Discussion:
OT: completely OT...
(too old to reply)
My Own Doppelganger
2005-08-18 03:18:48 UTC
Permalink
So, I'm like driving home from a workout and in the middle of this
downtown Chicago suburb there's like a hundred people with lit candles
supporting Cindy Sheehan (the mom camped outside of Bush's ranch
protesting the war...etc)

Damn, talk about the power of a single voice.

:~/


--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas)
2005-08-18 03:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Own Doppelganger
So, I'm like driving home from a workout and in the middle of this
downtown Chicago suburb there's like a hundred people with lit candles
supporting Cindy Sheehan (the mom camped outside of Bush's ranch
protesting the war...etc)
Damn, talk about the power of a single voice.
So I missed the part of the story where, in a volunteer army, her son was
somehow drafted.
Rog'
2005-08-18 04:10:04 UTC
Permalink
(Joe St. Lucas)> wrote:..
Post by jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas)
Post by My Own Doppelganger
So, I'm like driving home from a workout and in the middle of
this downtown Chicago suburb there's like a hundred people
with lit candles supporting Cindy Sheehan (the mom camped
outside of Bush's ranch protesting the war...etc)
Damn, talk about the power of a single voice.
So I missed the part of the story where, in a volunteer army, her
son was somehow drafted.
The question here, Joe, is not whether he volunteered and did his
duty, but does Bush honor the sacrifice her son made by placing
more young kids in harm's way for a war that [insert debate here].
Does he dishonor the service for which all of the kids volunteered
by continuing his folly and failure to find an exit, or does he honor
the dead by continuing a policy that adds more to the cemeteries?

I wonder if one of your son's was in Iraq, would you have any
questions about the policies that keep him there, or would you
say, "Whatever you say, Mr. President?" =R=
jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas)
2005-08-18 04:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rog'
Post by jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas)
Post by My Own Doppelganger
So, I'm like driving home from a workout and in the middle of
this downtown Chicago suburb there's like a hundred people
with lit candles supporting Cindy Sheehan (the mom camped
outside of Bush's ranch protesting the war...etc)
Damn, talk about the power of a single voice.
So I missed the part of the story where, in a volunteer army, her
son was somehow drafted.
The question here, Joe, is not whether he volunteered and did his
duty, but does Bush honor the sacrifice her son made by placing
more young kids in harm's way for a war that [insert debate here].
Does he dishonor the service for which all of the kids volunteered
by continuing his folly and failure to find an exit, or does he honor
the dead by continuing a policy that adds more to the cemeteries?
I wonder if one of your son's was in Iraq, would you have any
questions about the policies that keep him there, or would you
say, "Whatever you say, Mr. President?" =R=
Well, my new daughter-in-law's brother just volunteered, knowing about Bush's
policies, so some people will do anything for the USA.
Personally I would discourage my son from joining the current bush's war,
maybe by breaking his leg or something, but then again they'd probably take
someone who's left hand was bitten off by a bow-tie wearing seal, just to have
warm bodies.
saulgoode
2005-08-19 21:02:30 UTC
Permalink
I'm having dinner tonight with one of those warm bodies.

He's an Army Special Forces Ranger, Lt., graduated with an engineering
degree, one of my brother's best friends. In fact, my brother named his
new boy after the guy (and me, so my new nephew has four names). And
here's the pisser: My kid's named after him and my brother.

The dude's my hero.

He's done the Baghdad gig, and he's headed right back. Hell yeah I'll
be sorry if he comes home in a bag, but I'm not gonna blame Bush -- I'm
gonna blame the fuckers who shot him, and pray we send some more
rockets up their ass. Gimme a break. Blaming Bush is the typical
liberal blame-the-victim-not-the-criminal argument. No logic.

As for dying, you can slip tonight going to take a shit, crush your
head on the porcelain god, and wake up dead tomorrow morning. Or you
can die fighting for your country. Either way, dead's dead, and
somebody's gonna mourn you.

If you die on the shitter tonight, we'll hold a vigil in front of Home
Depot, demanding they pad those killer commodes! Fucking Home Depot!



- Saul
Post by jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas)
Post by Rog'
Post by jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas)
Post by My Own Doppelganger
So, I'm like driving home from a workout and in the middle of
this downtown Chicago suburb there's like a hundred people
with lit candles supporting Cindy Sheehan (the mom camped
outside of Bush's ranch protesting the war...etc)
Damn, talk about the power of a single voice.
So I missed the part of the story where, in a volunteer army, her
son was somehow drafted.
The question here, Joe, is not whether he volunteered and did his
duty, but does Bush honor the sacrifice her son made by placing
more young kids in harm's way for a war that [insert debate here].
Does he dishonor the service for which all of the kids volunteered
by continuing his folly and failure to find an exit, or does he honor
the dead by continuing a policy that adds more to the cemeteries?
I wonder if one of your son's was in Iraq, would you have any
questions about the policies that keep him there, or would you
say, "Whatever you say, Mr. President?" =R=
Well, my new daughter-in-law's brother just volunteered, knowing about Bush's
policies, so some people will do anything for the USA.
Personally I would discourage my son from joining the current bush's war,
maybe by breaking his leg or something, but then again they'd probably take
someone who's left hand was bitten off by a bow-tie wearing seal, just to have
warm bodies.
My Own Doppelganger
2005-08-19 22:21:17 UTC
Permalink
I'm sorry, but that was really funny...yeah, yeah, I know - not
suppose to be funny....


On 19 Aug 2005 14:02:30 -0700, "saulgoode"
<***@cyber-rights.net> wrote:

<snip>
Post by saulgoode
As for dying, you can slip tonight going to take a shit, crush your
head on the porcelain god, and wake up dead tomorrow morning. Or you
can die fighting for your country. Either way, dead's dead, and
somebody's gonna mourn you.
If you die on the shitter tonight, we'll hold a vigil in front of Home
Depot, demanding they pad those killer commodes! Fucking Home Depot!
<snip>
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
Bill in Co.
2005-08-19 22:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Own Doppelganger
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
Oh yeah? Says who?????
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-19 22:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill in Co.
Post by My Own Doppelganger
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
Oh yeah? Says who?????
The past was that my grandfather died at age 94. So everybody said.
I know that he and grandmother had an age difference of 4 years.
She died before him. When I was 15.
After asking a few more questions from my aunt I could establish that he
died at the age of 84 and not 94.
What if some date from your past is false or corrupted?
What I have seen over the past 20 years is that " what really happen "
in the 2 ww will be never finish.
The common believe in Finland was that Finland attacked Russia first in
the 2 ww. Some years ago Russia release until then secret documents
revealing that actually Russia was the one who attacked Finland first.
Because Finland lost the war they had to accept the Russian " view ".
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-20 07:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Own Doppelganger
Post by saulgoode
As for dying, you can slip tonight going to take a shit, crush your
head on the porcelain god, and wake up dead tomorrow morning. Or you
can die fighting for your country.
I don't even know what "fighting for my country" means. honest to gawd. I
can see defending my homestead, or fighting someone who was trying to push
my child off a cliff, or fighting someone trying to move in front of me in
the fast lane....but the other....well, I guess if a phalanx from Neptune
landed in my city and said "We want to control your country," and I said "I
need to stop you, behold my saber," I'd be launching a fight "for" my
country....but I don't feel any ownership of this country, nor of this
town....I don't feel ownership of anything but my opinions.
Sorry but you do not own your opinions.
Your opinions are formed by those who own the media who by the way are
the same people who own the banks, oil and war industry.
the bank owns
most of my house, and my son is not my property....I guess I feel ownership
of this bruise on my shin...
Either way, dead's dead, and
Post by My Own Doppelganger
Post by saulgoode
somebody's gonna mourn you.
If you die on the shitter tonight, we'll hold a vigil in front of Home
Depot, demanding they pad those killer commodes! Fucking Home Depot!
<snip>
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
rj
2005-08-20 05:09:54 UTC
Permalink
I blame Bush, and I think my position is logical.
Really? I think the persons who voted the man into office should shoulder
most of the blame.
Depends...

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

rj
Bill in Co.
2005-08-20 06:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by rj
I blame Bush, and I think my position is logical.
Really? I think the persons who voted the man into office should shoulder
most of the blame.
Depends...
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
rj
Hate to clue ya in, bubba, but we don't have "shame" anymore. That concept
is antiquated. (I bet it's not even in the dictionary anymore).

The Scarlet Letter (and anything even remotely related), is just History!!
saulgoode
2005-08-20 07:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Ok, seriously, not trying to get into a shit-slinging contest with all
yall, but give me the logical sense behind blaming Bush for our troops
getting killed by a roadside bomb N. of Baghdad. To me, blaming him for
our boys (& girls) dying in Iraq/Af./etc. is like blaming Dallas Mayor
Miller for all the rapes in Dallas.

Bush isn't planting those roadside bombs -- Arabs trying to overthrow
the Iraqi govt and reinstate a regime that makes Apartheid look tame
are killing our troops.

Maybe you can argue that Saddam's Iraq was a legitimate and responsible
member of the world community, and that we should've let him remain in
power. Is that the argument?

But if you're blaming Bush for the Arabs killing our troops, that's
ridiculous. Those fuckers have been bombing us since the 70's.

Me? I blame the criminals, not the man standing up to them.


- Saul
Post by rj
I blame Bush, and I think my position is logical.
Really? I think the persons who voted the man into office should shoulder
most of the blame.
Depends...
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
rj
Rog'
2005-08-20 12:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by saulgoode
Ok, seriously, not trying to get into a shit-slinging contest with
all y'all, but give me the logical sense behind blaming Bush for
our troops getting killed by a roadside bomb N. of Baghdad.
To me, blaming him for our boys (& girls) dying in Iraq/Af./etc.
is like blaming Dallas Mayor Miller for all the rapes in Dallas.
We could, if the Mayor were to send a bunch of 19 yr. old girls
out to stand along the roadsides with signs that said, "F*ck me."
Sorry, dude, but the buck stops with the guy who decided to
set up the tent under the electric lines.

From where I sit, he lied to us about why he sent the troops there
in the first place - it had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Quada
- and when that's proven to be false, he makes up another excuse.
Now he has no workable exit plan, so he tries to make us think its
somehow linked to terrorism, when all he's done is touch the tent
pole to the electric lines. So he's fooled half the people. We live
in a country half-full of sheep. <sigh> =R=
My Own Doppelganger
2005-08-20 14:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Sleeping walking sheep...

