A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"skip" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


...About Iraq, I *was* right....

SO WHERE ARE ALL THOSE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION YOU WERE SO SURE THAT
SADDAM HUSSEIN HAD - WASN'T THAT ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WHERE YOU DECLARED
YOURSELF THE WINNER?

--
Tom Sherman - Earth


I'm not a military scientist, but I have seen a lot of old B&W war
movies, as well as the Lord of Rings trilogy, and the Achilles flick.
What I know from all this is that one element of warfare that comes with
a huge advantage is the sneak attack. We went back and forth for about 6
to 8 months on the lead up to Iraq war before going over there. Seems to
me anyone with any sense at all would have done something with the WMD
knowing what was coming. After all the public discourse leading up to
the war what would have been a reasonable expectation for finding WMD?
Common sense would indicate almost none.


The Left was rather inconsistent on this. One of their arguments was
that Saddam would loose some sort of doomsday weapon if we invaded (like
smallpox). As you say, it was clear that they had no *strategic* WMD at
the time, but almost everyone believed they had tactical weapons of some
sort, and were probably developing a strategic capability. Those were
both reasonable suppositions, and it would have been decidedly
unreasonable to assume otherwise given the stakes.

Consider that the main reason that we never felt compelled to attack the
Soviets was that we knew, because of the eavesdropping on the
transatlantic cable, exactly what their plans were at all times.
Uncertainty is what compels us to act, not certainty.

This is why you should always take blind corners and traverse
intersections with poor sight distances at full speed.

Wrong analogy. And that's why you got the issue wrong. But rather than
give another lecture and Type I and Type II errors, just read this, on
"acting under conditions of uncertainty:"

http://mypetjawa.blogspot.com/2004_0...1160544616 22





But as I said at the time, those weren't the only reasons to change that
regime. We knew that Saddam was bankrolling terrorists. We now also
know that there was an ongoing relationship with Al Qaeda, although there
is little evidence of outright collaboration. (But since it was Osama
who was seeking collaboration, there was also no good reason to assume
that a collaboration wouldn't occur sooner or later.)

Osama bin Laden used to cooperate with the CIA, and was one of Reagan's
"freedom fighters". Should we have bombed the CIA offices and the Reagan
ranch?

I don't actually have to point out why this is silly, do I? I mean, I don't
mind taking on an argument that has some serious observation behind it, but
this is you blowing smoke, not even vaguely interested in an actual
discussion or even an argument. I don't think we really need to worry a lot
about Bin Laden's Mom either, even though she was a lot closer to him that
either Saddam or Reagan. Context does count for something.

But the main point, which you inundated with as much smoke as you could
blow, is that Saddam was a staunch supporter of terrorist movements. And we
never supported Bin Laden or anyone else once they had a reputation for
terrorist tactics. (Meaning actual terrorism, and not the sort of
hyperbolic accusations the UN regularly throws at Israel.)


The primary reason to change regimes, however, was to start a
counter-wave that opposed the "vanguard" of the Salafist totalitarians.
Absent a vanguard to oppose their vanguard, the only thing standing in
their way was a few authoritarian regimes that, every day, gave renewed
justification for their movement. Paul Berman wrote a book about this,
and it was always job one from my perspective. Had the Democrats
proposed it, along with a plan (note that Bush never did actually have a
plan, just an idea) I'd have voted for them. So would a lot of others.

But the fact is that because the Democrats have been so heavily
influenced by their left wing they've been tone deaf on this issue. And
they still are, as far as I can tell.

Democrats heavily influenced by the left wing? Is that why most of them
voted for the conquest of Iraq. Bahahahahahaha! Get real!

Voted for the conquest of Iraq? I wonder if Kerry agrees with that
characterization of his vote?

After we chased Saddam and his goons off and did our unsuccessful WM D
search what were we supposed to do? Apologize to Saddam, tell him we're
sorry about the shoot out with his fiendish kids, repair all the damage,
and then leave?


I'll tell you the truth, and I've said it before, as far as I'm concerned
both the oil and the WMD might as well have been excuses for doing the
right thing. Assuming we weren't about to do the right thing for the
right reasons, we might as well do it for the wrong reasons. The
important thing is that the freedom vanguard now has a foothold. And
that really *is* the important thing.

