OT - to non USA folks

[WebMaster]

"The U.S. military airlifted 12-year-old Iraqi orphan Ali Abbas to Kuwait
for better medical care. But he's still angry that we killed his family.
What's his problem?"

http://www.aliabbas.net/

The caring americans????

Rudy

 

[Travis Newbury]

Consider this carefully.....

The more you poke a bee's nest, the more likely everyone's going to get
stung.

They are not a bees nest, they are a pimple on the human races ass. Some
(like you) think the pimple will go way if you just leave it alone.
Others (like me) realize that this pimple is the start of acne, and must
be dealt with right now while it is just a single pimple.

Are civilian casualties bad? Sure they they are. Does the US go out of
their way (even endangering our troops) to do everything possible to
reduce civilian casualties? Absolutely.

But they fear the terrorists MORE than they fear the troops. If they
didn't, as the troops came down the road, the civilians would be
pointing their fingers at the terrorists.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Speak for yourself, please, not all.
51% of the voting population wanted Bush. 49% wanted something different.
While Bush got a majority, it's still roughly half-and-half.

This is the most important fact people are ignoring, in general - only
about half the voters wanted this president. That means if this president
pushes an agenda supporting the right-wing (and how else shall I interpret
his statements about "political capital"?) he will be disenfranchising
about half the population of this country.

But if The liberals won with 51% of the vote, wouldn't their policies be
disenfranchising the conservatives?

What Bush must do for the sake of our nation's future is to push a
multi-partisan agenda equal in its support of the ideals of all factions
of the American populace. He needs to reach out to the Democrats with more
than "This is what I'm going to do, and I'd like your support" - he needs
to bring them into the process.
Mind you, he doesn't need to from a political standpoint - he has strong
majorities to pass nearly anything he would like. But this country does
not need a politician in the Oval Office - it needs a statesman. I just
hope he's up to the challenge.

So what you are saying is that even though he won, he needs to do what
the liberals want to keep the country happy. I don't think it works
that way.

 

[Travis Newbury]

What disturbs me about this is that I'm not entirely sure whether you are
writing about Al Qaeda or Bush and his buddies.

And it equally disturbs me is that you do not understand the difference.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Clearly you know very little about computers, software testing, and
the problem with systematic errors (particularly if those errors are
introduced deliberately).


On the contrary, it is complacent attitudes like yours that allows
corrupt regimes like yours to get away with their corruption for so
long.

Obviously.

 

[nice.guy.nige]

While the city slept, brucie ([email protected]) feverishly typed...

the votes don't even reflect reality
http://wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65623,00.html

Good Grief! There's a lot to be said for putting an "X" on a piece of paper,
folding that paper in half and dropping it into a sealed box!

Cheers,
Nige

 

[Travis Newbury]

Try this:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

I agree, civilian casualties in a war really suck.

 

[Lemming]

Were you watching the same Die Hard as the rest of us?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095016/plotsummary
| Tough New York cop John McClane finds himself in a tight situation when
| an office building in Los Angeles is taken over by terrorists. Apart
| from himself, everyone else in the building - including his wife - is
| held at gunpoint while their captors spell out their demands. The F.B.I.
| are called in to survey the situation, but John McClane has other plans
| for the terrorists...

The imdb may call them terrorists, but as I recall they were actually
trying to extort money, they weren't terrorists, they were thieves.

Die Another Day
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246460/
| It's up to James Bond to discover the connection between a North Korean
| terrorist and an adventurous diamond broker whose looks may be
| deceiving.

The World is not Enough
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0143145/plotsummary
| Pierce Brosnan leaps into action as James Bond in the 19th film of the
| long-running adventure series. Renard (Robert Carlyle) is a high-tech
| terrorist with a most unusual -- and deadly -- characteristic: a
| brain-lodged bullet that renders him totally impervious to pain.

