O/T: New Iraqi Towns

[Shaun Rimmer]

Mr. E. Mann arrogantly wibbled...

> I can't figure out why people keep talking as if the UN is even relevant?

I can't figure out why people keep talking as if the US is even relevant?

Shaun aRe - HTH.

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:56:25 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

|Mr. E. Mann wrote:
|
|>>Pardon me Pete, what fabrication would that be? The numbers in the UN weapons inspector's reports
|>>or CNN fed view of what's going on?
|>
|>
|> Actually, it looks like almost every post you posted in this thread was a fabrication. It seems
|> like you're just posting a lot of anti-american garbage. Most of what you said is completely
|> false, but you probably got it from all the anti-american web sites you frequent and never
|> bothered to do any real research on it.
|
|And what makes you think that sources that contradict your point of view |have less validity?

Well, I don't know about any of these alleged "anti-American" websites but when the UN contradicts
Chris' claims about the UN, I'll stick with the UN's claims.

 

[Bb]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 09:05:31 GMT, Mr. E. Mann wrote:
> I can't figure out why people keep talking as if the UN is even relevant?

Maybe this would be more to your taste:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/us_forms_own_un.html

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

 

[Doug Taylor]

"Mr. E. Mann" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I can't figure out why people keep talking as if the UN is even relevant?

It's only irrelevant if you happen to be an egocentric right wing troglodyte living in the USA, in
which case you represent (let me guess) less than one percent of the population of the world, but
are in possession of all the power you need to force your opinion down the rest of the world's
throats. Which puts you in a delicate position. You are the fastest gunslinger, you may have many
valid points justifying many of your actions, but the majority of the world is wary of, resents,
fears, or hates you for your power and the arrogant manner in which you wield it, and you had better
keep vigilant or you might get a limb or two blown off. As in another terrorist attack on the
private sector, over which Homeland Security and the US government (which you hate when it comes to
taxing you but whose flag you wave patriotically) has little or no control, because you and the
people in power don't like governmental control. A chemical plant? A nuclear power plant? Who knows?
But keep your eyes peeled because nut case terrorists are irrational and distorted, are not
intimidated by you no matter how big and strong you are and no matter how brave and proud your
military is (and it obviously is very brave, justifiably proud, and unbelievably strong), are not
afraid of death, and have very long and selective memories. --dt

 

[Dave W]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:56:25 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mr. E. Mann wrote:
>
>>>Pardon me Pete, what fabrication would that be? The numbers in the UN weapons inspector's reports
>>>or CNN fed view of what's going on?
>>
>>
>> Actually, it looks like almost every post you posted in this thread was a fabrication. It seems
>> like you're just posting a lot of anti-american garbage. Most of what you said is completely
>> false, but you probably got it from all the anti-american web sites you frequent and never
>> bothered to do any real research on it.
>
>And what makes you think that sources that contradict your point of view have less validity?

uh, because they are FALSE, that is not TRUE.
>
>FWIW, the US only gets a small portion of it's oil
>> from Arab nations, but that would ruin so many of your arguments, you will probably want to
>> ignore that.
>
>It depends on your definition of 'small portion'. 31% may not be the majority, but for a country
>heavily dependent on oil, that still amounts to a significant portion.

That's less than half, barely more than a quarter. A small portion in the big picture to be sure....

 

[Spider]

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

> No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.

As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."

That is, just because documentation has not been presented does not mean it does not exist. In
addition, if Iraq has any sort of bureaucracy like the U.S., I would not be surprised that some
important documents might have found their way into the wrong folder at some point. It might
actually be possible that some Iraqis acted with honor and integrity, and that the weapons were
actually destroyed. Nahhh, we all know that they is just a buncha ignerent, good-for-nothing
camel-jockeys.

While these alternate explanations might seem unlikely, they are not outside of the realm of
probability. But conservatives can't possibly admit that they might have been mistaken all along.
That in and of itself requires honor and integrity - things sorely lacking from this cureent
administration, and conservative apologists in general.

What is more fanciful is the new conservative mantra: the WMDs are now in Syria.

Uh, right. *Sure* they're in Syria. Who is accusing whom of being in dreamland, again?

Note to self - work harder on getting the chickenhawks out of high office.

Spider

P.S. An interesting read:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm#

I don't know if every part of this screed is true, but enough of it is to cause folks to think a
little. Even conservatives, if they're minds are open enough.