The freedom to obey the Fatwahs of Sistani? Freedom like the US brought to
Iran in 1953 when the firm of Dulles and Dulles engineered a coup against
the democratic government of Mossadegh and installed the despotic Reza
Pahlavi to the throne? Or the freedom that Dulles and Dulles brought to
Guatemala, Kissinger and Nixon brought to Chile, or that Kissinger and
Ford brought to East Timor? Not to mention the freedom the US supports in
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and the former Soviet states in Central
Asia.

You actually think there's support for this position outside of Indymedia?
I hate to tell you Tom, but even Der Speigel thinks Bush was probably right,
and the Iraq election might be for the Arabs what the destruction of the
Berlin Wall was for the soviet bloc. I'm just saying this, because I think
all that smoke you're blowing may be getting in your eyes.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...343378,00.html



Honest, Tom. It's ultimately the only thing that matters....

No, the only thing that matters is power. Great wealth by itself is not
enough, having much more than others and dominating them is what counts.

Well, if that's what matters we have that covered too.


Wars aren't won by the side that makes no mistakes. They're won by the
side that makes the fewest mistakes.

So far the neo-cons are following bin Laden's game plan more closely that
he could have believed possible. Every Iraqi and Palestinian death and
injury at the hands of the US military and IDF, every house destroyed and
tree uprooted by the same forces, every new Israeli settlement in the West
Bank, and every report of torture, violation of human rights, and murder
from Guantonomo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bahgram, and Diego Garcia, and every
person sent by the US to a client state to be tortured is a political
victory for bin Laden.


Right. You're all geniuses of reverse psychology. Well, you can believe
that if you like, but Bin Laden doesn't, nor do his lieutenants in Iraq,
including Zarqawi. They sort of take the Der Spiegel view of things, that a
democracy in Iraq is a freakin' disaster for them.
--
Tom Sherman – ****ing Contest Hell

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

Well, that's damned strange. I don't seem to be able to send a reply to
any of Tom's messages, but the reply to this worked fine. I get a
message that "line 3 is too long" replying to Tom, even if I delete
everything in the message.

Well, I'm not sure this applies to all of his messages, but it applies to
the one posted at 10:30 and to another one posted more recently. Very
strange.

Try setting your newsreader so it recognizes signature separators - it is
messing up the quoting of anyone using a newsreader that is replying to
your posts.

I don't follow you. This just started today, and it apparently only applies
to the U. of Berlin server. And it's only relevant to replies to your
posts.

What do you mean by "signature separators?"

--
Tom Sherman – Earth

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

Nope, I tried to post a reply to Tom's most recent message and got the
same error. Here is the error message, verbatim:

Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject ' A.R.B.R. ain't
dead yet??????', Account: 'A Berlin News', Server: 'news.individual.net',
Protocol: NNTP, Server Response: '441 Line 3 too long', Port: 119,
Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 441, Error Number: 0x800CCCA9

But I apparently don't get this error replying to anyone else.

Your newsreader failed to honor the signature separator in my posts.
Therefore, when I replied no quoted text automatically appeared, and I had
to copy and past manually. Those are the posts you are having trouble
with.

I'm not sure what you mean by "signature separator." When I reply to your
posts I get automatic quotes. I'm just using IE6. Nothing special.

And again, I don't have the problem using my ISPs NNTP server. Just the
Berlin server.


--
Tom Sherman – Earth

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

If we can't agree that it's time to end tyranny and totalitarianism it's
doubtful that we'll ever be able to coordinate resolution of any of
these other "wicked problems" that face us.

The real threats are integrated headsets,

Now I'm visualizing a guy pedaling down the road with one of those neato
phone headsets somehow bionically integrated into his scull. That'd be
pretty handy if you were in Special Forces or something, but I can see why
it might be a little threatening.


ISO 587-mm (700D) tires, and top posting to Usenet groups.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Subject: A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????
Newsgroup: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
= Freewheeling = wrote:


I'm not sure what you mean by "signature separator." When I reply to your
posts I get automatic quotes. I'm just using IE6. Nothing special.

