wrote in message
...
We also have a economic and political culture that sends poor people's
kids out to
fight and die so that the children of the wealthy and powerful people who
decided to
wage this war.. NONE of THEIR children are "going" but they will inherit
all the
wealth generated from this war and go on to wage wars of their own sending
even more
poor people's children out to fight and die. (only one congressman's
child is in
service)
all wars are about economics.

I agree. Big always does seem to eat small.

THANK GOD for people like Michael Moore

Ugh...Ingrid, just when I am starting to like you very much you say
something like that. Aggghhh. IMHO, MM is lieing, propagandist. Awarding him
with a documentary award for his mis-lead drivel, is so disturbing to me.

Howard Dean (I agree Fonda was a nitwit) who
speak up for justice and economic justice which is the only way to bring
peace to the
world.

I liked Dean. Fonda made a very bad decision doing what she did. The Dixie
chicks are not far behind.

And then the marines will be able to beat their swords into plowshares and
poor people's children can afford to go to college cause we will HAVE the
money to
make schooling free and it is in our economic and social interest that all
children
get as much education as possible, and with that education they can build
and create
all manner of good things, and live mentally healthy lives.

Education is right there next to family values fer sure.

war is about destruction and devastation and death and there is nothing
good or noble
or uplifting about war. that is all propaganda and brainwashing. Most
people come
back from war (those who come back alive) with serious mental and physical
health
problems. It is a horror that devastates their lives forever. More
worrisome are
those who arent affected and have become stone cold killers.
I am all for defending ourselves, let any religion tell ME what to wear,
say or do
and I will gladly join the underground.

But Iraq did not attack us. They were not a threat of attack.

I disagree. I don't think that has been proven.

There are no WMD and they werent in collusion with Bin Laden.

I disagree on this as well. I also believe we knew he had weapons, because
we have many of them to him to fight Iran, much like we did with the Taliban
when they were fighting the russians. This war was a clean up operation.

Those are nothing but lies, lies and more lies told by Bush Incorporated.
The
purpose of the war on Iraq is economic, oil and war profiteering, that is
all.

If it were about oil, we could have given the 80 billion to Venezuela to
become the 51st state, and then we'd be the 7th largest producer of oil in
the world. We could have taken Venezuela in a weekend and launched the
attack from Florida. Why would we go where they all hate us to fight for
oil? Makes no sense.

So stuff this crap where the sun dont shine. you wanna post this shit to
the list I
am not gonna let it slide.

I think it's hardly sh*t. Well on the other hand most political arguments
are. Yeah yer right, this is sh*t.

I want to make sure people from other countries know that
at least some of its citizens arent blithering idiots.
snip

Holding an opinion hardly makes a person an idiot. Clearly we are argueing a
topic here that none of us can really say is based on facts, as we have no
real idea what our government is doing. Bush has made some mistakes, and he
is surely a bafoon in front of a Microphone, but his career as a president
has been one of the most successful to date. Don't fool yourself, we're not
living in Bushonomics right now, this here's Clintonomics.

BV.

"Hank" wrote in message
...
At least we all seem to agree on Fonda! God Bless America and the
right to make statements like this and not be hunted down. We are not
a perfect country but we are the best. Hank
snip

She WAS cute in Barbarella, wasn't she?

BV.

wrote in message
...
Just because we think our democracy is superior and we have the power it
doesnt give
the U.S. the right to push our way of life down the throats of anybody
else in the
world. we most certainly do have the right to defend ourselves from
attack, but not
to attack countries that didnt attack us.
compare the rights women HAD in Iraq to those of women in our "friends"
countries of
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Ingrid
snip

If we clarify a bit...Iraq invaded a sovreign ally of the UN, Kuwait. We
entered Kuwait to defend the Kuwaties and get Sadam out of there. We did
this successfully. On his way out, he destroyed most of the country. The UN
imposed sanctions, and failed to enforce them for 10 years. Our country was
attacked by someone we believed to be connected to Iraq so we finally
implemented, and enforced the UN sanctions our way, since the UN was too
crippled by corrupt politicians living off the oil for food program. The UN
did nothing but starve the Iraq people. The US ended that atrocity and is in
the process of freeing the people of Iraq.

Or something like that...

BV.

"PlainBill" wrote in message
...
snip
Don't believe me? Read a little on the life of Osama bin Laden. He
started out as an ALLY of the United States. Then when he learned the
truth of the Reagan Doctrine, realised he'd been exploited, and
decided to retaliate.

