A lap around "The Ring"

"MartyU" > wrote in message
...
> No, John is right on the money there. If people spent less time waving
> the flag and more time concerned about their liberty we wouldn't have GW
> in the White House.
>
> Marty
>

Explain *exactly* why we should be concerned with our liberty, (is it
threatened, or what ?) and why you think GW is a threat to it. (I'm
assuming you think he is per above).

Er, Randy was just saying that he did NOT want to get into a debate
about something wierd which he saw as completely obvious.

As for the 12 years, you better ask the Bush family. The US put Saddam
in power, so the timing for removing must have a timetable also. Since
you do question your government, you should get an answer from them on
that "real soon now"



Mitch_A wrote:
> What you dont seem to comprehend is that WE do question our Government. I
> questioned why the hell it took 12 fn years to get rid of Saddam....
>
> Mitch
>
>
> "John Wallace" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>rmagruder wrote:
>>
>>>I also don't feel like getting into a debate about whether a cloudless
>>>sky is really blue. Some things just aren't worth investing the effort
>>>into.
>>
>>No-one is saying the sky has disappeared.
>>
>>If you dropped an egg on the floor and there was no shell as you cleaned
>>it up, I'm guess you'd be fine with that.
>>
>>Don't ever question your government, there's a good citizen.
>
>
>

Mitch_A wrote:
> So your argument is that Clinton was at fault because he didnt oust Saddam
> as he should have?

The sanctions were in place and violated in August 1990. At that time I
suspect Clinton was rogering everything that moved or not inhaling things.

> Which is it? Illegal invasion or a million kids? You cant have it every
> way.

So I *must* choose to kill a million kids (actually half a million) or
to illegally invade? Only in the black and white world of the US.

> Either way Sadddam should have been gone long before GW came into
> office.

Perhaps then he should not have been placed in power by the CIA and
given vast quantities of weapons and money? You paid to put him in, and
you paid (twice) to take him out. At least you got to vote for that (or
not) - the Iraqi people had no choice, they were only the "unavoidable"
collateral damage in this grand game of chess.

> If it was up to Europe Saddam would still be in power thumbing his nose.
> Somehow to you thats a better option?

It is a legal option. Many US citizens still seem to think they're John
Wayne.

Mitch_A wrote:
> Your interpretation of the Patriot Act is completely wrong.
>
> Mitch

Sorry Mitch, you'll need to do better than that. "Is not" doesn't make a
convincing argument.

More than two centuries of accrued rights and civil balances have been
watered down or made illegal. Muslim-Americans have been arrested and
imprisoned without trial (your "justice" department refuses to reveal
how many), Bush has ordered military tribunals set up to try, imprison
and execute foreign nationals in secret without recourse to any review
or appeal system (sound like an order you'd read about in Iraq?!),
Habeus Corpus has been suspended for the first time since 1861. FBI
agents have the right to go into libraries and see what people are
reading. Universities are being encouraged to report on people who show
"subversive tendencies".

WELCOME, to "the land of the free"...

Still, my land is equally bad, so I have little to smile about on that
score.

So what's your point? That there are no facts on Google? That because
you might need to interpret information and judge for yourself if it's
factual or not it's too tricky?

Heck, you believe the tripe your government serves up (remember "Iraq
*has* weapons of mass destruction (so we're gonna go slaughter them
all)). You've never even heard a "whoops, we were wrong).

Maybe I have more faith than you in our ability to separate the wheat
from the chaff.


Mitch_A wrote:
> Google does not a *FACT* make....
>
> Mitch
>
>
> "John Wallace" > wrote in > It takes two seconds on
> Google to find anything - you could have easily
>
>>found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice that
>>they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge mine,
>>and despair for the human race if we ever give that up.

JP wrote:
>>> Didn't think so. Figures.
>>
>>It's now posted - sorry my life got in the way of your predjudice.
>>
>>It takes two seconds on Google to find anything - you could have easily
>>found it yourself. Are people soooooo comfortable in their predjudice
>>that they won't even challenge their own ideas? I constantly challenge
>>mine, and despair for the human race if we ever give that up.
>
>
> Why would I want to google for something, when I wasn't the one making the
> assertion ? Interesting "logic".

Interesting statement. You have no interest in challenging your own beliefs.

Whenever you make a statement to me, I do not instantly respond
"horse****" based upin my own beliefs. I'll first of all listen to you,
and if I don't believe you then *I* will go and check and see if you are
right.

I don't see that it's up to you to convince me, it's up to me to
consider if I sufficiently value my beliefs being based upon correct
information.

Sort of a fundamental difference between us ut would appear

JP wrote:

> "John Wallace" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>JP wrote:
>>
>>
>>> To bad Iraq invaded Kuwait then, eh ? Never would have happened if
>
> not.
>
>>To <sic> bad the CIA put the Ba'ath party and Saddam Hussein in power
>>then, eh? Then you wouldn't have paid to put him in power, and paid for
>>two wars to get him out.
>
>
>
> Proof of this assertion ?

