OT - Why no war.

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > 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).

    Saudi Arabia won't be dealt with, but you are right about them being a breeding ground for the
    terrorists.

    Al Qaeda's #1 goal is the overthrow of the Saudi government, overseer of Islam's most sacred
    grounds. Saudi Arabia is a military client state of what country? That's right, ours.
     


  2. Gary Smiley

    Gary Smiley Guest

    We don't colonize- it looks too obvious. We just go in and set up puppet governments, as in Chile,
    Central America, etc. We missed out on the great wave of Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century, much
    to the disappointment of Teddy Roosevelt.

    KBH wrote:

    > Name a country the the imperial US has colonized?
     
  3. "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > 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."

    Powell is correct that we do not engage in territorial imperialism, but it is accepted in
    intellectual circles, liberal and conservative alike, that there is an American Empire afoot. Pax
    Americana is a reality.

    from: http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL321.cfm

    In this century, great empires have collapsed: the Austrian, the German, the British, the French,
    the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Italian, and the Japanese. The Soviet empire now
    languishes in the process of dissolution. "Imperialism" has become a term of bitter reproach and
    complaint; all this within my own lifetime.

    American Empire But there remains an American Empire, still growing -- though expanding through the
    acquisition of client states, rather than through settlement of American populations abroad. Among
    the client states directly dependent upon American military power are Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Israel,
    and El Salvador; and until the withdrawal of American divisions from Germany for service in Arabia,
    Germany, too, was a military client. Dependent upon American assistance of one kind or another, and
    in some degree upon American military protection, are the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, and
    Panama; and also, in the Levant, Egypt and Jordan, and formerly Lebanon. Now Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
    are added to the roster of clients. I hardly need mention America's earlier acquisitions: Hawaii,
    Puerto Rico, the Virgins, and lesser islands. I refrain from mentioning America's economic
    ascendancy, through foreign aid or merely trade, over a great deal more of the world. In short,
    although we never talk about our empire, a tremendous American Empire has come into existence -- if,
    like the Roman Empire, in a kind of fit of absence of mind. No powerful counterpoise to the American
    hegemony seems to remain, what with the enfeebling of the U.S.S.R.

    <snip><end
     
  4. Veloflash

    Veloflash Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...

    "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 (sic) to trace and showing how the information is gotten (sic) 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."

    You make a statement of fact then enter into immediate contradiction by claiming it cannot be
    proved. Well at least for 50 or so years.

    Or are you delving into one of your Walter Mitty characters of your past? A person with high level
    security clearance.

    Reading Kunich is like reading the other side's version. Crap. Here is a link to an alleged Russian
    intelligence site on the Iraq war -

    http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news082.htm

    The world needs abnormal people like Kunich so the multitudes can appreciate being normal.
     
  5. Tom Kunich wrote:

    > 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?

    Have you read your National Security Strategy lately? http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
     
  6. > 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.
    >
    > 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.

    Wow Tom. Those are some pretty amazing claims. Even the Bush administration hasn't been ballsy
    enough to claim those things but you seem to think you have incontrovertible evidence that's obvious
    to all who care to look. Of course the super cannon that can shoot around the world is well known.
    My favorite part, however, was your statement:

    "We are all preying for peace. . ."

    Just classic.

    Rob Strickland
     
  7. "Steve Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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

    According to the article you linked to:

    "The superguns were potentially capable of firing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons to a
    range of up to 1,000 km."

    Potentially capable of up to 1,000 km is hardly even close to hitting Mexico City from Montreal or,
    as Tom claimed, shooting a shell around the world. Current ballistic missile technology is clearly,
    vastly superior to the dreaded Supergun.

