I was misled

Kevan Smith said:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, Mark Hickey

from Habanero Cycles said:

Because there's a political agenda to do so among those
who want to discredit Bush, basically.

Bush discredits himself. He's the worst President of our
whole history.

You need to study some history!

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of
the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That's how he got us into the war and can't and won't
> get out even though the rest of civilized nations urge
> that course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny, he's doing precisely what he said he'd do all
along. He never said it would be quick or easy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What would be quick or easy? Why is our military in Iraq?
What is the purpose of this disaster to that country's,
national, financial, and human losses? I can see it takes
time but what is this time doing for any of the problems
of the USA or Iraq?

Quoted message said:

50 million Afghanis and Iraqis no longer living under
despotic dictators. Terrorists no longer using Afghanistan
and Iraq as hospitable training grounds, nor are they
receiving state support. A tremendously dangerous and
aggressive leader who had previously attacked two
neighboring country, and who could have disrupted the
world oil supply - gone.

Oops! Neither of those statements is correct. Afghanistan is
being run by war lords and Iraq is a disaster zone filled
with terrorists of every stripe according to daily reports.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> This is the main thread of the current administration,
> to not accept information that goes against their
> vision... Iraqis will welcome us with open arms, etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The rank and file Iraqis (and Afghanis) are very glad
that we took out their despotic leadership. And it's no
surprise they'd like us to leave as soon as things are
"stable" (that's a relative term in the middle east).
I'm sure the folks in Japan and Germany felt the same
way, though it took much, much, much longer to get them
sorted out.

How do you know this? From what I have heard from the BBC
and other public radio sources, Iraq is a deathly disaster
zone. You must be listening to USIA information service.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ohhh, lend me your rose colored glasses. From whom did
you hear that the rank and file (sounds military to me)
people of either country is glad for our military
intervention.

Quoted message said:

From every poll taken in Iraq. They would obviously prefer
it if we leave as soon as possible - but most of them were
(not sure about the latest polls) certain that "as soon as
possible" was still in the near future.

I'm not so sure of that. There are enough people there who
realize that there is no security even if the US forces
leave. The US has created a situation that puts it in a
damned if you do and damned if you don't position often
called a rock and a hard place. The US created that problem
and it is not easily repaired. I have seen no scenarios that
offers a good solution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Afghanistan is practically back where it was before our
adventure there except that different folks are in
charge. Opium market is in full swing and only a couple
of principal cities are even slightly under civilian
control. Let's not even talk about Iraq, where we have
unleashed terror attacks from all sides on people who
used to go about their daily lives in a far more secure
and peaceful land, albeit under a dictator who spent time
going after opponents rather than the entire population
that is being terrorized now.

Quoted message said:

Has it occurred to you that the very reason the
terrorists are so active before the turnover to the Iraqi
interim government is because they realize the danger (to
them...) of what's happening. With an open society that
allows "real education", and provides the potential for
prosperity, their power diminishes to nothing. You have
to be able to convince someone that he has no future if
you want him to strap explosives around his chest and
blow up a bus.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. As I
said, the US created the quagmire and it is worse than
Vietnam where there was a government that could take
over, albeit a communist one in Hanoi. Here there is no
such savior.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Richard Brockie said:

Mark Hickey said:

Richard Brockie said:

comedycentral.complay.phpOpen ↗
edia/tds/headlines/8154.html

Comedy Central?

Yes. I find it a sorry state that holding a politician to
statements they have made seems to be beyond the capability
of a lot of the US media.

You're kidding, right? Like that hasn't been played over and
over and over by the mainstream media?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The "evidence" being Bush's statement that "when it comes
to terrorism, you can't distinguish between Saddam and Al
Qaeda"??? Wait... that means Saddam is linked to the USS
Cole. To the problems in Northern Ireland, and to the guy
who torched a bunch of SUVs in Arizona too, right?

You begin to see the point. Bush was making a specific,
politically expedient, inferrence given the events of
September 2001 to justify forthcoming actions, ie: a
linkage between Hussain and bin Laden. That inference was
received by the American public as numerous recent polls
have shown.

Think about this for a minute...

We've seen the best attempts by the Bush-bashers to put up
the "smoking gun quotes". They obviously failed miserably,
and are now blaming it all on "inference", and evil mind
control (first the president is an idiot, then he's an
evil genius).

The few comments that keep getting splashed across the TV
screens come from the middle of lengthy speeches in which
it's contextually obvious that Bush is NOT making a tie
between 9/11 and Saddam. Not all that many people watch
those speeches anyway - and are certainly NOT going to catch
one comment and make the illogical leap being suggested.
It's nonsensical to believe that Bush could "hypnotize"
millions of people into believing something he didn't say in
a few words.

Even though most people weren't influenced by the speech
itself, they DO see the evening news running over and over
and over the same ground, making THEIR own inferneces, and
playing the out of context sound bites that support their
inferneces.

Now who's really to blame for the result? Bush for possibly
mentioning Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence a couple
times - or the media for trying to GIVE that impression?

And if they weren't, how come the media doesn't continually
play the (many) available sound bites of Bush saying "I
never made any connection between 9/11 and Saddam"?

Quoted message said:

As to Northern Ireland, a substantial part of the IRA's
funding came from sources within the US, and, er... Lybia.

Indeed it did - a shameful thing, IMHO. Anyone who
contributed to the terrorists in NI are no better than the
Saudis who did the same when they financed Al Qaeda.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of
the $695 ti frame

Kevan Smith said:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 06:01:47 -0400, "Eric S. Sande"

from Realtime Limited said:

The fact is that we are killing terrorists, Iraq is a
magnet for them and it is a killing zone.

We are also killing and maiming many civilians, the people
we supposedly liberated. We are killing as many, perhaps
more, as the opposition. The current rate of civilian death
and injury is higher than under the Hussein regime.

Do the math - even including casualties during the all-out
shooting war, the death rate is no higher than during an
"average Saddam year" (about 10,000 per year). War is
hell, and will always be... but never in history has a
nation's military gone so far to prevent innocents from
getting killed.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of
the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ummmm, there was never a connection made by the White
House between 9/11 and Iraq, even if it's "common
knowledge". Funny thing though, no one's been able to
dredge up a single comment by Bush that supports their
contention that he tried to make it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think you overlook "lies of the second kind" in which
everything in a statement can be true yet it conveys a
false concept to the observer. Why do you think there is
so much contention over the apparent link between 911
and Iraq.

Quoted message said:

Because there's a political agenda to do so among those
who want to discredit Bush, basically.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The two were so often juxtaposed that the linkage was
established in the minds of the public and in the
legislature. Just look at the questioning and search of
the record that is being done on this.

Quoted message said:

The media reports the "linkage" by the White House, even
though it never happened. Do you think maybe THAT has
something to do with the opinion of the average American?

As has been established, the liberal elite media does not
exist. You'll have to go elsewhere to seek distraction, but
you could answer the question rather than shoot the
messenger. GWB has repeatedly made the linkage as you can
see in some of the web sites in which he responds to
questions with that direct linkage, a linkage, as has been
explained, is anathema to the Saddam Hussein regimes goals.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> P.S. There is evidence by the bucketload that Saudi
> money and power was behind 9/11, yet the occupant
> of the white house believed what needed to be done
> was to secretly evacuate rich and powerful Saudis
> from our country.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess we should have announced to the world that we
were going to fly out members of the (large, BTW) Saudi
royal family??! Like it or not, they're about the
closest thing we have to allies in the region, and it
would have been a huge mistake to forcibly detain them -
heck, the ACLU woulda gone nuts over that option!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you use the term "the closest thing we have to
allies"? Is it because, as others have stated, we have no
allies, only paid up shills.

Quoted message said:

Which, in the middle east, is "the closest thing we have
to allies". Hey, I've got an idea - why not try to
establish a couple democracies in the region!

You seem to sound more like GWB. Next you might suggest a
crusade to bring the Christian moral majority to Muslims
in the area.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That's how he got us into the war and can't and won't
> get out even though the rest of civilized nations urge
> that course.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny, he's doing precisely what he said he'd do all
along. He never said it would be quick or easy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What would be quick or easy? Why is our military in Iraq?
What is the purpose of this disaster to that country's,
national, financial, and human losses? I can see it takes
time but what is this time doing for any of the problems
of the USA or Iraq?

Quoted message said:

50 million Afghanis and Iraqis no longer living under
despotic dictators. Terrorists no longer using Afghanistan
and Iraq as hospitable training grounds, nor are they
receiving state support. A tremendously dangerous and
aggressive leader who had previously attacked two
neighboring country, and who could have disrupted the
world oil supply - gone.

Oops! Neither of those statements is correct. Afghanistan is
being run by war lords and Iraq is a disaster zone filled
with terrorists of every stripe according to daily reports.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> This is the main thread of the current administration,
> to not accept information that goes against their
> vision... Iraqis will welcome us with open arms, etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The rank and file Iraqis (and Afghanis) are very glad
that we took out their despotic leadership. And it's no
surprise they'd like us to leave as soon as things are
"stable" (that's a relative term in the middle east).
I'm sure the folks in Japan and Germany felt the same
way, though it took much, much, much longer to get them
sorted out.

How do you know this? From what I have heard from the BBC
and other public radio sources, Iraq is a deathly disaster
zone. You must be listening to USIA information service.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ohhh, lend me your rose colored glasses. From whom did
you hear that the rank and file (sounds military to me)
people of either country is glad for our military
intervention.

Quoted message said:

From every poll taken in Iraq. They would obviously prefer
it if we leave as soon as possible - but most of them were
(not sure about the latest polls) certain that "as soon as
possible" was still in the near future.

I'm not so sure of that. There are enough people there who
realize that there is no security even if the US forces
leave. The US has created a situation that puts it in a
damned if you do and damned if you don't position often
called a rock and a hard place. The US created that problem
and it is not easily repaired. I have seen no scenarios that
offers a good solution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Afghanistan is practically back where it was before our
adventure there except that different folks are in
charge. Opium market is in full swing and only a couple
of principal cities are even slightly under civilian
control. Let's not even talk about Iraq, where we have
unleashed terror attacks from all sides on people who
used to go about their daily lives in a far more secure
and peaceful land, albeit under a dictator who spent time
going after opponents rather than the entire population
that is being terrorized now.

Quoted message said:

Has it occurred to you that the very reason the
terrorists are so active before the turnover to the Iraqi
interim government is because they realize the danger (to
them...) of what's happening. With an open society that
allows "real education", and provides the potential for
prosperity, their power diminishes to nothing. You have
to be able to convince someone that he has no future if
you want him to strap explosives around his chest and
blow up a bus.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. As I
said, the US created the quagmire and it is worse than
Vietnam where there was a government that could take
over, albeit a communist one in Hanoi. Here there is no
such savior.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Kevan Smith said:

You might want to check out the Libertarians. They're old-
school conservative.

Oops! They are the ones who want no government at all, the
guys who say (or at least think) I've got my bundle out of
this, let the rest of them sink. Around here they want to
get ride of public schools or public anything and rely on
their private and affordable alternatives (to people who can
afford it). They may not be war mongers but civil war would
erupt if they had their way.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Kevan Smith said:

You might want to check out the Libertarians. They're old-
school conservative.

Oops! They are the ones who want no government at all, the
guys who say (or at least think) I've got my bundle out of
this, let the rest of them sink. Around here they want to
get ride of public schools or public anything and rely on
their private and affordable alternatives (to people who can
afford it). They may not be war mongers but civil war would
erupt if they had their way.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:11:18 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> from

Habanero Cycles said:

Kevan Smith said:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:44:11 +0100, "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email hidden]> from

Disorganised said:

I believe there should be a plan to get blue berets in
there as soon as possible, but even that will take time,
as the level of violence is still too high. You need
peace before you can have peacekeepers.

Iraq is not going to have peace for several years.

When's the last time they had it?

Much too long ago. Didn't Reagan put Saddam up to invading
Iran? Anyway, it's time to leave that country to itself.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:13:43 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> from

Habanero Cycles said:

Funny no one seemed to mind the hundreds of thousands that
were killed by the regimes that we took out though...

Only because you've plugged your ears to anything that
doesn't support what you believe. Plenty of people opposed
to the war also opposed Hussein's butchery.

Quoted message said:

(oh, and "tens of thousands" is a very high estimate)

It's low.
--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:15:07 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> from

Habanero Cycles said:

Kevan Smith said:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 07:43:27 -0700, Mark Hickey

from Habanero Cycles said:

Because there's a political agenda to do so among those
who want to discredit Bush, basically.

Bush discredits himself. He's the worst President of our
whole history.

You need to study some history!

