Bush, Osama's Manchurian Candidate



Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote...
>
> >> Huh? 14 UN resolutions over 12 years constitutes "no diplomacy"?
> >
> >Yes, that's exactly right. It's easy to say something and pretend you're doing something. It's
> >quite another to actually go out and talk to folks to get them to see your position. Getting
> >others "on-board" is what "leadership" is about. Charging off into the sunset isn't.
>
> Leadership is also about doing the right thing.

Oh, yes, most definitely. But what happens when "the right thing" is not so clear to everyone? If it
were JUST France, then people would laugh and say, "yeah, so what? Go drink some wine and call us up
next time you need your ass liberated." But it isn't. You have to be able to convince people what
"the right thing" is. If you can't make it clear, then maybe it's not "the right thing" after all.

> France (for whatever reasons) made it clear they were never going to be "on board", and Bush and
> Blair decided enough is enough.

Never? Never is a long time. When you work hard, and pull folks to your side, the last remaining
people start to not matter as much. Like it or not, France's population does not agree, and Chirac
is their representative. Democracy and all that, right?

Like I said, if were ONLY France, who cares?

> I couldn't agree more with their assessment - and we'll know soon enough whether they were right
> or horribly wrong.

More conservative "black and white" blather. Getting rid of Saddam and WMD are good things. What
happens during and after might not turn out so well. We don't know. Nobody does.

> Of course, Scud missiles that "Saddam doesn't have" falling out of the sky on the way to Kuwait
> should give you a strong hint as to the outcome of the WMD issue...

Right. Last I checked, Scuds could not reach the U.S. Possession of Scuds doesn't mean much.

I have no doubt WMD will be "found." Or evidence of production or whatever. Sort of like nuclear
program materials were "found," hmmm?

I don't assign much credibility anywhere here.

> (and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspections - if they can't find a Scud and its massive
> launch vehicle, how are they going to find underground labs?).

Do you know the scale of a Scud launcher to the size of Iraq? When you give the inspectors three
months, and then say "you guys aren't effective," it seems like it was never really ever going to be
effective, hmmm? Almost like the war was a forgone conclusion, and that our oh-so-honest president
was lying all along? See how these issues cut both ways? This is why so many people are ambivalent.

> >> >The conscripts will welcome the chance at real food. :)
> >>
> >> Hope they don't screw up and get the pork chop MREs! ;-)
> >
> >D'OH! Yeah, well - the turkey ala king is OK. [shudder]
>
> What was it ZZ Top said - "as long as it's not too blue"?

Ah yes - a classic. "TV Dinners" is a fine blues tune. :)

> I hope they packed a lot of those MREs... looks like they're having a "lot of company".

Yes, the 51st Division was a stunner, but maybe not so much in retrospect. Well done, guys. :)

Spider
 
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> >Well, that's not democracy. It's fascism. Whatever happened to separation between Church and
>> >State? I fear for this country and the world when foreign and domestic policy is dictated by
>> >religion and true believers
>>
>> The separation between Church and State is narrowing as the State tries to control the Church
>
>********.

Constitutional scholars come down on your side, and on my side of this argument. I tend to agree
with "mine". ;-)

>(the concept was put in place to prevent
>> the opposite).
>
>Now the pendulum is swinging in the other direction. I stand behind my opinion that the single
>biggest threat to world peace - as it always has been - is religious fundamentalism. Yours is as
>bad as theirs.

I would term the danger "religious fanatasism".

There's nothing I'm aware of in the Christian doctrine that is openly hostile to those of other
faiths. Disagrees with them? Of course. But there's NO command to wage war on those of other faith.

At other times, religion is a convenient way to group people together, as in Northern Ireland. Is
there a hopeless divide between the Catholic and Protestant religion? Hardly - makes nary a
ripple in the US. The fact that the Catholics and Protestants are from different countries DOES
matter though.

The same principle is being applied in the Iraq conflict as well - trying to paint it as a
"religious war" between the Christian forces and Islam - but that's patently ridiculous, and ignores
the extreme diversity of the coalition (that includes many Islamic countries).

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
[email protected] (Spider) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Leadership is also about doing the right thing.
>
>Oh, yes, most definitely. But what happens when "the right thing" is not so clear to everyone? If
>it were JUST France, then people would laugh and say, "yeah, so what? Go drink some wine and call
>us up next time you need your ass liberated." But it isn't. You have to be able to convince
>people what "the right thing" is. If you can't make it clear, then maybe it's not "the right
>thing" after all.