    Robert Strickland
     
  8. John McGraw

    John McGraw Guest

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

    What an unmitigated crock of shit! We (the USA) have supported despot regimes around the world for
    at least 100 yrs. So why is Hussein any different? Freedom and the American way of life? Freedom my
    ass. Don't make me puke. The administration has yet to prove a connection between Iraq & Bin Ladin.
    If that is our reason we should invade Saudi Arabia. There is an obvious & known connection.
    Democracy? Democracy you say? How can we hope to be an example of democracy when our president
    wasn't even elected? Except by criminality in Florida. How can anyone be so stupid as to believe the
    administrations propaganda? The reasons are clear as the stupid look on the unelected presidents
    face. This war is simply & purely about a non elected president, the Bush family & their Texas
    criminal cronies such as Hailburton and Enron wanting Iraq's oil, and the profits from rebuilding
    Iraq. They are so unbelievably arrogant, that the administration has already invited a few certain
    select contractors to bid on the rebuilding of Iraq. Now how the hell can any contractor bid on any
    project when the scope of the work is totally unknown? That kind of bidding is called line up to
    rape (ops, I mean reap) the rewards of being an administration favorite. Then they benevolently
    announce that Haliburton will not be the lead contractor. They will

    that Chaney guy, you know the unelected vice pres. w/ the pacemaker associated in some small way w/
    Haliburton? To preserve a modicum of the appearance of non-US exploitation, the work should be given
    to all non-US contractors. And then we'll just take the oil at prices comparable to Viet Namise
    workers wages. That move could demonstrate to the world that the administration isn't a greedy
    thieving bunch of bastards. Oh no! They'd still look that way. Well then they might as well just
    steal the construction profits too. What the Hell! The facts are so blinding obvious as to be
    laughable. Why do you think most of the rest of the world is against this? By the by. Criminal
    behavior is nothing new to the Bush tribe; in the '80s they drained, & bankrupted every saving and
    loan they became associated with. Exploiting another deregulation situation just like Enron and
    California. I wonder how many more times history will repeat its self with these bastards? What is
    so amazing to me is that we, the middle class working Americans end up paying for all this, and yet
    I would bet that most of the posters here (rec.bicycle.tech) fall into this catigory. Unless you are
    filthy rich and one of the adminstrations favorites, you've got to be really dumb to support these
    bastards. John
     
  9. Mark Hickey

    Mark Hickey Guest

    "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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.

    The current Iraqi regime is evil (not many argue that point), but the Iraqi people are not. The form
    of government they choose will lay the foundation for their future success (or failure). I don't
    expect them to even want a US-style democracy, but they can do better than Saddam pretty easily.

    The "good and evil" thing doesn't really play. There are elements of both in each type of system -
    we certainly have some "evil" components in our system, and they certainly have some "good" in
    theirs. As much as you want to believe we have a lock on the truth, it's all relative. The ideal
    society to the average Arab would probably be a benevolent dictatorship with strong Islamic
    content... while the very same thing would be unthinkable to the average US citizen.

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

    Kbh Guest

    > The ideal society to the average Arab would probably be a benevolent dictatorship with strong
    > Islamic content... while the very same thing would be unthinkable to the average US citizen.

    Ask yourself why this is so.

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

    Kbh Guest

    rant. didn't read it.

    "John McGraw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > 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.
    > > >
    >
    > What an unmitigated crock of shit! We (the USA) have supported despot regimes around the world for
    > at least 100 yrs. So why is Hussein any different? Freedom and the American way of life? Freedom
    > my ass. Don't make me puke. The administration has yet to prove a connection between Iraq & Bin
    > Ladin. If that is our reason we should invade Saudi Arabia. There is an obvious & known
    > connection. Democracy? Democracy you say? How can we hope to be an example of democracy when our
    > president wasn't even elected? Except by criminality in Florida. How can anyone be so stupid as to
    > believe the administrations propaganda? The reasons are clear as the stupid look on the unelected
    > presidents face. This war is simply & purely about a non elected president, the Bush family &
    > their Texas criminal cronies such as Hailburton and Enron wanting Iraq's oil, and the profits from
    > rebuilding Iraq. They are so unbelievably arrogant, that the administration has already invited a
    > few certain select contractors to bid on the rebuilding of Iraq. Now how the hell can any
    > contractor bid on any project when the scope of the work is totally unknown? That kind of bidding
    > is called line up to rape (ops, I mean reap) the rewards of being an administration favorite. Then
    > they benevolently announce that Haliburton will not be the lead contractor. They will

