Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor

[Frank Bemelman]

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> schreef in bericht
news:br2nho$13nv$21@news.iquest.net...

In article <9a2c3a75.0312081225.2ac9ef76@posting.google.com>,
Bassman59a@yahoo.com (Andy Peters) writes:
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message
news:<bqr45m$1jcf$1@news.iquest.net>...

The ethical problem that you apparently have: the oil wasn't Saddam's
to give away. It was pretty much owned by the Iraqi people/government.
This is where the lefties tend to convieniently ignore the evils
of the despots that they love.

However, the despot in question, Saddam, was one of Reagan's lovers.

Remember -- the US smartened up, and never did apparently sell
WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM to Saddam.

Perhaps the French offer had a better price tag. Such things
happens when you are in Sales.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:42:04 +0000 (UTC), the renowned toor@iquest.net
(John S. Dyson) wrote:

The enemy would be those who are abused by the nation. For example,
the ongoing abuse of the Iraqis by the French ally:

So, you're saying that a nation's military budget should be
proportional to the amount of abuse of others that it might be held
responsible for?

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <9a2c3a75.0312081225.2ac9ef76@posting.google.com>,
Bassman59a@yahoo.com (Andy Peters) writes:

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<bqr45m$1jcf$1@news.iquest.net>...

The ethical problem that you apparently have: the oil wasn't Saddam's
to give away. It was pretty much owned by the Iraqi people/government.
This is where the lefties tend to convieniently ignore the evils
of the despots that they love.

However, the despot in question, Saddam, was one of Reagan's lovers.

Remember -- the US smartened up, and never did apparently sell

WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM to Saddam. Even after all of the public
revelations against Saddam, the French continued with their horrible
enabling of the dictator. It was irresponsible (in the least) to
sell WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM -- enough to make several bombs, to
Saddam. Chiraq(sic) wasn't just 'superficial' supporter, but also
comingled political funds.

Times change, but when there is continued, ongoing support of
an ongoing murder/rapist/genocidal regime, even at the expense
of the now-ex-French-ally US, then there is something very very
wrong with France/Chiraq(sic).

Note that Carter has even shown respect to the actual terrorist
Yassar Arafat -- but that doesn't mean that they are friends like
Chiraq/Saddam (or are they?)

John

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <9a2c3a75.0312081209.563895b@posting.google.com>,
Bassman59a@yahoo.com (Andy Peters) writes:

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<bqlac3$2pos$1@news.iquest.net>...
In article <7c584d27.0312030857.28ad03ff@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) writes:
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<bqh4dd$1etf$2@news.iquest.net>...
In article <3FCBFB88.22C7@armory.com>,
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> writes:
John S. Dyson wrote:

It is interesting where the 'socialist meccas' like France and
Germany are also having problems with their budgets, and they
don't even do a competent job of providing for their own defense.
----------------------
They have the industrial output, they simply prefer to spend it
on luxuries as long as they can.

The cost of defense isn't really that great (very few defense
plants per-se in the US.) It is that the LAZY-ASS socialist meccas
choose to suckle off the American teat.

American spending in defence is equal to the sum of the total defence
spending of the next ten nations down the pecking order.

This shows how inadequate an incapable most of the other nations
are. I doubt that any European nation other than Switzerland
or perhaps UK could actually defend themselves on their own
soil.

I guess that a perfectly good question to ask is, "Who's the enemy?"

The enemy would be those who are abused by the nation. For example,

the ongoing abuse of the Iraqis by the French ally: Saddam would
make France less of a friend in the longer term. Could/would Iraq
attack France? Probably not, but the ongoing terror attacks
(the WTC attacks were partially staged in Germany) do cause some
serious problems.

It is also NOT CLEAR what the longer term prospects of China and
Russia will be. Ignoring a problem will not make it go away.

John

 

[Tim Auton]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote:

In article <9a2c3a75.0312081225.2ac9ef76@posting.google.com>,
Bassman59a@yahoo.com (Andy Peters) writes:
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<bqr45m$1jcf$1@news.iquest.net>...
The ethical problem that you apparently have: the oil wasn't Saddam's
to give away. It was pretty much owned by the Iraqi people/government.
This is where the lefties tend to convieniently ignore the evils
of the despots that they love.

However, the despot in question, Saddam, was one of Reagan's lovers.

Remember -- the US smartened up, and never did apparently sell
WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM to Saddam. Even after all of the public
revelations against Saddam, the French continued with their horrible
enabling of the dictator. It was irresponsible (in the least) to
sell WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM -- enough to make several bombs, to
Saddam. Chiraq(sic) wasn't just 'superficial' supporter, but also
comingled political funds.

