Portrait of the average American voter...

William Graham wrote:

No. He just built the biggest rifle ever conceived, and had it aimed at Tel
Aviv.......How quickly they forget........

Actually, it never got finished. The Brits withdrew their tacit
support by curtailing shipment of the barrel, and Mossad knocked
off the canadian designer, Gerald Bull.

--
Ken Tough

"Walter Banks" wrote in message
...


William Graham wrote:

"Raphael Bustin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:38:11 -0800, "Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even
number wrote:


Just as I thought.
You can't back up your generalization, Rafe.

----------
Annika:
Wouldn't you agree that one should have an exit stategy
before going to war?

We had a perfectly good strategy....Go in, get rid of Saddam Hussein and
all
the WMD's, rebuild everything we destroyed in order to do that, and then
leave. - What was wrong with that?

Let's look at the accomplishments
1) .Go in, get rid of Saddam Hussein -- check
2) Go in, get rid all the WMD's -- check
3) rebuild everything we destroyed
in order to do that

Thanks now I know why the US is still there

Thanks..

Well, it was a plan, wasn't it? - Not only that, but we're sticking to it.
Why are the democrats always whining, "Bush had no plan"? It seems like a
perfectly reasonable plan to me. The fact that it might have to be modified
in the light of unforeseen developments doesn't make it a bad plan. That
happens to most all plans......Have you ever watched a football game?

"Ken Tough" wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:

No. He just built the biggest rifle ever conceived, and had it aimed at
Tel
Aviv.......How quickly they forget........

Actually, it never got finished. The Brits withdrew their tacit
support by curtailing shipment of the barrel, and Mossad knocked
off the canadian designer, Gerald Bull.

Yes, but it's part of the proof that Saddam had WMD's. That, and the nuclear
reactor the French were helping him build that the Israel air force took
out, plus several dozen other incidents over the last thirty years......To
claim that he never had any WMD's is patently ridiculous, and entirely
prompted by the democrat's blind hatred for Bush and anything republican.
Anyone with any common sense at all knows that he had 'em, always had 'em,
and just barely managed to ship them out before we invaded, probably to
Syria. We even have satellite photos of him removing a whole warehouse
overnight.......I wonder why he would do that under cover of darkness? -
Isn't it much easier to empty buildings and take them down under daylight
conditions? - Duh........

"Ken Tough" wrote in message
...

William Graham wrote:

"Ken Tough" wrote in message You do realize that
there was absolutely no link between Iraq and
the events of 11 Sept 2001, don't you?

So, there weren't any WMD's.

What's that got to do with the price of cheese?

(at least, not that we were able to find before
Saddam got rid of them) But that doesn't mean that there was "absolutely
no
link between Iraq and the events of 9/11."

? I wasn't even aware anyone thought that the mythical link between
Iraq and WMD had anything to do with the mythical link between Iraq
and 11 Sept 2001. This is a new one on me.


Every antagonistic ME country is
connected to those attacks, and I won't be personally comfortable until
they
are all democracies, and all part of the world's free market economy. Iraq
and Afghanistan are only two....We still have over a half dozen to go.

Quite a few more than that, I'm afraid. (Where is your ME boundary?
How do you feel about Turkmenistan, for example?)


We
can do it in any order you please, and for whatever reasons they can come
up
with, but it will, eventually, have to be done before any of us can really
get a good night's sleep. Can't you understand that OBL really ****ed us
off, and that we are going to kick ass until he and all his sympathizers,
supporters, friends and relatives are gone?

Well, you ought to be doign something in (non-democratic-but-oh-
well-at-least-they-toe-the-line) Pakistan in that case, and stop
mucking about in Iraq ... ;-]

At least, that's what I would
have us do.....Unfortunately, I have to put up with the wimpy democratic
hand wringers who want to keep our heads in the sand until its too
late......I wonder why they are so stupid that they don't see that these
radical religious nuts won't rest until they have killed all of us. Like
Hitler, they have made their intentions clear. It is only a fool who can't
see the handwriting on the wall........We have been attacked. The ground
rules have been laid out. The reasons have been made clear. Because their
God has said that we are infidels and have to go. It is impossible to
change
their minds. Why can't you see and understand that?

Because there is absolutely no logic in it. Iraq was of no importance
to the terrorism at all, and yet it was the focus of such urgent action
that UN weapons inspectors dire requests to give more time were denied.
(They were 100% correct, of course).

You are aware that the UN, "weapons inspectors" were just paperwork
pushers, and didn't actually go into any facilities and actually try to
observe what was really being done there, aren"t you?

So what did they nee the, "more time" for? I'm sure Saddam could generate
paperwork much faster than they could read it.......



What's happened in Iraq has made the situation 100% worse.

Well, that's one person's opinion.....In my case, I think its way too soon
to know.....

William Graham wrote:

Because the Saudi Arabians don't make statements like, "We are working on
getting an atom bomb, and when we do, we are going to drop it on
Israel."?
Neither was Iraq.0

No. He just built the biggest rifle ever conceived, and had it aimed at Tel
Aviv.......How quickly they forget........


There's nothing to forget. It is *your* memory that's faulty.

The zionists killed the Canadian scientist before it was finished. The
gun would have been almost useless as a weapon of war in any case.


http://www.theworld.com/~jlr/doom/bull.htm





mike

What's happened in Iraq has made the situation 100% worse.

Well, that's one person's opinion.....In my case, I think its way too soon
to know.....


In 6-12 months, US troops will be crawling out of Iraq, American prestige
will be damaged for decades to come, and your beloved frat boy wannabe
emperor George W. Bush, along with the other silver-spooned imbeciles in his
regime, will be recorded as one the most incompetent, in the short history
of your country. Mark these words, by 2008 there won't be any US forces left
in Iraq regardless of Iraqi democracy/terrorism, because Republicans want to
have a chance of winning the next election, they will support Democratic
withdrawal plans.


"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..

"Ken Tough" wrote in message
...

William Graham wrote:

"Ken Tough" wrote in message You do realize that
there was absolutely no link between Iraq and
the events of 11 Sept 2001, don't you?

So, there weren't any WMD's.

What's that got to do with the price of cheese?

(at least, not that we were able to find before
Saddam got rid of them) But that doesn't mean that there was "absolutely
no
link between Iraq and the events of 9/11."

? I wasn't even aware anyone thought that the mythical link between
Iraq and WMD had anything to do with the mythical link between Iraq
and 11 Sept 2001. This is a new one on me.


Every antagonistic ME country is
connected to those attacks, and I won't be personally comfortable until
they
are all democracies, and all part of the world's free market economy.
Iraq
and Afghanistan are only two....We still have over a half dozen to go.

Quite a few more than that, I'm afraid. (Where is your ME boundary?
How do you feel about Turkmenistan, for example?)


We
can do it in any order you please, and for whatever reasons they can come
up
with, but it will, eventually, have to be done before any of us can
really
get a good night's sleep. Can't you understand that OBL really ****ed us
off, and that we are going to kick ass until he and all his sympathizers,
supporters, friends and relatives are gone?

Well, you ought to be doign something in (non-democratic-but-oh-
well-at-least-they-toe-the-line) Pakistan in that case, and stop
mucking about in Iraq ... ;-]

At least, that's what I would
have us do.....Unfortunately, I have to put up with the wimpy democratic
hand wringers who want to keep our heads in the sand until its too
late......I wonder why they are so stupid that they don't see that these
radical religious nuts won't rest until they have killed all of us. Like
Hitler, they have made their intentions clear. It is only a fool who
can't
see the handwriting on the wall........We have been attacked. The ground
rules have been laid out. The reasons have been made clear. Because their
God has said that we are infidels and have to go. It is impossible to
change
their minds. Why can't you see and understand that?

Because there is absolutely no logic in it. Iraq was of no importance
to the terrorism at all, and yet it was the focus of such urgent action
that UN weapons inspectors dire requests to give more time were denied.
(They were 100% correct, of course).

You are aware that the UN, "weapons inspectors" were just paperwork
pushers, and didn't actually go into any facilities and actually try to
observe what was really being done there, aren"t you?

So what did they nee the, "more time" for? I'm sure Saddam could generate
paperwork much faster than they could read it.......



What's happened in Iraq has made the situation 100% worse.

Well, that's one person's opinion.....In my case, I think its way too soon
to know.....

William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message

The average American only cares that he has gas in the car and that the
lights turn on. Asking the average American to consider why The US is
so hated by so many in the middle east (and elsewhere) is not relevant
to his comfort.


This is a typical liberal statement....They have no respect for the, "common
man". They believe that the average person needs to be led by an
intellectual liberal government, because he is incapable of thinking for
himself, and voting for the right people. It is one of the more endearing of
the liberal characteristics.......Not!


To judge by the behaviour of the "average american" who drives a gas
guzzler a mere 30 years after an oil embargo that severely damaged the
US economy, it is clear that "thinking for himself" is not very good for
his children or granddchildren.

It is not a "liberal" statement, and frankly every time you don't like
something you paint it as "liberal" to spook it away... very much like a
certain lame duck in DC.

William Graham wrote:
"Ken Tough" wrote in message
...

William Graham wrote:


No. He just built the biggest rifle ever conceived, and had it aimed at
Tel
Aviv.......How quickly they forget........

Actually, it never got finished. The Brits withdrew their tacit
support by curtailing shipment of the barrel, and Mossad knocked
off the canadian designer, Gerald Bull.


Yes, but it's part of the proof that Saddam had WMD's. That, and the nuclear
reactor the French were helping him build that the Israel air force took
out, plus several dozen other incidents over the last thirty years......To
claim that he never had any WMD's is patently ridiculous, and entirely
prompted by the democrat's blind hatred for Bush and anything republican.

Ahem. The whole excuse for the invasion of Iraq was predicated on the
"fact" that WMD's were in Iraq and that Hussein was aiding Al Queda.

1) The "intelligence" was always weak, flawed and not backed up by any
professionals in the intelligence community.
2) No WMD's have been found. Nothing nada. See 1) above
3) Hussein wanted _nothing_ to do with Al Queda.

Anyone with any common sense at all knows that he had 'em, always had 'em,
and just barely managed to ship them out before we invaded, probably to

Proof?


Syria. We even have satellite photos of him removing a whole warehouse
overnight.......I wonder why he would do that under cover of darkness? -

Proof?

Isn't it much easier to empty buildings and take them down under daylight
conditions? - Duh........

Duh yourself. Nobody has any proof at all that their were WMD's in Iraq
before the US invaded.

William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in
And that is the point with oil consumption: the reality is that it's

mostly gone.

Cheers,
Alan


Nonsense! - I bet that there's more oil in the ground right now than we have
pumped up and used to date.....More than enough to last us another 50 years,
even with increasing usage. We haven't even begun to tap most of the
reserves under the water, and in places like Africa and Australia.....They
have been talking about running out of oil for the last 100 years, and they
will still be talking about it 100 years from now. - And it's all complete
hogwash! - Before we really run out of oil, it will become completely
obsolete....Replaced by nuclear power sources that are small enough to fit
in a gas tank.........

Nonsense yourself.

More than half is gone. And that was over the last 120 years or so.
And that was the easiest ($) to get at, easiest ($) to refine and was
burned up much more slowly on average than we're burning it now.

For the second half, we have to go further away ($$$$$$$), drill deeper
($$$$$$), refine it more ($$$$$$$) for less yield ($$$$$$).

During the 50's - 60's, the US was a swing producer, that is to say
enough oil was being extracted from the ground that the US itself could
stabilize its own oil supply and prices. Sometime in the late 60's /
early 70's the US capacity dropped to a point (while consumption
continued to rise) that the US was no longer a swing producer.

Recently, Saudi Arabia has been flirting at the edge of being able to
sustain its role as a swing producer. There oil fields are in a
decaying mode. The most prolific field now pumps out more sea water
than oil (and thence needs energy to seperate the water from the oil
before it goes to the refinery).
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/ghawar.htm

To compound the stupidity, we (Canada) try to extract oil from tar sands
which is expensive to mine, needs energy (clean burning natural gas) to
extract the oil (wasting NG to get a dirtier source of energy); the pair
of activities about doubling the CO2 output for a given amount of useful
work done at the end. This is precisely why our minority government has
ducked out of Kyoto to stand by the US as uncaring about the
consequences of greenhouse gases. And that oil is sold into Canada and
the US, the two least efficient users of fossil fuel in the world.

As to nuclear power in a car, faggetaboutit.

I have not made any such comments. None of my comments have been personal
in this discussion except one to you and that was immediately followed by the
cheap shot reference to make it clear that I saw humour in a particular phrase and
was individually attacking you.

Driving down this morning (My usual Monday 3 hour drive) I was thinking
how personal this whole discussion had become instead of the evaluation
of ideas, political policy and approaches to world problems.

For me I just want to see the killing stop in Iraq, Darfur, Palestine, where ever.
A week after its over the winner or loser will be week old news.

The weather was too bad over the weekend to enjoy the prelude to winter with
my camera.

Annika, that was a fine shot of Chattanooga, you live in a beautiful state
Tennessee is. Now that is a personal opinion.

w..


William Graham wrote:

"Walter Banks" wrote in message

Characterizing my comments as hatred for the president is simply not true.
I have no opinion on him as an individual, none I understand one on one
he is charming..

w..

Saying that he, "lied to the American People about the WMD's and only went
into Iraq to steal their oil and feed money to his industrialist buddies"
isn't a personal attack? God.....With friendly comments like that, why would
anyone need enemies? But that's all I've been hearing from the democrats for
the last 4 years........