Peace Themed Jerseys?

"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:54:16 GMT, "Pete" from Road Runner
High
Speed Online http://www.rr.com wrote:


"Kevan Smith" wrote

Clinton is wrong as well, then. It's a red herring, anyway, since
Clinton
ahs
nothing to do with the Bush admin going to war.


That's the thing. Pretty much everyone in a position to actually have an
informed opinion thought and said the same thing over the last decade.

Blix, Chirac, the UN, the entire Clinton administration, Bush and Co.
Even
Saddam hisself

After over a decade of 'diplomacy' and provocation, someone finally acts
on
that same information, and suddenly he's wrong?

Were thay *all* wrong? Maybe, maybe not. We may never know.

Pete, now you are entering into the territory of outright lying, and you
are a
better man than that. Look at your statement: "Pretty much everyone in a
position to actually have an informed opinion thought and said the same
thing
over the last decade." You KNOW that's not true.

No, Kev, I'm not lying. Many statements exist, throughout the 90's and right
up to a year ago, describing the purported WMD and what should be done about
them. From people who should actually have some knowledge about it.
Presidents, Senators, Sec of State, etc, etc.

From one end of the political spectrum to the other. Kennedy, Bush (both),
Clinton (both), Chirac, Daschle, Kerry, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Opinions differed as to what, if anything to do about it. But it seems an
awful lot of people were of the belief that Iraq had these weapons, and that
he posed a threat.

Were they right then? If so, what changed?
Were they BSing us then? If so, then how are they more or less worthy of the
Oval Office than the current gang?

You know what I believe? He had some, used some, destroyed some (but not
all). But his military and scientific leaders pulled off a masterful stroke
of deception. Blew smoke up *everyone's* ass (incl. Saddam) as to their
actual capabilities. Fearful of being tossed in the shredder, they couldn't
risk telling him it was beyond them to actually produce the quanties and
capabilities he wanted. So they faked it. And faked out *everyone* else as
well.

Make no mistake....I do believe that they had some of it, even up to the
end. It's either hidden out in the desert, or moved across the border
(Syria? Iran? Saudi?) But nowheres near the quantities advertised.

Eventually, though, they *would* have been able to give Saddam what he
wanted, and build it or buy it.

Pete
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
-- John F. Kerry, Oct 9, 2002

In article ,
says...
I keep one for waxing, one for ironing, one for fusing - doesn't everyone do
it that way?


One each for ironing and waxing in 110v and 220v. And a lame ass dual-
voltage travel iron which I haven't found a use for.

nk

--

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Kevan Smith" wrote

Clinton is wrong as well, then. It's a red herring, anyway, since Clinton
ahs
nothing to do with the Bush admin going to war.


That's the thing. Pretty much everyone in a position to actually have an
informed opinion thought and said the same thing over the last decade.

Blix, Chirac, the UN, the entire Clinton administration, Bush and Co. Even
Saddam hisself

After over a decade of 'diplomacy' and provocation, someone finally acts on
that same information, and suddenly he's wrong?

Were thay *all* wrong? Maybe, maybe not. We may never know.




Dumbass -

They weren't *all* for the war.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, James Baker, George Bush Sr., Brent
Scowcroft, et al were against it.

The ones in the Administration (Powell, JCS) went along because W. Bush is the
Commander in Chief, they are soldiers and they followed orders. W. Bush is more
under the sway of the neocons than the internationalists of his father's
administration, although the internationalists are currently making a comeback
in influence due to the neocons being quite wrong about what would happen in
Iraq in the war's aftermath.

In article ,
says...
Yeah, name one great thing or idea to come from Switzerland...


Heidi.

Or Appenzeller cheese. Strong cheese from strong cows.

nk

Pete wrote:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
-- John F. Kerry, Oct 9, 2002


Yes, and who bullied the CIA into providing such BS reports that pulled the
wool over our Senators' and Representatives' eyes? Kerry's decision of
support could only be as bad as the intelligence provided to him.

Greg
--
"Destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late,
the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll..." - The Mekons

"Kevan Smith" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:54:38 -0500, Lindsay
from
wrote:

Maybe you can answer this for me. During the protests in Seattle for
some reason looting Gap and Niketown stores was supposed to make some
sort of statement. What statement was that? Why do people who claim
to be 'peaceful protestors' suddenly have the need to damage property
and steal bland expensive clothes and overpriced athletic equipment?

I have no idea. I wasn't there. Was it an anti-Iraq-war protest, or was it
one
of those G8 protests?

The poster was referring to the anti-WTO protests, the infamous "Battle in
Seattle" in 1999. It had nothing to do with the war, as no one could have
anticipated what was going to befall us in just a few years. The
vandalization (not looting) of these stores was committed by some anarchists
from out-of-town.

