| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
19 Dec 2003 06:45:07 PM |
| Object: |
Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
On December 19, 2003, Mona Charen's column was
titled: "Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/welcome.shtml
__________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"Savor it. Hitler deprived the Allies of the
satisfaction of executing him. Stalin died
in his bed. Pol Pot died of natural causes.
But Saddam Hussein, that vicious, depraved
worm of a man, was plucked from his rat
hole. Ah the great warrior! The author of
the Mother of All Battles. The man who
claimed he would drive the "invaders"
from Iraq. The man who forced thousands
of Iraqis to sacrifice their lives so that
he could continue his squalid and luxurious
spree in his many palaces. This modern
day Saladin (another of his conceits) didn't
even have the courage to kill himself in the
end, but submitted meekly, with an offer
to "negotiate."
"There was a time in our history when such
a triumph for our forces would have engen-
dered universal applause and deep gratifi-
cation in America. But we are not living in
such a time. For liberals, no U.S. success is
an unmixed blessing, and I don't mean this
in the short-term political sense -- "This
will hurt Howard Dean's campaign" -- though
that is clearly true, but also in a more
philosophical sense.
"Note how nearly every liberal has been
quick to emphasize, after perfunctory
words of praise for the troops, that
Saddam's capture opens the door to a
larger United Nations role in Iraq. The
New York Times editorialized two days
after Saddam's capture that the United
Nations should be enlisted to conduct a
trial because 'A tribunal picked by
Americans would lack legitimacy.'
"Why? Is the Times suggesting that the
United States cannot be trusted to conduct
a fair trial? President Bush is surely right
that the Iraqis themselves should try their
oppressor. But not because we are incapable
of doing so properly -- only because the
Iraqis, as his principle victims, have the
moral right to seek justice first.
[...]
"But here is where the liberal sentiment gets
murky. They are all over the United States
for having once supported Saddam, even
though we have repented of that and, at
considerable cost in blood and treasure, have
driven him from his throne. Yet they have
nothing but praise for the French, who built
a nuclear reactor for Saddam, supplied him
with loans and goods, supported him diplo-
matically until the bitter end and did every-
thing in their power to keep the United
Nations from joining with the United States,
Britain and others to liberate Iraq from him.
"Many of the Democratic presidential candi-
dates, their fannies smarting from having
the rug pulled out from under them,
returned to their favorite mantra -- the
capture of Saddam, said Kerry and others
-- was an "opportunity" to get the United
Nations more involved in postwar Iraq.
What is this mythic U.N. they keep invok-
ing? Memo to liberals: The U.N. bugged out
of Iraq after the bombing of its headquarters,
remember? It's perched at a safe distance in
Cyprus. On Dec. 11, 2003, The New York
Times reported as follows, "Secretary Gen-
eral Kofi Annan said Wednesday that the
dangerous situation in Iraq had caused him
to rule out a swift resumption of a United
Nations presence there."
"Frankly, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar
Zebari had a much clearer view of the moral
standing of the United Nations than Dean,
Kerry, The New York Times and the rest.
'One year ago,' he told the delegates, 'this
Security Council was divided between those
who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and
those who wanted to hold him accountable.
The U.N. as an organization failed to help
rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous
tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today
we are unearthing thousands of victims in
horrifying testament to that failure ..."
[...]
__________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
What does this column have to do with abortion?
Not a thing. But, it makes a lot of sense to me,
so I wanted to share it. 8^)
Happy holidays.
.
|
|
| User: "Me" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
21 Dec 2003 07:02:01 AM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0312191645.3a83f1be@posting.google.com>,
(Papa Jack) wrote:
On December 19, 2003, Mona Charen's column was
titled: "Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/welcome.shtml
__________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"Savor it. Hitler deprived the Allies of the
satisfaction of executing him. Stalin died
in his bed. Pol Pot died of natural causes.