It's kind of funny - everyone agrees (myself included) that the world
will be a safer place without Osama bin Laden and al Quida. However,
our President has decided that Iraq (which had no WMDs) is a more
important target.

We give weapons to Osama to fight the russians and then leave. He attacks us
what 4? 5 times?

We give weapons to Iraq to fight Iran. Shall we now wait for them to blow
something up here?

BV.

"~ jan JJsPond.us" wrote in message
s.com...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 14:16:21 -0400, " George" wrote:

Sorry. It is just that I see these posts all over the usenet, and it
would be
nice to be able to read from a newsgroup that doesn't include such
politics for
a change.

Well some of us only have time to read one newsgroup, not bounce all over
usenet, so I would only see something like this here.... so it was
interesting to me. Only problem I see is Ingrid's willingness to jump on
her soapbox. But I respect her right to do so. Porg Power Flow On!
;o) ~ jan

I concur fully. Unless she says we should just salt the middle east.
Sorry, Ingrid I could not resist.

BV.

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:56:26 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
wrote:


"PlainBill" wrote in message
.. .
snip
Don't believe me? Read a little on the life of Osama bin Laden. He
started out as an ALLY of the United States. Then when he learned the
truth of the Reagan Doctrine, realised he'd been exploited, and
decided to retaliate.

It's kind of funny - everyone agrees (myself included) that the world
will be a safer place without Osama bin Laden and al Quida. However,
our President has decided that Iraq (which had no WMDs) is a more
important target.

We give weapons to Osama to fight the russians and then leave. He attacks us
what 4? 5 times?

We give weapons to Iraq to fight Iran. Shall we now wait for them to blow
something up here?

BV.

How was Iraq going to blow something up here? It has been pretty well
established that their nuclear weapons development program was going
nowhere. They APPEAR to have disposed of their stock of chemical
weapons. That pretty much leaves 'conventional' terrorist attacks.
Face the facts, Hussein was close to the head of the list of worst
dictators of the last century, but he was not a serious threat to the
United States.

There are dozens of countries with a greater capability to attack us -
just search the CIA World Book of Facts for countries whose 2001 per
capita GNP was greater than Iraq's. There are dozens of nations who
would LIKE to hurt the United States. These include many nations in
the Middle East, many in Africa, and a few in Asia. Look at the
nations who have or are developing nuclear capability. One name pops
up on the 'Danger' list consistently - North Korea. Iran is a second.
Lybia is a third, although they claim to be playing nice NOW.

One reason was to 'Free the opressed people of Iraq'. You don't have
to look even that far to find people who are in worse straits.

Decades ago I heard a Latin phrase - Que Bono (Who Benefits). Ask
that question, then look at the answers and you'll get a pretty good
idea of the reasons Cheney was so eager to attack Iraq - and Bush was
willing to be led around on the leash. I'll give you a hint - Which
nations have the greatest untapped oil reserves?

PlainBill

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.640
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 54
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 09:27:53 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.228.143.141
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1089304051 63.228.143.141 (Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:27:31 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:27:31 CDT
Path: kermit!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!diablo.voicenet .com!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giga news.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshosting.com!nx01.ia d01.newshosting.com!feed.news.qwest.net!news.uswes t.ne
t.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit rec.ponds:152798

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:55:04 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
Just because we think our democracy is superior and we have the power it
doesnt give
the U.S. the right to push our way of life down the throats of anybody
else in the
world. we most certainly do have the right to defend ourselves from
attack, but not
to attack countries that didnt attack us.
compare the rights women HAD in Iraq to those of women in our "friends"
countries of
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Ingrid
snip

If we clarify a bit...Iraq invaded a sovreign ally of the UN, Kuwait. We
entered Kuwait to defend the Kuwaties and get Sadam out of there. We did
this successfully. On his way out, he destroyed most of the country. The UN
imposed sanctions, and failed to enforce them for 10 years. Our country was
attacked by someone we believed to be connected to Iraq so we finally
implemented, and enforced the UN sanctions our way, since the UN was too
crippled by corrupt politicians living off the oil for food program. The UN
did nothing but starve the Iraq people. The US ended that atrocity and is in
the process of freeing the people of Iraq.

Or something like that...

BV.

