Rude replies

[Alias]

Again, how do you reason with someone that believes they must kill you
in order to get their highest religious rewards?

Most of the over one hundred thousand of people that Bush has killed with
his WMDs do not believe that. Just curious, how many muslim Arabs do you
know? I know quite a few and none of them, nor any of their friends, hate
the American public. The *do* hate what Bush is doing to the Arab world and
to its own soldiers and I can't blame them.

Fact is, the colonization of the Arab world and the subsequent support for
dictator governments like Saudi Arabia gave rise to the poverty and
hopelessness of most of the Arab people and that is the reason it is easy to
recruit suicide bombers, not their religion.

Alias

 

[kurttrail]

During the 30 days warning, where we were unable to do anything due to
the UN asking us to wait, there were many convoys to Syria, since
there were no inspectors permitted (or even there) it's only
speculation as to what came out of those suspected sites.

The moving of trucks does not mean that all items were moved, how much
was moved, or the exact contents, but it sure (to me) seemed like a
great indication of what was suspected.


I was no aware of it myself until after the combat started. I suspect
that the Military powers were fully aware, as it was military hardware
that took the images. How would you and others have reacted if we had
attacked Syria too? What if we found all those nasties in Syria, would
you have said GOOD JOB?


Where did I say they knew EVERYTHING was moved out? All we have is
images of trucks (lots) being loaded with something and taken to
Syria, not the specific contents, and we can make some reasonable
assumptions.

It was still assumed that there were reasons to continue with the plan
for Iraq. Don't forget, WMD's include biologicals which can be stored
in very small places.


You seem to have confused the idea that Trucks took masses of WMD's to
other countries with the idea that we believed that they took
EVERYTHING to other countries - that would have been a stupid
assumption. Nowhere have I suggested that it was all moved, that
there are not still WMD's in Iraq, that it was the only reason we
went into Iraq. I don't know if you noticed the buried jet-fighters
in sand or other places in the middle of nothing where things were
buried in sand....

Oh, and how do you know the trucks contained WMDs from your fictitious
satellite photos? Because Fox News said they contained WMDs?

And by the way why did Bush's own WMD inspector Duelfer come to the
conclusion that Saddam didn't have any WMDs since the mid 1990's?

I guess you don't quite believe the Duelfer report, like you don't
believe the Downing Street Memo!

--
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"

 

[kurttrail]

PT wrote:

[Nothing]

--
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"

 

[kurttrail]

You took it wrong again - Peace is first in my goals, but I'm not
stupid enough to believe that someone that hates my family for being
American is going to accept Peace if I offer a hand of friendship.
You should hear what's being said in private in mosques, have you
forgot that they've said ALL AMERICANS NEED TO DIE?


I choose to look at it like a rabid dog - you can't cure it, you can't
reason with it, it acts in a manner we consider irrational, and 99% of
the time you deal with it by killing it before it hurts/kills you. In
this case we have a group of peoples that have sworn, in public, to
kill every American and they believe they will be rewarded for doing
it - that their GOD will reward them for each American they kill. How
do you reason with someone like that?


Again, how do you reason with someone that believes they must kill you
in order to get their highest religious rewards?

Since Bush believes he is doing his God's work, I as you the same
question!



--
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"

 

[David Candy]

Lets see, during the Iran - Iraq war Iraq built a pipeline across Syria because the US wasn't that good on protecting Iraqi oil shipments from Iran. The Syrians let Iraq pay for the pipeline, then stole all the oil. Why would the Iraqi government trust Syria?

Not to mention the trucks probably had Iraqi rugs or dates for sale. They trade.

Anyway the US planned the Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the Iran - Iraq war. The so callled attack on the Kurds is believed to be Iranian gas (as Iraq didn't use that particular type of gas but Iran did) and that neither side was trying to gas civialians but each other - there was a major battle going on - as if they'd take time out to gas people while trying not to be killed by the other side..

From Lessons from the war in Iraq (Military Thought - A Russian Military Journal, July, 2003 by Maj. Gen V.V. Cheban)

This understanding of the world and the United States' place in it is being drummed into its citizens and members of the military with the aid of a ramified system of information and indoctrination pressure. An entire industry of inculcation, beginning from the mass media and ending with practical advice on moral guidance, is aimed at proving the fairness and sanctity of the U.S. military policy. This is the beaten path that was taken to prepare for the war on Iraq. As an illustration, we could cite some of the glib answers by American soldiers to journalists' questions about the dire need to "protect America's national interests" and "democratic values." The anti-humane flaws of Hussein's regime, his crime against his own people, instances of despotism and violations of human rights were initially cited and pushed as proof of the sanctity and fairness of war against Iraq. There were persistent efforts to inculcate the idea of the threat in store to "all humanity, not just to America, in the hidden weapons of mass destruction" and in the policy of backing international terrorism. Next came detailed accounts of the Hussein regime's tricks to bypass the embargo and impede the job of the international inspectors. The pinnacle of the "system of evidence" was the pictures taken from outer space of places where weapons threatening humanity were supposed to be hidden.

This was paralleled by moral and psychological conditioning of all those upon whom directly or indirectly depended the course and outcome of the war. The moral and psychological conditioning implies the activities of the government, appropriate agencies and specialists to condition the minds of individuals and groups of individuals, the entire military personnel and the country's population for a successful prosecution of war considering the great health and safety hazards involved.
In practical terms the whole thing was as follows. Initially, public and individual conscience was simply directed to focus on the potential target of aggression. Next, an atmosphere of enmity was created that was turning into irritation and hatred. This was followed by a wearisome pause whose monotony inevitably engendered a psychological condition where everyone was looking forward to an immediate denouement and concrete decisive actions. This pause as a rule coincided with a period of concealed movement and demonstrative deployment of forces for operations in the coming war. They deliberately demonstrated the power and invincibility of the military, the effectiveness of its equipment, weapons and professionalism of the personnel. Used for this purpose were videos, reports, interviews, videocassettes taped way back during exercises, tests and so on. For instance, at the time of the Balkans war, different news agencies around the world received 25,000 videocassettes showing to the United States' advantage its U.S. forces and their activities.
This same thing repeated itself during preparations for the war in Iraq. Breathtaking accounts from the soldiers saying they were ready to "safeguard democracy and liberal values" were neatly woven into the fabric of regular news reports and news flashes. For audiences "burdened with intellect" there were numerous discussions, roundtables and debates bringing together "independent" analyst of every stripe. The media were awash with analytical reports, profiles, diagrams, forecasts, calculations and expert appraisals. Use was made of the tremendous reach of the Internet. Naturally, this outpouring of information and emotions was not free. It was expertly controlled through skilful rationing of material, rigorous censorship, strict bans on what officials could do (for example, even Condoleezza Rice was banned from speaking publicly, before the end of the war, on subjects other than the war) and bribing and getting rid of unacceptable journalists. Thus, a talented and internationally recognized American war reporter was fired for speaking of Iraq in wrong terms. As a result, people were getting the impression that the world slipped onto an enormous track that inevitably led to war, and getting out of it was as impossible as to make big river flow in reverse. Thus, by accustoming its own population (this was especially helped by the regular sociological studies and results of public polls) and most of the people in the rest of the world, the United States "dismantled" the moral and psychological barriers to acting on concrete plans of operations.

When the war began, many people had a psychological state that can be described as follows: "I wish this war is over soon. I don't care who wins unless it ends real soon."

Since the target of the moral-political and psychological conditioning is the inner world of people, the individual and public consciousness, where the rational and the emotional are closely linked, these types of conditioning are not separated but rather combined for the purpose of just one activity--moral-political and psychological conditioning. Its objective is to form an appropriate moral factor as a system of values, convictions, feelings and moods, in a word, special properties of the intellect and psyche of a soldier who is capable of not only to withstand the negative impacts of war and fighting, correctly estimate the situation, decide on correct patterns of behavior but, most importantly, to perform the mission assigned in extreme conditions.

The targets of moral-political and psychological conditioning are: the appropriate agencies (Congress), the political and military elite on which depend the drafting and passing of decisions on the conduct of war; the military personnel and agencies responsible for preparing and conducting the war; the country's (U.S.) population; the world community representing both states supporting the policy of the state that initiated the war and states opposing it; the government leaders and military leaders of the attacked state; the personnel of the army--the victim of aggression; the country's population--the victim of aggression.

Targeted information was also tinged with war rhetoric. It hyped the success of American forces for the benefit of the American public and military personnel. It should be stressed that the number of casualties has been the most vulnerable and sensitive thing in all America's wars. A comparatively low level of casualties can demoralize both individual military units and the entire army. Therefore one of the main criteria of the effectiveness of combat operations has been the number of battle casualties rather than the success or failure of combat missions. An increase in combat casualties can simply stop the U.S. war machine. This was the case during WWII, the war in Vietnam, and the peacekeeping operation in Somalia. In the latter instance, the showing on TV the cruel killing by the locals of a captured American air pilot proved sufficient for the United States to have wound up the operation.

Naturally, throughout the campaign, the successes of the enemy were carefully concealed and understated whereas its losses were exaggerated. The Americans took special pains to portray massive surrenders of Iraqi soldiers and conceal their own flaws in organizing combat operations. They were carefully concealing and in no hurry to report friendly fire casualties, clashes, accidents and so on. At the same time, the freeing of a captured American young woman, an Army private, was covered Hollywood-style complete with traditional American symbols on all TV channels.

 

[Carl]

Kurtrail advises:

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

This is a very good way to fix problems with XP.
Right?
Carl

 

[David Candy]

Only if the squirel (whatever they are - I thought yankees used frozen Gerbils with taped claws) is causing problems with XP. If not you should leave it alone. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[Steve Shattuck]

This is a very good way to fix problems with XP.
Right?

Don't encourage him. Kurtrail is the perfect reason to have a TWIT Filter.

 

[Mathusla]

Adious MF!


| In article <[email protected]>,
| (e-mail address removed) says...
| > 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.
|
| You took it wrong again - Peace is first in my goals, but I'm not stupid
| enough to believe that someone that hates my family for being American
| is going to accept Peace if I offer a hand of friendship. You should
| hear what's being said in private in mosques, have you forgot that
| they've said ALL AMERICANS NEED TO DIE?
|
| > 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.
|
| I choose to look at it like a rabid dog - you can't cure it, you can't
| reason with it, it acts in a manner we consider irrational, and 99% of
| the time you deal with it by killing it before it hurts/kills you. In
| this case we have a group of peoples that have sworn, in public, to kill
| every American and they believe they will be rewarded for doing it -
| that their GOD will reward them for each American they kill. How do you
| reason with someone like that?
|
| > 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.
|
| Again, how do you reason with someone that believes they must kill you
| in order to get their highest religious rewards?
|
| --
| --
| (e-mail address removed)
| remove 999 in order to email me

 

[kurttrail]

Don't encourage him. Kurtrail is the perfect reason to have a TWIT
Filter.

I guess you can't see your own posts 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"

 

[kurttrail]

Kurtrail advises:
This is a very good way to fix problems with XP.
Right?

Yes. You need to take the squirrel out of your butt before activating
XP. Didn't you read the EULA?

--
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"

 

[Alan Smith]

Yes. You need to take the squirrel out of your butt before activating XP.
Didn't you read the EULA?

Yes, everybody always reads the full EULA. This may be the first instance
ever recorded of someone not doing so.

 

[Plato]

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action,
even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was

Even tho it says in the US Constitution that the USA president is
commander in chief of the armed forces, he cannot act alone like a
dictator can. The USA president needs FULL support of the Congress to do
just about anything that costs more than a few million dollars, as
Congress is the authority that MUST approve of any major expenditures.

No money, no invasion, no war, no matter what the president wants.

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Even tho it says in the US Constitution that the USA president is
commander in chief of the armed forces, he cannot act alone like a
dictator can. The USA president needs FULL support of the Congress to do
just about anything that costs more than a few million dollars, as
Congress is the authority that MUST approve of any major expenditures.

No money, no invasion, no war, no matter what the president wants.

The president cannot declare war without the approval of congress....the
president can send troops without the approval of congress. In case you
have forgotten yoru history, the United States never declared war on
Vietnam. Vietnam was a police action, funded by congress, without their
approval for the police action and without their having decalerd a war.

In addition, the President does have some limited independent action. For
instance, if the US became the victim of a nuclear attack, he would not have
to await the approval of congress...he would have the power to immediately
retaliate...that is why the "nuclear football" is always nearby the
president.

iIf the president does send troops into a country, Congress would have to
fund the operation, otherwise the troops would be at risk because of the
actions of the congress. Believe it or not, congressmen do not want to lose
their jobs, and if the president sent in troops and those tropps died
because congress failed to fund the operation, the constitutents would vote
them out.

Perhaps you should do a little more study on the limits of Presidential
authority. You can thank the Democratic party for giving the sitting
president more power over the 50 years.

Bobby

 

[Alias]

Even tho it says in the US Constitution that the USA president is
commander in chief of the armed forces, he cannot act alone like a
dictator can. The USA president needs FULL support of the Congress to do
just about anything that costs more than a few million dollars, as
Congress is the authority that MUST approve of any major expenditures.

No money, no invasion, no war, no matter what the president wants.

Which is why Bush lied to congress and the the UN for that matter. Remember
the portable WMDs that Powell described at the UN that turned out to be,
well, lies.

Alias

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Which is why Bush lied to congress and the the UN for that matter.
Remember the portable WMDs that Powell described at the UN that turned out
to be, well, lies.

Alias

Yet another clueless dolt joins the fray....

This thread is really getting quite entertaining! How these simpletons can
just make up the bull hockey they post here and think that anyone is going
to believe them is beyond me. But I must admit that the humor is worth
continuing to read the thread.


For your information, Bush made the decision based upon intelligence that
was provided to him. I make no claim as to the accuracy or the intent of
said intelligence. Bush did not just get up one morning and decide to
invade Iraq while eating a bowl of cereal. His advisors, and even the Joint
Chiefs of Staff were urging him to take decisive action. Congress was
already debating funding of possible military action in Iraq. But according
to you, Bush made it all up (lied). You Monday morning quarterbacks are
really making yourselves look foolish.

Bobby

 

[Alias]

Yet another clueless dolt joins the fray....

This thread is really getting quite entertaining! How these simpletons
can just make up the bull hockey they post here and think that anyone is
going to believe them is beyond me. But I must admit that the humor is
worth continuing to read the thread.


For your information, Bush made the decision based upon intelligence that
was provided to him.

Yeah, right. You mean the intelligence he made up, a pack of lies.

I make no claim as to the accuracy or the intent of said intelligence.

He sure did, with diagrams and everything.

Bush did not just get up one morning and decide to invade Iraq while
eating a bowl of cereal.

No, that was decided by his handlers long before he became president. 9/11
was the excuse/opportunity to do it.

His advisors, and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were urging him to take
decisive action.

Bull pucky.

Congress was already debating funding of possible military action in
Iraq.

More bull pucky.

But according to you, Bush made it all up (lied).

Considering there were no WMDs, yes, he lied. Considering that Iraq had
nothing to do with 9/11, yes, he lied. Considering that Iraq was not
connected to Al Queda, yes, he lied.

You Monday morning quarterbacks are really making yourselves look
foolish.

Bobby

Your ad hominem attacks make you look amateurish.

Alias

 

[kurttrail]

Yet another clueless dolt joins the fray....

This thread is really getting quite entertaining! How these simpletons
can just make up the bull hockey they post here and think that anyone is
going to believe them is beyond me. But I must admit that the humor is
worth continuing to read the thread.


For your information, Bush made the decision based upon intelligence
that was provided to him. I make no claim as to the accuracy or the
intent of said intelligence. Bush did not just get up one morning and
decide to invade Iraq while eating a bowl of cereal. His advisors, and
even the Joint Chiefs of Staff were urging him to take decisive action.
Congress was already debating funding of possible military action in
Iraq. But according to you, Bush made it all up (lied). You Monday
morning quarterbacks are really making yourselves look foolish.

Bobby

http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000027.php

The Iraq War was manufactured. And the US's closest ally, the Brits, saw
it that way nearly a year before the invasion.

--
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"

 

[kurttrail]

NoNoBadDog! wrote:

Perhaps you should do a little more study on the limits of Presidential
authority. You can thank the Democratic party for giving the sitting
president more power over the 50 years.

And the Republicans for abusing it!

--
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"

 

[R. McCarty]

All Politics/Parties are inherently self-serving. Arguing the virtues of
any group is pointless. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are just as
full of it as Janeane Garofolo and Al Franken.

The overriding principal of this country is "For the Common Good".
Unfortunately, Today the US is made up of factions who align themselves
with one party or the other. There is no Common Voice because
only the zealots have a forum.

When people argue the minutia, the larger issues get lost in all the
"Smoke & Mirrors". Nothing gets done, because everyone gets
caught up discussing Oval Office sex(?) and IQ levels and motives.

Here's an example of Political BS.
Eleven years ago, our House Rep came to our company. They made
all Engineers and Mgrs attend a meeting on the Company Political
Action committee. Essentially he "Blackmailed" us to contribute so the
company could fund his re-election campaigns. With this, we would
get his "Protection" and keep our jobs.
Today, that House member serves on the "India Caucus". The
company in question is now just a shell of it's former self. But the Rep
now works on behalf of Indian Outsourcing. Politicians go where the
money is.

My advice is don't believe that any "Party" speaks for you. They will
tell you what you want to hear and do what's best for them.