Bicylist shot and killed for thrill

[The Wogster]

Peter Cole wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a more effective long-term solution to the transfer of wealth
>>> problem is to control the market price of oil, rather than its supply
>>> or the regime that owns it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The only effective long term solution to the transfer of wealth
>> problem, is to reduce dependance on oil. It's all supply and demand,
>> when the supply is effectively a constant, as demand increases, prices
>> go up, if the demand decreases, prices go down.
>
>
> Perhaps, but the supply is pretty much regulated by OPEC to keep the
> prices where they want. While we could lower our consumption, maybe even
> significantly, but we don't control the other consumers.
>
> Arab oil supposedly costs $3-5 a barrel to produce, so everything over
> that goes into somebody's bank account. If the consumers could form a
> buyer's cartel perhaps the price could be negotiated closer to the cost
> of production. Our government could control consumption with taxes, the
> extra money would stay in our pocket.

Suppose, just suppose, consumers, decided that they would reduce oil
consumption, say switching to a small car with a tiny engine. Reducing
the number of car based trips, maybe by biking or walking, to the store,
maybe taking the bus to work, say twice a week. If every American
decided to do this, it would have 100 times as much effect as going to
war to guarantee supply. Because it would reduce the need for supply,
and demand is half the equation in supply versus demand.

Thinking I might vote for the Green Party in the coming election......

W

 

[di]

"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
> Do you actually pay attention to the news?
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5197853/site/newsweek/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_boarding
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3736157.stm
>
> and on and on and on and on....
> --


The only problem is your sources aren't very credible, I would like to see
the entire story, not their version of what actually happened. ABC,
MSNBC, BBC, give me a break, where's CNN, CBS, & the New York Times?

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> If you claim that we should never have gone into Iraq, you are
>> claiming that you would prefer Saddam was still in charge. There
>> isn't a third choice.
>
>What an astounding example of a false dichotomy! That's the deception
>technique the right wing has patented, isn't it?
>
>"There isn't a third choice" IF your policy makers have no more
>creativity than a baboon. But if you've got even a minimal amount of
>intelligence, diplomacy, persuasiveness and political savvy, you should
>be able to come up with alternatives.

OK - let's start out with 14 UN sanctions and a dozen years. But I
suppose that wasn't enough - we should wait and see how Saddam's sons
would do after he died of old age?

>But let me make it clear: I think the Bush administration had
>alternatives and knew it. They simply chose to invade, because they
>had been planning it long before the fact, and merely looking for an
>opportunity.
>
>They certainly could have kept doing what they were doing to contain
>Saddam, preventing him from harming neighbor states. (You may say
>"He'd still oppress the Iraqi people," but we seem perfectly willing to
>accept that for dozens of other dictators - like the Saudis, for
>example.)

Hmmmm, I missed seeing hundreds of thousands of Saudi citizens being
uncovered in mass graves. Perhaps you could post a link...

>We might have worked more effectively through diplomatic channels to
>convince other UN members to make him more uncomfortable. I know
>you're rabidly anti-French, but we could have _bribed_ the French to do
>what we wanted for far less than the cost of this invasion and
>conquest.

The situation the world faces today is FAR beyond a game, Frank. I
predict that history will not deal kindly with the French decades from
now.

>We might have marshaled a major diplomatic effort by the world's
>religious leaders. If you had the leaders of, say, the top five world
>religions (including, of course, promiment Islamic clerics)
>simultaneously visiting Saddam and shaming him into exile, he'd have
>had a hard time resisting the pressure to reform or step down.

Oh, c'mon Frank... the coalition forces massed on the border didn't
phase him, and a bunch of clerics in robes are gonna scare him out of
his palaces? Puh-leeze.

>We might have bribed Saddam out of office. That is, we could have
>arranged for another country to provide sanction and exile in luxury
>for himself and his immediate cohorts. It wouldn't be the first time
>that trick was played.

Saddam didn't need any money - the guy's got more than he could
possibly spend. He's obviously an ultimate power freak (as evidenced
by his courtroom behavior). He never would have let himself be bought
out, IMHO.

