Let's keep the politics out of this NG

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Greg, Mar 29, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Greg

    Greg Guest

    With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm sure there are other forums
    for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's not what this NG is for. Thank You.
     
    Tags:


  2. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    Greg wrote:
    > With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm sure there are other forums
    > for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's not what this NG is for. Thank You.
    >
    >

    Who died and made you moderator?

    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
     
  3. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    G.T. wrote:
    > Greg wrote:
    >> With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm sure there are other
    >> forums for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's not what this NG is for. Thank You.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Who died and made you moderator?

    I sure didn't. Did you? Maybe it was Slacker.

    Penny
     
  4. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    Greg wrote:
    > With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm sure there are other forums
    > for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's not what this NG is for. Thank You.

    feel better now?
     
  5. Slacker

    Slacker Guest

    "Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm sure there are other forums
    > for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's not what this NG is for. Thank You.

    You're obviously some flaming liberal democrat!
    --
    Slacker
     
  6. Slacker

    Slacker Guest

    "Penny S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > G.T. wrote:
    > > Greg wrote:
    > >> With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm sure there are other
    > >> forums for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's not what this NG is for. Thank You.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > > Who died and made you moderator?
    >
    > I sure didn't. Did you? Maybe it was Slacker.
    >
    > Penny

    Nope, not me...I'm still kicking.
    --
    Slacker
     
  7. Greg said:

    >With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm sure there are other forums
    >for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's not what this NG is for. Thank You.

    If you don't like this pub, there's another one just down the street........ But the beer
    isn't as good.

    Steve
     
  8. ..::Tbf::..

    ..::Tbf::.. Guest

    --
    http://members.rogers.com/theblackfoxx/ "Slacker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > > With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm
    sure
    > > there are other forums for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's
    not
    > > what this NG is for. Thank You.
    >
    >
    > You're obviously some flaming liberal democrat!
    > --
    > Slacker
    >
    >

    Take it easy, I'm a Dem and also support the war. My little bro is an apache skipper.
     
  9. Greg

    Greg Guest

    If I were to reply using any political rhetoric, I would be as bad as you....... And by the way, you
    have no idea of my viewpoints....., so please don't call me a democrat. That's almost as bad as
    being French. Never assume........ "Slacker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > > With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm
    sure
    > > there are other forums for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's
    not
    > > what this NG is for. Thank You.
    >
    >
    > You're obviously some flaming liberal democrat!
    > --
    > Slacker
     
  10. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Sorry... I thought this NG was about mountain biking.....perhaps not! "G.T." <[email protected]>
    wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Greg wrote:
    > > With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm
    sure
    > > there are other forums for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's
    not
    > > what this NG is for. Thank You.
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Who died and made you moderator?
    >
    > 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
     
  11. Greg

    Greg Guest

    Perhaps you're right..... There might even be mountain bikers there. "Stephen Baker"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Greg said:
    >
    > >With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm
    sure
    > >there are other forums for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's not what this NG is for.
    > >Thank You.
    >
    > If you don't like this pub, there's another one just down the
    street........
    > But the beer isn't as good.
    >
    > Steve
     
  12. "Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    | If I were to reply using any political rhetoric, I would be as bad as you....... And by the way,
    | you have no idea of my viewpoints....., so please don't call me a democrat. That's almost as bad
    | as being French.

    Hypocrit.

    You're banned now. No more posting for you.

    --
    Pete Fagerlin

    Save Fruita trails! http://www.petefagerlin.com/bookcliffs.htm
     
  13. Bb

    Bb Guest

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:50:33 -0800, Greg top-posted:
    > Perhaps you're right..... There might even be mountain bikers there.

    > "Stephen Baker" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> If you don't like this pub, there's another one just down the
    > street........
    >> But the beer isn't as good.

    (Note: this is in response to "Greg" who, by top-posting, has made it impossible to continue a
    thread in any legible fashion)

    A few. And as an added bonus, you can read all the posts in less than 30 seconds a day. And if
    you're really lucky, the Dons in charge of the NG will actually let you post something.

