On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:09:43 -0700, (paghat)
opined:

The wheel of illusion, which is the material universe as snare, is a
creation of gods. Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods, whether
Hindu or Christian gods, they may well all exist, Buddhism does not deny
them. It posits instead that gods, like the rest of us, are trapped in
this shared wheel of illusion. And whether its the million gods of tantric
& northern buddhism, or just a shitload of bodhisattvas who linger to help
us escape, Deities they are, so this cannot be likened atheism, despite
that the Mormon heads of the national offices of Boy Scouts of America
decided heathen Buddhist scouts & Unitarians can no longer earn religious
merit badges because they must be athiests.

-paghat the ratgirl

H.H. The Dalai Lama said in my presence, while being asked if Buddhists were
atheists, answered "Yes, Buddhism can be considered atheist since we do not
believe in creator nor creation." I said nothing of deities which are
bodhisattva's or anyone in the existence of samsara. Buddhists do not believe
you pray to a god or gods for things. It's not like that. But I suppose you
know everything about Buddhism so I should give up now.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:11:00 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:47:54 GMT, escapee wrote:

(snip)
You gave me one example of your belief of his lying, but he didn't lie.

No, he just "selectively told the truth". That's even better than outright
lying.

If he
is so glaringly lying, there'd be a lot more on the tip of your tongue. It
wouldn't be a labor to find the lies in your mind. They'd be right up there.
If you think Michael Moore is dishonest, you have to come up with a lot more
than an opinion to convince me. You didn't see Fahrenheit 9-11, yet, you say he
is dishonest in it. Interesting.

Nope. Read my post again. I didn't see Farenheit 9/11, yet, I say he is
dishonest. Got it? If you can quote me saying he's dishonest in Farenheit 9/11,
go for it. I'm usually more careful than that. If I had to guess, I'd probably
guess it's full of blatant lies, half-lies, and "selective truths", along with
lies of omission, but since I don't have to guess, I'll just go with what I do
know. I know he lacks integrity.


But all you came up with is one example, and not a very convincing one, either.
I need much more to convince me someone is telling fibs, lies, selective truths,
or lies of omission. You have given me no good examples.


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:19:16 GMT, wrote:

a welcome home parade doesnt do shit for anybody past the momentary "feel good".

Yeah, well, that would be more than they got back then, wouldn't it? Given the
choice between something and nothing, most people would prefer something.

it
is the abdication of responsibility for veterans by our gov'ment that has been the
root cause of the misery.. well the stupid useless war was the real misery.

I consider the unpopular war only part of the misery. Having their own country
turn its back on them probably added more to their misery than the fact that the
war was unpopular.

there is a memorial in Milwaukee down at the lake front. I been to the one in D.C.
probably 20 times when I lived outside D.C.

The one in Washington is dedicated to the men who died in Vietnam. The men who
served in Vietnam and survived got nothing, again.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:33:26 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
Oh? How many Welcome Home parades were there for the veterans when they came
home from Vietnam?

Well, I participated in quite a long parade of cars with their lights on
as we took my childhood neighbor & first sweet crush Jimmy Shrieves to the
cemetery, the first of several on our block to be brought home, in the
words of Country Joe, "in a box." Didn't live long enough to ever vote or
get LEGALLY drunk. And we honored him not only that day, but just about
every day since, because it isn't something that ever really heals.

So if such grief-stricken homecoming parades as that count, at the time
there seemed to be no end to them in poorer neighborhoods like mine. If
what you hoped for was jingoistic pride in a baseless & unjust war that
couldn't even be won, then hey, you're just gonna love the next GOP
convention.

I doubt it, since I'm not a member of either party. If you'll go back and read
my post again, you may notice that I didn't suggest a Great War Parade. I
suggested a Welcome Home Parade for the returning veterans.

How many memorials have been erected to the men who served in
Vietnam?

God I hope that was asked tongue in cheek.

