🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ije7p3x...@loki.cmears.id.au>, but only after serious
contemplation, Luc The Perverse <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu>
put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>"Frans" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:12c1cabk6kkpic1@corp.supernews.com...
>> Luc The Perverse wrote...
>
>
>Oh you're right.   They needed to invent the word president and prime 
>minister in the greek language to allow prophetic utterances to be 
>effective.

Greek?

>>> Israel will not be able to stand against the allied forces of all 
>>> surrounding Arab nations, not to mention China and Russia.
>>
>> You must be completely out of your mind if you think that either China or 
>> Russia will lay a finger on Israel. Why on earth would they? Israel is 
>> just defending itself. A bit overwhelming, maybe, but hey, they're the 
>> largest, best equipped, best trained military force out there. Yes, they 
>> WILL stand against those allied forces, they've done it before, and 
>> they've only gotten stronger since. It took them SIX DAYS to kick all 
>> those asses. The "allied" arab forces are still firing scuds and kachukas. 
>> They might as well be throwing bricks.
>
>Wow you're right.  That is the same reason Rome never fell.

Nevertheless, Israel can withstand pretty much everything the Arabs can
throw at them. The only thing they have to fear is WMD.

>>> As Israel begins to fall, Bush will attempt to come to their rescue - 
>>> calling out all guns, and pulling all existing alliances together.   It 
>>> will be World War III, except - as noted, Bush has made clear that he has 
>>> no reservations about using nuclear weapons, just as he didn't hesitate 
>>> the use chemical weapons.   Whatever it takes to win.
>>
>> Where did Bush use chemical weapons? And, mind you, it took nuclear 
>> weapons to END the second world war.
>
>OMG why am I arguing with you?   Ever heard of Fallujah?   Even if you 
>believed the theories that chemical weapons were not used against the Iraqi 
>people - being completely ignorant of the conspiracy surrounding it tells me 
>a lot about your interest and knowledge about the these things that you are 
>choosing to argue with me.

White Phosphorus is not classified as a chemical weapon any more than
depleted uranium is classified as a nuclear weapon. The rights and
wrongs of those classifications is neither here nor there. Added to
which it would be the commanders on the ground who made the decisions
regarding the use of weapons. 

>>> It's what happens when school yard bullies start controlling the most 
>>> powerful nations on the earth, when peace keeping organizations are kept 
>>> powerless and democracy is destroyed.
>>
>> I don't think that Bush was a school yard bully.
>
>No you're right - him thinking himself god is a better analogy.   Who else 
>to decide the fate of the entire world.  Condemn North Korea for testing 
>weapons (the like of which we recently tested)   Condemn Sadaam for using 
>chemical weapons (then use WP against the people of Fallujah, ironically in 
>Iraq!)   Defy  the united nations and declare an illegal war, over his 
>daddy's grudge?   Threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Iran over R&D?

It is vital to the future of the world that nuclear weapons remain ONLY
in the hands of those who realise they must never be used. "Rogue
states" will be the cause of any future nuclear conflict. Let's make
sure they don't have the capability - AT ANY COST! The "well we have
them so we don't have the right to stop others developing them" argument
is untenable. The opposite is the undeniable truth.

Incidentally, we have already failed in our attempt to contain the
situation. The possession of nuclear weapons by Pakistan is something we
should never have allowed and the situation in North Korea is rapidly
approaching the point of no return.

>Bush LIED to start a war against a helpless country 

Lied? Are you sure? If so, I'd love to see the proof.

Blair was also accused of lying. Now I hate Blair as much as the next
intelligent British voter does but I don't for a moment believe that he
deliberately lied to take us into war.

(Having said that, our government regularly tells lies on more mundane
issues). ;-)

>- causing hundreds of 
>thousands of Iraqis to die - something he dismisses as collatoral dammage, 

It *is* collateral damage.

>and says the war was justified because they "ousted a bad leader" (ignoring 
>lies about a Sadaam funded nuclear weapons program, hundreds of billions of 
>wasted dollars).     

It's a shame they never had the guts to stand up and say, "OK guys - we
were had". Trouble is that the lies were probably not American lies at
all. It may be that the US intelligence services were taken in by
Saddam's propaganda (he wanted the world to believe that he was more
powerful than he actually was).

>But if 10 Americans die from a suicide bomber he has a 
>fucking conniption fit.   I cannot hold in high esteem someone that feels he 
>has the right to judge that one person's life is more valuable than another 
>person's life.

That is the job of any leader of a country - to protect his citizens and
their interests. All other citizens or interests are of less importance.