Oh, shut up about your frigging uranium. Everyone in the West was pals
with Saddam in the 70s. The US smartened up just in time to train
Osama bin Laden how to be a terrorist. That was a whole lot less
destructive than France building a nuclear reactor in Iraq (which is
what they did AFAIK, not give them a big lump of refined "weapons
grade" material as you suggest).

Times change, but when there is continued, ongoing support of
an ongoing murder/rapist/genocidal regime, even at the expense
of the now-ex-French-ally US

I just checked the NATO website and it appears the US and France still
have a mutual defence pact.

Note that Carter has even shown respect to the actual terrorist
Yassar Arafat

One man's terrorist is another man's resistance.


Tim
--
The .sig is dead.

 

[Tim Auton]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<9dv6tvgmnb6t248ki7k2p5lebb00s96cn2@4ax.com>...
On 7 Dec 2003 05:44:34 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
[snip]
Since Saddam managed to get away with about a billion dollars in cash
when he escaped, I don't believe that your conjecture about the UN's
effectiveness in locking down funds is warranted.

He did have other sources of income - and since your proposition that
Saddam has "escaped", and that he got away with "billions of euros" is
unsupported by any hard evidence - you haven't got any more idea of
where he is than I do, and even less evidence about the amount of
money he is carrying about with him - this is a poor
counter-arguement, even by you abysmal standards.

In the dying days of the war one of Saddam's sons turned up at the
central bank and took billions (3, IIRC) of dollars in cash away in
trucks. So we do know Saddam, or at least his sons, had loads of cash.
I don't recall mention of the cash being recovered so I guess it's
with Saddam somewhere. Whether he's "got away" yet or not is
debatable, but he sure hasn't been caught yet.


Tim
--
The .sig is dead.

 

[Tim Auton]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote:

In article <9a2c3a75.0312081209.563895b@posting.google.com>,
Bassman59a@yahoo.com (Andy Peters) writes:
[snip]
I guess that a perfectly good question to ask is, "Who's the enemy?"

The enemy would be those who are abused by the nation.

Is that a sniff of an admission of US guilt in abusing Arabs enough to
make some of them want to fly planes into skyscrapers?

For example,
the ongoing abuse of the Iraqis by the French ally: Saddam would
make France less of a friend in the longer term. Could/would Iraq
attack France? Probably not, but the ongoing terror attacks
(the WTC attacks were partially staged in Germany)

Yeah and they were staged far more in the USA. Glass houses and stones
spring to mind.


Tim
--
The .sig is dead.

 

[Bill Sloman]

Paul Burridge <pb@osiris1.notthisbit.co.uk> wrote in message news:<6of6tv8rvmjvmcamfvv9euvt12rsdejk2t@4ax.com>...

On 7 Dec 2003 04:18:09 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman)
wrote:

Are you trying to compete for the John S. Dyson Prize for the
terminally ill-informed? The foreign exchange markets seem to have
been infiltrated with Keynesians, who see the 4.2% public spending
deficits as appropriately directed to stimulating depressed economies,
and have been bidding the euro up against the dollar.

Well if you can avoid disparaging the Dollar for one minute and look
at things dispassionately for once, you will have to concede that if,
as you say, the markets are taking the view that F&G largesse is good
for growth, it still doesn't mitigate the fact that they've
essentially torn up the Stability Pact. They've had to run a coach and
horses right through it because it was crippling their economies. Why?
Because the Euro was crystalised at a moment in time when the politics
was right; not the economic fundamentals of the participating
countries' economies which was what *really* mattered. If the markets
are bidding up the Euro, then I take a more cynical view. I believe
it's a short term bet that markets make caused by the belief that the
failure of the Stability Pact will necessitate a rise in Euro interest
rates. That's all, Bill. Not out of confidence in the underlying
economic prospects for F&G or EUrope as a whole. Sorry.

The Stability Pact was always just a sop to the bankers, and to those
monetarist economists who exist to tell right-wing finance ministers
that it is good thing to bias the economy to favour the rich. John
Maynard Keynes was right, and serious politicians know it, and act
accordingly.

The strength of the euro depends on the strenght of the economies
using it, not some idiot monetarist formula, and at the moment the
euro-zone is still running a solid balance of payments surplus, which
the dollar is not. I'm not "disparaging" the dollar (I might as well
disparage the Gulf Stream). I am just pointing up a non-controversial
economic fact, and gleefully drawing a few marginally more
controversial conclusions.

