Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Images: Cindy Sheehan Protest

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 2:22:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.pbase.com/lautermilch/cindy2
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 11:50:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote:

> For a DC protest, "huge" depends greatly on who does the counting. The
> Park Service estimates crowds fairly accurately and they consistently
> estimate 1/2 to 1/3 the number the "organizer" promotes.
>

The Park Service is now prohibited from providing crowd estimates to the
public.

They always drastically underreported any demonstration that I attended.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 11:50:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>For a DC protest, "huge" depends greatly on who does the counting. The
>>Park Service estimates crowds fairly accurately and they consistently
>>estimate 1/2 to 1/3 the number the "organizer" promotes.
>>
>
>
> The Park Service is now prohibited from providing crowd estimates to the
> public.
>
> They always drastically underreported any demonstration that I attended.

You're proving my point. ;) 
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 5:35:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:p b6dnYfDNti8eJXeRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> Rudy,
> Ya hear that history is doomed to repeat itself, the older I get, the more
> I believe it.
> :-(
> Paul

Some things in history are worth repeating.
Like democracy in place of tyranny, for example...
August 21, 2005 7:49:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

They don't look like the usual rag-tag band of
creeps who show up for such things. Now, the
crowds at the anti-Global summits are REALLY
ratbags.
Nice shots BTW, good that you could be onsite
for this stunt.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:19:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6bfhg1tc8d3b5j2icdmb4ak8so8a769gv9@4ax.com...
>
> Like the UN handled Cambodia and Rwanda?

And we did such a fine job there, didn't we? Sorry, not our problems; let
the UN handle it.

>
> I don't know of any children serving in the U.S. Military.

To me, sending 18 and 19 year olds is like sending our kids. They are old
enough to die, but not old enough to have a beer. They can't legally enter
into a contract, but they can take a bullet for their country. They're just
kids.

>
> You sir, are one of those morons.

Gee, thanks. Did I insult you? Why do you insult me? What's your problem?
You can't defend our little excapades abroad, so you resort to insults?
Pretty pathetic.

>
>
> *****************************************************
>
> ".......... Here is a burden
> We are not fit for. We are not like Romans and Britons
> - natural world-rulers,
> Bullies by instinct - but we have to bear it.
> Who has kissed Fate on the mouth, and blows out the lamp
> - must lie with her."
>
> "Historical Choice"
> Robinson Jeffers
> from "Double Axe"
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:19:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
news:QMudnVox1NiQh5TeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6bfhg1tc8d3b5j2icdmb4ak8so8a769gv9@4ax.com...
>>
>> Like the UN handled Cambodia and Rwanda?
>
> And we did such a fine job there, didn't we? Sorry, not our problems; let
> the UN handle it.
>
>>
>> I don't know of any children serving in the U.S. Military.
>
> To me, sending 18 and 19 year olds is like sending our kids.

Wrong. Kids must submit to their parents decisions for them.
Our 18 and 19 year-olds are 100% voluntary.

>They are old enough to die, but not old enough to have a beer. They can't
>legally enter into a contract, but they can take a bullet for their
>country. They're just kids.

Not according to any law.

>> You sir, are one of those morons.
>
> Gee, thanks. Did I insult you? Why do you insult me? What's your problem?
> You can't defend our little excapades abroad, so you resort to insults?
> Pretty pathetic.

True. Unnecessary.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:23:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Nostrobino" <not@home.today> wrote in message
news:SuGdnbAUntOKTpXeRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>
>> We're not the world's police. If there's a problem of that magnitude, let
>> the UN handle it.
>
> <snort> "let the UN handle it"?!
>
> Go ahead, remind me of something the UN "handled" in anything remotely
> like an effective or beneficial way. When a situation becomes even
> marginally dangerous, the UN's solution is to promptly pack up and
> leave--exactly as they did in this case.

Irrelevant. It's not up to the US to send its youth to fight and die for the
world's problems. We should send our troops to fight and die only when the
US is directly threatened. Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the US. None.
The president has admitted that there were no WMD, no involvement with al
Queda, and no ties to 9/11. So why are we losing an average of 12 lives per
week, 120 injuries per week, and spending $2B per week?

>
>
>> Let the French and Germans handle it. We should not sacrifice our
>> children for eveyone's problems, let alone oil.
>
> Oh, please. Can we at least drop the idiotic pretense that this is "all
> about oil," or is that myth hard-wired into the anti-war position?

If Iraq didn't have oil, and we weren't totally dependent upon the stability
of the middle east, would we give two shits what goes on over there? Nope.
This is about oil, and nothing else. Prove otherwise, if you can. Unless, of
course, this is a personnal vendetta by Georgie because Hussein tried to off
his father. But a president wouldn't stoop that low, would he? If it's not
about oil, then what?

>
> N.
>
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:28:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:Rr5Oe.6257$Us5.2154@fed1read02...
>
> Who is the enforcement arm of the UN???
> Answer: There is no enforcement arm of the UN save for soldiers like
> ours, and almost entirely ours.
> The
>
>>Let the French and Germans handle it.
>
> Oh, they handled it, alright. Or should we say... "HANDED IT..." to
> Saddam.
> So did the Germans.

What I'm saying, sarcastically, is that this isn't worth our kids dieing
for! It isn't! What are we there?

>
>>We should not sacrifice our children for eveyone's problems,
>
> Who should we sacrifice for?

US security, which was never threatened by Iraq. Never.