I have. My statement stands. He's worse than Grant,
Buchanan, Taft, Hoover, Coolidge .... He even makes Nixon
look good.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:23:07 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> from

Habanero Cycles said:

The few comments that keep getting splashed across the TV
screens come from the middle of lengthy speeches in which
it's contextually obvious that Bush is NOT making a tie
between 9/11 and Saddam.

Well, there's that letter he wrote to Congress on the eve
of war ....

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:25:55 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> from

Habanero Cycles said:

Kevan Smith said:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 06:01:47 -0400, "Eric S. Sande"

from Realtime Limited said:

The fact is that we are killing terrorists, Iraq is a
magnet for them and it is a killing zone.

We are also killing and maiming many civilians, the people
we supposedly liberated. We are killing as many, perhaps
more, as the opposition. The current rate of civilian
death and injury is higher than under the Hussein regime.

Do the math - even including casualties during the all-out
shooting war, the death rate is no higher than during an
"average Saddam year" (about 10,000 per year).

The current death rate is much higher than that.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

Tom C Medara said:

Quoted message said:

How did they get there? Where were they before we
destroyed law and order in Iraq by dismantling the
military and police and then sit idly by as anarchy and
looting carried on for long enough to destroy most of
Iraq's resources. Then we give Halliburton a no-bid
contract to rebuild that while allowing them an open
deal to charge what they see fit for services they
render, if any.

Quoted message said:

"Destroyed law and order????" You gotta be kidding me! The
people in Iraq were practically living under martial law
that been since around 1980. Law and order was enforced
through the use of political terror, akin to the Stalin
years in the USSR!

Hold it. Don't get your knee jerk response up yet. Even
under dictatorship there is law and order, maybe not the one
you or I prefer but law and order is not what occurred after
the US Army moved in. As you see, law and order has still
not been established.

Quoted message said:

The only allowable avenue for political activity was for
Sunni Muslims via the Ba'ath party. Kurds were
systematically relocated (another version of ethnic
cleansing) and Shia Arabs were killed at far greater rates
than are happening now for less legitiamte reasons.
Looting and exploitation were the primary activities of
the Ba'ath party thugs -- but, I guess "the trains ran on
time" so it was all okay.

Regardless of who you think the looters were and are, you
must ask yourself how they came to this venue. As I said, I
am certain that
Mr. Rumsfeld learned in his military training at least as
much as I did about the problems involved in military
victory especially in cities. You can think of various
scenarios but it looked as though the Bushmen said, let
them suffer at their own hands after the battle was
over. They sat by for weeks allowing this disaster and
influx of lawlessness and you seem to agree that it was
THEM rather than US that were at fault.

Quoted message said:

Good Lord, the coutnry was run by a street gang for 30
years. THat may be your perception but that is not the way
dictators work. For a group that screams repression over
imagined slights to our precious freedoms, much of the anti-
war crowd seems quite content to accept modern facism in
other areas. As far as the US destroying "most of Iraq's
resources", that's just outright hyperbole. And yes,
Halliburton -- actually KBR, a subsidiary company -- does
provide a variety of services, which a quick google search
will confirm. I could also provide a few personal
testimonials as well. Of course acknowledging that would
undercut your cute little quips.

Your defense of the US destruction of Iraq amazes me as you
place the blame with Iraqis. Such a position befits only an
American zealot.

Quoted message said:

Argue the war, argue the policy -- that's fine. But don't
pretend that things were swell and wonderful in Iraq
before we came along.

You are making this up as you go. Who said "things were
swell and wonderful in Iraq before we came along"? I said we
destroyed law and order with no reference to whose law or
how people saw it. I have talked to Iraqis who said they
hated Saddam but at least they could dare to be on the
streets with safety and go shopping and have a life. The way
you tell it, there is no life except in the image of what
you believe is American, also known as jingoism.

Quoted message said:

Maybe you need to get your head out of the left wing rags
you're reading (SJ Merc News and SF Chronicle, IIRC) and
get some unfettered facts about life in Iraq. Perspective,
Mr Brandt, perspective. Believe it or not it's not all car
bombs and prison torture over there. It's not Des Moine,
and it's dangerous, but people don't get killed there
anymore for what they say and think -- unless they're
caught by the "inurgents", that is.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> The same is true in Afghanistan.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Afghanistan is a disaster. Who do you think is in
> charge there? Just because it isn't the Taliban, at
> least on the surface, it isn't what the USA claimed
> would be there. It seems the clock has been set back 20
> years ago.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you should read a little on the impact of the
Taliban on the culture and civic life in Afghanistan. You
further display your ignorance with comments like that.
Stike to bicycle wheels. Of course you've emerged as quite
an effective troll as well.

