Fire!

On Nov 1, 1:59 am, "John Wheaton" wrote:

Ah but they do. Saddam refused to allow inspectors unfettered access, or
settle the where abouts of "thousands of tonnes" of chemical weapons whne it
was made quite clear that he would be deposed.

Don't people understand bluffing and grand-standing?
It was pretty obvious to me that in the weeks before
the "war" Saddam had been pushed to the wall and
had no more cards to play. He _had_ given in.
It's like the Salem witch trials, where there is no
way out for the accused.

Now, I don't think any decent person has any affection
for Saddam, and I really am more interested in the
"intelligence" factor, or lack thereof. Suppose the
same services operated in the Cold War. We would
likely had WW III for no particular cause.

The same argument applies to North Korea, etc..

Too many war-mongers.

Ah you mention war-mongers so you do remember Saddam invading Iran and
Kuwait.

Saddam believed he had a good chance of winning,
given (what he believed was) the "limited" arena of
these operations. There's no doubt he didn't think
he'd beat the US after the first Iraq War.

On Oct 31, 9:08 am, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:
"memiki" wrote

It is my feeling that when an American publicly insults the Office of
the Presidency outside the country, whether it be the Dixie Chicks on
a stage in England or Ike or you on a public forum, harm is done to
the country. There is enough garbage being thrown by other countries
without having sine if our own add to the heap.

While I see your point re showing respect to the office and what the office
represents, I can assure you that lieing to the American public and the
world at large about the rationale for starting a war, presiding over the
invasion of a sovereign nation, and assorted grand scale evils and malice
doe sfar, far more damage. On a perosnal note, his Adminsitration's
treatment of Canadian citizens deemed "enemey combatants" and "terrorists"
including being held without consular access, bail, access to counsel, being
shipped off to Syria to be tortured for a year, and assorted routine
dismissals of the rule of International Law, the Geneva Convention, the US
Constitution and Bill of Rights, etc, etc. etc. does far more damage than
being called an "Idiot".

Peter -- I am not asking anyone to lie!.... nor am I "silencing"
anyone.......just asking for people in a public forum to state their
dissenting opinions in a civil manner and as a mature adult.

Miki

On Nov 1, 2:30 am, wrote:

Don't people understand bluffing and grand-standing?

Kim Jong Il plays the same game. He uses the nuclear
card to solicit financial support for his destitute
country and to gain personal world recognition. Do
you think China would ever allow North Korea to use
any nuclear weapon? Who has more stake and
influence, China or the US?

So, why is the US (administration) so riled up? Is
there a possibility that it's for grand-standing and
distraction?

wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 1, 1:59 am, "John Wheaton" wrote:

Ah but they do. Saddam refused to allow inspectors unfettered access, or
settle the where abouts of "thousands of tonnes" of chemical weapons whne
it
was made quite clear that he would be deposed.

Don't people understand bluffing and grand-standing?
It was pretty obvious to me that in the weeks before
the "war" Saddam had been pushed to the wall and
had no more cards to play. He _had_ given in.

He did NOT give in, a thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons are still
unaccounted for.

"memiki" schrieb

You cannot separate the President from the Office of the President.
If you insult the President, you insult the Office of the
Presidency

Every 4 years you have a job vacancy: The "Office of the President"
needs a new employee. Then you hire someone.

Never forget: *You* are the boss, not the guy you hired!

If your employees don't do their job well you are free to criticize
or sack them. Without damaging your "company", aka nation, or
their job as such. On the contrary: If you don't, you might do more
harm.

Jochen

"John Wheaton" wrote
"Peter D" [email protected] wrote in message
Do you know, Miki, that this is the sort of reasoning used to silence
opposition to Hitler in the early 30s? I'm always cautious of anyone who
would seek to silence others on the basis that their speech is
"unpatriotic" or "abuses freedom of speech".

FDR also put newspapermen and other dissenters in detention. Are you going
to compare him to Hitler as well?

Absolutely. I deleted the political reference because it's immaterial to the
matter at hand. Silencing opposition under the guise of "patriotism" or "the
good of the nation" is apolitical as far as I know.