One thing you can always count on with Republicans is their consistency
at being stupid. Saddam is a figurehead. What will matter to voters in
the next presidential election isn't the capture of Saddam. Its the
economy stupid. That's what the previous President Bush failed to
understand and it is what the current President Bush fails to
understand, but in a slightly different way. The Shrub thinks that by
touting the fact that more people have part time jobs, that it reflects
well on the economy. He doesn't realize that part time jobs do not pay
the medical insurance bill and mortgage. Its the economy stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
19 Dec 2003 07:00:39 PM |
|
|
On 19 Dec 2003 16:45:07 -0800, (Papa Jack) wrote:
What does this column have to do with abortion?
Not a thing. But, it makes a lot of sense to me,
so I wanted to share it. 8^)
Happy holidays.
Exactly what makes sense? We were told that Saddam was a threat to the US,
so much of a threat that we had to invade. Bush snubbed international
opinion then and went ahead with the "Coalition of the Willing." Being as
how he was such a threat to our national security, and being as how Bush
didn't care about international wishes or the UN, how is it that now that
Saddam is captured Bush is suddenly saying the Iraqis should try Saddam and
that any trial must withstand international scrutiny? That makes sense to
you?
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
20 Dec 2003 05:34:51 PM |
|
|
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<f977uvk061gvdf18r6t8sj71561nosfhk8@4ax.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
======================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On December 19, 2003, Mona Charen's column was
titled: "Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/welcome.shtml
__________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"Savor it. Hitler deprived the Allies of the
satisfaction of executing him. Stalin died
in his bed. Pol Pot died of natural causes.
But Saddam Hussein, that vicious, depraved
worm of a man, was plucked from his rat
hole. Ah the great warrior! The author of
the Mother of All Battles. The man who
claimed he would drive the "invaders"
from Iraq. The man who forced thousands
of Iraqis to sacrifice their lives so that
he could continue his squalid and luxurious
spree in his many palaces. This modern
day Saladin (another of his conceits) didn't
even have the courage to kill himself in the
end, but submitted meekly, with an offer
to "negotiate."
"There was a time in our history when such
a triumph for our forces would have engen-
dered universal applause and deep gratifi-
cation in America. But we are not living in
such a time. For liberals, no U.S. success is
an unmixed blessing, and I don't mean this
in the short-term political sense -- "This
will hurt Howard Dean's campaign" -- though
that is clearly true, but also in a more
philosophical sense.
"Note how nearly every liberal has been
quick to emphasize, after perfunctory
words of praise for the troops, that
Saddam's capture opens the door to a
larger United Nations role in Iraq. The
New York Times editorialized two days
after Saddam's capture that the United
Nations should be enlisted to conduct a
trial because 'A tribunal picked by
Americans would lack legitimacy.'
"Why? Is the Times suggesting that the
United States cannot be trusted to conduct
a fair trial? President Bush is surely right
that the Iraqis themselves should try their
oppressor. But not because we are incapable
of doing so properly -- only because the
Iraqis, as his principle victims, have the
moral right to seek justice first.
[...]
"But here is where the liberal sentiment gets
murky. They are all over the United States
for having once supported Saddam, even
though we have repented of that and, at
considerable cost in blood and treasure, have
driven him from his throne. Yet they have
nothing but praise for the French, who built
a nuclear reactor for Saddam, supplied him
with loans and goods, supported him diplo-
matically until the bitter end and did every-
thing in their power to keep the United
Nations from joining with the United States,
Britain and others to liberate Iraq from him.
"Many of the Democratic presidential candi-
dates, their fannies smarting from having
the rug pulled out from under them,
returned to their favorite mantra -- the
capture of Saddam, said Kerry and others
-- was an "opportunity" to get the United
Nations more involved in postwar Iraq.
What is this mythic U.N. they keep invok-
ing? Memo to liberals: The U.N. bugged out
of Iraq after the bombing of its headquarters,
remember? It's perched at a safe distance in
Cyprus. On Dec. 11, 2003, The New York
Times reported as follows, "Secretary Gen-
eral Kofi Annan said Wednesday that the
dangerous situation in Iraq had caused him
to rule out a swift resumption of a United
Nations presence there."
