 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / April 20084000 americans killed in iraq in 5 years. 4000 Americans killed on highways every 5 weeks!!!!!!
But which problem do the idiotic idiots here at usenet care about most.??? On Mar 24, 9:58 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > But which problem do the idiotic idiots here at usenet care about most.??? Yours about 5 years ago. -- "Oh yeah. Well i've gone 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash so i must be doing something right." --Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend/laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE/ Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are Murderers (SADDAM), 9/24/2006 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/qdotr Msg ID: ivadh2t9kd05ilrgdercft8iuvcls6r...@4ax.com SFB spewed: >But which problem do the idiotic idiots here at usenet care about most.??? You are the one who keeps whining about highway deaths in these newsgroups, you hypocrite. Only occasionally does the issue of troops killed in Iraq find its way into r.a.d and that is usually when you shoot off your big mouth. Go join the Army and go fight if you care so much about our troops. Otherwise, you are nothing but a little piss-ant, lilly livered chicken sh.t COWARD who talks the talk, but can't walk the walk. f.ck you, a.shole. -- Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS supports the troops again: "Screw that 'he's just doing his job' justification. That's what the nazi guards said. And that's what our child-torturing troops in iraq say." Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS (A.k.a: LBMHB/lb-VH/am/POA etc...) 1/7/2007, 1118 hours. Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y7c5ah Message ID: 1168186680.432376.36280@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com On Mar 24, 11:08 pm, necromancer > SFB spewed: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Otherwise, you are nothing but a little piss-ant, lilly livered > chicken sh.t COWARD who talks the talk, but can't walk the walk. WHAT???? Can't you read? On Mar 24, 10:58 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > But which problem do the idiotic idiots here at usenet care about most.??? fundamentally it's a control vs can't control issue, for instance if a satellite was in orbit over the US and randomly killed one American every 5 weeks with a high power laser all the money and attention (usenet chatter) would be spent on solving that problem, the number of lives killed is almost irrelevant >fundamentally it's a control vs can't control issue, for instance if a >satellite was in orbit over the US and randomly killed one American >every 5 weeks with a high power laser all the money and attention >(usenet chatter) would be spent on solving that problem, the number of >lives killed is almost irrelevant We get real upset with, say mad cow scares, while our houses are tremendously more dangerous to our kids. >>fundamentally it's a control vs can't control issue, for instance if a >>satellite was in orbit over the US and randomly killed one American [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We get real upset with, say mad cow scares, while our houses are > tremendously more dangerous to our kids. Homes and cars and parents themselves are the big threats to kids. But the moron american doesn't see that cause he is so easily manipulated. >On Mar 24, 10:58 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" ><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >(usenet chatter) would be spent on solving that problem, the number of >lives killed is almost irrelevant It only appears to be a controllable problem. If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE! We would likely end up losing more Americans in a few hours than many times the number of troops that have died in Iraq in the last 5 years. It'd only take a stolen or purchased Russian suitcase nuke, or maybe a truckload of any of several easily-produced deadly gases, or maybe a pile of anthrax, smallopox, botulinus, or some other screwball disease. But they are currently getting their a.ses kicked all over the Iraqi desert, are distracted and financially as well as psychologically stressed, and that is all because of our military. Remove our military, and more Americans will die - a lot more. Dave Head > If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel > victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE! So why aren't they doing that already? Is there some magical force that keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we weren't in Iraq? > > If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel > > victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE! > > So why aren't they doing that already? Is there some magical force that > keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we > weren't in Iraq? Yes - the GWB presidency. You have to keep up with the neo-con thinking, Arif. Do try and keep up, you America-hater!!! E.P. >> If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel >> victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE! > >So why aren't they doing that already? Is there some magical force that >keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we >weren't in Iraq? That's sort of like pointing out that while the military is being consumed in Iraq the borders are wide open with Shrub allowing mexican trucks to come right in and roam the nation (IMO probably without so much as cargo inspection). Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack those governments the US has been proping up for all these years. By not propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the reason they are hopeless. >Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military >action in the middle east. The attacks are motivated by the desires of the enemy to get control of the entire middle east and all its oil. If you think anything else, you've never learned about "following the money." >Ending US interference in the region would >very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack >those governments the US has been proping up for all these years. Yeah, they would. You WANT Osama Bin Laden in control of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, etc. etc.??? >By not >propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the >reason they are hopeless. And removes ourselves from a vital supply of oil. You want $9 / gallon gasoline? Abandoning the middle east looks like one way to get it. > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:03 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > (Brent [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > never > learned about "following the money." The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is following the money? There will always be a small band of extremists like Osama. What gives him bigger numbers and financial support is the rage engendered by the U.S. invasion. Also didn't help that we took a stable country, disbanded the security forces, and left the armories and weapons depots unguarded. Suddenly you had several hundred thousand men trained in using weapons out of work, pissed off, and with access to massive amounts of explosives and weapons from looted weapons dumps. Not good. >>Ending US interference in the region would >>very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Iran, > Kuwait, etc. etc.??? Uh, do you grasp the difference between Shia and Sunni when you talk about Osama in charge of Iran? Your view on this is hopelessly simplistic. Our invasion of Iraq has been a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and strengthened it, it's obvious and even the publicly released portions of CIA intelligence estimates agree on this. >>By not >>propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the >>reason they are hopeless. > > And removes ourselves from a vital supply of oil. You want $9 / gallon > gasoline? Abandoning the middle east looks like one way to get it. Pulling out of Iraq is not abandoning