funny things to do on a bike

Zoot Katz wrote in news:40b89146.16766681
@news.individual.net:

18 May 2004 03:09:32 -0700,
,
(Chalo) wrote:

You want to find WMDs over there? The thousands of cluster bombs US
airplanes scattered over civilian villages in Iraq are weapons of mass
destruction. They're doing a bang-up job, so to speak, of killing
children and/or avulsing off their limbs.

DU is the deadlier legacy.

The amount of depleted uranium used by coalition forces in the two
Gulf Wars is not known, but some estimates suggest it was 300 tons in
1991 and five times as much last year.


This is also an issue in Bosnia as well. If you're gonna lay blame, then
pass it around to all who deserve it.

Hunrobe wrote:



I snipped all the rest because I think it's fair to say that the above
accurately summarizes the article. While it refers to "intentions" and
"appearances" of parties both named and unnamed the one thing it does *not* do
is include even a single quoted public statement by Bush or anyone in the Bush
administration stating, "Iraq and Saddam Hussein assisted in the 9/11 attacks."
The claim being made here is that Bush knowingly tried to mislead the public
into believing just that. If that truly were the case it couldn't be that
difficult to find a direct attributable quote from *someone* in the
Administration stating exactly that.

I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of direct statement never turns up.
That's not the style of the people running the country.

And I know you'll disagree, but by "the people running the country" I
don't really mean W. I think he serves pretty much the same function
that Howdy Doody once served.

Or more accurately, perhaps, Warren G. Harding. Picked by political
operatives in the original smoke filled room. Chosen not for his brains
or leadership, but because of his good looks (women were now allowed to
vote) and affability. Surrounded by men of dubious character, at best,
who profited illegally from their positions.

I think both of these guys, Harding and Bush II, are/were thoroughly
controlled by the men pulling the strings.

Sure, it's a good performance. As one comedian said, the committee
investigating 9/11 even made Cheney drink a glass of water while Bush
was talking. ;-)

And I do believe the guys pulling the strings are pretty smart. Smart
enough to carefully craft every speech. Smart enough to almost never
allow true question-and-answer news conferences. Smart enough to make
sure Cheney had his right hand behind Bush's back in that unsworn
testimony exercise - you know, to pull the string with the little ring
on the end.

But the absence of a direct quote doesn't mean the deception wasn't
real. It was real, it was deliberate, and it was carefully crafted.
And obviously, it was successful.

... the whole "Bush duped the country"
argument collapses unless one believes that the majority of Americans are
ridiculously easy to mislead.

Well, I don't recall your alternate theory on why over half the
population thinks (or thought) that we've found a direct evidence link.

But it's not necessary to call America stupid. I think you're wildly
underestimating the effect the 9/11 attacks had on the public's
attitudes. I mean, really - do you think all those American flag
purchases meant nothing?

In retrospect, those attacks were a gift to the Neo Cons. They provided
the world's densest smoke screen, behind which they could mold minds
that were suddenly ready to do anything their "leader" asked.

How sad that this is what he asked for.



--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Tim McNamara wrote:

Well, it *is* a WMD.

I've long been a little dissatisfied about that phrase or acronym. The
US has many, many weapons that can destroy much bigger "masses." And
what we've done in Iraq certainly qualifies as mass destruction.

Seems to me the meaning of the phrase is really "A weapon we don't allow
them to have (whether or not we have it)."

Not that I want (or wanted) Iraq or anyone else to have tons of high
explosives, nuclear weapons, sarin or mustard gas or anything else. But
it does sound like the shorthand being used ought to be followed by
"wink, wink."


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
(Jonesy) wrote:

It's funny that nearly 70% of Americans came to that conclusion.
What's amazing is that you think it's merely some happy coincidence,
that the Bushies didn't mean for anyone to get the wrong idea. Oh,
and the fact that the connection has been denied since.

Denied since... when? I don't recall the administration denying the
link, since they never established it. I thought we had nailed that
down... guess not.

And quoting Paul O'Neill as a credible source is going to water down
your point.

By all accounts, he's an honest, forthright guy. Why is he not
credible? (Your ad hominem argument aside, that is.)

If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
believe it would be balanced? We end up with him painting one picture
of the administration, and the rest of the administration saying that
it's entirely inaccurate. We'll never know I suppose - but he DID
make a lot of money (a lot more than he would have had there been no
drama in the book).

It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq

There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")

Again, you choose to believe a guy who is obviously upset at being
fired by GWB, and who made a lot of money writing a sensational book.
I tend to believe the accounts that have come from the rest of the
cabinet members (which all seem to agree).

Your tap dancing is pathetic. It's LOL silly - I can't believe you
keep up this stupid line of reasoning, clutching at it like it
actually has any traction at all. Pure buffoonery.

In other words, you can't find a single instance of the administration
tying 9/11 to Iraq. Thanks for making that clear.

Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
implication.

Heh heh heh. So point one out. Show me the quote that forces people
to believe there is a direct connection. Or was it done through
subliminals or maybe hypnotism?

LOL - you head-in-the-sand (-up-the-ass) conservatives really give me
a chuckle.

I'm glad. I'm chuckling over the fact you won't be able to give any
citations.

Being a pedantic asshole doesn't improve your logic.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks is the best proof that you've lost.

It's not an ad hominem argument. It's a direct insult. They are two
different things.

Either indicates you're nasty when backed into a corner.

While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.