Something like that -but pretty slanted. To be precise, Kuwait was a
MEMBER of the UN, and an ALLY of the United States. Hussein attacked
on a pretext, a UN sactioned multi-national force drove him out. The
UN did attempt to enforce sanctions, however their effectiveness was
limited.

The connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden was tenuous at best.
It's easy to pick an enemy as a scapegoat, but al-Quida was one of the
LAST groups Hussein wanted operating in Iraq. Hussein was willing to
play the religious angle, but he basically ran a secular regime. bin
Laden and the Taliban want to institute conservative Islamic
governments.


"Free the Iraqi People" is a great slogan, however the majority of the
Iraqi people interviewed state that they were safer under Hussein than
they are now. And neither the coalition forces nor the Iraqi security
forces seem to be able to halt the insurgents (I hate that term by
the way - terrotist thugs would be more appropriate).

PlainBill

"PlainBill" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:56:26 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
snip
How was Iraq going to blow something up here? It has been pretty well
established that their nuclear weapons development program was going
nowhere.

Osama had no such program and successfully attacked both US civilian and
military targets.

They APPEAR to have disposed of their stock of chemical
weapons. That pretty much leaves 'conventional' terrorist attacks.
Face the facts, Hussein was close to the head of the list of worst
dictators of the last century, but he was not a serious threat to the
United States.

You want me to face facts, when you yourself states that they APPEAR to have
disposed of their weapons? Facts are hardly part of the data we are working
with here.

There are dozens of countries with a greater capability to attack us -
just search the CIA World Book of Facts for countries whose 2001 per
capita GNP was greater than Iraq's. There are dozens of nations who
would LIKE to hurt the United States. These include many nations in
the Middle East, many in Africa, and a few in Asia. Look at the
nations who have or are developing nuclear capability. One name pops
up on the 'Danger' list consistently - North Korea. Iran is a second.
Lybia is a third, although they claim to be playing nice NOW.

One reason was to 'Free the opressed people of Iraq'. You don't have
to look even that far to find people who are in worse straits.

Decades ago I heard a Latin phrase - Que Bono (Who Benefits). Ask
that question, then look at the answers and you'll get a pretty good
idea of the reasons Cheney was so eager to attack Iraq - and Bush was
willing to be led around on the leash. I'll give you a hint - Which
nations have the greatest untapped oil reserves?

Oh the blood for oil thing. yeah I forgot.

BV.

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:13:04 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
wrote:


"PlainBill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:56:26 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
snip
How was Iraq going to blow something up here? It has been pretty well
established that their nuclear weapons development program was going
nowhere.

Osama had no such program and successfully attacked both US civilian and
military targets.

Don't forget, that by the time the last plane crashed in
Pennsylvania, a technique for combatting such hijackings had already
been developed. Unarmed civilians took back the plane and tragically
crashed the plane. Armoring cockpit doors makes it very unlikely any
such attempt would even result in the loss of a plane (I wouldn't give
two bits for the chances of a hijacker surviving the attempt).


They APPEAR to have disposed of their stock of chemical
weapons. That pretty much leaves 'conventional' terrorist attacks.
Face the facts, Hussein was close to the head of the list of worst
dictators of the last century, but he was not a serious threat to the
United States.

You want me to face facts, when you yourself states that they APPEAR to have
disposed of their weapons? Facts are hardly part of the data we are working
with here.

Very true - facts are certainly hard to come by. Well, when after 15
months neither the colalition forces nor the insurgents have found
any, I'd have to say 'Appears' is a pretty solid assesment. Nothing
is certain in this world, but it's pretty certain that Bush, Cheney,
et al's claims that Iraq had WMDs were fabrications.


There are dozens of countries with a greater capability to attack us -
just search the CIA World Book of Facts for countries whose 2001 per
capita GNP was greater than Iraq's. There are dozens of nations who
would LIKE to hurt the United States. These include many nations in
the Middle East, many in Africa, and a few in Asia. Look at the
nations who have or are developing nuclear capability. One name pops
up on the 'Danger' list consistently - North Korea. Iran is a second.
Lybia is a third, although they claim to be playing nice NOW.

One reason was to 'Free the opressed people of Iraq'. You don't have
to look even that far to find people who are in worse straits.

