 | | Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
So the inspectors have been inspecting for a while now... driving here, there and everywhere... over hill, under dale, across the river and back... looking for 'weapons of mass destruction' and stuff... Haven't found much--empty missles and (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
<snip> I think many countries want the US to be the policement, but only when they're interests are at risk.</snip> I don't know about other countries, but a lot of people here in Holland aren't impressed with America taking the role of police (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) You cannot grasp the non-existent. ;-) -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) That seems enough to me. Make no mistake, Iraq has WoMD, has had them for ages, and is doing everything in its power to confound the inspectors. The inspectors have the wrong task. Instead of nosing around looking for stuff they ought to be (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) So-- I haven't been following overly closely-- what's the most the media knows about this 'proof'? As for the question at hand, I can only assume that Junior's intelligence knows the type of weapon but not the location. OR perhaps he knows (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Er... "Coventry"... you know,where Jaguars come from(1). I'm sure it had some convents and such but that's not what I meant to backform. Also the Enigma/Coventry thing may only be myth (URL) has a different view 1 - (URL) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) And I'm not saying release the info to Joe Schmo--give the intelligence to people who will use it. The inspectors are trying to do a job for the UN to make sure that whoever complied with whatever resolution-- This is like me going to my (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) You really mean give it to the UN so they can leak it... (...) Well which way are you arguing here? If you think we 'murricans should be the world's policeman it's aw'fly darn clear to me that Iraq desperately needs waxing, and has, since (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I think many countries want the US to be the policement, but only when they're interests are at risk. In my opinion, we have a small responsibility to protect Europe, however, those countries being in pretty good economic condition, the help (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Leak it to the inspectors, yes. Leak it to the general media, prob'ly not. (...) How 'bout a coherent foreign policy--one that does not overlook the atrocities of some nations 'cause they're buddy buddy with the oil tycoons but comes down hard (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Neither. Leak it to the Iraqis. Do you really think the inspection team is free of Iraqi sympathisers? Why do you think the satellite photos show the Iraqis consistently busily bulldozing stuff the day before the inspection team arrives? You (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I think we all have a duty to defend freedom where it is threatened... even if it means out multinationals loose $$$. Take a look at what the UK did in Sierra Leon: (URL) was not perfect. UK lives were lost. But democracy was restored. It was (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) He can't tell anyone as: a) We are all scared of the unknown... especially when he talks in hushed tones........ spooky! b) It would put the future stream of information at risk - the fact that pretty soon the whole country will be overrun by (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
I fixed Duk's quoting, he did it in a nonstandard way. I found one thing to agree with in the post. The rest is pretty hateful and divorced from reality though... (...) Great. Glad to hear it. I'm not the only person who thinks you lot (and a number (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
"Duq" <lugnetpost@skipthis...tmfweb.nl> wrote in message news:H9JqHM.2IM@lugnet.com... snip (...) and (...) LOL, good post. /Jocke (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Inherently I support the idea of a world court, but I'm not sure how to implement it to give it appropriate teeth. I was going to talk about my feelings of two noteable incidents of US pilots attacking non-enemies. From what I can see, I hope (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I thought Duq made a lot of very good points in his post. I'm disappointed that both you and Frank have chosen to respond to him with name calling. Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) From whom? (...) Which they use to hold land which does not belong to them and kill women and children. Does it make you feel pround to know this bomb had "made in the usa" stamped on the side: (URL)If we went in and disarmed them (like some (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | namecalling
|
|
(...) (URL) gives "an ungrateful person", or "a person who shows no gratitude"... none of the meanings it lists have any negative connotation beyond that. Ya, that's namecalling all right. (1) But of course, words like "airhead", "poodle", "lapdog", (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) A lot of people in America aren't impressed with us being the world's policemen, either, regardless of the individual cases. But to run down the list... Pakistan: if we were to deal with Pakistan, we would have to deal with the trigger device (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) Well spotted on the hypocrisy - he's just grinding his usual axe. And I wish to note that I have great respect for the way Frank expresses his opinions (we could all learn a lesson by emulating him). But, ummmmm, errrrr, I'd agree with most of (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) At this point in time, I disagree. But in the mid-term that can happen and probably will. Mind you, that does NOT imply in any way that Europe automatically becomes an antagonist to the US! (...) ??? Do you mean anything other than the (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) Which was partly (if not all) the result of quotes from the press. (...) Put a Warhead in the middle, and you'll have Cerberus (ya know, the dog that guarded the Styx...) ;-) Pedro (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) (Frank Filz writes) (...) You don't feel Europe is capable of defending itself? In what sense? Conventional war