If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:52:40 GMT, DTJ > wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 00:47:22 GMT, dizzy > wrote: > >Mommy wants to change your diaper now. Time to get off the computer >and go to bed. That's a very lame attempt to save face after I rubbed your nose in the facts, right winger. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 23:12:54 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote: >Daniel J. Stern wrote: >> 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. > >I have no doubt he had weapons. He had them at one point, no one has denied that. Hell, the Americans helped him stock up! The question is did he have them prior to the invasion. It's all well and good to *believe* that he did, but without solid proof, this doctrine of pre-emptive strikes becomes a little scary, don't you think? >Did he have as many as we thought? >Probably not. Was he close on nukes? Probably not. Did he have >chemical weapons? I'm 100% sure of it as he's used them before. Did he >have biological weapons? Who knows. I suspect that the weapons are now >residing in Syria or still buried and yet to be found. You can't operate on what you believe, you can only operate on what you can prove. David Kay has demonstrated the error of Bush's (or was it Cheney's) beliefs with respect to the vast stockpiles that Saddam supposedly had. -- 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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dori A Schmetterling wrote: > I guess what is not properly understood by people who are wholly critical of > the bombing of Dresden is that the war had to be brought to an end. > Europe's worst scourge for centuries was on the loose. Stop. Do not pass go. The ends do not ever justify the means. Shoot, we could have done nothing and Russia would have squashed them flat for us in time. The second we started rolling across France, the war was already lost for Germany. > Similarly, Churchill launched a bombing raid on Berlin, with no direct > military target in sight. However, he knew the psychological effect would > be tremendous on a population that had been told that Berlin was > invulnerable. And Churchill was right. > > By your line of argument both of these were terrorist attacks, but thousands > would beg to differ. And so might the 12 m civilian victims of said > scourge. Yet we consider the bombing of London to be a vile act. Same thing, different foot. It should be noted that an important difference existed - the Berlin and London bombing campaigns took a long time and gave the people time to flee. Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were over in hours with no chance for the people to escape. We knew that going in - that they would all likely die at once and did it anyways. That's what makes it different. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
DTJ wrote: > On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 19:55:56 GMT, Joseph Oberlander > > wrote: > >>My point is that 9/11 isn't close to what we have done ourselves >>for various reasons. Only the perspective is different. >> >>Afterall, we had no problem doing the same sort of things to >>win our freedom. But that's all good. >> >>The problem is - we've come full circle and are rapidly turning >>into the very thing we rebelled against over 200 years ago. > > Your universe is an interesting place to visit, but I am glad I don't > live there. Really? Last I checked, the U.S. was turning into a government-heavy fundamental religous rich inbred WASP controlled nation with designs on imperialism. There's really not a lot of difference between England in 1773 and the U.S. in 2003. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
DTJ wrote: > On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 21:32:25 -0000, "Dori A Schmetterling" > > wrote: > > >>Unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan were excellent aims. Results >>achieved. >> >>Have you forgotten (or did you not know) about Japan's horrendous war crimes >>all over Asia? That Japan and Japanese are still disliked, even hated, in >>many parts of Asia, and in China and Korea in particular? > > > Why would that matter to a US hater Actually, I love this country. I just hate the people in charge who are selling us out and pillaging the country. We can be so much more than we currently are - and yet nobody in power seems to care about anyone but themselves. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Cross-posting is usually not acceptable (or appreciated). Please remove
>rec.autos.makers.saturn< from this thread since there's nothing specific to the automaker, its product or users. Thanks in advance. "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message ... > Daniel J. Stern wrote: > > 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. > > Are you having trouble spelling, DS? I've not come across "fornever" in > my dictionary. > > > Matt > |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Joseph Oberlander > wrote in message ink.net>...
> > And all three are prime examples of terrorist attacks considering > our standing orders at the time to not target civilians. At least > that's what we told the soldiers. In Dresden, American bombers aimed for the railyards. It was the UK bombers that aimed for the city, and the UK bombers that started the firestorm. In Hiroshima, the bomb exploded nearly directly above Hiroshima Castle, which was the headquarters of the Japanese Second General Army, which was in charge of all military operations on Kyushu, Shikoku and western Honshu. (The bomb killed 20,000 Japanese soldiers as well.) The Nagasaki bomb was meant for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (4100' x 2000') complex that was producing armaments for Japan to defend against invasion. Weather diverted the bomb however, and it was dropped on the outskirts of Nagasaki between the "Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works" and the "Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works/Torpedo Works", damaging both beyond repair. Seems to have been a bit of military to the targeting.... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used propertysales. | [email protected] | General | 0 | February 29th 04 09:09 PM |
The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used property sa | Tony P. | General | 0 | February 26th 04 01:19 AM |
The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used property sales. | Louis Hom | General | 0 | February 25th 04 01:45 PM |