A Word to Recumbent Riders

On Aug 24, 9:28 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:

I think even that much is one for the tinfoil hat brigade. On what
facts do you base this very serious accusation (which is, after all, an
accusation of treason for which the death penalty can be imposed)?

I will answer just this one as we mostly agree on other points.
My father (who is now retired) was in military. He worked on several
top secret projects involving rocket engines and thermonuclear fusion.
He had to deal w/ intelligence (or more precisely counter-
intelligence)
people on weekly basis for decades. He developed quite a fascination
and knowledge about their methods. Occasionally he would tell me some
stories about that - although always without any concrete references
and mostly about some historical cases. Based on what he told me I
cannot accept that the best intelligence agency in the world was
just outwitted by a bunch of goat-herding fanatics sitting in some
caves in Pakistan. That just does not compute. I do not buy that
neverending lie that Bush people perpetuate that everything is just
"in the hand of God" that nothing can be predicted. I know why they
try to create such image - it absolves them from any responsibility.
Still it is utter BS.
On the other hand I do not believe that there was a vast conspiracy
proceeding with a full knowledge of WTC being targeted and thousand
potential victims.
So - as always truth is probably somewhere in between - they knew
planes would be hijacked and that in worst case scenario 200 maybe
250 people would die. But that was a small price to pay. Just like
Pearl Harbour was.

Edward Dolan wrote:

Our involvement in the Middle East is not about oil, it is about what these
oil states do with their new found wealth. If there were no oil in the
Middle East there would be no wealth in the Middle East (except for Israel
of course) and we would not give a damn about any of them any more than we
give a damn about Africa. Jeez, these idiots who think it is all about oil
are crazy as hoot owls.

Hey Ed, the US just established an African military command,
specifically because of oil and other natural resources. The US imports
a significant amount of oil from Nigeria, and there are other oil
resources in the general geographical area.

P.S. Hoot owls are not crazy.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Papa Tom aka Tom Montalbano wrote:
'Scuse me, dudes, but my original post was a note of concern for
recumbant riders, whom, no matter what you all say, are simply not
visible enough when they try to ride on the road with automobiles.

Utter nonsense. If the drivers can see the painted lines on the road, they
can see a recumbent bicycle and rider. Some of us ride recumbents
(including low trikes and lowracers) in urban traffic without issue.

I'm not even sure who cut and pasted it here, as it was originally on
rec.bicycles.rides, exclusively....

I did, since the thread subject is on-topic for
alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent, rec.bicycles.misc and rec.bicycles.soc, but
NOT for rec.bicycles.rides.

From http://draco.acs.uci.edu/rbfaq/FAQ/3.4.html:

rec.bicycles.rides: Discussions of tours and training or commuting routes.
Not for disussion of general riding techniques -- see rec.bicycles.misc.
Not for products or services offered or wanted -- see
rec.bicycles.marketplace.

alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent: Discussion of recumbent bikes.

rec.bicycles.misc: General riding techniques, rider physiology,
injuries and treatment, diets, and other cycling topics.
Not for products or services offered or wanted -- see
rec.bicycles.marketplace.

rec.bicycles.soc: Social issues, cycling transportation advocacy, laws,
conduct of riders and drivers; road hazards such as potholes, dogs, and
sociopaths. Not for products or services offered or wanted --
see rec.bicycles.marketplace.

Tom Sherman is quite correct of course and it is why I have to read
everything he writes. When he wants to, he knows how to hit the nail on the
head.

But why are these cycling newsgroups off course so much of the time. It is
because there are no moderators for any of them. With moderators, we could
stay on course and be bored to death. I do not mind getting off course as,
after all, there is only so much that can be said about bicycles and cycling
without driving everyone bonkers.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Woland99" wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 7:03 pm, "Wilson" wrote:

The Iraqi people will ultimately decide where there interests lie or as
you
say who their very close friends are.

