SUPPORT THE ACTION IN IRAQ! RIDE YOUR BICYCLES!



Status
Not open for further replies.
Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:39:50 -0800, <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tom
Keats) wrote:

>I look forward to Canada doing its part by giving Iraqi refugees a nice place to call home. We've
>already got some very nice Iranian people here -- many of whom are B'hai-an (sp?). Which reminds
>me, I think I just missed out on Persian New Year. What a lovely fete /that/ is!

This is a great time of year for celebrating. The weather is generally better than Winter solstice.
It's the day I officially switch to shorts.

--
zk
 
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 12:21:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> ejaculated:

>"Ken [NY)" wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Mar 2003 13:24:58 GMT, "TomCAt" <[email protected]> ejaculated:
>>
>> >I GIVE UP.......... LETS INVADE IRAQ AND TAKE ALL THE OIL AND KILL EVERYONE AND THEN WE CAN
>> >WATCH IT ON TV.
>>
>> Not a bad idea. I am trying to figure whether there are any downsides to it.
>
>Slow thinker, eh?

Well, are there?

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________

A reminder: Why we are fighting: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/AmericaAttacked.htm

Another reason: http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing keep this in mind, they have Libya
heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own
math here." -Dennis Miller
 
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:25:35 -0500, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> ejaculated:

>> >> | Let's show the towelheads we don't need their oil!
>> >
>> >Being a racist does not make this a better country.
>>
>> Arabs are a race? I thought it was an ethnicity. Like French. http://www.francestinks.com/
>
>It's generally considered to be a culture, for which the most common religion is Islam. However,
>there are also Christian Arabs and a few Jewish Arabs. The Jews of the old testament were of Arab
>culture as well. The Arabs have had many conflicts with the Persian culture in Iran. That was the
>major reason for the Iran/Iraq war back in the 80's.

My point was that Arabs are not a race. They, like the Jews, are Semitics, which is a race.
Calling someone a towl head is not racist then.

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________

A reminder: Why we are fighting: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/AmericaAttacked.htm

Another reason: http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing keep this in mind, they have Libya
heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own
math here." -Dennis Miller
 
On 22 Mar 2003 07:23:59 -0800, [email protected] (smokey) ejaculated:

>Garrison Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> Let's show the towelheads we don't need their oil!
>>
>> REMEMBER: EVERY PERSON ON A BIKE IS SUPPORT FOR THE WAR!
>
> i am going riding today, but it is because i enjoy it, not because i support your president's
> war. if we didn't need their oil, we wouldn't be there in the first place. smokey strodtman

The US gets most of its oil from... gasp.... Canada. Better keep your mounties on the
border, watching for us.

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________

A reminder: Why we are fighting: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/AmericaAttacked.htm

Another reason: http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing keep this in mind, they have Libya
heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own
math here." -Dennis Miller
 
garmonboezia wrote:
>
> "Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > "Thomas Reynolds" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
>
> I find it interesting that Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense under LBJ, is one of the
> loudest voices against this current war.
>
> "Good intentions are no substitute for knowing how to operate a chainsaw." Robert A Heinlein"

Few people has demonstrated as much incompetence in the art of making war than Robert McNamara. I'll
take it as good sign that McNamara does not approve of the campaign.

David
 
[email protected] (Garrison Hilliard) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Re: SUPPORT THE ACTION IN IRAQ! RIDE YOUR BICYCLES!
> >
> > From: [email protected] (smokey)
> >
> >Garrison Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote in message [8]news:<fvkn7v09q5kdcirj
> >[email protected]>...
> >> Let's show the Arabs we don't need their oil!
> >>
> >> REMEMBER: EVERY PERSON ON A BIKE IS SUPPORT FOR THE WAR!
> >
> > i am going riding today...
>
>
> Then your vote counts! Thanks for supporting the troops!

