OT - Why no war.

[Sergio Servadio]

---------- 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

 

[Mark Hickey]

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

 

[Sergio Servadio]

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

 

[Ken Papai]

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

"Sergio SERVADIO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Though off-topic with bicycles, I feel the need to put
> into English for you, people I have

 

[Steve Blankensh]

"Sergio SERVADIO" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[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

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>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

 

[Kbh]

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[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

 

[Tom Kunich]

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[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
>

 

[Jon Isaacs]

>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

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"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.

 

[Kbh]

> 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.

 

[Clovis Lark]

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[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
>>
>>
>

 

[Gary Smiley]

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.

 

[Kbh]

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.

 

[Kbh]

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.

 

[Steve Blankensh]

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.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"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.

 

[Tom Kunich]

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[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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >

 

[David Reuteler]

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]

 

[Gary Smiley]

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 ******** 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.