I was misled

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:25:05 -0400, Top Sirloin
<[email hidden]> from Posted via Supernews,

url='http://www.supernews.com/'http://www.supernews.com/url said:

Here's how same people who write Jobst's favorite website
treat people who disagree with them:

klas-tv.comstory.aspOpen ↗

The far-left considers any tactic valid as long as they
think it furthers their cause.

First of all, you've made no conenction between Jobst, any
website he likes and that incident. Second, you've engaged
in the fallacy of generalizing the behaviour of an
individual to a group.
--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:46:27 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> from

Habanero Cycles said:

C'mon, you can do better than that - I'm not going to
peruse NPR's entire website looking for this... how 'bout
finding a source that doesn't lean so left - something
neutral like Reuters?

You trust a French news agency? That's rich!

--
Kevan Smith
[email hidden]

Bill Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to know what independent papers write, ones
that are not owned by large corporations you get a
different tone entirely as in this one:

======================================================================

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CHENEY MAY BE LOSING IT

Quoted message said:

{snip article}

Quoted message said:

Jobst, if someone repeated blasted your book as fraudulent
or plagiarized or likewise corrupt, and then tried to slap
you on the back while laughing to pose for a picture, I
bet you'd tell him or

Regardless, gentlemen do no "LOSE IT" in such a circumstance
and degrade themselves by exposing their thin skin and rude
underpinnings. As you have seen, I don't stoop to that level
and it is not part of my vocabulary to respond in kind.

Your phrasing runs close to suggesting you may also be
losing it.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

The far-left considers any tactic valid as long as they
think it furthers their cause.

It has become all too common these days that when you don't
have a substantive defense for someone's criticism of the
stupid and destructive policies of the Bush administration,
you just resort to dismissing the criticism as coming from
the "far left" or a "socialist".

This war is stupid beyond words. It is seriously weakening
our country and if you do not recognize that fact, then you
know nothing about such things. It is not the people that
are opposed to this war that are harming our country, it is
the people that made this war. Its cost is incalculable- our
prestige, our troops' morale, our materiel preparednes, our
economic wellbeing, our safety in our homeland- all trashed
by those Bush jackasses.

So go ahead and call us names, but at the end of the day it
will change nothing; it will not pay for the war, it will
not make the rest of the world admire us again, it will not
provide the R&R that our troops need and it will not restore
the preparedness of our military. God, what kind of
personality does it take to be so blind to what Bush has
done to our country?

JP

Kevan Smith said:

A bunch of organizations you'll likely downplay, like
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The FCNL, ICRC
and others.

I just posted a link from Human Rights Watch - let's
see yours.

Quoted message said:

However, I will be staright with you and say these are
estimates.

The true number of people killed, maimed and wounded in
this war will never be known, just as in any war.

Ok, thanks.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

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

Quoted message said:

You have to be able to convince someone that he has no
future if you want him to strap explosives around his
chest and blow up a bus.

I guess you haven't heard of those middle-class educated
Saudis who flew jumbo jets into the WTC buildings?

No doubt in your imagination they were all poverty-stricken
Iraqis desperate for a McLife.

James

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

Quoted message said:

Bill Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to know what independent papers write,
ones that

are not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

owned by large corporations you get a different tone

entirely as in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this one:

=================================================================

=====

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CHENEY MAY BE LOSING IT

Quoted message said:

{snip article}

Quoted message said:

Jobst, if someone repeated blasted your book as
fraudulent or plagiarized or likewise corrupt, and then
tried to slap you

on the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

back while laughing to pose for a picture, I bet
you'd tell

him or

Quoted message said:

Regardless, gentlemen do no "LOSE IT" in such a
circumstance

and

Quoted message said:

degrade themselves by exposing their thin skin and rude

underpinnings.

Quoted message said:

As you have seen, I don't stoop to that level and it is
not

part of

Quoted message said:

my vocabulary to respond in kind.

Your phrasing runs close to suggesting you may also
be losing

it.

Regrettably, decorum is a thing of the past. The great
communicator was constantly taking it in the shorts from the
liberal press, both as Governor of California and as
president -- but he never got potty mouthed, at least not
that I can remember. I didn't vote for the guy, and I
disagreed with most of his policies, but he could make a
point with just a few clean words and that evil Howdy Doody
smile. GWB, on the other hand, is just a nasty frat boy who
apparently was raised without an ounce of couth, much like
his daughters, Thing One and Thing Two. And I guess [censored]
Cheney is simply trying to continue the long history in
America of sketchy vice presidents. Why do you think they
call them "vice" presidents? At least he can spell potato.
-- Jay Beattie.