 

[Bomba]

Dave W wrote:

>>And what makes you think that sources that contradict your point of view have less validity?
>
>
> uh, because they are FALSE, that is not TRUE.

Ha ha! Somebody's been taking debating lessons off Mike.

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] (Spider) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.
>
>As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."

Whatever.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[G.T.]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>
>>>No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.
>>
>>As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
>
>
> Whatever.
>

I'm still wondering why with all the pre-war propaganda that Saddam was sure to use chemical and
biological weapons in a desperate last act that he never did. After all since he was a psycho doomed
to die, if he had such WMDs why didn't he use them to take the enemy out with him?

next on the list.

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

 

[Simon]

"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Mark Hickey wrote:
| > [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
| >
| >
| >>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
| >>
| >>
| >>>No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.
| >>
| >>As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
| >
| >
| > Whatever.
| >
|
| I'm still wondering why with all the pre-war propaganda that Saddam was sure to use chemical and
| biological weapons in a desperate last act that
he
| never did. After all since he was a psycho doomed to die, if he had such WMDs why didn't he use
| them to take the enemy out with him?
|

| next on the list.
|
| 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
|

Will there be no end to the "Bush Regime"

Simon

 

[P E T E F A G E]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 02:27:02 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

|next on the list.

next.

At least we'll own the best MTB trails known to Pete (and I'm not referring to those lameass eastern
Canadian mtb trails either)

Pete Fagerlin

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

 

[G.T.]

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 02:27:02 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> |next on the list.
>

> next.
>
> At least we'll own the best MTB trails known to Pete (and I'm not referring to those lameass
> eastern Canadian mtb trails either)
>

Ali G's interview with General Scowcroft was quite appropriate: Canada would be the best country to
bomb since the element of surprise would be at it's highest.

I gotta say, after finally being able to watch a full episode of Ali G he's a helluva lot funnier
than I realized from previously seeing just short snippets of his stuff.

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

 

[Shaun Rimmer]

G.T. <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 02:27:02 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >

> > |next on the list.
> >

> > next.
> >
> > At least we'll own the best MTB trails known to Pete (and I'm not referring to those lameass
> > eastern Canadian mtb trails either)
> >
>
> Ali G's interview with General Scowcroft was quite appropriate: Canada would be the best country
> to bomb since the element of surprise would be
at
> it's highest.
>
> I gotta say, after finally being able to watch a full episode of Ali G
he's
> a helluva lot funnier than I realized from previously seeing just short snippets of his stuff.
>
> Greg

It's because Cohen is a very clever man, and he preys on the stupid, naive and gullible. He managed
to wangle some of the interviews solely because of politicians desires to have 'cred' and be seen to
be 'PC'. Incredible piece of work while it lasted. Borat is also an excellent character, and there
was much fun to be had with him.

Shaun aRe

 

[Spider]

Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >> No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.
> >
> >As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
>
> Whatever.

That's the best you've got?

"LA-AL-LA! Don't tell me the truth - the lies that I've heard are more attractive!"

Conservatives have dug themselves a huge logical hole, and are not following the first
rule of holes.

Spider

 

[Sorni]

"Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
> >
> > >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> > >> No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.
> > >
> > >As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
> >
> > Whatever.
>
> That's the best you've got?
>
> "LA-AL-LA! Don't tell me the truth - the lies that I've heard are more attractive!"
>
> Conservatives have dug themselves a huge logical hole, and are not following the first rule
> of holes.

OK, so you're trying to tell us that Saddam Insane -- who would do absolutely anything to remain in
power (not to mention alive), and has shown an amazing ability to do just that -- WITHHELD THE PROOF
that his WMDs had been destroyed? Right up to the last minute, all the manic had to do was provide
the evidence; if it indeed existed, you can bet he would have.

The only thing bigger than Insane's ego is (or WAS) his survival instinct.

Bill "logic dictates the dictator had to go" S.

 

[Dave W]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:23:18 +0200, bomba <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dave W wrote:
>
>>>And what makes you think that sources that contradict your point of view have less validity?
>>
>>
>> uh, because they are FALSE, that is not TRUE.
>
>Ha ha! Somebody's been taking debating lessons off Mike.

Whatever works.....if they are incorrect they cannot contracdict those that are correct. Can they?

 

[G.T.]

