A Word to Recumbent Riders

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,
Woland99 wrote:

On Aug 24, 3:02 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article

,
Woland99 wrote:

Why do you think Iran is suddenly so arrogant and belligerent?
That's not really anything new.
Actually it is. I do not remember Iran being so belligerent before
2003.
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.

Umm, Tom, do you remember what happened on 11/4/79?

Mention SAVAK to any Iranian over about the age of 35 and watch them
shudder. Stomp on people for a quarter century and expect them to have
good will?

snip

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.

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.

Sorry, Tom, but that too is one for the tinfoil hat brigade.

Well, if 9/11/2001 was a false flag attack, it would not be the first on
in history.

Anyone who believes that the Cheney/Bush administration was NOT lying
about what happened or that the 9/11 Commission report contains the
whole truth is way too gullible.

Way too many coincidences for some people (beyond the 19) not to have
known about the events beforehand and way too many questions that have
unsatisfactory answers.

Of course, enough evidence has been destroyed, the real truth will
likely only ever be known by a few people.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"America is like a casino. Almost everyone loses, some make it big,
and the owners always win." - Anon.

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Are you really saying a recumbant is as visible as the more traditional
bike? Are you really? LOL.

I don't have any problem seeing recumbents and upright bikes on the road
when I am driving.

That is because you are a cyclist and you notice other cyclists no matter
what you are doing, the same as I do. But folks who are not cyclists will
not notice us. They are given to noticing other phenomena, like other
motorists for instance.

Regards,

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

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Woland99 wrote:

Bush rewards and protects incompetence - his whole cabinet is built
on loyalty and blind faith in dogma and not on knowledge,
accountability and competence.

This liberal asshole Woland has got Bush confused with Carter and Clinton.

The neocons are committed to the incompetence of government.

And Ed Dolan the Great is committed to kicking dumb liberal ass.

Regards,

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

"Woland99" wrote in message
...
On Aug 25, 5:11 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
We do not want to occupy Iran any more that we want to occupy Iraq. Iran
will be no match for our military just as Iraq was no match. In fact,
Iraq
was able to defeat Iran in their rather lengthy war not so long ago.
These
third world nations all have second rate militaries. They are only good
at
murdering their own people.

So lets see - you want to get in remove current government in Iran and
NOT
occupy it. Well guess what will happen, Enstein... There will total
anarchy
(just like in IAQG) and during that time some terrorist group will
steal
whatever nukes or nuclear material Iran currently has.
That is truly smart.

We will take out their nuclear capability and then leave them to themselves.
It is what all Muslims deserve. If they continue to bother the West, we can
bomb them for the next one hundred years. Eventually they will tire of all
the killing.

And FYI Iraq did not defeat Iran - war was a stalemate despite
widespread
use of chemical weapons on part of Iraq. Try to check your facts
before
opening your mouth next time.

Nope, Iran was intent on invading Iraqi territory and they failed utterly.
Iraq slaughtered the Iranians to such an extent that even the mullahs came
to realize the folly of their plans.

Nonsense. Iraq will have representation from all the factions. Iran can
barely take care of themselves and is like a rotten apple ready to fall
from
the tree. The entire country is in disarray thanks to the mullahs.

Yes - in a fairytale land that you obviously occupy Iraq is a
paradise
on Earth - Sunnis and Shiites just loving each other like crazy - no
daily bombings, kidnappings and tortures. Keep smoking whatever you
are smoking.

Biden's proposal for the partition of Iraq into three separate states is not
a bad idea and could still come to pass. Perhaps a loose federation might
work even better. I must admit that if I were an Iraqi Shiite, I would hate
the Iraqi Sunnis for the next thousand years at least.

The only danger Iran presents to Iraq or to any of the rest of the world
is
if they get nuclear weapons. What do you propose to do about that? Just
talk
them out of it like B. Hussein O. proposes to do?

Just try to explain to me WHAT exactly Iran would achieve by
attacking
US with nuclear weapons? They can kill maybe 50,000 people. Then we
retaliate
and kill 50 mln Iranians. They know that. They are not INSANE. You
are.

You need to ask yourself why Iran wants to develop a nuclear capability.
Maybe for the same reason that Iraq under Saddam wanted a nuclear
capability. It is power that they can wield to intimidate their neighbors,
especially Israel.

North Korea is not as crazy as the Islamic terrorists. They want to live,
not die like religious zealots.

