| Correct Wing |
Your username fits you well.
"Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnb8ooc0.3tg.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
> (thanks to "ucc strawman")
>
> http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
|
|
|
| UCC StrawMan |
Why truth hurts
Correct Wing wrote:
> Your username fits you well.
>
>
> "Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in
> message news:slrnb8ooc0.3tg.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
>> (thanks to "ucc strawman")
>>
>> http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
--
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's
profitable to continue the illusion.
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On 3 Apr 2003 16:29:53 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
(Ignoramus28588) wrote:
(rec.boats, now?)
>(thanks to "ucc strawman")
>
>http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
**************************************************
*************************************************
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/falla...20misericordiam
Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English
translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor,
starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help
them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special
pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the
expensive costless, etc.
It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a
problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution.
The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution (such
as whether it is possible, how much it costs, who else might be harmed
by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only with more
impassioned pleas. You should not call your opposition down for
committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the
exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable
to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the
proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence
capable of justifying larger costs).
*******************************************
But, what the heck...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110003287
~Empress
|
|
|
| Clams Canino |
Yup... showing pics of dead babies is nothing more than a circus stunt
designed to inflame.
It's not like we don't *know* that wars have unfortunate collateral losses,
but if we stick one in someones face maybe it will change minds? Is that the
reasoning??
I have confidence that we are doing all we can to MINIMISE collaterals,
while the Iraqi regime is doing all it can to MAXIMISE collaterals - so they
can find some ignoramus to shove the pictures under the worlds nose.
Saddam is counting on the fact that there is no shortage of idiots. LOL
-W
"Correct Wing" <NOSPAMthankyou@Hotmail.com**> wrote in message
news:b6horm$5hv0$1@news3.infoave.net...
> Your username fits you well.
|
|
|
| Clams Canino |
What? You think we're surprised that people die in a war??
-W
"UCC StrawMan" <ronn@gamebox.net> wrote in message
news:iIZia.42$yz4.23716@news.uswest.net...
> Why truth hurts
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2003 16:29:53 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
> (Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>
> (rec.boats, now?)
just adding some newsgroups of interest to me...
Re: picture.
I think that fair and balanced coverage of war should include pistures
of its casualties. The fact that I have yet to see such a picture on
CNN or Fox News is proof that their war coverage is biased and not
objective (duh).
That I post these pictures so that readers of some newsgroups can get
a more emotionally balanced coverage of war, helps their awareness.
ignoramus
> >(thanks to "ucc strawman")
> >
> >http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
>
> **************************************************
*************************************************
> http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/falla...20misericordiam
>
> Argumentum ad misericordiam (argument or appeal to pity). The English
> translation pretty much says it all. Example: "Think of all the poor,
> starving Ethiopian children! How could we be so cruel as not to help
> them?" The problem with such an argument is that no amount of special
> pleading can make the impossible possible, the false true, the
> expensive costless, etc.
>
> It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to point out the severity of a
> problem as part of the justification for adopting a proposed solution.
> The fallacy comes in when other aspects of the proposed solution (such
> as whether it is possible, how much it costs, who else might be harmed
> by adopting the policy) are ignored or responded to only with more
> impassioned pleas. You should not call your opposition down for
> committing this fallacy unless they rely on appeals to pity to the
> exclusion of the other necessary arguments. It is perfectly acceptable
> to use appeal to pity in order to argue that the benefits of the
> proposed policy are greater than they might at first appear (and hence
> capable of justifying larger costs).
> *******************************************
>
> But, what the heck...
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110003287
>
>
> ~Empress
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Cheryl Wogahn <cheryl.wogahn@yale.edu> wrote:
> Dammit Ignoramus, was that REALLY necessary? :(
Yes, it was really necessary.
Perhaps you will understand better what war really is like and what
your leaders are doing. War is more than pictures of tanks at sunset.
ignoramus
> Ignoramus28588 wrote:
>
> > (thanks to "ucc strawman")
> >
> > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
>
|
|
|
| Clams Canino |
I have faith that "our leaders" are doing what they can to minimise
collaterals. That's what they are "doing". The decision to oust Saddam has
been *made* - agree or dissagree that battle is over.
Most people understand what war is like - PEOPLE DIE. At this point the
trick is to make sure our people and Iraqi civilians don't die and that the
combatants do die.
You could show me a *dozen* dead babies and it won't change a thing. I feel
we're doing the best we can to keep it down.
-W
"Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnb8oqkg.4j8.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
> Cheryl Wogahn <cheryl.wogahn@yale.edu> wrote:
> > Dammit Ignoramus, was that REALLY necessary? :(
>
> Yes, it was really necessary.
>
> Perhaps you will understand better what war really is like and what
> your leaders are doing. War is more than pictures of tanks at sunset.
>
> ignoramus
>
> > Ignoramus28588 wrote:
> >
> > > (thanks to "ucc strawman")
> > >
> > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
> >
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Clams Canino <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yup... showing pics of dead babies is nothing more than a circus stunt
> designed to inflame.
>
> It's not like we don't *know* that wars have unfortunate collateral losses,
> but if we stick one in someones face maybe it will change minds? Is that the
> reasoning??
Yes. My reasoning is that your news media hides these pictures from
you deliberately, trying to make sure that abstract numbers of
casualties have no emotional impact of you. However, they make the
fullest effort to give you pictures that give you positive feelings
about war -- the recovered war prisoner, the "liberated" iraqis,
humanitarian aid etc.
So I want to counter that propaganda with true pictures of what this
war of aggression is like!
> I have confidence that we are doing all we can to MINIMISE
collaterals,
Maybe the pictures that I post will shatter that confidence.
> while the Iraqi regime is doing all it can to MAXIMISE collaterals - so they
> can find some ignoramus to shove the pictures under the worlds nose.
Saddam did not start this war...
> Saddam is counting on the fact that there is no shortage of idiots. LOL
Well, he is obviously right!
ignoramus
> -W
>
>
> "Correct Wing" <NOSPAMthankyou@Hotmail.com**> wrote in message
> news:b6horm$5hv0$1@news3.infoave.net...
> > Your username fits you well.
>
>
|
|
|
| Clams Canino |
Actually he did via logical progression.
He *started* Gulf War 1 when he invaded Kuwait.
He kept power by signing a cease-fire agreement.
The *first* time he violated the cease fire agreement he was legally exposed
to an end to the cease fire.
He now has his end to the cease fire - at our convienience and timing - not
his.
-W
"Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
> Saddam did not start this war...
|
|
|
| Jonas Quimby |
OK, nice. Multiply that pic by close to 250,000 children, add another
roughly 450,000 adult men and around 250,000 adult women and you'd still be
far below the number killed by this regime. You sadaam-ites are friggin
pathetic.
JQ
Ignoramus28588 wrote in message ...
>(thanks to "ucc strawman")
>
>http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Jonas Quimby <gbtharpooner@hotmail.com> wrote:
> OK, nice. Multiply that pic by close to 250,000 children, add another
> roughly 450,000 adult men and around 250,000 adult women and you'd still be
> far below the number killed by this regime. You sadaam-ites are friggin
> pathetic.
how about 500,000 dead as a result of sanctions?
ignoramus
> JQ
>
> Ignoramus28588 wrote in message ...