the Middle East. Did you notice what happened to the price of oil and gas since we invaded Iraq? The price of oil doubled. The several hundred billion dollars we've spent on the Iraq war - we could have spent some of that figuring out new energy sources, getting better mileage, investing in technology and infrastructure to get us off of Middle East oil. Instead, we spend about $30,000 per American in order to double the price of oil, turn a secular stable Middle East country in to an unstable one in a religious civil war, and prove to many that Osama's claims that we want to occupy Muslim lands might be true. What do you think happens when Arabs hear a leading American presidential candidate (McCain) say we may be occupying Iraq for the next hundred years? Bo Raxo >The several hundred billion dollars we've spent on the Iraq war - we could >have spent some of that figuring out new energy sources, getting better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >happens when Arabs hear a leading American presidential candidate (McCain) >say we may be occupying Iraq for the next hundred years? The neo-con idiots think it does the economy good. From Dear Leader Bush endorsing the broken window theory ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/019467.html ) to other neo-cons saying that all that money pissed away on war is a good thing ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020163.html ) >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:03 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com >> (Brent [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is >following the money? Naw, he's been duped by the guys at the top that are following the money. >There will always be a small band of extremists like Osama. That's what they said about the small band of extremists called Nazis. But the thing that made the Nazis successful is the same thing that makes the Islamists successful - their willingness to use violence to intimidate those that would otherwise oppose them. Been wondering where the mainstream Muslim opposition is? They're under their beds - they're scared. So, while good men do nothing, these bastards flourish. Now, anti-war extremists who don't think any sort of threat is worth the price of 1 American soldier's life want US to do nothing, too. >What gives him >bigger numbers and financial support is the rage engendered by the U.S. >invasion. Yeah, right - the invasion is why they attacked us on 9/11, too. Oh, wait - there was no invasion prior to 9/11... >Also didn't help that we took a stable country, A stable country that shot at our planes every damn day, claimed to have WMD (then claimed to not have them, then claimed to have them, etc.) and was near-unique in the world as a proven USER of WMD in the past... >disbanded the >security forces, and left the armories and weapons depots unguarded. Decidedly dumb moves, alright, but the latter was promoted in part by the lack of invading forces, a circumstance forced in part by previous administration's gutting of the military. We didn't HAVE a 500,000 man invasion force to throw at the place like we should have. >Suddenly you had several hundred thousand men trained in using weapons out >of work, pissed off, and with access to massive amounts of explosives and >weapons from looted weapons dumps. > >Not good. Nope. >>>Ending US interference in the region would >>>very likely end the attacks. Those hopeless people would then attack [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >even the publicly released portions of CIA intelligence estimates agree on >this. Our invasion of Iraq has been a great demoralizer of AQ fighters, a great many of whom have simply walked off the field of battle, with also a lot of them joining our side, and promoting peace. This happens because we kicked their a.ses all over the sands of Iraq. If we leave now, the whole thing will turn around and go the other way. AQ HQ will get infusions of Iraqi oil money, and the Zimbabwe-like genocide will probably engender a regional war, with the attendant reduction in oil exports from that region. In addition to the cost of millions of dead Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, etc. who all get involved, the price of gas just might go to $9 a gallon. Sound like fun? >>>By not >>>propping up those governments the US removes its self from being the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Pulling out of Iraq is not abandoning the Middle East. Yes, it is. Pulling out of Iraq would show the world that we are not willing to finish what we started. Pulling out of Iraq would show that anyone that wants to topple those governments that we depend upon for our oil can do so, and expect no opposition from the USA, who they correctly know would not lift a finger, being cowed by the idea that a sacrifice is required in order to achieve anything - a sacrifice that we would demonstably not have the stomach to make. >Did you notice what >happened to the price of oil and gas since we invaded Iraq? The price of >oil doubled. Coincidence with the increasing demand for oil of other world countries. >The several hundred billion dollars we've spent on the Iraq war - we could >have spent some of that figuring out new energy sources, getting better >mileage, investing in technology and infrastructure to get us off of Middle >East oil. Oh, please - we wouldn't need to import any oil at all if we didn't want to - all we have to do is kick the environmentalists and the NIMBYs in the teeth and drill all the oil that America has control of. ANWAR, offshore, etc. etc. We wouldn't need to import a drop. But we can't even do that. And as for conserving, we AGAIN need to kick the environmentalists and the safety Nazis in the teeth and build cars that don't necessarily emit deep-forest-clean exhaust, and weigh some reasonable amount rather than being the rolling tanks we have now. Where are the cars of 20 years ago, that got 48 mpg? Where's the Geo Metro? Hell, you can't build 'em now because of the damned emissions and safety Nazis engineering cars. My own Subaru WRX, a supposed sports sedan, weight 3000 f'n pounds. But it gets awards for its crash-worthiness. It OUGHT to weigh 2400 lbs, but then it would fold like tin-foil when hitting something else. You can't have BOTH clean air and rolling-fortress cars and expect to save gas. It just ain't possible. Oh, you could put a go-kart engine in it and maybe get some kinda mileage increase, but then nobody would buy it 'cuz you'd need a calendar to measure the 0-60. And of course there's the diesel debacle - while Europe sells 70 percent of their cars as diesels, the enviro-wackos in this country keep diesels out of the showroom with wacky clean-air requirements far in excess of those of the rest of the world. So, we can't save gas that way, either, or take advantage of bio-diesel production from vegetation. >Instead, we spend about $30,000 per American in order to double >the price of oil, turn a secular stable Middle East country in to an >unstable one in a religious civil war, and prove to many that Osama's claims >that we want to occupy Muslim lands might be true. What do you think >happens when Arabs hear a leading American presidential candidate (McCain) >say we may be occupying Iraq for the next hundred years? I'd say that further demoralizes the enemy. He knows what he's doing. These people don't want to be outdoors humping an AK-47 all over Iraq for the rest of their lives - they want to come home to their wife and kids and plop down in front of the tube to cheer the Iraqi soccer team and enjoy life like everybody else - most of 'em, anyway. The thought of never being able to do that if John McCain is elected has to be a chilling idea for them. >Bo Raxo >That's what they said about the small band of extremists called Nazis. But the >thing that made the Nazis successful is the same thing that makes the Islamists >successful - their willingness to use violence to intimidate those that would >otherwise oppose them. The nazis were also successful because they had support from financial interests