>There are other measures, both "carrots" and "sticks" we might have
>tried. We might have tried many similar tactics simultaneously. And
>if we had, even if they had failed, and if invasion had been _really_
>necessary, we'd have had world concensus behind us.

I think history makes it clear that wasn't EVER going to happen, as
long as Saddam could continue bribing the UN members.

>As it happened, the Bush administration acted like a man whose only
>tool was a hammer, to whom everything needing fixed gets pounded.
>Hard.

I humbly submit that a dozen years was enough time to give diplomacy a
chance. The fact Saddam got pounded is all good.

>Of course, you'll say none of the diplomatic alternatives would have
>worked. Um... which is, I assume, why we're presently invading dozens
>of other countries under the control of despicable leaders, right?

Why, you wanna do that? You guys are making my head hurt... ;-)

>Basically, Mark, when you pretend there was no other choice, you're
>playing dumb. In a sense, it's charming that you're willing to do that
>to defend your heroes, but it still makes you look either deceitful or
>dumb.

Your "choices" make you look naive, so I guess we'll call it even.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Neil Brooks]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff Starr <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 18:43:15 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>And then you can wonder how many hundreds of thousands more Iraqis
>>>>>would have followed them into their mass graves if Saddam and his
>>>>>Baathist thugs had NOT been removed from power.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is precisely what the anti-war crowd have to be longing for,
>>>>>since they were unwilling to believe Saddam was worth removing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mark Hickey
>>>
>>>>Hickey, are you really that out of touch with the concept of anti-war?
>>>>If we don't support war, why would we be longing for people to die?
>>>>It is also misguided or completley disingenuous to claim that we don't
>>>>believe Saddam was worth removing.
>>>
>>>If you claim that we should never have gone into Iraq, you are
>>>claiming that you would prefer Saddam was still in charge. There
>>>isn't a third choice.
>>
>>Mark, you're obviously being purposefully obtuse. I'm sure even your
>>news sources reported that we had economic and military sanctions in
>>place, and that we had weapons inspectors in country, and the fact
>>that they found none of the weapons of mass destruction that
>>the right is claiming today.
>
>And the sanctions and weapons inspectors would have somehow removed
>Saddam... HOW? Perhaps you could explain that one to me... sailed
>right over my obtuse head.

Moving the goalpost just a bit are we?

Where was that on the list of why whe did what we did when we did?
Absent. We did what we did when we did it because of the grave and
iminent threat of WMD's being used on us--a chance we couldn't take in
a post-9/11 climate.

Only there don't seem to have been any ... and lots of folk in the
Administration seemed to have been critical of the certitude.

>>"Isn't a third choice?" So few things are really that black and
>>white....
>>
>>>The French (you know, one of the stars of the oil-for-food bribery
>>>scandal) made it clear that they would veto any vote to go after
>>>Saddam under any circumstances, so the choices were for the US and
>>>coalition partners to go in, or leave Saddam in charge so he could
>>>continue offing his political enemies and shooting at our pilots.
>>
>>See above ... or refuse to. Your choice.
>
>I know - you figure the weapons inspectors would kidnap Saddam, right?

So it's brutal dictators we're after ... or just brutal dictators that
have used chemical weapons on their own ... or just brutal dictators
that we propped up and supplied with chemical weapons ... or is it
opressed and suffering citizenries ... or is it oppressed and
suffering citizenries with big proven oil reserves?

I can't keep track. What's the reason du jour today, Mark?