There are certainly a lot of issues in play in the UN Security Council. It's just that most of them
have nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with supremacy in the EU. Let's remember France
was lobbying other SC members hard to vote against the US and UK.

>> France (for whatever reasons) made it clear they were never going to be "on board", and Bush and
>> Blair decided enough is enough.
>
>Never? Never is a long time. When you work hard, and pull folks to your side, the last remaining
>people start to not matter as much. Like it or not, France's population does not agree, and Chirac
>is their representative. Democracy and all that, right?

I have no problem with France not wanting to participate. I do have a problem with them standing in
the way of enforcement of a UN resolution.

>Like I said, if were ONLY France, who cares?

I sure wouldn't!

>> I couldn't agree more with their assessment - and we'll know soon enough whether they were right
>> or horribly wrong.
>
>More conservative "black and white" blather. Getting rid of Saddam and WMD are good things. What
>happens during and after might not turn out so well. We don't know. Nobody does.

If they find significant WMD stores and production facilities, everything else is secondary. If
they can restore a reasonable quality of life to the Iraqi people, that's a huge plus. No doubt the
details will be less than "black and white" though. It doesn't seem to work that way anywhere in
the region.

>> Of course, Scud missiles that "Saddam doesn't have" falling out of the sky on the way to Kuwait
>> should give you a strong hint as to the outcome of the WMD issue...
>
>Right. Last I checked, Scuds could not reach the U.S. Possession of Scuds doesn't mean much.
>
>I have no doubt WMD will be "found." Or evidence of production or whatever. Sort of like nuclear
>program materials were "found," hmmm?
>
>I don't assign much credibility anywhere here.

A few points. Have you seen photos of a Scud and its launch vehicle? They're bloody huge. Still,
the Iraqis claimed they had neither, and 12 years (on and off) of inspections didn't find them.
Let's just say it takes no great amount of logic to assume they could also hide other things from
us. There will be plenty of Iraqi scientists eager to cash in on what they know about WMD programs
- we won't have to "manufacture evidence". OTOH, there are still those who honestly believe we
didn't put a man on the moon but faked the whole thing. No trying to prove some things to certain
folks I guess.

>> (and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspections - if they can't find a Scud and its massive
>> launch vehicle, how are they going to find underground labs?).
>
>Do you know the scale of a Scud launcher to the size of Iraq? When you give the inspectors three
>months, and then say "you guys aren't effective," it seems like it was never really ever going to
>be effective, hmmm? Almost like the war was a forgone conclusion, and that our oh-so-honest
>president was lying all along? See how these issues cut both ways? This is why so many people are
>ambivalent.

Three months? Three months? You need to wind up your calendar watch more often. Try 12 years!

>> >> >The conscripts will welcome the chance at real food. :)
>> >>
>> >> Hope they don't screw up and get the pork chop MREs! ;-)
>> >
>> >D'OH! Yeah, well - the turkey ala king is OK. [shudder]
>>
>> What was it ZZ Top said - "as long as it's not too blue"?
>
>Ah yes - a classic. "TV Dinners" is a fine blues tune. :)
>
>> I hope they packed a lot of those MREs... looks like they're having a "lot of company".
>
>Yes, the 51st Division was a stunner, but maybe not so much in retrospect. Well done, guys. :)

I hope it continues. Sounds like they're running into a bit more resistance lately, but hopefully as
the inevitable becomes more obvious there will be fewer of the hard line Republican Guard willing to
keep fighting.

"Do you guys have any hummus MREs?" ;-)

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> I would term the danger "religious fanatasism".

A fanatic is simply a fundamentalist on steroids. A fundamentalist is someone with a pathological
need uncritically to adhere to a strict literal doctrine, regardless of philosphical or theological
consistency, logic, common sense, or nuance. It's nothing more than a form of mental illness; is
there any wonder why so many "born again" evangelicals are former drug addicts and alcoholics? A
fundamentalist is fundamentally intolerant of any thought that deviates from strict dogma. A fanatic
goes one step further: they will kill and destroy to defend their dogma.

> There's nothing I'm aware of in the Christian doctrine that is openly hostile to those of
> other faiths.

Tell that to the evangelicals.

>Disagrees with them? Of course.

Why? If there's One God, who cares how he/she/it is worshipped? All worship is directed to the same
source. What difference the form it is cloaked in here on earth? Sorry, I suppose that is too
"liberal," "mystical," "enlightened" or "New Age" for you to appreciate.

> But there's NO command to wage war on those of other faith.