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:16:30 -0400, "Rog'"
Post by Rog'
Post by saulgoode
Ok, seriously, not trying to get into a shit-slinging contest with
all y'all, but give me the logical sense behind blaming Bush for
our troops getting killed by a roadside bomb N. of Baghdad.
To me, blaming him for our boys (& girls) dying in Iraq/Af./etc.
is like blaming Dallas Mayor Miller for all the rapes in Dallas.
We could, if the Mayor were to send a bunch of 19 yr. old girls
out to stand along the roadsides with signs that said, "F*ck me."
Sorry, dude, but the buck stops with the guy who decided to
set up the tent under the electric lines.
From where I sit, he lied to us about why he sent the troops there
in the first place - it had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Quada
- and when that's proven to be false, he makes up another excuse.
Now he has no workable exit plan, so he tries to make us think its
somehow linked to terrorism, when all he's done is touch the tent
pole to the electric lines. So he's fooled half the people. We live
in a country half-full of sheep. <sigh> =R=
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
saulgoode
2005-08-20 15:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rog'
Post by saulgoode
Ok, seriously, not trying to get into a shit-slinging contest with
all y'all, but give me the logical sense behind blaming Bush for
our troops getting killed by a roadside bomb N. of Baghdad.
To me, blaming him for our boys (& girls) dying in Iraq/Af./etc.
is like blaming Dallas Mayor Miller for all the rapes in Dallas.
We could, if the Mayor were to send a bunch of 19 yr. old girls
out to stand along the roadsides with signs that said, "F*ck me."
So you ~don't~ blame the rapists. You blame the girls for letting
themselves be victims.

In this case, to make the analogy allegorically accurate, we'd need to
say the Mayor sends a bunch of girls into a prison to stop the prison
rapes, and continue from there, rather than saying the Mayor
intentionally sent them to the streets to be raped.

Again, tho, continuing with the prison thing, at what point would you
shift your argument to blaming the rapists and killers, instead of the
person trying to stop them.
Post by Rog'
Sorry, dude, but the buck stops with the guy who decided to
set up the tent under the electric lines.
I agree more this analogy -- you wouldn't want to do something so
obviously stupid as grab the hotwire bare-handed. It's not accurate,
tho, for an analogy in this case.
Post by Rog'
From where I sit, he lied to us about why he sent the troops there
in the first place - it had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Quada
- and when that's proven to be false, he makes up another excuse.
Now he has no workable exit plan, so he tries to make us think its
somehow linked to terrorism, when all he's done is touch the tent
pole to the electric lines. So he's fooled half the people. We live
in a country half-full of sheep. <sigh> =R=
This last point is the same argument we've been having for three years.
I'm looking for new stuff.

What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs? Is there such a point? Or do we continue
now to argue about pulling the troops out? Remember, there still exists
an element in Iraq that wants to return Iraq to Minority rule, and
these folks are way worse than the Germans in South Africa who had
Apartheid running. Giving them a pullout date is more like your analogy
with the hot wires.


- Saul
Rog'
2005-08-20 16:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by saulgoode
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift
the blame to the people planting bombs? Is there such a point?
Blame the bomb-makers all you want. So the enemy is to balme.
What should we do about it? Send more men deeper into the
"Big Muddy?" For those who don't know the reference:

It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was part of a good platoon.
We were on manoeuvers in Louisiana,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain said, "We've got to ford the river",
That's where it all began.
We were knee deep in the Big Muddy,
And the damn fool kept yelling to push on.
***
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Follow me, I'll lead on."
We were neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fool kept yelling to push on.

All of a sudden, the moon clouded over,
All we heard was a gurgling cry.
A second later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."
***
We were lucky to get out of the Big Muddy
When the damn fool kept yelling to push on.
Well, you might not want to draw conclusions
I'll leave that to yourself
Maybe you're still walking,
Maybe you're still talking
Maybe you've still got your health.
But every time I hear the news
That old feeling comes back on;
We're waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on.
[Pete Seeger]
ml
2005-08-20 18:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by saulgoode
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs?
I usually stay out of these types of discussions, but something that i don't
understand, and haven't understood since this whole war thing started...
If don't agree with this particular war, why does that make me "anti-american"
and/or a "bush-hater"??? I love America, and i respect our president and the
office... and especially, i support our boys who are putting their life on the
line... they have a belief, a purpose, and the drive to do something about it
- regardless of whether or not i agree with the purpose... I hear on the
media that you can't support our troops without also supporting the reason
they're fighting... that's BS! (IMO)

So why, becuz i don't agree with the reasoning in getting involved in this
war, does that make me anti-american and hate our president???
That's an awfully broad brush... Isn't this country built on freedom of
thought and expression, courage to go against the majority when you feel it's
wrong, etc? We're not built on a lemming-type society, are we???
When we got involved in this Iraq thing, i felt in my heart that it was a
wrong move. Yet i didn't dare speak up (even tho this is USA) becuz i'm not
"anti-american" but apparently being against the war means you are. ?
I never understood what it had to do with 911, and have not yet received a
good explanation of that.

I was raised on a don't-question-authority diet. Authority (be it parent,
teacher, gov't, religious leader, etc) is ALWAYS right even if you feel it's
wrong. I rebelled when i learned that authority is NOT always right, and you
need to learn to see with your own eyes instead of blindly following
everything you're told.

OK, back out of my hippie-rebel mode that i usually hide, just had to say that
stuff...
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-20 22:48:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by ml
Post by saulgoode
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs?
I usually stay out of these types of discussions, but something that i don't
understand, and haven't understood since this whole war thing started...
If don't agree with this particular war, why does that make me "anti-american"
and/or a "bush-hater"??? I love America, and i respect our president and the
office... and especially, i support our boys who are putting their life on the
line... they have a belief, a purpose, and the drive to do something about it
- regardless of whether or not i agree with the purpose... I hear on the
media that you can't support our troops without also supporting the reason
they're fighting... that's BS! (IMO)
So why, becuz i don't agree with the reasoning in getting involved in this
war, does that make me anti-american and hate our president???
That's an awfully broad brush... Isn't this country built on freedom of
thought and expression, courage to go against the majority when you feel it's
wrong, etc? We're not built on a lemming-type society, are we???
When we got involved in this Iraq thing, i felt in my heart that it was a
wrong move. Yet i didn't dare speak up (even tho this is USA) becuz i'm not
"anti-american" but apparently being against the war means you are. ?
I never understood what it had to do with 911, and have not yet received a
good explanation of that.
I was raised on a don't-question-authority diet. Authority (be it parent,
teacher, gov't, religious leader, etc) is ALWAYS right even if you feel it's
wrong. I rebelled when i learned that authority is NOT always right, and you
need to learn to see with your own eyes instead of blindly following
everything you're told.
OK, back out of my hippie-rebel mode that i usually hide, just had to say that
stuff...
Are you brave enough to face up to reality/truth ?
I must sleep now but tomorrow.
Bill in Co.
2005-08-20 23:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
Post by saulgoode
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs?
I usually stay out of these types of discussions, but something that i don't
understand, and haven't understood since this whole war thing started...
If don't agree with this particular war, why does that make me
"anti-american" and/or a "bush-hater"??? I love America, and i respect
our
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
president and the office... and especially, i support our boys who are
putting their life on the line... they have a belief, a purpose, and the
drive to do something about it - regardless of whether or not i agree
with
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
the purpose... I hear on the media that you can't support our troops
without also supporting the reason they're fighting... that's BS! (IMO)
So why, becuz i don't agree with the reasoning in getting involved in this
war, does that make me anti-american and hate our president???
That's an awfully broad brush... Isn't this country built on freedom of
thought and expression, courage to go against the majority when you feel it's
wrong, etc? We're not built on a lemming-type society, are we???
When we got involved in this Iraq thing, i felt in my heart that it was a
wrong move. Yet i didn't dare speak up (even tho this is USA) becuz i'm not
"anti-american" but apparently being against the war means you are. ?
I never understood what it had to do with 911, and have not yet received a
good explanation of that.
I was raised on a don't-question-authority diet. Authority (be it parent,
teacher, gov't, religious leader, etc) is ALWAYS right even if you feel it's
wrong. I rebelled when i learned that authority is NOT always right, and you
need to learn to see with your own eyes instead of blindly following
everything you're told.
OK, back out of my hippie-rebel mode that i usually hide, just had to say
that stuff...
Are you brave enough to face up to reality/truth ?
There is no "Reality" or "Truth" that we can unequivocably ascertain,
grasshopper. Everything is filtered We have only our PERCEPTION of
"realities".
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-21 05:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ml
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
Post by saulgoode
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs?
I usually stay out of these types of discussions, but something that i
don't
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
understand, and haven't understood since this whole war thing started...
If don't agree with this particular war, why does that make me
"anti-american" and/or a "bush-hater"??? I love America, and i respect
our
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
president and the office... and especially, i support our boys who are
putting their life on the line... they have a belief, a purpose, and the
drive to do something about it - regardless of whether or not i agree
with
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
the purpose... I hear on the media that you can't support our troops
without also supporting the reason they're fighting... that's BS! (IMO)
So why, becuz i don't agree with the reasoning in getting involved in
this
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
war, does that make me anti-american and hate our president???
That's an awfully broad brush... Isn't this country built on freedom of
thought and expression, courage to go against the majority when you feel
it's
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
wrong, etc? We're not built on a lemming-type society, are we???
When we got involved in this Iraq thing, i felt in my heart that it was a
wrong move. Yet i didn't dare speak up (even tho this is USA) becuz i'm
not
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
"anti-american" but apparently being against the war means you are. ?
I never understood what it had to do with 911, and have not yet received
a
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
good explanation of that.
I was raised on a don't-question-authority diet. Authority (be it
parent,
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
teacher, gov't, religious leader, etc) is ALWAYS right even if you feel
it's
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
wrong. I rebelled when i learned that authority is NOT always right, and
you
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by ml
need to learn to see with your own eyes instead of blindly following
everything you're told.
OK, back out of my hippie-rebel mode that i usually hide, just had to say
that stuff...
Are you brave enough to face up to reality/truth ?
There is no "Reality" or "Truth" that we can unequivocably ascertain,
grasshopper. Everything is filtered We have only our PERCEPTION of
"realities".
So when I have my coffee in the morning is it real or just my perception?
The bills I have to pay soon are they real or just my perception?
Well different people might " think " differently about bills and coffee
but even if you don't like to pay your bills they won't vanish in to
thin air.
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-21 06:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by ml
Post by saulgoode
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs?
I usually stay out of these types of discussions, but something that i don't
understand, and haven't understood since this whole war thing started...
If don't agree with this particular war, why does that make me "anti-american"
and/or a "bush-hater"??? I love America, and i respect our president and the
office... and especially, i support our boys who are putting their life on the
line... they have a belief, a purpose, and the drive to do something about it
- regardless of whether or not i agree with the purpose... I hear on the
media that you can't support our troops without also supporting the reason
they're fighting... that's BS! (IMO)
So why, becuz i don't agree with the reasoning in getting involved in this
war, does that make me anti-american and hate our president???
That's an awfully broad brush... Isn't this country built on freedom of
thought and expression, courage to go against the majority when you feel it's
wrong, etc? We're not built on a lemming-type society, are we???
When we got involved in this Iraq thing, i felt in my heart that it was a
wrong move. Yet i didn't dare speak up (even tho this is USA) becuz i'm not
"anti-american" but apparently being against the war means you are. ?
I never understood what it had to do with 911, and have not yet received a
good explanation of that.
I was raised on a don't-question-authority diet. Authority (be it parent,
teacher, gov't, religious leader, etc) is ALWAYS right even if you feel it's
wrong. I rebelled when i learned that authority is NOT always right, and you
need to learn to see with your own eyes instead of blindly following
everything you're told.
OK, back out of my hippie-rebel mode that i usually hide, just had to say that
stuff...
There is the claim of Bush that he attacked Iraq because:

Sadam had something to do with 9 11
False: The plan to invade Iraq was formed 1 year before 9 11
Wolfowits was the brain behind that plan. He is Jewish but it should not
matter

Sadam had an Al Qada connection:

False: Sadam was fighting against fundamentalist within his country.
He was killing thousands of them.

