Bicylist shot and killed for thrill

[Bill Sornson]

Chalo wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Speaking of mountains of evidence to the contrary, aren't you the
>>> guy who insists that GWB, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld et al did
>>> not, in fact, lie through their teeth to get us into this mess? I
>>> thought so.
>>
>> No more than all the others who voted to do so in the face of the
>> evidence available at the time.
>
> Those who voted did not have access to all the relevant intelligence
> the White House had.

Not true except in terms of /volume/. The fact that Bush saw even MORE
intelligence only makes his decision that much more reasonable.

> They were also moral cowards, but that's another matter.

Actually, they're (many of them, not all) "moral cowards" TODAY, when they
pander to political expediency rather than take responsibility for their own
actions/words/votes (which one must /assume/ were honest at the time,
right?)...

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:38:17 GMT, bubble-puzzle,"Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> sidestepped:
\whack

>HAND.

Squat, *****.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

On 01 Dec 2005 03:02:56 GMT,
[email protected] wrote, in part:

>True believers are diminishing, but we
>are fortunate here on wreck.bike to have some of the most adamant of
>these.

You misspelled rabid.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:28:26 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This time go back and read my ENTIRE reply -- including the large part you
>snipped.

Quit your sniveling, *****.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

On 30 Nov 2005 20:06:18 -0800, [email protected] wrote, in part:

>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.

Is Mark a Republican?
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:21:35 -0700, somewhere in la la land,
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> dreams on:

>Name a country who provides more humanitarian aid than the US.

As a percentage of GNP:
Norway 0.87
Luxembourg 0.85
Denmark 0.84
Sweden 0.77
Netherlands 0.74
Portugal 0.63
France 0.42
Belgium 0.41
Ireland 0.39
Switzerland 0.37
United Kingdom 0.36
Finland 0.35
Germany 0.28
Canada 0.26
Spain 0.26
Australia 0.25
Austria 0.24
Greece 0.23
New Zealand 0.23
Japan 0.19
United States 0.16
Italy 0.15

Aid has been a foreign policy tool to aid the donor not the recipient.

While the US provided large amounts of military aid to countries
deemed strategically important, others noted that the US ranked low
among developed nations in the amount of humanitarian aid it provided
poorer countries. "We are the stingiest nation of all," former
President Jimmy Carter said recently in an address at Principia
College in Elsah, Ill.
Christian Science Monitor, December 29, 1999

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
--
zk

 

[The Wogster]

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.
>

I'll agree with Bill, there is no such thing as a just war, every war
through history has been based on wanting more of something, or
retaining something that has passed it's prime.

W

 

[The Wogster]

[email protected] wrote:
> 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!
>

I mean Canada's elections, Paul Martin's minority government lost the
confidence of Parliment, and therefore Canadians are dealing with an
election, hard to observe someone else, while your best experts in the
process are needed at home.

W

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey writes:
>
>> 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.

Jobst, you type that like you know it for a fact. I'd like to see any
evidence at all that the Iraqis can't get news from sources not
"controlled" by the CIA.

>There are few people who believe in the veracity of this
>administration as the dirt begins to burst from the secrets bags and
>bags and bags. Every day new revelations discredit the Bush,
>Rumsfeld, Rice proclamations. True believers are diminishing, but we
>are fortunate here on wreck.bike to have some of the most adamant of
>these.
>
>I don't understand how it isn't embarrassing to take that stance with
>all the evidence to the contrary. Arguing that others in the
>legislature are complicit does not absolve the administration of
>lying.

Let's see how you guys are doing on the "lying thing"...

Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11, but you somehow can't manage
to find any evidence of that "fact".

Bush manipulated the intel going into the war, but you somehow can't
manage to find any evidence of that "fact" either.

Yes, there are those who can believe something despite "all the
evidence to the contrary" all right.

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

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

You say the horrendous things you do about our military personnel, and
want to lecture ME on civility?