> At other times, religion is a convenient way to group people together, as in Northern Ireland. Is
> there a hopeless divide between the Catholic and Protestant religion? Hardly - makes nary a
> ripple in the US. The fact that the Catholics and Protestants are from different countries DOES
> matter though.
>
> The same principle is being applied in the Iraq conflict as well - trying to paint it as a
> "religious war" between the Christian forces and Islam - but that's patently ridiculous, and
> ignores the extreme diversity of the coalition (that includes many Islamic countries).

What coalition? Last time I looked, it was "US led forces."

Here are the results of a poll printed in today's newspaper regarding American religious support of
the war in Iraq:

"Evangelicals, 77% in favor; Catholics, 62%; mainline Protestants, 62%; black Protestants, 36%; and
nonreligious citizens, 44%"

I rest my case.

The evangelicals who have hijacked the US government won't be content until this country becomes the
"United States of Jesus" and damn the rest of the world.
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

>>Never? Never is a long time. When you work hard, and pull folks to your side, the last remaining
>>people start to not matter as much. Like it or not, France's population does not agree, and Chirac
>>is their representative. Democracy and all that, right?
>
>
> I have no problem with France not wanting to participate. I do have a problem with them standing
> in the way of enforcement of a UN resolution.

Why? It's their perogative - they don't have to agree with the US and let them do whatever they
want. Much as it pains me to say it, the UK and US' open villification of France for their stance
has been disgraceful.
 
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> I would term the danger "religious fanatasism".
>
>A fanatic is simply a fundamentalist on steroids. A fundamentalist is someone with a pathological
>need uncritically to adhere to a strict literal doctrine, regardless of philosphical or theological
>consistency, logic, common sense, or nuance. It's nothing more than a form of mental illness; is
>there any wonder why so many "born again" evangelicals are former drug addicts and alcoholics? A
>fundamentalist is fundamentally intolerant of any thought that deviates from strict dogma. A
>fanatic goes one step further: they will kill and destroy to defend their dogma.

Nice choice of words. The Webster's definition is "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or
principles". Again, I would ask what it was (other than perhaps a claim to be the son of God) that
Jesus ever taught that you disagree with? Helping the poor? Humility? Loving your enemy? Gotta be
something that has you so up in arms.

>> There's nothing I'm aware of in the Christian doctrine that is openly hostile to those of other
>> faiths.
>
>Tell that to the evangelicals.

I consider myself an "evangelical". I have NEVER heard any suggestion by anyone in any of the
churches I've attended that says we should be openly critical of other religions. Would we have
dialog with them about the differences given the opportunity? Sure. Big difference.

>>Disagrees with them? Of course.
>
>Why? If there's One God, who cares how he/she/it is worshipped? All worship is directed to the same
>source. What difference the form it is cloaked in here on earth? Sorry, I suppose that is too
>"liberal," "mystical," "enlightened" or "New Age" for you to appreciate.

We all have to choose the way that we feel is the right one (even if that choice is no choice).
Choose wisely.

>> But there's NO command to wage war on those of other faith.
>
>> At other times, religion is a convenient way to group people together, as in Northern Ireland. Is
>> there a hopeless divide between the Catholic and Protestant religion? Hardly - makes nary a
>> ripple in the US. The fact that the Catholics and Protestants are from different countries DOES
>> matter though.
>>
>> The same principle is being applied in the Iraq conflict as well - trying to paint it as a
>> "religious war" between the Christian forces and Islam - but that's patently ridiculous, and
>> ignores the extreme diversity of the coalition (that includes many Islamic countries).
>
>What coalition? Last time I looked, it was "US led forces."

The rest of the world (Iraq excepted of course) could be in the fight and it would STILL be "US led
forces". S'way it is, I'm afraid.

>Here are the results of a poll printed in today's newspaper regarding American religious support of
>the war in Iraq:
>
>"Evangelicals, 77% in favor; Catholics, 62%; mainline Protestants, 62%; black Protestants, 36%; and
>nonreligious citizens, 44%"
>
>I rest my case.

It appears that evangelicals are more intelligent. ;-) The "evangelicals" I've talked to are almost
without exception up on the facts on the Iraq situation. That's not the case with the general public
I've talked to about Iraq. Most of them seemed to have the misguided impression that "the
inspections were working" and "since we're not finding anything there must be no WMD in Iraq".

Also, don't discount the fact that the above groups don't necessarily get their facts from the
same news source. I'll wager more evangelicals, Catholics and Protestants watch Fox (where both
sides of issues are presented strongly) than the other networks (where it's not always the case).
Fox has been much better at reporting the real complex issues behind the WMD inspections and UN
issues, IMHO.

>The evangelicals who have hijacked the US government won't be content until this country becomes
>the "United States of Jesus" and damn the rest of the world.

Hardly. Given the fact that most of the US would reject that notion offhand, how do you explain the
high job approval rating of the Bush administration?

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>There's nothing I'm aware of in the Christian doctrine that is openly hostile to those of other
>>>faiths.
>>
>>Tell that to the evangelicals.
>
>
> I consider myself an "evangelical". I have NEVER heard any suggestion by anyone in any of the
> churches I've attended that says we should be openly critical of other religions. Would we have
> dialog with them about the differences given the opportunity? Sure. Big difference.
>

You must be an extremely liberal "evangelical" then. The evangelicals that I know won't stop
preaching until 100% of the world is Christian. And many of them wouldn't mind using government
intervention, bribery, or even a little force to achieve that goal.

>
>>Here are the results of a poll printed in today's newspaper regarding American religious support
>>of the war in Iraq:
>>
>>"Evangelicals, 77% in favor; Catholics, 62%; mainline Protestants, 62%; black Protestants, 36%;
>>and nonreligious citizens, 44%"
>>
>>I rest my case.
>
>
> It appears that evangelicals are more intelligent. ;-) The "evangelicals" I've talked to are
> almost without exception up on the facts on the Iraq situation.

I really doubt that. And as rarely as I agree with Doug Taylor I completely agree with him on this.
Ockham's Razor leads us to the conclusion that the evangelicals are simply biased against the
Muslim heathens.

BTW, in this time of Hussein's complete desperation where are all those WMD's? I'd be expecting them
to be raining down upon our forces by now.

>
>>The evangelicals who have hijacked the US government won't be content until this country becomes
>>the "United States of Jesus" and damn the rest of the world.
>
>
> Hardly. Given the fact that most of the US would reject that notion offhand, how do you explain
> the high job approval rating of the Bush administration?
>

You mean the majority of folks in this country who happen to be Christian give a high job approval
rating of the Bush administration? Our country has been regressing ever since Bush became President
and this war is no exception.

Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late, the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons
 
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I really doubt that. And as rarely as I agree with Doug Taylor I completely agree with him
> on this.

How can that be when "I'm always right and I never lie*"? ;-)

*Firesign Theater circa 1970
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>Again, I would ask what it was (other than perhaps a claim to be the son of God) that Jesus ever
>taught that you disagree with? Helping the poor? Humility? Loving your enemy?

Bingo! Bingo! There is absolutely nothing that Jesus taught I disagree with. Absolutely nothing. HE
was the Son of God and HE spoke the Truth.

My point is that I've rarely if ever met an evangelical who even remotely tried to emulate or came
close to understanding or appreciating the teachings of Jesus Christ. Virtually every one I've ever
met is a self-centered, mentally screwed up hypocrite, thinking they can do whatever they damn well
please and then be "forgiven." Helping the poor? Give me a break. You people have nothing to do with
anybody who doesn't spout the party line. Loving your enemy? What a joke. How about gay people?
Doctors who perform abortions? Rarely has hatred for other human beings been more perfectly
expressed.

> We all have to choose the way that we feel is the right one (even if that choice is no choice).
> Choose wisely.

Indeed, indeed. If your leaders do, finally, unleash Armegeddon, there are going to be lot of very
surprised "Christian" fundamentlists who completely and utterly missed the point thrown into the
pit. Good luck to you. I hope and pray you are an exception.
 
bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> I have no problem with France not wanting to participate. I do have a problem with them standing
>> in the way of enforcement of a UN resolution.
>
>Why? It's their perogative - they don't have to agree with the US and let them do whatever they
>want. Much as it pains me to say it, the UK and US' open villification of France for their stance
>has been disgraceful.

We live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. Now, we are all (you too) targets of a
movement that will use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on us, whether we play nice in Iraq
or not. We could sell out Israel, pull every serviceman out of every country in the world, and we'd
still be enemy number one because of the structure and norms of our society.

How we deal with the proliferation of WMD is the most important issue facing the world today. France
has made it clear that their proposed solution to the problem is endless negotiations with no threat
of enforcing compliance.

Bush and Blair, both in possession of intelligence information we may never fully receive, have
decided that approach isn't going to work. I agree with them.