    --
    -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
     
  14. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    ..::TBF::.. wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Take it easy, I'm a Dem and also support the war. My little bro is an apache skipper.
    >

    Like I said before those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.

    "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." - Kenneth
    Adelman, February 2002

    "I don't think it would be that tough of a fight." - Vice Psycho Dick Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002

    "My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to
    avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside." - Vice Psycho Dick Cheney,
    March 16, 2003

    Think again there Dick.

    "This war has just begun." - Psycho Bush, March 25, 2003

    And everyone else thought it began the week before. I thought your buddy Ken said it was going to be
    a cakewalk?

    All that we're doing is supporting one tribe as opposed to the other, it's going to do nothing but
    encourage future terrorism, and it's a complete waste of time, money, effort, and soldier's lives:

    Liberation of Middle East History: For centuries, we've been 'liberating' the Middle East. Why do we
    never learn? By Robert Fisk 06 March 2003 The Independent

    On 8 March 1917, Lieutenant-general Stanley Maude issued a "Proclamation to the People of the
    Wilayat of Baghdad". Maude's Anglo-Indian Army of the Tigres had just invaded and occupied Iraq -
    after storming up the country from Basra - to "free" its people from their dictators. "Our armies do
    not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," the British
    announced.

    "People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have
    ever endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your
    dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace
    nor prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment."

    General Maude, of course, was the General Tommy Franks of his day, and his proclamation - so rich in
    irony now that President George Bush is uttering equally mendacious sentiments - was intended to
    persuade Iraqis that they should accept foreign occupation while Britain secured the country's oil.

    General Maude's chief political officer, Sir Percy Cox, called on Iraq's Arab leaders, who were not
    identified, to participate in the government in collaboration with the British authorities and spoke
    of liberation, freedom, past glories, future greatness and - here the ironies come in spades - it
    expressed the hope that the people of Iraq would find unity.

    The British commander cabled to London that "local conditions do not permit of employing in
    responsible positions any but British officers competent... to deal with people of the country.
    Before any truly Arab façade [sic] can be applied to edifice, it seems essential that foundation of
    law and order should be well and truly laid."

    As David Fromkin noted in his magisterial A Peace to End all Peace - essential reading for America's
    future army of occupation - the antipathy of the Sunni minority and the Shia majority of Iraq, the
    rivalries of tribes and clans "made it difficult to achieve a single unified government that was at
    the same time representative, effective and widely supported". Whitehall failed, as Fromkin
    caustically notes, "to think through in practical detail how to fulfil the promises gratuitously
    made to a section of the local inhabitants". There was even a problem with the Kurds, since the
    British could not make up their mind as to whether they should be absorbed into the new state of
    Iraq or allowed to form an independent Kurdistan. The French were originally to have been awarded
    Mosul in northern Iraq but gave up their claim in return for - again, wait for the ironies - a major
    share in the new Turkish Petroleum Company, newly confiscated by the British and recreated as the
    Iraq Petroleum Company.

    How many times has the West marched into the Middle East in so brazen a fashion? General Sir
    Edward Allenby "liberated" Palestine only a few months after General Maude "liberated" Iraq. The
    French turned up to "liberate" Lebanon and Syria a couple of years later, slaughtering the Syrian
    forces loyal to King Feisel who dared to suggest that French occupation was not the kind of future
    they wanted.

    What is it, I sometimes wonder, about our constant failure to learn the lessons of history, to
    repeat - almost word for word in the case of General Maude's proclamation - the same gratuitous
    promises and lies? A copy of General Maude's original proclamation goes under the hammer at a
    British auction at Swindon this week but I'll wager more than the £100 it is expected to make that
    America's forthcoming proclamation to the "liberated" people of Iraq reads almost exactly the same.

