[OT] Photos from Brother Bush's Rape Room

[Bill Sloman]

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<40A23430.9090103@nospam.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:


Rumsfeld's cavalier attitude to the Geneva conventions is just one
more of the short-sighted errors made by Dubbya's administration - if
he was as bright as Fred Bloggs used to claim, Rumsfeld would have
worked out why the countries that signed the Geneva conventions
consented to the constraints involved, rather than dismissing them as
namby-pamby.

There were no Geneva Convention violations or prison abuse that I can
see. There were one or two detainees who were beaten to death but in
each case it was justified.

Ignoring any moral issues, once you have beaten a subject to death,
you have permanently lost any information that you might have missed
extracting in the first round of interrogation. Describing such
incompetence as "justified" is an idiocy at several levels.

Those individuals were captured insurgents
and terrorists who had information regarding those groups and their
plans to conduct assassinations and suicide bombings - it is not only
permissible but an absolute necessity to extract information from them
before it expires.

If they actually were insurgents, as opposed to tribesmen wandering
around with their more or less obligatory personal fire-arm, or
tribesmen from the wrong tribe, disposed of by their rivals by
betraying them to the American clowns as insurgent terrorists.

This is not a prisoner-of-war issue, it is an
anti-terrorist measure.

Since nobody could get at the guys sent to Cuba to find out if they
thought they were insurgents or terrorists, as opposed to being
members of the local militia, let alone to carry out independent
checks on their affiliations, this is pure sophistry. You grabbed
them, shipped them off to Cuba, and declared them to be outside of the
Geneva conventions so that you could do what you pleased with them.

The prisoners of war in Irak are in a different catagory - the Red
Cross and Amnesty International have been bitching (quietly) about
their treatment since last March, and you can't call them (the Iaki
prisoners of war) either insurgents or terrorists.

The detainees in general were NOT
prisoners-of-war, and they were NOT political dissidents, they were
dangerous and violent people.

If you say so, Fred. You seem to be willing believe your
administration's story without independent conformation. The rest of
us aren't all gullible U.S. patriots.

You make yourself look like quite the ass to be adopting the perspective
that you have. Some people shouldn't be allowed access to the news - they
are too stupid to assimilate the information rationally.

Poor Fred, you're the ass. You seem to be as much a one-eyed partisan
for Rumsfeld as John S. Dyson is for the whole Republican
administration.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:VGroc.17841$k24.16765@fed1read01...

Bill Sloman wrote:

toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message
news:<c7s6h5$2lli$1@news.iquest.net>...

In article <7c584d27.0405111733.177c8235@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) writes:

Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<zm9oc.27672$iF6.2845737@attbi_s02>...

Bill Sloman wrote:


So we are to forgive the Republican administration, who invaded Irak
for reasons that turn out to be have been inadequate,

Hussein never complied with the terms of the cease-fire from the first
gulf war HE STARTED.

So what.


He had it coming, he needed to get it, sooner or
later, one way or another.

A little later, with a proper UN-mandated coalition, would have been a
lot better.


No UN mandate would have happened due to the graft and
corruption.


On the contrary, the only thing that blocked the UN mandate was that
the U.S. wasn't prepared to spend the time and money on the graft and
corruption required to get such a mandate

What, Spain was easier bought until their Socialists took
over? I thought Mordida was a New World invention.

Nah. Spain didn't need to be bribed. Aznar was the same sort of right-wing
nitwit as Dubbya, and 86% of the Spanish electorate though he was wrong to
support the invasion.

that's how you got your
mandate for the first Gulf War, and it was time and money well-spent.

I see; it's a "moral war" if Euros get their cut of the
action. You could have said so earlier and prevented much
name-calling. What's _your_ price for a favorable opinion on
U.S. action overseas? Taking bids? I can't wait for you to
put it up on Ebay.

No war is ever moral. They cost too much.
My price for supporting U.S. action overseas would depend on the action, but
in most cases it would be higher than my support would be worth (about $0.10
at a guess).

Your current administration was simply too gung-ho to worry about the
problems of holding down Irak once they had invaded it - one more
example of their short-sighted attitudes.

So, you're admitting that World Public Opinion is driven
by graft among leaders?

I don't believe that I said anything about World Public Opinion - the U.N.
mandate was the subject under discussion, which isn't quite the same thing
at all. The only opinion that matters in Irak at the moment is the opinion
of the Irakis as a group, and a U.N. mandate might have helped that - most
likely not directly, but by diluting the US content in the army of
occupation. It is noticeable that the U.S. troops do seem to be seeing
rather more armed insurrection than the other coalition forces in Irak.