Had WMD and was trying to buy yellow cake from Nigger:
False: The alleged documents " proofing " this were fakes or so the CIA
later admitted.

Then there is the claim because he was a mass murderer:
Well true but his most atrocities he committed when he was the " good "
guy because he had a war against I ran which he didn't win even although
he had the help of the USA.
This was also the time when he got WMD from the USA to use against Iran.
Later he was using mustard gas against the Kurds but mustard gas is ww 1
technology and can be produced in a kitchen by every one you has basic
knowledge in chemistry.

Back to WMD. Bush was making jokes later about them. He was looking
under his table to find them and thousands of people in the hall were
laughing.
So the alleged WMD were a joke and an excuse to invade Iraq.

Iraq has the worlds second largest oil reserves which are pumped out
again and at the same time the country is in ruins.
The hospitals don't work properly.
Not enough food and water.
Electricity is out half of the time ...
So why are the Iraqi people are not benefiting from the oil export?
Who is getting the money?

Now about the morals of bringing " democracy " to Iraq and/or hurting Sadam.
The boycott of Iraq was meant to hurt Sadam and bring his government down.
What it did was killing one million Iraqis.
On the question was it worthwhile one American politician said " yes ".
I wonder what the 1 million Iraqis were thinking about or their relatives.

Now about the " liberation " of Iraq.
About 200.000 Iraqis lost their life's so that the US government could
put their hands on ONE man.
But hey " now the have democracy and can freely choose what form of
government they want ".
False: The elections were not free. They happen under an occupational army.
So what form of government the Iraqis really want?
Most of them belong to the same religion as the Iranians and in a free
election would want a religious state like Iran.

" Hey we don't want that! We want that they want what we want ".

It is also noteworthy to look at the connection of Bush, Chenney to the
American oil industry and Haliburt.

Lets talk a bit of North Korea.
It was the firm of which Chenney was the director that gave North Korea
the necessary equipment to build nuclear power stations.

Did I miss something?
A big chunk of the US media is owned by the same people who own the oil
and weapon industry and for who Bush and Chenney were/are working for it.

I still could add the voting machines that leave no paper trail to be
able to check the authenticity of the votes but I stop here.
jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas)
2005-08-21 06:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xenos the Elder
It is also noteworthy to look at the connection of Bush, Chenney to the
American oil industry and Haliburt.
The US army is planning for four more years in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9022420/
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-21 09:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas)
Post by Xenos the Elder
It is also noteworthy to look at the connection of Bush, Chenney to the
American oil industry and Haliburt.
The US army is planning for four more years in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9022420/
I was watching BBC yesterday about global warming and climate change.
Well it's not so bad as I was thinking.
It's much worse.
Over the next 20 years the temperature in Europe will raise by 6 degree
Celsius. About 10,8 degrees Fahrenheit.
South England will have Mediterranean climate by then.
They will be able to grow olive trees.
Could not find a corresponding page on their web site but I found
something similar:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4210000/newsid_4210700/4210725.stm
Prepare for crop failures and food rationing.
Robert Grumbine
2005-08-25 12:26:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <87YNe.10813$***@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
Xenos the Elder <***@forit.net> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Xenos the Elder
I was watching BBC yesterday about global warming and climate change.
Well it's not so bad as I was thinking.
It's much worse.
Over the next 20 years the temperature in Europe will raise by 6 degree
Celsius. About 10,8 degrees Fahrenheit.
There's only one way I know of that such an event could occur,
and that one is a possibility, not a guarantee.
Post by Xenos the Elder
South England will have Mediterranean climate by then.
They will be able to grow olive trees.
Could not find a corresponding page on their web site but I found
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4210000/newsid_4210700/4210725.stm
Prepare for crop failures and food rationing.
This one is pretty badly written. The 11 C figure from
climateprediction.net is the very highest result from thousands of
parameter sets. The distribution is from about 1, for CO2 doubling,
to that 11, centered around 3. The center is consistent with
the results of the better (than theirs) models which are focussed
on getting a good result for the modelling. Climateprediction.net's
focus is on exploring parameter sensitivity.

See http://www.realclimate.org/ for more about climateprediction.net,
and most other things about climate change, written for non-professionals.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-25 17:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
[snip]
Post by Xenos the Elder
I was watching BBC yesterday about global warming and climate change.
Well it's not so bad as I was thinking.
It's much worse.
Over the next 20 years the temperature in Europe will raise by 6 degree
Celsius. About 10,8 degrees Fahrenheit.
There's only one way I know of that such an event could occur,
and that one is a possibility, not a guarantee.
Post by Xenos the Elder
South England will have Mediterranean climate by then.
They will be able to grow olive trees.
Could not find a corresponding page on their web site but I found
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4210000/newsid_4210700/4210725.stm
Prepare for crop failures and food rationing.
This one is pretty badly written. The 11 C figure from
climateprediction.net is the very highest result from thousands of
parameter sets. The distribution is from about 1, for CO2 doubling,
to that 11, centered around 3. The center is consistent with
the results of the better (than theirs) models which are focussed
on getting a good result for the modelling. Climateprediction.net's
focus is on exploring parameter sensitivity.
See http://www.realclimate.org/ for more about climateprediction.net,
and most other things about climate change, written for non-professionals.
A friend of my was telling me that the permafrost in Siberia is melting
and this will release huge amounts of methane.
Methane being much worse for global warming.

What about the gulf stream being 30% weaker?
Or 1/3 of the ice of the North Pole has melted already.
More fresh water coming from Siberian rivers and so further diluting the
salt content thus endangering the pump which keeps the gulf stream going.
I am just asking.
Will the amount of carbon dioxide not increase in the future because of
Chinas and India's growing economy.
Robert Grumbine
2005-08-25 17:41:56 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Xenos the Elder
A friend of my was telling me that the permafrost in Siberia is melting
and this will release huge amounts of methane.
Methane being much worse for global warming.
Siberian permafrost (as is Alaskan and Canadian) is indeed melting.
Methane is, on a per molecule basis, a stronger greenhouse gas than
CO2 or water vapor. But: a) it isn't a guarantee that the permafrost
melting is going to release large quantities of methane b) if it did,
it isn't obvious that the methane will stay in the atmosphere long. --
Methane is readily oxidized by O2 and OH into CO2 and H2O, weaker
(per molecule) greenhouse gases, the latter of which rains out.
The fate and role of methane in the atmosphere is a serious question,
see my site for a faq on it with references, and even more so, see
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Post by Xenos the Elder
What about the gulf stream being 30% weaker?
What about it? The gulf stream isn't, currently, 30% weaker than at
other observed times. Europe, though, needn't be very concerned about
the Gulf Stream. It is the North Atlantic Current (in part, fed by the
GS) which keeps Europe warm.
Post by Xenos the Elder
Or 1/3 of the ice of the North Pole has melted already.
There a lot of garbling going on about the arctic ice pack. First,
be sure the reference is to the arctic ice pack. 'The north pole' usually
means statements regaring a few square meters near somebody's ship or
ice camp near the pole. Well, no surprise that the ice pack breaks up
and melts some in the summer -- even at the north pole. That 30% of
the area especially near the north pole becomes ice free in late summer
is no great suprise, nor climate change marker. It refreezes in the winter.

The arctic ice pack -- summer minimum extent -- is indeed experiencing
a decline over the period of record, about 2% per decade, possibly
accelerating in more recent years. With ca. 25 years of observations,
this is a 5% or so decrease. See http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/Analyses.html
for current observations and http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/Historical.html
for information more focused on climatology and history.
Post by Xenos the Elder
More fresh water coming from Siberian rivers and so further diluting the
salt content thus endangering the pump which keeps the gulf stream going.
Siberian rivers have always* fed water into the arctic. In part, it
is this which helps maintain the sea ice cover the arctic does have.
In the 1970s, a serious concern in the literature was whether the then-planned
Soviet river diversions would reduce the fresh water flow into the Arctic
enough to melt the ice pack. -- The fresh water forms a cold (exposed to the
cold atmosphere) stable layer over the warmer, but saltier deeper parts of
the Arctic. This is a thin layer, so could be eliminated by relatively small
changes. That would mean less ice in the Arctic.

Less ice forming in the Arctic means less ice melting in the nordic seas,
which helps destabilizing the column, which _strengthens_ the sinking on that
end of the conveyor belt, and _increases_ the flow of the North Atlantic
current.

More fresh water from Siberia, however, likely does not lead to the reverse
feedback. The Arctic can only freeze so much area, and it does already all freeze
in the winter. Fresher water, or more fresh water, doesn't make for thicker
freezing.

Again, though, it's North Atlantic Current, not Gulf Stream. And it isn't
clear that the Siberian river runoff really has had the intuitively expected
effects. It may, and it's something folks are watching. More important, though,
seems to be atmospheric circulation driving more or less ice out of the
Arctic and in to the Nordic Seas.

*always = last 12 ky or so, since the deglaciation was well under way.
Post by Xenos the Elder
I am just asking.
Asking is good. Reading more is better -- again, see my web pages and
the IPCC site above. Many of the kind of question you have are addressed.
In most cases, we don't have absolute final answers, and those are indicated.
Post by Xenos the Elder
Will the amount of carbon dioxide not increase in the future because of
Chinas and India's growing economy.
Depends on how they get their energy and how they use it. Dollars of
GDP do not correlate especially well to energy use, nor does energy use
correlate well to CO2 emissions. The US uses 2-4 times the energy per
dollar of GDP than the other 'industrial' countries do. The US also
gets most of its energy from fossil fuels, which gives it a high
kg_CO2/kW ratio compared to places, like France, which get most of
their energy from nuclear.