like those run by Prescott Bush. As far as using violence to intimidate those that would otherwise oppose them, that's something the US government does on a regular basis. >Yes, it is. Pulling out of Iraq would show the world that we are not willing >to finish what we started. It would show the world that we are not willing to finish what bin Laden started. Bin Laden ordered the attack for the express purpose of having us go to war against the rulers of Mid East countries. His biggest hope was for us to attack Saudi Arabia, but our attacking Iraq was a big victory for him. > >Pulling out of Iraq is not abandoning the Middle East. > > Yes, it is. Pulling out of Iraq would show the world that we are not willing > to finish what we started. Much like pulling out of previous conflicts... we have shown them that as a whole we generally half-a.s everything. That's part of the equation that led us into this problem. They didn't take us seriously. If anyone other than Little Bush had been president... they would have probably been correct. We would never have done anything at all. Compound that with the inept UN and here we are. >otherwise oppose them. Been wondering where the mainstream Muslim opposition >is? They're under their beds - they're scared. So, while good men do nothing, >these bastards flourish. You're kinder than I am. After the election of Hamas, I came to the conclusion that terrorism is mainstream. >Yeah, right - the invasion is why they attacked us on 9/11, too. Oh, wait - >there was no invasion prior to 9/11... Some people have trouble with cause and effect. >A stable country that shot at our planes every damn day, claimed to have WMD >(then claimed to not have them, then claimed to have them, etc.) and was >near-unique in the world as a proven USER of WMD in the past... I think all the countries of Europe have used chemical weapons at times. And the US is still the only member of the nuke-thy-enemy club. >Our invasion of Iraq has been a great demoralizer of AQ fighters, a great many >of whom have simply walked off the field of battle, with also a lot of them >joining our side, and promoting peace. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Also didn't help that we took a stable country, disbanded the > security forces, and left the armories and weapons depots unguarded. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not good. True. It was badly bungled from the start... >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:03 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com >> (Brent [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is >following the money? In some cases, they are. Saddam Hussein used to pay a good deal of money to the families of suicide bombers. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same >>as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is >>following the money? >In some cases, they are. Saddam Hussein used to pay a good deal of >money to the families of suicide bombers. Saddam Hussein used to be paid a good deal of money by the US government as I understand it... go figure. >>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same >>>as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Saddam Hussein used to be paid a good deal of money by the US government >as I understand it... go figure. Non sequitur again. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same >>>>as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Non sequitur again. Sorry, no, the present condition is not one of isolation. It is the result of over half a century of US federal government interference and meddling in the region. >>>>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same >>>>>as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >result of over half a century of US federal government interference and >meddling in the region. You ascribe too much power to the US. While its certainly true that the US has been involved, it is also true that other parties (both local and nonlocal) have been involved. And that there hasn't been peace in the Middle East since, well, forever. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the same >>>>>>as what motivates a suicide bomber? You think the suicide bomber is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >local and nonlocal) have been involved. And that there hasn't been >peace in the Middle East since, well, forever. Let's see... the CIA worked to overthrow Iran's government and did. It trained saddam hussein and aided his rise to power in Iraq. It gives the governments of other nations the means to surpress the people in them and prevent change to more representive systems. US and UK intelligence esstenially grew the modern islamic radicals as a tool for their use against the soviets and others. It's amazing what well placed small imputs can do. However, like jamming a relief valve closed the pressure inside keeps building until there is a terrible explosion. The region should have been left to it's own devices a century ago. By now it would be all sorted out. But because there was oil, not just worthless sand this game began. Now the US government is jamming on the brakes after a tire blew out. > >>>>>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the > >>>>>>same [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Let's see... the CIA worked to overthrow Iran's government and did. True. > It > trained saddam hussein and aided his rise to power in Iraq. False. The US supported Saddam after he came to power. > US and UK intelligence > esstenially grew the modern islamic radicals as a tool for their use > against the soviets and others. Just bizarre. > It's amazing what well placed > small imputs can do. However, like jamming a relief valve closed the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sand this game began. Now the US government is jamming on the brakes after > a tire blew out. >>>>>>>>The attacks have myriad motives. You think what motivates Osama is the >>>>>>>>same [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Just bizarre. Not completely; who do you think was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the day? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel -stuff snipped- This was posted to... rec.autos.driving,rec.sport.golf,soc.culture.usa,alt.true-crime,us.military.army ...and I am posting from us.military.army. So why not all you auto drivers, golfers, cultured people, and crime mavens keep to your own hobbies? >> It >> trained saddam hussein and aided his rise to power in Iraq. > >False. The US supported Saddam after he came to power. True. Guess I have to cite this.... again... googling.... http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm "While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim." There are other sources I've cited in the past, but this is what google found for me first this time. >> US and UK intelligence >> esstenially grew the modern islamic radicals as a tool for their use >> against the soviets and others. > >Just bizarre. It was done to put down the socialist leaning secular movements and to counter the soviets. On Mar 27, 11:08 am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <Ac-dncrmyKMGIXTanZ2dnUVZ_gmdn...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > In some cases, they are. Suicide bombers do it for the money?!? LOL. E.P. >On Mar 27, 11:08=A0am, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. >Russotto) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Suicide bombers do it for the money?!? Nice snip. Did you know that sometimes people kill themselves for the life insurance money? In fact, it's common enough that life insurance companies won't pay out for suicides within the first 2 years of the policy. It's the same idea with some suicide bombers. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Mar 27, 1:20 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <f4c495af-3268-4b9f-be34-589f21f21...