Quoted message said:

Tom C Medara said:

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

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

You suggested with the "law and order" comment that the
status quo ante under Saddam was preferable. You cited a
lack of "law and order" as a criticism of the US
military's efficiency. You're right, Saddam did impose law
and order throughout the land, but that doesn't mean it
was any better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Nice dodge by the way.... That anarchy broke loose after the
fall of the regime is well documented and is a valid
criticism of the Bush administration approach to the
aftermath. However, no one "sat by for weeks" while it
happened either, that's just outright hyperbole. Leave off
the drama and partial truths to Mr Moore, you strike me as a
bit more reasoned than that. I had a fairly close
perspective to the immediate aftermath of the regime
downfall and no one in Washington said anything about
letting anyone suffer. That's merely an invented scenario
that fits your preconceived notions and limited knowledge of
the facts. To suggest that no one thought about imposing
security in urban areas is just absurd. That it peace in the
streets didn't occur in the immediate hours of the regime's
demise is an unrealistic standard. It was only weeks after
when the press was questioning why "democracy" hadn't taken
root yet. It all comes from confusing reality with
expectations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Your desire to give a pass to 30 years of brutal
dictatorship, ethnic warfare, WMD use, violations of
international law, and scoffing at the vaunted UN Security
council amazes me. Do your research, Iraq isn't/wasn't being
destroyed by the US, it's being rebuilt after decades of
neglect. Get facts Jobst, not propoganda. This was one of
the "cleanest" wars ever fought in the history of mankind.
More attention was paid to limiting collateral weapons
effects than at any time in history. It wasn't perfect, but
it never will be. Your suggestion that the US employed some
sort of random, wanton, and unrestrained violence on the
entire populace and it's infrastructure is just plain false.
Such a position befits only an anti-American zealot. For a
man as well travelled as you claim, it surprises me that you
fail to appreciate the greatness of the American experiment
over the two-bit dictatorships that cause such human
suffering around the globe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

You indicted the US Army for the destruction of "law and
order" in Iraq. The point of reference was obviously that
which existed prior to the arrival of the Army. That would
be the "law and order" imposed by the Saddam regime. I'm not
gonna let you backpedal off that one so easily. Your zeal to
criticize the US military has inadvertently put you in the
camp of the "Saddam the Liberator" crowd. What's next, some
testament about the demise of the "peace loving Ba'athist
Party"? The goal of the current administration both in and
out of Iraq is to establish law and order AND allow people
to walk the streets and have a life. It's not an easy task,
as you so readily point out. To suggest it's not a concern
is just pure "hate America first" BS. Call it "jingoism" if
it swells your anti-american sentiment, but it is possible
that there are Americans with good intentions trying to
provide security, prosperity, and democracy to the people of
Iraq. The president has said as much, and has pledged the
blood and treasure of this country to make it happen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> The same is true in Afghanistan.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Nice try, but just not true. It's a difficult challenge to
overcome 20 years of anarchy and a century of screwed up
politics. That you indict the Bush administration for
failing to achieve a perfect democratic republic in the
span of two years is just silly. Hell, it took the US
nearly 10 years to get it right and that was during a
period of relative peace. All things considered, the
Afghans people are much better off -- particularly the
women who can leave their homes again. Of course this
smacks of the same argument your making about Iraq --
because the security environment is worse than before then
nothing else matters, right?

tcmedara said:

Quoted message said:

Tom C Medara said:

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

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

You suggested with the "law and order" comment that the
status quo ante under Saddam was preferable. You cited a
lack of "law and order" as a criticism of the US
military's efficiency. You're right, Saddam did impose law
and order throughout the land, but that doesn't mean it
was any better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Nice dodge by the way.... That anarchy broke loose after
the fall of the regime is well documented and is a valid
criticism of the Bush administration approach to the
aftermath. However, no one "sat by for weeks" while it
happened either, that's just outright hyperbole. Leave off
the drama and partial truths to Mr Moore, you strike me as
a bit more reasoned than that. I had a fairly close
perspective to the immediate aftermath of the regime
downfall and no one in Washington said anything about
letting anyone suffer. That's merely an invented scenario
that fits your preconceived notions and limited knowledge
of the facts. To suggest that no one thought about
imposing security in urban areas is just absurd. That it
peace in the streets didn't occur in the immediate hours
of the regime's demise is an unrealistic standard. It was
only weeks after when the press was questioning why
"democracy" hadn't taken root yet. It all comes from
confusing reality with expectations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