in Europe itself? Or just their oversees interests? (...) I mean the whole of the 20th century. The United States was dragged into (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) So we're going on our merry way of having a pretty good debate about world issues, politics, and the threat of war--I was pretty content to sit back after I started this thread, and read all the well written replies and appreciating the (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Both, but only the first is really important (for the second I prefer cunning diplomacy). The difficulty in the defense of Europe against any military threat has to do with the almost impossibility of establishing standards for a unified army. (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) Very true. (...) *Ahem* Without American manpower, yes; without American Lend-lease, Britain would have been forced to truce eventually. And that would mean more Axis soldiers to the Eastern Front, which in turn would mean perhaps the Soviets (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) Oh, ya... me too. But that's not the point of my post. (...) On Wintel machines, Launch MSWord and type "(tm)" and it turns into the superscript TM symbol. Then paste the symbol in to your post. That works for many (but not all) browsers. I (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Back on track... (was Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) Don't worry, Dave, it's not hijacked. It's just been temporarily diverted but is back on track now. (...) He's been caught out, we can move on. Everyone just needs to ignore all the responses you know we're going to get, trying to prove black (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) Don't you think this message should be in reply to Scott, or perhaps Duq, or Larry? Or was my message just a convenient jumping off point? (...) Looking down below at completely unrelated material below...ummmm, yeah. (...) The Soviet Union (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) What's a wintel? Windows? Airhead and Blairhead ™. Thar we go! Not that I can actually read it.... -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Well, I think trusting the Bush Blair duo is equally naive--"Oh we have photos of the Iraqis moving stuff the day before the inspection teams arrive!" I've been reading CNN during the slow times at work today and it's the same old stuff--it's (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Esperanto: that will simply annoy everyone. French: the french ears will be offended by the corruption of their language! English: it would drive everyone nuts trying to figure out whether they should say Lew-ten-ant or Left-ten-ant, Kernal or (...) (21 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Not to mention it would be a nightmare in terms of crypting; everyone already speaks English anyway :-D (...) Actually, I'm learning German. It's not even half as hard as I had thought! (ok, so it takes *time* to learn... ;-) (...) Nope. If (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
"Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message news:H9LEJC.7q@lugnet.com... <snip> Middle East oil goes to Europe, where they drive their 5 liter V12 engines (...) I (...) No, the point is we don't have 5 liter V12 engines. Normal (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Speed limits (was:Here's one of the many things I don't understand...)
|
|
(...) In Italy *some* cars are allowed to drive up to 150 km/h. And in a country of the Iberian Peninsula which shall remain nameless one can illegally drive 1.6 liter engines to the limit, at 200km/h, without much fear of being arrested... :-) (...) (21 years ago, 1-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Ummmmm, do you understand the significance of the smiley face I put behind the statement? What I said was accurate, but I knew it not to be the norm, and thus the smiley face so you'd know not to take it too seriously. But I will stress that (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) You are mixing political satire with being offensive. I just don't see the point of calling someone's comments "hatful", ungrateful or as being "divorced from reality" as being all that constructive. I’d have been less concerned if you had (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) I agree with this comment 99%. Part of the 1% is the post I refereed to where he called Duq a "another America hater". I think these sort of comments are very weak. I don't agree with 100% of Duq's post, but he does make a lot of very valid (...) (21 years ago, 2-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) As your own country's history shows, anti-Semitism, ethnic cleansing, genocide and racial/ethnic/religious intolerance is not a uniquely European experience. Zionism was an established philosophy well before WW2 and some form of Jewish (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 1776 and all that [was Re: namecalling]
|
|
(...) I think you mean Britain. (...) My American History is not great, but I'm pretty sure only a minority of the American-Settlers thought that *Britain* was a Tyrant and so chose to “revolt”. Further, their WoI would not have taken the path it (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: namecalling
|
|
(...) Hey =>Bruce<=, even a Mac User knows that! :-) Any CPU using running Windows with an Intel chip. (But don't ask me what a CPU is;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 3-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Like I said, it's leaked. The US decided to present it anyway. From commentary on today's presentation by Powell: (URL) ... it's true that there was no single moment like that (Adlai Stevenson smoking gun): rather, there were several of them. (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) My point was, as some folks pointed out in rebuttal to Powell's presentation, is that the US should turn over info to the inspectors. Yes the Iraqis should do more to accomodate the inspection process, but just by showing us that the US had (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) No, sorry, don't buy it. We do not have an obligation to turn over intelligence to the UN if that intelligence is going to be immediately leaked to the Iraqis and if, further, doing so is going to compromise the sources (remember what that (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Well, I'm not sure of the exact section (think 