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

 

[Peter Cole]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I was vehemently opposed to the start of this war, but now I don't see
>>any way out of this horrific quagmire (one of the reasons I was opposed
>>to it). It's a botched execution of a bad idea. Now we're in a damned if
>>we do/don't situation. Thanks to our neocon visionaries -- they have
>>managed to exploit fear (WMD) and wounded pride (9/11) to promote their
>>own fanatical agenda, and get us into this mess -- they're worse than
>>the cold war loonies of earlier administrations. I certainly don't know
>>how to extricate our troops without risking complete carnage in Iraq,
>>but dumping the idiots responsible for this would seem a logical first step.
>
>
> Peter - serious question... Are you going to be disappointed if "it
> works"? The Iraqis are a whole lot more optimistic than Americans are
> about it, so you'd better start thinking about how you might react to
> GWB being right.

I don't know what you mean by "it works". Personally, I think the war is
already a failure since the cost has exceeded the benefit.

In the same way, I don't understand "GWB being right". He has already
been wrong about everything, what is there left to be right about?

In even the most rosy scenario, the US has done damage to the prospects
of of a world governed by international law, through its unilateral
actions, that is the greatest loss. We have squandered a huge
opportunity to abandon our cold war mentality. We are world leaders with
no vision. We have used the peace dividend to make war -- a particularly
cynical and stupid war. We are investing in the wrong things (war,
military) at a time (globalization) when investment in the right
(education, infrastructure) things is critical. All of our victories in
the last 60 years have been economic, we're betting on the wrong horse.

In the Middle East, the neo-cons misunderstand the "enemy" the same way
their comrades misunderstood SE Asia during Vietnam. Islamic
fundamentalism is on the rise, and it will not be stopped militarily. To
understand why Iraq will never "work" (in the neo-con sense), you have
to understand why Arabs danced in the street after 9/11. History teaches
that the only thing that will unite traditional enemies is the presence
of a greater common enemy. We are fulfilling that role (again) --
remember China and Vietnam.

The ultimate irony in all of this is how the fundamentalists in this
country -- a group to which GWB belongs and owes his presidency -- don't
grasp the reality of Islamic fundamentalism. They expect the Arabs to
behave "rationally" and embrace a secular democracy, while they maintain
their own irrational positions and attempt to de-secularize their own
government. Extremism begets extremism.

The ultimate fallacy of this war is that were are attempting to
determine Iraqi self-determinism for them -- such folly cannot end well.

 

[George Karabotsos]

Hi Mark,

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.
>

Also lets not forget that Iraqis have been leaving under an oppressing
regime for some time now. I am pretty sure people are weary when asked
questions about their country's current predicament. So I would be
expecting answers that would look more favorable to the current regime.

George

 

[George Karabotsos]

Hi Mark,

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.
>

Also lets not forget that Iraqis have been leaving under an oppressing
regime for some time now. I am pretty sure people are weary when asked
questions about their country's current predicament. So I would be
expecting answers that would look more favorable to the current regime.

George

 

[George Karabotsos]

Hi Mark,

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.
>

Also lets not forget that Iraqis have been leaving under an oppressing
regime for some time now. I am pretty sure people are weary when asked
questions about their country's current predicament. So I would be
expecting answers that would look more favorable to the current regime.

George

 

[George Karabotsos]

Hi Mark,

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "gds" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The polls in Iraq OTOH show ever-increasing optimism, with 80+%
> thinking things are getting better and will be better in a year.
>

Also lets not forget that Iraqis have been leaving under an oppressing
regime for some time now. I am pretty sure people are weary when asked
questions about their country's current predicament. So I would be
expecting answers that would look more favorable to the current regime.

George

 

[Neil Brooks]

Neil Brooks <[email protected]> wrote re: Office of Special Plans,
for example:

> Oooh, a secret cabal of the only guys
> on the planet who knew (violin
> riff) the REAL TRUTH.... (cue Twilight
> Zone music). I'm sure they had
> lots of spies in Iraq that no one
> knew about too, right?

This is another classic "You're cute, Mark, but..." line of yours.

Math lesson, and--as others have said--I'll reduce the fractions for
your intelligibility:

1) Liddy + Mitchell + Haldeman + Dean + Hunt = CREEP

2) Ronny RayGun + Robert McFarlane + Cap Weinberger + Colin Powell +
Michael Ledeen, et al = Iran-Contra

3) Tricky **** + Kennedy + Allen Dulles + Charles Cabell (close!) +
Richard Bissell, et al = Bay of Pigs.