If opinion has a price, it isn't worth buying.

Tell that to your presidential candidates, who are planning on spending
millions on TV ads to try and shift public opinion their way.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[YD]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 07:44:21 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:15:41 -0300, YD <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote:


JF a leftist??? Next you'll claim he's pals with RSW. Go take a break,
mmm-k?

---
Hey, I like Steve.

I don't often agree with his politics, but he's up-front about what he
believes in, he's articulate and knowledgeable, and his technical
expertise is excellent, as is his ftp site.

There's that of course. People with differing views on some topics can
get along quite well as long as the "hot" issues are avoided, I have
friends like that. I wish it would happen in this group, generally the
non-political, even when off-topic, threads can be quite pleasant.
Besides, it might reduce update time by some 90%.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Wed, 12 May 2004 07:35:34 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:04:18 -0300, YD <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote:


I do wish people would leave off being apologetic, it just opens them
up to usenet bullies. So you knew his grandfather? Damn, you're old.

Not all Germans were Nazi, in case you didn't know already. And anyone
would be unhappy about your crappy attitudes. In fact, I think it's
you being unhappy about something, go figure.

---
Yeah, I _am_ old, and what I'm unhappy about is self-righteous
assholes like you that have to drop in and start spewing their crap
before they even know what they're talking about.

Self-righteous assholes of all creeds and colors abound in here, what
else is new?

Hey, asshole, I wrote a story and Ralph just _had_ to whine about that
my use of a shower head upset him what with all the memories of the
Holocaust and all, plus some other heart-wrenching drivel about his
granfather's generation. Go read the thread before you get your
panties in a bunch and start throwing shit around.
---

Not the greatest of prose, but a nice outline, if nothing else. Both
of you sort of over-reacted, there was no need to slam him that hard.
Maybe the real issue is being constantly reminded, even if
inadvertently, of a past in which one had no part. Sort of like the
guilt trip over the Amerindians in your part of the world. Didn't any
of your forefathers take a pot-shot at them from time to time?

History will repeat itself and the way things are going you and your
kind will have a lot to do with the world going down the drain.
Hopefully reason will prevail.

---
If you're fatalistic and condemned to believing that history will
repeat itself, then reason won't prevail, since it didn't the first
time. Maybe it's time for you and _your_ kind to think about getting
a new attitude and helping, instead of just sitting around with your
thumbs up your asses watching your self-fulfilling prophecy unfold.

Not fatalistic, just sort of pessimistic. It may be too late already,
do you think the real power is in government? Read this:

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/52/articles/corporate_crackdown.html

No, history doesn't repeat itself, it just seems to go in rather
aimless circles, some cycles are similar to some previous ones, but
not completely, like some screwy multi-loop feed-back system with lots
of backlash and gains all set wrong. Anyway, cock-ups rather than
conspiracies seem to generate most historical events. In the history
books they get all veneered and shiny later on as some great piece of
brilliant planning.

---

I'm just about to class you with JSD, RSW and FB. Lighten up and try
to sound at least half-way reasonable at times.

---
Like it matters to me whom you "class" me with, just as long as it's
not with you...

Come to the Dark Side...

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Bill Sloman wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<40A23430.9090103@nospam.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:


Rumsfeld's cavalier attitude to the Geneva conventions is just one
more of the short-sighted errors made by Dubbya's administration - if
he was as bright as Fred Bloggs used to claim, Rumsfeld would have
worked out why the countries that signed the Geneva conventions
consented to the constraints involved, rather than dismissing them as
namby-pamby.

There were no Geneva Convention violations or prison abuse that I can
see. There were one or two detainees who were beaten to death but in
each case it was justified.


Ignoring any moral issues, once you have beaten a subject to death,
you have permanently lost any information that you might have missed
extracting in the first round of interrogation. Describing such
incompetence as "justified" is an idiocy at several levels.

You are just not thinking clearly. The immorality would be any treatment
short of ruthless and brutal when dealing with would-be mass murderers-
they deserve no mercy. Brutalizing and killing one detainee will induce
the others to cooperate- so information has not been lost necessarily- a
common interrogation technique.

Those individuals were captured insurgents
and terrorists who had information regarding those groups and their
plans to conduct assassinations and suicide bombings - it is not only
permissible but an absolute necessity to extract information from them
before it expires.


If they actually were insurgents, as opposed to tribesmen wandering
around with their more or less obligatory personal fire-arm, or
tribesmen from the wrong tribe, disposed of by their rivals by
betraying them to the American clowns as insurgent terrorists.

It's possible- but this was a specialized interrogation facility-
reserved for captured insurgents/terrorists who would be interrogated
with the most expedient and effective techniques. War is a dirty
business and there is no civilized way to combat animals.

This is not a prisoner-of-war issue, it is an
anti-terrorist measure.


Since nobody could get at the guys sent to Cuba to find out if they
thought they were insurgents or terrorists, as opposed to being
members of the local militia, let alone to carry out independent
checks on their affiliations, this is pure sophistry. You grabbed
them, shipped them off to Cuba, and declared them to be outside of the
Geneva conventions so that you could do what you pleased with them.

The prisoners of war in Irak are in a different catagory - the Red
Cross and Amnesty International have been bitching (quietly) about
their treatment since last March, and you can't call them (the Iaki
prisoners of war) either insurgents or terrorists.

There are 16 major detainee facilities in Iraq- the run-of-the-mill
prisoners are treated just like that- there are no instances of abuse-
this one in the news was reserved for the especially serious captives. I
could care less about the Communist infested *Red* Cross or Amnesty
International- they are pathetic idiots and will have no say in anything.

The detainees in general were NOT
prisoners-of-war, and they were NOT political dissidents, they were
dangerous and violent people.


If you say so, Fred. You seem to be willing believe your
administration's story without independent conformation. The rest of
us aren't all gullible U.S. patriots.

It is all about striking a balance- the US will be exculpated because of
the nature of the prisoners- Geneva Convention does not apply- and even
if it did, there is no legal dogma, international or otherwise, that
does not make allowance for legal non-compliance on grounds of necessity.

You make yourself look like quite the ass to be adopting the perspective
that you have. Some people shouldn't be allowed access to the news - they
are too stupid to assimilate the information rationally.


Poor Fred, you're the ass. You seem to be as much a one-eyed partisan
for Rumsfeld as John S. Dyson is for the whole Republican
administration.

Your problem is you think too much with too little....The media are
retarded garbage- their product is laughable crap.

 

[Ralph Christopher]

Paul Burridge <pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 18:28:39 +0200, Ralph Christopher
ralphc@snafu.de> wrote:

And no, I don't feel guilty at all. I just gave some facts and
opinion.

Opinion? Sounded like dogma to me. Since you're the new netcop around
here, please tell me from whence you derive your authority to try to
tell everybody else what they should think and say

Agreed. Careful is the word.

Indeed. Lest you pounce on them for something you in your superior
wisdom and life experience judge as unacceptable.

You are overestimating me.

I reacted to John Fields' posting because it touched a nerve, then we
had a little argument about how things should be handled here, so
what. This is not going to be the end of free press.


--
Ralph Christopher

 

[Rolavine]

Oh yeah, didn't we accidently blow about a thousand Iraqi children to bits
during shock and awe? Yeah, but that isn't barbaric, right? Estimates of Iraqi
dead during the miltary operation are between 20 and 50 thousand, heck we don't
even have a count. Since the great liberation about 1000 people are killed
every week in Iraq by each other. This is a lot of blood this country is
responsible for.

Smart leaders would have altered Iraq with covert actions. Why is it that
Niccolio Machievelli knew more about 'useful' foreign policy in the 1500's than
the Bush Admin does now? The world can't afford leaders like Bush anymore, this
beheading is nothing compared to the pandora's box Bush's arrogance has opened.

Please, stop voting for dumb people to be president, it is one of the hardest
JOBS in the world and requires an ability to think, work, and assimilate
information. Dumb people like me should not be in charge, we should just bitch
in newsgroups, lol.

Rocky

 

[Bill Sloman]

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<40A37F24.8070304@nospam.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<40A23430.9090103@nospam.com>...

Bill Sloman wrote:


Rumsfeld's cavalier attitude to the Geneva conventions is just one
more of the short-sighted errors made by Dubbya's administration - if
he was as bright as Fred Bloggs used to claim, Rumsfeld would have
worked out why the countries that signed the Geneva conventions
consented to the constraints involved, rather than dismissing them as
namby-pamby.

There were no Geneva Convention violations or prison abuse that I can
see. There were one or two detainees who were beaten to death but in
each case it was justified.


Ignoring any moral issues, once you have beaten a subject to death,
you have permanently lost any information that you might have missed
extracting in the first round of interrogation. Describing such
incompetence as "justified" is an idiocy at several levels.

You are just not thinking clearly.

On the contrary, you aren't thinking at all.

The immorality would be any treatment
short of ruthless and brutal when dealing with would-be mass murderers-
they deserve no mercy. Brutalizing and killing one detainee will induce
the others to cooperate- so information has not been lost necessarily - a
common interrogation technique.

Common, but none-the-less stupid. How do you know which detainee you
can afford to waste until you have interrogaed them all, repeatedly?

Ruthless and brutal sounds good, until you start thinking about what
the interrogators are supposed to be doing, which is extracting
information, not playing god.

Those individuals were captured insurgents
and terrorists who had information regarding those groups and their
plans to conduct assassinations and suicide bombings - it is not only
permissible but an absolute necessity to extract information from them
before it expires.


If they actually were insurgents, as opposed to tribesmen wandering
around with their more or less obligatory personal fire-arm, or
tribesmen from the wrong tribe, disposed of by their rivals by
betraying them to the American clowns as insurgent terrorists.

It's possible- but this was a specialized interrogation facility-
reserved for captured insurgents/terrorists who would be interrogated
with the most expedient and effective techniques. War is a dirty
business and there is no civilized way to combat animals.

Rubbish. There are merely effective ways of extracting information,
and stupid ways of losing it forever.

This is not a prisoner-of-war issue, it is an
anti-terrorist measure.


Since nobody could get at the guys sent to Cuba to find out if they
thought they were insurgents or terrorists, as opposed to being
members of the local militia, let alone to carry out independent
checks on their affiliations, this is pure sophistry. You grabbed
them, shipped them off to Cuba, and declared them to be outside of the
Geneva conventions so that you could do what you pleased with them.

The prisoners of war in Irak are in a different catagory - the Red
Cross and Amnesty International have been bitching (quietly) about
their treatment since last March, and you can't call them (the Iaki
prisoners of war) either insurgents or terrorists.

There are 16 major detainee facilities in Iraq- the run-of-the-mill
prisoners are treated just like that- there are no instances of abuse-
this one in the news was reserved for the especially serious captives. I
could care less about the Communist infested *Red* Cross or Amnesty
International- they are pathetic idiots and will have no say in anything.

So you are as silly and ideology-blinkered as Rumsfeld himself. How do
you know who are the "especially serious captives"?

The detainees in general were NOT
prisoners-of-war, and they were NOT political dissidents, they were
dangerous and violent people.

If you say so, Fred. You seem to be willing believe your
administration's story without independent conformation. The rest of
us aren't all gullible U.S. patriots.

It is all about striking a balance- the US will be exculpated because of
the nature of the prisoners- Geneva Convention does not apply - and even
if it did, there is no legal dogma, international or otherwise, that
does not make allowance for legal non-compliance on grounds of necessity.

Necessity? Your brutal treatment of your prisoners in pursuit of the
the perpetrators of occasional low level reistance seems to have
ignited massive armed insurrection. The only real necessity in the
case is for your guys to understand what they are actually trying to
achieve.

You make yourself look like quite the ass to be adopting the perspective
that you have. Some people shouldn't be allowed access to the news - they
are too stupid to assimilate the information rationally.


Poor Fred, you're the ass. You seem to be as much a one-eyed partisan
for Rumsfeld as John S. Dyson is for the whole Republican
administration.

Your problem is you think too much with too little....The media are
retarded garbage - their product is laughable crap.

Whereas your retarded garbage interrogation system doesn't seem to
have thought at all about what it was were supposed to be doing, and
the consequences are anything but laughable.

-------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Rich Grise]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:u854a0heu167638tjnui0o0ntbj87qoptu@4ax.com...

On Wed, 12 May 2004 01:04:18 -0300, YD <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote:

History will repeat itself and the way things are going you and your
kind will have a lot to do with the world going down the drain.
Hopefully reason will prevail.

---
If you're fatalistic and condemned to believing that history will
repeat itself, then reason won't prevail, since it didn't the first
time. Maybe it's time for you and _your_ kind to think about getting
a new attitude and helping, instead of just sitting around with your
thumbs up your asses watching your self-fulfilling prophecy unfold.

Those who don't see history repeating itself right before our very
eyes are blind fools.

Good Luck,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

"YD" <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote in message
news:7jm5a0lpjcb6kj0riado974au8r28sqv3n@4ax.com...

No, history doesn't repeat itself, it just seems to go in rather
aimless circles, some cycles are similar to some previous ones, but
not completely, like some screwy multi-loop feed-back system with lots
of backlash and gains all set wrong.

Actually, each generation is the mirror image of the last, except
it's more like a multidimensional fun-house mirror.

And yes, everything is just a reenactment of Original Error. But
it's extremely difficult to see, because of the imprints.

Cheers!
Rich
--
"I know you have all asked yourselves, 'if there is a God who
has any power, then why are things the way they are on Earth?'"
- God

 

[Rich Grise]

"Scott Stephens" <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B8voc.34850$536.6379104@attbi_s03...

You forgot the WMD's, the funding of suicide bombers, and the
megalomaniacal tenancy to invade neighbors to pay for expensive
weapons-addiction.

Oh, I get it - if you invade _neighbors_ to pay for expensive
weapons addictions, you're a bad guy, but if you go half-way
across the world and invade _strangers_ to slake expensive
megalomaniacal weapons addictions, you're the good guys!

Why didn't I see that before?

Feh.

 

[KLM]

A fundamental question. There are more than a billion Muslims in the
world of whom quite a few hundred million are Muslims and Arab. The
direction many discussions on the "War on Terror" goes is all these
people deserve what they get. Consider. Is Shock and Awe (ing) all of
them possible. If not, is killing all of them an option? No to both.
Therefore if you can't kill them all then you must find a way to live
with them. You must find a way to live with them so that you won't
have to watch your back all the time. You must find a way where
they will be able to get on with their lives and you yours. Its clear
they hate Americans and want to have as little as possible to do with
you. That's already half your problem solved. Go from there.

 

[Scott Stephens]

Rich Grise wrote:

"Scott Stephens" <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B8voc.34850$536.6379104@attbi_s03...

You forgot the WMD's, the funding of suicide bombers, and the
megalomaniacal tenancy to invade neighbors to pay for expensive
weapons-addiction.

Oh, I get it - if you invade _neighbors_ to pay for expensive
weapons addictions, you're a bad guy,

Stealing from weaker people because you are able makes others suspicious
you would do the same to them. As with all tyrants.

but if you go half-way
across the world and invade _strangers_ to slake expensive
megalomaniacal weapons addictions, you're the good guys!

And you would do what? Allow Hussein to own Kuwait? Then what? Saudi
Arabia, or perhaps like Hitler, his lust would be slaked by his
next-door neighbors.

Why didn't I see that before?

You hate the current regime too much, for the wrong reason in this case.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

**********************************

 

[Fred Bloggs]

KLM wrote:

A fundamental question. There are more than a billion Muslims in the
world of whom quite a few hundred million are Muslims and Arab. The
direction many discussions on the "War on Terror" goes is all these
people deserve what they get. Consider. Is Shock and Awe (ing) all of
them possible. If not, is killing all of them an option? No to both.
Therefore if you can't kill them all then you must find a way to live
with them. You must find a way to live with them so that you won't
have to watch your back all the time. You must find a way where
they will be able to get on with their lives and you yours. Its clear
they hate Americans and want to have as little as possible to do with
you. That's already half your problem solved. Go from there.

You are an idiot. The Muslim religion/political dogma commands them to
kill the "mushrikeen"- and that is most of the free west. The answer to
this clear and present danger is called nuclear-annihilation.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Bill Sloman wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:VGroc.17841$k24.16765@fed1read01...

Bill Sloman wrote:


toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message

news:<c7s6h5$2lli$1@news.iquest.net>...

In article <7c584d27.0405111733.177c8235@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) writes:


Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:<zm9oc.27672$iF6.2845737@attbi_s02>...

Bill Sloman wrote:



So we are to forgive the Republican administration, who invaded Irak
for reasons that turn out to be have been inadequate,

Hussein never complied with the terms of the cease-fire from the first
gulf war HE STARTED.

So what.



He had it coming, he needed to get it, sooner or
later, one way or another.

A little later, with a proper UN-mandated coalition, would have been a
lot better.


No UN mandate would have happened due to the graft and
corruption.


On the contrary, the only thing that blocked the UN mandate was that
the U.S. wasn't prepared to spend the time and money on the graft and
corruption required to get such a mandate

What, Spain was easier bought until their Socialists took
over? I thought Mordida was a New World invention.


Nah. Spain didn't need to be bribed. Aznar was the same sort of right-wing
nitwit as Dubbya, and 86% of the Spanish electorate though he was wrong to
support the invasion.

You don't keep track of U.S. Foreign Aid funding?

that's how you got your

mandate for the first Gulf War, and it was time and money well-spent.

I see; it's a "moral war" if Euros get their cut of the
action. You could have said so earlier and prevented much
name-calling. What's _your_ price for a favorable opinion on
U.S. action overseas? Taking bids? I can't wait for you to
put it up on Ebay.


No war is ever moral. They cost too much.