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > It's the same idea with some suicide bombers. LOL. One of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen you express. E.P. >Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military >action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would >very likely end the attacks. Thank you, Neville Chamberlain. OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over Iraq (including the 9th province), Afghanistan, and anywhere else they don't already hold. Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?). Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their a.ses, a whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military >> action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would >> very likely end the attacks. > Thank you, Neville Chamberlain. > > OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over > Iraq (including the 9th province), What stopped them from doing that before 2003 (or 1990 for that matter)? It sounds like Bush didn't think his cunning plan all the way through. > Afghanistan, and anywhere else they don't already hold. Why didn't those radical Islamists attack us before 1993? They certainly had the country to themselves after the mid '80s. > Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?). At least that money can go to repairing our transportation infrastructure. > Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their a.ses, a > whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm > Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is > the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US > resume, this time with open state backing. But if there are so few Arabs left, how will they do it? And why bother once their main grievance has been eliminated? >>> Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military >>> action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >What stopped them from doing that before 2003 (or 1990 for that matter)? Saddam Hussein (who was sometimes supported by the US) > It sounds like Bush didn't think his cunning plan all the way through. > >> Afghanistan, and anywhere else they don't already hold. > >Why didn't those radical Islamists attack us before 1993? They >certainly had the country to themselves after the mid '80s. Afghanistan was actually still involved in civil war for much of that time, so your characterization is false. >> Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?). > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >But if there are so few Arabs left, how will they do it? Who says there will be few Arabs? A lot of them will be killed (mostly NOT those directing things), but there will be plenty left. It doesn't take many to pull off a suicide attack. >And why bother once their main grievance has been eliminated? For the same reason Hitler continued his aggression after being granted the Rhineland and the Sudetenland. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >>> Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military > >>> action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Saddam Hussein (who was sometimes supported by the US) Who in fact was supported by the US all through the 80s - during the worst (by far) of his atrocities. > > It sounds like Bush didn't think his cunning plan all the way through. > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > For the same reason Hitler continued his aggression after being > granted the Rhineland and the Sudetenland. >>Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military >>action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would >>very likely end the attacks. > >Thank you, Neville Chamberlain. I didn't expect this sort of neo-con asshattery from you. >OK, suppose the US pulls out entirely. Radical Islamists take over >Iraq (including the 9th province), Afghanistan, and anywhere else they >don't already hold. And if the US pulls out of vietnam countries will fall to the commies like dominos! > Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?). > Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their a.ses, a >whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm >Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is >the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US >resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea? Here's a news flash for you: The USA is BROKE. Worse than broke. We can no longer afford his. Israel can borrow the money it needs from China instead of the US borrowing it and then giving it to Israel. US citizens buy crap from china who loans the dollars to Israel who then buy military equipment on the open market from businesses like those in the US defense industry. Anyway, the question is not *if* the US will pull out of the middle east but *WHEN*. The US government can do it now before the dollar is worth less than toilet paper, before foreigners own practically everything in the US, or be forced to when the dollar collapse occurs. Now maybe the radical islamists (who BTW got their modern start as tools of US and British intelligence) may set their goals higher and go after the USA should they take over every nation in the middle east (unlikely), but which USA can fend them off better? The one that got out before it was too late and avoided economic disaster or the USA that economically imploded fighting in the middle east? >>>Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military >>>action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >And if the US pulls out of vietnam countries will fall to the commies >like dominos! Cambodia and Laos (and of course South Vietnam) did. >> Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?). >> Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their a.ses, a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Here's a news flash for you: The USA is BROKE. Worse than broke. That's a non sequitur. The state of the budget (or the dollar) doesn't change whether or not ending US "interference" in the Middle East is a good idea. In fact, the sort of regional war the Middle East would collapse into if the US were to entirely withdraw would likely send oil prices through the roof in Euros as well as dollars, and end up depressing the Euro as Europe gets a greater proportion of oil from the Middle East than the US does. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military >>>>action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Cambodia and Laos (and of course South Vietnam) did. So what? Oh that's right, 50,000 americans died for nothing and the nation was put into ever spiraling debt for nothing. >>> Then they attack Israel (no longer backed by the US, remember?). >>> Assuming Israel doesn't go nuclear on their a.ses, a >>>whole shitload of Arabs get killed but they eventually overwhelm >>>Israel by the numbers. OK, so they've defeated Israel -- now who is >>>the Great Satan? Oh, right, the United States. So the attacks on the US >>>resume, this time with open state backing. This is a good idea? >>Here's a news flash for you: The USA is BROKE. Worse than broke. >That's a non sequitur. No it is not. These wars are about money. Period. They will end when there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to invade and take over the US. The US will go broke. > The state of the budget (or the dollar) >doesn't change whether or not ending US "interference" in the Middle >East is a good idea. Interference in other nations' affairs generally leads to bigger and bigger problems. One of those big problems is economic. > In fact, the sort of regional war the Middle >East would collapse into if the US were to entirely withdraw would >likely send oil prices through the roof in Euros as well as dollars, >and end up depressing the Euro as Europe gets a greater proportion of >oil from the Middle East than the US does. And going from $30 to $110 isn't sending them through the roof? Not to mention the on going destruction of the US dollar? Enough is enough. You leave the US in there and there will be war with Iran. The US will be the cause of that regional war if left there long enough. I'll take the bet that greater problems can be adverted by pulling out