As I said, it appears the Taliban have been set back apiece
if the appearances are correct, but Afghanistan is not where
the administration said it is in their politics or
government. The drug trade is flourishing better than ever
and the war lords are in charge.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

from said:

Kevan Smith said:

You might want to check out the Libertarians. They're old-
school conservative.

Oops! They are the ones who want no government at all, the
guys who say (or at least think) I've got my bundle out of
this, let the rest of them sink. Around here they want to
get ride of public schools or public anything and rely on
their private and affordable alternatives (to people who
can afford it). They may not be war mongers but civil war
would erupt if they had their way.

Well, then, the Constitution Party.

The Democrat and Republican parties are far too venal and
decrepit to be saved from within.

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with
corporate funding, it disseminates what is in their
interest. Some corporations are more liberal and others
more conservative. However, in truth large corporations
tend to sympathize more with the republican party. The
media in the US is hardly liberal and it is definitely
not left wing. Of course there are some left wingy news
media but they have very limited distribution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I take it you heard the interview on public radio how
the republicans have turned lobbying around to where the
party lobbies major corporations to hire preferred
republican managers, promising legislation that would
enhance their business and thereby seeding corporations
with their philosophy of government. In spite of the
wording in the interview, it sounded like prostitution to
me. Certainly not part of what democracy in the USA was
intended to be.

Quoted message said:

Did those lobbyists fly in in black helicopters or use
mind-control rays? ;-) Perhaps you could point to some
credible sources for those wild-sounding accusations...
or perhaps not...

You can get the whole thing on NPR's web site but you
probably consider that consorting with the enemy.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

By that, you either like what the Bushmen are doing or you
don't give a damn what they do.

Since you seem to enjoy referring to the President and his
administration as "Bushmen" and given your well known
expertise in bicycle wheels, would it be OK if we referred
to you as Rim Job?

Dave

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:13:43 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

wrote in message : said:

Funny no one seemed to mind the hundreds of thousands that
were killed by the regimes that we took out though...

Not true - plenty of people minded. Just as they minded the
brutality of Apartheid South Africa (solved without
invasion) and they mind the brutality of Robert Mugabe (no
oil, no invasion).

The US has a long history of funding and training
terrorists, including Al-Quaeda. Support is given to Israel,
still in violation of dozens of UN resolutions, support was
given to Iran and Iraq at various times, but suddenly it's
"right" to invade that /one/ country out of all the
dictatorships in the world, and it just happens to be
because Saddam is that little bit more evil than Gadaffi,
Mugabe or whoever - and it's pure coincidence that Iraq is
the one with the oil that tweaked Poppy's nose.

You don't think that looks just the /teensiet/ bit
suspicious? Especially when you remember that the Neocons
had a plan to go into Iraq bewfore 9/11 ever happened?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:25:55 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Kevan Smith said:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 06:01:47 -0400, "Eric S. Sande"

from Realtime Limited said:

The fact is that we are killing terrorists, Iraq is a
magnet for them and it is a killing zone.

We are also killing and maiming many civilians, the people
we supposedly liberated. We are killing as many, perhaps
more, as the opposition. The current rate of civilian
death and injury is higher than under the Hussein regime.

Do the math - even including casualties during the all-out
shooting war, the death rate is no higher than during an
"average Saddam year" (about 10,000 per year). War is
hell, and will always be... but never in history has a
nation's military gone so far to prevent innocents from
getting killed.

That's a great standard to strive for.

USA: No worse than an average year under Saddam!

Kevan Smith said:

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:13:43 -0700, Mark Hickey

from Habanero Cycles said:

Funny no one seemed to mind the hundreds of thousands that
were killed by the regimes that we took out though...

Only because you've plugged your ears to anything that
doesn't support what you believe. Plenty of people opposed
to the war also opposed Hussein's butchery.

Funny - I've been participating in rec.bike newsgroups
before there was more than one, and I don't recall the angst
you mention about the Iraqi deaths until they were as
collateral damage from the US. I guess it's much more
acceptable to kill someone on purpose than by accident?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(oh, and "tens of thousands" is a very high estimate)

It's low.

Hardly.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of
the $695 ti frame