Nope. Dead serious. I know about the ONE erected in Washington, DC to the men
who DIED in Vietnam. What about all the other men who survived Vietnam? They
sacrificed a bit, too. I'd think their sacrifice would be worth at least one
memorial or something from a "grateful" country. :/

I've seen the traveling Vietnam Wall.
(snip)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:14:02 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:51:15 -0400, (D) opined:

I"m smart enough to know that G.W.Bush,
has kept the country safe from any terrorist attack for 2 1/2 yrs. But I
guess you have to be really smart to see that, and to see that Al Gore
or John Kerry are not even in the same league as George W. Bush.

How do you explain that a teenager was able to get two box cutters onto planes,
through security gates, at two airports? Bush has nothing to do with terrorist
attack cessation. Matter of fact, he said, "Bring it on." So, if you think
about a thousand dead kids (soldiers) and about seven thousand others who lost
limbs or are paralyzed or worse is protecting us, you have a rare view of the
term.

This seems to be where the "thousand dead kids (soldiers)" first popped up, so I
figured you should be the one to set the threshhold for exactly what you're
calling a "kid". From this it looks like ALL the soldiers are considered kids.
Surely that can't be right. Maybe a specific age could be proposed. Of course,
that would mean the number of dead "kids" would have to be reduced in that
statement, which wouldn't give it the same impact. Reducing the impact seems to
be going against the purpose of calling them kids in the first place, though.

I feel sorry for you. You have quite an angry life.


On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat)
opined:

Clearly I do know more, but that needn't mean I know very much. You can
pretend to quote the Dalai Lama off the top of your head, but you're
bullshitting & you know it. Here's an ACTUAL quote of the Dalai Lama XIV,
on the topic of whether or not the Virgin Mary is a Goddess: "Whenever I
see an image of Mary, I feel that she represents love and compassion. She
is like a symbol of love. Within Buddhist iconography, the Goddess Tara
occupies a similar position" [Dalai Lama XIV, 1996]. The Dalai Lama XIV
also said of Tara, "She is the Goddess who oversees the actions of all
Buddhas."

But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism
is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume,
that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for
you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness
-- not your forte either.

The official teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, which the Dalai Lama
represents, has a strong presence of gods & goddesses. Northern or Tibetan
buddhism is a WHELTER of gods & goddesses! I don't say you have to study
buddhism to have it as your faith, but it would help to study it before
you represent it to others, as these errors are too sweeping. It would be
possible to cite rare forms of Buddhism wherein the gods & goddesses are
very greatly diminished, but the Tibetan form isn't one of those. For you
to say buddhists don't pray to divinities is absurd. A basic Tibetan
buddhist prayer begins thus:

"Compasionate Savouress Tara, Goddess born of tears, you are infinite virtue."

That doesn't mean you can't believe any ol' thing YOU want, it's just odd
to pretend the leader of Tibetan buddhism doesn't believe in northern
buddhist divinities. As well to say you're an atheist because you believe
in Jesus. So if you really were in the presence of the Dalai Lama, you
were either too overawed to be paying proper attention, or so far back in
the crowd you couldn't actually hear him. His words are easily found
written down, though, if you'd care to try for a real citation of the
Dalai Lama, the living god, promoting atheism.

Alhtough I grew up in a Buddhist household & attended Buddhist temple for
years with my (step)mother who was a bikuni raised from age five in a
Buddhist monastery, unlike you I won't say what all buddhists believe.
"Belief" is a strange thing, & if you "believe" you are an atheist because
you're Buddhist, then in a weird Zen sort of way I'm willing to believe
that for you, it's true, though it certainly would never apply broadly to
buddhism, let alone the divinity-fixated northern form. Faith isn't based
on reason, & your unreasonable belief that belief is atheistic, well hey,
I'm sure there's a sound of one hand clapping in there somewhere.