>
>>let alone for oil.
>
> If we were only interested in oil, then we had it already via Saddam...as
> much as we would let him sell, he would have given. This was clearly not
> to grab Iraqi oil. We already had all the Iraqi oil we wanted. This was
> about removing Saddam. We removed him, and I'm glad we did. His
> replacement is the trick. We're working on it.

Nope. Bush had said, from the very start, that this was about WMD, and
nothing else. I defy you to find one speech where regiem change was the
justification prior to the invasion.

>
> You know, it's a good thing the US wasn't this impatient when we wanted
> our own constitution!
> We had over a hundred years of experience with democracy when we wrote
> ours, and yet some are demancing that unless it's a short, easy process in
> Iraq, we should take our ball and go home. Idiocy.

We're a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. If we were a democracy,
Bush would have never been elected the first time. He came up a half million
votes short, remember?

Did you read that the new Iraq government may be based on Islamic law? And
that women, and may others will have given up rights in the process? Yeah,
great job George. We're trying to install a democracy in a region dominated
by dictatorships and a religion that simply does not support the concept of
democracy, so that's why it won't work. This was sheer stupidity from the
start, no question.

>
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:28:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
news:5uKdnZ2dnZ0FXdObnZ2dnbGBlN6dnZ2dRVn-yJ2dnZ0@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:Rr5Oe.6257$Us5.2154@fed1read02...
>>
>> Who is the enforcement arm of the UN???
>> Answer: There is no enforcement arm of the UN save for soldiers like
>> ours, and almost entirely ours.
>> The
>>
>>>Let the French and Germans handle it.
>>
>> Oh, they handled it, alright. Or should we say... "HANDED IT..." to
>> Saddam.
>> So did the Germans.
>
> What I'm saying, sarcastically, is that this isn't worth our kids dieing
> for! It isn't! What are we there?
>
>>
>>>We should not sacrifice our children for eveyone's problems,
>>
>> Who should we sacrifice for?
>
> US security, which was never threatened by Iraq. Never.

Not by direct invasion, no.
By other less-direct means...absolutely.

>>>let alone for oil.
>>
>> If we were only interested in oil, then we had it already via Saddam...as
>> much as we would let him sell, he would have given. This was clearly not
>> to grab Iraqi oil. We already had all the Iraqi oil we wanted. This was
>> about removing Saddam. We removed him, and I'm glad we did. His
>> replacement is the trick. We're working on it.
>
> Nope. Bush had said, from the very start, that this was about WMD, and
> nothing else.

Absolutely untrue. He has never argued it based *solely* on WMDs to the
exclusion of all else.
There is a very long list of reasons for his removal, and these were always
a part of the overtly communicated rationale.

> I defy you to find one speech where regiem change was the justification
> prior to the invasion.

There are many forums of communication other than the few speeches you see
you your news.
Surely you know this.

>> You know, it's a good thing the US wasn't this impatient when we wanted
>> our own constitution!
>> We had over a hundred years of experience with democracy when we wrote
>> ours, and yet some are demancing that unless it's a short, easy process
>> in Iraq, we should take our ball and go home. Idiocy.
>
> We're a democratic republic, not a pure democracy.

Of course. Irrelevant, and silly to bring up.

> If we were a democracy, Bush would have never been elected the first time.
> He came up a half million votes short, remember?

Irrelevant.

> Did you read that the new Iraq government may be based on Islamic law?

Key word: "May"

>And that women, and may others will have given up rights in the process?

Wrong word usage: "Will"
-None of that has been determined. And yet, that will be up to them, as it
will be their constitution to write. They are not creating a little
Britain... They are participating in a self-determined government--as they
should be. I hope they decide certain things as you do, but it's up to
them.

> Yeah, great job George. We're trying to install a democracy in a region
> dominated by dictatorships and a religion that simply does not support the
> concept of democracy, so that's why it won't work.

When it does, please remember to similarly and publicly note your error.
:) 

> This was sheer stupidity from the start, no question.

Many like you said that about teh American Revolution.
They were wrong.
Nobody but idiots demand a sure thing.
It is a risk, yes. No risk=no change.
People with your view do nothing to strengthen the chances of success.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:28:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Rr5Oe.6257$Us5.2154@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> We had over a hundred years of experience with democracy when we wrote ours,
> and yet some are demancing that unless it's a short, easy process in Iraq,
> we should take our ball and go home. Idiocy.

Agreed.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:45:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:19:22 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
<Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:

>
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:6bfhg1tc8d3b5j2icdmb4ak8so8a769gv9@4ax.com...
>>
>> Like the UN handled Cambodia and Rwanda?
>
>And we did such a fine job there, didn't we? Sorry, not our problems; let
>the UN handle it.
>
>>
>> I don't know of any children serving in the U.S. Military.
>
>To me, sending 18 and 19 year olds is like sending our kids. They are old
>enough to die, but not old enough to have a beer. They can't legally enter
>into a contract, but they can take a bullet for their country. They're just
>kids.