completely than making such a disaster a near certainity by staying. I heard GWB on the radio this morning blathering about Iran's nuclear weapon program again... despite the NIE report showing there isn't one. McCain not even able to keep the various factions straight as he tries to set up war. The US can leave now and maybe survive or it can stay watch the empire fail for certain. The US got started in this mess when the CIA overthrew Iran's elected government in the 1950s for the benefit of oil companies. Once the oil companies have to face the true cost of oil in that region, a cost not kept artifically low to them by US tax payer money proping up governments and spent on military protection, they will use oil resources in more stable parts of the world. Until then, the US government's blundering attempts to control the region will only result in larger and more dangerous reactions. It's like a driver who doesn't know what to do after a blow out. He tries to correct but the car gets more and more out of control until it crashes and burns when it would have been better to just ease back on the controls and coast safely to a stop. >>>>>Of course the 'attacks' are motivated by US foreign policy and military >>>>>action in the middle east. Ending US interference in the region would [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to >invade and take over the US. The US will go broke. No. Money makes no sense as a motive for the US for the Iraq war. Even if the object was to enrich Haliburton, a deal with Saddam would have done that better. >> The state of the budget (or the dollar) >>doesn't change whether or not ending US "interference" in the Middle >>East is a good idea. > >Interference in other nations' affairs generally leads to bigger and >bigger problems. One of those big problems is economic. And sometimes interference in other nation's affairs solves problems. The US attacks on Libya essentially ended Libya's role as a major player as a state sponsor of terrorism, for instance. >> In fact, the sort of regional war the Middle >>East would collapse into if the US were to entirely withdraw would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And going from $30 to $110 isn't sending them through the roof? You ain't seen nothing. A regional war in the middle east involving not only Iran and Iraq but Saudi Arabia will make $110 look cheap. Now if we could get Iran and Iraq involved in a low-intensity border dispute, that might work a little better.... >Not to mention the on going destruction of the US dollar? Which is cause and which is effect? The way I see it, the drop in the US dollar is largely caused by domestic issues (in particular a whole bunch of loans which should never have been made), and a part of the rise in oil is due to this. >Enough is enough. You leave the US in there and there will be war >with Iran. The US will be the cause of that regional war if left >there long enough. I'll give you this much -- the US will be blamed whether it remains there or not. >I'll take the bet that greater problems can be adverted by pulling >out completely than making such a disaster a near certainity by >staying. Leaving is a near certain disaster, because it means another war between Islam and Israel. And since such a war WOULD likely involve nuclear weapons when Israel got its back to the wall, it's pretty much guaranteed to be the greater disaster. >The US got started in this mess when the CIA overthrew Iran's elected >government in the 1950s for the benefit of oil companies. Once the oil >companies have to face the true cost of oil in that region, a cost not >kept artifically low to them by US tax payer money proping up >governments and spent on military protection, they will use oil >resources in more stable parts of the world. They use oil resources everywhere. Unfortunately, an enormous amount, proportionally of oil is in unstable parts of the world. That includes Mexico and Venezula as well as the Middle East. And of course many of the stable areas of the world have environmental movements precluding the use of oil resources there. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>No it is not. These wars are about money. Period. They will end when >>there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to >>invade and take over the US. The US will go broke. >No. Money makes no sense as a motive for the US for the Iraq war. Even >if the object was to enrich Haliburton, a deal with Saddam would have >done that better. Every war is about the money ultimately. The idea to really get rich from war is to finance both sides. Anyway, a deal with saddam wouldn't even be one tenth what this war is costing. >>> The state of the budget (or the dollar) >>>doesn't change whether or not ending US "interference" in the Middle >>>East is a good idea. >>Interference in other nations' affairs generally leads to bigger and >>bigger problems. One of those big problems is economic. >And sometimes interference in other nation's affairs solves problems. >The US attacks on Libya essentially ended Libya's role as a major >player as a state sponsor of terrorism, for instance. An attack is an attack. Last I heard the same guy is still in charge in Lybia. The US has not effectively done anything in their internal affairs, it just scared them from meddling internationally. >>> In fact, the sort of regional war the Middle >>>East would collapse into if the US were to entirely withdraw would >>>likely send oil prices through the roof in Euros as well as dollars, >>>and end up depressing the Euro as Europe gets a greater proportion of >>>oil from the Middle East than the US does. >>And going from $30 to $110 isn't sending them through the roof? >You ain't seen nothing. The great inflation is yet to come. But that is the doing of overspending and the central bank. > A regional war in the middle east involving >not only Iran and Iraq but Saudi Arabia will make $110 look cheap. >Now if we could get Iran and Iraq involved in a low-intensity border >dispute, that might work a little better.... You're going to see one unless the US gets out. It is US government meddling that has brought things to this condition. It cannot be solved with further US involvement. >>Not to mention the on going destruction of the US dollar? >Which is cause and which is effect? The way I see it, the drop in the >US dollar is largely caused by domestic issues (in particular a whole >bunch of loans which should never have been made), and a part of the >rise in oil is due to this. The drop in the dollar is because there are too many of them. There are too many of them because the federal reserve creates too many of them. The federal reserve creates them to fund the federal government's entitlement programs and wars. (guns and butter) >>Enough is enough. You leave the US in there and there will be war >>with Iran. The US will be the cause of that regional war if left >>there long enough. >I'll give you this much -- the US will be blamed whether it remains >there or not. I'm sure many will say that nuking Iran 'had to be done'. Of course there wouldn't have been a 1979 revolution in Iran if the US government hadn't overthrown it's government in the 50s and installed a tyrant favorable to the oil companies. >>I'll take the bet that greater problems can be adverted by pulling >>out completely than making such a disaster a near certainity by >>staying. >Leaving is a near certain disaster, because it means another war between >Islam and Israel. And since such a war WOULD likely involve nuclear >weapons when Israel got its back to the wall, it's pretty much >guaranteed to be the greater disaster. Do you really believe that bullshit our government feeds us? Come on. This is the same government you know to lie about just about everything. Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves. The US does make an attack on Israel more likely by being there and by funding these so called enemies of israel to more total dollars than it funds israel with. (all borrowed from China these days I'll wager) >>The US got started in this mess when the CIA overthrew Iran's elected >>government in the 1950s for the benefit of oil companies. Once the oil >>companies have to face the true cost of oil in that region, a cost not >>kept artifically low to them by US tax payer money proping up >>governments and spent on military protection, they will use oil >>resources in more stable parts of the world. >They use oil resources everywhere. Unfortunately, an enormous >amount, proportionally of oil is in unstable parts of the world. That >includes Mexico and Venezula as well as the Middle East. Far more stable in the americas. >And of course many of the stable areas of the world have environmental >movements precluding the use of oil resources there. Guess who prefers that oil is walled off ? hint: it's the people with the contracts for the oil that isn't. >>>No it is not. These wars are about money. Period. They will end when >>>there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Every war is about the money ultimately. I don't agree. >The idea to really get rich from war is to finance both >sides. Anyway, a deal with saddam wouldn't even be one tenth what >this war is costing. So the US started this war in order to have an excuse to spend a lot of money on weapons, contractors, and the like? That's a little too cynical even for me. >>And sometimes interference in other nation's affairs solves problems. >>The US attacks on Libya essentially ended Libya's role as a major [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Lybia. The US has not effectively done anything in their internal affairs, >it just scared them from meddling internationally. It is not necessary to remove the head of government to constitute interference in another nation's affairs. The US attacks and the standoff over Libya's territorial waters certainly constitute "interference". >The drop in the dollar is because there are too many of them. There are >too many of them because the federal reserve creates too many of them. The >federal reserve creates them to fund the federal government's entitlement >programs and wars. (guns and butter) The relative lack of domestic inflation argues against this theory. >I'm sure many will say that nuking Iran 'had to be done'. Of course there >wouldn't have been a 1979 revolution in Iran if the US government hadn't >overthrown it's government in the 50s and installed a tyrant favorable to >the oil companies. What's done is done; merely because the US should not have backed the Shah doesn't mean that the United States should therefore take a hands-off policy in the future. Nor does it mean Khomenei was justified in seizing the embassy. >>Leaving is a near certain disaster, because it means another war between >>Islam and Israel. And since such a war WOULD likely involve nuclear [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >is the same government you know to lie about just about everything. >Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves. If history is any guide, they most certainly will. >>And of course many of the stable areas of the world have environmental >>movements precluding the use of oil resources there. > >Guess who prefers that oil is walled off ? hint: it's the people with the >contracts for the oil that isn't. With Bush in charge, the same people would get any new US oil as well, so that's not really a credible suggestion. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >>>No it is not. These wars are about money. Period. They will end when > >>>there is no more money. That's how empires end. Nobody is going to [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > hands-off policy in the future. Nor does it mean Khomenei was > justified in seizing the embassy. So after Leningrad, you would have argued to the Russians what's done is done. Merely because Germany should not have invaded, bombed, and starved a million humans to death does not mean Germany should stay out of Russian affairs. Nor does it mean the Russians were justified in the wholesale terrorizing of German civilians towards the end of WWII as they marched toward Berlin. Indeed it does not. But imagine discussing any of the USSR's human rights abuses of the time in a void, without mentioning Hitler, genocide, Leningrad. That's what we do in the USA - the United States of Amnesia. We discuss current events of the Middle East in a vaccuum: There was no overthrow of Mossadegh and the burgeoning Iranian democracy by the US and the installation of a brutal dictator in 1953, there was no support of Saddam during all of his major atrocities - the invasion of Iran in the 80s (a war that killed a million people), his gassing of the Kurds, the slaughter of the Shiites after Gulf War 1 after we betrayed them. We're not in the region for oil but for democracy, never mind our early support of the Taliban, our constant support of the Wahhabi dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, not to mention the torture state of Egypt. Americans generally don't hear anything about this sick stuff - and there's a reason for that, which I don't need to spell out for you. > >>Leaving is a near certain disaster, because it means another war between > >>Islam and Israel. And since such a war WOULD likely involve nuclear [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > With Bush in charge, the same people would get any new US oil as well, > so that's not really a credible suggestion. >So the US started this war in order to have an excuse to spend a lot >of money on weapons, contractors, and the like? That's a little too >cynical even for me. In large part. I think General Butler was correct, War is a Racket. >>>And sometimes interference in other nation's affairs solves problems. >>>The US attacks on Libya essentially ended Libya's role as a major >>>player as a state sponsor of terrorism, for instance. >>An attack is an attack. Last I heard the same guy is still in charge in >>Lybia. The US has not effectively done anything in their internal affairs, >>it just scared them from meddling internationally. >It is not necessary to remove the head of government to constitute >interference in another nation's affairs. The US attacks and the >standoff over Libya's territorial waters certainly constitute >"interference". How was the internal situation changed in Lybia? It wasn't. Only their external actions were changed. >>The drop in the dollar is because there are too many of them. There are >>too many of them because the federal reserve creates too many of them. The >>federal reserve creates them to fund the federal government's entitlement >>programs and wars. (guns and butter) >The relative lack of domestic inflation argues against this theory. Lack of domestic inflation? Did you drink the government stats kool aid? The local bakery bread I like is up about 40%. The imported pasta 50% Fruit has been way up. the list goes on and on. Fuel is way up. Sure a TV made in China hasn't gone up much but food, fuel, and practically everything the government doesn't count has. >>I'm sure many will say that nuking Iran 'had to be done'. Of course there >>wouldn't have been a 1979 revolution in Iran if the US government hadn't >>overthrown it's government in the 50s and installed a tyrant favorable to >>the oil companies. >What's done is done; merely because the US should not have backed the >Shah doesn't mean that the United States should therefore take a >hands-off policy in the future. Nor does it mean Khomenei was >justified in seizing the embassy. The US didn't just back the Shah, it put him back in. They took hostages to prevent the US government repeating what it did in the 1950s. To culture in the middle east that wasn't something that is 'done is done' a long time ago, that was yesterday. In the middle east in general there are people killing each other over small differences of opinion that are a thousand plus years old, what happened 50 years ago is fresh. >>>Leaving is a near certain disaster, because it means another war between >>>Islam and Israel. And since such a war WOULD likely involve nuclear >>>weapons when Israel got its back to the wall, it's pretty