It remains the majority of buddhists, including most certainly those who
adhere to that which is promulgated by the Dalai Lama, believe in & pray
to buddhas, bodhisatvas, & gods. I could recommend you an elementary
reading list if you like, but really you could pick up any book about the
divinities with the words Northern buddhism, Tibetan buddhism, or Tantric
buddhism in the title, & learn a great deal about the gods & goddesses of
Buddhism. Siddhartha himself never taught that gods were not real; he not
only believed in the gods, he spoke to them, he converted many of them to
his philosophy. Siddhartha's form of Buddhism was not the Tibetan form
which is much more divinities-oriented than was the buddhism of
Siddhartha, who taught that the gods & goddesses are themselves, like us,
trapped in the wheel of illusion. That lessens their significance, but it
is not atheism. Siddhartha's form of Buddhism is not the usual form
practiced today, the northern forms that dominate hold divinities with
profound esteem, including surprisingly enough Jesus and Mary as just two
more in an endless parade of divinities.

Atheism is what the Beijing government imposes on Tibet, & it is fear of
the influence of the Dalai Lama that keeps China insistant that he cannot
return to Tibet, ever, & even possessing a photograph of him is illegal.
The anti-Dalai Lama campaign in Tibet is defined by the Communist Party as
"actively promoting atheism." They don't have to even mention the Dalai
Lama, they only have to promote atheism. It is insufficient to be a
nonbeliever; one must actively promote atheism to be properly patriotic.

The Goddess Tara is particularly important to the Dalai Lama. Tara's
masculine counterpart is Avalokitesvara, & the Dalai Lama purports to be
an incarnation of Avalokitesvara; the Daila Lama thus shares Tara's title
"Ocean of Wisdom" & he is said to be a Living God.

An atheist wouldn't believe any of this. To me it is all merely poetry, &
I try to maintain a respectful agnosticism for love of my late mother
Lumchuan, though probably I'm much closer to an atheist personally, even
though I do maintain a Tara shrine (my Tara having been blessed & sealed
in a Nepalese temple that long sheltered the Dalai Lama) & I make up poems
& offerings to her just in case my mom was right, & cuz its a fun
aesthetic thing to do, whether or not silly.

-paghat the ratgirl



Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:33:04 -0500, Mark Anderson
wrote:

In article says...
This summary should be archived in case John Kerry wins. He hasn't even been
elected president yet, and he's already talking about the possibility of making
war on other countries. Is anybody surprised by this? Was anybody expecting
something different?

To be fair, John Kerry got caught in a question about a hypothetical
situation whether or not he would authorize a pre-emptive strike.
Hypotheticals are tricky in that nothing in the world is entirely
black and white. Kerry handled that question badly because he is either
a very bad candidate or getting some bad advice. At this point, with
Bush's approval numbers so bad, Kerry should be way ahead in the race but
he's only dead even. Would Kerry pull a Bush style pre-emptive war? I
don't think so.

From his response, it looks like he would if he thought it was best. Seems like
he's not all that different from Bush in that respect.

If you vote for Bush,

Don't plan on doing that, either.

In article ,
wrote:

I feel sorry for you. You have quite an angry life.

Heh heh heh heh.


On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat)
opined:

Clearly I do know more, but that needn't mean I know very much. You can
pretend to quote the Dalai Lama off the top of your head, but you're
bullshitting & you know it. Here's an ACTUAL quote of the Dalai Lama XIV,
on the topic of whether or not the Virgin Mary is a Goddess: "Whenever I
see an image of Mary, I feel that she represents love and compassion. She
is like a symbol of love. Within Buddhist iconography, the Goddess Tara
occupies a similar position" [Dalai Lama XIV, 1996]. The Dalai Lama XIV
also said of Tara, "She is the Goddess who oversees the actions of all
Buddhas."

But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism
is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume,
that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for
you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness
-- not your forte either.