Decades ago I heard a Latin phrase - Que Bono (Who Benefits). Ask
that question, then look at the answers and you'll get a pretty good
idea of the reasons Cheney was so eager to attack Iraq - and Bush was
willing to be led around on the leash. I'll give you a hint - Which
nations have the greatest untapped oil reserves?

Oh the blood for oil thing. yeah I forgot.

Yeah, forgetting seems to be a popular talent in the Bush family.
Like when Bush Sr. said he 'couldn't remember' if treason was
discussed at a cabinet meeting.

BV.

PlainBill

Wow, I am amazed! So you admit that Clinton & his administration, France,
Germany, the UN, they all LIED TO US about WMDs when they all said that
Saddam had them, because there weren't any! I guess the thousands of
Iraqis, thousands of Iranians, thousands of Kurds who all died at once at
various times under Saddam, just all happened to die all at once of natural
causes?

Stick your head in the sand if you wish, believe lies if you wish, look at
evil and pronounce it good if you wish, hell, go live under a dictator like
Saddam if you wish. At least Bush is doing something about evil in the
world rather than just talking about it and wringing his hands. People who
believe that the US is the focus of evil in this world are really clueless.

Tim C.

"PlainBill" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:13:04 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
wrote:


"PlainBill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:56:26 -0400, "Benign Vanilla"
snip
How was Iraq going to blow something up here? It has been pretty well
established that their nuclear weapons development program was going
nowhere.

Osama had no such program and successfully attacked both US civilian and
military targets.

Don't forget, that by the time the last plane crashed in
Pennsylvania, a technique for combatting such hijackings had already
been developed. Unarmed civilians took back the plane and tragically
crashed the plane. Armoring cockpit doors makes it very unlikely any
such attempt would even result in the loss of a plane (I wouldn't give
two bits for the chances of a hijacker surviving the attempt).


They APPEAR to have disposed of their stock of chemical
weapons. That pretty much leaves 'conventional' terrorist attacks.
Face the facts, Hussein was close to the head of the list of worst
dictators of the last century, but he was not a serious threat to the
United States.

You want me to face facts, when you yourself states that they APPEAR to
have
disposed of their weapons? Facts are hardly part of the data we are
working
with here.

Very true - facts are certainly hard to come by. Well, when after 15
months neither the colalition forces nor the insurgents have found
any, I'd have to say 'Appears' is a pretty solid assesment. Nothing
is certain in this world, but it's pretty certain that Bush, Cheney,
et al's claims that Iraq had WMDs were fabrications.


There are dozens of countries with a greater capability to attack us -
just search the CIA World Book of Facts for countries whose 2001 per
capita GNP was greater than Iraq's. There are dozens of nations who
would LIKE to hurt the United States. These include many nations in
the Middle East, many in Africa, and a few in Asia. Look at the
nations who have or are developing nuclear capability. One name pops
up on the 'Danger' list consistently - North Korea. Iran is a second.
Lybia is a third, although they claim to be playing nice NOW.

One reason was to 'Free the opressed people of Iraq'. You don't have
to look even that far to find people who are in worse straits.

Decades ago I heard a Latin phrase - Que Bono (Who Benefits). Ask
that question, then look at the answers and you'll get a pretty good
idea of the reasons Cheney was so eager to attack Iraq - and Bush was
willing to be led around on the leash. I'll give you a hint - Which
nations have the greatest untapped oil reserves?

Oh the blood for oil thing. yeah I forgot.

Yeah, forgetting seems to be a popular talent in the Bush family.
Like when Bush Sr. said he 'couldn't remember' if treason was
discussed at a cabinet meeting.

BV.

PlainBill

he had em, Israel bombed the nuclear plant. they are gone, been gone, arent there
anymore, havent been there for a while.
all wars are economic. everything else is window dressing and excuses for going to
war. Ingrid

"tim chandler" wrote:
Wow, I am amazed! So you admit that Clinton & his administration, France,
Germany, the UN, they all LIED TO US about WMDs when they all said that
Saddam had them, because there weren't any!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

They just found more enriched uranium, and removed it. Enriched uranium is
used only for bombs.

