🚀 go-pugleaf

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:jse2p3xdb2.ln2@loki.cmears.id.au...
> There's bigger things going on now than you and me.  I may be divorced, 
> living alone, broke as hell - but biblical prophecies are unraveling very 
> quickly.
>
> It was prophesied over 2000 years ago in the revelations to John and Paul 
> (The Christian apostles)  not to mention the times that Jesus alluded to 
> it.

For a minute there I had the impression that you're religious.

> The King of The North (The Bush/Blair/Olmert alliance)  is rising against 
> the King of The South (hinging around Arab/Iranian alliances).   George 
> Bush keeps claiming that god is telling him to do these things.  I have no 
> doubt that there is a small voice whispering to him to kill as many Arabs 
> as possible.

Well God may be telling him what to do but you're paying for it, not him. 
What a fair world, eh?

> Israel will not be able to stand against the allied forces of all 
> surrounding Arab nations, not to mention China and Russia.   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.

That is why US has to stop everyone else from building nuclear weapons.

> We are not the kings of the world; Bush is not god.   The hammer will come 
> down hard and swift
>
> 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.

Except that this big bully has all the weaponary and if you don't follow - 
he'll bust your ass

> Has anyone ever read the book of Revelation thinking in their mind that 
> America might be Babylon The Great?  And if the "Great City" is to be 
> completely destroyed "in one day", how else than by [nuclear] fire? 
> "When you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation in 
> the holy place, then you need to begin running for the hills and the 
> mountains, and not turning back even to collect your things."  (Go back 
> and read Revelation 18 and Mathew 24)

That's one way of forcing me to read the bible - but it's not working! 
Hmmn... nuclear fire happens and you run for the hill? Interesting...

> I say, when you hear that Jerusalem is under attack - that is when you 
> need to make speedy flight.  I wouldn't want to be in a city of over 1 
> million people!

What if the 1 million people are all hot babes and you are the only guy 
around?

> 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.  (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.)
>
> I suppose though, I have a sick sense of humor.   Because, if all these 
> things do come to pass, I hope someone is still around to give Bush a golf 
> clap and say, "Bravo!  Bravo!   America is destroyed; because you're an 
> asshole."   But I don't give him any credit.  He could be literally the 
> last American [in America] alive, and look around at the ruined cities and 
> curse that only they'd been a little tuffer on these damn terrorists.

Well like I've said, you should run for president in the next term.

> 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.)

In short you're whining because you feel like a complete moron living in a 
so called democratic society being run by assholes, right?

ps. don't worry, the feeling is mutual
-- 
Steven Ung
The Ignorant Asian Strikes Again! 

"Steven Ung" <ste...@nodomainname.com> wrote in message 
news:isd3p3xh8a.ln2@loki.cmears.id.au...
>> There's bigger things going on now than you and me.  I may be divorced, 
>> living alone, broke as hell - but biblical prophecies are unraveling very 
>> quickly.
>>
>> It was prophesied over 2000 years ago in the revelations to John and Paul 
>> (The Christian apostles)  not to mention the times that Jesus alluded to 
>> it.
>
> For a minute there I had the impression that you're religious.

Well I am - kinda

>> The King of The North (The Bush/Blair/Olmert alliance)  is rising against 
>> the King of The South (hinging around Arab/Iranian alliances).   George 
>> Bush keeps claiming that god is telling him to do these things.  I have 
>> no doubt that there is a small voice whispering to him to kill as many 
>> Arabs as possible.
>
> Well God may be telling him what to do but you're paying for it, not him. 
> What a fair world, eh?

God, Demons, Insanity, Pastry - whatever.

>> Israel will not be able to stand against the allied forces of all 
>> surrounding Arab nations, not to mention China and Russia.   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.
>
> That is why US has to stop everyone else from building nuclear weapons.

No one can challenge US soverernty..  MUHAHAHAHA!

>> We are not the kings of the world; Bush is not god.   The hammer will 
>> come down hard and swift
>>
>> 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.
>
> Except that this big bully has all the weaponary and if you don't follow - 
> he'll bust your ass

Don't get me wrong; I'm glad I'm not in Iraq now.

>> Has anyone ever read the book of Revelation thinking in their mind that 
>> America might be Babylon The Great?  And if the "Great City" is to be 
>> completely destroyed "in one day", how else than by [nuclear] fire? "When 
>> you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation in the 
>> holy place, then you need to begin running for the hills and the 
>> mountains, and not turning back even to collect your things."  (Go back 
>> and read Revelation 18 and Mathew 24)
>
> That's one way of forcing me to read the bible - but it's not working! 
> Hmmn... nuclear fire happens and you run for the hill? Interesting...

Well preferably you run for the hills before the nuclear fire comes.    It's 
kinda like the terminator movie!

>> I say, when you hear that Jerusalem is under attack - that is when you 
>> need to make speedy flight.  I wouldn't want to be in a city of over 1 
>> million people!
>
> What if the 1 million people are all hot babes and you are the only guy 
> around?

Then you will have evil diabolic temptation and tribulation of the flesh 
like has not happened from the beginning of time!

>> 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.  (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.)
>>
>> I suppose though, I have a sick sense of humor.   Because, if all these 
>> things do come to pass, I hope someone is still around to give Bush a 
>> golf clap and say, "Bravo!  Bravo!   America is destroyed; because you're 
>> an asshole."   But I don't give him any credit.  He could be literally 
>> the last American [in America] alive, and look around at the ruined 
>> cities and curse that only they'd been a little tuffer on these damn 
>> terrorists.
>
> Well like I've said, you should run for president in the next term.

