Rude replies

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:48:02 GMT, Leythos wrote:

I don't believe that the children/wife of a terrorist is exactly
innocent when they are aware of what the terrorist is doing. I
believe that you don't have to pull the trigger to be guilty, only
assist in any number of ways - even providing food/shelter is aid
to the enemy and should be dealt with strongly/swiftly.

This is the same "no-one is innocent" rationale that the "terrorist"
uses to justify attacking civillians, as per Trade Center.

He refuses to see that Chris. He believes in the Eye for an Eye
crap.

Actually, I do believe in an eye-for-an-eye, as do many of the
countries where those terrorists come from. What's wrong with giving
them some of their own actions? Don't start the fight if you are not
willing to lose the battle.

It's the same kinda thing as two wrongs make a right.

All you are doing with the Eye for an Eye thing is stooping to the
terrorists level. You have become what you despise.

To put it in Star Wars terms, you have turned to the Dark Side of the
Force, except in your case you are more like Dark Helmet from
SpaceBalls, than like Darth Vader.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

"Leythos" wrote

Actually, I do believe in an eye-for-an-eye,

Some reason you want the entire world to be blind?

Alias

TAKE YOUR PETTY QUARREL SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH XP.
PHOOEY

I agree with Leythos. All families of Australian, United Kingdom, and =
yankee service personel should be legit targets. Also anyone who voted =
Labour in the UK, Liberal in Australia, and Republician in the US should =
also be legit targets. They support the war crime of Aggression (a US =
invention) and they are aware that who they voted for/who they married =
are engaged in murder in Iraq.

Never thought I'd see eye to eye with Leythos.

Still as the US refuses to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty =
I suppose anyone can attack the US. They certainly seem to be asking for =
it.

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/...123836066.html (Stops =
being free in 5 days)

The US reneging on the non-proliferation treaty is an incitingly =
dangerous move, writes Richard Butler.=20

A LITTLE over five years ago, during his first presidential election =
campaign, George Bush promised to deliver US policies of unalloyed =
selfishness. That was a year before September 11, 2001, after which he =
ensured that all policies were dominated by the need to wage the war on =
terrorism, no matter what distortions or excesses that might create.

As for the rest of us, Bush declared - in what became known as the Bush =
doctrine - the principle that those who are not with the US are against =
it.

This is both unenforceable and undemocratic. Governments around the =
world, with notable exceptions such as the Howard Government, have made =
the latter point strongly.

At the end of May the US refused to allow the review conference of the =
nuclear non-proliferation treaty to carry out any substantive work. It =
did this because it is no longer prepared to fulfil its obligations =
under that treaty and it wanted to expunge undertakings on nuclear =
disarmament it had given at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences.

The US made clear that it wants other states, especially the remaining =
"axis of evil" states - North Korea and Iran - to meet treaty =
obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet it refuses to fulfil its =
symmetrical obligation of progressively eliminating its own nuclear =
weapons.

In fact, the US is violating the treaty by developing nuclear weapons. =
The other four official nuclear weapon states - China, Russia, France =
and Britain - did not stand up against the US position at the review =
conference. They hid behind the US.

Most of the 180-odd non-nuclear-weapon states members of the treaty =
despaired the US stance. A leading lobby group of these countries, the =
New Agenda Coalition, was vocal in condemning the conduct of the =
conference. Australia was a member of this coalition before the Howard =
Government took office.

While the US says its policy is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear =
weapons, its actions ensure that nuclear weapons technology will =
proliferate. This will be profoundly dangerous to all, including the US.

The US policy at the conference emanated from the White House, but =
naturally someone had to think of it, strategically. That was the man =
who until recently was Deputy Secretary of State with responsibility for =
arms control, John Bolton, who has now been nominated by Bush to be the =
US ambassador to the UN.

Daryl Kimball, of the US Arms Control Association, has written that "the =
arrogant and clumsy US strategy" at the review conference was Bolton's =
brainchild.

Having met and spoken with Bolton on a number of occasions, I find this =
report credible. In a public debate I took part in with him in New York, =
shortly before his appointment to the State Department, he banged his =
fist on the table declaring that "there is no such thing as =
international law, there is only national sovereignty".

Bolton was giving voice to the notion that had become popular in =
Republican circles: US exceptionalism, the idea that since the US had =
become the sole superpower it was above international law.

When Bolton was appointed to be in charge of arms control at the State =
Department many commentators talked about "the vampire having been put =
in charge of the blood bank", such was his known attitude towards arms =
control.

A similar consideration has been raised during the US Senate's hearings =
on Bolton's nomination to the UN: what sense is there in sending to the =
UN a man who has been so hostile to everything it stands for. Bush has =
said: "The reason I picked Bolton is that he's a no-nonsense kind of =
fellow who gets things done and we need to get something done in the =
United Nations."

The US Senate will most likely vote on Bolton this week and narrowly =
confirm him. The chances of his getting anything done at the UN, other =
than perhaps to further destroy aspects of its work, would seem to be =
near to zero.

As is repeatedly proving to be the case with Bush Administration =
policies, their effect is often to worsen the problem they are seeking =
to cure, such as in Iraq.

The US action at the NPT Review Conference exceeds even this example. =
The US insistence on everyone else fulfilling obligations under the =
treaty while rejecting its own will weaken adherence to it, encourage =
nuclear weapon proliferation and increase the possibility of the =
acquisition of nuclear weapon technology by terrorist groups - exactly =
every outcome nobody wanted, including, so it says, the US.

This is very dangerous to Australia's security but nowhere have John =
Howard and Alexander Downer said so and one can only wonder what they =
have said, if anything, to our US friends.

Richard Butler was the Australian ambassador to the United Nations from =
1992-97, chairman of the UN Special Commission to Disarm Iraq 1997-99,, =
Diplomat in Residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, New York =
1999-2001.





--=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/...nt/001075.html
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Leythos" wrote in message =
...
In article ,=20
says...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:48:02 GMT, Leythos wrote:
=20
I don't believe that the children/wife of a terrorist is exactly=20
innocent when they are aware of what the terrorist is doing. I =
believe=20
that you don't have to pull the trigger to be guilty, only assist =
in any=20
number of ways - even providing food/shelter is aid to the enemy =
and=20
should be dealt with strongly/swiftly.
=20
This is the same "no-one is innocent" rationale that the "terrorist"
uses to justify attacking civillians, as per Trade Center.
=20
Not really - I consider people in the "ACT" as being guilty. I also=20
consider people directly supporting criminals/terrorists as being=20
guilty.
=20
I would hope you can see the difference.
=20
--=20
--=20

remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 6/9/05 20:48:02, Leythos wrote:

I give my government the benefit of doubt in the case of
terrorists,

"The Downing Street Memo are actually minutes from a meeting that
occurred [snip memo]

Seen it a while ago - don't believe it fully.

LOL! After all this time, you still believe that the Bush Admin
wasn't creaming in their pants to invade Iraq.

I can't believe the depths of denial that you Rightards live in.

Why do I have to be a "Right", can't I be independent and have beliefs
that follow my OWN ideals without being told what to follow?


You hold beliefs that moderates don't. And you certainly are not on the
left.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Carl wrote:
TAKE YOUR PETTY QUARREL SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH XP.
PHOOEY

LOL! Take the squirrel out of your butt, it needs to breathe oxygen,
and cannot survive only on your methane.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 23:48:02 GMT, Leythos
wrote:

I don't believe that the children/wife of a terrorist is exactly
innocent when they are aware of what the terrorist is doing. I
believe that you don't have to pull the trigger to be guilty,
only assist in any number of ways - even providing food/shelter
is aid to the enemy and should be dealt with strongly/swiftly.

This is the same "no-one is innocent" rationale that the
"terrorist" uses to justify attacking civillians, as per Trade
Center.

He refuses to see that Chris. He believes in the Eye for an Eye
crap.

Actually, I do believe in an eye-for-an-eye, as do many of the
countries where those terrorists come from. What's wrong with giving
them some of their own actions? Don't start the fight if you are not
willing to lose the battle.

It's the same kinda thing as two wrongs make a right.

All you are doing with the Eye for an Eye thing is stooping to the
terrorists level. You have become what you despise.

To put it in Star Wars terms, you have turned to the Dark Side of the
Force, except in your case you are more like Dark Helmet from
SpaceBalls, than like Darth Vader.

Not quite the same, if you can't see the difference between holding
people that are assumed to be terrorists and killing thousands or
chopping heads off, then I feel sorry for you.

Don't forget us the bombing and killing all the innocent bystanders too!
Iraq didn't attack us! Afghanistan didn't attack us! Al Qaeda attacked
us!

How many innocent eyes have we taken for each one Al Qaeda took on 911?

Now I know you don't understand that, and I do pity you, because you
can't see how far you have fallen. If there is a God, you and all that
support the Bush Administration will have a special place in Hell. If
you are lucky, there is no God.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Alias wrote:
"Leythos" wrote

Actually, I do believe in an eye-for-an-eye,

Some reason you want the entire world to be blind?

Alias

Misery loves company.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 6/9/05 20:48:02, Leythos wrote:

I give my government the benefit of doubt in the case of
terrorists,

"The Downing Street Memo are actually minutes from a meeting that
occurred [snip memo]

Seen it a while ago - don't believe it fully.

LOL! After all this time, you still believe that the Bush Admin
wasn't creaming in their pants to invade Iraq.

I can't believe the depths of denial that you Rightards live in.

Why do I have to be a "Right", can't I be independent and have
beliefs that follow my OWN ideals without being told what to follow?


You hold beliefs that moderates don't. And you certainly are not on
the left.

But I don't follow either side or group, I consider it to be an insult
to be put in one or the other group.

--

Consider yourself insulted then!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Richard Butler was a popular figure in the US when he talked about =
disarming Iraq. But when addressing yankees he also made the point of =
talking about disarming the US (which is part of the NNPT) and I've =
heard him say "they used to look at me blankly, not understanding".

--=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/...nt/001075.html
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Leythos" wrote in message =
...
In article , "David Candy" .=20
says...
I agree with Leythos. All families of Australian, United Kingdom, =
and yankee service personel should be legit targets. Also anyone who =
voted Labour in the UK, Liberal in Australia, and Republician in the US =
should also be legit targets. They support the war crime of Aggression =
(a US invention) and they are aware that who they voted for/who they =
married are engaged in murder in Iraq.
=20
Never thought I'd see eye to eye with Leythos.
=20
You don't see anything with me, sarcasm is not seeing ete.
=20
[snip]
=20
As for the rest of us, Bush declared - in what became known as the =
Bush doctrine - the principle that those who are not with the US are =
against it.
=20
This is both unenforceable and undemocratic. Governments around the =
world, with notable exceptions such as the Howard Government, have made =
the latter point strongly.
=20
Ever hear the term - If you're not part of the solution then you are=20
part of the problem? That's what I live by.
=20
At the end of May the US refused to allow the review conference of =
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to carry out any substantive work. =
It did this because it is no longer prepared to fulfil its obligations =
under that treaty and it wanted to expunge undertakings on nuclear =
disarmament it had given at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences.
=20
The US made clear that it wants other states, especially the =
remaining "axis of evil" states - North Korea and Iran - to meet treaty =
obligations not to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet it refuses to fulfil its =
symmetrical obligation of progressively eliminating its own nuclear =
weapons.
=20
In fact, the US is violating the treaty by developing nuclear =
weapons. The other four official nuclear weapon states - China, Russia, =
France and Britain - did not stand up against the US position at the =
review conference. They hid behind the US.
=20
Most of the 180-odd non-nuclear-weapon states members of the treaty =
despaired the US stance. A leading lobby group of these countries, the =
New Agenda Coalition, was vocal in condemning the conduct of the =
conference. Australia was a member of this coalition before the Howard =
Government took office.
=20
While the US says its policy is to prevent the proliferation of =
nuclear weapons, its actions ensure that nuclear weapons technology will =
proliferate. This will be profoundly dangerous to all, including the US.
=20
It's sad that you think that the US (and several other countries) =
having=20
retained Nukes or developing smaller nukes in order to eliminate the=20
need for the large nukes, makes us more of a threat. Any reasonable=20
person knows that anyone that can assume power will assume power and =
all=20
countries seek power. Nukes would continue to be possessed b by=20
countries that don't currently have them in order to use them as a =
power=20
/ tool to get what they want. Countries that don't have the ability to =