Sorni wrote:

> "Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>>[email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>>>>No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.
>>>>
>>>>As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
>>>
>>>Whatever.
>>
>>That's the best you've got?
>>
>>"LA-AL-LA! Don't tell me the truth - the lies that I've heard are more attractive!"
>>
>>Conservatives have dug themselves a huge logical hole, and are not following the first rule
>>of holes.
>
>
> OK, so you're trying to tell us that Saddam Insane -- who would do absolutely anything to remain
> in power (not to mention alive), and has shown an amazing ability to do just that -- WITHHELD THE
> PROOF that his WMDs had been destroyed? Right up to the last minute, all the manic had to do was
> provide the evidence; if it indeed existed, you can bet he would have.
>
> The only thing bigger than Insane's ego is (or WAS) his survival instinct.
>

So if he was so insane why didn't he use all those WMDs in a last ditch effort to survive? Or to at
least take as many people out with him as possible before he went?

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

 

[Dave W]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 02:27:02 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>> [email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.
>>>
>>>As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
>>
>>
>> Whatever.
>>
>
>I'm still wondering why with all the pre-war propaganda that Saddam was sure to use chemical and
>biological weapons in a desperate last act that he never did. After all since he was a psycho
>doomed to die, if he had such WMDs why didn't he use them to take the enemy out with him?
>

>next on the list.
>
>Greg

Wouldn't hurt my feelings whatsoever. Perhaps we should clean up our messes.

 

[Dave W]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 16:19:34 GMT, "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Sorni wrote:
>
>> "Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>>[email protected] (Spider) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>>>>No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.
>>>>>
>>>>>As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
>>>>
>>>>Whatever.
>>>
>>>That's the best you've got?
>>>
>>>"LA-AL-LA! Don't tell me the truth - the lies that I've heard are more attractive!"
>>>
>>>Conservatives have dug themselves a huge logical hole, and are not following the first rule
>>>of holes.
>>
>>
>> OK, so you're trying to tell us that Saddam Insane -- who would do absolutely anything to remain
>> in power (not to mention alive), and has shown an amazing ability to do just that -- WITHHELD THE
>> PROOF that his WMDs had been destroyed? Right up to the last minute, all the manic had to do was
>> provide the evidence; if it indeed existed, you can bet he would have.
>>
>> The only thing bigger than Insane's ego is (or WAS) his survival instinct.
>>
>
>So if he was so insane why didn't he use all those WMDs in a last ditch effort to survive? Or to at
>least take as many people out with him as possible before he went?
>
>Greg

You're assuming he "went" as in died. Did you pull the trigger? Then quit making your unfounded
claims. Smart money say's he's in Syria. Or better yet. Jordan

 

[Sorni]

"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorni wrote:
>
> > "Spider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>>[email protected] (Spider) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>>>>No proof of its destruction has been offered by the Iraqis to date.
> >>>>
> >>>>As the famous line goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."
> >>>
> >>>Whatever.
> >>
> >>That's the best you've got?
> >>
> >>"LA-AL-LA! Don't tell me the truth - the lies that I've heard are more attractive!"
> >>
> >>Conservatives have dug themselves a huge logical hole, and are not following the first rule of
> >>holes.
> >
> >
> > OK, so you're trying to tell us that Saddam Insane -- who would do absolutely anything to remain
> > in power (not to mention alive), and has
shown
> > an amazing ability to do just that -- WITHHELD THE PROOF that his WMDs
had
> > been destroyed? Right up to the last minute, all the manic had to do
was
> > provide the evidence; if it indeed existed, you can bet he would have.
> >
> > The only thing bigger than Insane's ego is (or WAS) his survival
instinct.
> >
>
> So if he was so insane why didn't he use all those WMDs in a last ditch effort to survive? Or to
> at least take as many people out with him as possible before he went?

Too many possibilities to list. Most obvious is that that would have proven Bush 'n Blair's point.
(I said he was insane, not stupid; and he certainly knows how to play Middle Eastern politics.)
Also, he could have already gotten most of them (and possibly himself) out of Dodge. Or, we really
did blindside him by the rapidity of our advance, and he couldn't "pull the trigger" in time.

Or, he simply got blowed up

My point was that Spider's invocation of "logic" defeats his own argument and supports Mr. Hickey's.

Bill "in other words, 'whatever' " S.

PS: See you in Temecula Saturday? (Assuming I get invited, that is.)