So, your "solution" to the Middle East situation is what,
for the rest of the world to stay "hands off" and let the
locals kill each other off until only the most vicious
remain for the rest of the world to deal with?

Works for me. We all need to reduce our nuke inventories;
might as well use 'em.

My price for supporting U.S. action overseas would depend on the action, but
in most cases it would be higher than my support would be worth (about $0.10
at a guess).

Why am I not surprised.

Your current administration was simply too gung-ho to worry about the
problems of holding down Irak once they had invaded it - one more
example of their short-sighted attitudes.

So, you're admitting that World Public Opinion is driven
by graft among leaders?


I don't believe that I said anything about World Public Opinion - the U.N.
mandate was the subject under discussion, which isn't quite the same thing
at all.

Sigh. "World Public Opinion" is indeed driven by leaders,
and their preferences are driven by the levels of bribes
offered, right? You make a difference without distinction.

BTW, you _have_ noticed who's running the U.N. recently,
haven't you?

The only opinion that matters in Irak at the moment is
the opinion of the Irakis as a group

Which group, the Shiites? The Sunnis? The recently
imported Al Qaeda sympathizers? Do you really hold the
illusion that they're any more homogenous philosophically
than the inhabitants of what was Yugoslavia?

and a U.N. mandate might have helped that - most
likely not directly, but by diluting the US content in the army of
occupation. It is noticeable that the U.S. troops do seem to be seeing
rather more armed insurrection than the other coalition forces in Irak.

And what drives that other than targeting by Al Qaeda?

If opinion has a price, it isn't worth buying.


Tell that to your presidential candidates, who are planning on spending
millions on TV ads to try and shift public opinion their way.

Oh, I see; you believe that bullshit. Never mind.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Rich Grise]

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40A4C499.6060702@nospam.com...

You are an idiot. The Muslim religion/political dogma commands them to
kill the "mushrikeen"- and that is most of the free west. The answer to
this clear and present danger is called nuclear-annihilation.

I guess I'll add Bloggs to my mass murderer list.

WHich religious dogma are you using that makes you think that
murder is OK as long as you're the one doing it?

Get off my planet, murderer.

feh.
Rich

 

[Kevin Carney]

Rich,
You are a toad ! I'm with Fred....

--

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:Mr5pc.194815$L31.187163@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40A4C499.6060702@nospam.com...


You are an idiot. The Muslim religion/political dogma commands them to
kill the "mushrikeen"- and that is most of the free west. The answer to
this clear and present danger is called nuclear-annihilation.

I guess I'll add Bloggs to my mass murderer list.

WHich religious dogma are you using that makes you think that
murder is OK as long as you're the one doing it?

Get off my planet, murderer.

feh.
Rich

 

[Bill Sloman]

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<jy3pc.682$Yg.520@fed1read05>...

Bill Sloman wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:VGroc.17841$k24.16765@fed1read01...

Bill Sloman wrote:


toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message

news:<c7s6h5$2lli$1@news.iquest.net>...

In article <7c584d27.0405111733.177c8235@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) writes:


Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:<zm9oc.27672$iF6.2845737@attbi_s02>...

Bill Sloman wrote:



So we are to forgive the Republican administration, who invaded Irak
for reasons that turn out to be have been inadequate,

Hussein never complied with the terms of the cease-fire from the first
gulf war HE STARTED.

So what.



He had it coming, he needed to get it, sooner or
later, one way or another.

A little later, with a proper UN-mandated coalition, would have been a
lot better.


No UN mandate would have happened due to the graft and
corruption.


On the contrary, the only thing that blocked the UN mandate was that
the U.S. wasn't prepared to spend the time and money on the graft and
corruption required to get such a mandate

What, Spain was easier bought until their Socialists took
over? I thought Mordida was a New World invention.


Nah. Spain didn't need to be bribed. Aznar was the same sort of right-wing
nitwit as Dubbya, and 86% of the Spanish electorate though he was wrong to
support the invasion.

You don't keep track of U.S. Foreign Aid funding?

It is too small to be worth worrying about, even smaller when you
subtract out the subsidised arms sales to the right-wing dictators you
seem to be so fond of.

that's how you got your

mandate for the first Gulf War, and it was time and money well-spent.

I see; it's a "moral war" if Euros get their cut of the
action. You could have said so earlier and prevented much
name-calling. What's _your_ price for a favorable opinion on
U.S. action overseas? Taking bids? I can't wait for you to
put it up on Ebay.


No war is ever moral. They cost too much.

So, your "solution" to the Middle East situation is what,
for the rest of the world to stay "hands off" and let the
locals kill each other off until only the most vicious
remain for the rest of the world to deal with?

Clearly you haven't been paying attention. My preference was for a
U.N.-mandated ocupation force in Irak, with enough Muslim paricipants
to let the Irakis think that they were being liberated, rather than
occupied.

The latest Guardian Weekly was pretty rude about Rumsfeld's
unwillingness to take advantage of the U.S. foreign service's
expertise on foreign cultures, and a few more Arab-speaking Muslim's
in the occupying force might well have fooled enough of the people
enough of the time to have prevented the current rash of
insurrections.

Works for me. We all need to reduce our nuke inventories;
might as well use 'em.

As simple idea, that even you can understand. Not a good idea, for
reasons that you probably couldn't understand.

My price for supporting U.S. action overseas would depend on the action,
but in most cases it would be higher than my support would be worth (about > > $0.10 at a guess).

Why am I not surprised.

Your current administration was simply too gung-ho to worry about the
problems of holding down Irak once they had invaded it - one more
example of their short-sighted attitudes.

So, you're admitting that World Public Opinion is driven
by graft among leaders?


I don't believe that I said anything about World Public Opinion - the U.N.
mandate was the subject under discussion, which isn't quite the same thing
at all.

Sigh. "World Public Opinion" is indeed driven by leaders,
and their preferences are driven by the levels of bribes
offered, right?

Aznar was right behind Dubbya, but his enthusiasm only persuaded 14%
of the Spanish electorate. Sometimes the most energetic leaders can't
influence public opinion in the way that they'd like.

You make a difference without distinction.

So you claim, because you haven't got the wit to read the papers or
remember what actually happens when some leader tries to persuade the
electorate that black is white.

BTW, you _have_ noticed who's running the U.N. recently,
haven't you?

Somebody called Koffi Anan

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/

He seems to be doing pretty well, within the limits of the job.

The only opinion that matters in Irak at the moment is
the opinion of the Irakis as a group

Which group, the Shiites? The Sunnis? The recently
imported Al Qaeda sympathizers? Do you really hold the
illusion that they're any more homogenous philosophically
than the inhabitants of what was Yugoslavia?

The Shi'ites and the Sunnis seem to be united on one point at the
moment - they both want the U.S. occupiers to go home.
Congratulations.

Tito managed to keep Yugoslavia in one piece as long as he lived, and
you may yet get lucky and find the Iraki Tito, though your nitwit
prison guards have probably spoiled his (or maybe her) disposition by
ill-chosen "softening-up" procedures.

and a U.N. mandate might have helped that - most
likely not directly, but by diluting the US content in the army of
occupation. It is noticeable that the U.S. troops do seem to be seeing
rather more armed insurrection than the other coalition forces in Irak.

And what drives that, other than targeting by Al Qaeda?

Probably ignorance and arrogance - most American soldiers are
convinced that their way of doing things is the only way of doing
things, and don't realise that behavior that is tolerated in the U.S.
can be totally unacceptable for other cultures.

If opinion has a price, it isn't worth buying.


Tell that to your presidential candidates, who are planning on spending
millions on TV ads to try and shift public opinion their way.

Oh, I see; you believe that bullshit. Never mind.

Not having millions to spend, I don't have to have an opinion on the
effectiveness of TV ads. U.S. politicians who do have millions to
spend do seem to think that TV advertising is worth the money, as you
should have noticed.

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

 

[Richard Henry]

"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:7c584d27.0405141404.84ba86c@posting.google.com...

Probably ignorance and arrogance - most American soldiers are
convinced that their way of doing things is the only way of doing
things, and don't realise that behavior that is tolerated in the U.S.
can be totally unacceptable for other cultures.

The behavior that has been in the news lately would never be tolerated in
any US state or Federal prison.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <7c584d27.0405141404.84ba86c@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) writes:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<jy3pc.682$Yg.520@fed1read05>...
Bill Sloman wrote:

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:VGroc.17841$k24.16765@fed1read01...

Bill Sloman wrote:


toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) wrote in message

news:<c7s6h5$2lli$1@news.iquest.net>...

In article <7c584d27.0405111733.177c8235@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) writes:


Scott Stephens <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:<zm9oc.27672$iF6.2845737@attbi_s02>...

Bill Sloman wrote:



So we are to forgive the Republican administration, who invaded Irak
for reasons that turn out to be have been inadequate,

Hussein never complied with the terms of the cease-fire from the first
gulf war HE STARTED.

So what.



He had it coming, he needed to get it, sooner or
later, one way or another.

A little later, with a proper UN-mandated coalition, would have been a
lot better.