The Malaysians have a saying that applies here. They're overrun with noisy monkeys, which tend to be
quite destructive. The way they deal with the monkeys is summed up as "kill a chicken to scare the
monkeys". They will wring the head off a live chicken with the monkeys watching, and the monkeys
decide that it's no longer prudent to bother that particular house. Saddam is that chicken. Kim Jong
Il is one of the monkeys, as are other regimes with or considering WMD programs. The ability of the
world to deal with these WMD programs hinges on what happens in the next six months.

Today, I'd rather have a few less friends and have my enemies fear me than have a more friends and
enemies who don't think twice about attacking me.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote
>
> The fact those terrorists happen to be Muslim doesn't make this a war against Islam any more than
> our action against Christian Serbia in defense of Croat Muslims made that a war against
> Christianity (or had you forgotten that one?).

Uh, Mark, Croatians are predominantly Roman Catholic. And the U.S. never intervened on their behalf
in the Balkans. You're probably thinking of the Bosnians. In fact, Croatia was both victim of the
Serbs (in the Krajina), and committed genocide against the Serbs (in WWII) and was engaged in ethnic
cleansing in Bosnia at the same time as Serbia.

CC
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Leadership is also about doing the right thing.
> >
> >Oh, yes, most definitely. But what happens when "the right thing" is not so clear to everyone? If
> >it were JUST France, then people would laugh and say, "yeah, so what? Go drink some wine and call
> >us up next time you need your ass liberated." But it isn't. You have to be able to convince
> >people what "the right thing" is. If you can't make it clear, then maybe it's not "the right
> >thing" after all.
>
> There are certainly a lot of issues in play in the UN Security Council.

And there aren't on Capitol Hill? Come on, Mark - you must not really think that this issue is all
about what the pols tell us...

> It's just that most of them have nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with supremacy in
> the EU.

Exactly my point. When a politician speaks, you can bet it's a lie. No matter who the politician
happens to be.

> Let's remember France was lobbying other SC members hard to vote against the US and UK.

I guess turnabout is fair play, then?

> >> France (for whatever reasons) made it clear they were never going to be "on board", and Bush
> >> and Blair decided enough is enough.
> >
> >Never? Never is a long time. When you work hard, and pull folks to your side, the last remaining
> >people start to not matter as much. Like it or not, France's population does not agree, and
> >Chirac is their representative. Democracy and all that, right?
>
> I have no problem with France not wanting to participate. I do have a problem with them standing
> in the way of enforcement of a UN resolution.

See, now there's the problem. If it were this simple, then nobody would have much of a problem. But
it's not so easily simplified.

> >Like I said, if were ONLY France, who cares?
>
> I sure wouldn't!

And neither would I. But when you can't round up even a simple majority of the SC, and those you do
get on board you have to pay off with monetary aid, well, it doesn't look good.

> >> I couldn't agree more with their assessment - and we'll know soon enough whether they were
> >> right or horribly wrong.
> >
> >More conservative "black and white" blather. Getting rid of Saddam and WMD are good things. What
> >happens during and after might not turn out so well. We don't know. Nobody does.
>
> If they find significant WMD stores and production facilities, everything else is secondary.

First, it depends on what one considers "significant." I would guess that most conservatives would
consider "any" to be "significant." And liberals would not consider any amount significant.
Reasonable people disagree on things of substance. Second, I don't buy the argument at all. The
possession of WMD do not in and of themselves create a sufficient condition for the use of forceable
removal. That Pandora's Box should not even be approached.

> If they can restore a reasonable quality of life to the Iraqi people, that's a huge plus.

A better argument, but one that conservatives rejected during the 90's. Other than a change in the
Oval Office, what makes Iraq so different?

> No doubt the details will be less than "black and white" though. It doesn't seem to work that way
> anywhere in the region.

Yup. We do not know the crop that we are sowing. I fear greatly what we will reap as a result.

> >> Of course, Scud missiles that "Saddam doesn't have" falling out of the sky on the way to Kuwait
> >> should give you a strong hint as to the outcome of the WMD issue...
> >
> >Right. Last I checked, Scuds could not reach the U.S. Possession of Scuds doesn't mean much.
> >
> >I have no doubt WMD will be "found." Or evidence of production or whatever. Sort of like nuclear
> >program materials were "found," hmmm?
> >
> >I don't assign much credibility anywhere here.
>
> A few points. Have you seen photos of a Scud and its launch vehicle? They're bloody huge.

Not on the scall of a country. And they're mobile.

> Still, the Iraqis claimed they had neither, and 12 years (on and off) of inspections didn't
> find them.

Inspections that were on "set and forget" mode. NOBODY had the leadership skills to stand up and say
"this ain't right." It was an illusion of doing something, which allowed everyone to ignore the
fundemental problem.