European interest rates aren't going to rise until the European
economies pick up, so what you are saying is that you are a Keynesian
too.

You really do seem to be intent on competing with the intellectual
cyclone.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <3fd4e538$0$4686$1b62eedf@news.euronet.nl>,
"Frank Bemelman" <fbemelx@euronet.invalid.nl> writes:

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> schreef in bericht
news:br2nho$13nv$21@news.iquest.net...
In article <9a2c3a75.0312081225.2ac9ef76@posting.google.com>,
Bassman59a@yahoo.com (Andy Peters) writes:
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message
news:<bqr45m$1jcf$1@news.iquest.net>...

The ethical problem that you apparently have: the oil wasn't Saddam's
to give away. It was pretty much owned by the Iraqi people/government.
This is where the lefties tend to convieniently ignore the evils
of the despots that they love.

However, the despot in question, Saddam, was one of Reagan's lovers.

Remember -- the US smartened up, and never did apparently sell
WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM to Saddam.

Perhaps the French offer had a better price tag. Such things
happens when you are in Sales.

Chiraq obligated the French government to supply the 93% stuff. No

one with any responsibility would have done something like that.
Only the commercial grade should have been sold.

john

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <gap9tvkenk3v7g9nhbd0beu4t49qar042t@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:42:04 +0000 (UTC), the renowned toor@iquest.net
(John S. Dyson) wrote:

The enemy would be those who are abused by the nation. For example,
the ongoing abuse of the Iraqis by the French ally:

So, you're saying that a nation's military budget should be
proportional to the amount of abuse of others that it might be held
responsible for?

It is more important to be ready for unforseen abuse. Actually,

I claimed that it was still unlikely for Iraq to attack France,
but the various problems can come from unforseen places. (For
example, UK might be attacked by an Islamist France... Frankly,
France populace is turning more that way than any other way.)

John

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group
sex without the y on the end]> wrote (in <3k0atvsvob9fia11cicggc79q963ka
6k3k@4ax.com&gt about 'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Mon, 8 Dec
2003:

not give them a big lump of refined "weapons grade" material as
you suggest

Given a large enough lump.... (;-)
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[Bill Sloman]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<br2nho$13nv$21@news.iquest.net>...

In article <9a2c3a75.0312081225.2ac9ef76@posting.google.com>,
Bassman59a@yahoo.com (Andy Peters) writes:
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<bqr45m$1jcf$1@news.iquest.net>...

The ethical problem that you apparently have: the oil wasn't Saddam's
to give away. It was pretty much owned by the Iraqi people/government.
This is where the lefties tend to convieniently ignore the evils
of the despots that they love.

However, the despot in question, Saddam, was one of Reagan's lovers.

Remember -- the US smartened up, and never did apparently sell
WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM to Saddam. Even after all of the public
revelations against Saddam, the French continued with their horrible
enabling of the dictator.

The sale took place in 1974, which predated most of the revelations,
and a long period of U.S. collaboration with and support for Saddam.

It was irresponsible (in the least) to
sell WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM -- enough to make several bombs, to
Saddam. Chiraq(sic) wasn't just 'superficial' supporter, but also
comingled political funds.

Just jealousy on your part - the French under-cut your offer, didn't
they?

Times change, but when there is continued, ongoing support of
an ongoing murder/rapist/genocidal regime, even at the expense
of the now-ex-French-ally US, then there is something very very
wrong with France/Chiraq(sic).

And there is something very wrong with the U.S./Dubbya (sick) who
continue to collaborate with murderous rapist regimes in some twenty
other countries around the world.

Note that Carter has even shown respect to the actual terrorist
Yassar Arafat -- but that doesn't mean that they are friends like
Chiraq/Saddam (or are they?)

He has also shaken hands with Nelson Mandela who, unlike Arafat, was
actually convicted of being a member of a terrorist organisation and
spent a long time in prison for the crime.

Dubbya shakes hands with Sharron, whose state terrorism involves
assassinating anti-Israeli activitists with rockets that take out not
only the activists and their immediate families, but also the
occasional by-stander.

We don't hear a single moral peep out of you on that subject, creep.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message news:<br3ahi$1c94$3@news.iquest.net>...

In article <gap9tvkenk3v7g9nhbd0beu4t49qar042t@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> writes:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 20:42:04 +0000 (UTC), the renowned toor@iquest.net
(John S. Dyson) wrote:

The enemy would be those who are abused by the nation. For example,
the ongoing abuse of the Iraqis by the French ally:

So, you're saying that a nation's military budget should be
proportional to the amount of abuse of others that it might be held
responsible for?