"Frankly, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar
Zebari had a much clearer view of the moral
standing of the United Nations than Dean,
Kerry, The New York Times and the rest.
'One year ago,' he told the delegates, 'this
Security Council was divided between those
who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and
those who wanted to hold him accountable.
The U.N. as an organization failed to help
rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous
tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today
we are unearthing thousands of victims in
horrifying testament to that failure ..."
[...]
__________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
What does this column have to do with abortion?
Not a thing. But, it makes a lot of sense to me,
so I wanted to share it. 8^)
Happy holidays.
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Exactly what makes sense?
======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Wouldn't it be easier to determine that if you
read the article BEFORE you deleted the whole
thing, Galen?
I reinserted it to help our readers follow
the points.
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
We were told that Saddam was a threat to the US,
so much of a threat that we had to invade.
======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Yep, and millions of Iraqis are glad we rescued
them from the tyrant's tortures and executions.
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Bush snubbed international opinion then
and went ahead with the "Coalition of the
Willing."
======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Does that seem logical to you, Galen?
The Coalition included 63 nations. For
a list of these nations, go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Iraq+Coalition&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3Dc4fcae9551ebb98%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D3%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DIraq%2BCoalition%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%252F%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPIndex&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%2F
The list did NOT include France, Germany, or
Russia. Apparently, you and the other liberals
seem to consider these three opposing countries
to be "international opinion." Why?
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security, and being as how Bush
didn't care about international wishes or
the UN, how is it that now that Saddam is
captured Bush is suddenly saying the Iraqis
should try Saddam and that any trial must
withstand international scrutiny?
======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Galen, I would love to see you diagram the
preceeding sentence for a tough English
teacher.
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security,___________________
\ it | is
\____|_____________ 8^) I
give up.
being as how Bush didn't care about / \n \h
international wishes or the UN,______/ \o \o
\w \w
If you want to refresh your memory, there is
a good summary of the U.S.'s many efforts to
work with the U.N. for the last several years
prior to the Iraq invasion. Go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Iraq+UN&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D5cdf383a9a362de1%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D8%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DIraq%2BUN%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.channelnewsasia.com%252Fcna%252Fgulfwar%252Fchrono_uniraq.htm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPResults&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
hannelnewsasia.com%2Fcna%2Fgulfwar%2Fchrono_uniraq.htm
Happy holidays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
20 Dec 2003 08:55:42 PM |
|
|
On 20 Dec 2003 15:34:51 -0800, (Papa Jack) wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to determine that if you
read the article BEFORE you deleted the whole
thing, Galen?
I've told you and others that it is an old habit from when newsreaders used
to check for more original text than quoted text, and you wrote a great
deal. Besides, I read it (I am capable of reading things without the ">"
character before it) and didn't see the need to transmit it again. It can
be found on Google, for those that need it.
I reinserted it to help our readers follow
the points.
I have a better opinion of "our readers" than you do, it seems.
Yep, and millions of Iraqis are glad we rescued
them from the tyrant's tortures and executions.
I don't doubt that a bit.
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Bush snubbed international opinion then
and went ahead with the "Coalition of the
Willing."
======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Does that seem logical to you, Galen?
The Coalition included 63 nations. For
a list of these nations, go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Iraq+Coalition&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3Dc4fcae9551ebb98%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D3%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DIraq%2BCoalition%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%252F%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPIndex&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%2F
The list did NOT include France, Germany, or
Russia. Apparently, you and the other liberals
seem to consider these three opposing countries
to be "international opinion." Why?
It also accounted for less than 1/3 of the countries in the world,
according to the US Department of State, these 63 nations. I consider a
coalition that can only attract less than a third of the world to be less
than international support. The US pulled out of Kyoto. It wasn't at all
supportive of the World Court. I could go on and on but you would be hard
pressed to get even three folks together that would agree that
international opinion is important to Bush.