The largest anti-war protest in Seattle's history, held February 15, 2001,
had over 25,000 people marching, with no acts of violence. (see:
http://www.notinourname-seattle.net/feb15globe.jpg for a nice picture.)


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm

Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky
My bookshelf: http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Cpetersky

"To forgive is to set the prisoner free and then discover the prisoner
was you."

In article ,
says...
In article ,
Lindsay wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 20:36:48 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

Has it ever occured to one of you warmongering Idiots that if Saddam, bad guy
that he is, would have used the WMD if he had them?

Choad Smoker,

Has it ever occurred to you that Saddam actually believed he could get
through the war and remain in power? A couple of his associates that
have been taken into custody have said this. Saddam believed the
French would help keep him in power.

You must not be able to think to clearly to only understand or believe
one scenario.

Lindsay, I don't think Saddam ever thought he'd make it through and
still be in charge for the simple reason that Bush always showed by his
actions that the invasion was inevitable. It seemed obvious to many that
the Bush admin. was hunting for justification for something they had known
was going to happen for some time.
Here's a couple of scenarios: If Saddam gave up any weapons he may have
had, then Bush would have found another pretext to invade. Without weapons,
he could do nothing to the invading US force. However, if he had weapons
and told the world he'd destroyed them, he may have had a chance when the
inevitable invasion occurred to take as many US soldiers as he could and
cause some huge political damage to Bush at home. In both scenarios, Saddam
knows his goose is deep-fried.
The fact that they -never- used any kind of non-conventional weapons
against the US forces says a lot to me. You can't really deny that the

I seriously disagree with this reasoning. If he uses the weapons, he
does NOT do any damage to Bush politically. In fact, he immediately
proves Bush correct, justifies the war to the rest of the world, and
loses any support he had from France, Russia, etc. The way to hurt Bush
the most politically was to do exactly what he did and not use them at
all. The U.S. military has good enough training and equipment to
protect against chemical attack that any damage he could do would be
insignificant militarily, but would do enormous damage to himself
politically.


opportunity presented itself, right? After all, biological and chemical
weapons are battlefield weapons.

Yes, but like any weapon, they have to be properly used or they can do
more damage to the launcher than the target, either political or
military. The U.S. Army can defend itself against chemical attack much
better than the Kurds or Iranians ever could.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:40:31 GMT, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

And, BTW, a couple of his associates, whom you cite, have also said that the
WMD were destroyed.

Pillow Biter,

And some other of his associates have said that they would be able to
launch WMD's with only 45 minutes notice.

Rump ranger, I haven't made my mind up one way or the other. You on
the other hand can only envision one scenario. There is far too much
evidence, noise and rhetoric floating around for anyone to make any
definitive statements one way or the other and be taken seriously.

In article ,
says...


--

"Pete" wrote in message
...

"Kevan Smith" wrote

Clinton is wrong as well, then. It's a red herring, anyway, since Clinton
ahs
nothing to do with the Bush admin going to war.


That's the thing. Pretty much everyone in a position to actually have an
informed opinion thought and said the same thing over the last decade.

Blix, Chirac, the UN, the entire Clinton administration, Bush and Co. Even
Saddam hisself

After over a decade of 'diplomacy' and provocation, someone finally acts on
that same information, and suddenly he's wrong?

Were thay *all* wrong? Maybe, maybe not. We may never know.




Dumbass -

They weren't *all* for the war.

Nobody said they were. But they pretty much all agreed that Saddam had
WMD. The disagreement was what to do about it and when to do it.


....

The ones in the Administration (Powell, JCS) went along because W. Bush is the
Commander in Chief, they are soldiers and they followed orders. W. Bush is more
under the sway of the neocons than the internationalists of his father's
administration, although the internationalists are currently making a comeback
in influence due to the neocons being quite wrong about what would happen in
Iraq in the war's aftermath.

True, and I'm all for it. If you will recall, Powell was one of the
most adamant of the "internationalists" as you call them for several
months. I don't know what kind of arm-twisting W had to do to get him
to go along, but it must have been pretty strong.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

In article , myarse247
@hotmail.com says...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:01:17 -0500, David Kerber wrote:

The Bush administration is not the UN, they have deemed the UN
irrelevant. Get that through your head. The bush plan to go to war had
NOTHING to do with ANY UN RESOLUTION.

Without the UN resolutions about WMD, they would not have done it
because the American people and the Brits would both have opposed it.

Opposition in the UK was running at around 70-80%, but his Toniness still
decided to go to war.

The opposition was not that high in the U.S., but would have probably
been 95%+ without the UN resolutions. I certainly would have been one
of the opponents without them.



--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.