They can indeed enter into contracts.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:47:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
news:QMudnVox1NiQh5TeRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6bfhg1tc8d3b5j2icdmb4ak8so8a769gv9@4ax.com...
>>
>> Like the UN handled Cambodia and Rwanda?
>
> And we did such a fine job there, didn't we? Sorry, not our problems; let
> the UN handle it.
>
>>
>> I don't know of any children serving in the U.S. Military.
>
> To me, sending 18 and 19 year olds is like sending our kids. They are old
> enough to die, but not old enough to have a beer. They can't legally enter
> into a contract,


Can't legally enter a contract?
Who told you this??????
Yipe, are you ever off...
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:49:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:Rr5Oe.6257$Us5.2154@fed1read02...
>
>
> Who is the enforcement arm of the UN???
> Answer: There is no enforcement arm of the UN save for soldiers like
> ours, and almost entirely ours.
> The
>
>>Let the French and Germans handle it.
>
> Oh, they handled it, alright. Or should we say... "HANDED IT..." to
> Saddam.
> So did the Germans.
>
>>We should not sacrifice our children for eveyone's problems,
>
> Who should we sacrifice for?
>
>>let alone for oil.
>
> If we were only interested in oil, then we had it already via Saddam...as
> much as we would let him sell, he would have given. This was clearly not
> to grab Iraqi oil. We already had all the Iraqi oil we wanted. This was
> about removing Saddam. We removed him, and I'm glad we did. His
> replacement is the trick. We're working on it.
>
> You know, it's a good thing the US wasn't this impatient when we wanted
> our own constitution!
> We had over a hundred years of experience with democracy when we wrote
> ours, and yet some are demancing that unless it's a short, easy process in
> Iraq, we should take our ball and go home. Idiocy.

BTW Mark, there's a special on right now on CNN that shows just how stupid
the invasion was. Bush was hell-bent, he invaded on one suspect source
(Curve Ball), and all the info was total BS. David Kay, who was interviewed
by CNN, admits that there were no WMD, and hadn't been since the Gulf war.
Just like the UN said. Quote from David Kay: "We were all wrong." And our
kids are dieing for this? That, my friend, is idiocy.

It seems that the WMD reports performed by the UN were right on the money.

>
>
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:49:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
news:5MqdnUY2m5SbvJTeRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:Rr5Oe.6257$Us5.2154@fed1read02...
>>
>>
>> Who is the enforcement arm of the UN???
>> Answer: There is no enforcement arm of the UN save for soldiers like
>> ours, and almost entirely ours.
>> The
>>
>>>Let the French and Germans handle it.
>>
>> Oh, they handled it, alright. Or should we say... "HANDED IT..." to
>> Saddam.
>> So did the Germans.
>>
>>>We should not sacrifice our children for eveyone's problems,
>>
>> Who should we sacrifice for?
>>
>>>let alone for oil.
>>
>> If we were only interested in oil, then we had it already via Saddam...as
>> much as we would let him sell, he would have given. This was clearly not
>> to grab Iraqi oil. We already had all the Iraqi oil we wanted. This was
>> about removing Saddam. We removed him, and I'm glad we did. His
>> replacement is the trick. We're working on it.
>>
>> You know, it's a good thing the US wasn't this impatient when we wanted
>> our own constitution!
>> We had over a hundred years of experience with democracy when we wrote
>> ours, and yet some are demancing that unless it's a short, easy process
>> in Iraq, we should take our ball and go home. Idiocy.
>
> BTW Mark, there's a special on right now on CNN that shows just how stupid
> the invasion was.

What else would you expect from CNN?
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:51:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:26:35 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>You know, it's a good thing the US wasn't this impatient when we wanted our
>own constitution!
>We had over a hundred years of experience with democracy when we wrote ours,
>and yet some are demancing that unless it's a short, easy process in Iraq,
>we should take our ball and go home. Idiocy.

I wonder how many know we are on our second "constitution"? The first
was the Articles of Confederation, and they didn't work well. We had 8
Presidents under the Articles; George Washington was our 9th
President, and the first under our current Constitution.
If Iraq can get it right with their first, they are better than us.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:56:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
news:toiig1h8h74m1ioo6vb0fjj06om55i9g3c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 13:26:35 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>You know, it's a good thing the US wasn't this impatient when we wanted
>>our
>>own constitution!
>>We had over a hundred years of experience with democracy when we wrote
>>ours,
>>and yet some are demancing that unless it's a short, easy process in Iraq,
>>we should take our ball and go home. Idiocy.
>
> I wonder how many know we are on our second "constitution"? The first
> was the Articles of Confederation, and they didn't work well. We had 8
> Presidents under the Articles; George Washington was our 9th
> President, and the first under our current Constitution.
> If Iraq can get it right with their first, they are better than us.

And lets not forget that while some citizens of that constitutional creation
era were still living, we had ourselves an extraordinarily bloody civil war
that killed more Americans than all our other wars combined. And HOW many
months have they been working on THEIR republic???
We need to stretch our attention-spans/patience, for crying out loud.

Sheesh.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:02:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote in part:

>
> Some things in history are worth repeating.
> Like democracy in place of tyranny, for example...
>

Where?

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:02:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Unclaimed Mysteries"
<theletter_k_andthenumeral_4_doh@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote in message
news:BR6Oe.9578$ns.2605@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Mark² wrote in part:
>
>>
>> Some things in history are worth repeating.
>> Like democracy in place of tyranny, for example...
>
> Where?

Um... How about:
England.
Germany.
France.
Most of Western Europe.

South Korea (vs. North Korea)
Russia vs. USSR
Most of Eastern Europe now...
And on and on and on...
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:27:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:47:19 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> Nobody but idiots demand a sure thing.