Business as usual certainly suggests, though, that as their economies
grow, they'll emit more greenhouse gases. It'll be a long time before
they catch the US on ghg emissions, though. They'll pass the US economy
in GDP first, at their current efficiencies (of $ per kW, and kg_CO2/kW).
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-25 19:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
[snip]
Post by Xenos the Elder
A friend of my was telling me that the permafrost in Siberia is melting
and this will release huge amounts of methane.
Methane being much worse for global warming.
Siberian permafrost (as is Alaskan and Canadian) is indeed melting.
Methane is, on a per molecule basis, a stronger greenhouse gas than
CO2 or water vapor. But: a) it isn't a guarantee that the permafrost
melting is going to release large quantities of methane b) if it did,
it isn't obvious that the methane will stay in the atmosphere long. --
Methane is readily oxidized by O2 and OH into CO2 and H2O, weaker
(per molecule) greenhouse gases, the latter of which rains out.
The fate and role of methane in the atmosphere is a serious question,
see my site for a faq on it with references, and even more so, see
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Post by Xenos the Elder
What about the gulf stream being 30% weaker?
What about it? The gulf stream isn't, currently, 30% weaker than at
other observed times. Europe, though, needn't be very concerned about
the Gulf Stream. It is the North Atlantic Current (in part, fed by the
GS) which keeps Europe warm.
Post by Xenos the Elder
Or 1/3 of the ice of the North Pole has melted already.
There a lot of garbling going on about the arctic ice pack. First,
be sure the reference is to the arctic ice pack. 'The north pole' usually
means statements regaring a few square meters near somebody's ship or
ice camp near the pole. Well, no surprise that the ice pack breaks up
and melts some in the summer -- even at the north pole. That 30% of
the area especially near the north pole becomes ice free in late summer
is no great suprise, nor climate change marker. It refreezes in the winter.
The arctic ice pack -- summer minimum extent -- is indeed experiencing
a decline over the period of record, about 2% per decade, possibly
accelerating in more recent years. With ca. 25 years of observations,
this is a 5% or so decrease. See http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/Analyses.html
for current observations and http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/Historical.html
for information more focused on climatology and history.
Post by Xenos the Elder
More fresh water coming from Siberian rivers and so further diluting the
salt content thus endangering the pump which keeps the gulf stream going.
Siberian rivers have always* fed water into the arctic. In part, it
is this which helps maintain the sea ice cover the arctic does have.
In the 1970s, a serious concern in the literature was whether the then-planned
Soviet river diversions would reduce the fresh water flow into the Arctic
enough to melt the ice pack. -- The fresh water forms a cold (exposed to the
cold atmosphere) stable layer over the warmer, but saltier deeper parts of
the Arctic. This is a thin layer, so could be eliminated by relatively small
changes. That would mean less ice in the Arctic.
Less ice forming in the Arctic means less ice melting in the nordic seas,
which helps destabilizing the column, which _strengthens_ the sinking on that
end of the conveyor belt, and _increases_ the flow of the North Atlantic
current.
More fresh water from Siberia, however, likely does not lead to the reverse
feedback. The Arctic can only freeze so much area, and it does already all freeze
in the winter. Fresher water, or more fresh water, doesn't make for thicker
freezing.
Again, though, it's North Atlantic Current, not Gulf Stream. And it isn't
clear that the Siberian river runoff really has had the intuitively expected
effects. It may, and it's something folks are watching. More important, though,
seems to be atmospheric circulation driving more or less ice out of the
Arctic and in to the Nordic Seas.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/02/guest_post.html
The next part is from New Scientist:
Recent increases in the flows of Siberia's rivers, probably due to
global warming, have raised fears that a less salty Arctic Ocean could
shut down the Gulf Stream and trigger icy winters across Europe.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4637
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
*always = last 12 ky or so, since the deglaciation was well under way.
Post by Xenos the Elder
I am just asking.
Asking is good. Reading more is better
http://dieoff.org/page124.htm

" In his latest research, Broecker and his colleagues at Columbia
University, New York, have just announced that the surface water near
Antarctica is sinking at only a third of the rate it was a century ago. "
From: http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/gribbin.asp
And about the Siberian rivers and the gulf stream:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3266833.stm
" Most ocean scientists believe the conveyer has a crucial freshwater
threshold level, at which it will shut off - like a light bulb."

And

" Professor Richard Alley, a climate scientist from Pennsylvania State
University, tells Horizon: "I don't think that an abrupt, sudden trip
and fall down the stairs is the most likely outcome. But I think that
the probability of that is high enough that we should really think about
it."

One more about melting permafrost.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725124.500

And more here about the ice sheets:

Wadhams?s submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using
sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has
become 46% thinner over the past 20 years. The results from these surveys
prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should
grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.

The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking
water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals
expel their salt into the surrounding water, making it heavier than the
water below.

However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full
in 1997. ?In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under
the shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were
so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed,? said Wadhams,
who disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in
Vienna.
http://lists.uua.org/pipermail/globalwarming/2005-May/msg00001.html
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
-- again, see my web pages and
the IPCC site above. Many of the kind of question you have are addressed.
In most cases, we don't have absolute final answers, and those are indicated.
Post by Xenos the Elder
Will the amount of carbon dioxide not increase in the future because of
Chinas and India's growing economy.
Depends on how they get their energy and how they use it. Dollars of
GDP do not correlate especially well to energy use, nor does energy use
correlate well to CO2 emissions. The US uses 2-4 times the energy per
dollar of GDP than the other 'industrial' countries do. The US also
gets most of its energy from fossil fuels, which gives it a high
kg_CO2/kW ratio compared to places, like France, which get most of
their energy from nuclear.
Business as usual certainly suggests, though, that as their economies
grow, they'll emit more greenhouse gases. It'll be a long time before
they catch the US on ghg emissions, though. They'll pass the US economy
in GDP first, at their current efficiencies (of $ per kW, and kg_CO2/kW).
Robert Grumbine
2005-08-26 13:48:50 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by Robert Grumbine
Less ice forming in the Arctic means less ice melting in the nordic seas,
which helps destabilizing the column, which _strengthens_ the sinking on that
end of the conveyor belt, and _increases_ the flow of the North Atlantic
current.
More fresh water from Siberia, however, likely does not lead to the reverse
feedback. The Arctic can only freeze so much area, and it does already all freeze
in the winter. Fresher water, or more fresh water, doesn't make for thicker
freezing.
Again, though, it's North Atlantic Current, not Gulf Stream. And it isn't
clear that the Siberian river runoff really has had the intuitively expected
effects. It may, and it's something folks are watching. More important, though,
seems to be atmospheric circulation driving more or less ice out of the
Arctic and in to the Nordic Seas.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/02/guest_post.html
Recent increases in the flows of Siberia's rivers, probably due to
global warming, have raised fears that a less salty Arctic Ocean could
shut down the Gulf Stream and trigger icy winters across Europe.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4637
An article that says 'has raised fears', without saying among whom
is an immediate tosser. (I checked the article itself, not just your
brief quote.)

It's more work, but you'll be better served by reading Science and Nature
themselves.

[snip]
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by Robert Grumbine
Asking is good. Reading more is better
http://dieoff.org/page124.htm
Dreck. It cites a Greenpeace poll that asked the question "Scientists
were asked whether they thought there would be a point of no return at
some time in the future, if emissions continued at their present rate."
and reported that some percentage of scientists believed in _runaway_
greenhouse effect. This is a lie. Irreversible is not runaway. The
percentage agreeing to the statement could easily be, and almost certainly
were, envisioning a warming of some degrees C for doubled CO2, and that
it would not readily go away -- irreversible. Not runaway, which would
be the usual idiot catastrophe of boiling the oceans and turning the
earth in to Venus.
Post by Xenos the Elder
And
" Professor Richard Alley, a climate scientist from Pennsylvania State
University, tells Horizon: "I don't think that an abrupt, sudden trip
and fall down the stairs is the most likely outcome. But I think that
the probability of that is high enough that we should really think about
it."
Speaking of Richard, read his book _The Two Mile Time Machine_, about
the Greenland ice coring and climate work he's been involved in. He's
an excellent speaker, so I expect good writer. He's a little prone to
making global statements from local observations, something we've talked
about, but he's also pretty good about distinguishing the data from his
conclusions.
Post by Xenos the Elder
One more about melting permafrost.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725124.500
Wadhams?s submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap,
This is NOT ice sheets. That is sea ice, as the continuation clearly
shows. Ice sheets rest on land, and the distinction is important to
doing the science.
Post by Xenos the Elder
using
sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has
become 46% thinner over the past 20 years. The results from these surveys
prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should
grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.
Ice thinning is not the same as gaps in the ice cover. In any case,
see also the papers by Rothrock and company, which report more data from
a longer period. They reach similar conclusions, but the added data
are important in answering challenges that were raised to Wadhams' earlier
work by, for instance, Walsh.

Yes, there is thinning. Yes, there is decline in ice extent. Both of
these are things we expect for a warming Arctic, along with the (observed)
melting permafrost, warming borehole temperatures, species migrations
poleward, etc.

As far as the 6 C rise in Europe in the next 20 years, even the fairly
extreme pages you're quoting are talking only of 'may' 'could', and typically
without any time frame.


If your interest is in learning about the science, these are some links
that give good layman introduction and background, including citations
to the professional literature:
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/
http://www.ipcc.ch/ (Not so much layman-oriented, but exhaustive.)

At higher level, keep a regular eye on Science and Nature and follow up the
citations given at those sites.