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security, and being as how Bush
didn't care about international wishes or
the UN, how is it that now that Saddam is
captured Bush is suddenly saying the Iraqis
should try Saddam and that any trial must
withstand international scrutiny?
======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Galen, I would love to see you diagram the
preceeding sentence for a tough English
teacher.
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security,___________________
\ it | is
\____|_____________ 8^) I
give up.
being as how Bush didn't care about / \n \h
international wishes or the UN,______/ \o \o
\w \w
I've heard of killing the messenger because you don't like his news, but
attacking the grammar?
If you want to refresh your memory, there is
a good summary of the U.S.'s many efforts to
work with the U.N. for the last several years
prior to the Iraq invasion. Go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Iraq+UN&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D5cdf383a9a362de1%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D8%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DIraq%2BUN%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.channelnewsasia.com%252Fcna%252Fgulfwar%252Fchrono_uniraq.htm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPResults&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
hannelnewsasia.com%2Fcna%2Fgulfwar%2Fchrono_uniraq.htm
I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a bad guy and didn't need to be removed. I'm
not suggesting the US didn't try many times to get the UN to do something.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't make much sense for Bush to tell us that
Saddam is such a threat that we have to invade Iraq, even without the
majority or the world's backing, and then behave now like he gives a damn
about what the world thinks. If Saddam was linked to terrorism and a
threat to the US he ought to be tried here. We've been holding a US
citizen here without even being charged, and certainly Saddam doesn't rate
better treatment than one of our own citizens. Here is a guy (Bush) who is
willing to hold people from Afghanistan at Gitmo, yet would have us believe
that Saddam should have a trial, and one that will withstand international
scrutiny to boot. It just doesn't make any sense that Bush would treat
Saddam better than prisoners at Gitmo, and it doesn't make sense that Bush
would flout international opinion before yet pay it heed now.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
21 Dec 2003 06:37:44 PM |
|
|
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<s31auvcdqlrhukqma7q0j6pud2hqt5umes@4ax.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to determine that if you
read the article BEFORE you deleted the whole
thing, Galen?
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I've told you and others that it is an old habit
from when newsreaders used to check for more orig-
inal text than quoted text, and you wrote a great
deal. Besides, I read it (I am capable of reading
things without the ">" character before it) and
didn't see the need to transmit it again. It can
be found on Google, for those that need it.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
So when do you intend to try to break that old BAD
habit, Galen?
It does give you a BIG advantage in discussions to
delete what the opponent previously said. I know
you would hate to give up that advantage.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
I reinserted it to help our readers follow
the points.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I have a better opinion of "our readers" than you
do, it seems.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Actually, I suspect you have the opinion most readers
are simply not interested enough to go to the trouble
to go back and forth to trace the history of certain
comments. Thus, by selectively deleting much if not
all of what one's opponents write, you gain the
advantage of leaving the reader to guess what led the
debate to that point.
You can emphasize what you consider your strongest
points -- while trying to hide your opponent's
strongest points.
See what a suspicious ol' geezer I am? 8^)
NOTE: A continuation of my reply will follow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
21 Dec 2003 06:43:24 PM |
|
|
(Papa Jack) wrote in
news:6f9e1b49.0312211637.7d7c10f5@posting.google.com:
===============================================================
========== Papa Jack asked:
So when do you intend to try to break that old BAD
habit, Galen?
why are you misrepresenting galen's comments and actions.
if you read any newbie's guide to newsgroups (something your posts
indicate you haev never done), you would learn that it is
considered a courtesy to include in a posted response only that
text which you are commenting upon.
more people who have been reading newsgroups for a week or more
realize this. galen realizes it.
given that you have never figured out how to format posts or
respond to others, it's understandable why you didn't apologize to
galen, but to blatantly misrepreent. shame on you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
21 Dec 2003 07:00:44 PM |
|
|
On 21 Dec 2003 16:37:44 -0800, (Papa Jack) wrote:
So when do you intend to try to break that old BAD
habit, Galen?