>>>>I object to the way we did it. Didn't Bush Sr say that the reason he
>>>>didn't march into Baghdad was because we had no exit strategy. Well,
>>>>apparently his incompetent son, didn't pay attention to that lesson.
>>>
>>>It might occur to you that 10 years just MIGHT be enough time for the
>>>military to work out some of the details. Or not... If you really
>>>don't believe that the invasion of Iraq wasn't high on the military
>>>planner's list over that time, you're beyond naive.
>>>
>>>>It's kind of interesting, I never hear any of you right wing assholes
>>>>show any concern for all those poor people that get hacked up in
>>>>Africa. There are villages, where they all congregate at night,
>>>>because alone, they won't make it through the night. Let's help them,
>>>>they might actually be happy to see us. But, we know that won't
>>>>happen, there is no money to be made in Africa, there is no oil.
>>>
>>>Sure I'm concerned about them, even though I'm a "right wing asshole".
>>>Go figure. But we're NOT the only country in the world who can deal
>>>with these issues (remember that war cry from the left?). Where is
>>>the UN in this? If you want to see how the world works when left to
>>>the UN, go to Africa - or you could just rent 'Hotel Rwanda' and get a
>>>good flavor.
>>
>>But, Mark: we don't need a permission slip, right? If we think a
>>cause is just, we're not afraid to act unilaterally. The dead in
>>Darfur? The child soldiers in Cote d'Ivoire? Famine? Drought?
>
>Name a country who provides more humanitarian aid than the US.

As long as we're $1 ahead of the #2 country, you can sleep. Not me.
What about the massacres in Darfur? Checkbook taking care of that
one?

>>'cept in those cases, it's highly UNlikely that other UNSC members
>>would veto.
>
>Veto, schmeto - why don't they get off their over-bribed arses and do
>something themselves?

OMG! You mean that other countries might have acted in their economic
self-interest rather than/along with following their principles? I'm
shocked! It's also good to know we're above all of that graft and
corruption (need I start detailing recent events?).

>>>Should I ask where the outcry from all the lefties was over the
>>>hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being slaughtered by Saddam?
>>
>>I heard it. I'm still hearing it about oppressed people around the
>>world.
>
>So you must at least be happy that a despot is no longer offing an
>average of at least 10,000 Iraqis a year (not to mention the hundreds
>of thousands he killed during the Iran war and Kuwait invasion).
>
>Or maybe not.

I'm happy he's gone. I'm repulsed at the way it went down and
mortified at the news of our abuses, sanctioned torture, and use of
chemical weapons on innocents.

We're supposed to be better than the person whom we invaded for those
same actions, IMO, but I'm not Macchiavellian.

>>>>There are places in this world where we could do some good, but
>>>>where's the profit in that?
>>>
>>>So now we ARE the world's policemen? I thought you guys were opposed
>>>to that concept. You want us to "invade" some more countries?
>>
>>God, no. Ain't you got any OTHER tools in your toolbox besides
>>invasion? I would have thought that we, as a country, did....
>
>So if we go into Africa and take out a despotic regime to prevent them
>killing their own citizens, it's "good"... but if we do it in a
>country that's got oil, it's "bad".

No. Working with the international community to provide humanitarian
assistance, or intervention, when the agreed-upon criteria are met
makes you a hero.

Being unilateral makes you a bully with a $200/day crack (oil) habit.

>Y'see, that's why I can't be a liberal. My brain hurts when I try to
>make sense of something like that.

I'm starting to think you're just overtaxing that poor little thing.

Maybe you should rest.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[Neil Brooks]

"di" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Neil Brooks" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "di" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Do you actually pay attention to the news?
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5197853/site/newsweek/
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_boarding
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
>>
>> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3736157.stm
>>
>> and on and on and on and on....
>> --
>
>
>The only problem is your sources aren't very credible, I would like to see
>the entire story, not their version of what actually happened. ABC,
>MSNBC, BBC, give me a break, where's CNN, CBS, & the New York Times?

I rest my case. Thanks, Di.

Fox has it, too.

But that's ok. Bury your li'l head in the sand and don't you worry
about a thing....
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[[email protected]]

The Wogster wrote:
> If the US had been smart, they would have
> arranged for and independant third party to monitor the elections.
> Normally Canada would be a good choice, it's something we have
> experience with, but we have our own election to worry about.

I assume you mean _our_ elections, as well as those in Iraq!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Mike Kruger]

"di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:H5ujf.11088$QW2.7663@dukeread08...
>
> The only problem is your sources aren't very credible, I would like to see
> the entire story, not their version of what actually happened. ABC,
> MSNBC, BBC, give me a break, where's CNN, CBS, & the New York Times?
Fox News OK for this one?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175805,00.html

"Before Goss took over the agency [CIA], its inspector general completed a
report on the treatment of detainees, following investigations into at least
four prisoner deaths that may have involved CIA personnel. To date, one
agency contractor has been charged.
The inspector general's report discussed tactics used by CIA personnel -
called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." Former intelligence officials,
who spoke on condition of anonymity because the practices are classified,
say some interrogation techniques are well-known: exposing prisoners to
cold, depriving them of sleep or forcing them to stand in stressful
positions.