The official teachings of Tibetan Buddhism, which the Dalai Lama
represents, has a strong presence of gods & goddesses. Northern or Tibetan
buddhism is a WHELTER of gods & goddesses! I don't say you have to study
buddhism to have it as your faith, but it would help to study it before
you represent it to others, as these errors are too sweeping. It would be
possible to cite rare forms of Buddhism wherein the gods & goddesses are
very greatly diminished, but the Tibetan form isn't one of those. For you
to say buddhists don't pray to divinities is absurd. A basic Tibetan
buddhist prayer begins thus:

"Compasionate Savouress Tara, Goddess born of tears, you are infinite
virtue."

That doesn't mean you can't believe any ol' thing YOU want, it's just odd
to pretend the leader of Tibetan buddhism doesn't believe in northern
buddhist divinities. As well to say you're an atheist because you believe
in Jesus. So if you really were in the presence of the Dalai Lama, you
were either too overawed to be paying proper attention, or so far back in
the crowd you couldn't actually hear him. His words are easily found
written down, though, if you'd care to try for a real citation of the
Dalai Lama, the living god, promoting atheism.

Alhtough I grew up in a Buddhist household & attended Buddhist temple for
years with my (step)mother who was a bikuni raised from age five in a
Buddhist monastery, unlike you I won't say what all buddhists believe.
"Belief" is a strange thing, & if you "believe" you are an atheist because
you're Buddhist, then in a weird Zen sort of way I'm willing to believe
that for you, it's true, though it certainly would never apply broadly to
buddhism, let alone the divinity-fixated northern form. Faith isn't based
on reason, & your unreasonable belief that belief is atheistic, well hey,
I'm sure there's a sound of one hand clapping in there somewhere.

It remains the majority of buddhists, including most certainly those who
adhere to that which is promulgated by the Dalai Lama, believe in & pray
to buddhas, bodhisatvas, & gods. I could recommend you an elementary
reading list if you like, but really you could pick up any book about the
divinities with the words Northern buddhism, Tibetan buddhism, or Tantric
buddhism in the title, & learn a great deal about the gods & goddesses of
Buddhism. Siddhartha himself never taught that gods were not real; he not
only believed in the gods, he spoke to them, he converted many of them to
his philosophy. Siddhartha's form of Buddhism was not the Tibetan form
which is much more divinities-oriented than was the buddhism of
Siddhartha, who taught that the gods & goddesses are themselves, like us,
trapped in the wheel of illusion. That lessens their significance, but it
is not atheism. Siddhartha's form of Buddhism is not the usual form
practiced today, the northern forms that dominate hold divinities with
profound esteem, including surprisingly enough Jesus and Mary as just two
more in an endless parade of divinities.

Atheism is what the Beijing government imposes on Tibet, & it is fear of
the influence of the Dalai Lama that keeps China insistant that he cannot
return to Tibet, ever, & even possessing a photograph of him is illegal.
The anti-Dalai Lama campaign in Tibet is defined by the Communist Party as
"actively promoting atheism." They don't have to even mention the Dalai
Lama, they only have to promote atheism. It is insufficient to be a
nonbeliever; one must actively promote atheism to be properly patriotic.

The Goddess Tara is particularly important to the Dalai Lama. Tara's
masculine counterpart is Avalokitesvara, & the Dalai Lama purports to be
an incarnation of Avalokitesvara; the Daila Lama thus shares Tara's title
"Ocean of Wisdom" & he is said to be a Living God.

An atheist wouldn't believe any of this. To me it is all merely poetry, &
I try to maintain a respectful agnosticism for love of my late mother
Lumchuan, though probably I'm much closer to an atheist personally, even
though I do maintain a Tara shrine (my Tara having been blessed & sealed
in a Nepalese temple that long sheltered the Dalai Lama) & I make up poems
& offerings to her just in case my mom was right, & cuz its a fun
aesthetic thing to do, whether or not silly.