If there is a next term . . .   If no one else runs for the hills, then it 
might work!

>> 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.)
>
> In short you're whining because you feel like a complete moron living in a 
> so called democratic society being run by assholes, right?
>
> ps. don't worry, the feeling is mutual

About Amerika, or our respective countries?

-- 
LTP

for( Base i : allYourBase)
        i.AreBelongTo(us); 

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:jse2p3xdb2.ln2@loki.cmears.id.au...
> There's bigger things going on now than you and me.  I may be divorced, 
> living alone, broke as hell - but biblical prophecies are unraveling very 
> quickly.
>
> It was prophesied over 2000 years ago in the revelations to John and Paul 
> (The Christian apostles)  not to mention the times that Jesus alluded to 
> it.

OMG TEH ANTICHIRST ADN TEH APCOLYPSE!

> The King of The North (The Bush/Blair/Olmert alliance)  is rising against 
> the King of The South (hinging around Arab/Iranian alliances).   George 
> Bush keeps claiming that god is telling him to do these things.  I have no 
> doubt that there is a small voice whispering to him to kill as many Arabs 
> as possible.

Bush is not a king. Neither is Blair, and neither is Olmert. And don't start 
that crap about the bible being all about 'symbolism' because people who 
believe that shit interpret everything just the way they want to to make it 
fit their stupid stories. This is the same in EVERY religion. I don't like 
it that Bush is claiming to be the agent of god, but what I also don't like 
is being threatened in my way of life by a bunch of middle-aged barbarians 
with turbans, who abuse their women, send their 11 year old children to the 
frontline with a gun, blow themselves up in crowded areas in the name of 
allah, and want to kill everyone who is different from themselves.

> 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.

> 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.

> We are not the kings of the world; Bush is not god.   The hammer will come 
> down hard and swift

I thought you said that Bush was the king. And who's hammer will come down, 
anyway?

> 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. 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). 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.

> Has anyone ever read the book of Revelation thinking in their mind that 
> America might be Babylon The Great?  And if the "Great City" is to be 
> completely destroyed "in one day", how else than by [nuclear] fire? 
> "When you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation in 
> the holy place, then you need to begin running for the hills and the 
> mountains, and not turning back even to collect your things."  (Go back 
> and read Revelation 18 and Mathew 24)

Bla bla bla. Nuclear fire? Fire is not nuclear. A nuclear bomb does not 
explode in a huge blast of fire. It's a huge blast of air pressure and a lot 
of nasty radiation. Go away with that stupid ancient 
changed-over-time-to-fit-the-church's-agenda book.

> I say, when you hear that Jerusalem is under attack - that is when you 
> need to make speedy flight.  I wouldn't want to be in a city of over 1 
> million people!

Why? Do you honestly think that when Jerusalem is under attack, all 
countries all over the world will fire all their nuclear missiles in unison 
at all the large cities in the world? Wtf are you smoking?

> 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.

> (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"?

> I suppose though, I have a sick sense of humor.   Because, if all these 
> things do come to pass, I hope someone is still around to give Bush a golf 
> clap and say, "Bravo!  Bravo!   America is destroyed; because you're an 
> asshole."   But I don't give him any credit.  He could be literally the 
> last American [in America] alive, and look around at the ruined cities and 
> curse that only they'd been a little tuffer on these damn terrorists.

I fail to see any humor in this post. Besides ofcourse the whole religional 
bible-quoting thing and doomsaying, but I don't think you meant that.

> 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. 

"Frans" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:12c1cabk6kkpic1@corp.supernews.com...
>> There's bigger things going on now than you and me.  I may be divorced, 
>> living alone, broke as hell - but biblical prophecies are unraveling very 
>> quickly.
>>
>> It was prophesied over 2000 years ago in the revelations to John and Paul 
>> (The Christian apostles)  not to mention the times that Jesus alluded to 
>> it.
>
> OMG TEH ANTICHIRST ADN TEH APCOLYPSE!

Yup

>> The King of The North (The Bush/Blair/Olmert alliance)  is rising against 
>> the King of The South (hinging around Arab/Iranian alliances).   George 
>> Bush keeps claiming that god is telling him to do these things.  I have 
>> no doubt that there is a small voice whispering to him to kill as many 
>> Arabs as possible.
>
> Bush is not a king. Neither is Blair, and neither is Olmert. And don't 
> start that crap about the bible being all about 'symbolism' because people 
> who believe that shit interpret everything just the way they want to to 
> make it fit their stupid stories. This is the same in EVERY religion. I 
> don't like it that Bush is claiming to be the agent of god, but what I 
> also don't like is being threatened in my way of life by a bunch of 
> middle-aged barbarians with turbans, who abuse their women, send their 11 
> year old children to the frontline with a gun, blow themselves up in 
> crowded areas in the name of allah, and want to kill everyone who is 
> different from themselves.

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.