Your desire to give a pass to 30 years of brutal
dictatorship, ethnic warfare, WMD use, violations of
international law, and scoffing at the vaunted UN Security
council amazes me. Do your research, Iraq isn't/wasn't
being destroyed by the US, it's being rebuilt after
decades of neglect. Get facts Jobst, not propoganda. This
was one of the "cleanest" wars ever fought in the history
of mankind. More attention was paid to limiting collateral
weapons effects than at any time in history. It wasn't
perfect, but it never will be. Your suggestion that the US
employed some sort of random, wanton, and unrestrained
violence on the entire populace and it's infrastructure is
just plain false. Such a position befits only an anti-
American zealot. For a man as well travelled as you claim,
it surprises me that you fail to appreciate the greatness
of the American experiment over the two-bit dictatorships
that cause such human suffering around the globe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

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

You indicted the US Army for the destruction of "law and
order" in Iraq. The point of reference was obviously that
which existed prior to the arrival of the Army. That would
be the "law and order" imposed by the Saddam regime. I'm
not gonna let you backpedal off that one so easily. Your
zeal to criticize the US military has inadvertently put
you in the camp of the "Saddam the Liberator" crowd.
What's next, some testament about the demise of the "peace
loving Ba'athist Party"? The goal of the current
administration both in and out of Iraq is to establish law
and order AND allow people to walk the streets and have a
life. It's not an easy task, as you so readily point out.
To suggest it's not a concern is just pure "hate America
first" BS. Call it "jingoism" if it swells your anti-
american sentiment, but it is possible that there are
Americans with good intentions trying to provide security,
prosperity, and democracy to the people of Iraq. The
president has said as much, and has pledged the blood and
treasure of this country to make it happen.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

>>>> The same is true in Afghanistan.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

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

Nice try, but just not true. It's a difficult challenge to
overcome 20 years of anarchy and a century of screwed up
politics. That you indict the Bush administration for
failing to achieve a perfect democratic republic in the
span of two years is just silly. Hell, it took the US
nearly 10 years to get it right and that was during a
period of relative peace. All things considered, the
Afghans people are much better off -- particularly the
women who can leave their homes again. Of course this
smacks of the same argument your making about Iraq --
because the security environment is worse than before then
nothing else matters, right?

I wish everyone would take the time to read this:
slate.msn.com2102723Open ↗

Bill "won't hold breath, however" S.

Mark Hickey said:

C'mon, you can do better than that - I'm not going to
peruse NPR's entire website looking for this... how 'bout
finding a source that doesn't lean so left - something
neutral like Reuters?

Ah, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I think NPR tends
to lean to the right, most dramatically since Gingrich
attempted to dispose of them a few years ago.

Tom C Medara said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

You suggested with the "law and order" comment that the
status quo ante under Saddam was preferable. You cited a
lack of "law and order" as a criticism of the US
military's efficiency. You're right, Saddam did impose law
and order throughout the land, but that doesn't mean it
was any better.

For the average citizen it was far better. Similarly life
in eastern Europe was civilized under communism even
though various civil liberties did not exist.
Lawlessness, bombings, shootings and kidnapping was not
part of this reign.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Nice dodge by the way.... That anarchy broke loose after
the fall of the regime is well documented and is a valid
criticism of the Bush administration approach to the
aftermath. However, no one "sat by for weeks" while it
happened either, that's just outright hyperbole. Leave off
the drama and partial truths to Mr Moore, you strike me as
a bit more reasoned than that.

If that is inaccurate maybe you can explain how the
infrastructure, power, water, sewage, transportation,
libraries, museums, and many other functions were
systematically destroyed and looted. That went on for more
than two weeks until someone noticed that allowing this to
go on was the fault of the occupiers, not the Iraqi
public. Looting is a common occurrence whenever order is
allowed to lapse. As I said, I don't know what the
administration was thinking, but their disinterest in it
reeks of smugness to me.