Instead or eciting some slogans about "Iraqi people" (why not call
them
"Iraqis" anyways) stick to the facts ans explain to how on earth you
envision that Shiites that are in charge of Iraq now and who for
decades
were oppressed group will suddenly have a change of heart and will
not
seek close relations with Iran (who is predominantly Shiite country)?
They would turn back on closest most convenient supporter - and on
700
years of persecution of Shiites by Sunnis. For you Marthin Luther or
Counter-Reformation are just pages in history. For Shiites their own
history is very much alive and celebrated every day.

Don't you know that the Shiites of Iraq are Arabs and the Shiites of Iran
are NOT Arabs. They are not even Semites. You are too ignorant to be
believed! Now look it up and tell me what you find out about the Shiites of
Iran as to their race. By the way, race trumps everything else including
religion - you confounded numskull!

Thankfully you will not be on anyone's list for Secretary of State.

Condi Rice is utter idiot and liar. That woman right before attacking
Afghanistan was making speeces that betrayed her complete ignorance
of any differences or animosity between Sunnis or Shiites. She might
be an expert on Soviet affairs. But she is clueless about Islam.

She knows everything there is to know about those two abhorrent sects of
Islam. The only idiot here is you.

On top of everything she should have been dismissed after failing to
protect United States on 9/11. She had 8 months to formulate
effective
counter-terrorism policy. But the first meeting on the subject that
she
proposed was scheduled for Sep 10. That is ridiculous - in any normal
type of organization she would have been fired. But Bush rewards and
protects incompetence - his whole cabinet is built on loyalty and
blind
faith in dogma and not on knowledge, accountability and competence.
That is why Jay Garner who had correct approach to Iraq was dismissed
and replaced by that idiot Paul Bremmer who lost any chance for stable
and secular Iraq.

Why did not Clinton do something about the Islamic terrorists during his 8
years in office?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:

Our involvement in the Middle East is not about oil, it is about what
these oil states do with their new found wealth. If there were no oil in
the Middle East there would be no wealth in the Middle East (except for
Israel of course) and we would not give a damn about any of them any more
than we give a damn about Africa. Jeez, these idiots who think it is all
about oil are crazy as hoot owls.

Hey Ed, the US just established an African military command, specifically
because of oil and other natural resources. The US imports a significant
amount of oil from Nigeria, and there are other oil resources in the
general geographical area.

Nigeria is like many countries in the Middle East - unstable and given to
doing mischievous things with their oil revenues. That is why we are there,
not because of the oil. Are we in Mexico because of oil? Are we in the UK or
Norway because of oil? Of course not. Most of these third world nations are
ruled by thugs. A rich thug can do much more damage in the world than a poor
thug. We are there to police the rich thugs.

P.S. Hoot owls are not crazy.

Well, they sure sound crazy with all that hooting they do.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Tim McNamara wrote:
[...]
From the deposition of the Shah until today, Iran has been defiant of the
West and belligerent. November 4, 1979 was certainly a rather
belligerent day on the part of Iran.

Belligerent? Since when is kicking out a toady government of foreign
powers belligerent? The belligerency started against the Iranians with the
Dulles brothers arranging the coup that removed the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED
Mossadeq government in 1953 in favor of the brutal and authoritarian Reza
Shah Pahlavi - a coup that was done at the behest of multinational oil
companies.

Hells Bells, we should have taken over those oil fields by military force.
The West needed the oil, they didn't.

The Shah was benign and bent on Westernizing Iran. But the clerics have
taken the country back to the Middle Ages, but one with soon to be acquired
nuclear weapons. Wow, a medieval mentality with nuclear weapons at its
disposal! Now even I can appreciate what that means, since I am a man of the
Dark Ages myself. Death to the infidel!

Besides it is very likely that Bush and Co was duped to invade by
skillful Iranian manipulation. I am fairly certain that Ahmed Chalabi -
that asshole that kept feeing bogus WMD "information" to neocons (and
who CIA thought was complete fraud but those voices were silenced) - was
in fact Iranian agent. Last time I checked he loeft Iraq and lives in
Iran now - I may be wrong on that.

