On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> We simply no longer had
> time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.

Yeah, 'cause if we'd waited any longer, Saddam would've used those weapons
of mass distraction he didn't have...right? Pffft.

DS

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Louis Hom wrote:

> >I agree had that been possible in a reasonable time frame.
> >Unfortunately, most governments in place today are too much like France
> >and don't have the spine to take on terrorists. We simply no longer
> >had time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.
>
> But it seems like we didn't have any such problem waiting to
> organize against the threat in Afghanistan.

And hey, we're still waiting -- probably fornever -- to invade China. It
is, after all, an unfree country run by brutal dictators, possessing
weapons of mass destruction. They conduct economic terrorism against the
US every day, and have been doing so for the last 15 years. They've even
got lots of oil. Oh wait, that's right, we haven't attacked them because
we'd lose, and because the MBAs of America have a permanent hard-on for
China.

Hello, double standard?

The governmant is so insidious. They tax EVERTHING
 

Greg Houston wrote:

> The USA announced that it was going into Afghanistan on September 19, 2001. This
> was a mere eight (8) days after the worst terrorist attack in history.

Correction: That should say "in US history."

In article k.net>,
Joseph Oberlander > wrote:
>
>People wonder why California is bankrupt.

At least some part of it is due to Prop 13, and the expenses that
over the decades have bubbled up toward the state level. The huge fires
of this past year left many to comment that you either pay for it along
the way in taxes or you pay in one huge lump sum when nobody might expect
it.

P.S. I think my friends at *.saturn are getting tired of this thread.
Maybe we should go to e-mail.
--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Lou Hom >K'93

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/

In article >, Greg Houston > wrote:
>
>about the deficits, than you worry about tax cuts. The deficits are a result of
>spending, which is a function of the US fighting for security. Another

Deficits are the result of spending more than you take in. Either
you're spending too much, taking in too little, or a combination of both.
You seem to blame it all on spending. I blame it on some of the tax cuts.
--
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Lou Hom >K'93

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 03:43:34 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
> >Note - the worst terrorist attack in history goes to us if you count
> >bombing innocent civilians in a non-military target purely for
> >psychological damage as such an act. Most rational people would agree
> >that fits the definition of a terror(ist) act.
> >
> >No - it wasn't Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but Dresden. Done purely to
>
> Oh my - once upon a time, many generations ago, when a democrat was in
> charge, the US did something slightly bad, but far ****ing worse than
> our enemies.
>
> Now what the **** is your point, asshole?
>


Our foreign policy since WW II has been severely damaged.

The Dresden fire bombing was to let Hitler and his command structure
know that we weren't screwing around.

As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, evidence is now coming out that the prime
motivation was to scare the USSR more than force the Japanese surrender.
Most people now believe that Japan was prepared to surrender even before
the Hiroshima device was dropped. Nagasaki was just a bonus and a test
of a slightly different device.

"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
|
| Another couple of critical questions: When did Clinton get the UN
| approval to invade and topple Kosovo? How many nations were involved in
| the "multinational" UN-approved invasion of Kosovo?
|
| Bill Putney
| (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
| address with "x")
|

He didn't. The UN told Clinton specifically to stay out of it, if memory
serves me. It's interesting that Bush keeps getting blamed for the policy of
pre-emption, but Clinton set the precedence, as you basically point out.

But having said that, what does this topic have to do with cars? ;-)

Tony P. > wrote in message >. ..
>
> As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, evidence is now coming out that the prime
> motivation was to scare the USSR more than force the Japanese surrender.

There is no evidence coming out that says anything at all like that.
All evidence shows that the point of the bombs was to force Japan to
accept Potsdam.




> Most people now believe that Japan was prepared to surrender even before
> the Hiroshima device was dropped.

It is a shame that Japan was not prepared to surrender on our terms.

The way out for them was to accept Potsdam. Trying to surrender on
unacceptable terms was a non-starter, and a mistake that got them
nuked twice.




> Nagasaki was just a bonus and a test of a slightly different device.

Nagasaki was an attempt to force Japan to accept Potsdam.

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:04:04 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>And hey, we're still waiting -- probably fornever -- to invade China. It
>is, after all, an unfree country run by brutal dictators, possessing
>weapons of mass destruction. They conduct economic terrorism against the
>US every day, and have been doing so for the last 15 years. They've even
>got lots of oil. Oh wait, that's right, we haven't attacked them because
>we'd lose, and because the MBAs of America have a permanent hard-on for
>China.
>
>Hello, double standard?

Well, China can hit back. Why do you think there are such kid gloves
for North Korea?
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Her name was Valerie Plame, and she was a NOC. She was keeping weapons of mass
destruction out of the hands of terrorists. What was the Bush administration doing?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022404A.shtml

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 02:23:51 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote:

>I agree had that been possible in a reasonable time frame.
>Unfortunately, most governments in place today are too much like France
>and don't have the spine to take on terrorists. We simply no longer had
>time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus.

Why did we have no more time? Because the inspectors weren't finding
anything? Because the "coalition of the willing" was falling apart?
Because Ms. Gun had to blab about UN members being illegally bugged to
get information to coerce them to come aboard?

Or was it because Saddam was about to pull the trigger on the WMDs
that no one can seem to find?
--
Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail)

Her name was Valerie Plame, and she was a NOC. She was keeping weapons of mass
destruction out of the hands of terrorists. What was the Bush administration doing?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022404A.shtml