much >>>guaranteed to be the greater disaster. >>Do you really believe that bullshit our government feeds us? Come on. This >>is the same government you know to lie about just about everything. >>Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves. >If history is any guide, they most certainly will. So they form a circular firing squad and get it over with and kill each other. Better than dragging the US down with them. >>>And of course many of the stable areas of the world have environmental >>>movements precluding the use of oil resources there. >> >>Guess who prefers that oil is walled off ? hint: it's the people with the >>contracts for the oil that isn't. >With Bush in charge, the same people would get any new US oil as well, >so that's not really a credible suggestion. The same oil companies that executed a plan to reduce refining capacity to drive up prices. (cited many times before) Why should I expect anything different? >>So the US started this war in order to have an excuse to spend a lot >>of money on weapons, contractors, and the like? That's a little too >>cynical even for me. > > In large part. I think General Butler was correct, War is a Racket. Might even have been make-work for Halliburton; it's not like anyone high up in the administration has connections there. At *BEST* it was a misguided, naive attempt to implement the policies of the PNAC, and anyone that reads their statement of principles without getting at least a little frisson needs their head adjusted. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>The drop in the dollar is because there are too many of them. There are >>>too many of them because the federal reserve creates too many of them. The [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >made in China hasn't gone up much but food, fuel, and practically >everything the government doesn't count has. This is cherry picking. The goverment stats include both a core rate and a rate which includes both food and energy. Neither are at historical highs, though energy itself is. >The US didn't just back the Shah, it put him back in. They took hostages >to prevent the US government repeating what it did in the 1950s. To >culture in the middle east that wasn't something that is 'done is done' a >long time ago, that was yesterday. In the middle east in general there are >people killing each other over small differences of opinion that are a >thousand plus years old, what happened 50 years ago is fresh. Then there is no solution short of nuking the entire area to glass. They will remember and seek revenge for the USs actions whether or not the US remains in the area. That's the problem with vendetta, there's no ending it until everyone involved (on at least one side) and all their descendants and relatives are dead. >>>Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves. > >>If history is any guide, they most certainly will. > >So they form a circular firing squad and get it over with and kill each >other. Better than dragging the US down with them. Unfortunately, they _would_ drag the US down with them. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>The drop in the dollar is because there are too many of them. There are >>>>too many of them because the federal reserve creates too many of them. The >>>>federal reserve creates them to fund the federal government's entitlement >>>>programs and wars. (guns and butter) >>>The relative lack of domestic inflation argues against this theory. >>Lack of domestic inflation? Did you drink the government stats kool aid? >>The local bakery bread I like is up about 40%. The imported pasta 50% [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >and a rate which includes both food and energy. Neither are at >historical highs, though energy itself is. So you go from there isn't any to not at historical highs. Anyone who shops for himself should know there is inflation. Material costs are way up too and its getting to the point that consumer goods will not be able to hold the line on prices. >>The US didn't just back the Shah, it put him back in. They took hostages >>to prevent the US government repeating what it did in the 1950s. To >>culture in the middle east that wasn't something that is 'done is done' a >>long time ago, that was yesterday. In the middle east in general there are >>people killing each other over small differences of opinion that are a >>thousand plus years old, what happened 50 years ago is fresh. >Then there is no solution short of nuking the entire area to glass. >They will remember and seek revenge for the USs actions whether or not >the US remains in the area. That's the problem with vendetta, there's >no ending it until everyone involved (on at least one side) and all >their descendants and relatives are dead. There is nothing supporting that belief but fear. However they do seem rather interested in killing each other. If the US was not inserting itself, that would take all their effort. It will take a number of years before they finish killing each other. Meanwhile US blood and treasure can be spared and there will be far less of them should they want to take on the US at that point. >>>>Nobody is going to attack israel if the US leaves. >> >>>If history is any guide, they most certainly will. >> >>So they form a circular firing squad and get it over with and kill each >>other. Better than dragging the US down with them. >Unfortunately, they _would_ drag the US down with them. Only if the US federal government keeps playing the game. Latest rumor is shrub will attack Iran on the 4th or 6th. Probably as false as all the previous ones, but who knows. >>Unfortunately, they _would_ drag the US down with them. > >Only if the US federal government keeps playing the game. Whatever game the US federal government decides to play - they should determine the winning conditions, the rules, and decide what to do when the game is won (or lost). On Mar 27, 5:57 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <EY2dnQNgiPv5unHanZ2dnUVZ_rign...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of money on weapons, contractors, and the like? That's a little too > cynical even for me. And, as everyone should know, anyone less cynical than you have their heads in the sand, while people more cynical than you are "too" cynical. LOL. E.P. >On Mar 27, 5:57=A0pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >heads in the sand, while people more cynical than you are "too" >cynical. Well, if I thought some other level of cynicism was appropriate, I'd adopt it myself. But not everyone less cynical than I am has their heads in the sand. You'll call someone a tinfoil-hatter for claiming some absurd thing is happening. Then, when they demonstrate via cites that the absurd thing actually is happening... you'll call them a tinfoil hatter again. THAT is having your head in the sand. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Mar 28, 1:42 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <97497248-0774-41a5-8d2c-17cf8cc23...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You'll call someone a tinfoil-hatter for claiming some absurd thing is > happening. Liar. I call people tinfoil hatters for claiming things which cannot be proven, or leaping to conclusions not supported by evidence. But your judgement of what level of cynicism is appropriate is LOL- funny. E.P. >> If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel >> victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE! > >So why aren't they doing that already? All their resources, financial, material, and human are focused on attempting to win in Iraq. Additionally, they have FEWER human resources because not as many are ready to sign up to what is rightly perceived as the losing side. > Is there some magical force that >keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we >weren't in Iraq? Yep - but its not magical. Or, you might think it is if it comes screaming out of the sky at you at mach 2 and runs a hellfire missile up your a.s. That's what Al Qaeda in Iraq feels about American Military capability now. >> If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel >> victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE! > > So why aren't they doing that already? Is there some magical force that > keeps them out of the homeland now that would no longer exist if we > weren't in Iraq? Thanks to President Bush the funding, leadership and covert capability of terrorist groups has been compromised. It is not accident that we have not been attacked in the US since 9/11. >>On Mar 24, 10:58 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel > victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE! Oh bullshit. The radicals who want to attack us here will try whether we are in Iraq or not. Being there just swells their ranks. > We would likely end up losing more Americans in a few hours than many > times the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > smallopox, > botulinus, or some other screwball disease. And you think that the fact we're in Iraq is what prevents this from happening? Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa. There are no Russian suitcase nukes. If there were, you'd have noticed a mushroom cloud already. They're an urban legend. Smuggling a truckload of poison gas in to the U.S. isn't exactly easy, and weaponizing anthrax is pretty complex. Really, you think our presiding over a religious sectairian civil war in Iraq stops radical Islamaists from carrying out an attack on the U.S.? As opposed to reassigning those hundred thousand troops to protecting our borders, airports, ports, and coastlines? What a f.cking moron. Bo Raxo >Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa. There are no Russian suitcase nukes. If there were, >you'd have noticed a mushroom cloud already. They're an urban legend. I don't think they are an urban legend, IMO they really did exist at one time. However they required intensive maintenance with specialized equipment and trained techs to remain operational. Basically by the time any 'terrorist' may have gotten one, it had all the destructive capabilities of a brick. It's maximium damage would have come from bashing a person over the head with it. In other words, a standard garden shovel is more of threat than any remaining 'Russian suitcase nukes'. >Smuggling a truckload of poison gas in to the U.S. isn't exactly easy, and >weaponizing anthrax is pretty complex. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2265-anthrax-attack-bug-identical-to-army- strain.html >>Bwaaa haaa haaa haaa. There are no Russian suitcase nukes. If there >>were, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > garden shovel is more of threat than any remaining 'Russian suitcase > nukes'. There is a good chance you are right about that, I've heard this theory before. Although personally I find it hard to see such a centrally controlled regime like the Soviets creating such an incredibly destructuve weapon that could get out of their control. They were all about command and control, and their technologies reflected it. American astronauts flew their craft, for example, while Soviet cosmonauts were basically cargo in an automated machine that flew itself. So the idea of a suitcase nuke really goes against the grain of their technological asthete. >>Smuggling a truckload of poison gas in to the U.S. isn't exactly easy, and >>weaponizing anthrax is pretty complex. > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2265-anthrax-attack-bug-identical-to-army- strain.html Same strain, yes. Weaponized: quite different. That's a process to mill it to a very specific and consistent size. A little too big or a little too small and it's about as dangerous as moldy bread. That's what so many people missed when the bullshit term "weapons of mass destruction" was coined. An operational nuke is compact and not that hard to deliver - a cargo container or a small boat will do the job. Chemical weapons require large amounts to create mass destruction and a distribution mechanism - say, smuggle several thousand gas-filled artillery shells, not easy. Biological weapons are even more tricky - sure, you can grow the bug. But getting it in to a form that will do damage and/or distributing it is not easy. If it were, we'd have already seen large scale successful attacks with bio weapons. Instead, all we've seen is a handful of people made sick via doctored mail packets, and IIRC two deaths. Bo Raxo >weapon that could get out of their control. They were all about command and >control, and their technologies reflected it. American astronauts flew >their craft, for example, while Soviet cosmonauts were basically cargo in an >automated machine that flew itself. So the idea of a suitcase nuke really >goes against the grain of their technological asthete. I can see that. Although, governments are rather silly. I can see them making the suitcase nukes and securing them in such a manner as to defeat their entire purpose because of that very mentality you mention. >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2265-anthrax-attack-bug-identical-to-army- strain.html >Same strain, yes. Weaponized: quite different. That's a process to mill >it to a very specific and consistent size. A little too big or a little too >small and it's about as dangerous as moldy bread. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/21/140757.shtml Goes over the very aspects that go into what is weaponized and what is not. >with bio weapons. Instead, all we've seen is a handful of people made sick >via doctored mail packets, and IIRC two deaths. I think it was more than two, but a small number none the less and it doesn't change the point you are making. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi3sYzDsSGI says 5 ) Most everything is overblown by the government and the media for their own purposes. Like the 'bird flu'. > Although personally I find it hard to see such a centrally > controlled regime like the Soviets creating such an incredibly destructuve > weapon that could get out of their control. They were all about command and > control, and their technologies reflected it. They were arrogant enough to think they could always maintain the control... > >On Mar 24, 10:58 pm, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > ><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > several easily-produced deadly gases, or maybe a pile of anthrax, smallopox, > botulinus, or some other screwball disease. You really have to be living in some alternate universe to believe our presence in Iraq is saving us from suitcase nukes. > But they are currently getting their a.ses kicked all over the Iraqi desert, > are distracted and financially as well as psychologically stressed, and that > is > all because of our military. It looks like we'll be kicking their a.ses for decades to come. > Remove our military, and more Americans will die - a lot more. I've heard they'll be coming in boats loaded with aluminum tubes. > Dave Head > If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel > victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE! So what are you doing here, bigtalk? Why don't you enlist? >> If we pack up and leave Iraq tomorrow, the radical islamists will feel >> victorious, and simply launch more attacks... HERE! > >So what are you doing here, bigtalk? Why don't you enlist? Too old (60.) Did spend 3 months in Baghdad (Nov, Dec, Jan) just a bit ago as a sci-tech advisor to the counter-IED effort, tho... > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:31:38 -0000, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are > MURDERERS" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Did spend 3 months in Baghdad (Nov, Dec, Jan) just a bit ago as a > sci-tech advisor to the counter-IED effort, tho... why does one have to enlist or have served in the military to voice an opinion? I'm sure a lot of the surrender crowd have never served,and they still have a lot (of nonsense) to say about the Iraq war. I've served,BTW. Got my DD-214;Honorably Discharged. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> On Wed, |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message