In any case, if you'd like to talk about this sort of topic, the group
sci.environment is the right place. That includes a number of folks who
know what they're talking about, as well as the requisite trolls.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-26 15:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
[snip]
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by Robert Grumbine
Less ice forming in the Arctic means less ice melting in the nordic seas,
which helps destabilizing the column, which _strengthens_ the sinking on that
end of the conveyor belt, and _increases_ the flow of the North Atlantic
current.
More fresh water from Siberia, however, likely does not lead to the reverse
feedback. The Arctic can only freeze so much area, and it does already all freeze
in the winter. Fresher water, or more fresh water, doesn't make for thicker
freezing.
Again, though, it's North Atlantic Current, not Gulf Stream. And it isn't
clear that the Siberian river runoff really has had the intuitively expected
effects. It may, and it's something folks are watching. More important, though,
seems to be atmospheric circulation driving more or less ice out of the
Arctic and in to the Nordic Seas.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/02/guest_post.html
Recent increases in the flows of Siberia's rivers, probably due to
global warming, have raised fears that a less salty Arctic Ocean could
shut down the Gulf Stream and trigger icy winters across Europe.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4637
An article that says 'has raised fears', without saying among whom
is an immediate tosser. (I checked the article itself, not just your
brief quote.)
It's more work, but you'll be better served by reading Science and Nature
themselves.
[snip]
Post by Xenos the Elder
Post by Robert Grumbine
Asking is good. Reading more is better
http://dieoff.org/page124.htm
Dreck. It cites a Greenpeace poll that asked the question "Scientists
were asked whether they thought there would be a point of no return at
some time in the future, if emissions continued at their present rate."
and reported that some percentage of scientists believed in _runaway_
greenhouse effect. This is a lie. Irreversible is not runaway. The
percentage agreeing to the statement could easily be, and almost certainly
were, envisioning a warming of some degrees C for doubled CO2, and that
it would not readily go away -- irreversible. Not runaway, which would
be the usual idiot catastrophe of boiling the oceans and turning the
earth in to Venus.
Post by Xenos the Elder
And
" Professor Richard Alley, a climate scientist from Pennsylvania State
University, tells Horizon: "I don't think that an abrupt, sudden trip
and fall down the stairs is the most likely outcome. But I think that
the probability of that is high enough that we should really think about
it."
Speaking of Richard, read his book _The Two Mile Time Machine_, about
the Greenland ice coring and climate work he's been involved in. He's
an excellent speaker, so I expect good writer. He's a little prone to
making global statements from local observations, something we've talked
about, but he's also pretty good about distinguishing the data from his
conclusions.
Post by Xenos the Elder
One more about melting permafrost.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725124.500
Wadhams?s submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap,
This is NOT ice sheets. That is sea ice, as the continuation clearly
shows. Ice sheets rest on land, and the distinction is important to
doing the science.
Post by Xenos the Elder
using
sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has
become 46% thinner over the past 20 years. The results from these surveys
prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should
grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.
Ice thinning is not the same as gaps in the ice cover. In any case,
see also the papers by Rothrock and company, which report more data from
a longer period. They reach similar conclusions, but the added data
are important in answering challenges that were raised to Wadhams' earlier
work by, for instance, Walsh.
Yes, there is thinning. Yes, there is decline in ice extent. Both of
these are things we expect for a warming Arctic, along with the (observed)
melting permafrost, warming borehole temperatures, species migrations
poleward, etc.
As far as the 6 C rise in Europe in the next 20 years, even the fairly
extreme pages you're quoting are talking only of 'may' 'could', and typically
without any time frame.
Well the BBC document gave the time frame of 20 years.
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
If your interest is in learning about the science, these are some links
that give good layman introduction and background, including citations
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/
http://www.ipcc.ch/ (Not so much layman-oriented, but exhaustive.)
At higher level, keep a regular eye on Science and Nature and follow up the
citations given at those sites.
In any case, if you'd like to talk about this sort of topic, the group
sci.environment is the right place. That includes a number of folks who
know what they're talking about, as well as the requisite trolls.
I will have a look there.
Casey
2005-08-21 15:02:00 UTC
Permalink
jstlucas said
Post by jstlucas at hotmail dot com @delete.thisstuff (Joe St. Lucas)
Post by Xenos the Elder
It is also noteworthy to look at the connection of Bush, Chenney to the
American oil industry and Haliburt.
The US army is planning for four more years in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9022420/
Of course they are - you have to have a plan whether you use it or not.

It would be worse to say "we're pulling out on day xx no matter what".
There is a psychological element involved - you have to convince the
other side you're not giving up.



Casey
wickedways
2005-08-21 17:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ml
I usually stay out of these types of discussions, but something that i don't
understand, and haven't understood since this whole war thing
started...
Post by ml
If don't agree with this particular war, why does that make me
"anti-american"
Post by ml
and/or a "bush-hater"???
I can't separate the two; the invasion (not "war") was Bush's idea.

I love America, and i respect our president and the
Post by ml
office... and especially, i support our boys who are putting their life on the
line...
I don't....I see them as invaders.

they have a belief, a purpose, and the drive to do something about it
Post by ml
- regardless of whether or not i agree with the purpose
if you disagree, you can't support them. i mean, the people who flew
the planes in the towers had beliefs too, and i am rather in awe of
their courage...but man, if i try to say that out loud....
Post by ml
... I hear on the
media that you can't support our troops without also supporting the reason
they're fighting... that's BS! (IMO)
i guess i'm lucky because i don't support the cause OR the
perpetrators...the invasion was illegal, and the coalition troops are
criminals.
Post by ml
So why, becuz i don't agree with the reasoning in getting involved in this
war, does that make me anti-american and hate our president???
i don't know what anti-american means....is 'america' a flag, an SUV,
or an ice cream flavor? America is Muslims and polygamists and mountains
and PCBs and glory and shame....just a name for a piece of a
continent...
Post by ml
That's an awfully broad brush... Isn't this country built on
freedom of
Post by ml
thought and expression, courage to go against the majority when you feel it's
wrong, etc?
yep.

We're not built on a lemming-type society, are we???
Post by ml
When we got involved in this Iraq thing, i felt in my heart that it was a
wrong move. Yet i didn't dare speak up
get some backbone and speak up. ;-)

(even tho this is USA) becuz i'm not
Post by ml
"anti-american" but apparently being against the war means you are. ?
it's a pretty unimaginative way to characterize someone, but i can't
waste energy fighting people who say i hate children because i happen to
be pro-abortion either....

NOT always right, and you
Post by ml
need to learn to see with your own eyes instead of blindly following
everything you're told.
well, thank goodness.

for those who blame 'the terrorists' when innocents are killed in
Iraq, and who say it's wrong to blame Bush, i submit....if you stomp on
an anthill, and the ants have the temerity to sting you, do you blame
the ants? I don't....i say Bush poked a rattlesnake's nest with a stick,
and the rattlers did exactly what they ought to do....and when
'collateral' deaths occurred, they were/are Bush's fault, period. if
invaders tried to change the government in THIS country, presumably some
of us would fight/die to stop them....and that's what some people in the
Mideast are doing....I just wish the number of deaths would hit some
kind of magic number on a tote board so Bush et al would say 'ok,
enough, we're outta here.'

which is what i am, now.....
Nearl J Icarus
2005-08-22 00:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by wickedways
if you disagree, you can't support them. i mean, the people who flew
the planes in the towers had beliefs too, and i am rather in awe of
their courage...but man, if i try to say that out loud....
Courage, or just a low value of life? I certainly wouldn't equate them with
the Kamikaze of WWII. Too bad there isn't a cure for religious fantaticism. Or
patriotism.
Casey
2005-08-22 02:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Nearl J Icarus said
Post by Nearl J Icarus
Post by wickedways
if you disagree, you can't support them. i mean, the people who flew
the planes in the towers had beliefs too, and i am rather in awe of
their courage...but man, if i try to say that out loud....
I wouldn't call them courageous. It's still debatable that some of
them even knew they were going to die.
Post by Nearl J Icarus
Courage, or just a low value of life? I certainly wouldn't equate them with
the Kamikaze of WWII. Too bad there isn't a cure for religious fantaticism. Or
patriotism.
They were just counting on those virgins in heaven ... maybe the visits
to the strip joints in Las Vegas and Florida were motivational in
nature.


Casey
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-22 07:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Casey
Nearl J Icarus said
Post by Nearl J Icarus
Post by wickedways
if you disagree, you can't support them. i mean, the people who flew
the planes in the towers had beliefs too, and i am rather in awe of
their courage...but man, if i try to say that out loud....
I wouldn't call them courageous. It's still debatable that some of
them even knew they were going to die.
They were determinated to die for what they believed.
When was the last time a Christian suicide bomber did something?
Post by Casey
Post by Nearl J Icarus
Courage, or just a low value of life? I certainly wouldn't equate them with
the Kamikaze of WWII. Too bad there isn't a cure for religious fantaticism. Or
patriotism.
They were just counting on those virgins in heaven ... maybe the visits
to the strip joints in Las Vegas and Florida were motivational in
nature.
Casey
Bogart
2005-08-29 13:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xenos the Elder
They were determinated to die for what they believed.
When was the last time a Christian suicide bomber did something?
The Pope banned birth control.

bogey
Bill in Co.
2005-09-03 05:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xenos the Elder
They were determinated to die for what they believed.
When was the last time a Christian suicide bomber did something?
When was the last time YOU did something?

Xenos the Elder
2005-08-22 07:48:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nearl J Icarus
Post by wickedways
if you disagree, you can't support them. i mean, the people who flew
the planes in the towers had beliefs too, and i am rather in awe of
their courage...but man, if i try to say that out loud....
Courage, or just a low value of life? I certainly wouldn't equate them with
the Kamikaze of WWII. Too bad there isn't a cure for religious fantaticism. Or
patriotism.
Well those who enforced the boycott of Iraq had both.
They valued the life of Sadam very high and they valued the life's of
the Iraqi people very law if at all.
Sadam is well and alive but 1 million Iraqis died during those boycott
years.
Calculation: 1 million Iraqis = 1 Sadam
Only Sadam did not die.
Barbara Didrichsen
2005-08-20 20:21:27 UTC
Permalink
On 20 Aug 2005 08:46:01 -0700, "saulgoode"
<***@cyber-rights.net> wrote:

[snip]
Post by saulgoode
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs? Is there such a point? Or do we continue
now to argue about pulling the troops out? Remember, there still exists
an element in Iraq that wants to return Iraq to Minority rule, and
these folks are way worse than the Germans in South Africa who had
Apartheid running. Giving them a pullout date is more like your analogy
with the hot wires.
In my heart of hearts, I don't hate Bush. No good comes from hating
others -- the only thing we get is more hate. (And that applies to
our enemies as well.)

I strongly disagree with pretty much everything his administration
stands for, though, and what they've tried to achieve. I thought the
war in Iraq was misguided before it began, and I've not changed my
mind since.

We made this mess -- we need to find a way to clean it up in a way
that creates as little additional suffering for the Iraqi people as
possible. I have little confidence that our current administration
will be any more ept at securing the peace than they've been so far -
mainly because our commander in chief appears incapable of admitting
mistakes and so is not open to discussing alternatives to failing
strategies. And our country is paying with the blood of its young
people, as it did in Vietnam.

So -- here we are. Watching events unfold. I personally believe
we're in for a long and tragic time as the world adjusts to the fact
that no one -- not Bush, not Muslim fundamentalists, not Christian
fundamentalists -- can exert their will on the rest of the world's
citizens.

I also know it's more important than ever to keep hate out of my own
heart. That's the only way we'll survive this.

