OT - Why no war.

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Sergio Servadio, Mar 31, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Though off-topic with bicycles, I feel the need to put into
    English for you, people I have corresponded with for some time and whom I pretend to be acquainted
    with, a message written a while ago for an Italian friend of mine.

    Ride into PEACE.

    Sergio Pisa
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    > about the war ...
    ... we hold rather different opinions.

    There is no need for us to hide behind somebody else' rationale, be it honest or faudolent, to be in
    favor or against the war. So, your rebuttal of France's, Russia's and China's stands and reasonings
    does not diminish the urge for your own evaluation and judgment.

    Never mind there are always people who are, almost genetically, opposed to any initiative, ever
    unable to bear responsibility.

    In practise it is impossible to justify war, any war. It is so because its outburst goes too far
    beyond what has preceeded it. War can never be morally acceptable, never a 'just' retaliation. All
    the more so, the more outbalanced are the contendants.

    Even worse, when the attacking party does so after such a long propaganda campaign full of lies and
    alleged wrong reasons put forward with the intent, so badly missed, to rally support from the
    international community.

    Which so bad faults against the U.S. can one ascribe to Saddam Hussein? How much do you think the
    U.S. really care about the Kurds, slaughtered and persecuted both in Irak and in Turkey? How much do
    the U.S. really value civil rights, the western style, in other Countries? In which other Countries?
    Why there, and not elsewhere?

    Have you forgotten Allende? Have you forgotten Vietnam?, where the heroic resistence was universal
    and Ho Chi Min's Communist Party was only a component, initially only a minor component, of the
    liberation movement.

    Aren't there still so many countries where democracy, our style of course, is not established and
    which, nevertheless, are justly respected?

    When war, whichever war, outbrakes the party that thrusts it is always at fault: for having brought
    the clash to such a dramatic level. The nation that gets attacked with such a fury has the right to
    defend herself, with whatever means.

    Any defence war is just and heroic. Perhaps any revenge, for so much undured horror, is just.

    What follows then?

    Sergio
     
    Tags:


  2. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    Sergio SERVADIO <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In practise it is impossible to justify war, any war.
    <snip>
    >Any defence war is just and heroic.

    A bit of illogic that, eh?

    By "defence war" you include the defense of Kuwait I assume, and the continuation of that same war
    due to Iraq's refusal to comply with the terms of the cease-fire.

    Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
     
  3. On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Mark Hickey wrote:
    > Sergio SERVADIO <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >In practise it is impossible to justify war, any war.
    > <snip>
    > >Any defence war is just and heroic.
    > A bit of illogic that, eh? By "defence war" you include the defense of Kuwait I assume, and the
    > continuation of that same war due to Iraq's refusal to comply with the terms of the cease-fire.

    Bad logic? Don't think so. Perhaps not stringest wording that allowed you to play fussy about it.

    Please, change it into:
    >> In practise it is impossible to justify [starting] war, any war.

    By 'defence war' I mean a war that you must wage because someone from so far away is bombing from
    well above your roof and is chaising you door to door out of your own house where you found shelter.

    Is it crystal clear, now?

    Sergo Pisa
     
  4. Ken Papai

    Ken Papai Guest

    Please sell your old stuff in the rec.bicycles.MARKETPLACE newsgroup. Never here. Thanks!

    "Sergio SERVADIO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Though off-topic with bicycles, I feel the need to put
    > into English for you, people I have
     
  5. "Sergio SERVADIO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Mark Hickey wrote:
    > > Sergio SERVADIO <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >In practise it is impossible to justify war, any war.
    > > <snip>
    > > >Any defence war is just and heroic.
    > > A bit of illogic that, eh? By "defence war" you include the defense of Kuwait I assume, and the
    > > continuation of that same war due to Iraq's refusal to comply with the terms of the cease-fire.
    >
    > Bad logic? Don't think so. Perhaps not stringest wording that allowed you to play fussy about it.
    >
    > Please, change it into:
    > >> In practise it is impossible to justify [starting] war, any war.
    >
    > By 'defence war' I mean a war that you must wage because someone from so far away is bombing from
    > well above your roof and is chaising you door to door out of your own house where you found
    > shelter.
    >
    > Is it crystal clear, now?
    >
    > Sergo Pisa

    Quite clear to me. One certainly expects the regime and its supporters to fight back fiercely
    against the US-led forces. Not only have they been attacked, but once their defeat is accomplished
    they will also have to answer to the majority population they've criminally oppressed for decades.
    "Rock and a hard place" ring a bell?

    The true heart of the Iraqi people simply cannot be known until all are convinced that they're no
    longer at risk from the regime and it's thugs, and that the US is not going to bail on them, as
    happened after the first Gulf War.

    Yes, war is a horror and always will be. But it's not always the worst possible horror, and this is
    not simply a matter of violence vs. nonviolence; of injustice vs. justice. The moral basis of any
    war is that the violence done in its cause will lead to a net reduction in the total violence and
    injustice done over time, and only time will tell the true tale of this one.

    The final chapters are long yet to be written, but will depend on the quality of life in Iraq, its
    neighbors, and the US - ten years from now and beyond. Impossible to know at this point, but one can
    only hope the right choices have been made.

    We will certainly see...

    SB
     
  6. Jon Isaacs

    Jon Isaacs Guest

    >What follows then?
    >
    >Sergio

    Sergio:

    The real reasons behind this war are quite hidden and actually unknown to most of us, we can
    only guess.