Earlier James Bond plots featured the shadowy SPECTRE organisation.
SPECTRE stood for "Special Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism,
Revenge and Extortion".

I can't remember many plot lines which were related to terrorism,
rather than someone trying to (a) Hold the world to ransom for
megabucks (b) dominate the world, or (c) destroy the planet. Oddly
enough, terrorists aren't motivated by world domination/destruction -
they are usually a bit more conservative in their demands. The imdb
uses the word "terrorist" in it's description of two films out of how
many? How loosely should we define "terrorist"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105690/
| A former SEAL, now cook, is the only person who can stop a gang of
| terrorists when they sieze control of a US Navy battleship.

IMDB is wrong. They were thieves, not terrorists.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103112/
| When terrorists sieze control of a boarding school, a group of
| trouble-making boys decide to resist them.

Must have been a different film to the one I was thinking of.

Not my fault. Each of them was a big-budget film seen by millions... each
featured terrorists.

I wonder.

Lemming

 

[Lemming]

In message <[email protected]>, Lemming

[snip]

The world in general
is much less secure - and all to satisfy Bliar's vanity. I wonder how
he sleeps at night.

He sleeps the sleep of the righteous -- what else would he do when he's
helped (as part of the coalition of the willing) to deliver an entire
people from oppression.

Aye, I'll grant you that; He's freed over 100,000 of them to pieces.
url?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=100,000+civilians

If only it were so.

Relax; it is so.

Don't be silly.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=blair+rebirthing

Lemming

 

[Lemming]

In message <[email protected]>, Lemming
In message <[email protected]>, Lemming

[snip]

The world in general
is much less secure - and all to satisfy Bliar's vanity. I wonder how
he sleeps at night.

He sleeps the sleep of the righteous -- what else would he do when he's
helped (as part of the coalition of the willing) to deliver an entire
people from oppression.

Aye, I'll grant you that; He's freed over 100,000 of them to pieces.

url?

To start, here, and elsewhere:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596

nb:
"That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from
this town is included, the study points to about 200,000 excess deaths
since the outbreak of war"

Try this:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Try these:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=100,000+civilians

Results 1 - 10 of about 190,000 for 100,000 civilians

news @ nature.com - 100,000 civilians may have died in Iraq ...... NPG
PROMOTION navnav. News. Published online: 29 October 2004; |
doi:10.1038/news041025- 20 100,000 civilians may have died in Iraq
conflict. Helen Pearson. ...
www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/041025-20.html - Similar pages


The New York Times > International > Europe > Casualties: Study ...An
estimated 100000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect
consequence of the March 2003 US-led invasion, according to a new
study. ...
www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/ international/europe/29casualties.html -
Similar pages


Political Wire: 100,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq... Movable Type 3.11
Newsisfree Copyright © 1998-2004 by Taegan D. Goddard. All rights
reserved. Site Meter. October 28, 2004. 100,000 Civilians Killed in
Iraq. ...
politicalwire.com/archives/2004/
10/28/100000_civilians_killed_in_iraq.html - 14k - 6 Nov 2004 - Cached
- Similar pages


Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | 100,000 Iraqi civilians ......
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, says study Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday October 29, 2004 The Guardian About 100,000 Iraqi civilians -
half of them women ...
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html - 36k - 6 Nov
2004 - Cached - Similar pages


Article: Civilian death toll in Iraq exceeds 100,000 | New ...... The
invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the
death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific
study to examine the ...
www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996596 - 53k - 6 Nov 2004 -
Cached - Similar pages


Study puts civilian toll in Iraq at over 100,000... PARIS More than
100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect
consequences of the US-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a
research team ...
www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/toll.html - 27k - 6 Nov 2004 -
Cached - Similar pages


Middle East Online... 100,000 civilians have died since Iraq invasion.
British medical weekly The Lancet estimates more than half of 100,000
Iraqi civilians have died from violence. ...
www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=11718 - 16k - 6 Nov 2004 -
Cached - Similar pages