You know what I think?   I think God (through an Angel) showed John EXACTLY 
what was going to happen, and mixed with it symbolism, and John wrote down 
what he could.   How else would a 1st century person record seeing a 
warplane, than "an iron breasted dragon with the sound of a thousand horses 
on its wings" or a nuclear bomb than fire, or the cloud from a nuclear bomb 
as "a locust swarm given the authority to scourge mankind"

And remember, the prophetic utterances were witnessed, the only words came 
from the angel.   So if John saw a leader, and thought it was a fucking 
king, you are saying that this somehow invalidated everything?    What kind 
of a conservative are you?   Is religion a matter of convenience, that you 
use to comfort yourself, and to rally people against gay marriage, but if 
anything bad is ever uttered that too is ignored?

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> We are not the kings of the world; Bush is not god.   The hammer will 
>> come down hard and swift
>
> I thought you said that Bush was the king. And who's hammer will come 
> down, anyway?

Arthas' (before he turned bad)

>> 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?

Bush LIED to start a war against a helpless country - causing hundreds of 
thousands of Iraqis to die - something he dismisses as collatoral dammage, 
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).     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.

>  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.

>> Has anyone ever read the book of Revelation thinking in their mind that 
>> America might be Babylon The Great?  And if the "Great City" is to be 
>> completely destroyed "in one day", how else than by [nuclear] fire? "When 
>> you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation in the 
>> holy place, then you need to begin running for the hills and the 
>> mountains, and not turning back even to collect your things."  (Go back 
>> and read Revelation 18 and Mathew 24)
>
> Bla bla bla. Nuclear fire? Fire is not nuclear. A nuclear bomb does not 
> explode in a huge blast of fire. It's a huge blast of air pressure and a 
> lot of nasty radiation. Go away with that stupid ancient 
> changed-over-time-to-fit-the-church's-agenda book.

I am not associated with any church - because I do not believe that any 
church holds true to the ideals set forth by the first century christians or 
what Christ taught.    Being christian merely means believing in Jesus as 
god's son (and the way to salvation)

>> I say, when you hear that Jerusalem is under attack - that is when you 
>> need to make speedy flight.  I wouldn't want to be in a city of over 1 
>> million people!
>
> Why? Do you honestly think that when Jerusalem is under attack, all 
> countries all over the world will fire all their nuclear missiles in 
> unison at all the large cities in the world? Wtf are you smoking?

No.   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.    The unjustified, and ridiculous use 
of nuclear weapons against Iran will provoke Iranian allies (or perhaps 
spark retaliation from nuclear armed terrorists who were otherwise meant to 
just be sleepers)

Remember what Osama Bin Laden said - the decision to attack the world trade 
center buildings is one that made the most sense - they had considered 
targetting nuclear power plants, but were concerned about the situation 
getting out of hand.   If nuclear weapons are being used indisciminantly 
against Arabs - there would be no reason for the terrorists to refrain from 
using them against us.    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.

It is not THAT ridiculous.

>> 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.

>> (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

>> I suppose though, I have a sick sense of humor.   Because, if all these 
>> things do come to pass, I hope someone is still around to give Bush a 
>> golf clap and say, "Bravo!  Bravo!   America is destroyed; because you're 
>> an asshole."   But I don't give him any credit.  He could be literally 
>> the last American [in America] alive, and look around at the ruined 
>> cities and curse that only they'd been a little tuffer on these damn 
>> terrorists.
>
> I fail to see any humor in this post. Besides ofcourse the whole 
> religional bible-quoting thing and doomsaying, but I don't think you meant 
> that.

I find you humorous.  So humanity is perfect and humans will live forever 
right?

>> 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 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.

-- 
LTP

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

In article <12c1cab...@corp.supernews.com>, but only after serious
contemplation, Frans <phasysn...@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard
and produced the following;
>A nuclear bomb does not 
>explode in a huge blast of fire. It's a huge blast of air pressure and a lot 
>of nasty radiation.

And heat - lots and lots of heat.

(Unless you were including that in the radiation - but I doubt that).

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".

"The Arcane Chas" <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:hyo4sXAp+QwEFwsI@the-arcane.demon.co.uk...
> In article <12c1cab...@corp.supernews.com>, but only after serious
> contemplation, Frans <phasysn...@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard
> and produced the following;
>>A nuclear bomb does not
>>explode in a huge blast of fire. It's a huge blast of air pressure and a 
>>lot
>>of nasty radiation.
>
> And heat - lots and lots of heat.
>
> (Unless you were including that in the radiation - but I doubt that).


Don't assume Frans has a brain.  His actions consistently demonstrate 
otherwise.

-- 
LTP

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

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".

In article <0gh7p3x...@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;

>Don't assume Frans has a brain.  His actions consistently demonstrate 
>otherwise.

In this thread you're both making a fair bid for the "Clueless of the
Month" award.

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".

"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(); 

"The Arcane Chas" <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:Qg2UIsAQBSwEFwri@the-arcane.demon.co.uk...
> In article <0gh7p3x...@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;
>
>>Don't assume Frans has a brain.  His actions consistently demonstrate
>>otherwise.
>
> In this thread you're both making a fair bid for the "Clueless of the
> Month" award.

LOL.

Well you didn't know that the US had threatened the use of nuclear weapons. 
(Something which seems relevant when arguing that nuclear conflict is 
definitely not on the horizon.)

-- 
LTP

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

Luc The Perverse wrote:
> There's bigger things going on now than you and me.  

Well, you maybe.

"Spyderizer" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message 
news:44c1b1f9$1@news.orcon.net.nz...
> Luc The Perverse wrote:
>> There's bigger things going on now than you and me.
>
> Well, you maybe.

You're right - nothing could be bigger than your ego.