    At this point I can only feel empathy and sadness for those who are hurt or who are in pain. I think
    of injured American soldiers in pain from a wound as I think of an Iraqi child who may be bleeding
    and just clinging to life.

    I can only hope as an American that the United States will undertake the responsibility it has
    assumed by attacking Iraq and reconstruct it in the best interests of the people of Iraq. This most
    certainly means giving them complete authority over their country and its natural resources.

    This most certainly means foregoing any national interest we have have in their natural resources,
    our goals must be noble, our conscious must be clear.

    To the burden of Afganistan, we have now added Iraq. My we respond with honor and honesty.

    jon isaacs
     
  7. Kbh

    Kbh Guest

    The vast majority of the muslim world has failed miserably in the continuing struggle towards
    modernity, and the embrace of ideals such as liberty, self-rule, and equal rights that the free (and
    successful) countries of the world hold dear. As a result of this failure, these countries have bred
    a threat to that freedom, and the way of life that Americans and others have fought for for hundreds
    of years. In the long term view, what the US is doing is compassionate beyond comprehension, using
    our power, sacrificing lives, accepting risk and cost, in order to give the islamic world a chance
    at freedom. If we don't start the ball rolling now, and allow this threat to escalate, the choices
    we have in 10-20 years to eliminate it will be much more limited, and infinitely more grave.

    At least your Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has a clue...

    "We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system
    that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees
    respect for human rights and religion....This respect certainly does not exist in Islamic
    countries."

    "Sergio SERVADIO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Though off-topic with bicycles, I feel the need to put
    > into English for you, people I have corresponded with for some time and whom I pretend to be
    > acquainted with, a message written a while ago for an Italian friend of mine.
    >
    > Ride into PEACE.
    >
    > Sergio Pisa
    >
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    _
    > > about the war ...
    > ... we hold rather different opinions.
    >
    > There is no need for us to hide behind somebody else' rationale, be it honest or faudolent, to be
    > in favor or against the war. So, your rebuttal of France's, Russia's and China's stands and
    > reasonings does not diminish the urge for your own evaluation and judgment.
    >
    > Never mind there are always people who are, almost genetically, opposed to any initiative, ever
    > unable to bear responsibility.
    >
    > In practise it is impossible to justify war, any war. It is so because its outburst goes too far
    > beyond what has preceeded it. War can never be morally acceptable, never a 'just' retaliation. All
    > the more so, the more outbalanced are the contendants.
    >
    > Even worse, when the attacking party does so after such a long propaganda campaign full of lies
    > and alleged wrong reasons put forward with the intent, so badly missed, to rally support from the
    > international community.
    >
    > Which so bad faults against the U.S. can one ascribe to Saddam Hussein? How much do you think the
    > U.S. really care about the Kurds, slaughtered and persecuted both in Irak and in Turkey? How much
    > do the U.S. really value civil rights, the western style, in other Countries? In which other
    > Countries? Why there, and not elsewhere?
    >
    > Have you forgotten Allende? Have you forgotten Vietnam?, where the heroic resistence was universal
    > and Ho Chi Min's Communist Party was only a component, initially only a minor component, of the
    > liberation movement.
    >
    > Aren't there still so many countries where democracy, our style of course, is not established and
    > which, nevertheless, are justly respected?
    >
    > When war, whichever war, outbrakes the party that thrusts it is always at fault: for having
    > brought the clash to such a dramatic level. The nation that gets attacked with such a fury has the
    > right to defend herself, with whatever means.
    >
    > Any defence war is just and heroic. Perhaps any revenge, for so much undured horror, is just.
    >
    > What follows then?
    >
    > Sergio
     
  8. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    Sergio, perhaps I ought to just put into words my feelings about this war:

    There are no just wars. EVER. There are only necessary wars and unnecessary wars. Vietnam is an
    example of an unnecessary war but Iraq is plainly a necessary one.

    It isn't easy to justify these sorts of wars to people who don't have any blood stake in the war
    presently, but I'll try.

    After the Iran/Iraq war the USA had tried to reach some political impass with Saddam Hussein.
    Because stable governments in the area that contains more than half of the world's energy supply is
    important we were willing to ignore the fact that Hussein was a certified butcher who tortures and
    murders his people wholesale. It isn't as if it were something that was unknown - during a state
    department interview Hussein pointedly admitted to it in a matter-of-fact tone as if torture and
    murder were only normal means to power.

    The USA would prefer to stay completely out of the internal workings of other countries but
    sometimes it pays for us to stick out noses in. President Eisenhower had intended that we would
    supply a graceful way for France to exit Indochina (Vietnam) from which we would then bow out in
    short order. Unfortunately Eisenhower was replaced with Kennedy who firstly caused a near
    catastrophe in Cuba and then tried to use Vietnam as an example to show that he really could wage a
    successful military campaign. Johnson continued in that format and the terrible consequences of that
    sort of thinking are history.

    But Iraq is not the same case. For one thing, when we were trying to befriend Iraq in an effort to
    have some moderating effect on their policies we sold Saddam some presses ostensibly so that he
    could print high quality Iraqi currency. Saddam used these presses to counterfeit American money so
    lavishly that at one point one out of every five $20 bills was an Iraqi counterfeit so good that it
    couldn't be detected by anyone but the most skilled experts.