i do support our troops, i wore my stars and stripes cycling cap yesterday. many drivers gave me the
thumbs up as they passed me because they share the same sentiment. hopefully, our brave young men
and women will all be home soon, back to their families and loved ones. we have a grandson that just
enlisted in the army and we are very proud of him. i also hope that civilian casualties can be held
to a minimum, the iraqui people have suffered more than anyone else because of hussein. but i still
think going to war was a bad move. it will undoubtably result in more terrorism both here and
abroad. smokey strodtman
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| "Edward Dike, III" wrote:
| >
| > "W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| > |
| > | "Edward Dike, III" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:HR_ea.6
| > |
| > | > Do you really think the American service men and women in the
dessert
| > feel
| > |
| > | better to be in the dessert than other types of sticky stuff
| > |
| > That is not what I wrote. If you can't post accurately, then don't post at all.
|
| :) What do you say to a guy who can't figure out how to re-read his
| own posts?
|
|
| --
| Frank Krygowski [email protected]

Possibly the same thing as to one who articulates no obvious point with his post?

ED3
 
"Ken [NY)" <[email protected]_text> wrote in message
>
> The US gets most of its oil from... gasp.... Canada. Better keep your mounties on the border,
> watching for us.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcanadawar.html gives a brief history of the past military
activities between the US and Canada. My favorite fact is that in the 1920's, the US had a war plan
against Canada, and the Canadians had a war plan against the US, developed as military planning
exercises.

"... in 1921 Canada's Director of Military Operations and Intelligence... produced ... "Defence
Scheme Number 1" to deal with possible war with the U.S. .... primarily a defensive plan, but it
included invasions ... aimed at Albany, Minneapolis, Seattle, and other northern cities,..."

No mention of any bicycle brigades, though -- or did the Boston-Montreal-Boston brevets begin in the
1920's as a cover for military exercises?
 
"Edward Dike, III" wrote:
>
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> | :) What do you say to a guy who can't figure out how to re-read his
> | own posts?
>
> Possibly the same thing as to one who articulates no obvious point with his post?

What's "obvious" to one is, apparently, incomprehensible to another! For example, I'd have thought
it was "obvious" that you could have gone back, re-read your post, noted your spelling error, and
admitted your mistake - or just kept your silence.

You should have remembered that old saying - how did it go? Something like: "It's better to keep
keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| "Edward Dike, III" wrote:
| >
| > "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
| > | :) What do you say to a guy who can't figure out how to re-read his
| > | own posts?
| >
| > Possibly the same thing as to one who articulates no obvious point with
his
| > post?
|
| What's "obvious" to one is, apparently, incomprehensible to another! For example, I'd have thought
| it was "obvious" that you could have gone back, re-read your post, noted your spelling error, and
| admitted your mistake - or just kept your silence.
|
| You should have remembered that old saying - how did it go? Something like: "It's better to keep
| keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."
|
|
| --
| Frank Krygowski [email protected]

Gee, as the perpetraitor or the first usenet spelling error, I am truly ashamed of myself, and bow
in awe to your poiniency.

No sence that you should become silent now. ED3
 
"Eric S. Sande" wrote:
>...
>
> Johnson inherited that war from Kennedy, who got it from the French, who were the colonialist
> shitheads who started our Southeast Asian involvement. Johnson, a relatively principled man,
> wisely chose not to seek reelection when it became apparent that Vietnam was a bloody useless
> quagmire. I might remind you that it was Johnson who did so much for the civil rights movement.

He certainly did; the point wasn't to ridicule Johnson but to point out that intelligent, diligent,
and well-meaning men have made trememdously bad decisions before. We have, from the science of
decision making and failure analysis, a pretty good idea of how smart people come to do stupid
things that lead to Vietnams, Challenger disasters, and so forth. Those factors were at work in
McNamara's War, and they're working again in Shrub's War.

However, it is quite incorrect to say that Kennedy left it to Johnson. Kennedy never intended
anything more than an advisory role for the US. Recently declassified papers reveal that the Kennedy
administration realized the RVN was going down the tubes and was planning a relatively rapid US
withdrawal. It was Johnson, advised by his "whiz kids" McNamara et al., who decided instead to
escalate, to commit US forces in a combat role in the belief that we could win a fight we didn't
understand.

> There are those who would say that we have no business getting involved anywhere unless we have
> legitimate security concerns, both for ourselves and our allies...

Misses the point. It's not whether we have legitimate security concerns, but whether our
intervention would advance or damage those concerns. Also misses the point of Saddam's weapons
programs. His WMD are not a threat to us or Europe, they're for threatening his neighbors. He's not
****** (strategically; morally he is), he's not going to invade Europe. It's the threat of his
controlling the Middle East that makes him a threat to us, because we're dependent on oil from the
Middle East and can't risk having one tyrant control it all. Saddam is a threat to our national
security, yes, but for economic not military reasons.

> I don't have to agree with it, but I can see the scope of the problem, would I choose the same
> options? Maybe not, but I don't have all the pertinent information. If you do let me know.

One needn't know the location of every scale on every alligator in the swamp to know that it's
foolish go wading in there. Arab media commentators have already been pointing out that the Arab
nations would rather be oppressed by an Arab tyrant than liberated by an infidel. Can you even
comprehend that? Neither can I, and that's the point. Our thinking is as alien to the people whose
lands we're riding into as it was in Vietnam. The Marshall Plan is no parallel. It worked great in
postwar Europe, because they wanted us there. We aren't wanted in the Middle East, even if we come
as liberators. We're getting into a fight we misunderstand again.

In the short run we really do have to do something about Saddam, because we don't have an energy
policy. We have built ourselves a society dependent on cheap oil. We live in subdivisions not
neighborhoods. We can no longer ride our bikes or walk to school, work, or the grocery store. It
doesn't take long reading r.b.m. to figure out that our society is built to the scale of the SUV,
that the average person out there on the road will not accept any inconvenience no matter how
trivial that interferes with their God-given right as Americans to drive massive gas guzzlers at
high speed anywhere and any time they wish. Consider what it says about our political landscape that
our cycling is regarded by the majority as somewhere between "quaint" and "get off my road". Good
luck to an politician who suggests any realistic energy policy. It's political suicide.

And that's why we have no choice but to get into a war that it's stupid to get into.

--
Lee Green MD MPH Deparment of Family Medicine University of Michigan
 
"R.White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> These are the same people who protest *for* a womans right to an abortion. Now they're concerned
> for babies.

So people who advocate killing born developed innocent babies, children and adults but adamantly
want to disallow abortions of fetus's less developed than the chickens they eat make sense to you?
 
"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <EX6fa.185125$3D1.35706@sccrnsc01>, garmonboezia <cthvlhv@r'lyeh.arg> writes:
>
> > I find it interesting that Robert McNamara, former Secretary of Defense under LBJ, is one of the
> > loudest voices against this current war.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Is "this current war" really a _war_? Or just a belligerent invasion?
>

Bingo.
 
"Lee Green" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> In the short run we really do have to do something about Saddam, because we don't have an energy
> policy. We have built ourselves a society dependent on cheap oil.

This war is as much about oil as anything else. However it is not about our own immediate use. It is
about control of the oil destined for Russia, and Southeast Asia. The oil administration wants to be
in economic control of these regions.
 
So which of the cross-posted groups is taking this grossly cross-posted troll bait.

These aren't normal rec.b.rides participants.

Hmmmmm. Must be rec.b.soc.

So [please; quit cross-posting this irrelevant (to rec.rides) drivel in here! Please delete
rec.bicycles.rides from the newsgroups being posted, too.

There are plenty other places where you can flail away at this ****.

--
**********************************************
Chuck Anderson • Boulder, CO http://www.CycleTourist.com Tolerance is recognizing that other people
have different ideals and needs than you. Compromise is acting on that knowledge.
***********************************************************
 
>One needn't know the location of every scale on every alligator in the swamp to know that it's
>foolish go wading in there. Arab media commentators have already been pointing out that the Arab
>nations would rather be oppressed by an Arab tyrant than liberated by an infidel.

They don't have an option anymore, the infidels are about to liberate 'em, come Hell or high water.
I think the Marshall Plan model can work in Iraq, it is a stated policy of this administration that
the objective of this exercise is regime change, to be accomplished by all means necessary, and to
be followed up by the imposition of democracy.

It worked in Japan, where the people most certainly did not want the barbarian aggressors strolling
around Tokyo. Nevertheless they came to accept the new order, and spoke highly in later years of the
relatively painless procedure. It didn't turn out to be another boot in the face.

And, I might add that Iraq is all ready perhaps the most secularized and Westernized so called Arab
nation, they are as I understand it more of a Babylonian operation in practice. Which may explain
why the more traditional societies of the region aren't kicking up much of a fuss, or, they may just
be happy it isn't them.

W mode off.

>We have built ourselves a society dependent on cheap oil. We live in subdivisions not
>neighborhoods. We can no longer ride our bikes or walk to school, work, or the grocery store. It
>doesn't take long reading r.b.m. to figure out that our society is built to the scale of the SUV,
>that the average person out there on the road will not accept any inconvenience no matter how
>trivial that interferes with their God-given right as Americans to drive massive gas guzzlers at
>high speed anywhere and any time they wish. Consider what it says about our political landscape
>that our cycling is regarded by the majority as somewhere between "quaint" and "get off my road".

Check out that big paragraph. You aren't making this quotation process any easier, this is like
Henry Kissinger ordering breakfast.

I think you are too pessimistic. In fact what you say about the direction of American society in
terms of cycling is true, but I think your emphasis is wrong. There may be many Americans who manage
quite well without an SUV, and who don't choose to accept that lifestyle.

I think that if one wants to make a difference the battlefield needs to be carefully chosen.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------
__________306.350.357.38>>[email protected]__________
 
one of the six billion <[email protected]> wrote:
: This war is as much about oil as anything else. However it is not about our own immediate use. It
: is about control of the oil destined for Russia, and Southeast Asia. The oil administration wants
: to be in economic control of these regions.

supply is supply, it doesn't particuliarly matter where it is from or to whom it is destined.

sooo, while someone may indeed get economic control over those regions by controlling a large
percentage of the world's oil they could never do it by controlling the smaller percentage of the
oil that simply happened to goto russia at a particiliar time (russia would simply by it from
somewhere else).

worst case scenario, the USA takes iraq's oil supply and manipulates it to (meaning daily barrel
rates) to its own choosing OPEC, et al still control more but the USA could certainly manipulate the
price up or down some. so the USA has gained the ability to manipulate oil prices more than before.

in mind we'd be doing the same to the oil price for the rest of the world as well.
--
david reuteler [email protected]
 
"Garrison Hilliard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Let's show the towelheads we don't need their oil!
>
> REMEMBER: EVERY PERSON ON A BIKE IS SUPPORT FOR THE WAR!
Spoken like a true Idiot. I am probably not the first to tell you, but let let me say PACK SAND
UP YOUR ASS.
 
"Lee Green" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>
> In the short run we really do have to do something about Saddam, because we don't have an energy
> policy. We have built ourselves a society dependent on cheap oil. We live in subdivisions not
> neighborhoods. We can no longer ride our bikes or walk to school, work, or the grocery store. It
> doesn't take long reading r.b.m. to figure out that our society is built to the scale of the SUV,
> that the average person out there on the road will not accept any inconvenience no matter how
> trivial that interferes with their God-given right as Americans to drive massive gas guzzlers at
> high speed anywhere and any time they wish. Consider what it says about our political landscape
> that our cycling is regarded by the majority as somewhere between "quaint" and "get off my road".
> Good luck to an politician who suggests any realistic energy policy. It's political suicide.
>
> And that's why we have no choice but to get into a war that it's stupid to get into.

Dang, Lee, that was a good post -- and you even got bicycles into it!

But to say "we really have to do something about Saddam" seems to me to be shortsighted. If we
continue to rely on military options, we will never develop an effective energy policy.

If we REALLY made it a priority to reduce our dependence on oil, we could made a huge dent within a
decade (the time required for most of our vehicle stock to be recycled).

Smaller vehicles already exist -- we used to buy more of them, but they are still made.

Even suburban neighborhood sprawl can be improved by leak-through paths and traffic calming methods.
It's important to remember that sprawl in areas that are not really growing much in population --
the Chicago, Detroit and St. Louis metro areas being good examples -- is really a public policy
issue (involving housing prices, school quality and a number of issues). Public policy issues in
urban planning can be reversed over the course of a generation -- but only if movement is started.

The military course of action is -- in the SHORT run -- the easy way out, even if long term if may
mean there is no way out.

--
Mike Kruger ..."Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of
tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." --William Pitt, The Younger (1759-1806)

>
> --
> Lee Green MD MPH Deparment of Family Medicine University of Michigan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads