WHO AM I !

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 06:58:42 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:33:31 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:

results of bipartisan committees showing no tampering
with the intelligence.

Sweet. Say it. Say it.

Can you also say the Iraq war has made the US safer? Say that too. I
just want you fully on record for that.

I'll answer your question if you answer these.

1) Name one war that the US or any other country ever got into that
was based on intelligence that was later proven to be 100% accurate.

100% is an absurdly high standard so the real answer is "I don't
know." But the pacific war with Japan comes close insofar as the
declaration of war with Japan was in response to the bombing of Pearl
Harbor.


2) Where DID the WMD that Saddam admitted having go? There's no
record, so I thought maybe you'd know.

I don't know -- I just know they don't exist now. If they existed
they'd have been used by now. If you do you're in a fairy tale land.

3) Are you saying (for the record - heh - what a concept) that state
sponsorship of brutal anti-US dictatorships is not something we do NOT
have to end

If the threat to use is remote, or far in the future, or unformed, of
course we don't have to end it. By the standard of belief that we
have to attack any country that is a dictatorships and says it is
against the US, we'd be in war constantly. And that would provoke
more anti-US sentiment and more war. The concept is idiotic and
undermines US security.

(ask Israel about the results of radical regimes financing
terrorist groups if you need some background info).

Here's a bonus answer for you: to equate the security situation of
Israel -- a tiny country with many countries in tacit or open hostily
to it on it's border -- with the US, one of the largest countries in
the world with close allies on both border -- is simplistic at best.

4) If a democratic Iraq isn't going to be an effective deterrent to
the terrorists, why are they expending so much energy and money and
lives to fight it?

Your question is a tautology.

JT


But it's OK JT - I'm sure there were people who thought like you in
the early years of WWII as well - that our involvement was making our
country less safe. And of course, they were right if you shorten the
event horizon sufficiently.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

What does this have to do with cycling???

Seems like D'oh Boy gets the last laugh by starting this thread that is
inappropriate for this news group. If you guys want to discuss this stuff,
find some political news group.

Bob P.



"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 07:33:44 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

RonSonic wrote:

First: most of the really good reasons for removing Saddam were
things that Bush as head of state cannot say.

I'm curious what those things are.

And yes, every reason
given was valid.

Absolutely right.

OK Sorni has answered that as (close paraphrase here): every reason
Bush gave to go to war was valid.

Great. I'm not saying more -- just want that in the open for the
record.

JT
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 06:58:42 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote:


But it's OK JT - I'm sure there were people who thought like you in
the early years of WWII as well - that our involvement was making our
country less safe.

This is the idiotic right-wing talking point of the moment -- that
Iraq insurgency is somehow anaologous to the Nazis.

I'll admit that if I lived back in the day I wouldn't have wanted out
government to take out Hitler when he was consolidating power inside
Germany. You might now claim we should have, but I think you'd been
operating with hindsight. When his country started talking about
invading other countries, my opinion would have swiftly changed -- esp
with Poland and the UK. In the east, the Japanese invasion of
Manchuria would have been the key moment for me, and Pearl Harbor
would have sealed the deal.

I happen to be against the war in Afghanistan, but can see reasonable
criticism of that position from you -- it'd surely debateable if that
was a good move or not. Sad to say that the Iraq war has undermined
the benefits of the invasion of Afghanistan....

But Iraq and the Nazi threat? What a joke. Total joke. Considering
that that meme is getting out there most recently due to Rumsfeld's
remarks -- you know, the guy who was involved in arming Saddam Hussein
-- it would be super funy except for the thousands of people being
killed and the billions of dollars squandered.

What a sick joke your support for that war is.

Now Mr. Prescient, what are the other countries we should invade to
squelch the future threat? How many more people should die just in
case?



And of course, they were right if you shorten the
event horizon sufficiently.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
...
But Iraq and the Nazi threat? What a joke. Total joke. Considering
that that meme is getting out there most recently due to Rumsfeld's
remarks -- you know, the guy who was involved in arming Saddam Hussein
-- it would be super funy except for the thousands of people being
killed and the billions of dollars squandered.

What a sick joke your support for that war is....

After the destruction of most of Iraq's military equipment in the Gulf
War and the follow-up UN inspections, even the Kuwaitis were no longer
afraid of being attacked by Iraq. Even at its high point, the Iraqi
military was fought to a standstill by a poorly trained, led [1], and
equipped Iranian army, and was decimated by the US et al with ease in
1991.

Hitler took on the majority of the industrialized world and could have
won if a few things had been done differently.

As for "Islamofascism", that term has to be the stupidest thing I have
heard in a long time. Rule by corporate interests (i.e. fascism) is one
of the primary grievances in the Arab and Muslim worlds against the
industrialized west. It should also be noted that groups such as
Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood devote much of their
resources to providing social services that the government(s) have
failed to provide. "Theocrat-socialist" would be a better term for
these groups, and is a large part of the reason they are hated by
western leadership, since if they ruled, foreign corporations would no
longer be allowed to exploit the people of these countries.

[1] Due to ideological purges of officers formerly loyal to the Shah.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

In article ,
says...
2) Where DID the WMD that Saddam admitted having go? There's no
record, so I thought maybe you'd know.

"The CIA concludes, "There comes a point where the absence of evidence
does indeed become the evidence of absence."

One surprising conclusion from the CIA retrospective is that the agency
now believes that aggressive U.N. inspections in Iraq in 1991 after the
Persian Gulf War led Saddam to what it described as a "fateful
decision." He covertly dismantled and destroyed the undeclared nuclear,
chemical and biological facilities, materials and actual weapons he had
put together in the preceding decade -- along with "the records that
could have verified that unilateral destruction.""

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/192613/3/

Rick

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

So I've answered your questions.

No, you DELETED the ones you didn't like.

Now can you answer mine

Ah, so you admit I haven't taken your bait -- a direct contradiction to your
claim under Ron's post that I "went on the (your) record" for your vast
Flogger Archives {tm}.

I'll of course have to record time stamps and quotes to show this to the
MANY people who may GAFF, but... Nah. Go ahead and play your little petty
dishonest games.

(You're /this close/ to plunkitude, as I can literally feel what a relief it
will be to just expunge you from my daily online life. Then falilor...and
doughie... Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.)

LOL

Bob Palermo wrote:
What does this have to do with cycling???

Seems like D'oh Boy gets the last laugh by starting this thread that is
inappropriate for this news group. If you guys want to discuss this stuff,
find some political news group.

Here we have an example of the "complaint about a thread that has
turned into an off-topic flame war", a species commonly found in the
un-moderated portions of Usenet.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 07:33:44 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

RonSonic wrote:

First: most of the really good reasons for removing Saddam were
things that Bush as head of state cannot say.

I'm curious what those things are.

And yes, every reason
given was valid.

Absolutely right.

OK Sorni has answered that as (close paraphrase here): every reason
Bush gave to go to war was valid.

Great. I'm not saying more -- just want that in the open for the
record.

You're such a tool. Keep it on your hard drive for the next ten years. LOL

{UPDATE: a few posts below -- some three hourse later it appears -- you
admit I still haven't answered your question. SO WERE YOU LYING THEN OR ARE
YOU LYING NOW?!? LOL }

For the record, I /didn't/ reply to your troll, much less answer your
question to me. I agreed with what Ron wrote /in full/ and /in context/ and
not chopped up the way you present it above.

If the "reasons given" were NOT valid, then why did most of your toadies
vote for it? Political expediency above moral conviction?

No wonder you admire them so: no character.

RonSonic wrote:
...
It's pretty well understood that Saddam needed his ass kicked and that the rest
of the evil dictator club be thereby put on notice....

Unless those evil dictators support exploitation of their people by
multi-national corporations, in which case they are friends of the US,
e.g. Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, Carlos Castillos Armas, Anastasio
Somoza Debayle, Fulgencio Battista, Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos,
Haji Mohammad Soeharto (General Suharto), etc.

Didn't Donald Rumsfeld go to Iraq in 1983 to greet Saddam Hussein as a
friend of the US and offer assistance in Iraq's war with Iran?

Of course the mainstream US media has never reported any of this in an
unbiased manner, allowing the US people to bask in an unfounded belief
of the altruistic goals of US foreign policy. This revision of the
truth, started at an early age in US schools, leads many to dismiss
legitimate criticism of US foreign policy as "America hating", and they
therefore dismiss both the message and the messenger. And then the
bewildered flock wonders why "they hate us" and accepts such tripe
as "they hate us because they hate freedom".

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
"We have just got to hope, that whatever retaliatory action the Bush
government undertakes to satisfy its own people for the twin towers
does the least possible damage to the struggle against terrorism." -
Sir Michael Howard

Mark Hickey wrote:
...
4) If a democratic Iraq isn't going to be an effective deterrent to
the terrorists, why are they expending so much energy and money and
lives to fight it?...

Parroting propaganda again? I see Mark Hickey is unable to distinguish
between resistance to foreign occupation and opposing collaborative
puppet governments (legal by international law and legitimate by
convention) and terrorism.

The goal of the real terrorists in Iraq was to start a Shia/Sunni civil
war. It looks like Zaqwari's epitaph could be "Mission Accomplished".

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
"We have just got to hope, that whatever retaliatory action the Bush
government undertakes to satisfy its own people for the twin towers
does the least possible damage to the struggle against terrorism." -
Sir Michael Howard