The neocons heard what they wanted to hear and found people to say the
things they wanted to hear. They silenced the people saying the things
they did not want to hear.

Either way - destroying Sunni-led Iraq and installing Shiites as rulers
of Iraq was a God-send to Iran - the only serious local enemy was gone.

Nope, now they have us as a local enemy. We are going to stay in Iraq
forever, even if that asshole B. Hussein O. gets to be president. National
survival interests trump everything else.

I agree that events in Iraq have indeed emboldened Islamist Shiite
factions in Iran (and other places).

Why do you think Saudi Arabia refused to increase oil production when
Bush asked the for it?
Why should they? The laws of supply and demand give them no incentive.
Our troops were stationed for quite a while in Saudi Arabia to protect
them from Saddam. That was serious leverage. Now we have none.

The Saudis are capitalists. It's as simple as that.

The laws of petroleum geology say that the Saudis may not be able to
increase oil production.

I think Tom Sherman may be right about this. In any event, the world does
not have unlimited resources of oil.

I bet that was part that Saudis traded with Bush for help to organize
9/11. And before you start with "tin foil" stuff - yes I believe that we
had knowledge of 9/11 plot and we allowed that to proceed - however I
think that it is very likely that people in our government that
participated in that conspiracy were not aware of the scale of the plot.
Saudis probably told them it would few planes hijacked - maybe 250 ppl
killed. That would be enough to attack Iraq. I do not believe that
anybody expected WTC to go down.

I think even that much is one for the tinfoil hat brigade. On what facts
do you base this very serious accusation (which is, after all, an
accusation of treason for which the death penalty can be imposed)?

The idea that 9/11/2001 was a false flag attack is more credible than
believing that we were told the truth by the government and 9/11
Commission - the false flag hypothesis is at least possible, while the
omissions and contradictions of the latter are numerous.

Here is why you must never accept Tom Sherman on anything outside his very
limited area of expertise. He is as kooky as all the other
far-left-wing-wacko-nut-cases (all one word). Once you embrace an ideology,
you are are lost to reason and common sense.

The Saudis and the US would not be the only groups capable of setting up a
false flag attack, nor the ones with the most to gain.

Here is Tom Sherman being cryptic! Thanks for the good laugh!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Aug 24, 11:14 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Either way - destroying Sunni-led Iraq and installing Shiites as rulers
of Iraq was a God-send to Iran - the only serious local enemy was gone.

Nope, now they have us as a local enemy. We are going to stay in Iraq
forever, even if that asshole B. Hussein O. gets to be president. National
survival interests trump everything else.

So let me get it straight you are saying that:
1. having our soldiers dying in potential fight to contain Iran
2. paying TRILLIONS of dollars to keep such military effort going

is somehow BETTER than:
3. having Iraqi soldiers dying to contain Iran on our behalf
4. making tens of billions of dollars profit by selling Iraq arms
to kee such military effor.

Are you insane?
Or you just pretend to be.

That is of course if I judge you and our government from common
sense point of view. Which is a mistake. There is deeper sense
in that insanity. Key is #2 - "paying trillions" yes - we are -
but "we" in this case means American taxpayers - that money either
comes directly from our taxes and US Treasury at the expense of
various social programs (like eg. student loans) or it is been
borrowed from China and our children and grandchildren will have
to pay it back. And the money? We will pay it to our defense
industry to create weapons - and they will outsource a lot of
jobs to keep profits up. In a nutshell it is biggest robbery in
thye history of the world. So go ahead - turn on your FOX News
in cheer up while we "kick Arab's ass". Your kids will pay dearly
for that folly.

"Woland99" wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 11:14 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
Either way - destroying Sunni-led Iraq and installing Shiites as
rulers
of Iraq was a God-send to Iran - the only serious local enemy was
gone.

Nope, now they have us as a local enemy. We are going to stay in Iraq
forever, even if that asshole B. Hussein O. gets to be president.
National
survival interests trump everything else.

