein handed one of those missing Soviet suitcase nukes (not myth)
to Al-Q and a US city disappeared.
Then you'd just have kept your mouth shut, or more likely,be
screaming that they SHOULD have taken action.
It really amazes me that I end up defending the politicians I like
least, other than Bush and Co., from the total nutjobs on the wacko
fringe of their own party.
I'd bet your a Kucinich supporter.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 08:05:01
From: Raptor
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Bill C wrote:
> On 7, 12:11 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> r15...@aol.com wrote:
>>> On 6, 4:31 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> ... I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
>>>> long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
>>>> intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
>>>> free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
>>>> based on solid information.
>>> No freakin way.
>>> Sure everyone assumed Saddam had WMD. But
>>> anyone with half a brain cell could also see that the
>>> 'intelligence' had been and was being cooked, even
>>> then, and it was clear to anyone with half a brain cell
>>> that WMD was just the latest in a string of justifications
>>> anyway. Many people were talking about this openly
>>> and in public at the time. Hillary and Co. cast their
>>> votes pro-war because it was the popular thing to
>>> do. No free passes.
>> If you look at what they said during the debate over the AUMF, most
>> Democrats were careful to express support for nothing more than a
>> strong, unyielding stance against Saddam's Iraq.
>>
>> But you're otherwise right. Anyone paying close enough attention could
>> see that the intel didn't back up the rhetoric, that the justifications
>> changed from day to day, and that there was a huge black hole under
>> "What happens next."
>>
>> --
>> Lynn Wallace
>>
>> Jesus loves Osama bin Laden- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Glad you know more about what's being provided in classified briefings
> to Congress, and other people in Washington from here than they did.
> I'd say that Hillary and folks made the safe choice based on what
> they were seeing, Either they were supposed to have forseen the
> biggest criminal abuse/misuse of intel since the Spanish American war
> and bet that there was no threat, or vote the way they did. Are you
> one of the clowns saying that the intel that Al-Q was dangerous was
> wrong under Clinton when he did nothing, but suddenly was right under
> Bush and he should've done something.
> You are a clown, Just like Kunich, it's about ideology. We ignored
> intel pointing to something happening leading to 9/11, the USS Cole,
> the Khobar towers, the Beirut ine barracks, and I could keep going
> but none off that matters to you, even though there was serious
> discussion of WMD.
> It just as easily have gone the other way. They did nothing, and
> Hussein handed one of those missing Soviet suitcase nukes (not myth)
> to Al-Q and a US city disappeared.
> Then you'd just have kept your mouth shut, or more likely,be
> screaming that they SHOULD have taken action.
> It really amazes me that I end up defending the politicians I like
> least, other than Bush and Co., from the total nutjobs on the wacko
> fringe of their own party.
> I'd bet your a Kucinich supporter.
> Bill C
I don't claim to know more than the classified briefings, but for
someone paying attention, the countervailing intelligence WAS noted by
the press: Iraq was 5+ years from a bomb, had no WMD delivery that could
pose a serious threat to anyone but Kurds, their new missiles were if
anything only technically in violation of the UN sanctions. Saddam was
being built up as an imminent threat to the US and ANYONE paying
attention knew it wasn't so. All you had to do was pay attention, but
these stories were buried on page A14, not blared on A1.
OTOH, we knew that he was very much opposed to our aims, and there was
ample reason to continue the policy of aggressive containment that had
worked for a decade. All it cost us was a bunch of jet fuel and the
occasional bomb. It didn't help the Iraqi people a bit, but they were
better off than most of them are now, and it kept us safe from Saddam.
Suitcase nukes from Saddam is just re-badged "smoking gun in the form a
mushroom cloud." Go tell it to someone gullible.
The FBI didn't pin the Cole bombing on AQ until after Shrub took office.
For every other attack they made against us, Clinton reacted
proportionately. Under Shrub, it was 8 months of nothing. Then 9/11, and
all of a sudden it's his highest priority.
--
Lynn Wallace
Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 22:53:59
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 6, 8:14 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
>
> Admit it, Tom: she was right. Under Saddam, neither men nor women were
> guaranteed much in the way of rights. It's an awfully mediocre equality
> but equality nonetheless.
Dumbass -
It was better than that. Women were allowed to hold professional jobs.
They were doctors, lawyers.
In a fundamentalist Muslim society like Saudi Arabia, women aren't
allowed to drive a car.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 23:23:36
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
In article <1173250439.844380.284470@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 6, 8:14 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> >
> > Admit it, Tom: she was right. Under Saddam, neither men nor women were
> > guaranteed much in the way of rights. It's an awfully mediocre equality
> > but equality nonetheless.
> It was better than that. Women were allowed to hold professional jobs.
> They were doctors, lawyers.
It goes much further than even that. The government of Iraq (after the '68 coup)
was far more secular than the governments of almost all the nations in the region. In
'70, the Iraqi Provisional Constitution was drafted. Iraqi women got equal rights
guaranteed in many areas, including the right to vote and to run for political office,
the right to attend school, and (one of the most important) the right to own property.