Right - just like I thought - you are a crypto-Stalinist.

The old Soviet Union was always rational. The Islamic terrorists are not.
How else do you account for suicide bombers?

Further, Iran would pass off a nuclear weapon to one of its terrorist
surrogates who would use the weapon against us. If B. Hussein O. is
president, he will sic the police on them just like Clinton did no matter
how many Americans die in the blast and/or radiation.

Explain again - what exactly can Iran GAIN from such deal.
Except they will expose themselves too to nuclear terrorism?
Contrary what you think countries do NOT act the same way
as crazy religious zealots.

You do not understand religious zealotry.
[...]

And Rumsfeld said it

would
take "few months and couple billions".

Rumsfeld was right, the war was over in a few weeks actually.

War is NOT over until the OBJECTIVE of war is accomplished -
gaining control over WMDs. If objective is achieved that war
is failure or costly mistake.

The objective of the war was regime change. That was easily accomplished.

Where are the ****in' WMDs?
Yes, they could be anywhere. Maybe you have them?

And that is somehow BETTER that having them controlled bt Saddam?
Explain your logic here, Einstein - how do you know that in weeks
of chaos after invasion WMDs were not stolen by alQaeda and shipped
to US via Mexico? How is such scenario better than Saddam having them?
Oh... wait - because you hade good intentions when you invaded?
Guess what - good intentions mean **** in real life.
The only thing that counts is results.
You either have WMDs or you don't.
And you don't.

I now believe that YOU have them! I suggest you drop them on Tom Sherman's
head (he resides in Milwaukee) and rid the world of a noxious liberal. Oh,
and blow up yourself while you are it. The world does not need your type
either.

I think I will stop here - further "discussion" obviously does not
make any sense - I try to give you facts and ask you question (and
yes occasionally I lose patient with monumental degree of close-
mindedness that you demonstrate) and I get some wishy washy BS about
"one sunny harmonious day in Iraq" or "liberal liberal" gibberish.
And that is sad that somebody your age can be so incapable of
original
and independent thought and regurgitate some lame Rush propaganda.

All you are doing is regurgitating the nonsense that the mass media feeds
you on a daily basis. You need to listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio every
day for 3 hours like I do followed by Hannity for another 3 hours. Also,
only follow Fox News (fair and balanced) on cable TV. MSNBC and CNN are in
the tank for liberals and B. Hussein O. The NY Times and the Washington Post
are two other purveyors of liberal propaganda.

Not that I do not see method in it - you see, if you had a shred of
something called intellectual honesty then at some point you would
feel obliged to adhere to logic and truth - even if it led to your
defeat. But that is too much of the risk - so you stick to spewing
belligerent nonsense and braindead "liberal liberal" name calling.
Because nobody can win discussion on that level. Without using
very same "method". Which most intelligent people will never do.

You would not know intelligence if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. The
reason you are so ignorant is because you have been brainwashed by the
liberal mass media.

I have learned from long experience that the best policy is to attack
liberals before they can attack you and to name call them before they can
name call you. Liberals are cowards and treasonous *******s and they should
be taken out and given a good horse whipping. Sometimes I think we need
another Civll War in this nation so we can kill them all and put them out of
their misery.

Regards,

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

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
[...]
Mention SAVAK to any Iranian over about the age of 35 and watch them
shudder. Stomp on people for a quarter century and expect them to have
good will?

SAVAK was probably necessary to keep the mullahs cowering.
[...]

Well, if 9/11/2001 was a false flag attack, it would not be the first on
in history.

Anyone who believes that the Cheney/Bush administration was NOT lying
about what happened or that the 9/11 Commission report contains the whole
truth is way too gullible.

Way too many coincidences for some people (beyond the 19) not to have
known about the events beforehand and way too many questions that have
unsatisfactory answers.

Of course, enough evidence has been destroyed, the real truth will likely
only ever be known by a few people.

Tom Sherman probably believes that the WTC was destroyed by means other than
those airplanes that dove into them.

Tom Sherman - a true ding-a-ling! Now you see what can happen to you when
you limit your education to science and engineering. A liberal arts
education would have saved him from his zaniness.

Regards,

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

On Aug 25, 10:26 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
We will take out their nuclear capability and then leave them to themselves.
It is what all Muslims deserve. If they continue to bother the West, we can
bomb them for the next one hundred years. Eventually they will tire of all
the killing.