It is more important to be ready for unforseen abuse.

Of course, if you are ready for it, it has been foreseen.
There's a difficult paradox here.

Actually, I claimed that it was still unlikely for Iraq to attack France,
but the various problems can come from unforseen places.

Most of them seem to.

(For example, UK might be attacked by an Islamist France... Frankly,
France populace is turning more that way than any other way.)

The last French attack on the U.K. that I can recall was by French
graziers obejcting to exports of English lamb to France. They burnt a
couple of U.K. container trucks, on French soil.

An Islamist Franch is a about a likely as a sensible post from John
S.Dyson.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Fields wrote:

On 5 Dec 2003 14:52:57 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

And I recall that your historical familiarity with the
guerilla tactics of the 1770's, probably based on having watched every
episode of "Swamp Fox", didn't do you much good in Vietnam.
---
I'm not familiar with your "Swamp Fox" reference; an American television
series you found particularly helpful in your study of American History,
perhaps?
----------------------

Francis Marion, a Carolina planter who harrassed the Brits and
smuggled.

IMO, what did us in in Viet Nam was Johnson's unbelievable stupidity of
trying to fight a war of attrition when we should have gone in there
with overwhelming force in the beginning. But that's hindsight, and who
knows what that would have done?
-----------------------

There was NO "beginning", per se. And by the time you are referring
to, It would have torn this country to pieces. It almost did! The
older generation stopped THEIR war in order to win their children
back, who had pretty universally begun to drop out of universities
at an exponentially accelerating rate, and were planning ever more
grandiosely violent revolutionary schemes as an entrenched youth
culture. Buildings were blowing up and burning down for no apparent
reason other than political.

Not that it matters much,
since our our abundantly large arsenal of will, wealth, and weapons
_will_ allow us to prevail and then turn that country back over to them,
just like we did Japan.
---

Ooooh! So where are you going to drop the hyper-macho H-bombs then?

---
Bill, that was just stupid, even for you.
---
----------------

Bill obviously wasn't there when the USA single-handedly re-structured
even the culture of Japan. In that theater we made it an executable
crime in Japan for a Japanese not to be at a job or where he was
supposed to be, and then we simply TOLD them what their constitution
would read. We shot hundreds summarily, without any court interference.
We gave them an entrenched inferiority complex and a terror of violence.
The Japanese got used to the concept that they had LOST, we should do
that in Iraq!!

There do seem to be quite a
lot of Arabs - rather more cannon fodder than Ho Chi Min had at his
disposal, and he had enough.

---
Yes, but we have way more cannons and a different mindset this time; a
little something about airliners being flown into buildings...
---
--------------------------------

Arabs or Iraqis on flat land can be burned alive a lot more easily,
however, than jungle dwellers. And we're much more able to do so now.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Bill Sloman]

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message news:<zeF5hSKURO1$Ewr+@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote (in <7c584d27.0312081103.4e80ddcd@posting.google.com&gt about
'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Mon, 8 Dec 2003:

That is the
same lame argument you floated before the invasion, and it is still a
lead balloon.

Touch of the mexed mitaphors there, Bill. (;-)

Single metaphor. The argument as a (lead) balloon that persistently fails to float.

Possibly over-mextended.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<6a34tv4veu6jl3es2c1mrt0p3c5q5v9aed@4ax.com>...

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:39:06 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

<snipped>

Agreed, especially early enough. The haranguing in the UN allowed
Saddam to see the noose slowly closing and bought him enough time to
allow him to escape with (as reported by the media) four _truckloads_ of
money worth about $1E9. Not a good thing.

You don't want to believe everything you read in the media, least of
all the U.S. media.

You haven't a clue where Saddam Hussein is, nor how much money he
stuffed in his wallet before going underground (using the word in the
figurative sense - for all we know he could be up a gum tree in the
Australian out-back, posing as an asylum-seeker).

Neither does anybody else.

Are you trying to appear as ill-informed as John S. Dyson, or are you
merely a victim of the same creeping right-wingism?

--------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote (in <7c584d27.0312101034.3c7198c0@posting.google.com&gt about
'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Wed, 10 Dec 2003:

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message news:<zeF5hSKURO1
$Ewr+@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org
wrote (in <7c584d27.0312081103.4e80ddcd@posting.google.com&gt about
'Interesting Letter-to-the-Editor', on Mon, 8 Dec 2003:

That is the
same lame argument you floated before the invasion, and it is still a
lead balloon.