--
LTP

:) 

Luc The Perverse wrote:
> "Spyderizer" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message 
> news:44c1b1f9$1@news.orcon.net.nz...
>> Luc The Perverse wrote:
>>> There's bigger things going on now than you and me.
>> Well, you maybe.
> 
> You're right - nothing could be bigger than your ego.

Dude, biblical prophecy (King of North vs King of South) could apply to 
almost anything. It, like most other prophecies, is vague enough that if 
you introduce enough symbolism you could twist it to include the guy at 
your local burger king (The King of the North) spitting in your burger.

Now I'm not saying that the world isn't going to shit, largely thanks to 
the efforts of that greedy little president of yours, I'm just saying 
that the bible writer dorks didn't see it coming.

Spyderizer <n...@spam.com> writes:

> Now I'm not saying that the world isn't going to shit, largely thanks
> to the efforts of that greedy little president of yours, I'm just
> saying that the bible writer dorks didn't see it coming.

Nostradamus, on the other hand...

"Chris Mears" <ch...@cmears.id.au> wrote in message 
news:m3odvhb6d1.fsf@loki.cmears.id.au...
> Spyderizer <n...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> Now I'm not saying that the world isn't going to shit, largely thanks
>> to the efforts of that greedy little president of yours, I'm just
>> saying that the bible writer dorks didn't see it coming.
>
> Nostradamus, on the other hand...

Under a golden tree struck by lightning . . .

!!!

--
LTP

:) 

"Chris Mears" <ch...@cmears.id.au> wrote in message 
news:m3odvhb6d1.fsf@loki.cmears.id.au...
> Spyderizer <n...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> Now I'm not saying that the world isn't going to shit, largely thanks
>> to the efforts of that greedy little president of yours, I'm just
>> saying that the bible writer dorks didn't see it coming.
>
> Nostradamus, on the other hand...

Was a crackpot. 

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... :)

>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.

>Bush is the only one threatening to use nuclear weapons.

Did I miss something? I never heard about this...

>> 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. :)

>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.

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.

>> 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... ;)

>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...

>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

You forgot what I just said above, which is probably more important
than any of these three.

>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.

They have a sort of perpetual war against Palestine... isn't that
enough?

>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...

>> 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

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.

>> 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.

There were Al Qaieda in kahoots with the Taliban. There's no question
about that. Osama Bin Laden has been running away from first-world
countries for years. It's not as if he had no warning that the US was
coming, and the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is not that
tightly guarded, even after the US invaded Afghanistan. It's
incredibly stupid of Bush to forget completely about Bin Laden to go
after Saddam and Iraq, but that's what happened.

>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.

>> 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

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.

>> 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 :)

You might say you don't pay enough attention to the press if you
believe GWB is not an idiot.
-- 
"No I'm saying that I'm a cow dung." - Stephen "Suupernuubie" Ung
"Eat a bag of hell." - Cyric The Mad
"Yes - I need red hot gay loving" - LTP

MSN:ktw...@hotmail.com (BUT DON'T SEND E-MAIL!) YIM: ktwilson AIM: YahooKyleW
Zealot the Crazy Lui
Grand 16-Star General and overall director of AGSC operations for the Pronoun Army(and webmaster)
http://pronounarmy.homestead.com/ http://thirty-five-mil.blogspot.com/
re-vamped sig 7D6h.4h.5h

"Luc The Perverse" <sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote in message 
news:ije7p3xvta.ln2@loki.cmears.id.au...
> "Frans" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:12c1cabk6kkpic1@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.

A king is a king. A king is king by birthright. A president is not, not even 
when his father was president before him, and when his brother is governor 
of Florida. He was still ELECTED. Now you could debate about the fairness of 
the election in Florida (the plot thickens!) but it still doesn't make him 
KING. You would think that in such an important book as the bible, that they 
would get a simple word like "king" right. They might have said "leader of 
people" which would have put things in a different perspective, but they 
said "king" clearly. Bush is not king. Not yet anyway, har har.

> You know what I think?   I think God (through an Angel) showed John 
> EXACTLY what was going to happen, and mixed with it symbolism, and John 
> wrote down what he could.   How else would a 1st century person record 
> seeing a warplane, than "an iron breasted dragon with the sound of a 
> thousand horses on its wings" or a nuclear bomb than fire, or the cloud 
> from a nuclear bomb as "a locust swarm given the authority to scourge 
> mankind"

Why did god need an angel? Can't god speak for himself? What language does 
god speak in? Or what language did that angel speak in? Which angel was it? 
Was it the same one (Gabriel, i believe) that read the "holy" quran to 
Mohammed? That "Iron breasted dragon" of yours is just an object of fantasy, 
just like people can imagine "real" dragons, gryphons, medusas, unicorns, 
and other mythical creatures that you've probably heard of and seen pictures 
from. I mean, you gotta be seriously on crack if you think that a nuclear 
bomb would be described as fucking locusts. It's just biblical bullshit, and 
you are just seeing things that you want to see. You could compare my ass to 
the parting of the red sea, with enough imagination, but it doesn't make it 
similar.

> And remember, the prophetic utterances were witnessed, the only words came 
> from the angel.   So if John saw a leader, and thought it was a fucking 
> king, you are saying that this somehow invalidated everything?    What 
> kind of a conservative are you?   Is religion a matter of convenience, 
> that you use to comfort yourself, and to rally people against gay 
> marriage, but if anything bad is ever uttered that too is ignored?