Barb
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-20 21:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
On 20 Aug 2005 08:46:01 -0700, "saulgoode"
[snip]
Post by saulgoode
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs? Is there such a point? Or do we continue
now to argue about pulling the troops out? Remember, there still exists
an element in Iraq that wants to return Iraq to Minority rule, and
these folks are way worse than the Germans in South Africa who had
Apartheid running. Giving them a pullout date is more like your analogy
with the hot wires.
In my heart of hearts, I don't hate Bush. No good comes from hating
others -- the only thing we get is more hate. (And that applies to
our enemies as well.)
I strongly disagree with pretty much everything his administration
stands for, though, and what they've tried to achieve. I thought the
war in Iraq was misguided before it began, and I've not changed my
mind since.
We made this mess -- we need to find a way to clean it up in a way
that creates as little additional suffering for the Iraqi people as
possible. I have little confidence that our current administration
will be any more ept at securing the peace than they've been so far -
mainly because our commander in chief appears incapable of admitting
mistakes and so is not open to discussing alternatives to failing
strategies. And our country is paying with the blood of its young
people, as it did in Vietnam.
So -- here we are. Watching events unfold. I personally believe
we're in for a long and tragic time as the world adjusts to the fact
that no one -- not Bush, not Muslim fundamentalists, not Christian
fundamentalists -- can exert their will on the rest of the world's
citizens.
Sadam was no fundamentalist. He was killing the fundamentalists.
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
I also know it's more important than ever to keep hate out of my own
heart. That's the only way we'll survive this.
Barb
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-20 21:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by saulgoode
Post by Rog'
Post by saulgoode
Ok, seriously, not trying to get into a shit-slinging contest with
all y'all, but give me the logical sense behind blaming Bush for
our troops getting killed by a roadside bomb N. of Baghdad.
To me, blaming him for our boys (& girls) dying in Iraq/Af./etc.
is like blaming Dallas Mayor Miller for all the rapes in Dallas.
We could, if the Mayor were to send a bunch of 19 yr. old girls
out to stand along the roadsides with signs that said, "F*ck me."
So you ~don't~ blame the rapists. You blame the girls for letting
themselves be victims.
Who's country is Iraq?
From what I have seen on the TV in Europe most Iraqis say: " Thank you
for getting rid of Saddam for us, now would you please leave our country? "
How do you call unwelcome troops?
Post by saulgoode
In this case, to make the analogy allegorically accurate, we'd need to
say the Mayor sends a bunch of girls into a prison to stop the prison
rapes, and continue from there, rather than saying the Mayor
intentionally sent them to the streets to be raped.
Again, tho, continuing with the prison thing, at what point would you
shift your argument to blaming the rapists and killers, instead of the
person trying to stop them.
I understand that Americans were abusing prisoners in Iraq.
Post by saulgoode
Post by Rog'
Sorry, dude, but the buck stops with the guy who decided to
set up the tent under the electric lines.
I agree more this analogy -- you wouldn't want to do something so
obviously stupid as grab the hotwire bare-handed. It's not accurate,
tho, for an analogy in this case.
Post by Rog'
From where I sit, he lied to us about why he sent the troops there
in the first place - it had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Quada
- and when that's proven to be false, he makes up another excuse.
Now he has no workable exit plan, so he tries to make us think its
somehow linked to terrorism, when all he's done is touch the tent
pole to the electric lines. So he's fooled half the people. We live
in a country half-full of sheep. <sigh> =R=
This last point is the same argument we've been having for three years.
I'm looking for new stuff.
There is no new stuff. No WMD no Al Quada links.
Post by saulgoode
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs?
We do not know who plant the bombs.
Post by saulgoode
Is there such a point? Or do we continue
now to argue about pulling the troops out? Remember, there still exists
an element in Iraq that wants to return Iraq to Minority rule,
Well the majority is worse because they want a country similar to Iran.
Post by saulgoode
and
these folks are way worse than the Germans in South Africa who had
Apartheid running. Giving them a pullout date is more like your analogy
with the hot wires.
It was the " Bur " former farmers from Flemish speaking Belgium but
plenty of British too.
Post by saulgoode
- Saul
h***@lycos.com
2005-08-21 07:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xenos the Elder
It was the " Bur " former farmers from Flemish speaking Belgium but
plenty of British too.
The Boers were primarily Dutch (from the Netherlands).
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-21 09:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@lycos.com
Post by Xenos the Elder
It was the " Bur " former farmers from Flemish speaking Belgium but
plenty of British too.
The Boers were primarily Dutch (from the Netherlands).
Do they belong to the same population group that live on both sides of
the border?
Southern Holland and Western Belgium.
h***@lycos.com
2005-08-22 07:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xenos the Elder
Do they belong to the same population group that live on both sides of
the border?
(I'll try to keep this brief, not an easy task in this case)

Well yes, historically speaking both the Flemings (Northern Belgians
aka Southern Netherlanders) and the Dutch (Northern Netherlanders) are
Dutch (coming from Diets, an archaic term meaning "The People" (of the
Low Countries)). It's just that in more modern terms Dutch only relates
to people from the Netherlands (what many people call Holland, even
though it's only 2 provinces of the country. It's like saying Texas to
the USA ;).

The Boers (meaning the Farmers) were mainly Netherlanders, but with
plenty of Brits, Scandinavians and Flemings thrown in.
Post by Xenos the Elder
Southern Holland and Western Belgium.
For some reason most people think only the (north)western part of
Belgium speaks Dutch (probably because the 2 western provinces are
called West and East Flanders. Not so, all of northern Belgium speaks
Dutch (East/West Flanders, Flemish Brabant, Antwerp & Limburg).
Granted, the name Flanders originally only meant the historical
Countship of Flanders, but nowadays the name goes for all of
Dutch-speaking Belgium. Kinda like Holland, which at one time was the
dominant area in what is now the country of the Netherlands, while
historically speaking it's only a tiny part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland

I hope this clears things up a bit, but since English isn't my native
language I'm afraid I just compounded the felony.
Barbara Didrichsen
2005-08-22 11:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Picked up a book this past spring while visiting my family in New York
called "The Island at the Center of the World" by Russell Shorto.
He's pulled together, in a non-academic format, the story about the
early days of New Netherland, and traces its influence on the New York
City of today as well as the USA at large.

A lot of this history had been lost or downplayed when the English
took over the colony in the mid-1600's.

A really good read. I was especially interested since it was the
story of my earliest ancestors on my dad's side.

Barb
Post by h***@lycos.com
Post by Xenos the Elder
Do they belong to the same population group that live on both sides of
the border?
(I'll try to keep this brief, not an easy task in this case)
Well yes, historically speaking both the Flemings (Northern Belgians
aka Southern Netherlanders) and the Dutch (Northern Netherlanders) are
Dutch (coming from Diets, an archaic term meaning "The People" (of the
Low Countries)). It's just that in more modern terms Dutch only relates
to people from the Netherlands (what many people call Holland, even
though it's only 2 provinces of the country. It's like saying Texas to
the USA ;).
The Boers (meaning the Farmers) were mainly Netherlanders, but with
plenty of Brits, Scandinavians and Flemings thrown in.
Post by Xenos the Elder
Southern Holland and Western Belgium.
For some reason most people think only the (north)western part of
Belgium speaks Dutch (probably because the 2 western provinces are
called West and East Flanders. Not so, all of northern Belgium speaks
Dutch (East/West Flanders, Flemish Brabant, Antwerp & Limburg).
Granted, the name Flanders originally only meant the historical
Countship of Flanders, but nowadays the name goes for all of
Dutch-speaking Belgium. Kinda like Holland, which at one time was the
dominant area in what is now the country of the Netherlands, while
historically speaking it's only a tiny part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flanders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland
I hope this clears things up a bit, but since English isn't my native
language I'm afraid I just compounded the felony.
h***@lycos.com
2005-08-22 12:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
Picked up a book this past spring while visiting my family in New York
called "The Island at the Center of the World" by Russell Shorto.
He's pulled together, in a non-academic format, the story about the
early days of New Netherland, and traces its influence on the New York
Most people don't know this, but the Latin name for Nieuw Nederland
(New Netherlands) was Nova Belgica. At one time they were synonymous.
Of course, back then there was no country called the Netherlands or
Belgium, only independent city-states, countships, duchies, ...
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
City of today as well as the USA at large.
A lot of this history had been lost or downplayed when the English
took over the colony in the mid-1600's.
Quite so.
Post by Barbara Didrichsen
A really good read. I was especially interested since it was the
story of my earliest ancestors on my dad's side.
Barb
Nearl J Icarus
2005-08-21 23:49:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by saulgoode
these folks are way worse than the Germans in South Africa who had
Apartheid running. Giving them a pullout date is more like your analogy
Those were the Dutch, not Deutsche.
My Own Doppelganger
2005-08-22 01:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Holy Sh*t, I disappear for a couple of days and my original post on
the courage of a single person and its effect on the rest of middle
America has a thread count as high as any Post-Divorce Dating
thread...

I really don't believe any of us (sane) folks here really "hate"
President Bush. (yeah, freakin' naive)

I believe that he is trying to do the best he can for our country
(USA). It's a bitch of a job, but someone's gotta make the decisions,
right, wrong, or otherwise. I'm not defending his push for the war,
though.

Hell, I personally think we should have been more honest about it...
We should have declared our intentions from the start. We wanted the
oil reserves 'cause they is gonna run out or real low in another 50
years. We wanted to stablize the Middle East with a democratic
presence. We want that bastard Saddam out 'cause he made Bush #1 look
really bad.

Personally, I think we should have dropped a nuke on Bagdag and call
it a day instead of having all our boys come home in bodybags. (but
that wouldn't have been potically correct, now...would it have?)


On 20 Aug 2005 08:46:01 -0700, "saulgoode"
Post by saulgoode
Post by Rog'
Post by saulgoode
Ok, seriously, not trying to get into a shit-slinging contest with
all y'all, but give me the logical sense behind blaming Bush for
our troops getting killed by a roadside bomb N. of Baghdad.
To me, blaming him for our boys (& girls) dying in Iraq/Af./etc.
is like blaming Dallas Mayor Miller for all the rapes in Dallas.
We could, if the Mayor were to send a bunch of 19 yr. old girls
out to stand along the roadsides with signs that said, "F*ck me."
So you ~don't~ blame the rapists. You blame the girls for letting
themselves be victims.
In this case, to make the analogy allegorically accurate, we'd need to
say the Mayor sends a bunch of girls into a prison to stop the prison
rapes, and continue from there, rather than saying the Mayor
intentionally sent them to the streets to be raped.
Again, tho, continuing with the prison thing, at what point would you
shift your argument to blaming the rapists and killers, instead of the
person trying to stop them.
Post by Rog'
Sorry, dude, but the buck stops with the guy who decided to
set up the tent under the electric lines.
I agree more this analogy -- you wouldn't want to do something so
obviously stupid as grab the hotwire bare-handed. It's not accurate,
tho, for an analogy in this case.
Post by Rog'
From where I sit, he lied to us about why he sent the troops there
in the first place - it had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Quada
- and when that's proven to be false, he makes up another excuse.
Now he has no workable exit plan, so he tries to make us think its
somehow linked to terrorism, when all he's done is touch the tent
pole to the electric lines. So he's fooled half the people. We live
in a country half-full of sheep. <sigh> =R=
This last point is the same argument we've been having for three years.
I'm looking for new stuff.
What I want to know is at what point do the Bush-haters shift the blame
to the people planting bombs? Is there such a point? Or do we continue
now to argue about pulling the troops out? Remember, there still exists
an element in Iraq that wants to return Iraq to Minority rule, and
these folks are way worse than the Germans in South Africa who had
Apartheid running. Giving them a pullout date is more like your analogy
with the hot wires.
- Saul
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-22 07:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Own Doppelganger
Personally, I think we should have dropped a nuke on Bagdag and call
it a day instead of having all our boys come home in bodybags. (but
that wouldn't have been potically correct, now...would it have?)
Why pay for the oil when you just could kill all Iraqis and take the oil
for free ......
Well, free for the oil companies but you would still have to pay for it.
There is a good reason why the French have nukes too.
So try to bomb the French then.
The message of the Iraq war to all other countries is:
If you don't have WMD hurry up and get some.
" So you want to nuke us? No problem but they wont be no Chicago and
Washington and New York after that. "
Post by My Own Doppelganger
Post by saulgoode
- Saul
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
Nearl J Icarus
2005-08-24 09:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xenos the Elder
There is a good reason why the French have nukes too.
So try to bomb the French then.
Wouldn't that be ironic. Who would there be to save the Frenchies' a$$ this
time? The only reason the French are upset about Iraq is that its their sphere
of influence. At least it was in their heyday. France wants the center of the
universe back.
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-24 21:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nearl J Icarus
Post by Xenos the Elder
There is a good reason why the French have nukes too.
So try to bomb the French then.
Wouldn't that be ironic. Who would there be to save the Frenchies' a$$ this
time? The only reason the French are upset about Iraq is that its their sphere
of influence. At least it was in their heyday. France wants the center of the
universe back.
They can very well defend then self's this time but the US could not
handle Afghanistan or Iraq by them self's.
Iraq has a population of 25 million and is starved and crippled thru
years of boycott and bombings.
Nuke Iraq?
80% of Afghanistan is in the hands of the war lords.
h***@lycos.com
2005-08-22 07:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Own Doppelganger
Holy Sh*t, I disappear for a couple of days and my original post on
the courage of a single person and its effect on the rest of middle
America has a thread count as high as any Post-Divorce Dating
thread...
I really don't believe any of us (sane) folks here really "hate"
President Bush. (yeah, freakin' naive)
Hate? No.. Despise? Pretty much..
Post by My Own Doppelganger
I believe that he is trying to do the best he can for our country
(USA). It's a bitch of a job, but someone's gotta make the decisions,
right, wrong, or otherwise. I'm not defending his push for the war,
though.
Hell, I personally think we should have been more honest about it...
That's the whole point. For many people it's not what he did, it's how
he did it. There wouldn't have been nearly the same ruckus if he had
just said "we are going to invade Iraq for no reason whatsoever, except
perhaps to settle some old debts and bring American influence to that
part of the world (mmm oilll)". But no, the US administration decided
to go with "The Land of the Free shall come to the rescue the oppressed
peoples of Iraq, God bless us all for our moral purity and our good
hearts. The eeevil tyrant Saddam has many WMDs that can strike us
without warning, and the slimy French helped him. People of America, be
scared.. Be veeeery scared. Long live the Bible Belt! Now, let's go on
vacation."