    Take a look at Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations - on which Mr Bush claims to be
    such an expert - that allowed the British and French to divide those territories they had just
    "liberated" from Ottoman dictators. "To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the
    late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them, and
    which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves... there should be applied the
    principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation...
    the best method is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who, by
    reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position, can best undertake this
    responsibility..."

    What is it about "liberation" in the Middle East? What is this sacred trust - a ghost of the same
    "trusteeship" the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, now promotes for Iraq's oil - that the West
    constantly wishes to visit upon the Middle East? Why do we so frequently want to govern these
    peoples, these "tribes with flags" as Sir Steven Runciman, that great historian of the 11th- and
    12th-century Crusades, once called them? Indeed, Pope Urban's call for the first Crusade in 1095,
    reported at the time by at least three chroniclers, would find a resonance even among the Christian
    fundamentalists who, along with Israel's supporters, are now so keen for the United States to
    invade Iraq.

    Urban told his listeners the Turks were maltreating the inhabitants of Christian lands - an echo
    here of the human rights abuses which supposedly upset Mr Bush - and described the suffering of
    pilgrims, urging the Christian West's formerly fratricidal antagonists to fight a "righteous" war.
    His conflict, of course, was intended to "liberate" Christians rather than Muslims who, along with
    the Jews, the Crusaders contentedly slaughtered as soon as they arrived in the Middle East.

    This notion of "liberation" in the Middle East has almost always been accompanied by another theme:
    the necessity of overthrowing tyrants.

    The Crusaders were as meticulous about their Middle East invasions as the US Central Command at
    Tampa, Florida, is today. Marino Sanudo, born in Venice around 1260, describes how the Western
    armies chose to put their forces ashore in Egypt with a first disembarkation of 15,000 infantrymen
    along with 300 cavalry (the latter being the Crusader version of an armoured unit). In Beirut, I
    even have copies of the West's 13th-century invasion maps. Napoleon produced a few of his own in
    1798 when he invaded Egypt after 20 years of allegedly irresponsible and tyrannical rule by Murad
    Bey and Ibrahim Bey. Claude Etienne Savary, the French equivalent of all those Washington pundits
    who groan today over the suffering of the Iraqi people under President Saddam, - wrote in 1775 that
    in Cairo under Murad Bey "death may prove the consequence of the slightest indiscretion". Under the
    Beys, the city "groans under their yoke". Which is pretty much how we now picture Baghdad and Basra
    under President Saddam.

    In fact, President Saddam's promises to destroy America's invasion force have a remarkable echo in
    the exclamation of one of the 18th-century Mameluke princes in Egypt, who, told of an eminent French
    invasion, responded with eerily familiar words: "Let the Franks come. We shall crush them beneath
    our horses' hooves."

    Napoleon, of course, did all the crushing, and his first proclamation (he, too, was coming to
    "liberate" the people of Egypt from their oppressors) included an appeal to Egyptian notables to
    help him run the government. "O shayks, 'qadis', imams, and officers of the town, tell your nation
    that the French are friends of true Muslims... Blessed are those Egyptians who agree with us."
    Napoleon went on to set up an "administrative council" in Egypt, very like the one which the Bush
    Administration says it intends to operate under US occupation. And in due course the "shayks" and
    "qadis" and imams rose up against French occupation in Cairo in 1798.

    If Napoleon entered upon his rule in Egypt as a French revolutionary, General Allenby, when he
    entered Jerusalem in December, 1917, had provided David Lloyd George with the city he wanted as a
    Christmas present. Its liberation, the British Prime Minister later noted with almost Crusader zeal,
    meant that Christendom had been able "to regain possession of its sacred shrines". He talked about
    "the calling of the Turkish bluff" as "the beginning of the crack-up of that military impostorship
    which the incompetence of our war direction had permitted to intimidate us for years", shades, here,
    of the American regret that it never took the 1991 Gulf War to Baghdad; Lloyd George was "finishing
    the job" of overcoming Ottoman power just as George Bush Junior now intends to "finish the job"
    started by his father in 1991.