So let me get it straight you are saying that:
1. having our soldiers dying in potential fight to contain Iran

Not very many soldiers will die. Just as in Iraq, we will go through them
like a hot knife through butter. We will kill them mainly with air power and
missiles. But all we really want to do is take out their nuclear capacity
and to insure the integrity of Iraq. Iran can go to hell otherwise, mullahs
and all. In fact, I would send them to Hell with atom bombs if it were left
up to me.

2. paying TRILLIONS of dollars to keep such military effort going

It is also very expensive if and when we get hit with nuclear weapons from
Iran or their surrogates.

is somehow BETTER than:
3. having Iraqi soldiers dying to contain Iran on our behalf

We will have to be there as a backup for the Iraqi military for the
foreseeable future. We sure as hell are not going to let them be taken over
by Iran.

4. making tens of billions of dollars profit by selling Iraq arms
to kee such military effort.

Anything is cheaper than suffering a nuclear attack.

Are you insane?
Or you just pretend to be.

Spoken like a true liberal asshole!

That is of course if I judge you and our government from common
sense point of view. Which is a mistake. There is deeper sense
in that insanity. Key is #2 - "paying trillions" yes - we are -
but "we" in this case means American taxpayers - that money either
comes directly from our taxes and US Treasury at the expense of
various social programs (like eg. student loans) or it is been
borrowed from China and our children and grandchildren will have
to pay it back.

So what else is new? National security is the first obligation of
government, not welfare programs. If we are not safe, where are we?

And the money? We will pay it to our defense
industry to create weapons - and they will outsource a lot of
jobs to keep profits up. In a nutshell it is biggest robbery in
thye history of the world. So go ahead - turn on your FOX News
in cheer up while we "kick Arab's ass". Your kids will pay dearly
for that folly.

Liberals will not defend this nation against its enemies. They are more
interested in welfare programs (social programs) than insuring the survival
of this nation. It is why they are going to lose the election this fall just
like they have lost most other presidential elections since Johnson proved
himself so inept in handling Vietnam. Liberals are forever invested in the
defeat and failure of this nation. It is why I have such contempt for them.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Aug 25, 2:02 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Woland99" wrote in message

So let me get it straight you are saying that:
1. having our soldiers dying in potential fight to contain Iran

Not very many soldiers will die. Just as in Iraq, we will go through them
like a hot knife through butter. We will kill them mainly with air power and
missiles. But all we really want to do is take out their nuclear capacity
and to insure the integrity of Iraq. Iran can go to hell otherwise, mullahs
and all. In fact, I would send them to Hell with atom bombs if it were left
up to me.

This is gibberish, dude. And sorry but it shows your total ignorance.
There is no "just like Iraq" when it comes to Iran:
1. Iran is monolithic country - there is no 3 roughly equal minorities
and we cannot weaken or control Iran like we did in Iraq by playing
one minority against the other.
2. Iran is much bigger country with different geography. In Iraq all
we
had to do is control few cities - in Iran we may face long fight on
much
bigger scale and in varied terrain.
3. Iraq was artificial entity created by British that was ready to
implode
under tyrannical rule. Iran is old and proud country where some people
even if
they hate mullahs they hate US even more. You are fed lies about
benign Shah -
talk to some Iranians - listen to stories of 25 years of total
nightmare that
followed after CIA deposed democratic government of Iran and installed
Shah.
In Iraq we might have had some supporters - in Iran they will fight to
their
last breath rather then have US control the country again.
4. Even if you manage to defeat the military there is no way you can
occupy
Iran - we simply do not have military force large enough to control 50
mln
people that hate us with passion. Again - this is not Iraq where all
you had
to do is control few cities (and even that proved to be barely
possible for
US military alone).

We will have to be there as a backup for the Iraqi military for the
foreseeable future. We sure as hell are not going to let them be taken over
by Iran.