I have no case ? - and you can't provide a single quote to prove your
point. Heh.

On a related note, there ARE people who believe (after having studied
the facts) that there IS a connection.

THere are also people who believe the moon landings were faked.
Without EVIDENCE, their beliefs are just as wacky as those who think
the ticket to heaven is slamming a passenger jet into an office
building.

Personally I wouldn't doubt
it

Of course you wouldn't. Ignoring facts is part and parcel of the
conservative way of looking at the world. But your beloved Bushies
have said on the record that there was no connection. Well after the
"Mission" was "Accomplished", of course.

Heh heh heh... you're sounding a little desparate there

So, you're denying that the Administration said that there was no
connection?

Heh heh heh... NOW how are you going to reconcile THAT with your
position that GWB was doing his best to imply there WAS a connection?
You're digging another hole here.

[snip Liebermann quote]

If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
make it true? Is it a fact then?

You really like strawmen. Do you really think that there's only one
Democrat who believes there was a connection between Iraq and Al
Qaeda?

:shakes head:

Laughs.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tim McNamara wrote:

(JP) writes:


Hussein did not have artillery capable of reaching the US (nor does
anyone else) so this shell could not have been a threat to us in the
USA.


Canada?

Please, don't let W hear that! There's no telling what ideas it might
inspire!


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

"Jay Beattie" wrote:

"Mark Hickey" wrote

In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency
Physicians
discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be
sprayed
from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter
2001
newsletter:

http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf

I would regard with great suspicion anything said by the Oregon
Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians. I think
they were one of the groups behind the MHL for kids in this
state! They are terrorists themselves! -- Jay Beattie.

Hey - let's not have any bicycle content in this thread!!!

(I won't even mention the H-word)... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey wrote:


Oh, BTW, what size howitzer was used in the sarin attack in the Tokyo
subway?


Oh, and in that confined space, how many thousands were killed?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote ...
(Jonesy) wrote:

OK... let's dig into that. According to the US Army and other sources
at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/...018.5.appb.pdf

... discussing the solubility of sarin...

"Miscible in both polar and nonpolar solvents"

Indeed. Take a gallon of active ingredient and quadruple it's volume,
then try and smuggle it under your coat.

I don't recall the need to bodily carry it to its dispersal point, but
even so it's not that hard to imagine (or maybe just send out four
people with a quart of sarin each).

snip
Sounds like it wouldn't be very hard at all to achieve sprayable
viscosity.

Except that you still have to get a delivery system, and the extra
volume of inert ingredients where they need to be.

If you think that nobody has ever looked at this, you are a total
idiot.

I missed the part where I said no one had ever looked at that. You
seem to have a habit of assuming people said things that never left
their lips or keyboards...

In fact, the Oregon Chapter, American College of Emergency Physicians
discuss the triage that might be necessary should sarin be sprayed
from a crop duster over a large group of people in their Winter 2001
newsletter:

http://www.ocep.org/epic-winter2001.pdf

Now we're talking about aircraft as the delivery system? A system
designed to squirt organophosphorus pesticides?

Chicken Little holding on line two...

Talk to the doctors involved. I'm sure they are all total idiots too.

I don't really feel the need to create a list.

Then there really isn't much to discuss. If you don't believe that
conservatives make mistakes, or the mistakes they make are ones of not
acting extremely enough, then you lack enough common sense to hold a
rational discussion.

Hmmm. There you go again. Care to point out where I said
conservatives don't make mistakes? Would it be rude of me to point
out that there seems to be a kind of consistent problem with your
reading comprehension. I think perhaps that has something to do with
your problem with some of the things GWB "said".

But the fact is, the only way to prevent making any mistakes is to do
nothing.

Discretion is the better part of valor. Those who have served in the
military know this.

Appeasement isn't the answer. Those who have studied history know
this.

Nice strawman. Look up what appeasement means and it's historical
application. Instead of just parroting a word you heard from one of
Bush's minions, actually find some instances of appeasement.

Let's start with Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter, then contrast
them to Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote in message news:...
(Jonesy) wrote:

In the real world, your scenario is pure Chicken Little fantasy.

One small drop of sarin on your skin will kill you within minutes.

You really can't imagine a way to disperse the stuff in a fine mist
over a crowd? I can think of dozens.

Then there must be *something* about it that prevents terrorists from
doing it.

Access to sarin is not it - it's quite easy to acquire the precursors
(not in the U.S. - organophosphorus compounds were pretty strictly
regulated even before 9/11). So maybe you just don't know as much
about it as you seem to think you do.

Look at the quality of the Al Qaeda terrorists and tell me you think
any of them could brew up a viable batch of sarin. Maybe you could
fill us all in on where they might go about picking up a few gallons
of the stuff, other than from a state-sponsored lab (directly or
indirectly).

The fact they haven't used it as a weapon yet doesn't prove anything
any more than the fact no one had flown airliners into skyscrapers did
prior to 9/11, even though it was obviously possible.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(Chalo) wrote:

It's just amazing the outrages you will accept as long as the
misfortune is somebody else's.

Chalo, I really don't have a dog in this hunt. If DU is nasty stuff,
it is NOT a political issue (since it's been used by the military
across multiple administrations). The reading I have done on it
suggests that it's no more dangerous than lead projectiles.

Maybe, maybe not - but it is kind of ironic that I'm replying in
threads which state that spent bullets are dangerous, but sarin
isn't... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame