🚀 go-pugleaf

"Zealot The Crazy Lui" <ktwils...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:o4f7c2l6sf82m0g1vdg4gn64fah8vegob4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:53:26 -0600, "Luc The Perverse"
> <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote:
>>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.
>
> I don't think they did any of that in the late '30s and '40s... :)

Um . . .   I think modern Israel did not exist until the late 40's.  Wasn't 
it created as a refuge for Holocaust survivors at the end of WW II by the 
newly established United Nations?  Then the bullshit started - because the 
Zionist settlers ousted the Palestinian [Arabic] residents.   (I am by no 
means a history buff - so this could be inaccurate.)

>>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.
>
> White phosphorus has been around a while. It's not particularly new,
> and it's not a chemical weapon anymore than gunpowder makes guns
> chemical weapons. It's a chemical that can be used as a weapon, not a
> chemical agent that can be spread to cause mass destruction. It is
> very reactive, only usable in small amounts at any given time, and if
> you tried to use it as a chemical weapon, it would all react before it
> got any kind of chance to spread.

Maybe this is where the disagreement comes from.  What exactly do you define 
as a chemical weapon?

I define a powder that comes through the window/chimney/floating through the 
air and begins to eat my skin off as a chemical weapon - so maybe we are 
arguing over semantics.     (I looked it up on dictionary.com and it seems 
to go along with the same reasoning.)

Are you saying that a chemical can only be a chemical weapon if it causes 
long term devastation or has recurring effects?

>>Bush is the only one threatening to use nuclear weapons.
>
> Did I miss something? I never heard about this...

Yes.

>>> 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/
>
> That sounds like a very unbiased source. :)

With the numerous lies out there it would take some time to individually 
investigate and report on each source ;)   The lies that I truly care about 
I have independantly verified through both official and unofficial news 
media and research.   The other ones - well a website can remain around for 
those ;)

>>That would have been more believable (your suggestion) - Bush doesn't try
>>too much to improve his PR.
>
> Regardless of whether they lied or were duped, they should be more
> careful when throwing around words like "irrefutable evidence,"
> especially when trying to use them as an excuse to go to war.

Glad you agree :)

>>> 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.
>
> That's not the only reason... ;)

Hey STFU!

>>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.
>
> It's mostly just an excuse to hand over hundreds of billions of
> dollars to defense and rebuilding contractors who happen to be good
> buddies with the Bush Administration...

In my opinion that is a worse cause than trying to steal oil.  Let's kill 
people to make my friends rich.

>>Isreal wants war - they always want war.
>
> They have a sort of perpetual war against Palestine... isn't that
> enough?

Appearantly not - and they wouldn't have a perpetual war with them if they 
would just give up the damn land that they are holding in possesion.

>>Because of what I said :)   WW III would ensue.
>
> Yeah... I'm sure all the other nuclear powers would want to go down
> the shitter with the middle east. You know, just for kicks...

Have you forgotten how WW I started?

>>It's kinda tuff when a government comes crashing down
>
> Just because the government goes away doesn't mean it's a good idea to
> hand out nuclear weapons to anyone who wants them... they obviously
> had other things on their minds at the time, though.

Well MOST of the nuclear weapons can be accounted for.   But you are a 
guard, suddenly you have no employer left - everyone seems to have forgotten 
you.  You are trying to send an international telegraph to the president of 
the US asking for help in securing a nuclear arsenal but it gets intercepted 
by Mr Bean, who calls his Arab friends up and they come raid the place.

>>There have always been fundamentalists.  But if Isreal really wanted 
>>peace,
>>I think they would find it.
>
> Muslim fundamentalists... Christian fundamentalists... they're all
> idiots.

Don't worry - so is Frans.

> Hmm... He only has about 2 more years to pull off this crap. I expect
> congress will probably sway back into Democratic hands this fall, so
> approving new massive funding for other wars in the middle east may
> prove difficult. Bush could certainly shoot nukes at people, but
> (hopefully) even he is not *that* stupid.

No - I am slightly relieved, because I am getting the idea that someone got 
through to him - somehow.

Even if all they said was, "Regardless of what your thoughts or plans are 
you can't go around saying you will use nuclear weapons against a country" I 
think it is an improvement over the "Bring It On"  attitude.

>>I really really don't like him.   Presidency in the hands of a
>>fundamentalist, is a scary thing :)
>
> You might say you don't pay enough attention to the press if you
> believe GWB is not an idiot.

Of course - Chas says that he hates Blair, but I don't know too much about 
Blair.   Maybe if I were in England I would hate Blair too.

On another note.    <shakes head> God dammit.  Fucking Nesquik reduced fat 
bullshit.    How can a company destroy the greatest chocolate milk ever 
made?   (They have a new product called Nesquik Milkshake or something that 
comes close to what the old chocolate milk was, before they tried to make it 
healthy, but it is too "thick" so it is still not quite right.)

--
LTP

:)