Problem is that that word "take out their nuclear capability" that
rolls so nicely off you lips is very much meaningless phrase.
We supposedly had "slam-dunk" intelligence where Iraqi WMDs are.
Did we find the?
In case of Iraq you take out some of their ballistic missile silos.
But you wont be able to find and destrol all the plutonium. If you
do not occupy them the anarchy will follow. Plutonium will get stolen
and then we have REAL problem on our hands - because unlike Iranian
rylers that have everything to lose when trying to attack US with
a faceless terrorist group has nothing to lose whatsoever.

You need to ask yourself why Iran wants to develop a nuclear capability.

Exactly for the same reason why Israel has nukes.

The old Soviet Union was always rational. The Islamic terrorists are not.
How else do you account for suicide bombers?

There is world of difference between Iranian regime and suicidal
bombers. But there was very little difference as far level tortures
or oppression between Soviet KGB under Stalin and Shah's Savak police.
I think that to some extent Iran still remains very oppressive place
although major difference now may be that rules of the game are
clearly
defined - you behave like a good Muslim and they will leave you
alone.
Whereas under Shah you could have been jailed and tortured for some
fairly random reasons.

The objective of the war was regime change. That was easily accomplished.

WMDs were mentioned in every speech before the war. It took bulk of
Powell's speech in UN. Congress would not vote to go war to "change
regime" - it was so called "preemptive war" to protect us from Iraqi
attack with WMDs.



Where are the ****in' WMDs?
Yes, they could be anywhere. Maybe you have them?

And that is somehow BETTER that having them controlled bt Saddam?
Explain your logic here, Einstein - how do you know that in weeks
of chaos after invasion WMDs were not stolen by alQaeda and shipped
to US via Mexico? How is such scenario better than Saddam having them?
Oh... wait - because you hade good intentions when you invaded?
Guess what - good intentions mean **** in real life.
The only thing that counts is results.
You either have WMDs or you don't.
And you don't.

I now believe that YOU have them! I suggest you drop them on Tom Sherman's
head (he resides in Milwaukee) and rid the world of a noxious liberal. Oh,
and blow up yourself while you are it. The world does not need your type
either.

Lets summarize what just happened here.
I asked you if situation where (as you admit) WMDs can be anywhere
is at all preferable to WMDs being under Saddam's control.

You duck the question and embark on some tirade against Tom Sherman
amd "liberals". Nothing new here - very same pattern. I ask you
question and you refuse to answer on the grounfd that it is "liberal"
nonsense or you try to offend me. Hope that makes you feel like real
winner.

All you are doing is regurgitating the nonsense that the mass media feeds
you on a daily basis. You need to listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio every
day for 3 hours like I do followed by Hannity for another 3 hours. Also,
only follow Fox News (fair and balanced) on cable TV. MSNBC and CNN are in
the tank for liberals and B. Hussein O. The NY Times and the Washington Post
are two other purveyors of liberal propaganda.

OK - even for a known troll - that is a bit too contrived.
Not a very good joke, dude.

"Woland99" wrote in message
...
On Aug 25, 10:26 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
We will take out their nuclear capability and then leave them to
themselves.
It is what all Muslims deserve. If they continue to bother the West, we
can
bomb them for the next one hundred years. Eventually they will tire of
all
the killing.

Problem is that that word "take out their nuclear capability" that
rolls so nicely off you lips is very much meaningless phrase.
We supposedly had "slam-dunk" intelligence where Iraqi WMDs are.
Did we find the?
In case of Iraq you take out some of their ballistic missile silos.
But you wont be able to find and destrol all the plutonium. If you
do not occupy them the anarchy will follow. Plutonium will get stolen
and then we have REAL problem on our hands - because unlike Iranian
rylers that have everything to lose when trying to attack US with
a faceless terrorist group has nothing to lose whatsoever.

There is not much danger of Iran ever attacking the US directly, but the
danger is that their terrorist surrogates would and could perform such an
attack with nuclear weapons handed to them by Iran. That is why Iran must
not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. You also need to consider the
danger to Israel from Iran.

You need to ask yourself why Iran wants to develop a nuclear capability.

Exactly for the same reason why Israel has nukes.