And again, I don't have the problem using my ISPs NNTP server. Just the
Berlin server.


http://news.individual.net/faq.php#2.9

2.9 My posting is rejected with a "line too long" message. What do I have to
change?
The exact error message is "441 Line n too long" with "n" indicating the
line number of your entire posting (including the header) that violates the
Internet standard's length restriction. The problem will most likely be the
"References" line which happens with some newsreaders when you reply to a
posting that already refers back to numerous previous articles.

You will either have to switch to a newsreader that observes the standards or
edit the line that causes the problem manually.


--

-Graham

Remove the snails to email

Someone has way too much time on their hands to make that page, besides that
those pictures don't even show here angry, I doubt if I want to be around if
that ever happens

--
www.lifeonabaron.blogspot.com


"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
Subject: A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????
Newsgroup: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
= Freewheeling = wrote:

I have no idea whether
Rice will run, but this picture tells me that if she does... she might be
pretty formidable, even for the Queen Bee.

http://www.overpressure.com/archives/drrice.html




You think that's something? Check out these pics:

http://www.condiriceisangry.com/


--

-Graham

Remove the snails to email

Subject: A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????
Newsgroup: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
= Mark Leuck = wrote:

Someone has way too much time on their hands to make that page, besides that
those pictures don't even show here angry, I doubt if I want to be around if
that ever happens


Jeezus Christ Mark --- you look like you just escaped from Huntsville.

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/147/3...%20looking.jpg


--

-Graham

Remove the snails to email

G.

Thanks.

I suppose I could start using Agent Pro again, but I don't like it very much
for all the glowing reviews. It's slow, complicated, and the behavior it
goes through in terms of marking messaged read, etc., in very difficult to
set. I also can't read the icons very well.

Anyway, it appears that this works now.


"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
Subject: A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????
Newsgroup: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
= Freewheeling = wrote:


I'm not sure what you mean by "signature separator." When I reply to your
posts I get automatic quotes. I'm just using IE6. Nothing special.

And again, I don't have the problem using my ISPs NNTP server. Just the
Berlin server.


http://news.individual.net/faq.php#2.9

2.9 My posting is rejected with a "line too long" message. What do I have
to
change?
The exact error message is "441 Line n too long" with "n" indicating the
line number of your entire posting (including the header) that violates
the
Internet standard's length restriction. The problem will most likely be
the
"References" line which happens with some newsreaders when you reply to a
posting that already refers back to numerous previous articles.

You will either have to switch to a newsreader that observes the standards
or
edit the line that causes the problem manually.


--

-Graham

Remove the snails to email

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

Nope, I tried to post a reply to Tom's most recent message and got the
same error. Here is the error message, verbatim:

Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject ' A.R.B.R. ain't
dead yet??????', Account: 'A Berlin News', Server: 'news.individual.net',
Protocol: NNTP, Server Response: '441 Line 3 too long', Port: 119,
Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 441, Error Number: 0x800CCCA9

But I apparently don't get this error replying to anyone else.

Your newsreader failed to honor the signature separator in my posts.
Therefore, when I replied no quoted text automatically appeared, and I had
to copy and past manually. Those are the posts you are having trouble
with.

I tried replying to one of my own messages, and the auto-quote seemed to
work OK. Anyway, if you get this reply that the problem resolved itself
somehow.


--
Tom Sherman – Earth

G.:

Frankly, those are just a bunch of head shots. The thing about the WaPo
picture is partly the Matrix attire, along with the commanding presence
before an adoring audience. The conventional wisdom among political
scientists is that previous experience as a candidate is worth about 10
percentage points in the vote, which is why a lot of untried candidates lose
their first time. But if there were ever going to be an exception to that
rule, it'd be Condi. One thing a Rice candidacy would do. It'd put to rest
that "southern strategy" canard.


"G. Morgan" wrote in message
...
Subject: A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????
Newsgroup: alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent
= Freewheeling = wrote:

I have no idea whether
Rice will run, but this picture tells me that if she does... she might be
pretty formidable, even for the Queen Bee.

http://www.overpressure.com/archives/drrice.html




You think that's something? Check out these pics:

http://www.condiriceisangry.com/


--

-Graham

Remove the snails to email