Quoted message said:

I had a fairly close perspective to the immediate
aftermath of the regime downfall and no one in Washington
said anything about letting anyone suffer. That's merely
an invented scenario that fits your preconceived notions
and limited knowledge of the facts. To suggest that no
one thought about imposing security in urban areas is
just absurd.

Absurd as that seems to you, it occurred and was to be
expected. As I mentioned, I learned that in military school
as a high priority. Not only that but as a member of the
Corps of Engineers I learned about extra requirements to
secure utilities, bridges, roads and public buildings.
Whether they thought about it or not is not the question. It
is what they did about it. You cannot deny the result.

Quoted message said:

That it peace in the streets didn't occur in the immediate
hours of the regime's demise is an unrealistic standard.
It was only weeks after when the press was questioning why
"democracy" hadn't taken root yet.

Quoted message said:

It all comes from confusing reality with expectations.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good Lord, the coutnry was run by a street gang for 30
years.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That may be your perception but that is not the way
dictators work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For a group that screams repression over imagined
slights to our precious freedoms, much of the anti-war
crowd seems quite content to accept modern facism in
other areas. As far as the US destroying "most of Iraq's
resources", that's just outright hyperbole. And yes,
Halliburton -- actually KBR, a subsidiary company --
does provide a variety of services, which a quick google
search will confirm. I could also provide a few personal
testimonials as well. Of course acknowledging that would
undercut your cute little quips.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Your desire to give a pass to 30 years of brutal
dictatorship, ethnic warfare, WMD use, violations of
international law, and scoffing at the vaunted UN Security
council amazes me.

I do nothing of the kind. I mention that in the guise of...
what was it again? A search for WMD and then bringing
democracy to Iraq we brought on mayhem. You are the one
trying to attribute a positive assessment to the former
regime. The subject at hand is an assessment of what
followed and why. Let's not try to put the horse before the
cart again as other US zealots have in defense of our
destruction of Iraq.

Quoted message said:

Do your research, Iraq isn't/wasn't being destroyed by the
US, it's being rebuilt after decades of neglect. Get facts
Jobst, not propoganda. This was one of the "cleanest" wars
ever fought in the history of mankind. More attention was
paid to limiting collateral weapons effects than at any
time in history.

Is that like clean bombs? Are you denying that Iraq was
destroyed after combat ceased at least as much as during
combat? I think you need to get the facts.

Quoted message said:

It wasn't perfect, but it never will be. Your suggestion
that the US employed some sort of random, wanton, and
unrestrained violence on the entire populace and it's
infrastructure is just plain false.

Your unending faith in US warfare goes against revelations
that surfaced subsequently. US government distaste for
Muslims seems to be endless.

Quoted message said:

Such a position befits only an anti-American zealot. For a
man as well travelled as you claim, it surprises me that
you fail to appreciate the greatness of the American
experiment over the two-bit dictatorships that cause such
human suffering around the globe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

You are the one proposing that straw man for sake of
argument.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

You indicted the US Army for the destruction of "law and
order" in Iraq.

It was at a higher level than the US Army. The army doesn't
make policy.

Quoted message said:

The point of reference was obviously that which existed
prior to the arrival of the Army. That would be the "law
and order" imposed by the Saddam regime. I'm not gonna let
you backpedal off that one so easily. Your zeal to
criticize the US military has inadvertently put you in the
camp of the "Saddam the Liberator" crowd.

You're trying hard to build a bridge to that premise but it
doesn't reach that far. Besides, I said it wasn't
inadvertent.

Quoted message said:

What's next, some testament about the demise of the "peace
loving Ba'athist Party"? The goal of the current
administration both in and out of Iraq is to establish law
and order AND allow people to walk the streets and have a
life. It's not an easy task, as you so readily point out.
To suggest it's not a concern is just pure "hate America
first" BS. Call it "jingoism" if it swells your anti-
american sentiment, but it is possible that there are
Americans with good intentions trying to provide security,
prosperity, and democracy to the people of Iraq. The
president has said as much, and has pledged the blood and
treasure of this country to make it happen.

I have no anti American sentiment. I have a distinct anti
Bush administration sentiment. You seem to be pushing the
"traitor" button all along... consorting with the enemy and
the like. That sounds a lot like "freedom fries" to me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> The same is true in Afghanistan.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

I'm not thrilled with their concept of civil life in the
least, but we haven't brought about the changes we pursued
in that war either and what was done is falling apart.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Nice try, but just not true.