Many tried to warn Bush about Iraq. Some of them include Richard
Clark, Generals such as Shakalashvili(sp?) and probably even Colin
Powell, in private. But he demanded a sure thing and it was
provided on a silver platter by George ("slam dunk") Tenet.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:27:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:u8hig1pv4kr48cuttasb6lb5di491igo4b@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 17:47:19 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Nobody but idiots demand a sure thing.
>
> Many tried to warn Bush about Iraq. Some of them include Richard
> Clark, Generals such as Shakalashvili(sp?) and probably even Colin
> Powell, in private. But he demanded a sure thing and it was
> provided on a silver platter by George ("slam dunk") Tenet.

The discussion was not referring to WMDs.

The discussion turned to the establishment of a democracy.
Establishing democracy is never a "sure" endeavor, any more than it was sure
to succeed in the great experiment of America.

Read the immediately previous posts and you'll see what was in question.
The "sure thing" reference was not what you thought it was in reference to.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:27:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:45:29 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>>> Nobody but idiots demand a sure thing.
>>
>> Many tried to warn Bush about Iraq. Some of them include Richard
>> Clark, Generals such as Shakalashvili(sp?) and probably even Colin
>> Powell, in private. But he demanded a sure thing and it was
>> provided on a silver platter by George ("slam dunk") Tenet.
>
> The discussion was not referring to WMDs.

It certainly was. But in the global hunt for stupidity, Bush can
run but he can't hide. I'm sure that you're aware that most people,
even you, occasionally taken statements (such as yours above) and
take them into new, useful directions. But if you want it returned
to WMDs, many in the administration thought that the eventual
discovery of some CBR WMDs were a sure thing. At least in the
beginning. That eventually changed from "He has them and we'll find
them" to "He had the capability" to eventually "Even without the
capability, he had the desire, and given enough time . . .". Enough
idiocy to float a boat. :) 
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 3:27:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:bm0gg11gkhjuh0ldr51f2ep87load0315d@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:45:29 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>>> Nobody but idiots demand a sure thing.
>>>
>>> Many tried to warn Bush about Iraq. Some of them include Richard
>>> Clark, Generals such as Shakalashvili(sp?) and probably even Colin
>>> Powell, in private. But he demanded a sure thing and it was
>>> provided on a silver platter by George ("slam dunk") Tenet.
>>
>> The discussion was not referring to WMDs.


>
> It certainly was.
Not my comments that you just replied to.
Are you a mind reader? If so, you're not a very good one.
:) 


>But in the global hunt for stupidity, Bush can
> run but he can't hide.

Oh geez... That sounds like one of those Jesse Jackson gems... (Boooooo!)

>I'm sure that you're aware that most people,
> even you, occasionally taken statements (such as yours above) and
> take them into new, useful directions.

I think you take a bit too much liberty with putting words in the mouths of
others.
Rather than twisting my words to suit your needs, how about responding to
the clearly-intended message? There is no use continuing if you won't at
least do that. If you simply want to chase your tail, then count me out.

>But if you want it returned
> to WMDs, many in the administration thought that the eventual
> discovery of some CBR WMDs were a sure thing.

I don't mind if you return to anything, but not by simply pretending I'm
referring to something I'm not.

>At least in the
> beginning. That eventually changed from "He has them and we'll find
> them" to "He had the capability" to eventually "Even without the
> capability, he had the desire, and given enough time . . .". Enough
> idiocy to float a boat. :) 

Whatever.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 4:57:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:19:22 -0400, "Kinon O'cann"
<Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote:

>
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:6bfhg1tc8d3b5j2icdmb4ak8so8a769gv9@4ax.com...
>>
>> Like the UN handled Cambodia and Rwanda?
>
>And we did such a fine job there, didn't we? Sorry, not our problems; let
>the UN handle it.
>
>>
>> I don't know of any children serving in the U.S. Military.
>
>To me, sending 18 and 19 year olds is like sending our kids. They are old
>enough to die, but not old enough to have a beer. They can't legally enter
>into a contract, but they can take a bullet for their country. They're just
>kids.

I didn't have any 18 kids in my infantry platoon. I had 18 year old
men.

By the way 18 years olds can legally enter into contracts.

>
>>
>> You sir, are one of those morons.
>
>Gee, thanks. Did I insult you? Why do you insult me? What's your problem?
>You can't defend our little excapades abroad, so you resort to insults?
>Pretty pathetic.
>

No, you are the pathetic one who will sell other's freedom out. That
makes you a moron in my book for putting your pathetic emotions over
such an important thing as freedom.


*****************************************************

"Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
When God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay."

"Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
A.E. Houseman - 1914
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:02:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>>For a DC protest, "huge" depends greatly on who does the counting. The
>>>Park Service estimates crowds fairly accurately and they consistently
>>>estimate 1/2 to 1/3 the number the "organizer" promotes.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Park Service is now prohibited from providing crowd estimates to the
>> public.
>>
>> They always drastically underreported any demonstration that I attended.
>
> You're proving my point. ;) 

Um...no...it looks to me like you point is challenged. You suggested that
the Park Service did a great job of counting and came up with numbers far
under those of event organizers and the press. The refutation is that the
Park service was so political that they deliberately undercounted....and
that is the read of most articles I have read on the subject.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:02:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>>>For a DC protest, "huge" depends greatly on who does the counting. The
>>>>Park Service estimates crowds fairly accurately and they consistently
>>>>estimate 1/2 to 1/3 the number the "organizer" promotes.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The Park Service is now prohibited from providing crowd estimates to the
>>>public.
>>>
>>>They always drastically underreported any demonstration that I attended.
>>
>>You're proving my point. ;) 
>
>
> Um...no...it looks to me like you point is challenged. You suggested that
> the Park Service did a great job of counting and came up with numbers far
> under those of event organizers and the press. The refutation is that the
> Park service was so political that they deliberately undercounted....and
> that is the read of most articles I have read on the subject.