> Let's just say it takes no great amount of logic to assume they could also hide other things from
> us. There will be plenty of Iraqi scientists eager to cash in on what they know about WMD
> programs - we won't have to "manufacture evidence".

You don't know that. Hell, the Bush folks swore up and down that they had evidence of a nuclear
program, and all that turned out to be a big
lie.

> OTOH, there are still those who honestly believe we didn't put a man on the moon but faked the
> whole thing. No trying to prove some things to certain folks I guess.

Yes, there will be those folks. But their opinion doesn't matter much. I don't buy the
"Saddam/terrorist in bed" connection, no matter how many folk want to try and sell that propaganda.
There have been a lot of tenuous "connect the dots" exercises, but not any convincing ones. This
renders the WMD issue to somewhat smaller than the warmongers would like.

> >> (and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspections - if they can't find a Scud and its
> >> massive launch vehicle, how are they going to find underground labs?).
> >
> >Do you know the scale of a Scud launcher to the size of Iraq? When you give the inspectors three
> >months, and then say "you guys aren't effective," it seems like it was never really ever going to
> >be effective, hmmm? Almost like the war was a forgone conclusion, and that our oh-so-honest
> >president was lying all along? See how these issues cut both ways? This is why so many people are
> >ambivalent.
>
> Three months? Three months? You need to wind up your calendar watch more often. Try 12 years!

You're repeating the same dittohead line. There have been no REAL inspections - with full access,
for twelve years, or twelve months even. There were some hand-waving exercises, but nobody had the
courage to point out how insignificant the efforts were.

No amount of revisionist blather will convince me that the original inspection crews had any
chance of doing anything, or that there was any diplomacy of any kind occuring before September of
last year.

> >Yes, the 51st Division was a stunner, but maybe not so much in retrospect. Well done, guys. :)
>
> I hope it continues. Sounds like they're running into a bit more resistance lately, but hopefully
> as the inevitable becomes more obvious there will be fewer of the hard line Republican Guard
> willing to keep fighting.

The guys that have "war criminal" stamped on their foreheads will fight until the end, I think. They
know the stakes if the Iraq population gets it's hands on them.

> "Do you guys have any hummus MREs?" ;-)

LOL!

Spider
 
"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Today, I'd rather have a few less friends and have my enemies fear me than have a more friends and
> enemies who don't think twice about attacking me.

Kind of like how the Palestinians fear the Israelis? Years of superior manpower, firepower,
and technology sure have deterred the homocide bombers, now, haven't they? You can't scare
insane fanatics.

C'mon, Mark, the Muslim world doesn't fear us, it hates us, and insanely so. And with the Iraq war,
even the level headed and moderate among them hate us. So get ready for even more terrorism at home,
because your "Christian" president has poked a stick in their eye while alienatating all except one
or two allies and the entire rest of the world.

Boy, do I feel secure. NOT.
 
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> I consider myself an "evangelical". I have NEVER heard any suggestion by anyone in any of the
>> churches I've attended that says we should be openly critical of other religions. Would we have
>> dialog with them about the differences given the opportunity? Sure. Big difference.
>
>You must be an extremely liberal "evangelical" then. The evangelicals that I know won't stop
>preaching until 100% of the world is Christian. And many of them wouldn't mind using government
>intervention, bribery, or even a little force to achieve that goal.

You're talking about a group of people I've never met, apparently. Sure, evangelicals, by
definition, would like to see others adopt the Christian faith, but the vast majority of them just
aren't equipped for "preaching" (hope these emails aren't construed as "preaching" - I'm just trying
to correct mistaken assumptions / statements).

>> It appears that evangelicals are more intelligent. ;-) The "evangelicals" I've talked to are
>> almost without exception up on the facts on the Iraq situation.
>
>I really doubt that. And as rarely as I agree with Doug Taylor I completely agree with him on this.
>Ockham's Razor leads us to the conclusion that the evangelicals are simply biased against the
>Muslim heathens.

Again, you're talking about a group of people I've never met. In fact, in church yesterday in both
our small group meeting and in the main service, we prayed for the safety of the troops AND the
Iraqi civilians, and that the leaders on both sides would use wisdom. Pretty "biased", huh?

>BTW, in this time of Hussein's complete desperation where are all those WMD's? I'd be expecting
>them to be raining down upon our forces by now.