Witnessed? OMG yes! That's what those jehova's "witnesses" also tell me 
sometimes, when i take a few moments to listen to their bullshit, and then 
state that I do not believe in talking animals, because that's stuff from 
Disney, and therefore do not even believe the first chapter in the bible, 
and then they point out to me that it's all about "symbolism" and I ask them 
how the hell they know which parts are symbolic and which parts are not and 
they leave blabbering about "not questioning the holy book". A king usually 
wears a crown. Does Bush wear a crown? How the fuck else would this John 
know (or "see" rather) that he was seeing a king? Bush doesn't wear a crown, 
doesn't wear any fancy robes, he works out, he does not live in a castle, 
how the fuck could he be mistaken for a king?

>> 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.

Rome was a city. Israel is a country. Times have changed. Rome never kicked 
the asses of several enemy COUNTRIES in six days. Rome didn't have guns and 
motivated people. Rome was falling apart. Israel isn't anywhere near falling 
apart.

>> 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.

I think that other posters cleared the whole "chemical weapon" thing up. The 
only country using chemical weapons in that particular area was Iraq itself, 
under Saddam Hussein.

>> I thought you said that Bush was the king. And who's hammer will come 
>> down, anyway?
>
> Arthas' (before he turned bad)

lol

>> 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?

He's not deciding anything. As I said, it's all about the country's best 
interest. And what is this bullshit about an "illegal war"? Are there any 
LEGAL wars? And, Bush never threatened to use nuclear weapons. His 
administration just said that they weren't eliminating any possibility. That 
is not a threat. Well, maybe "symbolically" it is.

> Bush LIED to start a war against a helpless country - causing hundreds of 
> thousands of Iraqis to die - something he dismisses as collatoral dammage, 
> 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).     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.

All politics lie. Grow up.

> 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.

Do you think that the infrastructure was so much better BEFORE the US 
invaded Iraq? I sure as hell don't.

> 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.

"Independant" huh? Hah! I bet you could find just as many people saying 
completely the opposite.

>> Bla bla bla. Nuclear fire? Fire is not nuclear. A nuclear bomb does not 
>> explode in a huge blast of fire. It's a huge blast of air pressure and a 
>> lot of nasty radiation. Go away with that stupid ancient 
>> changed-over-time-to-fit-the-church's-agenda book.
>
> I am not associated with any church - because I do not believe that any 
> church holds true to the ideals set forth by the first century christians 
> or what Christ taught.    Being christian merely means believing in Jesus 
> as god's son (and the way to salvation)

And bullshit.

> No.   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.    The unjustified, and ridiculous 
> use of nuclear weapons against Iran will provoke Iranian allies (or 
> perhaps spark retaliation from nuclear armed terrorists who were otherwise 
> meant to just be sleepers)

First, Jerusalem will have to "begin to fall". How exactly will this happen? 
Surely John wrote something up, with symbology and everything.

> Remember what Osama Bin Laden said - the decision to attack the world 
> trade center buildings is one that made the most sense - they had 
> considered targetting nuclear power plants, but were concerned about the 
> situation getting out of hand.   If nuclear weapons are being used 
> indisciminantly against Arabs - there would be no reason for the 
> terrorists to refrain from using them against us.    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.

Hahaha, right, Osama didn't think that "things would get out of hand" by 
destroying a landmark building with thousands of civilians in it. Right. And 
you believe all that crap. Oh guys, we just bombed this stupid business 
building and only killed 3000 people, no reason to get all worked up over 
THAT.

And I think that if the 'arabs' actually had a suitcase bomb, they would 
have used it already. But they are dumb ignorant shits, so they fuck up 
their assaults with lame ass equipment. Which is a good thing, ofcourse.

> Iran is rich and powerful - not to mention, Syria will fight alongside 
> Iran - and they are a powerful ally.

Syria got their asses kicked in the six day war, along with Egypt, Jordan, 
and Iraq. In six days. SIX DAYS, and Egypt could have been completely 
annihilated.

> 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.

Do you know every soldier in the Israelian army?

> Iran.   If Iran rallies troops and tries to attack Isreal, or whether 
> Isreal flies into Iran and starts a fight is inconsequential

Israel will need some incentive to attack Iran. Like the surgical strike 
they performed years ago on a nuclear plant. They wont just go all out 
screaming and wielding guns. That's what arabs usually do. That's why arabs 
usually lose too.

>> I fail to see any humor in this post. Besides ofcourse the whole 
>> religional bible-quoting thing and doomsaying, but I don't think you 
>> meant that.
>
> I find you humorous.  So humanity is perfect and humans will live forever 
> right?

No, the planet wont allow it.

> Just like the US which is threatening to use nuclear weapons.

I've already talked about this.

> 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.

Do you remember the video from "land of confusion" by Genesis? Apparently, 
there are people who always think that ANY president will use nukes, just 
because he has them. Except ofcourse pussy Clinton, the big man who let 
Arafat and Rabin shake hands. Look how far it got them.

> 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 always in danger, and I'm glad to have the US on our side to 
fight for it. 

"Frans" <phasysn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:12ca5hhg6q41vd3@corp.supernews.com...
> A king is a king. A king is king by birthright. A president is not, not 
> even when his father was president before him, and when his brother is 
> governor of Florida. He was still ELECTED. Now you could debate about the 
> fairness of the election in Florida (the plot thickens!) but it still 
> doesn't make him KING. You would think that in such an important book as 
> the bible, that they would get a simple word like "king" right. They might 
> have said "leader of people" which would have put things in a different 
> perspective, but they said "king" clearly. Bush is not king. Not yet 
> anyway, har har.