"all wars are economic" - a rather sweeping generalization. I'm not sure I
understand why genocide - such as has happened in Nazi Germany, in the
Ukraine, Cambodia, Rwanda as well as with the Kurds, Bosnia, and too many
elsewheres - is economic.

wrote in message
...
he had em, Israel bombed the nuclear plant. they are gone, been gone,
arent there
anymore, havent been there for a while.
all wars are economic. everything else is window dressing and excuses for
going to
war. Ingrid

"tim chandler" wrote:
Wow, I am amazed! So you admit that Clinton & his administration,
France,
Germany, the UN, they all LIED TO US about WMDs when they all said that
Saddam had them, because there weren't any!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

give it up,,,there are NO wmd in Iraq. most of the terrorists were from
our "friend" Saudi Arabia.
genocide is to rid a country of those not like you. that way you can have
their "stuff",,,economics,,,,,or power or those other virtues so
glorified,,,,,,,,,,
If you think this war was in self defense,,,,then most of the world,,the
UN,,,and now our "allies" who are withdrawing,,,must have their heads in the
sand also....
look at who is making the money now and it is clear why the us is at
war,,,,,,,,,,,,,





"tim chandler" wrote in message
.. .
They just found more enriched uranium, and removed it. Enriched uranium
is
used only for bombs.

"all wars are economic" - a rather sweeping generalization. I'm not sure
I
understand why genocide - such as has happened in Nazi Germany, in the
Ukraine, Cambodia, Rwanda as well as with the Kurds, Bosnia, and too many
elsewheres - is economic.

wrote in message
...
he had em, Israel bombed the nuclear plant. they are gone, been gone,
arent there
anymore, havent been there for a while.
all wars are economic. everything else is window dressing and excuses
for
going to
war. Ingrid

"tim chandler" wrote:
Wow, I am amazed! So you admit that Clinton & his administration,
France,
Germany, the UN, they all LIED TO US about WMDs when they all said that
Saddam had them, because there weren't any!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

I heard on the news the other day that the CIA has informed its people to
report on what they know, not what they THINK they know.

I'm wondering if we all shouldn't take similar advice?

I know I don't want to believe that our government went to war just because
of OIL. So I tend to side with those who also believe this.... and
sometimes I even want to "foolishly" comment to bring others over to my
side. But then I "wisely" realize, what do *I* REALLY know? We have media
that reports the bad stuff, because the good stuff wouldn't catch enough of
the audience and ratings + commericals + money-making means they've got to
grab their short term attention (us) audience quickly. Bad news works. Same
with our newspapers and/or radio.

Why doubt our media? Just talk to some of the servicemen/women over there
and they tell a different story than what we see on/in the news. (To give a
little personal clip of what *I* do know, the news showed Iraqi's living in
squalor, garbage littering the ground, goats, chickens picking thru it,
etc, sanitation problems came to my mind. Well guess what, my son who is
doing guard duty with one of units training the ING, says they just throw
their garbage on the ground and walk thru it. He picked up 150 water
bottles, piled them in front of their latrine and just watched many of them
walk thru them. Finally one guy starting picking them up and putting them
in a garbage bag, after my son and the other guards starting ribbing them
about it.)

So we're left to form are own opinion between what is showed on the news
(and not always explained, just implied) and why it looks as bad as it
does... perhaps it is just because the people there have a different
attitude about garbage in the streets? Unemployment is suppose to be high,
so why don't they clean up? Even if one doesn't get paid, it is THEIR
country.

Regarding the "majority of congress people wouldn't have voted for the
war", on the news last night, if they had 20/20 hindsight. That isn't what
I got out of the report last night, I got the opposite. When they did a
direct poll, the numbers showed the opposite was true. Hmmmm, could it be
my wishful thinking again? Did I misunderstand, was I somewhat sidetracked
at the time, with the newspaper in my lap, my computer dinging me that my
son (in Iraq) was IMing me, and half dozen other things going on or thru my
mind?

So where do the rest of you get your information to REALLY not doubt what
you THINK you know, regarding the evils of men and going to war for oil?
Seems all those dead bodies of Hussein's own countrymen Tim mentioned is an
obvious, oh wait, where we again set up by our worthless media? Was it just
a few bodies to catch our attention that evening? ~ jan


(Do you know where your water quality is?)

Political threads always make my teeth itch,
like politicians do, so I try to stay out of them ;-)

Jan wrote He picked up 150 water
bottles

But that said, I sure do miss the days when Jan's only
worries about her DS were if he kept his room
cleaned up. Oh, and then there was homework and high school and driving and
girls and...

Hope he, and all the people over there, come home
safely.


kathy :-)
algae primer
http://hometown.aol.com/ka30p/myhomepage/garden.html