control their nukes are a threat to all the world.
=20
The US policy at the conference emanated from the White House, but =
naturally someone had to think of it, strategically. That was the man =
who until recently was Deputy Secretary of State with responsibility for =
arms control, John Bolton, who has now been nominated by Bush to be the =
US ambassador to the UN.
=20
Daryl Kimball, of the US Arms Control Association, has written that =
"the arrogant and clumsy US strategy" at the review conference was =
Bolton's brainchild.
=20
Having met and spoken with Bolton on a number of occasions, I find =
this report credible. In a public debate I took part in with him in New =
York, shortly before his appointment to the State Department, he banged =
his fist on the table declaring that "there is no such thing as =
international law, there is only national sovereignty".
=20
Bolton was giving voice to the notion that had become popular in =
Republican circles: US exceptionalism, the idea that since the US had =
become the sole superpower it was above international law.
=20
When Bolton was appointed to be in charge of arms control at the =
State Department many commentators talked about "the vampire having been =
put in charge of the blood bank", such was his known attitude towards =
arms control.
=20
A similar consideration has been raised during the US Senate's =
hearings on Bolton's nomination to the UN: what sense is there in =
sending to the UN a man who has been so hostile to everything it stands =
for. Bush has said: "The reason I picked Bolton is that he's a =
no-nonsense kind of fellow who gets things done and we need to get =
something done in the United Nations."
=20
The US Senate will most likely vote on Bolton this week and narrowly =
confirm him. The chances of his getting anything done at the UN, other =
than perhaps to further destroy aspects of its work, would seem to be =
near to zero.
=20
Nothing gets done at the UN that isn't bought or paid for by some =
means.=20
The UN is about as corrupt as most large Union's, if not worse.
=20
As is repeatedly proving to be the case with Bush Administration =
policies, their effect is often to worsen the problem they are seeking =
to cure, such as in Iraq.
=20
As it appears, things are getting better in Iraq, sure, you see some=20
nasty things going on currently, but, for the vast majority it's =
getting=20
better - but you won't see those reports on CBS or CNN. Try talking to =

people in the field some time.
=20
The US action at the NPT Review Conference exceeds even this =
example. The US insistence on everyone else fulfilling obligations under =
the treaty while rejecting its own will weaken adherence to it, =
encourage nuclear weapon proliferation and increase the possibility of =
the acquisition of nuclear weapon technology by terrorist groups - =
exactly every outcome nobody wanted, including, so it says, the US.
=20
This is very dangerous to Australia's security but nowhere have John =
Howard and Alexander Downer said so and one can only wonder what they =
have said, if anything, to our US friends.
=20
Richard Butler was the Australian ambassador to the United Nations =
from 1992-97, chairman of the UN Special Commission to Disarm Iraq =
1997-99,, Diplomat in Residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, New =
York 1999-2001.
=20
What would be nice is if these quotes contained unbiased information.=20
=20
--=20
--=20

remove 999 in order to email me

F&ck, you are an idiot.

--=20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/...nt/001075.html
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Leythos" wrote in message =
...
In article , "David Candy" .=20
says...
Richard Butler was a popular figure in the US when he talked about =
disarming Iraq. But when addressing yankees he also made the point of =
talking about disarming the US (which is part of the NNPT) and I've =
heard him say "they used to look at me blankly, not understanding".
=20
Yea, I can see that blank look, amazed that you and others would want =
us=20
to give up something that keeps others from attacking.
=20
Sort of like outlawing guns, then only criminals would have them - and =

without a police force to protect them (the nukes would be the police) =

the bad guys would build them and walk all over the unprotected =
people.
=20
Much the same way that criminals with guns walk all over the people =
that=20
don't have guns.
=20
How about all the Rwanda women and children without a means to defend=20
themselves that were attacked by people with weapons....
=20
The Chinese have already stated they will invade the US within 30 =
years,=20
what do you think is stopping them or anyone else from invading anyone =

else?
=20
--=20
--=20

remove 999 in order to email me

"NoNoBadDog!" wrote in message
...

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
According to international laws, they are not doing anything illegal
by holding them.

What? I hope some country abducts you and holds you indefinitely. And
if anyone complains about it, I make sure to let them know that you
thinks its OK for one country to abduct another countries citizens and
hold them indefinitely!

I think you've missed the people that have been "detained" by foreign
countries/governments in non-US countries for decades, but I don't
expect you to speak out against foreign countries.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me

Okay, I have watched this thread as it has unfolded. I spent nearly 30
years in the military. I served in Vietnam (2 tours), got out, and then
re-entered. I also fought in the "first" Gulf war in 1991. I have a
little
bit of background and knowledge that will allow me to speak to some of the
issues being discussed here.

First and foremost, the persons being detained in Gitmo, in Afghanistan,
and
in other detainee camps are *NOT* U. S. citizens, and therefore are not
directly entitled to any of the rights that come with a birthright in the
United States. The persons being held (for the most part) are enemy
combatants, and while not technically prisoners of war, they are due only
the legal protection that the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the
Geneva Convention afford them. We do not owe them air conditioned
condominiums grade quarters. We owe them nothing more than what they are
being given. Get over it. Those that are determined to be not enemy
combatants will be released. Until then, they are treated as enemy
combatants. Get over it.

Those individuals that we have detained will not be beheaded. Those
individuals that we detain will not be taken into the streets and shot.
Those individuals that we detain will not wind up having their remains
tossed into a garbage dump or a schoolyard. They will be fed. They will
get better medical treatment than they received prior to their capture.
Many will get the first dental treatment of their lives. Many will get
treatment for diseased and conditions that would have gone untreated had
they not been detained. They are de-loused (and trust me, they need it).
They are kept in better conditions than they were probably living in
before
their capture...I have seen how the "average" Iraqi and Afghani lives, and
trust me you would not believe it.

Many, and I dare say most, of those being detained are fanatics who are
being manipulated. Most would take any and every opportunity to kill
anyone
not aligned with their sect/jihad/etc. Most are uneducated, unhappy, and
do
not see the b*llsh*t being fed to them by their religious and political
leaders. Most are uneducated enough to believe that being martyred will
lead to the land of Milk and honey with servants and virgin girls...
Most are dirt poor and willing to sacrifice their lives for the few measly
dollars that the jihad promises to their families. Many do not care if
they
live or die...many believe that if they die and kill Americans or Sunnies
or
Shi'ites or whatever, they will be rewarded.

Meanwhile, the f*ucked up liberal press attacks the military for
everything it does. Here you have Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines
who
risk their lives to do what their government has asked them to do...yet we
hold them to an antiquated system, unrealistic rules of engagement , and
the
glaring spolight of a hostile press. They are up against an enemy that
knows no rules, and has no limits. Perhaps the Israelis have it
right...but
the liberal pukes in the U.S. will never allow our military to effectively
deal with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will cause the
efforts
to fail. Then the liberal a**holes will claim that it failed because the
military was weak and wrong and mismanaged, when it is the actions of the
liberals in the press and in the government that will cause the failure
of
the programs in those countries.

You are not required to believe that we have a reason to be there. You
have the right to question what the motives of our government are. You
have
the right to criticize openly, in a forum just such as this, the actions
of
the government and the military. Yet it is those same Soldiers, Sailors,
Airmen and Marines who are giving their lives, their limbs, their
freedoms,
to ensure that you can sit on your fat a** back at home and make pig
noises
about it.

Criticize the government. Criticize the press. Criticize the fact that
we
have not accomplished our goals in either Afghanistan or Iraq. But never
criticize the troops that are there. Unless you have been there, you have
no clue what it is like. Unless you have been through what they are going
through, you have no clue. No clue at all. You can't sit back an
"imagine"
what it's like. You can't sit back and "speculate" on what it is like.
Therefore, you have no reasonable perspective.

There are many fine men and women who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sadly, there will be many more before the job it through. Instead of
sitting at your keyboard discussing it in a forum like this, send e-mails
to
your congressman..your state senator...the legislators on Capitol Hill.
Make your views known. Use the rights that have been granted to you by
the
Constitution and the blood of those that have died in the name of freedom.
But never attack or belittle those souls brave enough to take up the
gauntlet and serve in this time of need. They deserve no less. They are
just doing their "job"; they are just doing what they are "told to do".
They have volunteered to put themselves in harms way. They are doing a
job
that most of those reading this post do not have the courage or the
conviction to do. Honor them.

Bobby

On 6/10/05 18:24:49, Leythos wrote:

Yep, I read it in the paper, listened to it on CNN, but I've seen the
satellite images of convoys of trucks leaving Iraq for Syria for months
before we went in - Did you miss that?

Now you should have told the government that. Instead you let them go into
Iraq, when you knew all along they were going to the wrong place and should
have gone to Syria instead to find those WMDs... What kind of patriotism is
that?

You got the time line wrong, after we were forced to notify Iraq of our
intentions, in order to be PC, that's when the trucks started moving -

I really don't seem to understand what you are trying to say. A few
questions to make your point clearer to me:

- Did the administration know (by the time they sent troops to Iraq, not by
the time some politician said something) that the WMDs had already been
transported from Iraq to Syria (which seems to have been what happened,
according to you)?

- If the administration did not know, why did you not tell them?

- If the administration did know, why did they send troops to Iraq to
neutralize WMDs that they knew were not in Iraq anymore but in Syria at
that point?

- If they knew, wouldn't that have been a massive disrespect of our troops
and their lives -- sending them in harm's way to do something they knew
wasn't possible (finding WMDs in Iraq)?

Gerhard

On 6/10/05 18:36:10, Leythos wrote:

I think there is a way to recover, but it starts with education and
commerce.

I can agree with that.

Unluckily, pretty much all administrations seem to put their faith more in
military actions, support and pressure (whether open or covert) than in
peaceful efforts to further education and commerce.

And that's a big part of the current problem.

Gerhard

On 6/10/05 22:01:39, Leythos wrote:

Actually, I do believe in an eye-for-an-eye, as do many of the countries
where those terrorists come from. What's wrong with giving them some of
their own actions? Don't start the fight if you are not willing to lose
the battle.

See, that's apparently where you and I (and hopefully a few more) disagree.
For me, peace is a worthwhile goal, not vengeance. It's pretty much a
historic fact that vengeance -- between people, families, countries --
doesn't lead to anything worthwhile; at least if you don't see body bags as
something worthwhile in and by itself.

For me, any counter-terrorism measure needs to be evaluated on its effect
to contain or prevent terrorism, not on its effectiveness WRT vengeance.
"An eye for an eye" doesn't provide in itself any effect in terms of
deterring or preventing terrorism. Nor in creating justice.

It's merely vengeance. And we will make only progress when the people
living for vengeance (on both, or better, all, sides) are getting fewer and
fewer.

Gerhard