    He used this money to build a staggering arsenal and to begin building seriously dangerous weapons
    of mass destruction. Perhaps you remember Israel bombing the Iraqi nuclear site which we now all
    understand was primarily for generating weapons grade radioactive material. We also know that he was
    building a super cannon and perhaps what you don't know is that cannon could have been capable of
    shooting a shell entirely around the world. The expert he was using had a 'normal' cannon in his
    front yard on the border between Montreal and the USA. He was quoted as saying that he couldn't
    reveal the range of that particular cannon but that he could easily hit Mexico City. That's roughly
    4,000 miles and a super version of such a cannon would give him the power of an ICBM with a far
    smaller chance for intercepting the weapon.

    France and Germany, China and Russia have all been selling arms and materials to Saddam sub rosa,
    illegally and despite the fact that all of them signed on to the UN limitations.

    Saddam also used the money to fund terrorists and terrorist activities all over the world. This is
    almost impossible to prove openly because intelligence sources for this kind of thing are
    exceedingly dificult to trace and showing how the information is gotten would invalidate using those
    sources in the future. So many of the real proofs of what Hussein has been doing must remain top
    secret for many decades. Remember that it was 50 years before some really important intellgence
    wources from WW II were revealed.

    Most importantly Saddam has been trying to find an effective terrorist organization to deliver some
    extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction into the United States. We have already arrested an
    American hispanic gang member who offered to set off a dirty (nuclear) bomb in the USA and received
    $10,000 in cash to begin his operation. He was siezed at an airport with the money on him. Saddam
    has been courting bin Laden for many years because he thought that Al Qaida was the best chance for
    delivering a biological or chemical weapon into an American city. Fortunately for us, bin Laden
    can't stand Hussein and always turned him down.

    Nevertheless it has become clear that Hussein is trying to attack the USA and to do it on an
    extremely dangerous level. It was no longer a question about if he could succeed, because 9/11
    showed that eventually he would succeed.

    All this has made it necessary to take this awful regime out now. We cannot wait for tens or
    hundreds of thousands of casualties. We cannot wait in case he tries his hand at lesser targets like
    Tel Aviv or Rome.

    We are all preying for peace but it isn't Italian blood that would be spilled if we wait. And it is
    less important to you that American lives are lost than it is to us. While you advise us to wait
    from a position of almost absolute ignorance, we have been advised by out own government with tens
    of thousands of information sources, thousands of analysts and hundreds of advisors that this man is
    dangerous and growing more dangerous by the second. How is it that you could possibly be better
    informed than these people and how is it possible that they are all in a conspiracy to make a profit
    in this endevor?

    Now that we are committed to the war we cannot turn back. Last time we turned back tens of thousands
    of Iraqi civilians were tortured and murdered because they sought their own freedoms. We cannot turn
    back a second time and allow the very hope for freedom to die in the hearts of these people.

    For those who think that oil is an issue let me be the first to agree. Though not in the manner that
    many may think. Oil runs the whole world. Iraqi oil could threaten Europe or it can run Europe. We
    prefer the later. It isn't important who is making the profits from the oil as long a it's flowing
    and Europeans are eating and sleeping in peace instead of warring on each other for valuable natural
    resources. The fact of the matter is that the USA is in a better position to live without Iraqi oil
    than virtually the rest of the world.

    "Sergio SERVADIO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Though off-topic with bicycles, I feel the need to put
    > into English
    for
    > you, people I have corresponded with for some time and whom I
    pretend
    > to be acquainted with, a message written a while ago for an Italian
    friend
    > of mine.
    >
    > Ride into PEACE.
    >
    > Sergio Pisa
    >
    ______________________________________________________________________
    _______
    > > about the war ...
    > ... we hold rather different opinions.
    >
    > There is no need for us to hide behind somebody else' rationale, be
    it
    > honest or faudolent, to be in favor or against the war. So, your rebuttal of France's, Russia's
    > and China's stands and
    reasonings
    > does not diminish the urge for your own evaluation and judgment.
    >
    > Never mind there are always people who are, almost genetically,
    opposed
    > to any initiative, ever unable to bear responsibility.
    >
    > In practise it is impossible to justify war, any war. It is so because its outburst goes too far
    > beyond what has preceeded
    it.
    > War can never be morally acceptable, never a 'just' retaliation. All the more so, the more
    > outbalanced are the contendants.
    >
    > Even worse, when the attacking party does so after such a long
    propaganda
    > campaign full of lies and alleged wrong reasons put forward with the intent, so badly missed, to
    > rally support from the international community.
    >
    > Which so bad faults against the U.S. can one ascribe to Saddam
    Hussein?
    > How much do you think the U.S. really care about the Kurds,
    slaughtered
    > and persecuted both in Irak and in Turkey? How much do the U.S. really value civil rights, the
    > western style,
    in
    > other Countries? In which other Countries? Why there, and not
    elsewhere?
    >
    > Have you forgotten Allende? Have you forgotten Vietnam?, where the heroic resistence was
    universal and
    > Ho Chi Min's Communist Party was only a component, initially only a
    minor
    > component, of the liberation movement.
    >
    > Aren't there still so many countries where democracy, our style of
    course,
    > is not established and which, nevertheless, are justly respected?
    >
    > When war, whichever war, outbrakes the party that thrusts it is
    always at
    > fault: for having brought the clash to such a dramatic level. The nation that gets attacked with
    > such a fury has the right to
    defend
    > herself, with whatever means.
    >
    > Any defence war is just and heroic. Perhaps any revenge, for so much undured horror, is just.
    >
    > What follows then?
    >
    > Sergio
    >
     
  9. Jon Isaacs

    Jon Isaacs Guest

    >The vast majority of the muslim world has failed miserably in the continuing struggle towards
    >modernity, and the embrace of ideals such as liberty, self-rule, and equal rights that the free
    >(and successful) countries of the world hold dear.