-paghat the ratgirl



Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

In article , Mark
Anderson wrote:

In article says...
But it was NOT a
generation of dopefiend draft dodgers vs baby killers. It was just our
generation, & the real division were the Haves who could get out of having
to go all or could go as officers, & the Have-nots who had no choice.

I don't think being an officer in Vietnam was any picnic either as they
got killed in large numbers too -- especially fresh Lietenants right out
of ROTC or one of the military acadamies. Recently I read "The Long Gray
Line" written by Rick Atkinson that documents the West Point class of
1966, the West Point class that lost the most people to the Vietnam war.
Former general Wesley Clark happened to be valedictorian of that class
BTW but he was not mentioned much in the book. Many of that class
organized and raised money to build the Vietnam war memorial in
Washington DC which the book describes. One of the officers of that
class, after he returned from Vietnam, apparently did get spit on at an
airport once when he was walking through wearing his uniform.


Point well taken. Even Kerry got wounded, & he was a rich kid. He had a
choice though; the boys on my block had no choice, & I guess that has
never stopped bothering me. Presently it's bothering me that guys in my
current neighborhood, who thought they were done after twelve years of
service, are being called back. They're not complaining very loud, but
they haven't looked happy.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:43:27 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 04:39:45 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

One of his biggest whoppers was his little cartoon of anti-gun propaganda.
During the cartoon(and elsewhere in the movie) he insinuated that people buy
guns because of fear. Some people do, but that's not the ONLY reason. Of course,
he didn't mention any other reasons, since other reasons might interfere with
his "mission". I own plenty of guns, and I didn't buy them out of fear.

While you have no way to determine why people other than you buy guns, this is
not a lie.

I can talk to them. In fact, I have talked to a lot of them, and I don't recall
EVER talking to anyone and hearing them say fear was their reason for buying
guns. I'll take their words over Moore's, since they haven't proven they're
liars yet.

It's a fact we have the highest mortality rate in the world as a
direct result of all the guns we have laying around.

A "direct result" of that? Interesting. I have about 20 guns "laying around".
I've had them laying around for years and haven't had any fatalities or even
injuries with them. Is something wrong with my guns?

That is not propaganda,
it's a fact. I had a neighbor, a cop in Austin tell me to go out and buy a shot
gun and a 38 in case. In case of what?

In case you have to defend yourself. You buy car, health, and life insurance,
don't you? You buy them in case you need them, or do you buy them because you
FEAR car accidents, illness and death?

Someone is going to storm my house?

Possibly. If someone decides to "storm" your house, or merely attack you, you
will have to decide what to do. Your choice is to either defend yourself or let
them do what they want. You may also want to dial 911, but until the cops
arrive, you're on your own. That's why the cop told you to arm yourself. The
police in the US have no legal or moral obligation to protect individual
citizens. The only person obligated to defend you is you, if you choose to do
it.

Why would he be driven to recommend that? He said it's for protection.
Protection from what? I live in an upper middle class, bedroom community in a
rural area. There's that, and I don't remember a cartoon about guns. I do
remember his factual reporting about how the NRA held their rally's in Columbine
the days after the shooting...and at other parts of the country. I saw the
leader of the NRA say something like, (paraphrase) you will have to take it from
my cold dead hand...when making reference to his rights to own a weapon.

Right, but the World Trade Center attack was planned for several years, probably
begun during the Clinton years, at least. Also, other terrorist attacks have
happened under other presidents, so this one isn't unique.

Have you read Richard Clark's book, or heard or saw him on the myriad interviews
he gave? This current administration was aware of it and did nothing. Rice
said in her testimony that info was regarded as "historical information." When
President Clinton went after Osama and started bombing, the political right
insisted it was wagging the dog because of the Lewinsky scandal.

Did you know your current president has drastically cut funds for Vets
hospitals, stateside?

Wouldn't surprise me. Every president does that in "peacetime".

That some Vets have to drive four hours to see a doctor
and it takes about 4 months to get an appointment?