Touch of the mexed mitaphors there, Bill. (;-)

Single metaphor. The argument as a (lead) balloon that persistently fails to
float.

Possibly over-mextended.

No, you have a 'lame argument' as well. Your lead balloon can't really

be described as 'lame', so you have a mix.

I like 'over-mextended' - going to Acapulco for two weeks and staying
for four.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!

 

[Tim Auton]

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<6a34tv4veu6jl3es2c1mrt0p3c5q5v9aed@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:39:06 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
snipped

Agreed, especially early enough. The haranguing in the UN allowed
Saddam to see the noose slowly closing and bought him enough time to
allow him to escape with (as reported by the media) four _truckloads_ of
money worth about $1E9. Not a good thing.

You don't want to believe everything you read in the media, least of
all the U.S. media.

The removal of large quantities of cash in trucks was well documented
by many different media around the world. I can't be arsed to trace
every one to source - are they all reporting the same biased source?

I wouldn't say it was caused by the UN delays though, he would have
had time however the invasion progressed. Stealing cash takes hours or
days, invasions take months to prepare. It's not like it was an
overnight surprise.


Tim
--
The .sig is dead.

 

[John Fields]

On 10 Dec 2003 10:42:47 -0800, bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<6a34tv4veu6jl3es2c1mrt0p3c5q5v9aed@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:39:06 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

snipped

Agreed, especially early enough. The haranguing in the UN allowed
Saddam to see the noose slowly closing and bought him enough time to
allow him to escape with (as reported by the media) four _truckloads_ of
money worth about $1E9. Not a good thing.

You don't want to believe everything you read in the media, least of
all the U.S. media.

---
But you'd like for me and everyone else to believe that what you place
your imprimatur on is the unvarnished truth? You're a joke.

Well, Bill, I don't believe _everything_ I read in the media, whoever
reports it, but it seems likely that since he didn't leave Iraq with his
pockets empty it's only a question of how much he took, not whether or
not he took.
---

You haven't a clue where Saddam Hussein is, nor how much money he
stuffed in his wallet before going underground (using the word in the
figurative sense - for all we know he could be up a gum tree in the
Australian out-back, posing as an asylum-seeker).

---
Interesting... While (of course) I never said I knew where he was or
how much he took with him it appears you're stating the ridiculously
obvious here but couching it in terms which are designed to depict you
in an authoritative position (a speaker of the truth) and put me on the
defensive by pretending that, somehow, what I wrote previously intimates
a knowledge of Saddam's whereabouts. Perhaps instead of the fantasy of
Saddam being an asylum-seeker, the reality is that you should be.

(Just in case you missed it, Bill, that was a double-entendre. If you
don't get it let me know and I'll be happy to explain it to you.
---

Neither does anybody else.

---
Unless he's gone into hiding so effectively that he's completely
isolated himself, at an unknown location, from anyone who knows who he
is, your statement is obviously, glaringly untrue.
---

Are you trying to appear as ill-informed as John S. Dyson, or are you
merely a victim of the same creeping right-wingism?

---
Only two choices, idiot?

I'd say that you're the one who's ill-informed if you think that I'd
fall for that old trick. Either that or you're just stupid or you
haven't stopped beating your wife. Which is it?

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:14:08 +0000, Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.[group sex
without the y on the end]> wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:<6a34tv4veu6jl3es2c1mrt0p3c5q5v9aed@4ax.com>...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:39:06 +0000, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
snipped

Agreed, especially early enough. The haranguing in the UN allowed
Saddam to see the noose slowly closing and bought him enough time to
allow him to escape with (as reported by the media) four _truckloads_ of
money worth about $1E9. Not a good thing.

You don't want to believe everything you read in the media, least of
all the U.S. media.

The removal of large quantities of cash in trucks was well documented
by many different media around the world. I can't be arsed to trace
every one to source - are they all reporting the same biased source?

I wouldn't say it was caused by the UN delays though, he would have
had time however the invasion progressed. Stealing cash takes hours or
days, invasions take months to prepare. It's not like it was an
overnight surprise.

---
You make my point; it should have been.

Had it not been for the haranguing at the UN we could have launched a
much more clandestinely planned and executed invasion, clearly giving us
the advantage of surprise in addition to the overwhelming advantage in
force. That surprise surely would have shortened Saddam's response time
and had he been able to escape with his life he may have made it with
just the shirt on his back. Hindsight and conjecture, of course, but
the right way to do it, IMO.

--
John Fields