    And always, without exception, there were those tyrants and dictators to overthrow in the Middle
    East. In the Second World War, we "liberated" Iraq a second time from its pro-Nazi administration.
    The British "liberated" Lebanon from Vichy rule with a promise of independence from France, a
    promise which Charles de Gaulle tried to renege on until the British almost went to war with the
    Free French in Syria.

    Lebanon has suffered an awful lot of "liberations". The Israelis - for Arabs, an American, "Western"
    implantation in the Middle East - claimed twice to be anxious to "liberate" Lebanon from PLO
    "terrorism" by invading in 1978 and 1982, and leaving in humiliation only two years ago. America's
    own military intervention in Beirut in 1982 was blown apart by a truck-bomb at the US Marine
    headquarters the following year. And what did President Ronald Reagan tell the world? "Lebanon is
    central to our credibility on a global scale. We cannot pick and choose where we will support
    freedom... If Lebanon ends up under the tyranny of forces hostile to the West, not only will our
    strategic position in the eastern Mediterranean be threatened, but also the stability of the entire
    Middle East, including the vast resources of the Arabian peninsula."

    Once more, we, the West, were going to protect the Middle East from tyranny. Anthony Eden took the
    same view of Egypt, anxious to topple the "dictator" Gamal Abdul Nasser, just as Napoleon had been
    desperate to rescue the Egyptians from the tyranny of the Beys, just as General Maude wanted to
    rescue Iraq from the tyranny of the Turks, just as George Bush Junior now wants to rescue the Iraqis
    from the tyranny of President Saddam.

    And always, these Western invasions were accompanied by declarations that the Americans or the
    French or just the West in general had nothing against the Arabs, only against the beast-figure who
    was chosen as the target of our military action. "Our quarrel is not with Egypt, still less with the
    Arab world," Anthony Eden announced in August of 1956. "It is with Colonel Nasser."

    So what happened to all these fine words? The Crusades were a catastrophe in the history of
    Christian-Muslim relations. Napoleon left Egypt in humiliation. Britain dropped gas on the
    recalcitrant Kurds of Iraq before discovering that Iraq was ungovernable. Arabs, then Jews drove the
    British army from Palestine and Lloyd George's beloved Jerusalem. The French fought years of
    insurrection in Syria. In Lebanon, the Americans scuttled away in humiliation in 1984, along with
    the French.

    And in Iraq in the coming months? What will be the price of our folly this time, of our failure to
    learn the lessons of history? Only after the United States has completed its occupation we shall
    find out. It is when the Iraqis demand an end to that occupation, when popular resistance to the
    American presence by the Shias and the Kurds and even the Sunnis begins to destroy the military
    "success" which President Bush will no doubt proclaim when the first US troops enter Baghdad. It is
    then our real "story" as journalists will begin.

    It is then that all the empty words of colonial history, the need to topple tyrants and dictators,
    to assuage the suffering of the people of the Middle East, to claim that we and we only are the best
    friends of the Arabs, that we and we only must help them, will unravel.

    Here I will make a guess: that in the months and years that follow America's invasion of Iraq, the
    United States, in its arrogant assumption that it can create "democracy" in the ashes of a Middle
    East dictatorship as well as take its oil, will suffer the same as the British in Palestine. Of this
    tragedy, Winston Churchill wrote, and his words are likely to apply to the US in Iraq: "At first,
    the steps were wide and shallow, covered with a carpet, but in the end the very stones crumbled
    under their feet."

    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
     
  15. Greg

    Greg Guest

    No offense intended. "..::TBF::.." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    > --
    > http://members.rogers.com/theblackfoxx/ "Slacker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > > With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm
    > sure
    > > > there are other forums for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's
    > not
    > > > what this NG is for. Thank You.
    > >
    > >
    > > You're obviously some flaming liberal democrat!
    > > --
    > > Slacker
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Take it easy, I'm a Dem and also support the war. My little bro is an
    apache
    > skipper.
     