Doesn't surprise me either. I first joined the Army in 1975, and I've seen many
of the benefits eroded since then, with many more on the block.

It doesn't look like they liked us much before George Bush became president.
They were attacking us before he became president, so it's quite a stretch to
claim his words "caused" more terrorist attacks.

So you don't think Bush's use of the term "crusade" was poor judgment? You
don't think Bush's mantra "God told me I'd be president so I could do this." It
doesn't tweak you at all that a man who doesn't believe in evolution is running
our country? That he is insisting Christianity be brought into these Muslim
nations? Sure terror attacks happened before. Nothing like the terrorist
attack we have launched on a country, Iraq, which has nothing to do with 9-11.
That, and the way this administration protects the Saudi's by having six secret
service officers guarding their embassy. What other embassy do we guard? None.

We guard every embassy as far as I know. BTW, I don't like Bush either. I don't
plan on voting for him either. I just don't think the fact that he's a bozo
makes Kerry any better.

Nope, I was just answering what YOU had posted. You had just denied that they
had not found a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that there were WMD'S IN IRAQ. I was pointing
out that they had. Don't you want to be shown when you make a false statement?
Would you prefer to continue to go around making a false statement?

The amount of chemical weapons found was hardly a reason to invade a country.
That should also be pointed out to you who didn't say they found so little it
wasn't considered.

The comment was that NONE were found. Since some were found it's obvious that
some were there, and I'd be willing to bet more are there. In fact, even
Saddam's own people admitted he buried tons of chemical weapons somewhere in
Iraq. Those weapons could be dug up later.
(snip)
We will probably disagree on many things, but we agree on one thing, the
soldiers should never, ever be harmed or put down or shunned for any reason.
They are doing their job, and that is torture enough.

It can actually be fun sometimes. I wouldn't have missed it for the world.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:12:56 GMT, escapee wrote:

(snip)
But all you came up with is one example, and not a very convincing one, either.

Ah, so Moore's lies have to be big enough to convince you? If he keeps sneaking
in little ones that's OK? So much for critical thinking. :/

I need much more to convince me someone is telling fibs, lies, selective truths,
or lies of omission. You have given me no good examples.

So, do your own homework. Watch the movie again. Sounds like you need to anyway,
if you can't even remember the little anti-gun propaganda cartoon that was in
there. There are plenty of lies in it, but I didn't bother to remember them all,
since I wasn't planning to keep track of them. All I was doing was checking to
see if it was as dishonest as I'd heard it was.
At one point in the movie I did think about trying to keep track of all the lies
in there, but then I figured it wasn't worth the effort. Michael Moore isn't
important enough to me for that much work. He has admitted that he joined the
NRA to help destroy it. Sounds like a lack of integrity to me.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:56:46 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

(snip)
But when asked about atheism, the Dalai Lama's rote reply is that "Atheism
is preferable to a complete lack of spirituality." Meaning, I presume,
that Belief in nothing is still belief. The Dalai Lama says it is okay for
you to not believe in things, the only philosophy that matters is kindness
-- not your forte either.

The Dalai Lama should stick to the Buddhism and leave the atheism to the
atheists.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:07:28 GMT, escapee wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:57:02 GMT, (The Watcher) opined:

That's only one of the many Flip Flops Kerry is quoted on.

Not a flip flop. He, with many others were duped.

Whether he was duped or not, he's changed his position. That's a Flip Flop.

Lied to by Collin Powell,
Rumsfeld and Bush/Cheney.

One thing a responsible adult does is accept responsibility for his actions.

Name some more.

Too easy. Doesn't own an SUV. Owns an SUV. Tossed his medals. Didn't toss his
medals. Plenty more if you go look for them. I don't need to, since I wasn't
going to vote for Kerry anyway.

You mean WMD's like the Chemical Weapon Sarin or the Chemical Weapon Mustard
Gas, which have been used in Iraq?