Democracy Now! | Study: Iraq Invasion Has Killed 100,000 Civilians...
Monday, November 1st, 2004 Study: Iraq Invasion Has Killed 100,000
Civilians Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3 Watch 128k stream
Watch 256k stream Read ...
www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/01/1514200 - 27k - Cached -
Similar pages


Islam Online- News Section... LONDON, October 29 (IslamOnline.net &
News Agencies) - Over 100,000 civilians -- half of whom women and
children -- have lost their lives since the US-led ...
www.islam-online.net/English/ News/2004-10/29/article04.shtml - 59k -
6 Nov 2004 - Cached - Similar pages


Iraq conflict has killed 100,000 civilians: study - After Saddam ...An
estimated 100000 civilians may have died as a result of the US-led
invasion and occupation of Iraq, many of them from coalition air
strikes, a study suggests ...
smh.com.au/articles/2004/ 10/29/1099028211628.html?from=storylhs -
Similar pages


Lemming

 

[Toby Inkster]

I can't remember many plot lines which were related to terrorism,
rather than someone trying to (a) Hold the world to ransom for
megabucks (b) dominate the world, or (c) destroy the planet.

Sounds pretty terrifying.

Oddly enough, terrorists aren't motivated by world domination/
destruction

Then clearly they're not being ambitious enough.

they are usually a bit more conservative in their demands.

I think it's unfair to generalise too much. I'm sure there are left-wing
terrorists too.

The imdb uses the word "terrorist" in it's description of two films out
of how many? How loosely should we define "terrorist"?

These characters used terror as their method, so whatever their
motivation -- be it financial, political or personal -- were terrorists.

 

[nice.guy.nige]

While the city slept, Jim ([email protected]) feverishly typed...

BTW, you need some practice with your English!

You know, it's a shame you couldn't have made that statement in Dutch (which
is what I'm guessing is Edwin's *native* language)...

So what was all that about the wonderful understanding and benign American
nature again??? Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-American. I'm also not
anti-Russian, anti-Iraq or anti-Afghanistan either. I'm just anti-Fuckwit.

Cheers,
Nige

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

Oh, this is such a low and stupid remark. Let us all comminicate in French
then or German. To many of us, you too, a foreign language so we are all
eaqual there.

Gotta agree Jim. Picky is a valuable source in the HTML groups and far
more gifted in English than damned near any American is in Dutch.

I have family relatives in the US, a lot of business relations too. I find
many of them are ignorant, naive, uneducated on what life is about, unable
to think for themselves, dependant on church and business and governmet,
not selfsupporting in anyway. I see you prooving yourself to be one of
those and stupidly angry too.
Don't pick on the ones critisizing your system. Find out why and try and
learn something.

But, but, Barbara. Your second sentence is quite condescending towards the
52% of American voters that voted for Bush, including and especially your
own relatives. Is there some secret we USA types should know that you all
do? Or are we a fundamentally different society fighting for our own
identity in a world of socialism?

BTW: you got ploinked, so bite me. I wont notice, cause you're not worth
it

Dissention shouldn't evoke censorship
By the way, I see I'm a day late in this thread. Now I'll read the rest of it.

leo

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

[top posting monkeyed with and maybe fixed. Apologies to anybody misquoted]

europe, most of the western part

Why, you're as provincial as I am. Luckily, we have a bunch of <double_
winking_smiley>real global</double_winking_smiley> thinkers here.

leo

 

[Jeff Thies]

But if The liberals won with 51% of the vote, wouldn't their policies be
disenfranchising the conservatives?

The last Democratic President had two Republicans (perhaps more) in his
cabinet. He was able to work with Republican controlled House and Senate
to pass responsible legislation that didn't bust the budget and cater to
every lobyist.

The current President has swung to the far right. On the campaign trail
there were no attendees at those rallys that were not vouched for my
local Republican Party honchos. Anyone suspect was kicked out.