Perhaps the most publicly controversial technique is waterboarding, when a
detainee is strapped to a board and has water run over him to simulate
drowning."

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> >There are other measures, both "carrots" and "sticks" we might have
> >tried. We might have tried many similar tactics simultaneously. And
> >if we had, even if they had failed, and if invasion had been _really_
> >necessary, we'd have had world concensus behind us.
>
> I think history makes it clear that wasn't EVER going to happen, as
> long as Saddam could continue bribing the UN members.

Mark, how much has this war cost us?

To be simplistic, for your benefit: What if _we_ had spent 1/10 that
on bribes? If money is all it took for Saddam to control the UN, we
could certainly have outbid him. Do you disagree? That money could
have come in the form of direct payments, or in subtler forms such as
promised market deals, research aid, medical supplies, campaign
contributions, etc. Whatever could be done legally.

If it required money plus some flattery - wining and dining at some
Texas ranch, a special presidential award for "peace efforts," a lavish
White House dinner or two - we could have done that. Like it or not,
that's what "diplomacy" is all about.

If the US administration, with the biggest budget in the world,
couldn't figure out a way to outbid Saddam, it's because the US
administration is either not trying to be smart, or is incapable of
being smart. You choose.

>
> >As it happened, the Bush administration acted like a man whose only
> >tool was a hammer, to whom everything needing fixed gets pounded.
> >Hard.
>
> I humbly submit that a dozen years was enough time to give diplomacy a
> chance. The fact Saddam got pounded is all good.

Your humility is certainly appropriate - especially in view of the fact
that Saddam was successfully contained for those dozen years, as
desired. I'm saying the objective could have been changed, from
containment to removal from power, and accomplished using smarter
techniques than all-out war.

Perhaps you didn't understand that's what I was saying, I suppose. I
think it's more likely that you are squirming sideways to avoid the
truth.

>
> >Of course, you'll say none of the diplomatic alternatives would have
> >worked. Um... which is, I assume, why we're presently invading dozens
> >of other countries under the control of despicable leaders, right?
>
> Why, you wanna do that? You guys are making my head hurt... ;-)

Thinking can do that.

Of course, I'm NOT advocating invasion of other countries. I'm
pointing out that your _current_ excuse for the invasion of Iraq is
trumped up. If it were true that we invaded simply to get a dictator
out of power, then we'd be involved in a dozen invasions right now.
That we're not is proof that there were other reasons for the invasion.

And of course, your _original_ excuse for the invasion was entirely
different: You and your cohorts said it was _obvious_ that Saddam had
"weapons of mass destruction," and that his possession of WMDs was
somehow justification for our own unleashing of the world's greatest
war machine, so that we could use our own Weapons to perform Mass
Destruction on him.

If anything makes your head hurt, it should be the cognitive dissonance
of your position, and it's complete contradiction of what you pretend
to be your moral compass.


>
> Your "choices" make you look naive...

To a person whose _actual_ morality consists of "Might makes right."

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>> The idea of "just war" (and it's opposite, this Iraq invasion) is,
> >>> apparently, totally incomprehensible to you, Bill!
> >>
> >> I didn't comment on that, so how would you know, Frank?
> >
> > If you understood the concept _and_ had a defensible position,
> > you would have responded to the point and defended your position.
> > Instead, you changed the subject. That's how I know.
> >
> > Bring it back to that subject, if you dare. List the commonly
> > accepted principles defining a "Just War" and tell us how the Bush
> > conquest of Iraq satisfies those principles.
> >
> > Of course, you won't. Even if you understand the philosophy, this war
> > can't be justified that way.
>
> This time go back and read my ENTIRE reply -- including the large part you
> snipped.