They never existed. Trace amounts were discovered.

No, the Sarin that was "discovered" was not a trace amount. It was a binary
artillery round. That means it was a complete artillery round containing Sarin.
Mustard gas was found earlier. Anyway, trace amounts of WMD's are STILL WMD's,
unless you want to change the definition of WMD's again.

Trace. They are not WMD's.
They'd be W'sMD, which is why they are called WMD.

20/20 hindsight is handy, but nobody has it available at the time decisions are
made. We all have to make decisions with the information that's available at the
time.

The current administration gave an absolute statement that WMD definitely
existed and they (Iraq) had them.

I remember that part.

They knew where they were,

I don't remember that part. Got any quotes of them saying they knew where they
were? If they knew where they were why was Hans Blix over there looking for so
long?

they were certain.
That was what they told the Congress. They lied. If they didn't lie, they were
absolutely incompetent and deserving of being fired.

If Congress was dumb enough to expect 100% certainty from ANY intelligence
organization, they are all absolutely incompetent and deserving of being fired,
too. Gathering intelligence practically NEVER has 100% certainty of anything.
This modern witch hunt of talking about "intelligence failures" because of
less-than-100% accurate intelligence is amazing to me. Anybody who expects 100%
accuracy from intelligence gathering is out of touch with reality. Even the best
intelligence gathering groups probably never achieve 100%.

In article , "Lady Blacksword"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , (The
Watcher) wrote:

snip
From which we learn, at least, that not all evils in this
world are inspired by religious fanatics, even atheists can suck bigtime.

Remember tho, thoses who believe that they believe nothing are the most
dangerous, as they have nothing but themselves to live up to, and nothing
but their own morals to uphold. And if you assume that there's nothing
waiting at the end, what's the use in caring about now? You'll be gone,
totally, Right? So what's it matter if you **** up the world...........
Murri

Certain the Beijing government would fit that mode, but I suspect
individually, as opposed to a "system" like the Chinese brand of communism
(itself a religion in its own way, with Mao its deity), the reason the
majority of wars are inspired by religion is because of a belief that THIS
world doesn't matter. In deism, or pantheism, or atheism, THIS is the
world that exists, there is no better place, & that MIGHT inspire greater
levels of preservation. Though what's even more likely is we're
biologically harmful to the environment & faith or unfaith ultimately has
less to do with it than our termite-like need to use up all resources then
kill each other for others' resources, & we'd have an excuse to keep
doing' it with or without the god excuse.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:31:01 GMT, (The Watcher) wrote:

(snip)
I didn't even bother mentioning hippies. I was referring to the behavior of the
country as a whole, which I still consider abominable.

Got some recent news which shows that not EVERYBODY is looking to repeat the
history of Vietnam.

Fellow passengers treat US Troops to first class.
By Rebecca Ann Markway, Knight Ridder Newspapers
Washington.-- A group of American soldiers returning from Iraq got ticket
upgrades on an American Airlines flight last month, but not from the airline.
A first-class passenger on American Airlines Flight 866 from Atlanta to
Chicago on June 29 started a domino effect in first-class when he gave up his
seat to a soldier, American Airlines spokesman Jacquie Young said.
The man, whom the airline declined to identify, noticed the group of
soldiers in the boarding area.
As he boarded the plane, he asked the flight attendant if he could give up
his first-class seat to one of them.
The flight attendant shrugged him off and went about boarding passengers,
Young said.
When the first soldier boarded the plane, the man asked, "Hey soldier,
where are you sitting?" Young said.
When the soldier replied that he was sitting in seat 22E, the first-class
passenger said, "No, you're sitting here," and he gave him his seat.
As the other soldiers boarded the plane, other first-class passengers
surrendered their seats until soldiers filled 12 of the MD-80's 16 first-class
seats.
"We actually ran out of soldiers," Young said.

I'd say that deserves a BIG thumbs up.