We aren't to Baghdad yet. I'm hoping that it won't happen (at least in any quantity) because of a
couple things. 1) The Iraqis know that the coalition troops are well equipped to deal with a
chemical or biological attack and 2) that anyone who actually fires the weapons at us will have hell
to pay after the fighting stops. So basically battlefield commanders know they're probably going to
get hung (literally) if they fire something at us that probably won't work anyway. Not much
incentive there, IMHO.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>Again, I would ask what it was (other than perhaps a claim to be the son of God) that Jesus ever
>>taught that you disagree with? Helping the poor? Humility? Loving your enemy?
>
>Bingo! Bingo! There is absolutely nothing that Jesus taught I disagree with. Absolutely nothing. HE
>was the Son of God and HE spoke the Truth.
>
>My point is that I've rarely if ever met an evangelical who even remotely tried to emulate or came
>close to understanding or appreciating the teachings of Jesus Christ. Virtually every one I've ever
>met is a self-centered, mentally screwed up hypocrite, thinking they can do whatever they damn well
>please and then be "forgiven." Helping the poor? Give me a break. You people have nothing to do
>with anybody who doesn't spout the party line. Loving your enemy? What a joke. How about gay
>people? Doctors who perform abortions? Rarely has hatred for other human beings been more perfectly
>expressed.

Just WHO are these people you and Greg are talking about? "Self-centered, mentally screwed up
hypocrites"? Wow, I had no idea I was one of those. Helping the poor? Uhhh, yeah - where have you
been? You obviously don't understand just how many faith-based charities and support organizations
are out there. And I'll let you in on a little secret about the church and "gay people". The church

only lets sinners in the door. Sounds like they're well-qualified to attend. Oh, nice try
associating the lunatics who would shoot abortion doctors with "evangelicals". Should I equate
liberals with Stalin?

>> We all have to choose the way that we feel is the right one (even if that choice is no choice).
>> Choose wisely.
>
>Indeed, indeed. If your leaders do, finally, unleash Armegeddon, there are going to be lot of very
>surprised "Christian" fundamentlists who completely and utterly missed the point thrown into the
>pit. Good luck to you. I hope and pray you are an exception.

I agree with you (as did Jesus, citing those who were doing miracles in his name but never really
knew him). Those horrible people you describe certainly would do well to heed your warning above,
but are hardly representative of the evangelical Christians I've known over the years.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Today, I'd rather have a few less friends and have my enemies fear me than have a more friends
>> and enemies who don't think twice about attacking me.
>
>Kind of like how the Palestinians fear the Israelis? Years of superior manpower, firepower, and
>technology sure have deterred the homocide bombers, now, haven't they? You can't scare insane
>fanatics.

I agree you can't alter the behavior of the individual terrorist, but you CAN alter the behavior of
the governments who would consider producing WMD. Producing WMD takes infrastructure and materials
that can be controlled and monitored.

>C'mon, Mark, the Muslim world doesn't fear us, it hates us, and insanely so. And with the Iraq war,
>even the level headed and moderate among them hate us. So get ready for even more terrorism at
>home, because your "Christian" president has poked a stick in their eye while alienatating all
>except one or two allies and the entire rest of the world.
>
>Boy, do I feel secure. NOT.

They (the fringe element) hated us 10 years ago, and they'll hate us 10 years from now. There were
many attacks against us during the Clinton years, even though we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Those who insist on seeing this as a religious war will do so (sounds like you may be one of them),
even though there's certainly no religious element in the coalition platform (that is, this isn't a
crusade to bring Christianity to Iraq). And please don't forget that many of the over 40 coalition
countries are in the middle east.

Besides, what does the "Arab street" really think? Watching CNN you would get the impression that
most Americans are violently opposed to the war, when only 20% in the latest poll list themselves as
opposed (the "very opposed" number is smaller, but I don't recall what it is). Still, they're the
ones getting the air time.

It would be nice if there was a clean, "easy" way to deal with the WMD issue.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> bomba <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> >> I have no problem with France not wanting to participate. I do have a problem with them
> >> standing in the way of enforcement of a UN resolution.
> >
> >Why? It's their perogative - they don't have to agree with the US and let them do whatever they
> >want. Much as it pains me to say it, the UK and US' open villification of France for their stance
> >has been disgraceful.
>
> We live in a different world than we did 30 years ago. Now, we are all (you too) targets of a
> movement that will use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on us, whether we play nice in
> Iraq or not. We could sell out Israel, pull every serviceman out of every country in the world,
> and we'd still be enemy number one because of the structure and norms of our society.
>

30 years ago your "intelligence" agency was busy training Osama Bin Laden and Al Quada on one
front while and propping up Saddam Hussain's baath party on the other and simultaneously selling
weapons to their enemies in Iran and while building up Israel with money and weapons as the
unifying enemy of all the other parties involved. Don't expect a Ramadan card from anyone in the
region any time soon.