It seems to me that Bush has no desire to associate with anyone who
is not of a like mind. There has *never* before been a president so
constitutional incapable of even listening to views that did not come
out of the morning prayer meetings he has every day.

It's a hard swing over to the far right and it certainly has been
disastrous for this country and the world. Don't believe me, listen to
what almost anyone who has left the administration has said about it's
runnings. You know that IRAQ was run by the NeoCons and other Republican
faithfull. They ran that country into the ground, but I say: Why should
IRAQ have it better than us?

So, you agree with Bush that he has never made a mistake?

Jeff

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not anti-American. I'm also not
anti-Russian, anti-Iraq or anti-Afghanistan either. I'm just anti-Fuckwit.

According to brucie's (I believe) definition, I'm a f*ckwit. Parse the
word, get it firmly in your mind and realize what a pleasure it must be.
My thanks to Jim, jake, mike and Travis. Keep the faith guys.

leo

 

[Neal]

Dissention shouldn't evoke censorship

Plonking is as much censorship as my decision to not read a book is
censorship.

 

[Neal]

According to brucie's (I believe) definition, I'm a f*ckwit. Parse the
word, get it firmly in your mind and realize what a pleasure it must be.
My thanks to Jim, jake, mike and Travis. Keep the faith guys.

Well, as a "non-fuckwit", let me ask you this: with Bush's record for
excluding anyone who even had a Kerry sticher in their wallet; considering
the reports of ex-administration members who report the administration is
being run unreasonably; and taking into account the fact that Bush sees
his presidency as having been meant to be by God:

What chance have I, an athiest yet patriotic citizen, of getting a fair
shake in this nation?

 

[Leonard Blaisdell]

He was able to work with Republican controlled House and Senate
to pass responsible legislation that didn't bust the budget and cater to
every lobyist.

The "only" reason that Clinton didn't bust the budget was that Republicans
took control of the House and Senate in 1994 and wouldn't let him spend
the large retroactive increase he made in taxes. Man with a plan and no
bucks to spend. That quirk in history helped the economy immeasurably.

The current President has swung to the far right. On the campaign trail
there were no attendees at those rallys that were not vouched for my
local Republican Party honchos. Anyone suspect was kicked out.

That's why they call it a rally and not a bipartisan discussion. Kerry did
the same. Ever hear anybody boo him? Wonder why?

It seems to me that Bush has no desire to associate with anyone who
is not of a like mind.

I don't either. Do you?

There has *never* before been a president so
constitutional incapable of even listening to views that did not come
out of the morning prayer meetings he has every day.

Oh please! He doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve.

It's a hard swing over to the far right and it certainly has been
disastrous for this country and the world. Don't believe me, listen to
what almost anyone who has left the administration has said about it's
runnings. You know that IRAQ was run by the NeoCons and other Republican
faithfull. They ran that country into the ground, but I say: Why should
IRAQ have it better than us?

Swallow it whole, Jeff.

So, you agree with Bush that he has never made a mistake?

Not speaking for Travis, look at the interview again. He didn't say that.

leo

 

[Neal]

The "only" reason that Clinton didn't bust the budget was that
Republicans
took control of the House and Senate in 1994 and wouldn't let him spend
the large retroactive increase he made in taxes. Man with a plan and no
bucks to spend. That quirk in history helped the economy immeasurably.

Yet Bush had a Republican Congress and look at our deficit.

Are you seriously implying that Bush can do better?

That's why they call it a rally and not a bipartisan discussion. Kerry
did
the same.

Cite a reference. many people have reported that they were allowed into
Kerry rallys with Bush stuff on.

I don't either. Do you?

If you want to run a country, you better. Unless you plan on silencing the
other half of the nation.

Oh please! He doesn't wear his faith on his sleeve.

No, but he injects it into national policy - which I find deplorable. If a
Muslim president followed his interpretation of the Koran in running a
country, would you support that?