Iraqi women had the right to divorce and property settlement that goes with that.
The reasons for the government doing this was an attempt to create a population
that was more loyal to the state than tribal and sect affiliations.
--
tanx,
Howard
Never take a tenant with a monkey.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 09:28:34
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 6, 6:31 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
> long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
> intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
> free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
> based on solid information. What they didn't know was that, what is
> very possibly the most criminal administration in US history had
> seriously altered what they should have been seeing.
> I actually voted for this pinhead the first time. He didn't quite
> turn out to be what he claimed to be before the first election either.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Add Scooter Libby to the list of fall guys who got tossed to the
wolves while the people actually calling the shots, and orchestrating
this stuff walk free. Watch 'em tie it up in appeals and then pardon
him on the way out the door.
He did a lot less than a shitload of those Clinton pardoned, so I'd
say it sucks, but that's how the game is played.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 22:11:51
From: Raptor
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Bill C wrote:
> Add Scooter Libby to the list of fall guys who got tossed to the
> wolves while the people actually calling the shots, and orchestrating
> this stuff walk free. Watch 'em tie it up in appeals and then pardon
> him on the way out the door.
> He did a lot less than a shitload of those Clinton pardoned, so I'd
> say it sucks, but that's how the game is played.
None Dare Call It Treason.
--
Lynn Wallace
Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 18:57:46
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
* "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > a écrit
> On 6, 6:31 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
>> long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
>> intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
>> free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
>> based on solid information. What they didn't know was that, what is
>> very possibly the most criminal administration in US history had
>> seriously altered what they should have been seeing.
>> I actually voted for this pinhead the first time. He didn't quite
>> turn out to be what he claimed to be before the first election either.
>> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Add Scooter Libby to the list of fall guys who got tossed to the
> wolves while the people actually calling the shots, and orchestrating
> this stuff walk free. Watch 'em tie it up in appeals and then pardon
> him on the way out the door.
> He did a lot less than a shitload of those Clinton pardoned, so I'd
> say it sucks, but that's how the game is played.
> Bill C
>
AFP is flashing "Guilty as Charged" verdict in Libby Trial
--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]
The News CNN and SKY won't show you
http://azurservers.com:9080
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 18:51:45
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
* "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > a écrit
> On 6, 6:31 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
>> long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
>> intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
>> free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
>> based on solid information. What they didn't know was that, what is
>> very possibly the most criminal administration in US history had
>> seriously altered what they should have been seeing.
>> I actually voted for this pinhead the first time. He didn't quite
>> turn out to be what he claimed to be before the first election either.
>> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Add Scooter Libby to the list of fall guys who got tossed to the
> wolves while the people actually calling the shots, and orchestrating
> this stuff walk free. Watch 'em tie it up in appeals and then pardon
> him on the way out the door.
> He did a lot less than a shitload of those Clinton pardoned, so I'd
> say it sucks, but that's how the game is played.
You sure got that right
--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]
Guantanamo - See the Movie
http://azurservers.com:9080
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 09:28:14
From:
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 6, 4:31 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> ... I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
> long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
> intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
> free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
> based on solid information.
No freakin way.
Sure everyone assumed Saddam had WMD. But
anyone with half a brain cell could also see that the
'intelligence' had been and was being cooked, even
then, and it was clear to anyone with half a brain cell
that WMD was just the latest in a string of justifications
anyway. Many people were talking about this openly
and in public at the time. Hillary and Co. cast their
votes pro-war because it was the popular thing to
do. No free passes.
Robert
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 22:11:21
From: Raptor
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On 6, 4:31 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> ... I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
>> long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
>> intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
>> free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
>> based on solid information.
>
> No freakin way.
> Sure everyone assumed Saddam had WMD. But
> anyone with half a brain cell could also see that the
> 'intelligence' had been and was being cooked, even
> then, and it was clear to anyone with half a brain cell
> that WMD was just the latest in a string of justifications
> anyway. Many people were talking about this openly
> and in public at the time. Hillary and Co. cast their
> votes pro-war because it was the popular thing to
> do. No free passes.
If you look at what they said during the debate over the AUMF, most
Democrats were careful to express support for nothing more than a
strong, unyielding stance against Saddam's Iraq.
But you're otherwise right. Anyone paying close enough attention could
see that the intel didn't back up the rhetoric, that the justifications
changed from day to day, and that there was a huge black hole under
"What happens next."
--
Lynn Wallace
Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 14:46:41
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
"Raptor" <lawall@xmission.com > wrote in message
news:eslhmo$lae$2@news.xmission.com...
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
> But you're otherwise right. Anyone paying close enough attention could see
> that the intel didn't back up the rhetoric, that the justifications
> changed from day to day, and that there was a huge black hole under "What
> happens next."
And of course we could really rely on newspaper accounts of what the
intelligence community knew and was handing out to those with top level
security clearances who of course would be so very open about it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 08:06:20
From: Raptor
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Raptor" <lawall@xmission.com> wrote in message
> news:eslhmo$lae$2@news.xmission.com...
>> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> But you're otherwise right. Anyone paying close enough attention could see
>> that the intel didn't back up the rhetoric, that the justifications
>> changed from day to day, and that there was a huge black hole under "What
>> happens next."
>
> And of course we could really rely on newspaper accounts of what the
> intelligence community knew and was handing out to those with top level
> security clearances who of course would be so very open about it.
Actually, yes.
--
Lynn Wallace
Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 03:31:53
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 6, 12:19 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com > wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > Dumbass -
>
> > I think we should get out. They really, really want to kill each
> > other. There's been so much bloodletting, so much that under their
> > cultural obligation to avenge the dead . . . it's just an irresistable
> > force at this point. There's nothing we can do to stop it. The best we
> > can do is try to pressure the other regional players to keep the
> > bloodshed contained within Iraq.
>
> > Oh ya. We gotta remember to declare victory before getting out.
> > Mission Accomplished!
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Al Qaeda in Iraq is still the dominant "civic" force in Anbar province.
>
> Since I was fully in favor of sending US ines into Rwanda in 1995(?),
> I cannot countenance removing American forces from Iraq. I am however
> quite willing to viciously punish those responsible for putting our
> people there in the first place and unleashing forces that we are
> incapable of preventing.
>
> --
> Lynn Wallace
>
> If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
> speaking German now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think we are going to have to pull out, we've made it clear that we
are going to, and Al-Sadr and the others have gone to ground, or safe
havens in neighboring countries until we do. They are all stocking up
on arms, weapons, and outside political/religious support.
I'm betting Kurgan is right on the money. the war is going to happen,
the Sunnis are going to be crushed, and there will be "peace" just as
there was under Saddam, or in Iran now. We won't go back in no matter
what, once we leave. No politician in the US is going to commit
suicide that way.
One of Gerald Fords regrets was abandoning S. Vietnam despite our
guarantees if the North attacked again. His only solace was "I
would've been impeached in a minute if I'd honored our treaty.", and
he would've. Same situation again.
I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
based on solid information. What they didn't know was that, what is
very possibly the most criminal administration in US history had
seriously altered what they should have been seeing.
I actually voted for this pinhead the first time. He didn't quite
turn out to be what he claimed to be before the first election either.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 22:08:21
From: Raptor
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Bill C wrote:
> On 6, 12:19 am, Raptor <law...@xmission.com> wrote:
>> Al Qaeda in Iraq is still the dominant "civic" force in Anbar province.
>>
>> Since I was fully in favor of sending US ines into Rwanda in 1995(?),
>> I cannot countenance removing American forces from Iraq. I am however
>> quite willing to viciously punish those responsible for putting our
>> people there in the first place and unleashing forces that we are
>> incapable of preventing.
>>
>> --
>> Lynn Wallace
>>
>> If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
>> speaking German now.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I think we are going to have to pull out, we've made it clear that we
> are going to, and Al-Sadr and the others have gone to ground, or safe
> havens in neighboring countries until we do. They are all stocking up
> on arms, weapons, and outside political/religious support.
> I'm betting Kurgan is right on the money. the war is going to happen,
> the Sunnis are going to be crushed, and there will be "peace" just as
> there was under Saddam, or in Iran now. We won't go back in no matter
> what, once we leave. No politician in the US is going to commit
> suicide that way.
I just occurred to me how fortunate it is that the Sunnis dominate Anbar
Province, which is where Al Qaeda is. AQ is our real enemy. Keeping
ordinary Iraqis safe is merely our responsibility. I of course wish that
we didn't face the choice of fulfilling or forsaking our duty, but maybe
we can actually pull something honorable out of this mess.
After giving up on Baghdad, re-deploy to Anbar with the objectives of
battling AQinIraq, AND protecting Sunni civilians. Let the Kurds and
Shiites manage their own areas, and keep AQinI from setting up there, or
else we'll have to go in and root them out with all the collateral
damage that comes with American combat operations.
I honestly think that any worthy politician(s) could sell that to the
American people. It's also something we might be able to handle.
> One of Gerald Fords regrets was abandoning S. Vietnam despite our
> guarantees if the North attacked again. His only solace was "I
> would've been impeached in a minute if I'd honored our treaty.", and
> he would've. Same situation again.
> I'm in total agreement on hanging Bush and Co. after the election, as
> long as you don't hold responsible those who voted based on the cooked
> intelligence. If your honest you've got to give Hillary and friends a
> free pass on this one. They thought they took a responsible stand
> based on solid information. What they didn't know was that, what is
> very possibly the most criminal administration in US history had
> seriously altered what they should have been seeing.
Technically, everyone voted to allow the use of military force if
necessary, not to invade with a force far too small and to fuck it up in
every conceivable way. I for one don't hold those votes against anyone,
though those who voted against the authorization deserve praise.
> I actually voted for this pinhead the first time. He didn't quite
> turn out to be what he claimed to be before the first election either.
I sensed he was a fanatic from the outset. I don't care which side
they're on, fanatics belong far away from any seats of power.
--
Lynn Wallace
Jesus loves Osama bin Laden
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 19:06:48
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 5, 4:32 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> Tibet and Sudan are perfect long and short term examples of the
> pacifist/left startegy of talk only in action.
> Tibet's culture is pretty much being exterminated according to most
> reports, but this would've been a really tough go for the UN. There is
> NO excuse for total lack of any effective action at all by the world
>
Dumbass -
That's what happens in the real world. Small, weak cultures get
squashed by bigger more powerful ones. What is happening in Tibet is
no different than what happened to the Native Americans in this
country. It's "unfair" and "inhumane" and all that, but we can't stop
China from doing it anymore than a foreign nation could have stopped
the United States from doing it.
Iraq is a perfect example of what happens when a nation interferes in
the affairs of a culture it doesn't understand. All the people who
voted for that war thought we were doing a good thing for the people
of Iraq. Well, we didn't. We shouldn't try to "fix" other cultures
that we don't understand. We can't "fix" Iraq. We can't "fix" Tibet.
We can't fix Sudan. We couldn't fix Somalia.
They've all gotta do it for themselves.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 16:32:54
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 4, 11:47 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 4, 5:27 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4, 8:13 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 4, 4:10 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Not new news.
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
> > > estimate discrepancy.
>
> > > And Fox isn't exactly all over Bush. They still think all that
> > > sectarian violence is about terrorism. Ha. Fucking O'Reilly still
> > > talks about Iraq being the frontline. If they'd look at what's really
> > > happening, they'd realize that the only reason they're targeting us in
> > > the slightest is they want us out of the way so they can get down to
> > > the real business of killing each other.
>
> > > thanks,
>
> > > K. Gringioni.
>
> > No shit! Glad you admit that the "OUT NOW" loons are going to enable a
> > slaughter that makes Cambodia look like a joke.
> > They claim they had nothing to do with that either, so what's 10
> > million more dead.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I think we should get out. They really, really want to kill each
> other. There's been so much bloodletting, so much that under their
> cultural obligation to avenge the dead . . . it's just an irresistable
> force at this point. There's nothing we can do to stop it. The best we
> can do is try to pressure the other regional players to keep the
> bloodshed contained within Iraq.
>
> Oh ya. We gotta remember to declare victory before getting out.
> Mission Accomplished!
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Unfortunately it's going to happen. I've been watching reports on the
the explosion in M.E. weapons purchases. The Saudis in particular are
buying like crazy. Reports are that both Syria and Iran are getting
tons of new stuff from both Russia and China.
The Saudis have already said point blank they will NOT allow the
Sunnis in Iraq to be abused. The Shia are convinced they can turn Iraq
into Iran mk.2 and none of them even vaguely give a shit about
torture, the Geneva Conventions, civilians, or human rights.
The only thing keeping the lid on right now is us. I just want the
left to acknowledge that they enabled the genocide by removing the
last barrier when it happens.
Bush and criminals created the giant clusterfuck, and now the left
wants to throw gasoline on the fire and then bury their heads in the
sand, again.
Doen't matter how many die, as long as the US isn't involved.
Tibet and Sudan are perfect long and short term examples of the
pacifist/left startegy of talk only in action.
Tibet's culture is pretty much being exterminated according to most
reports, but this would've been a really tough go for the UN. There is
NO excuse for total lack of any effective action at all by the world
in Sudan, but as long as China, and Russia can block any action in the
UN, then nothing happens except talk.
Talk didn't do Chamberlain any good, didn't help the Hungarians keep
the revolt alive against the Soviets, and didn't stop the massacres in
Kosovo.
Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this shit just
gets recycled and they expect different results.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 20:08:34
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Bill C wrote:
> Obama's plan sounds like the Vietnam peace treaty, with the same
> wortless guarantees we gave the S. Vietnamese. Love how this shit just
> gets recycled and they expect different results.
> Bill C
>
At a certain point, "Peace, with honor" is going to sound pretty good to
everyone. The left, which buried it's head in the sand when we went to
war, will succeed when the right buries it's head.
But don't blame the politicians. They're just doing what they need to
do to get re-elected.
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 09:22:16
From: gds
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 4, 8:41 pm, Nev Shea <spamt...@garbage.net > wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1173052877.430784.60660@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
>
> > The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
> > violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
> > sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
> > other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.
>
> > "On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
> > violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
> > reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."
>
> Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
> hates America! The official reports are just focusing on the positive as
> the White House says they should, and 93 attacks is much more positive than
> 1,100.
>
> NS
> asst to Tony Snow
Laura says there is "just one little bombing a day." She should know!
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 18:40:06
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
"gds" <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote in message
news:1173115335.834872.242430@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On 4, 8:41 pm, Nev Shea <spamt...@garbage.net> wrote:
>
> Laura says there is "just one little bombing a day." She should know!
I accidently tuned into a "progressive" talk show today just in time to hear
a woman announce that under Saddam women had almost achieved equality in
Iraq but now that the Shiites and Sunnis are in power they've lost
everything.
Ahh, such is Liberalism.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 20:14:33
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1173115335.834872.242430@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>> On 4, 8:41 pm, Nev Shea <spamt...@garbage.net> wrote:
>>
>> Laura says there is "just one little bombing a day." She should know!
>
> I accidently tuned into a "progressive" talk show today just in time to hear
> a woman announce that under Saddam women had almost achieved equality in
> Iraq but now that the Shiites and Sunnis are in power they've lost
> everything.
Admit it, Tom: she was right. Under Saddam, neither men nor women were
guaranteed much in the way of rights. It's an awfully mediocre equality
but equality nonetheless.
BTW, you're not claiming that the Shiites are more strongly in favor of
women's rights than secular governments, are you?
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 08:29:17
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
* Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > a écrit
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:1173115335.834872.242430@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 4, 8:41 pm, Nev Shea <spamt...@garbage.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Laura says there is "just one little bombing a day." She should know!
>>
>> I accidently tuned into a "progressive" talk show today just in time
>> to hear a woman announce that under Saddam women had almost achieved
>> equality in Iraq but now that the Shiites and Sunnis are in power
>> they've lost everything.
>
> Admit it, Tom: she was right. Under Saddam, neither men nor women
> were guaranteed much in the way of rights. It's an awfully mediocre
> equality but equality nonetheless.
>
> BTW, you're not claiming that the Shiites are more strongly in favor
> of women's rights than secular governments, are you?
Take it from Davey who actually has been to Iraq several times, for
all the horseshit negative publicity the place has had, it was still
the Shining Star of the Middle East.
Take a look at Saudi for instance:
http://azurservers.com:9080/-executioner.html
http://azurservers.com:9080/-saudi.html
[If you vatch the executioner video, note that the woman interviewer
seems to actually think it's funny!!]
Despite being Sunni, Saddam ran a strict non theocratic country. Part
of his problem was that the crazy god-mongers were always touting
their gods with false promises of the fast track to an audience with
allah or a fuckfest with the 72 virgins to stir up the local yokels
But Saddam was one hell of a Man and he kept the lid on that bunch of
Vipers pretty good. Much better than Bush ever could dream of, and for
sure without killing 655,000 of them and making another 1,000,000 home
less
And provided you didn't start any revolutions, you could do whatever
the heck you liked
--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]
The News CNN and SKY won't show you
http://azurservers.com:9080
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 14:53:33
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
"Davey Crockett" <daveycrockett4Q@azurservers.com > wrote in message
news:87odn5ecky.fsf@azurservers.com...
>
> But Saddam was one hell of a Man and he kept the lid on that bunch of
> Vipers pretty good. Much better than Bush ever could dream of, and for
> sure without killing 655,000 of them and making another 1,000,000 home
> less
>
> And provided you didn't start any revolutions, you could do whatever
> the heck you liked
Sure, you could drain the shes and murder all the sh arabs. You could
drop poison gas on the Kurds. And of course you could enter into an eight
year war with Iran and end up with a minimum of some 750,000 casualties.
Davey can read the Duelfer report himself and see what was happening after
that.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 16:11:13
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
* "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > a écrit
> "Davey Crockett" <daveycrockett4Q@azurservers.com> wrote in message
> news:87odn5ecky.fsf@azurservers.com...
>>
>> But Saddam was one hell of a Man and he kept the lid on that bunch of
>> Vipers pretty good. Much better than Bush ever could dream of, and for
>> sure without killing 655,000 of them and making another 1,000,000 home
>> less
>>
>> And provided you didn't start any revolutions, you could do whatever
>> the heck you liked
>
> Sure, you could drain the shes and murder all the sh arabs. You could
> drop poison gas on the Kurds. And of course you could enter into an eight
> year war with Iran and end up with a minimum of some 750,000 casualties.
>
> Davey can read the Duelfer report himself and see what was happening after
> that.
You poor BrainWashed Bastard
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm
--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]
The News CNN and SKY won't show you
http://azurservers.com:9080
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 04:26:39
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in message
news:BYqdnUrHccG2oXPYnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:1173115335.834872.242430@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 4, 8:41 pm, Nev Shea <spamt...@garbage.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Laura says there is "just one little bombing a day." She should know!
>>
>> I accidently tuned into a "progressive" talk show today just in time to
>> hear a woman announce that under Saddam women had almost achieved
>> equality in Iraq but now that the Shiites and Sunnis are in power they've
>> lost everything.
>
> Admit it, Tom: she was right. Under Saddam, neither men nor women were
> guaranteed much in the way of rights. It's an awfully mediocre equality
> but equality nonetheless.
>
> BTW, you're not claiming that the Shiites are more strongly in favor of
> women's rights than secular governments, are you?
Is that what I'm claiming? After all, you really brave guys seem to be
telling me a lot about what I'm claiming.
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 01:09:36
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 5, 12:51 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
> > estimate discrepancy.