    Are not these countries free to believe and live as they do? Must they believe as we do? Must they
    act as we do?

    I hope not or they wouldn't be free.

    Judging the success of others by ones own values is narrow and self centered.

    A foriegner might read what you wrote and respond: "Mr American, your pants have fallen and your
    bottom is showing."

    Jon Isaacs
     
  10. "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > The vast majority of the muslim world has failed miserably in the
    continuing
    > struggle towards modernity, and the embrace of ideals such as liberty, self-rule, and equal rights
    > that the free (and successful) countries of
    the
    > world hold dear. As a result of this failure, these countries have bred a threat to that freedom,
    > and the way of life that Americans and others have fought for for hundreds of years. In the long
    > term view, what the US is doing is compassionate beyond comprehension, using our power,
    > sacrificing lives, accepting risk and cost, in order to give the islamic world a
    chance
    > at freedom. If we don't start the ball rolling now, and allow this threat to escalate, the choices
    > we have in 10-20 years to eliminate it will be
    much
    > more limited, and infinitely more grave.

    Ya!

    That's why we restored that Bastion of Democracy, the government of the Emir of Kuwait, to power in
    Gulf War 1. And why our country has military bases in Saudi Arabia - to protect the democracy and
    pillar of religious freedom there.

    LOL - you dumbass.

    The Emir of Kuwait wouldn't return to his country after Gulf War 1 until his gold bathroom fixtures
    (looted by the Iraqis) had been restored to his palace. The sort of leadership example that men
    will die for.

    Officially, the Emir of Kuwait has 37 children, but the unofficial count is ~120.
     
  11. Kbh

    Kbh Guest

    > Are not these countries free to believe and live as they do?

    When they are a threat to us, no.

    >Must they act as we do?
    >
    > I hope not or they wouldn't be free.
    >
    > Judging the success of others by ones own values is narrow and self
    centered.

    Not when my values represent good and theirs evil. You subscribe to the moral equivalence school of
    thought, which I disregard as dangerous and myopic. Good is good, evil is evil.

    ...but you're right, the brutal regimes of the Middle East are very successful murderous
    dictatorships.
     
  12. Clovis Lark

    Clovis Lark Guest

    In rec.bicycles.racing Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Sergio, perhaps I ought to just put into words my feelings about this war:

    > The USA would prefer to stay completely out of the internal workings of other countries but
    > sometimes it pays for us to stick out noses in.

    Tom never heard of the PNAC and the study that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. commissioned and
    was delivered in September 2000. It clearly expresses an agenda to be nose, torso, and legs in the
    working of other countries. The foreign minister of Suadi Arabia spoke directly to the concerns
    raised by this agenda. Tom, don't even bother baiting me on this. Here is the link. Whatever
    rebuttal you have, please address it specifically to this link's contents. Help readers out and cite
    what pages you are discussing:

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

    > President Eisenhower had intended that we would supply a graceful way for France to exit Indochina
    > (Vietnam) from which we would then bow out in short order. Unfortunately Eisenhower was replaced
    > with Kennedy who firstly caused a near catastrophe in Cuba and then tried to use Vietnam as an
    > example to show that he really could wage a successful military campaign. Johnson continued in
    > that format and the terrible consequences of that sort of thinking are history.

    > But Iraq is not the same case. For one thing, when we were trying to befriend Iraq in an effort to
    > have some moderating effect on their policies we sold Saddam some presses ostensibly so that he
    > could print high quality Iraqi currency. Saddam used these presses to counterfeit American money
    > so lavishly that at one point one out of every five $20 bills was an Iraqi counterfeit so good
    > that it couldn't be detected by anyone but the most skilled experts.

    > He used this money to build a staggering arsenal and to begin building seriously dangerous weapons
    > of mass destruction. Perhaps you remember Israel bombing the Iraqi nuclear site which we now all
    > understand was primarily for generating weapons grade radioactive material. We also

    Perhaps Tom remembers the famous handshake between Hussein and Rumsfeld sealing the delivery of WMD
    in 1983? Make sure you adderss this. Forget about me.

    > know that he was building a super cannon and perhaps what you don't know is that cannon could have
    > been capable of shooting a shell entirely around the world. The expert he was using had a 'normal'
    > cannon in his front yard on the border between Montreal and the USA. He was quoted as saying that
    > he couldn't reveal the range of that particular cannon but that he could easily hit Mexico City.
    > That's roughly 4,000 miles and a super version of such a cannon would give him the power of an
    > ICBM with a far smaller chance for intercepting the weapon.

    > France and Germany, China and Russia have all been selling arms and materials to Saddam sub rosa,
    > illegally and despite the fact that all of them signed on to the UN limitations.

    > Saddam also used the money to fund terrorists and terrorist activities all over the world. This is
    > almost impossible to prove openly because intelligence sources for this kind of thing are
    > exceedingly dificult to trace and showing how the information is gotten would invalidate using
    > those sources in the future. So many of the real proofs of what Hussein has been doing must remain
    > top secret for many decades. Remember that it was 50 years before some really important
    > intellgence wources from WW II were revealed.

    > Most importantly Saddam has been trying to find an effective terrorist organization to deliver
    > some extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction into the United States. We have already
    > arrested an American hispanic gang member who offered to set off a dirty (nuclear) bomb in the USA
    > and received $10,000 in cash to begin his operation. He was siezed at an airport with the money on
    > him. Saddam has been courting bin Laden for many years because he thought that Al Qaida was the
    > best chance for delivering a biological or chemical weapon into an American city. Fortunately for
    > us, bin Laden can't stand Hussein and always turned him down.