> >(thanks to "ucc strawman")
> >
> >http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
>
>
|
|
|
| Steve Spence |
Well put Clams. I'm betting your post fell on deaf ears though.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology:
http://www.green-trust.org
sspence@green-trust.org
"Clams Canino" <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%YZia.352095$S_4.433781@rwcrnsc53...
>
> I have faith that "our leaders" are doing what they can to minimise
> collaterals. That's what they are "doing". The decision to oust Saddam
has
> been *made* - agree or dissagree that battle is over.
>
> Most people understand what war is like - PEOPLE DIE. At this point the
> trick is to make sure our people and Iraqi civilians don't die and that
the
> combatants do die.
>
> You could show me a *dozen* dead babies and it won't change a thing. I
feel
> we're doing the best we can to keep it down.
>
> -W
>
>
>
> "Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb8oqkg.4j8.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
> > Cheryl Wogahn <cheryl.wogahn@yale.edu> wrote:
> > > Dammit Ignoramus, was that REALLY necessary? :(
> >
> > Yes, it was really necessary.
> >
> > Perhaps you will understand better what war really is like and what
> > your leaders are doing. War is more than pictures of tanks at sunset.
> >
> > ignoramus
> >
> > > Ignoramus28588 wrote:
> > >
> > > > (thanks to "ucc strawman")
> > > >
> > > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
> > >
>
>
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On 3 Apr 2003 17:07:41 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
(Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>Re: picture.
>
>I think that fair and balanced coverage of war should include pistures
>of its casualties. The fact that I have yet to see such a picture on
>CNN or Fox News is proof that their war coverage is biased and not
>objective (duh).
So watch Al Jazeera. From what I hear they put lots of pictures like
that on the TeeVee, although they don't report the fact that Iraqi
soldiers are shooting at civilians on bridges.
Anyway, any of us with cable or sat tv in the U.S. are seeing coverage
from lots of other countries.
>That I post these pictures so that readers of some newsgroups can get
>a more emotionally balanced coverage of war, helps their awareness.
Are you so simple-minded? Pictures of dead babies don't negate the
fact that Saddam Hussein has killed so many, many more innocent
people!
What do you suppose the likelihood is that no innocents would be
killed in future if the world just stayed out of Iraq? Not that it
would have happened...
What the German ambassador to the U.S. said:
**************************************************
********
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...03/MN286597.DTL
[...]
"We thought the Iraq issue, while not unimportant, could have waited
for maybe a year or so," Ischinger said.
[...]
**************************************
The likelihood is that fewer innocent people will die in the long run.
The only real question is, do the ends justify the means. You seem to
think not and that there's moral superiority in leaving a sadistic
regime like Saddam's alone.
Most grown ups realize that things aren't as simple as black and
white.
~Empress
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On 3 Apr 2003 18:14:43 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
(Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>Jonas Quimby <gbtharpooner@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> OK, nice. Multiply that pic by close to 250,000 children, add another
>> roughly 450,000 adult men and around 250,000 adult women and you'd still be
>> far below the number killed by this regime. You sadaam-ites are friggin
>> pathetic.
>
>how about 500,000 dead as a result of sanctions?
Fair enough; sanctions only punished the people of Iraq. But...
whose fault is that?
Did you mention the billions of dollars from oil that Saddam stashed
away in his private accounts while his people suffered?
And why didn't you say "U.N." sanctions, since you seem to believe the
U.S. erred in not getting U.N. approval for this use of force?
~Empress
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2003 17:07:41 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
> (Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>
> >Re: picture.
> >
> >I think that fair and balanced coverage of war should include pistures
> >of its casualties. The fact that I have yet to see such a picture on
> >CNN or Fox News is proof that their war coverage is biased and not
> >objective (duh).
>
> So watch Al Jazeera. From what I hear they put lots of pictures
like
I cannot watch it because I do not understand Arabic, but I do
regularly read its web site, along with CNN, reuters news etc.
> that on the TeeVee, although they don't report the fact that Iraqi
> soldiers are shooting at civilians on bridges.
you have to see all sides to get a fair idea of what is going on.
You empress are refusing to do so, preferring to keep your head in
the sand.
> >That I post these pictures so that readers of some newsgroups can get
> >a more emotionally balanced coverage of war, helps their awareness.
>
> Are you so simple-minded? Pictures of dead babies don't negate the
> fact that Saddam Hussein has killed so many, many more innocent
> people!
they do not negate anything. They simply make you feel what a war is
like. It is not just numbers on a back page of a newspaper.
> What do you suppose the likelihood is that no innocents would be
> killed in future if the world just stayed out of Iraq? Not that it
> would have happened...
A great likelihood is there that if things continued as they were
before the war (Saddam contained, Kuwait protected etc), Iraq would
not attack any country.
> The likelihood is that fewer innocent people will die in the long run.
> The only real question is, do the ends justify the means. You seem to
> think not and that there's moral superiority in leaving a sadistic
> regime like Saddam's alone.
Hm. This country installed and supported a number of regimes no less
sadistic than Saddam's. Suharto regime or Somoza regimes come to
mind. They were supported by, more or less, same people as the ones
running the current administration.
And now I hear that these moral angels, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc, are
seeing the light and decided, for a change, to dispose of a tyrannical
regime because it is tyrannical?
> Most grown ups realize that things aren't as simple as black and
> white.
Funny, as far as I am concerned, you could be a target of a similar
statement.
ignoramus
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
I'm not crazy about this war, but I agree with you when you say we're doing
our best to minimize civilian casualties. You don't even need faith to
believe this, just logic: In Vietnam, reporters had to try and cling to the
troops in order to get stories. In this war, they're "embedded". Granted,
there are things they cannot (and should not) reveal, but even if they were
seeing carelessness and couldn't discuss it now, you can bet that the
temptation of a fat book contract will convince them to tell all later.
-Doug
"Clams Canino" <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%YZia.352095$S_4.433781@rwcrnsc53...
>
> I have faith that "our leaders" are doing what they can to minimise
> collaterals. That's what they are "doing". The decision to oust Saddam
has
> been *made* - agree or dissagree that battle is over.
>
> Most people understand what war is like - PEOPLE DIE. At this point the
> trick is to make sure our people and Iraqi civilians don't die and that
the
> combatants do die.
>
> You could show me a *dozen* dead babies and it won't change a thing. I
feel
> we're doing the best we can to keep it down.
>
> -W
>
>
>
> "Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb8oqkg.4j8.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
> > Cheryl Wogahn <cheryl.wogahn@yale.edu> wrote:
> > > Dammit Ignoramus, was that REALLY necessary? :(
> >
> > Yes, it was really necessary.
> >
> > Perhaps you will understand better what war really is like and what
> > your leaders are doing. War is more than pictures of tanks at sunset.