    > that Chaney guy, you know the unelected vice pres. w/ the pacemaker associated in some small way
    > w/ Haliburton? To preserve a modicum of the appearance of non-US exploitation, the work should be
    > given to all non-US contractors. And then we'll just take the oil at prices comparable to Viet
    > Namise workers wages. That move could demonstrate to the world that the administration isn't a
    > greedy thieving bunch of bastards. Oh no! They'd still look that way. Well then they might as well
    > just steal the construction profits too. What the Hell! The facts are so blinding obvious as to be
    > laughable. Why do you think most of the rest of the world is against this? By the by. Criminal
    > behavior is nothing new to the Bush tribe; in the '80s they drained, & bankrupted every saving and
    > loan they became associated with. Exploiting another deregulation situation just like Enron and
    > California. I wonder how many more times history will repeat its self with these bastards? What is
    > so amazing to me is that we, the middle class working Americans end up paying for all this, and
    > yet I would bet that most of the posters here (rec.bicycle.tech) fall into this catigory. Unless
    > you are filthy rich and one of the adminstrations favorites, you've got to be really dumb to
    > support these bastards. John
     
  12. Kbh

    Kbh Guest

    useful. thanks.

    "Gary Smiley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > We don't colonize- it looks too obvious. We just go in and set up puppet governments, as in Chile,
    > Central America, etc. We missed out on the great
    wave
    > of Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century, much to the disappointment of
    Teddy
    > Roosevelt.
    >
    > KBH wrote:
    >
    > > Name a country the the imperial US has colonized?
     
  13. Kbh

    Kbh Guest

    No powerful counterpoise to the American hegemony seems to
    > remain, what with the enfeebling of the U.S.S.R.
    >

    the problem I have with this statement is that 'American hegemony' was necessitated by the existence
    of the truly imperial USSR.
     
  14. Kbh

    Kbh Guest

    actually, I did glance through it, and I then quickly realized I'd read this before. Isn't this rant
    posted on crazyconsiracytheoryliberal.com? I think I've seen it cut and pasted (and subsequently
    ignored) on several message boards that were attempting to engage in real discourse.

    "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > rant. didn't read it.
    >
    >
    > "John McGraw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "KBH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > 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.
    > > > >
    > >
    > > What an unmitigated crock of shit! We (the USA) have supported despot regimes around the world
    > > for at least 100 yrs. So why is Hussein any different? Freedom and the American way of life?
    > > Freedom my ass. Don't make me puke. The administration has yet to prove a connection between
    > > Iraq & Bin Ladin. If that is our reason we should invade Saudi Arabia. There is an obvious &
    > > known connection. Democracy? Democracy you say? How can we hope to be an example of democracy
    > > when our president wasn't even elected? Except by criminality in Florida. How can anyone be so
    > > stupid as to believe the administrations propaganda? The reasons are clear as the stupid look on
    > > the unelected presidents face. This war is simply & purely about a non elected president, the
    > > Bush family & their Texas criminal cronies such as Hailburton and Enron wanting Iraq's oil, and
    > > the profits from rebuilding Iraq. They are so unbelievably arrogant, that the administration has
    > > already invited a few certain select contractors to bid on the rebuilding of Iraq. Now how the
    > > hell can any contractor bid on any project when the scope of the work is totally unknown? That
    > > kind of bidding is called line up to rape (ops, I mean reap) the rewards of being an
    > > administration favorite. Then they benevolently announce that Haliburton will not be the lead
    > > contractor. They will