It'll take more than that to show that Afghanistan is
where GWB claimed it is and what the so called goals of
our war was.

Quoted message said:

It's a difficult challenge to overcome 20 years of anarchy
and a century of screwed up politics. That you indict the
Bush administration for failing to achieve a perfect
democratic republic in the span of two years is just
silly. Hell, it took the US nearly 10 years to get it
right and that was during a period of relative peace. All
things considered, the Afghans people are much better off
-- particularly the women who can leave their homes again.
Of course this smacks of the same argument your making
about Iraq -- because the security environment is worse
than before then nothing else matters, right?

What means "perfect democratic republic"? Nothing of the
kind is emerging in Afghanistan.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Kevan Smith said:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:25:40 -0700, Mark Hickey

from Habanero Cycles said:

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

I have a long record of opposing unjust regimes like
Saddam's. I have a long record of supporting and working
for basic human rights. When you say you can't recall me
mentioning Iraqi deaths before the U.S. began the war, you
only confirm my opinion that you ignored what I had to say.

It's just that you've said so MUCH... ;-)

Perhaps you did rail about Saddam's rape and murder rooms,
the mass graves, the use of WMD on his own people. It's just
that suddenly to all too many people out there, a few
accidental Iraqi deaths is a crisis, whereas a few hundred
thousand deaths was a non-issue.

Personally I think they got a great deal - hope they make
the best of it now that they're back in charge of their own
destiny (including, BTW, asking the coalition forces to
leave if they decide they want us to).

Let's all put aside the bickering long enough to raise a
frosty one to the new Iraqi government and to that "new"
country's future.

Then we can argue about greasing tapers (or tapirs if that's
your particular fetish).

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

Bill Sorni said:

I wish everyone would take the time to read this:

slate.msn.com2102723Open ↗

How do you get past the first two paragraphs of self
congratulatory and explanatory melange of wordiness?
This man cannot get his thoughts together. The preamble
is daunting.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Just zis Guy said:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:29:05 -0700, Mark Hickey
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Still, it wasn't a topic that ever came up here. That
tells me that anti-Bush is a stronger sentiment than
pro-Iraqi.

It tells me that this NG is dominated by Americans, and
Americans on the whole take very little interest in what's
going on outside the continental US unless there are body
bags coming home.

But suddenly they're horrified if a couple innocent
civilians are accidentally killed in the crossfire... yet
didn't seem to even know hundreds of thousands were killed
by Saddam's Baath party.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

So in your opinion, a dictator attempting to kill an ex US
president is no big deal, right? Wow.

And I said that where, precisely?

Perhaps you view "tweaking a nose" as a major
international issue?

Quoted message said:

So, when is Dubya going to deal with Mugabe?

Funny thing, he hasn't told me yet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Can you even imagine a scenario where the US would NOT
have a "plan" to go into Iraq any time after 1991? Heck,
we probably have a "plan" to go into France... ;-)

The trouble with the conspiracy theories here is that they
are far more plausible than the explanations offered by the
Administration. Especially since the explanations have
changed rather a lot as various flaws have been exposed.

What happened is very clear, and the story hasn't changed.
Some (but only some) of the intelligence hasn't proven to be
true... but Saddam was a threat to the US directly (openly
supporting terrorists, looking for ways to cooperate with Al
Qaeda) or indirectly (just aching to take over control of
the region's oil supply). Plus the mass murders and
unwillingness to meet the terms of the cease fire, etc...

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

Kevan Smith said:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:29:05 -0700, Mark Hickey

from Habanero Cycles said:

Still, it wasn't a topic that ever came up here. That
tells me that anti-Bush is a stronger sentiment than
pro-Iraqi.

Yes, it did come up here. I spoke about it plenty. You are
being dishonest.

I simply don't recall the posts, Kevan... I'll take you at
your word and thank you for your concern (sincerely - not
sarcastically).

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

tcmedara said:

Nice try, but just not true. It's a difficult challenge to
overcome 20 years of anarchy and a century of screwed up
politics. That you indict the Bush administration for
failing to achieve a perfect democratic republic in the
span of two years is just silly.

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

Kevan Smith said:

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> from Habanero Cycles

Quoted message said:

Kevan Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

... and it completely proves my point that he made no
linkage. What's your point?