But of course, any critisism is immediatly labeled as anti-American.
Post by My Own Doppelganger
We should have declared our intentions from the start. We wanted the
oil reserves 'cause they is gonna run out or real low in another 50
years. We wanted to stablize the Middle East with a democratic
presence. We want that bastard Saddam out 'cause he made Bush #1 look
really bad.
Amongst other things. You forgot that Iraq was a torn in Israel's
bottom.
Post by My Own Doppelganger
Personally, I think we should have dropped a nuke on Bagdag and call
it a day instead of having all our boys come home in bodybags. (but
that wouldn't have been potically correct, now...would it have?)
Depends on who's looking. In some eyes it's more PC than renaming
French fries to Freedom fries. A shame actually, attaching such a
treasured word to something as banal as fries, just to get at an ally
who didn't go into Iraq but has plenty of troops in Afghanistan (even
Belgium has the 4th biggest contingent in Afghantistan.. A fact almost
no American hears about - for obvious reasons). Says a lot about the
general state of American values.

Face it, the US govt. has gone bonkers. It's all very scary.
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-20 21:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rog'
Post by saulgoode
Ok, seriously, not trying to get into a shit-slinging contest with
all y'all, but give me the logical sense behind blaming Bush for
our troops getting killed by a roadside bomb N. of Baghdad.
To me, blaming him for our boys (& girls) dying in Iraq/Af./etc.
is like blaming Dallas Mayor Miller for all the rapes in Dallas.
We could, if the Mayor were to send a bunch of 19 yr. old girls
out to stand along the roadsides with signs that said, "F*ck me."
Sorry, dude, but the buck stops with the guy who decided to
set up the tent under the electric lines.
From where I sit, he lied to us about why he sent the troops there
in the first place - it had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Quada
- and when that's proven to be false, he makes up another excuse.
Now he has no workable exit plan, so he tries to make us think its
somehow linked to terrorism, when all he's done is touch the tent
pole to the electric lines. So he's fooled half the people. We live
in a country half-full of sheep. <sigh> =R=
No disagreement from my site.
Big RJ
2005-08-19 18:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Another point for ya.
Post by Rog'
I wonder if one of your son's was in Iraq, would you have any
questions about the policies that keep him there, or would you
say, "Whatever you say, Mr. President?" =R=
Hear about the recruiting shortages in the U.S. Military? Seems like many
young men are answering your question. They elect not to re-enlist when
their time is up. They fing another job when they get out of school instead
of choosing the military.

I wonder how far Americans are from seeing a draft. Our soldiers keep "slip
sliding away".

For the record I'm a Republican and a "military brat." I don't like
spending billions of dollars on loans that we will have to pay back.

Big
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-20 06:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big RJ
Another point for ya.
" Socialist " Europe has a budged deficit of about 3% while capitalist
USA under super capitalist Bush has a budged deficit of 5% of the GNP.
Now the military expenses are more then paid back by the unpaid Iraqi oil.
The bombs were produced before the Iraq war and had to be disposed of
anyway.
What the war did was getting rid of old bombs.
Every 10 years or so war material has to be renewed war or no war.
Also before the war was the budged deficit bigger in the USA then "
socialist " Europe.
Post by Big RJ
Post by Rog'
I wonder if one of your son's was in Iraq, would you have any
questions about the policies that keep him there, or would you
say, "Whatever you say, Mr. President?" =R=
Hear about the recruiting shortages in the U.S. Military? Seems like many
young men are answering your question. They elect not to re-enlist when
their time is up. They fing another job when they get out of school instead
of choosing the military.
I wonder how far Americans are from seeing a draft. Our soldiers keep "slip
sliding away".
For the record I'm a Republican and a "military brat." I don't like
spending billions of dollars on loans that we will have to pay back.
Big
Nearl J Icarus
2005-08-20 11:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rog'
I wonder if one of your son's was in Iraq, would you have any
questions about the policies that keep him there, or would you
say, "Whatever you say, Mr. President?" =R=
My youngest son wants to be a sniper in Delta Force. He feels that when he
dies, he wants to have died for something a little more significant than
Saul's slip in the boys room.

If I do end up burying him, it will have been his choice.
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-18 05:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Own Doppelganger
So, I'm like driving home from a workout and in the middle of this
downtown Chicago suburb there's like a hundred people with lit candles
supporting Cindy Sheehan (the mom camped outside of Bush's ranch
protesting the war...etc)
Damn, talk about the power of a single voice.
:~/
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=105971
Dixie
2005-08-18 13:06:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Own Doppelganger
So, I'm like driving home from a workout and in the middle of this
downtown Chicago suburb there's like a hundred people with lit candles
supporting Cindy Sheehan (the mom camped outside of Bush's ranch
protesting the war...etc)
Damn, talk about the power of a single voice.
:~/
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan

I guess I'm one of the few on here that supports the criticism of her.
A loss of a child is awful, but she definitely has an agenda that she's
using her son to support. I just doubt her intentions. My own
personal opinion...

Dixie
The Dave©
2005-08-18 15:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dixie
I guess I'm one of the few on here that supports
the criticism of her. A loss of a child is awful,
but she definitely has an agenda that she's using
her son to support. I just doubt her intentions.
My own personal opinion...
I don't question the sincerity of her anguish and pain, but she's allowing
it to destroy her entire life, and the lives of others around her that she
cares about. To the point that I wonder if she needs professional help.
Last week, her husband filed for divorce, so she's tearing the rest of her
family apart, also. I just moved from the area she's from, so she's
"local", and by all accounts it was not a troubled marriage before she
started protesting.
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-18 15:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dixie
Post by My Own Doppelganger
So, I'm like driving home from a workout and in the middle of this
downtown Chicago suburb there's like a hundred people with lit candles
supporting Cindy Sheehan (the mom camped outside of Bush's ranch
protesting the war...etc)
Damn, talk about the power of a single voice.
:~/
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan
I guess I'm one of the few on here that supports the criticism of her.
A loss of a child is awful, but she definitely has an agenda that she's
using her son to support. I just doubt her intentions. My own
personal opinion...
Dixie
" She believes that the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are merely part of "a
neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world."
---------------------
Comment: She is against us hardworking billionaires who like to make a
buck or two and clean the world of terrorism at the same time wherever
oil can be found.
Some will complain about the huge cost of civilian life's but what is
the life of 200.000 Iraqis if you can get Sadam and take care of him?
He had a monopoly in killing Iraqis but now it's free for all.
Everybody can participate in the killing.
That's what democracy is all about.
ms
2005-08-18 20:27:13 UTC
Permalink
When I found out my son from the pa national guard fresh out of boot
camp was going to iraq...i offered to take him to Canada. my 80 yo
mother and i actually admitted to each other that we had seperate
thoughts of breaking both his arms and legs!
I wanted to protest!!

While he was there... i was emerced in CNN on a daily basis and busy
with trying to send things and write...
I was too drained to protest!

When he came home.... I was so relieved.... I became complacent about
the war!

I feel ashamed of that, even as busy as I am right now.

You know it's not only about the deaths of soldiers.... it's about loss
of limbs, wounds and injuries.
These men and women have endured heat at 140 degree temp...they had to
learn to give each other IV's to rehydrate
themselves, many just keeled over standing on watch with 50 lbs of body
armor on. The stories and pictures my son has come home with are
REMARKABLE!!! Everyone in the United States should see these pictures
of bodies burning, children bloodied, buildings and homes blown to
pieces, etc. to witness what they saw first hand.
They got paid only 20,000 each for the 18 mos they were there and many
have come home to no jobs and no where to live, because of our economy.
They have ALL under gone extreme psychological stress and are very
ANXIOUS and personally I believe they all need treatment!
My son, was a guard at a Camp Bucca prison camp and it wasn't pretty!
They themselves were like prisoners for 18 mos.working 12 hour shifts
many days in a row...with lifting as their major form of pleasure.
With having four other sons, I HOLD MY BREATH EVERY DAY.... I honestly
don't think I can live through that worry again!
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-18 21:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ms
When I found out my son from the pa national guard fresh out of boot
camp was going to iraq...i offered to take him to Canada. my 80 yo
mother and i actually admitted to each other that we had seperate
thoughts of breaking both his arms and legs!
I wanted to protest!!
While he was there... i was emerced in CNN on a daily basis and busy
with trying to send things and write...
I was too drained to protest!
When he came home.... I was so relieved.... I became complacent about
the war!
I feel ashamed of that, even as busy as I am right now.
You know it's not only about the deaths of soldiers.... it's about loss
of limbs, wounds and injuries.
These men and women have endured heat at 140 degree temp...they had to
learn to give each other IV's to rehydrate
themselves, many just keeled over standing on watch with 50 lbs of body
armor on. The stories and pictures my son has come home with are
REMARKABLE!!! Everyone in the United States should see these pictures
of bodies burning, children bloodied, buildings and homes blown to
pieces, etc. to witness what they saw first hand.
Those pictures can be posted on the internet and he can tell his story
from his point of view.
Imagine only 10% of what happen in Iraq right now would happen in the US
or UK.
I gladly post those pictures on my web site and his story.
I did not go to the army but it was not easy.
To my opinion the oil and war industry is running the US since some decades.
That does not mean that I approve of the political system in China or
Russia.
Democracy is a nice dream. I hope it becomes reality some day.
Post by ms
They got paid only 20,000 each for the 18 mos they were there and many
have come home to no jobs and no where to live, because of our economy.
They have ALL under gone extreme psychological stress and are very
ANXIOUS and personally I believe they all need treatment!
My son, was a guard at a Camp Bucca prison camp and it wasn't pretty!
They themselves were like prisoners for 18 mos.working 12 hour shifts
many days in a row...with lifting as their major form of pleasure.
With having four other sons, I HOLD MY BREATH EVERY DAY.... I honestly
don't think I can live through that worry again!
For the war profits of a few many has to suffer.
ms
2005-08-19 02:22:01 UTC
Permalink
send me your email.... i will send you a few
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-19 07:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ms
send me your email.... i will send you a few
***@kriocoucke.mailexpire.com

My real email address goes thru mailexpire.com
In case somebody wants to send me spam I can change this bogus address
and don't have to change my real email address.
Zip them and send them.
3-4 zip files are better then one big one.
unknown
2005-08-20 07:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ms
send me your email.... i will send you a few
Ditto on the offer to post pictures...... ***@socket.net

http://www.biglizard.org
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-20 22:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by ms
send me your email.... i will send you a few
http://www.biglizard.org
Yes you can send pictures in a zip file.
I will create a web page then.
I could link this page to your page then if you don't mind or a
particular part of your web site.
You must send me the link then.
Thanks.
My Own Doppelganger
2005-08-19 00:58:36 UTC
Permalink
I don't approve or disapprove of her. Personally, I wouldn't know
what to do if I lost a child to a questionable war. Maybe curl up in
a fetal position and cry for a very long time... :-(
Post by Dixie
Post by My Own Doppelganger
So, I'm like driving home from a workout and in the middle of this
downtown Chicago suburb there's like a hundred people with lit candles
supporting Cindy Sheehan (the mom camped outside of Bush's ranch
protesting the war...etc)
Damn, talk about the power of a single voice.
:~/
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan
I guess I'm one of the few on here that supports the criticism of her.
A loss of a child is awful, but she definitely has an agenda that she's
using her son to support. I just doubt her intentions. My own
personal opinion...
Dixie
--------
You can't change the past, but you can change the future.
Tracey
2005-08-19 01:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Own Doppelganger
I don't approve or disapprove of her. Personally, I wouldn't know
what to do if I lost a child to a questionable war. Maybe curl up in
a fetal position and cry for a very long time... :-(
Most likely the same thing you would do if you lost your child in a
car accident or a pedestrian accident or to an illness or....

Tracey
Casey
2005-08-19 04:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Tracey said
Post by Tracey
Post by My Own Doppelganger
I don't approve or disapprove of her. Personally, I wouldn't know
what to do if I lost a child to a questionable war. Maybe curl up in
a fetal position and cry for a very long time... :-(
Most likely the same thing you would do if you lost your child in a
car accident or a pedestrian accident or to an illness or....
Yes, probably so.

There is no great way to lose a child.

We lose so many kidds around where I live due to very preventable car
accidents. Look at the numbers nationwide - it's mind-boggling why the
whole country is not in an uproar about large yearly number of teenage
deaths in car accidents.




Casey
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-19 21:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Casey
Tracey said
Post by Tracey
Post by My Own Doppelganger
I don't approve or disapprove of her. Personally, I wouldn't know
what to do if I lost a child to a questionable war. Maybe curl up in
a fetal position and cry for a very long time... :-(
Most likely the same thing you would do if you lost your child in a
car accident or a pedestrian accident or to an illness or....
Yes, probably so.
There is no great way to lose a child.
We lose so many kidds around where I live due to very preventable car
accidents. Look at the numbers nationwide - it's mind-boggling why the
whole country is not in an uproar about large yearly number of teenage
deaths in car accidents.
Or death's due to smoking tobacco.
Or alcohol consumption.
Or overeating.
Having sex with a donkey or worse with a shark.
Post by Casey
Casey
ml
2005-08-19 22:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xenos the Elder
Or death's due to smoking tobacco.
Or alcohol consumption.
Or overeating.
Having sex with a donkey or worse with a shark.
Especially ORAL sex with a shark!
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-19 22:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by ml
Post by Xenos the Elder
Or death's due to smoking tobacco.
Or alcohol consumption.
Or overeating.
Having sex with a donkey or worse with a shark.
Especially ORAL sex with a shark!
Reuters news agency reported that on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 an Afghan
soldier who could not afford to get married has been released without
charge after being caught having sex with a donkey. The soldier, who was
not identified, was detained for several days after a young boy spotted
him with the animal in an abandoned house in the southeastern town of
Gardez in Afghanistan. "The man insisted he had no other choice but the
donkey because he could not afford to pay a dowry to get married," a
local police officer told Reuters. The man had since been released
without charge, he said. In many parts of Afghanistan men must pay at
least $3,000 to the parents of their prospective bride, making marriage
difficult for many in a country where the average annual income is only
a few hundred dollars. Under the strict Islamic rule of the
fundamentalist Taliban regime overthrown in 2001, sex outside of
marriage or bestiality were punished by stoning to death or flogging.
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-20 06:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xenos the Elder
"The man insisted he had no other choice but the
donkey because he could not afford to pay a dowry to get married,"
He could have masturbated while looking at PICTURES of donkeys, sheesh!!!
Oh no! My secret is out.
ms
2005-08-20 17:36:08 UTC
Permalink
God, ya give a man a donkey....

He had no choice...lol!
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-20 21:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ms
God, ya give a man a donkey....
He had no choice...lol!
Well there were some goats and sheep too and one camel but .....
You can't fight true love.
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-19 07:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tracey
Post by My Own Doppelganger
I don't approve or disapprove of her. Personally, I wouldn't know
what to do if I lost a child to a questionable war. Maybe curl up in
a fetal position and cry for a very long time... :-(
Most likely the same thing you would do if you lost your child in a
car accident or a pedestrian accident or to an illness or....
Tracey
Well if Bush would be responsible for the car accident or pedestrian
accident or.........
But clearly it's not his fault that the WMD could never be found.
North Korea by the way has them but the next place we will look for them
will be in Iran.
Trust me it's not because of the oil.
ms
2005-08-19 20:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Hear about the recruiting shortages in the U.S. Military? Seems like
many
young men are answering your question. They elect not to re-enlist
when
their time is up. They fing another job when they get out of school
instead
of choosing the military.

I wonder how far Americans are from seeing a draft. Our soldiers keep
"slip
sliding away".
For the record I'm a Republican and a "military brat." I don't like
spending billions of dollars on loans that we will have to pay back.
Big

Well, they took everyone they could. Just the fact that they called the
National Guard in at a time
while we here were in terror alerts really made me wonder.

Used to be the National Guard stayed here to protect our country to
respond to weather, floods, disassters, riots,etc.
When my son joined...they told us " Dont worry the National Guard has
not gone anywhere since the Korean War"
AND BINGO..... THEY WERE TRAINED IN ONE MONTH AND SENT AS MP'S AND MANY
DIED! Two from my sons platton were hit by a mortar attack in a up
armored *whatever that means) humvee and it went over a bridge into a
canal and they drowned. Seven or more this week
alone...dead...gone.... from PA alone!
Word was getting around that they were taking everybody and
anybody...AGE DID NOT MATTER. Most of the guys in my sons group were
older than he, alhtough my son was in great physical shape., the other
guys looked like they were holding a remote too long..but I prayed they
made up for it with maturity and common sense!!
THEY TOOK GUYS INTO THEIR 40'S!!!! THEY TOOK GUYS WHO WERE DUE TO GET
OUT IN SIX DAYS!!!
THEY WERE DESPERATE... My guess is that the draft is
necessary...although i dont agree... it is necessary only if we stay
there. These guys cant do anymore than they are doing over there...It
is physically impossible.
Yeah you have the occasionaly "I wanna be a man, who joins the marines"
and I;ve heard "I wish I could go even at my age" but
it takes more than the gung ho guy and the "talker: to make an army
work and be effective!
I have a 21 yo who hasnt registered for the draft yet and an 18 yo who
hasnt either.
If they want em...let em come and get em... is my feeling on that
subject after what my other son went through!!
Xenos the Elder
2005-08-19 21:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big RJ
Hear about the recruiting shortages in the U.S. Military? Seems like
many
young men are answering your question. They elect not to re-enlist
when
their time is up. They fing another job when they get out of school
instead
of choosing the military.
I wonder how far Americans are from seeing a draft. Our soldiers keep
"slip
sliding away".
For the record I'm a Republican and a "military brat." I don't like
spending billions of dollars on loans that we will have to pay back.
Big
Yet the budget deficit of the US has never been higher.
Did not Bush give tax cuts to the super rich?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3430565.stm
Post by Big RJ
Well, they took everyone they could. Just the fact that they called the
National Guard in at a time
while we here were in terror alerts really made me wonder.
Used to be the National Guard stayed here to protect our country to
respond to weather, floods, disassters, riots,etc.
When my son joined...they told us " Dont worry the National Guard has
not gone anywhere since the Korean War"
AND BINGO..... THEY WERE TRAINED IN ONE MONTH AND SENT AS MP'S AND MANY
DIED! Two from my sons platton were hit by a mortar attack in a up
armored *whatever that means) humvee and it went over a bridge into a
canal and they drowned. Seven or more this week
alone...dead...gone.... from PA alone!
Word was getting around that they were taking everybody and
anybody...AGE DID NOT MATTER. Most of the guys in my sons group were
older than he, alhtough my son was in great physical shape., the other
guys looked like they were holding a remote too long..but I prayed they
made up for it with maturity and common sense!!
THEY TOOK GUYS INTO THEIR 40'S!!!! THEY TOOK GUYS WHO WERE DUE TO GET
OUT IN SIX DAYS!!!
THEY WERE DESPERATE... My guess is that the draft is
necessary...although i dont agree... it is necessary only if we stay
there. These guys cant do anymore than they are doing over there...It
is physically impossible.
Yeah you have the occasionaly "I wanna be a man, who joins the marines"
and I;ve heard "I wish I could go even at my age" but
it takes more than the gung ho guy and the "talker: to make an army
work and be effective!
I have a 21 yo who hasnt registered for the draft yet and an 18 yo who
hasnt either.
If they want em...let em come and get em... is my feeling on that
subject after what my other son went through!!
It's not your war and it's not a war of the American people.
Did you know that not one senator has a son in Iraq?

I think more Americans are getting killed in Iraq then the government
dares to admit.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...