The CIA and the Ba'ath party themselves. The head of the CIA in the
Middle East, then James Crithfield, said "we regarded it as a great
victory" (getting the Ba'ath party into power). Ali Saleh Sa'adi,
Secretary General of the Ba'ath party stated "we came to power on a CIA
train".

Every time you have asked for proof (in the obvious hope I can't provide
and you can give your customary "thought not"), I have provided it. From
now on, if you care enough about your knowledge being accurate, do your
own research.

Don't keep making the mistake of asking only to try and trip people up -
ask to further your own knowledge, or do the research yourself.

Don't only get annoyed and react only to the parts of a message you
don't like, read the whole thing.

>>Sorry about the zillions of Iraqi's that died in all the CIA/Hussein
>>shenanigans, collateral damage is unavoidable though
>
> Oh, it's zillions now, eh ? <wink>

So how many, precisely, is a zillion, since you're saying I'm wrong? <wink>

Read your statement back to yourself. You are talking about the deaths
of MILLIONS of human beings. You are talking about more than FIVE
THOUSAND Iraqi children dying every DAY. Imagine if that was happening
in the US, and I said "oh it's thousands eh? <wink> - I'd be rightly
pilloried for it.

Why is it that because it's Iraqi kids no-one gives a f***? I bet if
five thousand US kids were being slaughtered every day there'd be hell
to pay.

Dave Henrie wrote:
> John Wallace > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Dave Henrie wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The fact you seem to admire him Ziggy...is frightening.
>>
>>Dave, please can you explain to me how citing a very famous quote of
>>Stalin's which fits a context, can be interpreted that the person is a
>>raving commie?
>>
>>You should join the CIA - you may in fact be a touch overqualified.
>
>
> John,
> You should do a google groups search on ras to find out just how
> paranoid I am. Xfiles should do the trick.
> I barely breezed through his statement, I wasn't aware of the quote, I
> think I was responding to his defense of using the quote in an earlier
> post. Frankly, I can only think of one Stalin quote, it's not something
> I would be dropping in everyday conversation. I never said Zig was a
> commie..good chance that Socialist would fit tho.
> It's the old Al Capone mentality. Viscious criminal, murderer,
> extortionist etc etc...yet the local neighborhood adored and protected him
> due to the charities and community projects he sponsored. Good works do
> not absolve evil intent. Ergo..due to Aseg's continued attempt to defend
> his man, I merely concluded that he is BONKERS. ABSOLUTELY START RAVING
> MAD! Other than that...no worries...welcome member of the group and all
> that.

Thanks Dave, although I was a member of ras for well over 10 years, I
just haven't been around for a while. I was recently looking out for GT4
nd popped back on to see what everyone was saying about it.

As for the Stalin, it's very dangerous to equate quoting someone with
support for that someone. I do drop quotes into everyday conversation,
ad would choose not to converse with people who are not sufficiently
open-minded that they see that as support (or choose to do so in order
to construct a straw-man they can victoriously rail against).

No comment about you in particular, the CIA comment was just
paraphrasing a quote from Blackadder (who I do like!) :-)

Can you clarify for me Mitch, I guess the delusional foam is getting in
my eyes :-)

Are you saying those millions of victims do not in fact exist? Are you
saying there are not millions of them? Or are you saying they do exist,
but they're not victims and deserved to die?

Remember many people of the UN resigned in horror of this, and the
"genocide" quote was theirs. So if you think they've made some error
with their arithmetic and thrown away their careers for nothing, you'd
better call and tell them.

Start with the 5000 Iraqi children who died every day as a result of the
sanctions - this was the genocide to which the UN referred. Can you tell
me that they are actually alive, why the number of 5000 is incorrect, or
why they are not innocent victims and actually deserved to die?

Mitch_A wrote:
> Time to wipe that foam off your mouth now John. You sound quite delusional.
> Yea those MILLIONS of innocent victims of the evil USA... <rolls eyes>
>
> Mitch
>
> .
> "John Wallace" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>JP wrote:
>>
>>
>>> p.s. Wasn't it Europeans tied in with the oil/food scam ? Why yes, it
>>>was. As long as you brought up the UN, etc.
>>
>>Wasn't it Americans tied in with the oil/food/sanctions genocide?
>>Massacring millions of innocent people to give them their freedom? As the
>>saying goes, that's like f***ing for virginity....
>
>
>

Mitch, you avoided the response. You said the US gave more aid than
anyone else, I provided inforation to prove that was a fallacy.

Will you respond to that, or can you agree with the facts I provided?

Mitch_A wrote:
> The world is a difficult confusing place full of liars and con men that only
> have their own interest in mind. These people exist in EVERY government in
> every corner of the world not just the US gov as you insinuate.
>
> You can tell yourself all you want that Saddam was a grreat guy but anyone
> with any common sense knows better.
>
> Despite the doom and gloom of you and your party affiliates Iraq is a better
> place now and freedom is infectious throughout the ME. Its still to early
> to know how it will turn out but right now things look pretty good, which
> makes your argument seem even more marginal.
>
> Mitch
>
>
> "John Wallace" > wrote in > Mitch, I *truly* believe
> that is what you and most US people want, and
>
>>it's a fantastic sentiment. However that is not what is happening.
>
>
>