> >
> > ignoramus
> >
> > > Ignoramus28588 wrote:
> > >
> > > > (thanks to "ucc strawman")
> > > >
> > > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
> > >
>
>
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2003 18:14:43 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
> (Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>
> >Jonas Quimby <gbtharpooner@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> OK, nice. Multiply that pic by close to 250,000 children, add another
> >> roughly 450,000 adult men and around 250,000 adult women and you'd still be
> >> far below the number killed by this regime. You sadaam-ites are friggin
> >> pathetic.
> >
> >how about 500,000 dead as a result of sanctions?
>
> Fair enough; sanctions only punished the people of Iraq. But...
> whose fault is that?
The United States and the UK. They were the staunchest supporterts of
the sanctions long after it was clear that only Iraqi population
suffered.
> Did you mention the billions of dollars from oil that Saddam stashed
> away in his private accounts while his people suffered?
I have yet to hear some evidence of that.
> And why didn't you say "U.N." sanctions, since you seem to believe the
> U.S. erred in not getting U.N. approval for this use of force?
I should have mentioned it...
ignoramus
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On 3 Apr 2003 18:39:57 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
(Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>> Did you mention the billions of dollars from oil that Saddam stashed
>> away in his private accounts while his people suffered?
>
>I have yet to hear some evidence of that.
So what was he building palaces with?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002...2054866229.html
>> And why didn't you say "U.N." sanctions, since you seem to believe the
>> U.S. erred in not getting U.N. approval for this use of force?
>
>I should have mentioned it...
Aha! I get a point.
~Empress
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On 3 Apr 2003 18:35:02 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
(Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
>> On 3 Apr 2003 17:07:41 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
>> (Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>>
>> >Re: picture.
>> >
>> >I think that fair and balanced coverage of war should include pistures
>> >of its casualties. The fact that I have yet to see such a picture on
>> >CNN or Fox News is proof that their war coverage is biased and not
>> >objective (duh).
>>
>> So watch Al Jazeera. From what I hear they put lots of pictures
>like
>
>I cannot watch it because I do not understand Arabic, but I do
>regularly read its web site, along with CNN, reuters news etc.
>
>> that on the TeeVee, although they don't report the fact that Iraqi
>> soldiers are shooting at civilians on bridges.
>
>you have to see all sides to get a fair idea of what is going on.
>
>You empress are refusing to do so, preferring to keep your head in
>the sand.
I'm watching, I'm reading, I'm listening! How am I keeping my head in
the sand?
>> >That I post these pictures so that readers of some newsgroups can get
>> >a more emotionally balanced coverage of war, helps their awareness.
>>
>> Are you so simple-minded? Pictures of dead babies don't negate the
>> fact that Saddam Hussein has killed so many, many more innocent
>> people!
>
>they do not negate anything. They simply make you feel what a war is
>like. It is not just numbers on a back page of a newspaper.
Igor, you're missing the point. My mother was abducted from her home
by Nazis when she was a young girl in Greece. My dad is retired from
the U.S. Army, a veteran of WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I don't have to
take tutorials from you on "feeling what war is like", even though I
haven't been in one; I've heard it all my life. The point is that
your pictures of dead babies doesn't change the fact that real live
people who don't want war sometimes find the only way to deal with
vicious murderers is to wage war.
>> What do you suppose the likelihood is that no innocents would be
>> killed in future if the world just stayed out of Iraq? Not that it
>> would have happened...
>
>A great likelihood is there that if things continued as they were
>before the war (Saddam contained, Kuwait protected etc), Iraq would
>not attack any country.
A "great likelihood"? How do you come up with that? What we know is
that a person's past behavior is the greatest predictor of their
future behavior.
In any case, when you're president, you can make that judgment call.
Sit around and wait while the U.N. issues one more last chance and
hope to hell that Saddam and Uday and friends are content with
torturing their own people, killing their own family members, and
testing chemicals on beagles and political prisoners, instead of
passing out their goodies to the latest terrorist trick-or-treaters.
Who knows, maybe you'd have been right.
>> The likelihood is that fewer innocent people will die in the long run.
>> The only real question is, do the ends justify the means. You seem to
>> think not and that there's moral superiority in leaving a sadistic
>> regime like Saddam's alone.
>
>Hm. This country installed and supported a number of regimes no less
>sadistic than Saddam's. Suharto regime or Somoza regimes come to
>mind. They were supported by, more or less, same people as the ones
>running the current administration.
>
>And now I hear that these moral angels, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc, are
>seeing the light and decided, for a change, to dispose of a tyrannical
>regime because it is tyrannical?
It's not about being a moral angel, after all. It's about trying to
balance your ideals with survival in a ****ed up world.
>> Most grown ups realize that things aren't as simple as black and
>> white.
>
>Funny, as far as I am concerned, you could be a target of a similar
>statement.
Consider it done, then.
~Empress
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2003 18:39:57 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
> (Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>
> >> Did you mention the billions of dollars from oil that Saddam stashed
> >> away in his private accounts while his people suffered?
> >
> >I have yet to hear some evidence of that.
>
> So what was he building palaces with?
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002...2054866229.html
What you call a palace another person would call a government
building.
All countries build palaces, they are not evidence of anything other
than building activity.
> >> And why didn't you say "U.N." sanctions, since you seem to believe the
> >> U.S. erred in not getting U.N. approval for this use of force?
> >
> >I should have mentioned it...
>
> Aha! I get a point.
>
> ~Empress
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
The lady is smart. You should take a nice walk outside, and then come back
and actually read what she is saying. Sounds pretty balanced to me. Besides,
she's an empress. Maybe she'll give you a small bit of land of your own. You
can name it Ignoravia or something.
|
|
|
| Bill.sip |
Empress Otku wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2003 18:35:02 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
> (Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>
>> Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
>>> On 3 Apr 2003 17:07:41 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
>>> (Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Re: picture.
>>>>
>>>> I think that fair and balanced coverage of war should include pistures
>>>> of its casualties. The fact that I have yet to see such a picture on
>>>> CNN or Fox News is proof that their war coverage is biased and not
>>>> objective (duh).
>>>
>>> So watch Al Jazeera. From what I hear they put lots of pictures like
>>
>> I cannot watch it because I do not understand Arabic, but I do
>> regularly read its web site, along with CNN, reuters news etc.
>>
>>> that on the TeeVee, although they don't report the fact that Iraqi
>>> soldiers are shooting at civilians on bridges.
>>
>> you have to see all sides to get a fair idea of what is going on.
>>
>> You empress are refusing to do so, preferring to keep your head in
>> the sand.
>
> I'm watching, I'm reading, I'm listening! How am I keeping my head in
> the sand?
>
>>>> That I post these pictures so that readers of some newsgroups can get
>>>> a more emotionally balanced coverage of war, helps their awareness.
>>>
>>> Are you so simple-minded? Pictures of dead babies don't negate the
>>> fact that Saddam Hussein has killed so many, many more innocent
>>> people!
>>
>> they do not negate anything. They simply make you feel what a war is
>> like. It is not just numbers on a back page of a newspaper.
>
> Igor, you're missing the point. My mother was abducted from her home
> by Nazis when she was a young girl in Greece. My dad is retired from
> the U.S. Army, a veteran of WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I don't have to
> take tutorials from you on "feeling what war is like", even though I
> haven't been in one; I've heard it all my life. The point is that
> your pictures of dead babies doesn't change the fact that real live
> people who don't want war sometimes find the only way to deal with
> vicious murderers is to wage war.
>
>>> What do you suppose the likelihood is that no innocents would be
>>> killed in future if the world just stayed out of Iraq? Not that it
>>> would have happened...
>>
>> A great likelihood is there that if things continued as they were
>> before the war (Saddam contained, Kuwait protected etc), Iraq would
>> not attack any country.
>
> A "great likelihood"? How do you come up with that? What we know is
> that a person's past behavior is the greatest predictor of their
> future behavior.
>
> In any case, when you're president, you can make that judgment call.
> Sit around and wait while the U.N. issues one more last chance and
> hope to hell that Saddam and Uday and friends are content with
> torturing their own people, killing their own family members, and
> testing chemicals on beagles and political prisoners, instead of
> passing out their goodies to the latest terrorist trick-or-treaters.
> Who knows, maybe you'd have been right.
>
>>> The likelihood is that fewer innocent people will die in the long run.
>>> The only real question is, do the ends justify the means. You seem to
>>> think not and that there's moral superiority in leaving a sadistic
>>> regime like Saddam's alone.
>>
>> Hm. This country installed and supported a number of regimes no less
>> sadistic than Saddam's. Suharto regime or Somoza regimes come to
>> mind. They were supported by, more or less, same people as the ones
>> running the current administration.
>>
>> And now I hear that these moral angels, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc, are
>> seeing the light and decided, for a change, to dispose of a tyrannical
>> regime because it is tyrannical?
>
> It's not about being a moral angel, after all. It's about trying to
> balance your ideals with survival in a ****ed up world.
>
>>> Most grown ups realize that things aren't as simple as black and
>>> white.
>>
>> Funny, as far as I am concerned, you could be a target of a similar
>> statement.
>
> Consider it done, then.
>
> ~Empress
Empress - can I ask you a personal question? Do you honestly believe
anything you say here is going to register with Igor (or Ronn)??? (You
may be more naive than I am)!
Bill.sip (Bill in CO)
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 19:16:26 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>The lady is smart. You should take a nice walk outside, and then come back
>and actually read what she is saying. Sounds pretty balanced to me. Besides,
>she's an empress. Maybe she'll give you a small bit of land of your own. You
>can name it Ignoravia or something.
Thanks, Doug. I'm thinking he could have a planet.
~Empress of the Known Universe
"To Rule Is To Serve"
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 19:27:44 GMT, "Bill.sip" <wbhuffine@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Empress - can I ask you a personal question? Do you honestly believe
>anything you say here is going to register with Igor (or Ronn)??? (You
>may be more naive than I am)!
>Bill.sip (Bill in CO)
Here's what I really think: that deep down inside Igor really does
want to believe there's good guys and bad guys; he's an idealist.
He's cynical about the U.S. but not because he wants to be. Maybe
we'll do the right thing in the long run and prove him wrong. Maybe
we'll rip off the Iraqi's and prove me wrong; one thing is, we both
care a lot about the fight between Good and Evil.
(Free psychoanalysis yours courtesy of usenet.)
~Empress
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Bill.sip <wbhuffine@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Empress - can I ask you a personal question? Do you honestly believe
> anything you say here is going to register with Ignoramus (or Ronn)??? (You
> may be more naive than I am)!
Bill, I have to honestly admit that I may be a little opinionated. And
I am pissed off as hell by our aggression against Iraq and I cannot
hide it even if I wanted to. But you are the most difficult person I
have ever met on usenet as far as getting some thoughts register with
you. Recall your suicide threads, your lawyer/mercedes threads, etc
etc.
ignoramus
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 19:27:44 GMT, "Bill.sip" <wbhuffine@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Empress - can I ask you a personal question? Do you honestly believe
> >anything you say here is going to register with Ignoramus (or Ronn)??? (You
> >may be more naive than I am)!
> >Bill.sip (Bill in CO)
>
> Here's what I really think: that deep down inside Ignoramus really does
> want to believe there's good guys and bad guys; he's an idealist.
>
> He's cynical about the U.S. but not because he wants to be. Maybe
> we'll do the right thing in the long run and prove him wrong. Maybe
> we'll rip off the Iraqi's and prove me wrong; one thing is, we both
> care a lot about the fight between Good and Evil.
You are pretty much correct, and I am looking towards seeing you
embarrassed when your predictions prove wrong.
ignoramus
> (Free psychoanalysis yours courtesy of usenet.)
>
>
> ~Empress
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On 3 Apr 2003 19:44:54 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
(Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
[...]
>> Here's what I really think: that deep down inside Ignoramus really does
>> want to believe there's good guys and bad guys; he's an idealist.
>>
>> He's cynical about the U.S. but not because he wants to be. Maybe
>> we'll do the right thing in the long run and prove him wrong. Maybe
>> we'll rip off the Iraqi's and prove me wrong; one thing is, we both
>> care a lot about the fight between Good and Evil.
>
>You are pretty much correct, and I am looking towards seeing you
>embarrassed when your predictions prove wrong.
In that case, I'll be more than embarrassed, Igor. I'll be broken
hearted.
~Empress
|
|
|
| Clams Canino |
I don't believe we'll rip off the Iraqi people. I do think that oil money
will pay in part for reconstruction costs - as it should.
One could even argue that we could use some to pay for our war costs because
if the people had gotten rid of Saddam we woudn't have had to go in and do
so. But that argument is kinda weak.
I believe that *in the end* that country will be MUCH better off for us
being there.
-W
<Empress Otku> wrote in message
news:mv3p8vog4oufji3679b65thhon2a6q988l@4ax.com...
> On 3 Apr 2003 19:44:54 GMT, ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid
> (Ignoramus28588) wrote:
>
> >Empress Otku <EmpressOtku> wrote:
> [...]
> >> Here's what I really think: that deep down inside Ignoramus really does
> >> want to believe there's good guys and bad guys; he's an idealist.
> >>
> >> He's cynical about the U.S. but not because he wants to be. Maybe
> >> we'll do the right thing in the long run and prove him wrong. Maybe
> >> we'll rip off the Iraqi's and prove me wrong; one thing is, we both
> >> care a lot about the fight between Good and Evil.
> >
> >You are pretty much correct, and I am looking towards seeing you
> >embarrassed when your predictions prove wrong.
>
> In that case, I'll be more than embarrassed, Igor. I'll be broken
> hearted.
>
> ~Empress
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
>
> (Free psychoanalysis yours courtesy of usenet.)
>
Marry me?
|
|
|
| Xenos |
About half a million Iraq children and babies have died as a result of
the 10 years or so boycott of Iraq thru the USA. Add to this the dead
Kurds and Shiite muslims as a result of the USA ( encouraging them to
revolt against Saddam, supplying them with wrong information's and then
simply leaving them ) and you will come to a similar figure.
In the Iraq Iran war, Saddam did murder 100s of thousands of Iranians
with gas made in USA.
" It would be totally wrong to carve out of Iraq 3 nations ". So a that
time US politician. " We must keep the integrity of Iraq ".
Jonas Quimby wrote:
>OK, nice. Multiply that pic by close to 250,000 children, add another
>roughly 450,000 adult men and around 250,000 adult women and you'd still be
>far below the number killed by this regime. You sadaam-ites are friggin
>pathetic.
>
>JQ
>
>Ignoramus28588 wrote in message ...
>
>
>>(thanks to "ucc strawman")
>>
>>http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Clams Canino |
This is mostly fiction - do I need to spell it out??
-W
"Xenos" <BaBla60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3E8C9A09.9090807@hotmail.com...
About half a million Iraq children and babies have died as a result of the
10 years or so boycott of Iraq thru the USA. Add to this the dead Kurds and
Shiite muslims as a result of the USA ( encouraging them to revolt against
Saddam, supplying them with wrong information's and then simply leaving
them ) and you will come to a similar figure.
In the Iraq Iran war, Saddam did murder 100s of thousands of Iranians with
gas made in USA.
" It would be totally wrong to carve out of Iraq 3 nations ". So a that time
US politician. " We must keep the integrity of Iraq ".
|
|
|
| Lane Browning |
>
> You could show me a *dozen* dead babies and it won't change a thing.
hmmm....how about 10 dozen? or....hmmmmm...several thousand?
I feel
> we're doing the best we can to keep it down.
"we"
>
> -W
>
>
>
> "Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb8oqkg.4j8.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
> > Cheryl Wogahn <cheryl.wogahn@yale.edu> wrote:
> > > Dammit Ignoramus, was that REALLY necessary? :(
> >
> > Yes, it was really necessary.
> >
> > Perhaps you will understand better what war really is like and what
> > your leaders are doing. War is more than pictures of tanks at sunset.
> >
> > ignoramus
> >
> > > Ignoramus28588 wrote:
> > >
> > > > (thanks to "ucc strawman")
> > > >
> > > > http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
> > >
>
>
|
|
|
| Clams Canino |
No you couldn't show me *enough* dead babies to change my mind that Saddam
needs to go for a plethora of reasons - few of them being the ones expounded
by the Bush admin.
"We" as in the US military targeters.
-W
"Lane Browning" <rainmaid@att.net> wrote in message
news:Qg1ja.43886$ja4.2715747@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >
> > You could show me a *dozen* dead babies and it won't change a thing.
>
> hmmm....how about 10 dozen? or....hmmmmm...several thousand?
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
What if you saw 2 million dead babies?
ignoramus
Clams Canino <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> No you couldn't show me *enough* dead babies to change my mind that Saddam
> needs to go for a plethora of reasons - few of them being the ones expounded
> by the Bush admin.
>
> "We" as in the US military targeters.
>
> -W
>
> "Lane Browning" <rainmaid@att.net> wrote in message
> news:Qg1ja.43886$ja4.2715747@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > >
> > > You could show me a *dozen* dead babies and it won't change a thing.
> >
> > hmmm....how about 10 dozen? or....hmmmmm...several thousand?
>
>
|
|
|
| Troubled |
Hmm this picture could be of a baby that sadism army killed..not ours..
there is no way of knowing
--
Troubled
"Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnb8ooc0.3tg.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
> (thanks to "ucc strawman")
>
> http://igor.chudov.com/tmp/iraqi.jpg
|
|
|
| Clams Canino |
It depends on if they were gonna grow up into fanatics that hate me and
wanna fly airplanes into my cities.
I want our old life back - no matter how many babies it takes.
Those assholes over there build thier cities, mosques and palaces out of
Western oil money and then bitch and moan about Western influence
"corruptiing" thier lands and infidels on holy ground. Screw them all.
From here on out, if they wanna be friends with us they need to learn
Western **** like *religious tolerance* and *personal liberty* and stop the
petty sectarian / tribal bull****. They remind me of the Beverly F-ing
Hillbillies. It's time the Middle est grew up and I don't mind spanking
them till they can't stop crying.
-W
PS: I think you'll find that we aren't reporting death tolls too "eagerly"
all of a sudden. I'm gonna bet we killed 25,000 Iraqi soldiers in the last
48 hours - any takers?
"Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnb8p9np.a4h.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
> What if you saw 2 million dead babies?
>
> ignoramus
>
> Clams Canino <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > No you couldn't show me *enough* dead babies to change my mind that
Saddam
> > needs to go for a plethora of reasons - few of them being the ones
expounded
> > by the Bush admin.
> >
> > "We" as in the US military targeters.
> >
> > -W
> >
> > "Lane Browning" <rainmaid@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:Qg1ja.43886$ja4.2715747@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You could show me a *dozen* dead babies and it won't change a thing.
> > >
> > > hmmm....how about 10 dozen? or....hmmmmm...several thousand?
> >
> >
|
|
|
| The DaveŠ |
"Ignoramus28588" wrote
> > >> Did you mention the billions of dollars from oil that Saddam stashed
> > >> away in his private accounts while his people suffered?
> > >
> > >I have yet to hear some evidence of that.
> >
> > So what was he building palaces with?
> >
> > http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002...2054866229.html
>
> What you call a palace another person would call a government
> building.
>
> All countries build palaces, they are not evidence of anything other
> than building activity.
The depth of your denial of the obvious is truly amazing.
|
|
|
| The DaveŠ |
"Ignoramus28588" wrote
> > Did you mention the billions of dollars from oil that
> > Saddam stashed away in his private accounts while
> > his people suffered?
>
> I have yet to hear some evidence of that.
Do you believe it to not be true?
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 19:55:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>Marry me?
Ahoy, sailor. I'm posting (mostly) from alt.support.marriage. If I
get over to alt.support.divorce, ever, I'll email you for a resumé...
:->
~Empress
|
|
|
| Empress Otku |
On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 22:01:25 GMT, "Clams Canino"
<b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>It depends on if they were gonna grow up into fanatics that hate me and
>wanna fly airplanes into my cities.
>
>I want our old life back - no matter how many babies it takes.
>
>Those assholes over there build thier cities, mosques and palaces out of
>Western oil money and then bitch and moan about Western influence
>"corruptiing" thier lands and infidels on holy ground. Screw them all.
>
>From here on out, if they wanna be friends with us they need to learn
>Western **** like *religious tolerance* and *personal liberty* and stop the
>petty sectarian / tribal bull****. They remind me of the Beverly F-ing
>Hillbillies. It's time the Middle est grew up and I don't mind spanking
>them till they can't stop crying.
Anybody want to speak up for cultural relativism, here's your chance!
>-W
Dubya? Is that you?
Heh.
~Empress
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
The DaveŠ <no@no.com> wrote:
> "Ignoramus28588" wrote
> > > Did you mention the billions of dollars from oil that
> > > Saddam stashed away in his private accounts while
> > > his people suffered?
> >
> > I have yet to hear some evidence of that.
>
> Do you believe it to not be true?
I believe that Saddam does not have "billions" in his private
accounts, yes. He is not that type of person. I am sure that he has
some money stashed away, but less than 2 billion.
ignoramus
|
|
|
| Clams Canino |
Can't be - I used multisyllable words and I didn't repeat the same phrases
ad nausium.
They have the right to worship God and his prophet Muhammed. I have the
right to worship God and his prophet Jesus.The Jews have a right to worship
God and his prophets Moses and Abraham. And we have a right to do that
anywhere - Holy ground, schmoley ground.
And then there's the fact that we (the West") royally screwed the pootch
when we drew up the current country lines in the middle east. <sigh>
Someone has to try to put Humpty back together.....
-W
<Empress Otku> wrote in message
news:kvcp8vog3k2vp7ppvkpg9h8sobmdo2kutu@4ax.com...
> Dubya? Is that you?
>
> Heh.
>
> ~Empress
|
|
|
| Ignoramus28588 |
Clams Canino <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can't be - I used multisyllable words and I didn't repeat the same phrases
> ad nausium.
However, you also have problems with spelling, just like the "nucular"
Dubya!
ignoramus
|
|
|
| Calif Bill |
What about the 1.5 million Iraqis that Saddam killed? Ignoramus is correct,
But were not you an immigrant from Russia. They only killed 20 million of
their own.
Bill
"Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnb8p9np.a4h.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
> What if you saw 2 million dead babies?
>
> ignoramus
>
> Clams Canino <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > No you couldn't show me *enough* dead babies to change my mind that
Saddam
> > needs to go for a plethora of reasons - few of them being the ones
expounded
> > by the Bush admin.
> >
> > "We" as in the US military targeters.
> >
> > -W
> >
> > "Lane Browning" <rainmaid@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:Qg1ja.43886$ja4.2715747@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You could show me a *dozen* dead babies and it won't change a thing.
> > >
> > > hmmm....how about 10 dozen? or....hmmmmm...several thousand?
> >
> >
|
|
|
| Harry Krause |
Calif Bill wrote:
> What about the 1.5 million Iraqis that Saddam killed? Ignoramus is correct,
> But were not you an immigrant from Russia. They only killed 20 million of
> their own.
> Bill
>
>
How many native Americans were killed in the United States?
How many blacks?
How many blacks were enslaved?
Bad argument, Bill.
|
|
|
| Glenn S. |
"Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnb8oqkg.4j8.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
> Cheryl Wogahn <cheryl.wogahn@yale.edu> wrote:
> > Dammit Ignoramus, was that REALLY necessary? :(
>
> Yes, it was really necessary.
>
Then why don't you post some pictures of the innocent men, women, and
children that Saddam gassed during the twenty/thirty years he has been in
control of the country?
I feel sorry for the innocent victims of the war. But it is a necessary
war - ask the people what they think AFTER they tyrant is ousted.
|
|
|
| Harry Krause |
Glenn S. wrote:
> "Ignoramus28588" <ignoramus28588@NOSPAM.28588.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrnb8oqkg.4j8.ignoramus28588@nospam.invalid...
>> Cheryl Wogahn <cheryl.wogahn@yale.edu> wrote:
>> > Dammit Ignoramus, was that REALLY necessary? :(
>>
>> Yes, it was really necessary.
>>
>
>
> Then why don't you post some pictures of the innocent men, women, and
> children that Saddam gassed during the twenty/thirty years he has been in
> control of the country?
>
> I feel sorry for the innocent victims of the war. But it is a necessary
> war - ask the people what they think AFTER they tyrant is ousted.
>
>
>
The only necessity for this particular war is to try to reassure the
re-election of arguably the dumbest president in US history.
|
|
|
| Offbreed |
Empress Otku wrote in message news:<s73p8v8gpj7cato86qobu3c8n9hieck53h@4ax.com>...
> Here's what I really think: that deep down inside Igor really does
> want to believe there's good guys and bad guys; he's an idealist.
Yup. He's an uncontrolled romaniticist. All *cynics* are. (Skeptics
are a different matter.)
> He's cynical about the U.S. but not because he wants to be. Maybe
> we'll do the right thing in the long run and prove him wrong. Maybe
> we'll rip off the Iraqi's and prove me wrong; one thing is, we both
> care a lot about the fight between Good and Evil.
>
> (Free psychoanalysis yours courtesy of usenet.)
> ~Empress
Sounds good by me.
|
|
|
| Mark Browne |
"Clams Canino" <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Va2ja.5516$ug3.4124@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> It depends on if they were gonna grow up into fanatics that hate me and
> wanna fly airplanes into my cities.
>
> I want our old life back - no matter how many babies it takes.
Sorry Clams,
This little war is not going to make you secure - just the opposite. We are
creating a nation full of people with dead families who are going to want
vengance. It only took two guys to pull off the Oklahoma city bombing. Our
new found financial ties are going to bring many of these people to our
shores. Some of them will hurt us. Thanks little Bush.
> Those assholes over there build thier cities, mosques and palaces out of
> Western oil money and then bitch and moan about Western influence
> "corruptiing" thier lands and infidels on holy ground. Screw them all.
The royal families are taking the cash. They are not complaining about the
western influence -. our money and weapons keep them in power. They use this
power to brutally supress the ordinary man. The man on the arab street
wants to be rid of kings, just as we did over 200 year ago. Oddly, the west
has a hand in preventing this from comming about. The money and weapons make
the ruling kings untouchable. It's the ordinary man that is not happy about
the western influence. This pool of middle class angery men fills the ranks
of the terrorists. Al Qeada has been saying this for years but nobody in the
west has heard them. Now they are trying to get our attention in a more
direct way. See 9/11. Since we are still not getting the message (instead we
say silly things like "they hate democracy") they will keep trying to get
our attention. Go figure.
> From here on out, if they wanna be friends with us they need to learn
> Western **** like *religious tolerance* and *personal liberty* and stop
the
> petty sectarian / tribal bull****. They remind me of the Beverly F-ing
> Hillbillies. It's time the Middle east grew up and I don't mind spanking
> them till they can't stop crying.
You are missing the point. They DON'T WANT US THERE! We are the ones forcing
our way into their affairs. It is unfortunate that they live on a sea of
oil. If it was not for this, the United States would ignore them, just like
we ignore most of Africa and South America. And they would leave us alone.
Think about it - there is far more killing and oppression in the congo but
when is the last time an African terrorist blew up something in the western
world?
Mark Browne
|
|
|
| Mark Browne |
"Clams Canino" <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Va2ja.5516$ug3.4124@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> It depends on if they were gonna grow up into fanatics that hate me and
> wanna fly airplanes into my cities.
>
> I want our old life back - no matter how many babies it takes.
Sorry Clams,
This little war is not going to make you secure - just the opposite. We are
creating a nation full of people with dead families who are going to want
vengance. It only took two guys to pull off the Oklahoma city bombing. Our
new found financial ties are going to bring many of these people to our
shores. Some of them will hurt us. Thanks little Bush.
> Those assholes over there build thier cities, mosques and palaces out of
> Western oil money and then bitch and moan about Western influence
> "corruptiing" thier lands and infidels on holy ground. Screw them all.
The royal families are taking the cash. They are not complaining about the
western influence -. our money and weapons keep them in power. They use this
power to brutally supress the ordinary man. The man on the arab street
wants to be rid of kings, just as we did over 200 year ago. Oddly, the west
has a hand in preventing this from comming about. The money and weapons make
the ruling kings untouchable. It's the ordinary man that is not happy about
the western influence. This pool of middle class angery men fills the ranks
of the terrorists. Al Qeada has been saying this for years but nobody in the
west has heard them. Now they are trying to get our attention in a more
direct way. See 9/11. Since we are still not getting the message (instead we
say silly things like "they hate democracy") they will keep trying to get
our attention. Go figure.
> From here on out, if they wanna be friends with us they need to learn
> Western **** like *religious tolerance* and *personal liberty* and stop
the
> petty sectarian / tribal bull****. They remind me of the Beverly F-ing
> Hillbillies. It's time the Middle east grew up and I don't mind spanking
> them till they can't stop crying.
You are missing the point. They DON'T WANT US THERE! We are the ones forcing
our way into their affairs. It is unfortunate that they live on a sea of
oil. If it was not for this, the United States would ignore them, just like
we ignore most of Africa and South America. And they would leave us alone.
Think about it - there is far more killing and oppression in the congo but
when is the last time an African terrorist blew up something in the western
world?
Mark Browne
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Clams Canino" <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xV2ja.5946$ug3.4730@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> Can't be - I used multisyllable words and I didn't repeat the same phrases
> ad nausium.
>
He's been even worse than usual for the past few days. Every time the news
says "The president told a group of <fill in the blank> today that we will
stop at nothing until our goal is reached", I wonder if it's the same story
they were discussing a week ago. He seems to have absolutely nothing to say
lately.
|
|
|
| Ignoramus30633 |
Doug Kanter <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> "Clams Canino" <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xV2ja.5946$ug3.4730@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > Can't be - I used multisyllable words and I didn't repeat the same phrases
> > ad nausium.
> >
>
> He's been even worse than usual for the past few days. Every time the news
> says "The president told a group of <fill in the blank> today that we will
> stop at nothing until our goal is reached", I wonder if it's the same story
> they were discussing a week ago. He seems to have absolutely nothing to say
> lately.
perhaps all his speeches are pre-recorded...
ignoramus
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Harry Krause" <harrykrause@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:W_ScnUwdjdqJUBGjXTWcoA@comcast.com...
>
> The only necessity for this particular war is to try to reassure the
> re-election of arguably the dumbest president in US history.
>
I think that's a done deal by now, Harry, although I am sometimes an
incurable optimist. The White House says Bush has kept a low profile because
he doesn't want it to appear that this is a personal thing between him and
Saddam. Meanwhile, I was out with some friends a couple of nights ago, two
of whom are believe-anything Bush-bots. But, blind as they are, even they
said they were wondering where their fearless leader has been lately. This
is just a sampling of two, but I'd be surprised if more voters didn't feel
that way.
Another week of this "barely visible president" routine, and the guy who
does the CentCom briefings is gonna have a higher approval rating.
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
:-) That's all. Just :-)
<Empress Otku> wrote in message
news:sicp8v8i2rgo2g0d9agjucfvd2n802gppe@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 19:55:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
> <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> >Marry me?
>
> Ahoy, sailor. I'm posting (mostly) from alt.support.marriage. If I
> get over to alt.support.divorce, ever, I'll email you for a resumé...
>
> :->
>
> ~Empress
|
|
|
| Doug Kanter |
"Ignoramus30633" <ignoramus30633@NOSPAM.30633.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnb8rgpk.6sm.ignoramus30633@nospam.invalid...
> Doug Kanter <dkanter@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> > "Clams Canino" <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:xV2ja.5946$ug3.4730@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > Can't be - I used multisyllable words and I didn't repeat the same
phrases
> > > ad nausium.
> > >
> >
> > He's been even worse than usual for the past few days. Every time the
news
> > says "The president told a group of <fill in the blank> today that we
will
> > stop at nothing until our goal is reached", I wonder if it's the same
story
> > they were discussing a week ago. He seems to have absolutely nothing to
say
> > lately.
>
> perhaps all his speeches are pre-recorded...
>
Do you remember Max Headroom, the mechanical Reagan-head on TV?
|
|
|
| Offbreed |
"Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<sf8ja.319270$F1.53122@sccrnsc04>...
> You are missing the point. They DON'T WANT US THERE! We are the ones forcing
> our way into their affairs.
We were "forcing our way into their affairs" by buying oil from their
rulers?
They regard the West as abhorant because all they know of the West is
1) their local bad guys get lots of money from the West by selling
oil, and 2) whatever is on TV.
Imagine, everything they hear about the West, especially the US, is
interpreted through a filter created by television. TV starts building
a set of beliefs below the level of thought. If they do not stop and
think about it, they actually believe that what they see is what the
West is like, and the morality shown is totally abhorant to many of
them.
Some of the local power holders use the US to distract the people by
claiming that we (and not the local rulers and religious leaders) are
responsible for their problems, others gain power by blaming us for
whatever is currently going wrong over there (remember the claims that
the US bombs caused an earthquake in Afghanastan?).
We are having trouble with some Moslems because of things being done
and said in Moslem countries. Not the "fault" of the US, and the only
people in the US that might be partially to blame are the dip****s in
Hollywood.
|
|
|
| Don |
"Offbreed" <offbreed@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c80c24b1.0304041506.1dccbf33@posting.google.com...
> "Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<sf8ja.319270$F1.53122@sccrnsc04>...
>
> > You are missing the point. They DON'T WANT US THERE! We are the ones
forcing
> > our way into their affairs.
>
> We were "forcing our way into their affairs" by buying oil from their
> rulers?
>
> They regard the West as abhorant because all they know of the West is
> 1) their local bad guys get lots of money from the West by selling
> oil, and 2) whatever is on TV.
And whatever is forced upon them by the FedGov.
|
|
|
| Don |
"Doug Kanter"> wrote
> Meanwhile, I was out with some friends a couple of nights ago, two
> of whom are believe-anything Bush-bots.
I don't know how you can stand to be around people like that.
|
|
|
| Mark Browne |
"Offbreed" <offbreed@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:c80c24b1.0304041506.1dccbf33@posting.google.com...
> "Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<sf8ja.319270$F1.53122@sccrnsc04>...
>
> > You are missing the point. They DON'T WANT US THERE! We are the ones
forcing
> > our way into their affairs.
>
> We were "forcing our way into their affairs" by buying oil from their
> rulers?
>
> They regard the West as abhorant because all they know of the West is
> 1) their local bad guys get lots of money from the West by selling
> oil, and 2) whatever is on TV.
>
> Imagine, everything they hear about the West, especially the US, is
> interpreted through a filter created by television. TV starts building
> a set of beliefs below the level of thought. If they do not stop and
> think about it, they actually believe that what they see is what the
> West is like, and the morality shown is totally abhorant to many of
> them.
>
> Some of the local power holders use the US to distract the people by
> claiming that we (and not the local rulers and religious leaders) are
> responsible for their problems, others gain power by blaming us for
> whatever is currently going wrong over there (remember the claims that
> the US bombs caused an earthquake in Afghanastan?).
>
> We are having trouble with some Moslems because of things being done
> and said in Moslem countries. Not the "fault" of the US, and the only
> people in the US that might be partially to blame are the dip****s in
> Hollywood.
Now where did you get *your* ideas? Could it be - Hollywood? If anything,
*we* are the ones with funny views about the rest of the world. What I see
when I travel is very different from what I see on the tube. The stereotypes
and smug disregard for the values of foreign colures keeps us from
understanding these people. The idea that there might be intelligent,
thinking people with a different point of view just does not register with
most Americans. We can't even image that we might be wrong.
All *we* see on TV is the poverty and camels. The truth is that the Arab
culture is older and in many ways, more refined, than western culture. I
would tend to say that they are true conservatives and cling to their
traditional values with an integrity that deserves admiration. Arabic
culture has given us modern medicine, astronomy, optics, many important
mathematical advances (Arabic numerals, zero, algebra, trigonometry, much
more), and geography. This last one brought the west the seeds for the
global exploration and directly led to the end of the dark ages. Much of
this advancement was shattered by the crusades. It is not surprising that
they view western Christians with some resentment and distrust.
Some of the things I have seen counters your assertion that they sit around
and watch TV to learn what to think. Among the middle class it is fairly
common for men to gather in private homes on a regular basis (small groups
of 5 to 15 men, once or twice a week) and talk about issues. They play tapes
these for the group and have intense discussions about issues. Some bring
political tapes like we have seen shown on TV in the west. I think that the
Al Qa'ida tapes we have seen on the news are shown in this arena. I don't
know enough Arabic to follow the discussions but it does seem that there is
a free flow of ideas. This is sort of like the newsgroups but it is much
more sincere. Among the lower classes, particularly the hired help (foreign
workers are a significant part of the working class in all Arab countries)
they gather on the street in throngs in the cool of the evening. Again, I
have observed a free flow of ideas. Drinking is prohibited in Islam. In its
place, there are usually crowds of men and boys in the juice bars and tea
shops. There is usually a TV on a shelf in the tea shops and the men there
openly discuss the news shown. I would say that the level of political
knowledge is typically much higher than I am used to seeing here in the
United States.
Now the mullahs *do* have more influence than a church might wield in the
west, and western moral corruption gives them a very easy target. Sort of
like the rabble rousing tent preachers claiming that rock and roll music is
a tool of the devil. Before you disparage these religious views, think about
this: In the west many take a dim view of recreational drug use, abortion,
polygamy, and nudism. In the Arab world they see premarital and
extra-marital sex, drinking, usury, and exposed skin in much the same light.
Tell me again why the western view is the *correct* one?
The sudden influx of cash has changed everything there. The assault on
traditional values is profound. They still have not come to grips with
western materialism. It is a basic Islam tenant that charging interest is
morally *very* wrong. You don't hear much about this in the west. I say that
the western influence and support of corrupts central power has caused
massive distortion in the power structures in the middle east. If anything,
this has *prevented* modern reformation from happening in the Islamic world.
This also gives the local leaders an easy target to blame for their
problems. The need for cheap and reliable oil keeps us dealing with whoever
can keep the oil flowing. Taken for this point of view - a real democracy in
the middle eastern may not be our best interests. Look at the recent
problems in Venezuela. I will believe that we are putting a real democracy
in Iraq when I see them elect a leader that the USA does not want in power.
HA! Like that is going to happen!
You started by challenging my assertion that we are "forcing our way" into
Arab society to buy oil. Drilling and pumping oil takes a lot of skilled
people. Running refineries takes a lot of skilled people. Running the
infrastructure to keep the oil industry going takes a lot of skilled people.
These skilled people come from the west. This brings a large percentage of
their population into regular contact with western culture. Contact with the
western culture has *always* destroyed whatever indigenous culture it
touches. Heaven forbid that an ancient culture sees this as a Bad Thing.
Mark Browne
|
|
|
| pamela |
"Clams Canino" <b17ofthebz@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WT0ja.4836$ug3.4473@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> This is mostly fiction - do I need to spell it out??
>
> -W
no
>
> "Xenos" <BaBla60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3E8C9A09.9090807@hotmail.com...
> About half a million Iraq children and babies have died as a result of the
> 10 years or so boycott of Iraq thru the USA. Add to this the dead Kurds
and
> Shiite muslims as a result of the USA ( encouraging them to revolt against
> Saddam, supplying them with wrong information's and then simply leaving
> them ) and you will come to a similar figure.
> In the Iraq Iran war, Saddam did murder 100s of thousands of Iranians with
> gas made in USA.
> " It would be totally wrong to carve out of Iraq 3 nations ". So a that
time
> US politician. " We must keep the integrity of Iraq ".
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Robert Hutton |
Where's the picture?
JPEG, GIF, BMP, TIFF?
What format?
|
|
|
| erniegalts |
On Sat, 05 Apr 2003 04:17:22 GMT, "Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com>
wrote:
>
>"Offbreed" <offbreed@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:c80c24b1.0304041506.1dccbf33@posting.google.com...
>> "Mark Browne" <mbrowne@attbi.com> wrote in message
>news:<sf8ja.319270$F1.53122@sccrnsc04>...
>>
>> > You are missing the point. They DON'T WANT US THERE! We are the ones
>forcing
>> > our way into their affairs.
>>
>> We were "forcing our way into their affairs" by buying oil from their
>> rulers?
>>
>> They regard the West as abhorant because all they know of the West is
>> 1) their local bad guys get lots of money from the West by selling
>> oil, and 2) whatever is on TV.
>>
>> Imagine, everything they hear about the West, especially the US, is
>> interpreted through a filter created by television. TV starts building
>> a set of beliefs below the level of thought. If they do not stop and
>> think about it, they actually believe that what they see is what the
>> West is like, and the morality shown is totally abhorant to many of
>> them.
>>
>> Some of the local power holders use the US to distract the people by
>> claiming that we (and not the local rulers and religious leaders) are
>> responsible for their problems, others gain power by blaming us for
>> whatever is currently going wrong over there (remember the claims that
>> the US bombs caused an earthquake in Afghanastan?).
>>
>> We are having trouble with some Moslems because of things being done
>> and said in Moslem countries. Not the "fault" of the US, and the only
>> people in the US that might be partially to blame are the dip****s in
>> Hollywood.
>
>
>Now where did you get *your* ideas? Could it be - Hollywood? If anything,
>*we* are the ones with funny views about the rest of the world. What I see
>when I travel is very different from what I see on the tube. The stereotypes
>and smug disregard for the values of foreign colures keeps us from
>understanding these people. The idea that there might be intelligent,
>thinking people with a different point of view just does not register with
>most Americans. We can't even image that we might be wrong.
>
>All *we* see on TV is the poverty and camels. The truth is that the Arab
>culture is older and in many ways, more refined, than western culture. I
>would tend to say that they are true conservatives and cling to their
>traditional values with an integrity that deserves admiration. Arabic
>culture has given us modern medicine, astronomy, optics, many important
>mathematical advances (Arabic numerals, zero, algebra, trigonometry, much
>more), and geography. This last one brought the west | | | |