Who has a reason to exaggerate attendance numbers? I'll give you a
hint, it's not the Park Service. All these political groups (left and
right) want to pump up the attendance numbers because it makes them look
more substantial. I have been in DC on several occasions when these
"rallies" are occurring and have seen the crowds with my own eyes. When
I get home and listen to the news and hear what these groups estimate
for attendance it makes me laugh out loud. Don't take it personal.
It's just the way it is.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:06:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>Look for the Sept 24/25/26 demonstration in D.C. It's going to be
>>huge.
>
> Not if they have to buy their own gasoline.
>
There are busses leaving from my home in PA that can get me there for $30
and back that evening....but I am booked for a wedding that day. Darn....I
would have liked to have been there. A friend was in Texas recently shooting
(with a camera...he is not a Texan) Cindy for a magazine...might be Vanity
Fair. Photographers name is Larry Fink if you want to Google in a couple of
weeks.
August 22, 2005 5:09:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kinon O'cann wrote:
> Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the US. None. The president has
> admitted that there were no WMD, no involvement with al Queda, and no
> ties to 9/11. So why are we losing an average of 12 lives per week,
> 120 injuries per week, and spending $2B per week?

Don't forget the over 100,000 Iraqi lives that we have also lost.


--
imp
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:11:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:09:48 GMT, imp <imp@use.net> wrote:

>Kinon O'cann wrote:
>> Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the US. None. The president has
>> admitted that there were no WMD, no involvement with al Queda, and no
>> ties to 9/11. So why are we losing an average of 12 lives per week,
>> 120 injuries per week, and spending $2B per week?
>
>Don't forget the over 100,000 Iraqi lives that we have also lost.

How about the Kurds who now live in an autonomous area with fear of
being gassed?


*****************************************************

"Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood, and the earth's foundations stay;
When God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay."

"Epitaph on Army of Mercenaries"
A.E. Houseman - 1914
August 22, 2005 5:17:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
> news:5MqdnUY2m5SbvJTeRVn-vA@comcast.com...

>>BTW Mark, there's a special on right now on CNN that shows just how stupid
>>the invasion was.

> What else would you expect from CNN?

The usual right-wing jingoism?


--
imp
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:17:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"imp" <imp@use.net> wrote in message
news:iI9Oe.36393$az4.27307@fe11.news.easynews.com...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
>> news:5MqdnUY2m5SbvJTeRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>
>>>BTW Mark, there's a special on right now on CNN that shows just how
>>>stupid the invasion was.
>
>> What else would you expect from CNN?
>
> The usual right-wing jingoism?

No, that would be Fox.
:) 
CNN is the left-wing jingo.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:22:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

?
>>
>>Don't forget the over 100,000 Iraqi lives that we have also lost.
>
> How about the Kurds who now live in an autonomous area with fear of
> being gassed?
>
That may come back to bite us. The Kurds are located in parts of several
countries. Autonomy in one may strengthen movements towards autonomy in
others. The Turks, for one, are not likely to look kindly on this. The Turks
are Nato and our ally.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 5:49:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <ig9Oe.6313$Us5.1177@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> > Did you read that the new Iraq government may be based on Islamic law?
>
> Key word: "May"

Already is. Did anyone bother reading the interim constitution?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 7:02:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:16:58 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>>>> At least in the
>>>> beginning. That eventually changed from "He has them and we'll find
>>>> them" to "He had the capability" to eventually "Even without the
>>>> capability, he had the desire, and given enough time . . .". Enough
>>>> idiocy to float a boat. :) 
>>>
>>> Whatever.
>>
>> Such a trite, overused, tired rejoinder. But as you note,
>> whatever . . .
>
> That whatever was meant to mean...I just wasn't up to deciphering that
> jumbled sentence at this time of night...

You could have said "Whatever. It's late and my eyes are closing
.. . .". As generally used, "whatever" usually means something else
entirely. When I get too tired to reply or to think coherently
anymore, I simply save the reply and get to it another day, or
discard it.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 7:02:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:jrtig19ool3mgr1q0jf67n2epicu0v2ri7@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 23:16:58 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>>>> At least in the
>>>>> beginning. That eventually changed from "He has them and we'll find
>>>>> them" to "He had the capability" to eventually "Even without the
>>>>> capability, he had the desire, and given enough time . . .". Enough
>>>>> idiocy to float a boat. :) 
>>>>
>>>> Whatever.
>>>
>>> Such a trite, overused, tired rejoinder. But as you note,
>>> whatever . . .
>>
>> That whatever was meant to mean...I just wasn't up to deciphering that
>> jumbled sentence at this time of night...
>
> You could have said "Whatever. It's late and my eyes are closing
> . . .". As generally used, "whatever" usually means something else
> entirely. When I get too tired to reply or to think coherently
> anymore, I simply save the reply and get to it another day, or
> discard it.

Ya. Sorry.
August 22, 2005 7:33:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:09:48 GMT, imp <imp@use.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Kinon O'cann wrote:
>>
>>>Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the US. None. The president has
>>>admitted that there were no WMD, no involvement with al Queda, and no
>>>ties to 9/11. So why are we losing an average of 12 lives per week,
>>>120 injuries per week, and spending $2B per week?
>>
>>Don't forget the over 100,000 Iraqi lives that we have also lost.
>
>
> How about the Kurds who now live in an autonomous area with fear of
> being gassed?