The US had no problem with Iraq invading and taking over Kurdistan, no problem Saddam gassing the
civilian population to prevent a revolt, no problem issuing lists of suspected communists to the
baath party for them to execute....no the only problem came when Iraq took over Kuwait. What's the
difference between Kuridstan and Kuwait? The Kurds don't have oil wells.

I suspect the US will never have full control of Baghdad, they couldn't even get their men out of
Somalia in one piece. If this is all still going on come election time at least you'll have a new
president. Maybe one that will listen to Colin Powells advice.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Today, I'd rather have a few less friends and have my enemies fear me than have a more friends
> >> and enemies who don't think twice about attacking me.
> >
> >Kind of like how the Palestinians fear the Israelis? Years of superior manpower, firepower, and
> >technology sure have deterred the homocide bombers, now, haven't they? You can't scare insane
> >fanatics.
>
> I agree you can't alter the behavior of the individual terrorist, but you CAN alter the behavior
> of the governments who would consider producing WMD. Producing WMD takes infrastructure and
> materials that can be controlled and monitored.
>

Dream on, shipments of ballistic missiles have beeing going to North Korea for years under US noses.
Many countries have completely disregarded the embargo on Iraq. Producing WMD requires a contact in
an old USSR republic and a Radio Shack.

> >C'mon, Mark, the Muslim world doesn't fear us, it hates us, and insanely so. And with the Iraq
> >war, even the level headed and moderate among them hate us. So get ready for even more terrorism
> >at home, because your "Christian" president has poked a stick in their eye while alienatating all
> >except one or two allies and the entire rest of the world.
> >
> >Boy, do I feel secure. NOT.
>
> They (the fringe element) hated us 10 years ago, and they'll hate us 10 years from now. There were
> many attacks against us during the Clinton years, even though we were not in Iraq or Afghanistan.
>

Muslims seem to have a longer memory than you do, 10 years ago they were cooling off.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Today, I'd rather have a few less friends and have my enemies fear me than have a more friends
> > and enemies who don't think twice about attacking me.
>
> Kind of like how the Palestinians fear the Israelis? Years of superior manpower, firepower, and
> technology sure have deterred the homocide
bombers,
> now, haven't they? You can't scare insane fanatics.
>
> C'mon, Mark, the Muslim world doesn't fear us,

The 'Muslim world' should have nothing to fear at all.

> it hates us,

Outright? No it does not - a comparatively small group of fanatics calling themselves 'Muslims' are
the problem. Your sweeping generalisations, as well as those of others in the world, only serve to
further exacerbate existing problems. They may well have a hatred due to current events, but who
could blame them?

> and insanely so.

Nothing insane about hating the perpetrators of the murderer of innocents.

> And with the Iraq war, even the level headed and moderate among them hate us. So get ready for
> even more terrorism at home, because your
"Christian"
> president has poked a stick in their eye while alienatating all except one or two allies and the
> entire rest of the world.
>
> Boy, do I feel secure. NOT.

Here, I agree.

Shaun aRe
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Today, I'd rather have a few less friends and have my enemies fear me than have a more friends
> > > and enemies who don't think twice about attacking me.
> >
> > Kind of like how the Palestinians fear the Israelis? Years of superior manpower, firepower, and
> > technology sure have deterred the homocide
> bombers,
> > now, haven't they? You can't scare insane fanatics.
> >
> > C'mon, Mark, the Muslim world doesn't fear us,
>
> The 'Muslim world' should have nothing to fear at all.
>
> > it hates us,
>
> Outright? No it does not - a comparatively small group of fanatics calling themselves 'Muslims'
> are the problem. Your sweeping generalisations, as well as those of others in the world, only
> serve to further exacerbate existing problems. They may well have a hatred due to current events,
> but who could blame them?
>

While I agree that all muslims do not fall into this category, your assertion that the group of
people in the region is comparitivly small holds true only if your base line is the population
of China. Their hatred is not born of current events and until they start teaching some
middleast history in US schools, I fear we will be doomed to repeat this every 10 years until
all the oil is gone.

Watching Bush on TV the other night I wonder if daddy even told him that as the then director of the
CIA he largely responsible for Saddam's rise to power.

--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Replies
26
Views
874
Road Cycling
Davey Crockett
D
M
Replies
0
Views
353
Road Cycling
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des ang
M