I read it, of course. It was a distraction and evasion, a clumsy
attempt to change the subject.

Let's try again. Here are some commonly accepted guidelines for
deciding if a war is a Just War. These were worked out NOT by
politicians looking for an excuse, but by neutral philosophers trying
to solve a moral problem. This is not the only version of these
guidelines, of course, but these are typical.

Tell me, how does our invasion of Iraq meet these moral guidelines?

Principles of the Just War

* A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent
options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
* A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even
just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups
who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society
and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
* A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For
example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to
be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not
sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with
"right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to
redress the injury.
* A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance
of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not
morally justifiable.
* The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More
specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to
the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
* The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury
suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to
attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
* The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and
non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and
every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of
civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a
deliberate attack on a military target.

By my count, this war satisfied only one of those justifications: We
knew we wouldn't lose.

But I await your responses.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Sornson]

Mike Kruger wrote:
> "di" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:H5ujf.11088$QW2.7663@dukeread08...
>>
>> The only problem is your sources aren't very credible, I would like
>> to see the entire story, not their version of what actually
>> happened. ABC, MSNBC, BBC, give me a break, where's CNN, CBS, &
>> the New York Times?

> Fox News OK for this one?
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175805,00.html
>
> "Before Goss took over the agency [CIA], its inspector general
> completed a report on the treatment of detainees, following
> investigations into at least four prisoner deaths that may have
> involved CIA personnel. To date, one agency contractor has been
> charged.

OK, so /investigations/ into four (4) prisoner deaths -- out of...what,
maybe 30,000? 40,000?? more??? -- are underway. That really compares to
mass graves, rape rooms, cutting off of limbs when too lazy to take heads,
public executions, etc. etc. etc.?!?

The biggest difference, of course, is that the U.S. PROSECUTES its
law-breaking personnel, instead of rewarding and glorifying them.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The idea of "just war" (and it's opposite, this Iraq invasion) is,
>>>>> apparently, totally incomprehensible to you, Bill!
>>>>
>>>> I didn't comment on that, so how would you know, Frank?
>>>
>>> If you understood the concept _and_ had a defensible position,
>>> you would have responded to the point and defended your position.
>>> Instead, you changed the subject. That's how I know.
>>>
>>> Bring it back to that subject, if you dare. List the commonly
>>> accepted principles defining a "Just War" and tell us how the Bush
>>> conquest of Iraq satisfies those principles.
>>>
>>> Of course, you won't. Even if you understand the philosophy, this
>>> war can't be justified that way.
>>
>> This time go back and read my ENTIRE reply -- including the large
>> part you snipped.
>
> I read it, of course. It was a distraction and evasion, a clumsy
> attempt to change the subject.

Sigh. Here, let me put it back:

You wrote, "The idea of "just war" (and it's opposite, this Iraq invasion)
is,
apparently, totally incomprehensible to you, Bill!"

I replied (you only left the first sentence, and then claimed *I* changed
something!):

"I didn't comment on that, so how would you know, Frank? To people like
Shallow Chalo, apparently, NO war is ever just (after all, he despised Pat
Tillman for fighting in Afghanistan -- an action MOST people thought
justified).

Tell you what: PROVE that Bush took us into Iraq KNOWING that there were no
WMD (which, once again, was just one of many reasons listed in the war
declaration), and I'll agree that this war was "unjust".

Funny how Clinton got unanimous consent for his Iraq Regime Change
resolution (or whatever the hell it was); Bush gets overwhelming support to
take action and then undertakes the hard and risky work of actually doing
so; gets re-elected by a fairly comfortable margin, despite all-out
efforts (including forgery) to defeat him; and now the very same politicians
and pundits who parroted the case for war when it was expedient suddenly say
they were duped because now THAT's expedient.

As with tons of other stuff these days (Katrina, CIA Leakgate, Tom Delay,
etc. etc.), why wait for actual facts when a torrent of reckless charges
(gladly repeated by the media) can shape public opinion."