Damn you're annoying.   I'm not saying that I agree with you or that you 
won, just that you are too fucking annoying to talk to.

> Why did god need an angel? Can't god speak for himself? What language does 
> god speak in? Or what language did that angel speak in? Which angel was 
> it?

Maybe you should ask him.   I'm sure God can do whatever the hell he wants, 
including sending an angel, or manifesting himself in such a way that the 
one viewing believes he/she is witnessing an angel.   Or by inscribing 
memories in a sleeping individual so that they believe that they saw an 
angel . . etc. etc. etc.   Your questions are narrow - and don't really make 
much sense.

It isn't logically sound to choose what you want to believe, and then ask a 
question trying to imply that there is some kind of inconsequential 
incongruence.

Scenario: You have a missed a day of university class (french class) , and 
your friend tells you that the teacher's assistant announced a new 
assignment and tries to give you the details - but instead you just start 
ranting saying BS like, "Why did the TA announce it?  Can't the professor 
speak for himself?  Did they announce it in English or French?   Which TA 
was it?"

> Was it the same one (Gabriel, i believe) that read the "holy" quran to 
> Mohammed?

Perhaps :)

> That "Iron breasted dragon" of yours is just an object of fantasy, just 
> like people can imagine "real" dragons, gryphons, medusas, unicorns, and 
> other mythical creatures that you've probably heard of and seen pictures 
> from. I mean, you gotta be seriously on crack if you think that a nuclear 
> bomb would be described as fucking locusts. It's just biblical bullshit, 
> and you are just seeing things that you want to see.

You're dismissing it altogether - and yet you're not really saying 
anything - so it confuses me.   What is your religious affiliation?

> You could compare my ass to the parting of the red sea, with enough 
> imagination, but it doesn't make it similar.

That is one of those things that was symbolic *wink*

> Witnessed? OMG yes! That's what those jehova's "witnesses" also tell me 
> sometimes, when i take a few moments to listen to their bullshit, and then 
> state that I do not believe in talking animals, because that's stuff from 
> Disney, and therefore do not even believe the first chapter in the bible, 
> and then they point out to me that it's all about "symbolism" and I ask 
> them how the hell they know which parts are symbolic and which parts are 
> not and they leave blabbering about "not questioning the holy book". A 
> king usually wears a crown. Does Bush wear a crown? How the fuck else 
> would this John know (or "see" rather) that he was seeing a king? Bush 
> doesn't wear a crown, doesn't wear any fancy robes, he works out, he does 
> not live in a castle, how the fuck could he be mistaken for a king?

You remind me of my old atheist  room mate.   There are many reasons not to 
believe Christianity (or any religion) but non sequitur argumentation and 
nit picking do not classify.  I suggest you read from my favorite 
homosexual, Canadian, atheist's website. 
http://www.mindprod.com/religion/religion.html for some inspiration.

I mean seriously - do you even think that you make sense?   "I don't believe 
in X because that's stuff from Disney."    Do you have any idea how many 
things [in life] that reasoning would invalidate?

>> 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.
>
> I think that other posters cleared the whole "chemical weapon" thing up.

 Here is an interview with a soldier who was there 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5114136081876371815&q=fallujah

Honestly - I am less concerned with the classification of white 
phosphorous - and more with the motive in dropping it.    Even those who 
defend the US admit that WP will penetrate the skin and kill a person.

> He's not deciding anything. As I said, it's all about the country's best 
> interest.

Ha!   That's almost as funny as Disney thing.

> And what is this bullshit about an "illegal war"?

We are a member of the United Nations - and as such we need UN approval to 
attack another country.   (There may be exceptions, but I am pretty sure 
that a pre-emptive strike based on phony evidence of R&D is not one of 
those.)

Bush KNEW that Sadaam did not have WMD or an "advanced nuclear weapons 
program" so he knew that under investigation his pretense for war would 
fail.    That is why he was so speedy about attacking.

> Are there any LEGAL wars?

I believe wars waged in defense of an attacking country are legal - and at 
least justifiable.   I do not object historically to the decision of the US 
to enter into the World Wars.   I'm not sure that dropping 2 nuclear bombs 
on Japan was necessary (an undersea explosion could have created a massive 
tidal wave and not left cities badly contaminated with radiation - or a 
single drop would have probably been sufficient to demonstrate our 
abilities)

>> Bush LIED to start a war against a helpless country - causing hundreds of 
>> thousands of Iraqis to die - something he dismisses as collatoral 
>> dammage, 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).     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.
>
> All politics lie. Grow up.

Most politicians lie to promote their career.  He lied to kill hundreds of 
thousands of people.

Plus - IIRC Clinton got into a lot more trouble for lying about receiving 
oral sex.   It seems a little . . . odd.    Of course - I could have told 
you that American fundamentalists will unite to tell you that Oral sex truly 
is worse than genocide.   That a hundred Iraqis can die - which is fine, but 
if a tiny lump of 100 fetus cells die then it is murder.   They will start 
an anti-AIDS campaigne but then try to prevent sex workers from being able 
to benefit from it.   Don't get me started on the issue of abstinence only 
sex education replacing comprehensive sexual education in schools.

I did not choose my political affiliation - everything that conservatives 
say doesn't make any sense, and everything that liberals say at least has a 
logical argument behind it.   This is an opinion I developed over the course 
of many years.  On many occassions I tried to give the opposition a fair 
shot, reading their media, listening to speeches - but it was all pointless 
idiotic rhetoric - just like you are giving me.   It seems to all be based 
on fear, especially fear of sexuality (especially underage sexuality and 
homosexual sexuality) and more recently fear of terrorists.  Before that it 
was fear of communists, fear of blacks (or racial intermingling).    What is 
interesting is that the agendas created by the fear do no typically have the 
result of eliminating the basis of fear at all.   It is just an extra 
measure of control - and in the end the goal remains glory, status and 
money.

>> 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.
>
> Do you think that the infrastructure was so much better BEFORE the US 
> invaded Iraq? I sure as hell don't.

Well you are wrong.

They had power - they had food and they had gas, even while the war was 
going on.

>> 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.
>
> "Independant" huh? Hah! I bet you could find just as many people saying 
> completely the opposite.

Well I found you

> And bullshit.

I don't see what you have against Christianity as defined in the bible. 
Paul said we are not under law, but we establish law that we might have a 
basis to be judged.   The entire premise as I understand it, is that we 
simply need to love one another, and love god - and if the love is true, 
then we will be righteous people.

> First, Jerusalem will have to "begin to fall". How exactly will this 
> happen?

I'm sorry I don't know exactly how it will happen.   I am not endowed with 
infinite forsight such as yourself.

20 thousand suicide bombers would be a bit of a damper in their plans.  A 
really big bomb or many smaller rockets (wouldn't even have to be nuclear, 
but definitely better than the bullshit that has been being fired on them).

But it's cute that you think Isreal and Jerusalem are impervious to defeat.

> Hahaha, right, Osama didn't think that "things would get out of hand" by 
> destroying a landmark building with thousands of civilians in it. Right. 
> And you believe all that crap. Oh guys, we just bombed this stupid 
> business building and only killed 3000 people, no reason to get all worked 
> up over THAT.

Osama Bin Laden wanted war with the US - but he knew that war would come to 
Arab countries - he had to know that.

Osama Bin Laden and Bush are quite alike.   They both have soldiers on the 
front lines who are ready to die for them.   They are both hated the world 
around except in little niche groups.  They both consider themselves 
religious icons, empowered by God with some sort of a mission to fulfilll. 
They are both responsible for countless Arab and American deaths.  And most 
importantly - they both believe that their respective God is going to give 
them victory eventually.

Neither side thinks it is beneficial to create vast areas of uninhabitable 
terrain that could last for hundreds of years.   I doubt either side thinks 
it is beneficial for people 20 years from now to be dying of cancer, that 
cannot directly be traced back to one particular event.

> And I think that if the 'arabs' actually had a suitcase bomb, they would 
> have used it already. But they are dumb ignorant shits, so they fuck up 
> their assaults with lame ass equipment. Which is a good thing, ofcourse.

That really would depend on which "arabs" had it.   Although (and I may be 
wrong) I am sensing a massive over generalization of the arab people in 
general.

>> Iran is rich and powerful - not to mention, Syria will fight alongside 
>> Iran - and they are a powerful ally.
>
> Syria got their asses kicked in the six day war, along with Egypt, Jordan, 
> and Iraq. In six days. SIX DAYS, and Egypt could have been completely 
> annihilated.

Did you part your ass and consume the armies of Egypt?  (Symbolically)

> Do you know every soldier in the Israelian army?

What I meant was that there is no way to even substantiate the claim.

>> Iran.   If Iran rallies troops and tries to attack Isreal, or whether 
>> Isreal flies into Iran and starts a fight is inconsequential
>
> Israel will need some incentive to attack Iran. Like the surgical strike 
> they performed years ago on a nuclear plant. They wont just go all out 
> screaming and wielding guns. That's what arabs usually do. That's why 
> arabs usually lose too.

Israel's war against Lebanon would seem to indicate otherwise.

> Do you remember the video from "land of confusion" by Genesis? Apparently, 
> there are people who always think that ANY president will use nukes, just 
> because he has them. Except ofcourse pussy Clinton, the big man who let 
> Arafat and Rabin shake hands. Look how far it got them.

So . . . trying to find peace is bad?   What ARE you talking about?   You 
believe that the whole world should be under US occupation?

> Humanity is always in danger, and I'm glad to have the US on our side to 
> fight for it.

Too bad there are pussies out there that think that finding peace - and 
ending killing is a bad thing.

--
LTP

:) 

"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

:) 

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:27:31 -0600, "Luc The Perverse"
<sll_noSpamli...@cc.usu.edu> wrote:

>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.)

Oh yeah... I meant Nazi Germany didn't like jewish people very much.
The UK created Israel for some reason after WW2.

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

(from wikipedia)
"Chemical warfare is warfare (and associated military operations)
using the toxic properties of chemical substances to kill, injure or
incapacitate an enemy."

White phosphorus is highly reactive, and creates a lot of light and
heat (enough to kill/maim people), but is not stable enough to be used
as a toxic chemical agent. It's as if you dip someone in butane and
light them on fire then call butane 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.)