>
> No, I wasn't wondering about the discrepancy. I was simply pointing out
> that, on a topic over which there is essentially zero professional
> disagreement, lay positions are well-predicted on political grounds. The
> Australian PM dismissed the estimates for being "based only on a random
> door-to-door survey."
Dumbass -
Sorry about that. I was avoiding looking at most of that thread in an
effort to preserve the troll index.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 09:28:46
From: Davey Crockett
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
* "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > a écrit
>
> Dumbass -
>
> The discrepancies between the Lancet Study which claimed 650,000
> deaths and the DoD figures was about 12 to 1. Look at what the Iraq
> Study Group found.
>
> From:
> http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec07/0,4670,IraqIntelligence,00.html
>
> The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
> violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
> sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
> other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.
>
> "On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
> violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
> reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."
>
> <snip><end>
>
>
> There is also about a 12 to 1 ratio there. Explains it. If the
> incident doesn't involve US personnel, it doesn't count as a death.
>
> BTW, I put in a report from Faux News just so the idiots in here don't
> start screaming about the evil, inaccurate liberal media.
>
You sure got that 100 per cent right
Bush's Arithmetic is about as Fucked up and Phony as his Rhetoric
Take a look at this URL [http://azurservers.com:8080/]
There's a counter running on the Cost of the Iraq debacle and a link
to the where you will find the real human cost of the latest failed
Kolonial Konkwest Kaper if you scroll down to the bottom of the page
to the Information Clearing House.
I sure hope they saved the Rope they hung old Saddam with to hang Bush
and Blair and their Kronies when this Kaper is all over
With those Vipers loose in the World, Saddam looks better every day.
Yes, right, Saddam WAS a man
With not even 5 per cent of the Money and Resources that the Invaders
have, he kept the lid firmly on that Basket of Vipers; something the
US will never be able to do with all their money and manpower. Price
of Bread too high? No problem. Saddam just sent his lads out to pitch
two-three Bakers into their Own Ovens. And sure enough, the price of
Bread was back to normal the next day. No Muss, no Fuss and nobody
Starving so the Capitalists could get rich.
It sounds Terrible. It is Terrible. But whether Baby Bush likes it or
not, that's the way things are done in Saddam's part of the World.
And did you see him go? It probably doesn't matter to most of us how
we go.
It would matter to John Paul Jones though; it would matter to
Alexander; it would matter to Subotai, and it matters to me. I wish I
could have a death like that. Instead I'll die the same way you will,
tubes coming out of my boney carcass, leaning over to watch the cardio
beeper zig when it's supposed to zag, scared out of my head and
ashamed to look down at this civilian belly hyperventilating its last
chickenshit breaths.
But not Saddam. Did you see the Video? Bush's Iraqi Puppet
Government's Sadr-ite Executioners snapping at his neck and barking
like the Hounds of Hell. And cool as could be, Saddam turned and
mocked them. "You're not men", he said. And he never Flinched, not
once.
And when they started chanting the name of their Pissant Witch Doctor,
Moqtada al-Sadr, Saddam sneered back at them; "Moqtada". And he had
every right to sneer too. He Whacked that PissAnt Immam and would have
Whacked Moqtada Junior too, the one who's now giving Bush Headaches
and Driving him to Drink (again), if he could have got his hands on
him, but he kept his ugly paedophile face well hidden whilst Old
Saddam ruled the Roost.
But don't worry about Saddam. He's wherever the real men go; where
Pancho Villa went, and Patton, and von Richthofen. Not Valhalla, but
someplace way, way better.
The moral of the story though, is that you should never make friends
with America, because sooner or later, they'll Stab you in the Back.
Saddam would tell you that. After close on 40 years of having been
kissy-kissy with the CIA, they turned on him.
And Milosovich would tell you the same. The payoff for Serbia, which
loyally supported the US through two World Wars fought supposedly but
mistakenly for Freedom, was to have some Piece of Shit who stooped low
enough to get Blow Jobs from a Fat Ugly Hebrew, bomb the Shit out of
you when all you were doing was running a bunch of Muslim Land
Grabbers out of your Back Yard.[http://azurservers.com:8080/serbia1.html]
--
Le vent à Dos
Davey Crockett [No 4Q to reply]
The News CNN and SKY won't show you
http://azurservers.com:8080
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 22:45:10
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 5, 12:11 am, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:
> On 3/4/07 8:18 PM, in article HSMGh.1237151$R63.160745@pd7urf1no, "Jack
>
> Maars" <jma...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> > "Nev Shea" <spamt...@garbage.net> wrote in message
> >news:_jMGh.38804$_73.32794@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> >> Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
> >> hates America!
>
> > We've got a pretty detailed profile on him,
> > maybe it's time to let someone know about Chung.
>
> >https://tips.fbi.gov/
>
> http://www.ice.gov/pi/investigations/wanted/robert_ma.htm
>
> ALIAS:
> Bao Ping Ma, Robert Ping Chung Ma???
BMI 22
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 20:47:20
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 4, 5:27 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On 4, 8:13 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4, 4:10 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Not new news.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
> > estimate discrepancy.