I repeat: once you /prove/ Bush purposely misled us into war, then I'll
agree it was unjust. Until then, I agree with Joe Lieberman (today) and all
the other Dems who voted for the resolution (back when it was "smart" of
them to do so): given the situation and the facts as almost everyone then
thought them to be, the action was justified. Period.

(Sorry I don't want to engage your cut & pasted definitions; save 'em for
the eggheads.)

You DID write, however: "By my count, this war satisfied only one of those
justifications: We
knew we wouldn't lose."

So why do all those Democrats say we're losing then? Wishful thinking, in
many cases.

Out.

 

[Nuck 'n Futz]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>> And the sanctions and weapons inspectors would have somehow removed
>> Saddam... HOW? Perhaps you could explain that one to me... sailed
>> right over my obtuse head.

> Moving the goalpost just a bit are we?
>
> Where was that on the list of why whe did what we did when we did?
> Absent. We did what we did when we did it because of the grave and
> iminent threat of WMD's being used on us--a chance we couldn't take in
> a post-9/11 climate.

Regime change in Iraq became the policy of this country in 1998 under Bill
Clinton.

>> Y'see, that's why I can't be a liberal. My brain hurts when I try to
>> make sense of something like that.
>
> I'm starting to think you're just overtaxing that poor little thing.

That's twice today you've used condescending "little" personal attacks
(first was on "di" IIRC). Size issues?

N&F

 

[Robert Uhl]

"gds" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> That's begging the question: is it a failed strategy if it's in the
>> process of succeeding?
>
> That is where at least part of the debate is. Many of us see no signs
> of success, it seems you do.

It happens that I do; but in this case I was just pointing out the
logical fallacy in your statement. It's not been proven that it's
failing, that's all.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
It typically takes 25-30 gallons of petrol/diesel to fully-consume an
average-sized body under ideal conditions. That I am conversant with
this level of detail should serve as an indication of why the wise man
does not ask me questions about MS-Windows. --Tanuki the Raccoon-dog

 

[Chalo]

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> With Chalo's posts the last few days, does anyone really have a
> problem believing that there are those who'd spit on returning
> soldiers?
>
> Probably only once though.

Ah, the tried and true Republican technique of accusing your opponent
of the bad behavior that actually characterizes your own side.

>From disingenuous claptrap about "judicial activism" from politicians
who are packing the courts with idealogues, to that obnoxious hogwash
about "America haters" from those who are doing everything in their
power to despoil every good and decent thing the USA ever stood for, it
seems to be the Republican modus operandi to take stock of whatever
dastardly thing they are doing and then loudly accuse others of doing
it.

Incivility is practically the only social tool left for the average
downtrodden, impotent Republican, since decency and cooperation are no
longer in the GOP rulebook, and since treachery and exploitation are
reserved for the privileged. So I suppose it's no mystery why an Outer
Party member like yourself would accuse me of it.

Chalo Colina

 

[Chalo]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> To people like
> Shallow Chalo, apparently, NO war is ever just (after all, he despised Pat
> Tillman for fighting in Afghanistan -- an action MOST people thought
> justified).

According to the criteria for initiating a Just War, the methods of
Just War, or the terms by which a Just War must be ended, the US
aggression against Afghanistan has been a gross travesty on all counts,
no matter what the indoctrinated cracker rabble thought about it.

The Spanish-American war was a popular undertaking too, even though it
was also bogus to its core. That was the historical event I
immediately reflected upon at the outset of the hostilities against
Afghanistan.

Remember the Maine! Let's roll!

Chalo Colina

 

[Bill Sornson]