You know, Mark: I've been giving you far too much credit for cerebral
horsepower.

Perhaps you're more like GWB than I thought--a member of the "My
mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts" crowd, unwilling to
acknowledge the Emperor's obvious lack of clothing, and more than a
bit ignorant of history.

To have your little chortle at the notion that administrations have
cabals formed solely for evil deeds that bring down presidencies just
decimates your vestigial cred.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[Neil Brooks]

Don't know what happened there. That should have read:

Mark Hickey wrote:

>> Oooh, a secret cabal of the only guys
>> on the planet who knew (violin
>> riff) the REAL TRUTH.... (cue Twilight
>> Zone music). I'm sure they had
>> lots of spies in Iraq that no one
>> knew about too, right?

And Neil Brooks replied:

>This is another classic "You're cute, Mark, but..." line of yours.
>
>Math lesson, and--as others have said--I'll reduce the fractions for
>your intelligibility:
>
>1) Liddy + Mitchell + Haldeman + Dean + Hunt = CREEP
>
>2) Ronny RayGun + Robert McFarlane + Cap Weinberger + Colin Powell +
>Michael Ledeen, et al = Iran-Contra
>
>3) Tricky **** + Kennedy + Allen Dulles + Charles Cabell (close!) +
>Richard Bissell, et al = Bay of Pigs.
>
>You know, Mark: I've been giving you far too much credit for cerebral
>horsepower.
>
>Perhaps you're more like GWB than I thought--a member of the "My
>mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts" crowd, unwilling to
>acknowledge the Emperor's obvious lack of clothing, and more than a
>bit ignorant of history.
>
>To have your little chortle at the notion that administrations have
>cabals formed solely for evil deeds that bring down presidencies just
>decimates your vestigial cred.

--
Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> 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".

And that is your lone criterion for a "Just War"?

The Sornson criterion: "If those opposed to the war cannot prove to
Sornson's satisfaction that the leader of a country lied, the war is
just."

Somehow, I don't recall that item being on the long-accepted list. In
fact, I can't conceive of that _ever_ being added to the list.

Again, here's the list. It wasn't made up five years ago; it's been
around for centuries, in one form or other. It wasn't made up by
Democrats, or Iraqis, or pacifists. It was made up by philosophers and
religious leaders - people concerned with morality, not oil profits.

And to be considered a Just War, _all_ of the criteria must be
satisfied, not just one. Does the Iraq invasion pass the test? Tell
me, point by point:


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.


- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:
> 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.

Hmmm. I've proposed many times that we should take all male teens.
ship them off to a fenced in compound in Arizonal, and let them out at
about age 30, or when they mature.

As I recall, I came up with this idea when my daughter was a teenager.
But I can't seem to get much support for my plan. Oh, well.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> Let's see how you guys are doing on the "lying thing"...
>
> Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11, but you somehow can't manage
> to find any evidence of that "fact".
>
> Bush manipulated the intel going into the war, but you somehow can't
> manage to find any evidence of that "fact" either.

Wow. Speaking of lying!

First, please replace "Bush" by "The Bush administration," because
that's what's most often claimed. George W's radio link usually works
well, and the words fed to him usually contain enough wiggle room to
let him strongly imply what the administration wants, without having
the cardboard president actually make specific, accountable statements.
(In his defense, this is common among politicians - although most
politicians are not figureheads to the degree George W is).

But evidence of the administration's misleading statements has been
posted many times. Of those posting here, there have been only about
four people who are capable of pretending "We know where the weapons of
mass destruction are" means something else.

Or you can refer to the famous Downing Street Memo (actually, minutes
of a top-level security meeting in Britain), containing this paragraph
(and much more detail on the Bush administration's plans):

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy."

The rest of it is at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html




And regarding Iraq and 9/11, a brief Google session finds:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

"The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq"

"American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the
case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which
focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight
times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often
in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi
president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression
that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi
dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS
poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein
was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month
ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence
that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has
been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be
encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American
support for a possible war against Iraq."


So we can't find _any_ evidence? That's in five minutes of Googling.
It's been posted before.

If you wanted to be accurate, Mark, you'd say "You can't find any
evidence I'll believe." But that's describing a shortcoming in your
belief system, not a complete lack of evidence.

- Frank Krygowski