I am sorry but WTF are you talking about - Iran does not have to do
ANYTHING anymore - we did it ALL for them - we installed pro-Iranian
government in Iraq largely consisting of religious Shiites.
Why would Iran want to "take over" Iraq?
All they have to do is to sit tight and spend few millions here and
there to train Iraqi insurgents. And watch US pouring another trillion
into fighting that. And then after we eventually decide that with such
abysmal ROI it is time to go home they will gladly send their
military
advisers to Iraq. And help them build another Islamic Republic.


4. making tens of billions of dollars profit by selling Iraq arms
to kee such military effort.

Anything is cheaper than suffering a nuclear attack.

Iran does not have nukes they can deliver to US yet. North Korea
will have them much faster. Have we done anything about it?
No? Well perhaps we do not care that much to protect Edward Dolan
from nukes. Or perhaps all that nukes talk is just BS.
But lets assume it is not.
Why would Iran attack United States with nukes?
What exactly they would hope to achieve?
Except committing speedy suicide?
Our retaliation capacity would virtually anihilate Iran.
They CANNOT win aggressive war with nukes. All they can do and
want to do is to have them as deterrent. Which is fine with me.

Are you insane?
Or you just pretend to be.

Spoken like a true liberal asshole!

No dude that was serious question - you advocate that we should
contain Iran using our own money and sacrificing lives of our
own soldiers - instead making money on supporting Iraq and Iran
fighting each other. You are either extremely stupid or you do
not understand first thing about politics. And you can take your
BS "liberal" label and shove it - enought of that infantile name
calling.


So what else is new? National security is the first obligation of
government, not welfare programs. If we are not safe, where are we?

Yeah problem is that WASTING TRILLION when problem can be solved for
say 30 billion is not "national defense". It is hiway robbery.

Liberals will not defend this nation against its enemies. They are more
interested in welfare programs (social programs) than insuring the survival
of this nation. It is why they are going to lose the election this fall just
like they have lost most other presidential elections since Johnson proved
himself so inept in handling Vietnam. Liberals are forever invested in the
defeat and failure of this nation. It is why I have such contempt for them.

Excuse me Mr BS Neo-Con but what EXACTLY have your people accomplished
in last 8 years. Economy is in recession. Iraq took 5 years and
TRILLION
of dollars after Bush declared victory in 2003. And Rumsfeld said it
would
take "few months and couple billions". Where are the ****in' WMDs?
Before the war if they were anywhere in Iraq at all they were
CONTROLLED
by Saddam. Now we do not know where they are - they can be in Syria
or
in hands of alQaeda - or they can be in your neighbourhood about to
be
exploded - hope that makes you feel you very very safe...
We wasted money that could have been truly used to protect us to do
what? invade Iraq and find 12 old artillery shells that 10yrs ago
might
have contained sarin?
So why don't you give me one example of obvious shining success that
this government has accomplished. And then you can go on with you
blabbery about "liberals".

"Edward Dolan" writes:

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
[...]
It never ceases to amaze the kind of stupid arguments people try to mount
against those things which for some reason they find objection to. Reason
is completely out the window in the face of utter nonsense.

Stupid people make stupid arguments. So what else is new?

Anyone who thinks you are going to be seen when you are low as opposed to
being high is stupid. But why do folks think like this? Because they have
low bikes which they have spent thousands of dollars on and don't want to be
thought stupid. Hey, if I can see you, then you can see me ... right? Wrong!
Seeing has everything to do with perception and not much to do with physical
reality. Small animals are constantly being run over by morotorists because
they are not looking that low.

However, it is interesting to see how Tom Sherman and Peter Clinch seek to
justify their stupidity for getting low to the ground bikes. I have several
myself, but I do not fool myself that I am well seen by motorists when I am
on them.

I find it amazing anyone would try and suggest being lower you are as
visible. The obvious motorist turning right example is enough to debunk
any idea that you are as safe. Similar to the ridiculous rules in
Germany where young kids on bikes cycling the bike path dont look left
and right since they see the green man and promptly get run over by a
car turning right who didnt see the young cyclist since their heads were
below the line of the parked cars along the main road.