    > Nevertheless it has become clear that Hussein is trying to attack the USA and to do it on an
    > extremely dangerous level. It was no longer a question about if he could succeed, because 9/11
    > showed that eventually he would succeed.

    Back to the PNAC agenda that shows 911 was never the reason for the current agenda. But don't take
    me on. Please address the PNAC document cites above and be sure to help us by referring to the
    specific pages you take issue with.

    > All this has made it necessary to take this awful regime out now. We cannot wait for tens or
    > hundreds of thousands of casualties. We cannot wait in case he tries his hand at lesser targets
    > like Tel Aviv or Rome.

    > We are all preying for peace but it isn't Italian blood that would be spilled if we wait. And it
    > is less important to you that American lives are lost than it is to us. While you advise us to
    > wait from a position of almost absolute ignorance, we have been advised by out own government with
    > tens of thousands of information sources, thousands of analysts and hundreds of advisors that this
    > man is dangerous and growing more dangerous by the second. How is it that you could possibly be
    > better informed than these people and how is it possible that they are all in a conspiracy to make
    > a profit in this endevor?

    > Now that we are committed to the war we cannot turn back. Last time we turned back tens of
    > thousands of Iraqi civilians were tortured and murdered because they sought their own freedoms.
    > We cannot turn back a second time and allow the very hope for freedom to die in the hearts of
    > these people.

    Tell that to them...

    > For those who think that oil is an issue let me be the first to agree. Though not in the manner
    > that many may think. Oil runs the whole world. Iraqi oil could threaten Europe or it can run
    > Europe. We prefer the later. It isn't important who is making the profits from the oil as long a
    > it's flowing and Europeans are eating and sleeping in peace instead of warring on each other for
    > valuable natural resources. The fact of the matter is that the USA is in a better position to live
    > without Iraqi oil than virtually the rest of the world.

    > "Sergio SERVADIO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:p[email protected]...
    >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Though off-topic with bicycles, I feel the need to put
    >> into English
    > for
    >> you, people I have corresponded with for some time and whom I
    > pretend
    >> to be acquainted with, a message written a while ago for an Italian
    > friend
    >> of mine.
    >>
    >> Ride into PEACE.
    >>
    >> Sergio Pisa
    >>
    > ______________________________________________________________________
    > _______
    >> > about the war ...
    >> ... we hold rather different opinions.
    >>
    >> There is no need for us to hide behind somebody else' rationale, be
    > it
    >> honest or faudolent, to be in favor or against the war. So, your rebuttal of France's, Russia's
    >> and China's stands and
    > reasonings
    >> does not diminish the urge for your own evaluation and judgment.
    >>
    >> Never mind there are always people who are, almost genetically,
    > opposed
    >> to any initiative, ever unable to bear responsibility.
    >>
    >> In practise it is impossible to justify war, any war. It is so because its outburst goes too far
    >> beyond what has preceeded
    > it.
    >> War can never be morally acceptable, never a 'just' retaliation. All the more so, the more
    >> outbalanced are the contendants.
    >>
    >> Even worse, when the attacking party does so after such a long
    > propaganda
    >> campaign full of lies and alleged wrong reasons put forward with the intent, so badly missed, to
    >> rally support from the international community.
    >>
    >> Which so bad faults against the U.S. can one ascribe to Saddam
    > Hussein?
    >> How much do you think the U.S. really care about the Kurds,
    > slaughtered
    >> and persecuted both in Irak and in Turkey? How much do the U.S. really value civil rights, the
    >> western style,
    > in
    >> other Countries? In which other Countries? Why there, and not
    > elsewhere?
    >>
    >> Have you forgotten Allende? Have you forgotten Vietnam?, where the heroic resistence was
    > universal and
    >> Ho Chi Min's Communist Party was only a component, initially only a
    > minor
    >> component, of the liberation movement.
    >>
    >> Aren't there still so many countries where democracy, our style of
    > course,
    >> is not established and which, nevertheless, are justly respected?
    >>
    >> When war, whichever war, outbrakes the party that thrusts it is
    > always at
    >> fault: for having brought the clash to such a dramatic level. The nation that gets attacked with
    >> such a fury has the right to
    > defend
    >> herself, with whatever means.
    >>
    >> Any defence war is just and heroic. Perhaps any revenge, for so much undured horror, is just.
    >>
    >> What follows then?
    >>
    >> Sergio
    >>
    >>
    >
     
  13. Gary Smiley

    Gary Smiley Guest

    Tom, as I write this, it isn't quite April Fools' day yet, so don't expect me to believe that a
    cannon could shoot a shell around the world, or even hit Mexico City. This is even less believable
    than all the reasons given in this thread for invading Iraq. Let's not kid ourselves- it's all about
    oil, wealth, power, and imperialism, with "freedom" as a paltry excuse.

    Tom Kunich wrote: We also know that he was building a super cannon and perhaps what you don't

    > know is that cannon could have been capable of shooting a shell entirely around the world. The
    > expert he was using had a 'normal' cannon in his front yard on the border between Montreal and the
    > USA. He was quoted as saying that he couldn't reveal the range of that particular cannon but that
    > he could easily hit Mexico City. That's roughly 4,000 miles and a super version of such a cannon
    > would give him the power of an ICBM with a far smaller chance for intercepting the weapon.
     