No UN mandate would have happened due to the graft and
corruption.


On the contrary, the only thing that blocked the UN mandate was that
the U.S. wasn't prepared to spend the time and money on the graft and
corruption required to get such a mandate

What, Spain was easier bought until their Socialists took
over? I thought Mordida was a New World invention.


Nah. Spain didn't need to be bribed. Aznar was the same sort of right-wing
nitwit as Dubbya, and 86% of the Spanish electorate though he was wrong to
support the invasion.

You don't keep track of U.S. Foreign Aid funding?

It is too small to be worth worrying about, even smaller when you
subtract out the subsidised arms sales to the right-wing dictators you
seem to be so fond of.

In the middle east, most of the US money probably goes to Egypt and

Israel anyway. Israel is the only democracy in the middle east, and
Egypt was one of the first Arab nations to tolerate Israel to a
limited extent.

for the rest of the world to stay "hands off" and let the
locals kill each other off until only the most vicious
remain for the rest of the world to deal with?

Clearly you haven't been paying attention. My preference was for a
U.N.-mandated ocupation force in Irak

The UN tends to cut and run too quickly to finish the job. Geesh,

they recently did so after some 'bombing' incedents, and their
own security people (AFAIR) got in trouble for their incompetency.

Works for me. We all need to reduce our nuke inventories;
might as well use 'em.

As simple idea, that even you can understand. Not a good idea, for
reasons that you probably couldn't understand.

The US tends not to grossly oversize its use of weapons and spends

LOTS of money on attempted accurate targeting. A nuke would undo
that philosophy. There are very few practical uses for nukes in war.
Geesh, the US doesn't even use as many 2000lb bombs as it could.

Which group, the Shiites? The Sunnis? The recently
imported Al Qaeda sympathizers? Do you really hold the
illusion that they're any more homogenous philosophically
than the inhabitants of what was Yugoslavia?

The Shi'ites and the Sunnis seem to be united on one point at the
moment - they both want the U.S. occupiers to go home.
Congratulations.

The US intends to leave -- any claim that the US wanted to long term

manage Iraq as a province in the sense of an empire is incompetent
and without any evidence.

And what drives that, other than targeting by Al Qaeda?

Probably ignorance and arrogance - most American soldiers are
convinced that their way of doing things is the only way of doing
things, and don't realise that behavior that is tolerated in the U.S.
can be totally unacceptable for other cultures.

Remember: the admitted errant behaviors of the immature children

running amok in the specific Abu Gherhib 'prison' weren't typical AT ALL of
American practices. In fact, recent testimony shows that they
were trying to keep their hijinks secret from their higher level
commanders (information exists in the mainstream media, look it up.)
(You might have to look at copies of the original sources, rather than
the filtered media, which too often in Europe doesn't tell the whole
truth.)

The most extreme practices are appropriate ONLY with agreement from
the president, and such 'findings' and equivalent documents create
a paper trail. There is ABSOLUTELY no indication of anyone above
the level of the MI Colonel who knew about the extreme abuses. Even
some of the info about 'Red Cross' reports is apparently trying to
cause confusion between 'mundane' abuses and the totally non-existant
Red Cross info about the childish and idiotic abuses in the Abu
Gherhib prison.

Ignorant and anti-American biased propaganda has indeed caused damage
to benefit your apparent position: the side of the Al Queda murderers
of Nicolas Berg. I have wondered the various reasons for the private
apparent European and Arab cheering and lack of outrage about
Nicholas's death, and it might
be the European/Arab anti-Jew attitides, and also might be that some
people in Europe are truly supporting the murderous terrorists. Please
watch the snuff video that was certainly applauded from the side of
evil, yet the disgraced idiots who were mindlessly abusing the prisoners
(and disgracing themselves) are NOT applauded in the US. The sad
thing is that without aggressive responses to the 12th century Al Queda,
YOUR progeny (if any) will be at risk from them in the future.

There is enough information about the relative lack of outrage in the
European press about the murder of Berg (perhaps some lip service), that
it would offend too many Europeans to show the truth about their
evil Islamist friends. (Hint: the murder of Berg had already been
in Iraq, even having operations in Saddam's Baghdad for some
physical problems)

Hint: given our relatively more free press -- we have intense info about
both abuses, and the relatively greater outrage about the head-removal-while
alive-and-screaming vs. begin forced to wear women's panties, and the
prisoners jerking off while watching Lynndie and her boyfriend (and others)
having sex were HORRIBLE and WRONG and NOWHERE American policy -- there
is no benefit to encourage more information in that situation.

John