"John Wheaton" wrote
"Ed Jay" wrote in message
John Wheaton scribed:
"Ed Jay" wrote in message
John Wheaton scribed:
"Peter D" [email protected] wrote in message
Do you know, Miki, that this is the sort of reasoning used to silence
opposition to Hitler in the early 30s? I'm always cautious of anyone
who
would seek to silence others on the basis that their speech is
"unpatriotic" or "abuses freedom of speech".

Liberal Icon FDR also put newspapermen and other dissenters in
detention.
Are you going to compare him to Hitler as well?

FDR has nothing to do with Bush.

Very true as Bush has not locked up dissidents, or set up internment
camps
as FDR did.

Nothing that FDR may have done excuses Bush. Stoopid argument, John.

Hey, William the Conqueror invaded England. Bush didn't. I guess that
makes
Bush a good guy in your book, huh? That makes as much sense as your
argument. :-)

How dissent was handled was the subject and Bush was being compared to
Hitler who imprisoned and executed dissenters. Not much of a comparison
there so I provided an example of a liberal Democrat Icon that went much
farther than Bush by directly silencing dissenters by imprisoning them.

Actually, John, you misquote me. I didn't compare Bush to Hitler. I didn't
compare anyone to Hitler. I simply stated that I noticed a similarity betwen
the belief that Speaking out critically is "unpatriotic".

"John Wheaton" wrote in message
. ..

"Dave Smith" wrote in message
...
Abuse of freedoms? You government is holding people without charges for
years, but doing so in places like Cuba where they figure American law
does
not apply.

You might consider reading the news before you comment on it. Everyone at
Gitmo had a hearing to establish that they were enemy combatants before
they were sent there. In every war, enemy combatants are rountinely held
until hostilities cease.

Obfuscaiton and sophistry! Even "ennemy combatants' is a contruct to avoid
"criminal" which would require the government to affor dhte accused certian
legal rights under the Constituionand Bill of Rights and "enemy" which would
require the government to afford them certian rights under the Geneva
Convention. They are afforded netiher because they are being held by a
government that refuses to obey the very laws they seek to force others to
obey.

The have a rendition program to ship people to third countries
where they may be tortured.

Egyptians were sent to Egypt, and Saudis to Saudi Arabia, as in they were
sent home.

At least one CANDIAN was snet to Syria where he was tortured for a year. And
even though it is clear that he was not a "terrorist" and had no link with
same, that he was 100% an inncoent man, your government still refuses to
apologise to the man and take him off the no fly list.

"sharx35" wrote in message
news:7KcWi.66410$G25.701@edtnps89...
TheNewsGuy(Mike) wrote:
memiki wrote:
...
Excuse me.... but what do you mean by "you guys"....;

I think he means the idiots who are STILL supporting this outlandishly
corrupt and incompetent administration.

The REAL idiots are the ones who are giving moral support to the
terrorists BY attacking this administration.

THe REAL patriots are the ones who see the Emperor naked and say so!

"memiki" wrote
On Oct 31, 9:08 am, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:
"memiki" wrote
It is my feeling that when an American publicly insults the Office of
the Presidency outside the country, whether it be the Dixie Chicks on
a stage in England or Ike or you on a public forum, harm is done to
the country. There is enough garbage being thrown by other countries
without having sine if our own add to the heap.

While I see your point re showing respect to the office and what the
office
represents, I can assure you that lieing to the American public and the
world at large about the rationale for starting a war, presiding over the
invasion of a sovereign nation, and assorted grand scale evils and malice
doe sfar, far more damage. On a perosnal note, his Adminsitration's
treatment of Canadian citizens deemed "enemey combatants" and
"terrorists"
including being held without consular access, bail, access to counsel,
being
shipped off to Syria to be tortured for a year, and assorted routine
dismissals of the rule of International Law, the Geneva Convention, the
US
Constitution and Bill of Rights, etc, etc. etc. does far more damage than
being called an "Idiot".

Peter -- I am not asking anyone to lie!.... nor am I "silencing"
anyone.......just asking for people in a public forum to state their
dissenting opinions in a civil manner and as a mature adult.

Miki, I didn't say your were. I simply related a view that I saw a parallel.
Dont' take it so personally. :-)