They know that things can change at any moment.

http://tinyurl.com/9849c
http://tinypic.com/ax1g08.jpg

--
imp
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:05:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And you think the government has no interest in minimizing the perception of
the number of people opposed to their policies? There is a service or
company whose website I once visited years ago who took photos from planes
far over these events and then used them to count the numbers. While
organizers over counted and the parks department undercounted I do tend to
trust their methodology but for one thing...people come and go. Their count
would then be for just a specific moment...the real count would be larger.
(Everyone counts the cops and security and secret FBI plants)

Lets see what Google-ing parks service attendance count gives
me...http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/Research/MMM/MMMnew.htm... this might
have been what I had seen before. It explains that the organizers of the
Million Man March thought the count might go as high as 2 million the parks
department estimated the count at 400,000. The scientists got a count of
870,000 plus or minus 25%. This did not account for people who were not
there at the time of the photographs but came late or left early or were in
the port-a-johnnies. So possibly one million people did show. That makes the
parks department off by 50% and organizers off by 100%
....or by half or double.


--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
news:46ydnU02vZ122ZTeRVn-gg@giganews.com...
> Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>>>>For a DC protest, "huge" depends greatly on who does the counting. The
>>>>>Park Service estimates crowds fairly accurately and they consistently
>>>>>estimate 1/2 to 1/3 the number the "organizer" promotes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The Park Service is now prohibited from providing crowd estimates to the
>>>>public.
>>>>
>>>>They always drastically underreported any demonstration that I attended.
>>>
>>>You're proving my point. ;) 
>>
>>
>> Um...no...it looks to me like you point is challenged. You suggested that
>> the Park Service did a great job of counting and came up with numbers far
>> under those of event organizers and the press. The refutation is that the
>> Park service was so political that they deliberately undercounted....and
>> that is the read of most articles I have read on the subject.
>
> Who has a reason to exaggerate attendance numbers? I'll give you a hint,
> it's not the Park Service. All these political groups (left and right)
> want to pump up the attendance numbers because it makes them look more
> substantial. I have been in DC on several occasions when these "rallies"
> are occurring and have seen the crowds with my own eyes. When I get home
> and listen to the news and hear what these groups estimate for attendance
> it makes me laugh out loud. Don't take it personal. It's just the way it
> is.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:05:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:05:58 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:

> Lets see what Google-ing parks service attendance count gives me...
> http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/Research/MMM/MMMnew.htm... this
> might have been what I had seen before. It explains that the organizers of the
> Million Man March thought the count might go as high as 2 million the parks
> department estimated the count at 400,000. The scientists got a count of
> 870,000 plus or minus 25%. This did not account for people who were not
> there at the time of the photographs but came late or left early or were in
> the port-a-johnnies. So possibly one million people did show. That makes the
> parks department off by 50% and organizers off by 100%
> ...or by half or double.

Just a minor math quibble. If the numbers to be used are 400,000,
1,000,000 and 2,000,000, then the presumably more accurate number
counted by the scientists (1,000,000) was more than double the parks
department estimate. The MMM estimate was exactly double that of
the scientists. So in a sense, the MMM estimate was closer to that
of the scientists than was the parks department's estimate. Yet the
50% and 100% errors seems to show the opposite. Math is funny that
way, and boy, do politicians of all stripes try to exploit such
minor details. :) 
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:06:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 04:05:58 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
>> Lets see what Google-ing parks service attendance count gives me...
>> http://www.bu.edu/remotesensing/Research/MMM/MMMnew.htm... this
>> might have been what I had seen before. It explains that the
>> organizers of the Million Man March thought the count might go as
>> high as 2 million the parks department estimated the count at
>> 400,000. The scientists got a count of 870,000 plus or minus 25%.
>> This did not account for people who were not
>> there at the time of the photographs but came late or left early or
>> were in the port-a-johnnies. So possibly one million people did
>> show. That makes the parks department off by 50% and organizers off
>> by 100% ...or by half or double.
>
> Just a minor math quibble. If the numbers to be used are 400,000,
> 1,000,000 and 2,000,000, then the presumably more accurate number
> counted by the scientists (1,000,000) was more than double the parks
> department estimate. The MMM estimate was exactly double that of
> the scientists. So in a sense, the MMM estimate was closer to that
> of the scientists than was the parks department's estimate. Yet the
> 50% and 100% errors seems to show the opposite. Math is funny that
> way, and boy, do politicians of all stripes try to exploit such
> minor details. :) 

Like you reading "870,000" and seeing "1,000,000"? >;^) The ball's now
back in the parks dept. court with an error factor of 2.18 vs. MMM's
2.3...
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 8:06:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 22:51:06 -0700, Bob Harrington wrote:

>> Math is funny that way, and boy, do politicians of all stripes try
>> to exploit such minor details. :) 
>
> Like you reading "870,000" and seeing "1,000,000"? >;^) The ball's now
> back in the parks dept. court with an error factor of 2.18 vs. MMM's
> 2.3...

Absolutely not. Gene's ultimate comparison (50% vs 100%) was
based on using not 870,000, but 1,000,000. I used the same amount.
Looks like you read 870,000 but failed to see the 1,000,000, so here
it is again:

> The scientists got a count of 870,000 plus or minus 25%. This did not
> account for people who were not there at the time of the photographs
> but came late or left early or were in the port-a-johnnies. So possibly one
> million people did show. That makes the parks department off by 50%
> and organizers off by 100% ...or by half or double.