>
> > And Fox isn't exactly all over Bush. They still think all that
> > sectarian violence is about terrorism. Ha. Fucking O'Reilly still
> > talks about Iraq being the frontline. If they'd look at what's really
> > happening, they'd realize that the only reason they're targeting us in
> > the slightest is they want us out of the way so they can get down to
> > the real business of killing each other.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> No shit! Glad you admit that the "OUT NOW" loons are going to enable a
> slaughter that makes Cambodia look like a joke.
> They claim they had nothing to do with that either, so what's 10
> million more dead.
Dumbass -
I think we should get out. They really, really want to kill each
other. There's been so much bloodletting, so much that under their
cultural obligation to avenge the dead . . . it's just an irresistable
force at this point. There's nothing we can do to stop it. The best we
can do is try to pressure the other regional players to keep the
bloodshed contained within Iraq.
Oh ya. We gotta remember to declare victory before getting out.
Mission Accomplished!
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 22:19:37
From: Raptor
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Dumbass -
>
> I think we should get out. They really, really want to kill each
> other. There's been so much bloodletting, so much that under their
> cultural obligation to avenge the dead . . . it's just an irresistable
> force at this point. There's nothing we can do to stop it. The best we
> can do is try to pressure the other regional players to keep the
> bloodshed contained within Iraq.
>
> Oh ya. We gotta remember to declare victory before getting out.
> Mission Accomplished!
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is still the dominant "civic" force in Anbar province.
Since I was fully in favor of sending US ines into Rwanda in 1995(?),
I cannot countenance removing American forces from Iraq. I am however
quite willing to viciously punish those responsible for putting our
people there in the first place and unleashing forces that we are
incapable of preventing.
--
Lynn Wallace
If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 03:41:46
From: Nev Shea
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in
news:1173052877.430784.60660@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com:
> The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
> violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
> sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
> other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.
>
> "On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
> violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
> reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."
Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
hates America! The official reports are just focusing on the positive as
the White House says they should, and 93 attacks is much more positive than
1,100.
NS
asst to Tony Snow
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 08:39:44
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On Mon, 05 2007 03:41:46 GMT, Nev Shea <spamtrap@garbage.net >
wrote:
>Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
>hates America! The official reports are just focusing on the positive as
>the White House says they should, and 93 attacks is much more positive than
>1,100.
You got that right. Why all this negative reporting on dead people,
when any camera team can show you that there are way, way more living
Iraqis and living U.S. soldiers than dead. So far. So until that
changes, I say, be positive! Walk on the Sunni side of the street...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 15:57:19
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> I say, be positive! Walk on the Sunni side of the street...
And don't take any Shiite.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 04:18:47
From: Jack Maars
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
"Nev Shea" <spamtrap@garbage.net > wrote in message
news:_jMGh.38804$_73.32794@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
> hates America!
We've got a pretty detailed profile on him,
maybe it's time to let someone know about Chung.
https://tips.fbi.gov/
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 05:11:36
From: ST
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--B_3255887505_3018930
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
On 3/4/07 8:18 PM, in article HSMGh.1237151$R63.160745@pd7urf1no, "Jack
Maars" <jmaars@comcast.com > wrote:
>
> "Nev Shea" <spamtrap@garbage.net> wrote in message
> news:_jMGh.38804$_73.32794@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someone who obviously
>> hates America!
>
> We've got a pretty detailed profile on him,
> maybe it's time to let someone know about Chung.
>
>
> https://tips.fbi.gov/
>
>
http://www.ice.gov/pi/investigations/wanted/robert_ma.htm
ALIAS:
Bao Ping Ma, Robert Ping Chung Ma???
--B_3255887505_3018930
Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML >
<HEAD >
<TITLE >Re: Hey Chung</TITLE>
</HEAD >
<BODY >
<FONT FACE=3D"Verdana" ><SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:14.0px'>On 3/4/07 8:18 PM, in a=
rticle HSMGh.1237151$R63.160745@pd7urf1no, "Jack Maars" <jmaars=
@comcast.com > wrote:<BR>
<BR >
<FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF" >> <BR>
> "Nev Shea" <spamtrap@garbage.net> wrote in message <BR=
>
> news:_jMGh.38804$_73.32794@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...<BR>
</FONT ><FONT COLOR=3D"#008000">>> <BR>
>> Bah! This claim of "underreporting" is coming from someo=
ne who obviously<BR >
>> hates America!<BR>
</FONT ><FONT COLOR=3D"#0000FF">> <BR>
> We've got a pretty detailed profile on him,<BR>
> maybe it's time to let someone know about Chung.<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> https://tips.fbi.gov/ <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
</FONT ><BR>
<a href=3D"http://www.ice.gov/pi/investigations/wanted/robert_ma.htm" >http://=
www.ice.gov/pi/investigations/wanted/robert_ma.htm</a ><BR>
<BR >
ALIAS:<BR >
Bao Ping Ma, <B ><U>Robert </U></B>Ping<B><U> Chung</U></B> Ma???<BR>
</SPAN ></FONT>
</BODY >
</HTML >
--B_3255887505_3018930--
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 18:12:29
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 4, 8:27 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On 4, 8:13 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4, 4:10 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Not new news.