JV wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.leadingthecharge.com/stories/news-00102693.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Continue to maintain your illusions in the face of all evidence,
>>>>> Bill.
>>>>
>>>> Well , gee, that /purported/ isolated incident (still under
>>>> investigation) sure proves that ALL the US troops are "goons", huh?
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> "The U.S. military says it does everything it can to ensure it
>>>> does not fire on civilians, although it has also admitted in the
>>>> past to accidentally killing civilians at roadblocks."
>>>>
>>>> "To avoid the possibility of being fired on, most Iraqis pull
>>>> over to the side of the road when U.S. convoys approach."
>>>>
>>>> "The convoys generally travel with signs in Arabic telling
>>>> people to stay back or away and warning them that deadly force will
>>>> be used if they get too close."
>>>
>>> How much slack would you cut the perpetrators if they were invaders
>>> in this country, and they were machinegunning cars full of American
>>> kids indiscriminately?
>>
>>
>> Bzzzzt. Right there's the difference. (Hint: "indiscriminately".)
>>
>> Believe what you want, Chalo. Sad thing is those soldiers will die
>> for your right to be a dishonest, America-hating *****.
>>
>>
>
> There's nothing more dishonest and sick than American Foriegn Policy
> in general and Iraq in particular.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaida
members." -- Hillary Clinton (forgot to get date -- 2003?)

And from her hubby's indictment of OBL during the '90s: "Al Qaida reached
an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaida would not work
against that government and that on particular projects, specifically
including weapons development, al Qaida would work cooperatively with the
Government of Iraq."

Of course, he conveniently forgot that when he appeared on the today show
last year: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/24/110052.shtml

 

[Bob]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I think Frank was asking if anyone knows of a country whose *penal
> > system* does a better job rehabilitating *criminals*, not the repairs
> > of buildings and war-damaged infrastructure.
>
> True. Bob, what do you know about that?
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Unfortunately, I don't know of any correctional system anywhere in the
world that effectively rehabilitates people. I know of only one thing
that has any real effect on recidivism rates and that's the maturing
process. All one has to do to predict future crime trends anywhere in
the world is look at a country's birth rate and extrapolate the
eventual spikes and declines in the numbers of males between the ages
of 16 and 25. A boom in that group means a boom in crime. As soon as
that group starts to decline, so does the crime rate. Whoever coined
the phrase, "There's no such thing as a bad boy.", obviously either
defined "boy" as a male under the age of 16 or they never looked at the
statistics.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey writes:
>
>>>> That's begging the question: is it a failed strategy if it's in
>>>> the process of succeeding?
>
>>> That is where at least part of the debate is. Many of us see no
>>> signs of success, it seems you do.
>
>> It's funny (in a perverse way, of course).
>
>> The US polls reflect that Americans are getting less hopeful about
>> success in Iraq (who can blame 'em with the non-stop negative
>> reporting).
>
>> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
>> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.
>
>> Either Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, or the Iraqis
>> don't know what's going on in Iraq.
>
> Not to worry, Iraqis get all the news that's fit to print in their own
> press... directly from the CIA and truthfully recounted with no spin.

Proof? What about all those satellite dishes Lieberman reports? You don't
think they pull in Al-Jazeera TV?!?

 

[Bill Sornson]

Chalo wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> To people like
>> Shallow Chalo, apparently, NO war is ever just (after all, he
>> despised Pat Tillman for fighting in Afghanistan -- an action MOST
>> people thought justified).
>
> According to the criteria for initiating a Just War, the methods of
> Just War, or the terms by which a Just War must be ended, the US
> aggression against Afghanistan has been a gross travesty on all
> counts, no matter what the indoctrinated cracker rabble thought about
> it.

There you go. TYVM.

> The Spanish-American war was a popular undertaking too, even though it
> was also bogus to its core. That was the historical event I
> immediately reflected upon at the outset of the hostilities against
> Afghanistan.
>
> Remember the Maine! Let's roll!

I'll give you credit for one thing, Chalo. You sure managed to hi-jack a
thread about a slain cyclist into yet another political spitball battle.
Well done!

Bill "pirates are pirates" S.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Robert Uhl wrote:
>>>
>>> That's begging the question: is it a failed strategy if it's in the
>>> process of succeeding?
>>
>> That is where at least part of the debate is. Many of us see no signs
>> of success, it seems you do.
>
> It's funny (in a perverse way, of course).
>
> The US polls reflect that Americans are getting less hopeful about
> success in Iraq (who can blame 'em with the non-stop negative
> reporting).
>
> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.
>
> Either Americans don't know what's going on in Iraq, or the Iraqis
> don't know what's going on in Iraq.

Either Lieberman doesn't know what's going on in Iraq, or Murtha doesn't
know what's going on in Iraq.