It's actually pretty controversial whether or not white phosphorus
offensive weapons are considered "illegal chemical weapons" by the UN.
So I concede the point that GW is a hippocrite and a dumbass.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus )

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

Chemical weapons can cause instant death. I'm not sure how you drew
that conclusion from what I said. :)

>> Did I miss something? I never heard about this...
>Yes.

*shrug*
Typical.

>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 ;)

All politicians lie by the time they get to that level. Anyone who
says otherwise is either an ignorant idealist or a dumbass.

>>>I guess I would not make a very good leader valuing human life in general.
>> That's not the only reason... ;)
>Hey STFU!

Who was the last president that came out of Utah? Eh? :)

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

Probably... but it seems like it makes more sense than any other
explanation to me.

>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.

Maybe someone should round them up and stick them on some shitty
barren land and give away their old stuff to some strangers...

>Have you forgotten how WW I started?

I suppose nobody's learned anything since then...

Alternately, Canada would be a very nice place to live if something
like that ever happened... well, aside from all the latent radioactive
crap that floated up from the US. Plus, with global warming, arctic
circle Canada could become a nice beach resort.

>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.

Or Mr. guard has been starving on his 5 potatoes a week rations and
suddenly has a WMD he can sell to the highest bidder. It's like
winning the lotto.

>> Muslim fundamentalists... Christian fundamentalists... they're all
>> idiots.
>Don't worry - so is Frans.

Atheist fundamentalists...?

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

Probably karl rove or Dick Cheney smacked him upside the head and said
something along the lines of, "Dumbass, we just wanted to make a
shitload of money, not cause world war 3."

>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.

>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.

I'm sure that Bush gets entirely different press coverage in other
countries as well.

>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.)

er, wtf? it's just chocolate milk ffs...
-- 
"No I'm saying that I'm a cow dung." - Stephen "Suupernuubie" Ung
"Eat a bag of hell." - Cyric The Mad
"Yes - I need red hot gay loving" - LTP

MSN:ktw...@hotmail.com (BUT DON'T SEND E-MAIL!) YIM: ktwilson AIM: YahooKyleW
Zealot the Crazy Lui
Grand 16-Star General and overall director of AGSC operations for the Pronoun Army(and webmaster)
http://pronounarmy.homestead.com/ http://thirty-five-mil.blogspot.com/
re-vamped sig 7D6h.4h.5h

In article <bj98p3x...@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;
>
>Well you didn't know that the US had threatened the use of nuclear weapons.

And I *still* don't know that.

"....a nuclear strike on Iran is still an option on the table. The
president has not publicly taken it off, after confirming on April 18
that it is among the options being considered".

Even from such a biassed source that can hardly be considered to be
evidence of an actual threat. Reading the rest of the material makes it
clear that the contents of planning discussions are being reported as
"facts" - as opposed to the options which they clearly are. It is the
job of such planners to consider *every* available option but I doubt
that anyone is reporting on the sessions where they talked about
withdrawing all support from the Israelis and waiting for the Arabs to
sort things out for themselves. 

>(Something which seems relevant when arguing that nuclear conflict is 
>definitely not on the horizon.)

Only if it were true. ;-}

Anyway, discussing politics is a sure way to lose friends - so I'll try
to restrict my future contributions in this thread to correcting errors.

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".

In article <12ca5hh...@corp.supernews.com>, but only after serious
contemplation, Frans <phasysn...@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard
and produced the following;
>Rome was a city. Israel is a country. 

Well... Rome was an Empire - the greatest ever seen until the British
Empire.

>Times have changed. 

Indeed the have. ;-}

>Rome never kicked 
>the asses of several enemy COUNTRIES in six days. 

Only because it took longer to travel in those days.

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".

"The Arcane Chas" <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:xrosqXAvupxEFw34@the-arcane.demon.co.uk...
> Anyway, discussing politics is a sure way to lose friends - so I'll try
> to restrict my future contributions in this thread to correcting errors.

That would be sad!  You are my favorite British d00d.

--
LTP

:) 

In article <3hlip3x...@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;
>"The Arcane Chas" <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:xrosqXAvupxEFw34@the-arcane.demon.co.uk...
>> Anyway, discussing politics is a sure way to lose friends - so I'll try
>> to restrict my future contributions in this thread to correcting errors.
>
>That would be sad!  You are my favorite British d00d.

Hehe.

I bet you say that to *all* the guys. ;-}

-- 
Cheers,

Chas.

"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".

"The Arcane Chas" <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:nYKZGvAk2qxEFwHv@the-arcane.demon.co.uk...
> In article <3hlip3x...@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;
>>"The Arcane Chas" <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:xrosqXAvupxEFw34@the-arcane.demon.co.uk...
>>> Anyway, discussing politics is a sure way to lose friends - so I'll try
>>> to restrict my future contributions in this thread to correcting errors.
>>
>>That would be sad!  You are my favorite British d00d.
>
> Hehe.
>
> I bet you say that to *all* the guys. ;-}

If I thought for a second that you were willing to trade favors for cash I 
would be flattering you a lot more

--
LTP

:) 

"The Arcane Chas" <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:h7gouhAOzpxEFwUv@the-arcane.demon.co.uk...
> In article <12ca5hh...@corp.supernews.com>, but only after serious
> contemplation, Frans <phasysn...@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard
> and produced the following;
>>Rome was a city. Israel is a country.
>
> Well... Rome was an Empire - the greatest ever seen until the British
> Empire.

Lol, yes point taken. Anyway, the comparison is ridiculous.