This is where liberals part company with sanity. Democratic states do not
attack other states without damn good reason. There is no danger of Israel
ever attacking Iran unless Iran threatens them with nuclear weapons. Like
all liberals you seem not to understand the nature of tyrants and dictators.
They know they are in no danger of ever being attacked provided they do not
provoke such an attack.

The old Soviet Union was always rational. The Islamic terrorists are not.
How else do you account for suicide bombers?

There is world of difference between Iranian regime and suicidal
bombers. But there was very little difference as far level tortures
or oppression between Soviet KGB under Stalin and Shah's Savak police.
I think that to some extent Iran still remains very oppressive place
although major difference now may be that rules of the game are
clearly
defined - you behave like a good Muslim and they will leave you
alone.
Whereas under Shah you could have been jailed and tortured for some
fairly random reasons.

I do not think the present rulers of Iran are rational. They are motived by
religious zealotry and will do things that a rational regime would never
do - like attack Israel for instance. If they do that I have no doubt at all
that Israel will resort to nuclear weapons if it is a question of their
survival as a nation.

The objective of the war was regime change. That was easily accomplished.

WMDs were mentioned in every speech before the war. It took bulk of
Powell's speech in UN. Congress would not vote to go war to "change
regime" - it was so called "preemptive war" to protect us from Iraqi
attack with WMDs.

We had many objectives with respect to Iraq. Regime change was the main
thing. Congress does not make the foreign policy of this nation, the
President does. In any event, preemptive war was justified because the whole
world thought that Saddam had nuclear weapons or was on the point of
acquiring them. In an age of atomic bombs, you cannot sit back and wait for
a Pearl Harbor. Bush made the right decision and he will be regarded as a
great President by subsequent generations because of it.
[...]

Regards,

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

On Aug 25, 7:44*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

And Ed Dolan the Great is committed to kicking dumb liberal ass.

In a virtual e-thuggish way only, of course.

That was some good trollin' Eddy.

E.P.

"Tim McNamara" wrote
Tom Sherman wrote:

Take the lane and you will NOT get right hooked.

No, you'll just be run over outright. ;-)

By being more visible?

Law professor's excuse for hitting a cyclist: "Dolkart said
she 'only meant to tap him.' " She was convicted of assult,
but the verdict was overturned on a procedural challenge.

http://media.www.smudailycampus.com/...-2276271.shtml

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.24fc7cd.html

Other irony: she was on her way to a bike ride...

Jon

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article

,
Woland99 wrote:

On Aug 24, 3:02 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article

om
,
Woland99 wrote:

Why do you think Iran is suddenly so arrogant and belligerent?
That's not really anything new.
Actually it is. I do not remember Iran being so belligerent
before 2003.
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.

Umm, Tom, do you remember what happened on 11/4/79?

Mention SAVAK to any Iranian over about the age of 35 and watch them
shudder. Stomp on people for a quarter century and expect them to
have good will?

That didn't answer the question. The point, not to forget, is that
Iran's belligerence is *not* new as someone claimed a few posts
up-thread. Iran was belligerent when it was Persia.

snip

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.

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.

Sorry, Tom, but that too is one for the tinfoil hat brigade.

Well, if 9/11/2001 was a false flag attack, it would not be the first
on in history.

Anyone who believes that the Cheney/Bush administration was NOT lying
about what happened or that the 9/11 Commission report contains the
whole truth is way too gullible.

The Bush Administration lies about most things, so that'd be no
surprise. Nothing contains the whole truth, so that'd be no surprise
either. There is just no compelling evidence that the 9/11 Commission's
report is substantially inaccurate. Loudness and repetition in the
expression of whacko theories is not compelling evidence, the beliefs of
whackos that loudness and repetition are evidence (see, for example, Ed
Dolan) notwithstanding.

Way too many coincidences for some people (beyond the 19) not to have
known about the events beforehand and way too many questions that
have unsatisfactory answers.

Such as? Most of the US-government-as-participant-in-9/11 theorists
basically depend their case on the supposed omniscience of the US
intelligence services, which in turn is based on fantasies like the
James Bond movies and "24" and Tom Clancy books. The participation of
the US government in 9/11 was negligence and incompetence. To go beyond
that requires proof not speculation. Proof is lacking.

Of course, enough evidence has been destroyed, the real truth will
likely only ever be known by a few people.

Sorry, Tom, that's one of those circular logic things that gnarl up
clear and precise thinking. It's like saying that the real truth of
evolution is only known by the Creator.