  16. ----------
    In article <[email protected]>, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

    > ..::TBF::.. wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Take it easy, I'm a Dem and also support the war. My little bro is an apache skipper.
    >>
    >
    > Like I said before those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.
    >
    > "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." -
    > Kenneth Adelman, February 2002
    >
    > "I don't think it would be that tough of a fight." - Vice Psycho Dick Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002
    >
    > "My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to
    > avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside." - Vice Psycho Dick Cheney,
    > March 16, 2003
    >
    > Think again there Dick.
    >
    > "This war has just begun." - Psycho Bush, March 25, 2003
    >
    > And everyone else thought it began the week before. I thought your buddy Ken said it was going to
    > be a cakewalk?
    >
    > All that we're doing is supporting one tribe as opposed to the other, it's going to do nothing but
    > encourage future terrorism, and it's a complete waste of time, money, effort, and soldier's lives:
    >
    > Liberation of Middle East History: For centuries, we've been 'liberating' the Middle East. Why do
    > we never learn? By Robert Fisk 06 March 2003 The Independent

    <Snip>

    Greg- don't forget my favorite Rumsfeld quote "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
    Or today's Wiley cartoon , a man in a prison cell telling another,"...so long story short, it turns
    out that for the rest of us, the legal term for pre-emptive strike is " Felonious Assault""

    Paul
     
  17. Jd

    Jd Guest

    "Greg" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > With all due respect, why don't we all refrain from politics here. I'm sure there are other forums
    > for this. Yes, this war is serious, but that's not what this NG is for. Thank You.

    Get stuffed. First, who the hell are you? Second, as GT asked, who died and made you moderator?
    Last, who the hell are you? I've never seen you contribute JS here. Get bent,
    newb/lurker/e-tard/whatever the hell you are.

    JD
     
  18. Trekkie Dad

    Trekkie Dad Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, "Slacker"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > You're obviously some flaming liberal democrat!

    Hey, I resemble that remark! (Well, maybe not flaming.) My biggest complaint is that far too many
    Democrats resemble Republicans.

    I found G.T.'s history lesson informative, but my personal opposition to the America's war on Iraq
    is based on a simple principle: The ends doesn't justify the means.

    TD

    --
    [email protected] World Without Cars Dictionary of Vandemisms (2001) is available at:
    http://trekkiedad.freeservers.com/wwc.html ICQ# available on request
     
  19. "Paul MacIntyre" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > ----------
    > In article <[email protected]>, "G.T."
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > ..::TBF::.. wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Take it easy, I'm a Dem and also support the war. My little bro is an apache skipper.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Like I said before those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.
    > >
    > > "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." -
    > > Kenneth Adelman, February 2002
    > >
    > > "I don't think it would be that tough of a fight." - Vice Psycho Dick Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002
    > >
    > > "My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to
    > > avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside." - Vice Psycho Dick Cheney,
    > > March 16, 2003
    > >
    > > Think again there Dick.
    > >
    > > "This war has just begun." - Psycho Bush, March 25, 2003
    > >
    > > And everyone else thought it began the week before. I thought your buddy Ken said it was going
    > > to be a cakewalk?
    > >
    > > All that we're doing is supporting one tribe as opposed to the other, it's going to do nothing
    > > but encourage future terrorism, and it's a complete waste of time, money, effort, and soldier's
    > > lives:
    > >
    > > Liberation of Middle East History: For centuries, we've been 'liberating' the Middle East. Why
    > > do we never learn? By Robert Fisk 06 March 2003 The Independent
    >
    > <Snip>
    >
    > Greg- don't forget my favorite Rumsfeld quote "The absence of evidence is not evidence of
    > absence".

    which is evidence of paranoia.

    Or today's Wiley cartoon , a man in a prison cell
    > telling another,"...so long story short, it turns out that for the rest of us, the legal term for
    > pre-emptive strike is " Felonious Assault""
    >
    > Paul
     
  20. Pete Jones

    Pete Jones Guest

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...