  14. Kbh

    Kbh Guest

    that was an incoherant rant. you aren't even making an argument, just blabbering about something you
    read in an article somewhere.

    kuwait does not foment a direct threat to our citizens, so let them do what they want. That is
    exactly the point I made in my reply to the previous poster. Saudi Arabia on the other hand is a
    breeding ground for islamic terrorists and will have to be dealt with at some point (in the mean
    time we do buy a lot of their oil and its in our interest to see that supply stable).

    and if you're going to bring the argument down to the name calling level, at least make an argument
    (and a good one) that is even remotely relevant to the post.

    "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > The vast majority of the muslim world has failed miserably in the
    > continuing
    > > struggle towards modernity, and the embrace of ideals such as liberty, self-rule, and equal
    > > rights that the free (and successful) countries of
    > the
    > > world hold dear. As a result of this failure, these countries have bred
    a
    > > threat to that freedom, and the way of life that Americans and others
    have
    > > fought for for hundreds of years. In the long term view, what the US is doing is compassionate
    > > beyond comprehension, using our power,
    sacrificing
    > > lives, accepting risk and cost, in order to give the islamic world a
    > chance
    > > at freedom. If we don't start the ball rolling now, and allow this
    threat
    > > to escalate, the choices we have in 10-20 years to eliminate it will be
    > much
    > > more limited, and infinitely more grave.
    >
    >
    >
    > Ya!
    >
    > That's why we restored that Bastion of Democracy, the government of the
    Emir
    > of Kuwait, to power in Gulf War 1. And why our country has military bases
    in
    > Saudi Arabia - to protect the democracy and pillar of religious freedom there.
    >
    >
    > LOL - you dumbass.
    >
    >
    > The Emir of Kuwait wouldn't return to his country after Gulf War 1 until
    his
    > gold bathroom fixtures (looted by the Iraqis) had been restored to his palace. The sort of
    > leadership example that men will die for.
    >
    > Officially, the Emir of Kuwait has 37 children, but the unofficial count
    is
    > ~120.
     
  15. Kbh

    Kbh Guest

    A recent Colin Powell quote is paraphrased something like this:

    "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to
    fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is
    enough to bury those that did not return."

    Name a country the the imperial US has colonized? Well, I guess you could say the 2nd and 3rd
    largest economies in the world, Japan and Germany, were crush by the US and rebuilt from the ground
    up (after which we left).

    Please make an argument, instead of just repeating a sign you saw at an anti-war rally.

    "Gary Smiley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Tom, as I write this, it isn't quite April Fools' day yet, so don't expect me to believe that a
    > cannon could shoot a shell around the world, or even hit Mexico City. This is even less believable
    > than all the reasons given in this thread for invading Iraq. Let's not kid ourselves- it's all
    > about oil, wealth, power, and imperialism, with "freedom" as a paltry excuse.
    >
    > Tom Kunich wrote: We also know that he was building a super cannon and perhaps what you don't
    >
    > > know is that cannon could have been capable of shooting a shell entirely around the world. The
    > > expert he was using had a 'normal' cannon in his front yard on the border between Montreal and
    > > the USA. He was quoted as saying that he couldn't reveal the range of that particular cannon but
    > > that he could easily hit Mexico City. That's roughly 4,000 miles and a super version of such a
    > > cannon would give him the power of an ICBM with a far smaller chance for intercepting the
    > > weapon.
     
  16. Without getting into the rest of your assumptions, there's been plenty of press on the supergun
    program; you really might pay more attention to the world you live in. In the US, PBS even did a
    Frontline show on them and their Canadian inventor, Gerald Bull. He died, let's say, a less than
    natural death. Have a peek at:

    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

    SB

    "Gary Smiley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Tom, as I write this, it isn't quite April Fools' day yet, so don't expect me to believe that a
    > cannon could shoot a shell around the world, or even hit Mexico City. This is even less believable
    > than all the reasons given in this thread for invading Iraq. Let's not kid ourselves- it's all
    > about oil, wealth, power, and imperialism, with "freedom" as a paltry excuse.
    >
    > Tom Kunich wrote: We also know that he was building a super cannon and perhaps what you don't
    >
    > > know is that cannon could have been capable of shooting a shell entirely around the world. The
    > > expert he was using had a 'normal' cannon in his front yard on the border between Montreal and
    > > the USA. He was quoted as saying that he couldn't reveal the range of that particular cannon but
    > > that he could easily hit Mexico City. That's roughly 4,000 miles and a super version of such a
    > > cannon would give him the power of an ICBM with a far smaller chance for intercepting the
    > > weapon.
     
  17. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Gary Smiley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Tom, as I write this, it isn't quite April Fools' day yet, so don't
    expect
    > me to believe that a cannon could shoot a shell around the world, or
    even
    > hit Mexico City. This is even less believable than all the reasons
    given
    > in this thread for invading Iraq.

    Let me tell you something Gary - in 1967 I worked at a company that had as a project a super
    projectile cannon that could not only shoot a shot clear around the world, or all the way to the
    moon - but entirely out of this solar system. Go look up the velocity of such a projectile.

    At that same time that Canadian (who was later advising Saddam Hussein and building his cannon and
    who was subsequently assasinated when he refused to stop doing so and was warned several times but
    the Israelis) offered to build a cannon for the US to launch satillites into space. He also
    developed the technology which doubled the range of US 150 mm cannons.

    If you don't know what the power of a high peformance cannon is these days I suggest you study the
    matter before making a stupid statement.

    > Let's not kid ourselves- it's all about oil, wealth, power, and imperialism, with "freedom" as a
    > paltry excuse.