>>  I also do not think that the United Nations are "powerless" and I also do 
>> not believe that democracy was destroyed anywhere. People in Iraq can now 
>> vote. Before that, they could only vote for Saddam Hussein or get a bullet 
>> in the head (after being tortured).
>
>The right to vote doesn't mean a whole lot when your entire country's 
>infrastructure has gone to shit.  There are looters, rioters, violence. 
>Bagdad and Fallujah are under occupation, and there is still fighting going 
>on everywhere.    It is hard to get gas, people who have electricity at all, 
>don't have it for 24 hours a day.
>
>> Same goes for Afghanistan. Now you could debate whether or not the US has 
>> the right to meddle in those affairs, but I think that it was really 
>> Afghanistan who drew that much attention to themselves by harbouring 
>> international terrorists.
>
>I have seen various news sources of independant reporters going around 
>talking to people, and the consensus seems to be that life was better under 
>Sadaam than it is now.

So, is that the fault of the people who are trying to rebuild the
infrastructure or of the people who are trying to make sure that it
remains in its present state (or even gets worse)?

>I believe that if Jereseleum begins to fall, bush will blame Tehran 
>and use his 90 day presidential authority to over - ride the senate to 
>launch nuclear weapons against Iran.    

Why would he do that?

If anyone was forced to use nukes against Iran it would be the Israelis.
And no one else in the world would use a single nuke in response. If you
think about it hard enough you'll figure out why.

>There could be a terror cell waiting in every 
>large city with one of those missing "suitcase" bombs from the former soviet 
>union waiting only to hear the report of a nuclear attack by America on an 
>Arab country.

You're right. Quick! Let's expel all Muslims, all foreigners, all from
ethnic minorities or with ethnic backgrounds. Let's close our borders
and shoot anyone who attempts to cross. Let's .......... Oh let's not.

>It is not THAT ridiculous.

More frightening than ridiculous. The ridiculous part was losing those
bombs in the first place.

>>> The gun is cocked, and the only thing left is for Iran to gather its 
>>> forces (and allies) and march (figuratively) on Israel and Bush will 
>>> counter with nuclear weapons.
>>
>> Bahahaha. Israel will grab Iran by the balls and smack them back across 
>> the border. Iran doesn't stand a chance.
>
>Iran is rich and powerful - not to mention, Syria will fight alongside 
>Iran - and they are a powerful ally.   Bush knows this, so not they are 
>trying to simultaniously blame Iran and Syria for the kidnapping of some 
>obscure soldier that I have never heard of before.  It is deja vu.    The 
>administration targets a country, tries to piss people off at them, then 
>goes and attacks.

Nothing beats a good conspiracy theory. Ask any journalist, or editor,
or anyone who makes money out of selling "news".

>>> (Whether or not they make the first move is completely inconsequential - 
>>> it may be too late for them to make the first move anyway, they have been 
>>> at the blunt end of a lot of BS for a long time.)
>>
>> Who? What? Who is "they"?
>
>Iran.   If Iran rallies troops and tries to attack Isreal, or whether Isreal 
>flies into Iran and starts a fight is inconsequential

IIRC The only time Israel has flown into Iran was to destroy a nuclear
power plant. I suspect they'll do the same again if they feel threatened
by Iran's nuclear weapons programme. I would in their position - a nuke
in the hands of a fundamentalist is truly something to be feared.

>>> If nuclear war does come it's not going to be Iran or North Korea; it's 
>>> going to be China and Russia, those technologically advanced enough, to 
>>> wage intercontinental war.  (And perhaps some unexpected/unlikely 
>>> allies.)
>>
>> A nuclear war is never in the best interest of any country. Any country 
>> will always look out for their own best interest, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 
>> rogue states like North-Korea, or Iran, who either would drop a nuke for 
>> religious (Iran) or megalomaniacal (North-Korea) reasons. The US knows 
>> this, and therefore wants to make it impossible for those 2 countries to 
>> develop nuclear weapons. Why? Because it's in the US best interest. Same 
>> goes for Russia, same goes for China.
>
>Just like the US which is threatening to use nuclear weapons.

I obviously missed something here. Has the US actually threatened to use
nukes against anyone?

>I think Bush's religious and megalomaniacal agenda is going to cause World 
>War III.   He, as president has the authority to begin a nuclear war - 
>unless the Senate could rapidly come together to oust him as president. 
>War is not in our best interest either.   Occupying Iraq cannot possibly 
>have been in our best interest.   Taking over Afghanistan to try to get one 
>fugitive, who still eluded us was not in our best interest.
>
>So sit back and enjoy thinking that humanity is not in danger when we have a 
>war happy, nuclear ready, idiot president leading the strongest military 
>force on earth.

Humanity is definitely in danger but not from that direction.

You pay too much attention to the press if you believe that GWB is an
idiot.

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".