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
> > estimate discrepancy.
>
> > And Fox isn't exactly all over Bush. They still think all that
> > sectarian violence is about terrorism. Ha. Fucking O'Reilly still
> > talks about Iraq being the frontline. If they'd look at what's really
> > happening, they'd realize that the only reason they're targeting us in
> > the slightest is they want us out of the way so they can get down to
> > the real business of killing each other.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> No shit! Glad you admit that the "OUT NOW" loons are going to enable a
> slaughter that makes Cambodia look like a joke.
> They claim they had nothing to do with that either, so what's 10
> million more dead.
> Iran's military purchases are way up. The Saudis and other Sunni
> states are expected to set records. The Saudis have said they will
> fight if the US leaves.
> Can you say Regional War?
> Support the AFSC, support Hitler, Stalin, and every dictator ever.
> They are just misunderstood.
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The American Friends Service Committee fought against the US fighting
Hitler. They fought against fighting the Korean war. Contrast N.
Korea, which they fought to protect with S. Korea. They never fought
Castro, Mugabe, China, etc...We are following their policy in Sudan.
As hindreds of thousands die they fight to make sure NOTHING other
than speech is done to oppose it.
That's the policy Howard Dean wants to bring to the US because
"patriotism" is evil and war is the ultimate evil, if the US fights.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 17:27:16
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 4, 8:13 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 4, 4:10 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not new news.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
> estimate discrepancy.
>
> And Fox isn't exactly all over Bush. They still think all that
> sectarian violence is about terrorism. Ha. Fucking O'Reilly still
> talks about Iraq being the frontline. If they'd look at what's really
> happening, they'd realize that the only reason they're targeting us in
> the slightest is they want us out of the way so they can get down to
> the real business of killing each other.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
No shit! Glad you admit that the "OUT NOW" loons are going to enable a
slaughter that makes Cambodia look like a joke.
They claim they had nothing to do with that either, so what's 10
million more dead.
Iran's military purchases are way up. The Saudis and other Sunni
states are expected to set records. The Saudis have said they will
fight if the US leaves.
Can you say Regional War?
Support the AFSC, support Hitler, Stalin, and every dictator ever.
They are just misunderstood.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 17:13:22
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 4, 4:10 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
>
> Not new news.
Dumbass -
I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
estimate discrepancy.
And Fox isn't exactly all over Bush. They still think all that
sectarian violence is about terrorism. Ha. Fucking O'Reilly still
talks about Iraq being the frontline. If they'd look at what's really
happening, they'd realize that the only reason they're targeting us in
the slightest is they want us out of the way so they can get down to
the real business of killing each other.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 09:51:43
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> I know it's not new news, but Chung wondered about the casualty
> estimate discrepancy.
No, I wasn't wondering about the discrepancy. I was simply pointing out
that, on a topic over which there is essentially zero professional
disagreement, lay positions are well-predicted on political grounds. The
Australian PM dismissed the estimates for being "based only on a random
door-to-door survey."
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 16:10:20
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Hey Chung
|
On 4, 7:01 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On 4, 12:45 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Phil Holman wrote:
> > >> There are lots of questions that could have been better than the one
> > >> that was asked, but the startling thing was that the responses
> > >> received from the bloggers were 59 to 0.
>
> > > Extreme but what would you expect from an extremely biased sample
> > > selection.
>
> > Well, the interesting thing isn't that biased samples produce odd results:
> > it's that the sample was selected according to position on a political, not
> > scientific, spectrum. One could easily expect that opinions on the war, on
> > the President's performance, or on Democratic legislator's motivations would
> > be affected. That's dog bites man stuff. But what was the a prior
> > expectation about their position on a scientific topic? I wouldn't have
> > expected this litmus test to have performed so well.
>
> > But I guess I'm naive because I was also pretty surprised about the divide
> > on the estimates of excess mortality in Iraq. Those estimates appear to have
> > about as much support as the AGW stuff does by professionals in their
> > respective fields.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> The discrepancies between the Lancet Study which claimed 650,000
> deaths and the DoD figures was about 12 to 1. Look at what the Iraq
> Study Group found.
>
> From:http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec07/0,4670,IraqIntelligence,00.html
>
> The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
> violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
> sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
> other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.
>
> "On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
> violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
> reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."
>
> <snip><end>
>
> There is also about a 12 to 1 ratio there. Explains it. If the
> incident doesn't involve US personnel, it doesn't count as a death.
>
> BTW, I put in a report from Faux News just so the idiots in here don't
> start screaming about the evil, inaccurate liberal media.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not new news. I think that's more crap that I didn't post weeks ago
from a miltary source. Fox is just as disgusted with Bush and Co. as
anyone else, excepting the nutjobs like Hannity, Malkin, and Coulter.
Bill C
|
|