    Ahh, yes, I see your agenda now. Stupidity at any price.
     
  18. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    Let me get this straight, a study commissioned by members of this administration reported that
    mistakes had been made in the past and suggested changes?

    college.

    "Clovis Lark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In rec.bicycles.racing Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Sergio, perhaps I ought to just put into words my feelings about
    this
    > > war:
    >
    > > The USA would prefer to stay completely out of the internal
    workings
    > > of other countries but sometimes it pays for us to stick out noses
    in.
    >
    > Tom never heard of the PNAC and the study that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc. commissioned and
    > was delivered in September 2000. It clearly expresses an agenda to be nose, torso, and legs in the
    working of
    > other countries. The foreign minister of Suadi Arabia spoke
    directly to
    > the concerns raised by this agenda. Tom, don't even bother baiting
    me on
    > this. Here is the link. Whatever rebuttal you have, please address
    it
    > specifically to this link's contents. Help readers out and cite what
    pages
    > you are discussing:
    >
    > http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
    >
    >
    >
    > > President Eisenhower had intended that we would supply a graceful
    way
    > > for France to exit Indochina (Vietnam) from which we would then
    bow
    > > out in short order. Unfortunately Eisenhower was replaced with
    Kennedy
    > > who firstly caused a near catastrophe in Cuba and then tried to
    use
    > > Vietnam as an example to show that he really could wage a
    successful
    > > military campaign. Johnson continued in that format and the
    terrible
    > > consequences of that sort of thinking are history.
    >
    > > But Iraq is not the same case. For one thing, when we were trying
    to
    > > befriend Iraq in an effort to have some moderating effect on their policies we sold Saddam some
    > > presses ostensibly so that he could
    print
    > > high quality Iraqi currency. Saddam used these presses to
    counterfeit
    > > American money so lavishly that at one point one out of every five
    $20
    > > bills was an Iraqi counterfeit so good that it couldn't be
    detected by
    > > anyone but the most skilled experts.
    >
    > > He used this money to build a staggering arsenal and to begin
    building
    > > seriously dangerous weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps you
    remember
    > > Israel bombing the Iraqi nuclear site which we now all understand
    was
    > > primarily for generating weapons grade radioactive material. We
    also
    >
    > Perhaps Tom remembers the famous handshake between Hussein and
    Rumsfeld
    > sealing the delivery of WMD in 1983? Make sure you adderss this.
    Forget
    > about me.
    >
    > > know that he was building a super cannon and perhaps what you
    don't
    > > know is that cannon could have been capable of shooting a shell entirely around the world.
    > > The expert he was using had a 'normal' cannon in his front yard on the border between
    > > Montreal and the
    USA.
    > > He was quoted as saying that he couldn't reveal the range of that particular cannon but that
    > > he could easily hit Mexico City. That's roughly 4,000 miles and a super version of such a
    > > cannon would
    give
    > > him the power of an ICBM with a far smaller chance for
    intercepting
    > > the weapon.
    >
    > > France and Germany, China and Russia have all been selling arms
    and
    > > materials to Saddam sub rosa, illegally and despite the fact that
    all
    > > of them signed on to the UN limitations.
    >
    > > Saddam also used the money to fund terrorists and terrorist
    activities
    > > all over the world. This is almost impossible to prove openly
    because
    > > intelligence sources for this kind of thing are exceedingly
    dificult
    > > to trace and showing how the information is gotten would
    invalidate
    > > using those sources in the future. So many of the real proofs of
    what
    > > Hussein has been doing must remain top secret for many decades. Remember that it was 50 years
    > > before some really important
    intellgence
    > > wources from WW II were revealed.
    >
    > > Most importantly Saddam has been trying to find an effective
    terrorist
    > > organization to deliver some extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction into the United
    > > States. We have already arrested an American hispanic gang member who offered to set off a dirty
    (nuclear)
    > > bomb in the USA and received $10,000 in cash to begin his
    operation.
    > > He was siezed at an airport with the money on him. Saddam has been courting bin Laden for many
    > > years because he thought that Al Qaida
    was
    > > the best chance for delivering a biological or chemical weapon
    into an
    > > American city. Fortunately for us, bin Laden can't stand Hussein
    and
    > > always turned him down.
    >
    > > Nevertheless it has become clear that Hussein is trying to attack
    the
    > > USA and to do it on an extremely dangerous level. It was no longer
    a
    > > question about if he could succeed, because 9/11 showed that eventually he would succeed.
    >
    > Back to the PNAC agenda that shows 911 was never the reason for the current agenda. But don't take
    > me on. Please address the PNAC
    document
    > cites above and be sure to help us by referring to the specific
    pages you
    > take issue with.
    >
    > > All this has made it necessary to take this awful regime out now.
    We
    > > cannot wait for tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties. We
    cannot
    > > wait in case he tries his hand at lesser targets like Tel Aviv or Rome.
    >
    > > We are all preying for peace but it isn't Italian blood that would
    be
    > > spilled if we wait. And it is less important to you that American lives are lost than it is to
    > > us. While you advise us to wait from
    a
    > > position of almost absolute ignorance, we have been advised by out
    own
    > > government with tens of thousands of information sources,
    thousands of
    > > analysts and hundreds of advisors that this man is dangerous and growing more dangerous by the
    > > second. How is it that you could possibly be better informed than these people and how is it
    possible
    > > that they are all in a conspiracy to make a profit in this
    endevor?
    >
    > > Now that we are committed to the war we cannot turn back. Last
    time we
    > > turned back tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians were tortured and murdered because they sought
    > > their own freedoms. We cannot turn
    back a
    > > second time and allow the very hope for freedom to die in the
    hearts
    > > of these people.
    >
    > Tell that to them...
    >
    > > For those who think that oil is an issue let me be the first to
    agree.
    > > Though not in the manner that many may think. Oil runs the whole world. Iraqi oil could threaten
    > > Europe or it can run Europe. We
    prefer
    > > the later. It isn't important who is making the profits from the
    oil
    > > as long a it's flowing and Europeans are eating and sleeping in
    peace
    > > instead of warring on each other for valuable natural resources.
    The
    > > fact of the matter is that the USA is in a better position to live without Iraqi oil than
    > > virtually the rest of the world.
    >
    > > "Sergio SERVADIO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    news:p[email protected]...
    > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Though off-topic with bicycles, I feel the need to
    > >> put into
    English
    > > for
    > >> you, people I have corresponded with for some time and whom I
    > > pretend
    > >> to be acquainted with, a message written a while ago for an
    Italian
    > > friend
    > >> of mine.
    > >>
    > >> Ride into PEACE.
    > >>
    > >> Sergio Pisa
    > >>
    > >
    ______________________________________________________________________
    > > _______
    > >> > about the war ...
    > >> ... we hold rather different opinions.
    > >>
    > >> There is no need for us to hide behind somebody else' rationale,
    be
    > > it
    > >> honest or faudolent, to be in favor or against the war. So, your rebuttal of France's, Russia's
    > >> and China's stands and
    > > reasonings
    > >> does not diminish the urge for your own evaluation and judgment.
    > >>
    > >> Never mind there are always people who are, almost genetically,
    > > opposed
    > >> to any initiative, ever unable to bear responsibility.
    > >>
    > >> In practise it is impossible to justify war, any war. It is so because its outburst goes too
    > >> far beyond what has
    preceeded
    > > it.
    > >> War can never be morally acceptable, never a 'just' retaliation. All the more so, the more
    > >> outbalanced are the contendants.
    > >>
    > >> Even worse, when the attacking party does so after such a long
    > > propaganda
    > >> campaign full of lies and alleged wrong reasons put forward with
    the
    > >> intent, so badly missed, to rally support from the international community.
    > >>
    > >> Which so bad faults against the U.S. can one ascribe to Saddam
    > > Hussein?
    > >> How much do you think the U.S. really care about the Kurds,
    > > slaughtered
    > >> and persecuted both in Irak and in Turkey? How much do the U.S. really value civil rights, the
    > >> western
    style,
    > > in
    > >> other Countries? In which other Countries? Why there, and not
    > > elsewhere?
    > >>
    > >> Have you forgotten Allende? Have you forgotten Vietnam?, where the heroic resistence was
    > > universal and
    > >> Ho Chi Min's Communist Party was only a component, initially only
    a
    > > minor
    > >> component, of the liberation movement.
    > >>
    > >> Aren't there still so many countries where democracy, our style
    of
    > > course,
    > >> is not established and which, nevertheless, are justly respected?
    > >>
    > >> When war, whichever war, outbrakes the party that thrusts it is
    > > always at
    > >> fault: for having brought the clash to such a dramatic level. The nation that gets attacked
    > >> with such a fury has the right to
    > > defend
    > >> herself, with whatever means.
    > >>
    > >> Any defence war is just and heroic. Perhaps any revenge, for so much undured horror, is just.
    > >>
    > >> What follows then?
    > >>
    > >> Sergio
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
     