    > > that Chaney guy, you know the unelected vice pres. w/ the pacemaker associated in some small way
    > > w/ Haliburton? To preserve a modicum of the appearance of non-US exploitation, the work should
    > > be given to all non-US contractors. And then we'll just take the oil at prices comparable to
    > > Viet Namise workers wages. That move could demonstrate to the world that the administration
    > > isn't a greedy thieving bunch of bastards. Oh no! They'd still look that way. Well then they
    > > might as well just steal the construction profits too. What the Hell! The facts are so blinding
    > > obvious as to be laughable. Why do you think most of the rest of the world is against this? By
    > > the by. Criminal behavior is nothing new to the Bush tribe; in the '80s they drained, &
    > > bankrupted every saving and loan they became associated with. Exploiting another deregulation
    > > situation just like Enron and California. I wonder how many more times history will repeat its
    > > self with these bastards? What is so amazing to me is that we, the middle class working
    > > Americans end up paying for all this, and yet I would bet that most of the posters here
    > > (rec.bicycle.tech) fall into this catigory. Unless you are filthy rich and one of the
    > > adminstrations favorites, you've got to be really dumb to support these bastards. John
     
  15. Clovis Lark

    Clovis Lark Guest

    In rec.bicycles.racing Tom Kunich <[email protected]> wrote:
    > 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?

    Nope, you didn't get it straight. A manefesto was crafted by future members of this administration
    laying out precisely the agenda now in progress. The agenda clearly outlines a grandiose plan to
    maintain such a presence as to render the sovereignty of those nations meaningless.

    However, the administration publically claims 911 is the reason for its actions. 911 happened more
    than a yaer later.

    > college.

    Another brilliant Kunichism. When are you upping and joining the crusade?

    > "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
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >
     
  16. Clovis Lark

    Clovis Lark Guest

    In rec.bicycles.racing Tom Kunich <[email protected]> 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.
     
  17. "Gary Smiley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
    >
    Its never been made, but Hussein was serious about trying to make it. It was on 60 Minutes, among
    other shows. Don't think it got past a bunch of pieces cast for the barrel.

    Don't see why it can't be done. OTOH, I wouldn't volunteer to be anywhere near the first attempt
    to fire it. Something tells me snap shots wouldn't be the order of the day either. So what it
    would accomplish that rocketry couldn't do better (other than a lack of projectile signature and
    hard to intercept - except that everyone knows where the cannon is and blows it up instead), I
    can't figure out.

    --
    Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...
     
  18. Clovis Lark

    Clovis Lark Guest

    In rec.bicycles.racing KBH <[email protected]> wrote:
    > No powerful counterpoise to the American hegemony seems to
    >> remain, what with the enfeebling of the U.S.S.R.
    >>

    > the problem I have with this statement is that 'American hegemony' was necessitated by the
    > existence of the truly imperial USSR.

    I guess the USSR forced James Monroe's hand when he issued that Doctrine. The USSR was also behind
    Manefest Destiny...
     
  19. Kbh

    Kbh Guest

    > the problem I have with this statement is that 'American hegemony' was
    > > necessitated by the existence of the truly imperial USSR.
    >
    > I guess the USSR forced James Monroe's hand when he issued that Doctrine. The USSR was also behind
    > Manefest Destiny...
    >

    The US of A is the greatest force of good the world has ever seen. Would you rather have seen the
    USSR as the only remaining superpower? Those of you complaining about American hegemony (equating
    Manifest Destiny to imperialsim?) are either far right isolationists (doubtful) or American hating
    liberals. I too believe we are involved in far too many countries. But when our national security is
    at stake, I do not apologize.

    I'm going to end my participation in this discussion. Once in a rare while I delve into one of these
    discussions for fun and to sharpen my reasoning skills, but then I realize I'm sharpening my knife
    with peanut butter. I'd rather be riding my bike.
     
  20. Kbh

    Kbh Guest

    >our foreign policy is motivated my anything more than our own self interest.

    HEY, I AGREE WITH YOU!!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...