10) of 1441 paraphrased -- any country with info of WoMD must turn over that info to the inspectors for confirmation... I'd say that's (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I think Bush will be quite happy to see Saddam ousted from within. He also may be amenable to seeing him accept voluntary exile. But Bush has decided for whatever reason that he wants Saddam gone, and has no problem with the war route (ah, for (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) My point, parenthetical to be sure, is that "Oh we'll uphold a document written a long time ago--every jot and tittle--but a UN sanction (the US being one of the founding members of (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I think whatever point you may have had in mind was lost in your wording. If you wish to speak of people in the US dieing because of a 200+ year old internal document, you have left the arena of international law and diplomacy. Be that as it (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) The credibility of the UN is being destroyed by the rhetoric from Bush/Blair. (...) I agree. I'd have given more credence to Powell's little performance if Jr had not been itching bomb Iraq for most of his “presidency”. Did Powell show the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Seriously, are you really that obtuse? Do you really think the US *wants* war??? We want 1) prove that Iraq has been disarmed of WOMD, and 2) Saddam deposed. That's *all*. Unfortunately, it will probably take war to accomplish that. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) The last round of inspections were not without their "problems". Despite that, the achievements are still remarkable. Some highlights: 1. Removal of significant amounts of weapons usable nuclear material. 2. Accounted for 817 of 819 missiles (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
I snipped a BUSHEL of irrelevant misdirection. This is a question about 1441, not the US second amendment or anything else (...) OK, then, David. Stripped of all the other non topical stuff in your post, you concede that Iraq is in material breach (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Since rants often go on tangential tirades, well, sorry 'bout that. But I wouldn't call it 'misdirection', I'd call it 'selective reading' on the part of the US. (...) And now that Powell has conclusively proven that the US is in breach of (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
More misdirection. Herewith is a link to 1441 (one of many out there) full text. Go read it. (URL) resolution REQUESTS assistance from member states in providing info on Iraq's non compliance. It makes no statement about what happens if they decline (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Welcome to the moral high group; it's more crowded than you think. ;) Scott A (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) It did its job? Was its "job" to find evidence of material breach [and so allow the war to start] or disarm iraq and avoid war? I know what I'd like it to do. Scott A (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | International Law and Enforcement
|
|
(...) This is a real interesting question to me. How do we extend the concepts of law in the US to the rest of the world? If we say that no non-US citizen has the right to enforce anything on us, then we similarly have no right to enforce anything (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Let's face facts; the US has an appalling record when it comes to respecting UN resolutions. [I see nothing that makes me think that's about to change.] Because of that, and other issues, a lot of countries [and their populations [even the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Of course we look out for our own interests-- anyone who claims they don't look out for theirs as well is a liar. (...) I don't recall making that assertion (because I didn't). (...) Because "international law" doesn't respect freedom and (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: \>Again, demeaning the point of the other side by belittling it with terms (...) Would the (alleged) US violation have any meaning without the Iraqi (alleged) violation? Further, you didn't answer (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes (after rearrangement): (...) I have given a link to it elsewhere in the thread... As with any text, it's subject to interpretation, and as with any resolution of a deliberative body, it's couched (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Thanks for the link - I was curious as to what it actually said. Reading through it, no, we aren't in breach of it as far as I can tell, and all that we need prove is that Iraq is dragging its feet in any way. I understand many nations want (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I prefer the term "role model" (...) Do you think the world should respect the "freedom and liberty" of terrorists the way the US has treated Orlando Bosch: (URL) to the justice department in George Bush Sr's administration, Bosch had (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) I like to be shown that I'm wrong. It shows that I'm not so bogged down in my zeal to be right that I can actually say, "Well, I'm wrong--let's figure out what right actually is..." (...) Asked *and* answered--it's up to the UN to decide what (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) This is absolutely correct (at least from the legalistic viewpoint). If the UN is to have any credibility, it must enforce its sanctions. If its sanctions are worthless, then the UN loses stature and encourages unilateral action. What the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) In my honest opinion--no--which is sad. But any force that invades Iraq should be under a mandate by a united coalition, not by the US. My prayers, however, are for peace. Dave K (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Okay, I was just trying to force a reality check. Perhaps there is some other avenue open rather than war. (...) I don't see why it would be to the United States' advantage to have it any other way. This threatened unilateral action is a load (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Oooh, pistols at 10 paces! That'd be great. Maybe jousting--Bush in a suit of armour would be an interesting picture. Possible way of resolving all future issues--let the leaders (...) (21 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