  19. Steve Blankenship <[email protected]> wrote:
    : He died, let's say, a less than natural death.

    ahh, the mossad.

    as per gerald bull, it's always interesting to see where astrophysicists find work. ;-)
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  20. Gary Smiley

    Gary Smiley Guest

    George Carlin once did a comedy bit about how guns were like dicks, and how troops had to have
    bigger "dicks" than the enemy. So I'm sure you're just salivating over this cannon. But it's April
    Fool's day now, so you can tell me anything you want. You can tell me that the moon is made out of
    green cheese, or that we're in this war to protect "freedom". But this cannon thing is the most
    outrageous piece of bullshit I have ever heard. It's never been made, it's never going to be made,
    but if it ever does get made, well then you can call me stupid. Until then I'll just chalk it up as
    an April Fool's Day rant on your part.

    Tom Kunich wrote:

    > "Gary Smiley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Tom, as I write this, it isn't quite April Fools' day yet, so don't
    > expect
    > > me to believe that a cannon could shoot a shell around the world, or
    > even
    > > hit Mexico City. This is even less believable than all the reasons
    > given
    > > in this thread for invading Iraq.
    >
    > Let me tell you something Gary - in 1967 I worked at a company that had as a project a super
    > projectile cannon that could not only shoot a shot clear around the world, or all the way to the
    > moon - but entirely out of this solar system. Go look up the velocity of such a projectile.
    >
    > At that same time that Canadian (who was later advising Saddam Hussein and building his cannon and
    > who was subsequently assasinated when he refused to stop doing so and was warned several times but
    > the Israelis) offered to build a cannon for the US to launch satillites into space. He also
    > developed the technology which doubled the range of US 150 mm cannons.
    >
    > If you don't know what the power of a high peformance cannon is these days I suggest you study the
    > matter before making a stupid statement.
    >
    > > Let's not kid ourselves- it's all about oil, wealth, power, and imperialism, with "freedom" as a
    > > paltry excuse.
    >
    > Ahh, yes, I see your agenda now. Stupidity at any price.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...