No, in that letter, the linkage is explicit:

whitehouse.gov20030319Open ↗
1.html

Presidential Letter

Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of
the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President🙂

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use
of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public
Law 107-243), and based on information available to me,
including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
and other peaceful means alone will neither (A)
adequately protect the national security of the
United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-
243 is consistent with the United States and other
countries continuing to take the necessary actions
against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Let's just simplify it for you, since you obviously have
comprehension problems:

"Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use
of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public
Law 107-243)I determine that (attacking Iraq) is ... (a)
necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11, 2001."

That's a pretty specific linkage.

Well, there's no doubt ONE of us has a serious reading
comprehension problem.

First, I'll point out that very few of the tens of millions
of Americans actually got that letter, since most of 'em
aren't members of Congress...

... but if you'd actually read the second point you'll see
that it's showing the precedent for taking action in Iraq.
It couldn't possibly be clearer...

"acting pursuant to" (the law) "is consistent with" (the war
on terror and Al Qaeda and those who support them).

Your "simplification" is a gross misrepresentation of what
was in the letter. Did you do some of the script writing for
Michael Moore?

I guess maybe there ARE those who can't distinguish between
two separate issues if they're not separated by a
paragraph... I guess I'm handicapped by being one of the two
people I ever met who actually liked diagramming sentences
in grade school (it's a great skill to have - you should try
it some time... ). ;-)

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

Kevan Smith said:

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:25:05 -0400, Top Sirloin
<[email hidden]> from Posted via

Supernews said:

Here's how same people who write Jobst's favorite website
treat people who disagree with them:

klas-tv.comstory.aspOpen ↗

The far-left considers any tactic valid as long as they
think it furthers their cause.

First of all, you've made no conenction between Jobst, any
website he likes and that incident. Second, you've engaged
in the fallacy of generalizing the behaviour of an
individual to a group.

No, wait.. that was Greg...

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

(Tom Keats) said:

Too bad many Iraqis are probably going to feel
they're stuck with a quisling government instead of
one they elected.

Still gotta be better than Saddam! And it's only until
January 15th at the latest.

Quoted message said:

We who /can/ vote are fortunate.

Indeed! Freedom isn't free - all in all the Iraqis got a
great deal, IMHO. They'll never, ever have a chance like
this again - let's all hope they make good use of it.

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

(JP) said:

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

Quoted message said:

The far-left considers any tactic valid as long as they
think it furthers their cause.

It has become all too common these days that when you don't
have a substantive defense for someone's criticism of the
stupid and destructive policies of the Bush administration,
you just resort to dismissing the criticism as coming from
the "far left" or a "socialist".

Or from the "dittoheads" or "did you hear that from Rush
Limbaugh", etc. Pot, kettle, black...

Quoted message said:

This war is stupid beyond words. It is seriously weakening
our country and if you do not recognize that fact, then you
know nothing about such things. It is not the people that
are opposed to this war that are harming our country, it is
the people that made this war. Its cost is incalculable-
our prestige,

What prestige would that be? I personally would prefer
to make our enemies fear us than trying to get them to
"like us".

Quoted message said:

our troops' morale,

Is actually very good considering they're at war. More are
re-upping than are necessary - still a 100% volunteer
armed forces.

Quoted message said:

our materiel preparednes,

You forget all the practice we got for our military. I doubt
that any other country wants to be next on the list after
seeing what happened to Saddam, so chances are we won't have
to use our military for a while.

Quoted message said:

our economic wellbeing, our safety in our homeland- all
trashed by those Bush jackasses.

Just think for a moment of the consequences of Iraq actually
managing to cut a deal with Al Qaeda, and the impact on the
US "economic wellbeing and safety".

Quoted message said:

So go ahead and call us names, but at the end of the day it
will change nothing; it will not pay for the war, it will
not make the rest of the world admire us again,

"Again"... heh heh heh. Oh yeah, the rest of the world just
LOVED the US before Bush... (shaking head)

Quoted message said:

it will not provide the R&R that our troops need and it
will not restore the preparedness of our military.

Our military is stronger and more prepared now than they
were before the war. We'll build plenty of ammo if we need
it - experience is a much more important weapon..

Quoted message said:

God, what kind of personality does it take to be so blind
to what Bush has done to our country?

Like bringing us out of a recession, taking the war TO the
terrorists instead of letting them use us for target
practice for example?

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