See? I hope you're not trying to exploit the fact that I used
"1,000,000" when Gene actually said "one million". That would be a
quibble so small as to be statistically insignificant. :) 
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:09:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote:

> Who has a reason to exaggerate attendance numbers? I'll give you a
> hint, it's not the Park Service. All these political groups (left and
> right) want to pump up the attendance numbers because it makes them look
> more substantial.

And who has a reason to minimize them? I'll give you a hint. It's the
Federal Government.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is boring now.

Your new topics:

The borders with Syria, Jordan and Iran: Why aren't they secured?

The Iraqi Military and Police Forces: Inept or just ill-equipped?

Can the Military Find a Solution to an Ideological Problem?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 22, 2005 10:37:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "imp" <imp@use.net> wrote in message
> news:iI9Oe.36393$az4.27307@fe11.news.easynews.com...
>
>>Mark² wrote:
>>
>>>"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
>>>news:5MqdnUY2m5SbvJTeRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>>
>>>>BTW Mark, there's a special on right now on CNN that shows just how
>>>>stupid the invasion was.
>>
>>>What else would you expect from CNN?
>>
>>The usual right-wing jingoism?
>
>
> No, that would be Fox.
> :) 
> CNN is the left-wing jingo.


jin·go·ism n. Extreme and emotional nationalism, or chauvinism, often
characterized by an aggressive foreign policy, accompanied by an
eagerness to wage war.

CNN's coverage of the Iraq War was an exercise in jingoistic propaganda,
complete with it's own theme music, splashy logo and enthusiastic
ex-generals. Can such a network reasonably be called left-wing?

In the narrow spectrum of political opinion permitted in the corporate
US media, CNN might be nearer to the left; but the left side of the
right-wing is not a meaningful distinction.

The point of view of the corporate media never extends, for example, to
the views of the protesters in this gallery. To question the motives of
the oil executives and extremists in the White House is a line that none
of the corporate news media will cross. A properly functioning media
should be permanently camped on the other side of that line, constantly
challenging and questioning.


--
imp
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 10:37:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"imp" <imp@use.net> wrote in message
news:zoeOe.78698$Fd1.63809@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "imp" <imp@use.net> wrote in message
>> news:iI9Oe.36393$az4.27307@fe11.news.easynews.com...
>>
>>>Mark² wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Kinon O'cann" <Yes.it's.me.Bowser> wrote in message
>>>>news:5MqdnUY2m5SbvJTeRVn-vA@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>>BTW Mark, there's a special on right now on CNN that shows just how
>>>>>stupid the invasion was.
>>>
>>>>What else would you expect from CNN?
>>>
>>>The usual right-wing jingoism?
>>
>>
>> No, that would be Fox.
>> :) 
>> CNN is the left-wing jingo.
>
>
> jin·go·ism n. Extreme and emotional nationalism, or chauvinism, often
> characterized by an aggressive foreign policy, accompanied by an eagerness
> to wage war.

Ya, I had a feeling you might be using some word not in my vocabulary...
:) 

>
> CNN's coverage of the Iraq War was an exercise in jingoistic propaganda,
> complete with it's own theme music, splashy logo and enthusiastic
> ex-generals. Can such a network reasonably be called left-wing?

Yes. But they cede to the ratings, and at the time...the overwhelming
majority of Americans were gung ho for the war, and lived off of coverage.
ALL the news channels come up with music for their shows.

> In the narrow spectrum of political opinion permitted in the corporate US
> media, CNN might be nearer to the left; but the left side of the
> right-wing is not a meaningful distinction.

They come from quite recent...and DEEP...Turner roots. Ted Turner was and
is one of the most loud-mouthed left wingnuts we have in the US, who was
married to fellow wingnut Jane Fonda, until she found God and divorced him
(or so the story goes).
He created a VERY left leaning news service.
If there is an ounce of right wing in CNN it is almost wholly given life
through Lou Dobbs--their business show host.

You can always tell which side networks are on by who they place as hosts on
each side of debate shows, like Hannity & Colms (Fox) and Crossfire (CNN).
Fox has the comparatively dashing and well-spoken Sean Hannity...while on
the left, they offer the infinitely awkward looking Alan Colms. Then
there's CNN, where you've got the doofy looking Republican host, up against
Snakehead.

>The point of view of the corporate media never extends, for example, to the
>views of the protesters in this gallery. To question the motives of the oil
>executives and extremists in the White House is a line that none of the
>corporate news media will cross. A properly functioning media should be
>permanently camped on the other side of that line, constantly challenging
>and questioning.

I guess you didn't watch the War Special on CNN today, then.
They made absolutely no qualms about their anti-war "story."
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:05:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <KzeOe.8063$Us5.5207@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> Fox has the comparatively dashing and well-spoken Sean Hannity...

If by "well-spoken" you mean "prone to bouts of complete insanity,"
sure.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:05:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d734341764ee92f98992f@news.verizon.net...
> In article <KzeOe.8063$Us5.5207@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> Fox has the comparatively dashing and well-spoken Sean Hannity...
>
> If by "well-spoken" you mean "prone to bouts of complete insanity,"
> sure.

Hannity--insanity...kind of has a ring to it...
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 11:29:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <_TeOe.8070$Us5.6796@fed1read02>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
even number here)@cox..net> says...
> > If by "well-spoken" you mean "prone to bouts of complete insanity,"
> > sure.
>
> Hannity--insanity...kind of has a ring to it...

Coincidence?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 22, 2005 12:33:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kinon O'cann mentioned in passing :
>
>
> Nope. Bush had said, from the very start, that this was about WMD, and
> nothing else. I defy you to find one speech where regiem change was
> the justification prior to the invasion.

Kinon O'cann mentioned in passing :
>
> Nope. Bush had said, from the very start, that this was about WMD, and
> nothing else.

Actually, "from the very start" (ie: President Bush's address to the UN
in Sept 2002), Bush said that this was about several things, -way- down on
the list was Saddam's -failure to verify- the destruction of his admitted
WMD programs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/2002091...
"Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation...
In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime
cease at once the repression of its own people...
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687,
demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands...
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that
Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism...
In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons
of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it
has done so by complying with rigorous inspections."

So... the resumption of the Iraq War is about the many willful violations of
the 1991 peace treaty, "and nothing else".

> I defy you to find one speech where regiem change was
> the justification prior to the invasion.

Regime change in Iraq has been the law of the land since Clinton -made it-
the law of the land (Public Law 105-338
http://www.milnet.com/public-law-105-338.htm ), but in the same speech to
the UN, Bush describes the justification for that law and emphatically
states his committment to enforce it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/2002091...
"The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered
too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral
cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the
security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate
through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world
with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty
in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam
Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic
missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once
ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain
Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi
villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common
challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move
deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N.
Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the
United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will
be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or
action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will
also lose its power. "

You need better sources for your information than Dan "The Forger" Rather
and Michael "Moooove on dot Moorge".

--
Hmmmph...
A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth. -Aesop
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:33:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sam" <Sam@nextpro.org> wrote in message
news:wsidnZ2dnZ1amXPWnZ2dnY5blN6dnZ2dRVn-0Z2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
> Kinon O'cann mentioned in passing :
>>
>>
>> Nope. Bush had said, from the very start, that this was about WMD, and
>> nothing else. I defy you to find one speech where regiem change was
>> the justification prior to the invasion.
>
> Kinon O'cann mentioned in passing :
>>
>> Nope. Bush had said, from the very start, that this was about WMD, and
>> nothing else.
>
> Actually, "from the very start" (ie: President Bush's address to the UN
> in Sept 2002), Bush said that this was about several things, -way- down on
> the list was Saddam's -failure to verify- the destruction of his admitted
> WMD programs.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/2002091...
> "Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation...
> In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime
> cease at once the repression of its own people...
> In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687,
> demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands...
> In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that
> Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism...
> In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all
> weapons
> of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it
> has done so by complying with rigorous inspections."
>
> So... the resumption of the Iraq War is about the many willful violations
> of
> the 1991 peace treaty, "and nothing else".
>
>> I defy you to find one speech where regiem change was
>> the justification prior to the invasion.
>
> Regime change in Iraq has been the law of the land since Clinton -made it-
> the law of the land (Public Law 105-338
> http://www.milnet.com/public-law-105-338.htm ), but in the same speech to
> the UN, Bush describes the justification for that law and emphatically
> states his committment to enforce it.
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/2002091...
> "The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered
> too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great
> moral
> cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the
> security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate
> through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world
> with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic
> liberty
> in a unified Iraq.
>
> We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember.
> Saddam
> Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic
> missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once
> ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in
> certain
> Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40
> Iraqi
> villages.
>
> My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common
> challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move
> deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the
> U.N.
> Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the
> United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will
> be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or
> action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will
> also lose its power. "
>
> You need better sources for your information than Dan "The Forger" Rather
> and Michael "Moooove on dot Moorge".

Slam.....D-U-N-K.
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 2:29:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

> "Sam" <Sam@nextpro.org> wrote in message
> news:wsidnZ2dnZ1amXPWnZ2dnY5blN6dnZ2dRVn-0Z2dnZ0@adelphia.com...
> > You need better sources for your information than Dan "The Forger" Rather
> > and Michael "Moooove on dot Moorge".
>
> Slam.....D-U-N-K.

Dan Rather was never accused of forging anything. Calling him Dan "The
Forger" Rather is a lie. Lies are not slam dunks.

Attributing one Usenet poster's mistake to Michael Moore is not a slam
dunk either.

Most of us know that Bush's justification for war was that Iraq was
supposedly on the verge of enabling nuclear terrorism, and that Saddam
was a cruel dictator. Not surprisingly the nuclear terrorism part
sticks in people's minds more. A few (like the Usenet poster) have even
forgotten that it was part of the justification. Bush knew he wouldn't
gain support just from the cruel dictator part...there are plenty of
regimes like that around the world. The WMD justification is how he got
people to go along with him. Even the speech Sam cited goes on
extensively about WMDs and raises the spectre of a surprise nuclear
attack.

Deliberately deceiving a nation into war is treason. Outing a CIA
operative is immoral and illegal. Bush breaking his promise to fire
Rove shows he has neither spine nor patriotism. Get the traitors out of
the white house. I'll make every effort to be there Sept 24.

Clearly Mark Morgan is eager to believe that Sam's message is a slam
dunk even though it obviously isn't. Are there ways to use people's
desire to see something that isn't there to make a photograph more
effective?


P.S. There is no lowest even number. Perhaps you mean the lowest
positive even number.
!