🚀 go-pugleaf

"The Arcane Chas" <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:tDkrggAa$RwEFwe3@the-arcane.demon.co.uk...
> 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?

Well it would have propegated :)

>>>> 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.

Maybe everyone wouldn't hate them so much if they didn't go and kill people 
all the time, occupy palestine, and constant go on giant rampages.

>>>> 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.

An administration which develops a new chemical weapon, but classifies it 
different to allow it to be sent over with the troops doesn't do much to 
gain my confidence.   Regardless of whether you agree with me, it is 
refreshing to discuss this with someone who has any idea what is going on.

> 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.

Bush is the only one threatening to use nuclear weapons.

> 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.

Yes they must die

>>Bush LIED to start a war against a helpless country
> Lied? Are you sure? If so, I'd love to see the proof.

There is at least one website dedicated to it http://www.bushlies.net/

> 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). ;-)

Blair and Bush are butt buddies - I think they have too big of egos to work 
anything out logically

>>- causing hundreds of
>>thousands of Iraqis to die - something he dismisses as collatoral dammage,
>
> It *is* collateral damage.

I am offended that he dismisses it as if it were nothing.

>>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).

They never said that they believe, or might have reason to believe that 
Sadaam is doing these things.  They said that they had irrefutable evidence 
that Sadaam had an advanced nuclear weapons program - that he was trying to 
get Uranium, that he had advanced nuclear weapons program.  All the sudden 
this turns out to not be true and Bush says, oh well, at least we got him!

That would have been more believable (your suggestion) - Bush doesn't try 
too much to improve his PR.

>>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 guess I would not make a very good leader valuing human life in general.

>>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)?

The US may be trying to help rebuild it, but I don't believe for a second 
that we went over there to improve Iraqi life.  It is the last remaining 
excuse the administration has.

We went over there to (some combination of these reasons):
1. Protect ourselves from a country who threatened us
2. To steal resources (oil)
3. To send a message out to would be opponents of the US

>>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?

He said he would.   He is impervious to logic and reasoning; his ego is from 
the group to the heaven.    He feels that he is in a religious war himself. 
He thinks god talks to him.   These are scary traits in a leader.

I think someone took him into a room and had a discussion with him, and 
suddenly the pressure off Iran dropped off a little bit.   But now Isreal is 
pulling this shit, and the whole world is decrying their actions and Bush is 
cheering them on.

Isreal wants war - they always want war.

> 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.

Because of what I said :)   WW III would ensue.

>>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.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding :)

I'm not saying that American politics or the actions of any reasonable 
country is going to cause international nuclear war.  I am saying that Bush 
is going to because he would rather kill everyone and everything than lose.

>>It is not THAT ridiculous.
>
> More frightening than ridiculous. The ridiculous part was losing those
> bombs in the first place.

It's kinda tuff when a government comes crashing down

>>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".

Now you're pissing me off.   Bush knew Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 
September 11, and he knew that he wanted revenge somehow.  If the Taliban 
really was harboring Osama, why didn't we find him when the country fell? 
I hope that intelligence didn't come from the same one that said Sadaam had 
WMD.   Then Bush wanted war with Iraq so he pulled strings to make it 
happen.  Now he wants war with Iran, and I see strings being pulled.

>>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.

There have always been fundamentalists.  But if Isreal really wanted peace, 
I think they would find it.

>>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?

Yes - here is one news article about it.   I'm sure you could find many 
more.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HIR20060719&articleId=2759


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

The press happens to be the only contact I have with the president.  Do you 
know him personally?

I disagree with basically everything he does.   He REALLY got on my bad side 
when tried to modify the constitution to prevent gay marriage.   Then he 
over stepped his boundaries by trying to intervene in the Terri Schiavo 
case - and it can't be because he is such a great humanitarian - look at the 
atrocities that he allowed to happen at Guantanamo Bay.

Quite recently the senate got together, they passed the stem cell research 
initiative.  Imagine the senate actually banding together and doing 
something useful!   Bush's first veto (no explanation) despite urging of 
scientists, the general public and the senate.

I really really don't like him.   Presidency in the hands of a 
fundamentalist, is a scary thing :)

-- 
LTP

for( Base i : allYourBase)
        i.AreBelongToUs();