Never. Whether you realize it or not, somebody has to pick up the tab for
the transmission of each and every one of your bytes. I consider it polite
and courteous not to transmit unnecessary characters. I don't think it is
a bad habit at all, deleting stuff that has already been transmitted. Many
of today's machines have enough storage that your original message is quite
likely available locally, and if not there is always Google.
It does give you a BIG advantage in discussions to
delete what the opponent previously said. I know
you would hate to give up that advantage.
Whatever.
Actually, I suspect you have the opinion most readers
are simply not interested enough to go to the trouble
to go back and forth to trace the history of certain
comments.
You are probably right.
Thus, by selectively deleting much if not
all of what one's opponents write, you gain the
advantage of leaving the reader to guess what led the
debate to that point.
Anyone lazy enough to "guess" when it takes so little trouble to look up
stuff on Google probably wouldn't be swayed by context, or much else for
that matter.
You can emphasize what you consider your strongest
points -- while trying to hide your opponent's
strongest points.
Isn't that what we all try to do?
See what a suspicious ol' geezer I am? 8^)
Huh?
NOTE: A continuation of my reply will follow.
Is that a threat?
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Republicans |
22 Dec 2003 11:35:22 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
I've told you and others that it is an old habit
from when newsreaders used to check for more orig-
inal text than quoted text, and you wrote a great
deal. Besides, I read it (I am capable of reading
things without the ">" character before it) and
didn't see the need to transmit it again. It can
be found on Google, for those that need it.
So when do you intend to try to break that old BAD
habit, Galen?
As much as you love to see your propaganda reposted, other people
are under no obligation to repost anything of yours. Especially when
it is so obviously lies and hatred from radical extremists.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
21 Dec 2003 08:08:32 PM |
|
|
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<s31auvcdqlrhukqma7q0j6pud2hqt5umes@4ax.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
=========================================================================
[snip]
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Yep, and millions of Iraqis are glad we rescued
them from the tyrant's tortures and executions.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I don't doubt that a bit.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
Then why are you attacking Bush's actions in Iraq?
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Bush snubbed international opinion then
and went ahead with the "Coalition of the
Willing."
======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Does that seem logical to you, Galen?
The Coalition included 63 nations. For
a list of these nations, go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Iraq+Coalition&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3Dc4fcae9551ebb98%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D3%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DIraq%2BCoalition%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%252F%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPIndex&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%2F
The list did NOT include France, Germany, or
Russia. Apparently, you and the other liberals
seem to consider these three opposing countries
to be "international opinion." Why?
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
It also accounted for less than 1/3 of the countries in the world,
according to the US Department of State, these 63 nations. I
consider a coalition that can only attract less than a third of the
world to be less than international support....
=========================================================================
Papa Jack shook his head:
Why? Coalitions are formed among nations with a common
set of goals. For example, France, Germany, and Russia had
done extensive questionable business with Saddam's Iraq --
and Saddam owed them many millions. Thus, it really wasn't
in their countries' best interests to invade Iraq with the
U.S..
Did you look at the list? United Kingdom, Spain, South
Korea, Italy, Japan, Egypt, Portugal, Hungry,... I think
that certainly is international support. You're just peeved
because the folks who "saved" us in WWII were against
it -- i.e., Germany, France, and Russia. 8^)
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
... The US pulled out of Kyoto....
=========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Galen, are you saying we should fully support Kyoto?
On May 21, 2003, Wayne E. Brough's column was
titled: "Kyoto Again Stalks the Senate." Go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Kyoto%2Bsenate&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D47e14a45d8ec76e8%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D4%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DKyoto%252Bsenate%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cse.org%252Finformed%252Fissues_template.php%252F1383.htm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPResults&remove_url=http%3A
2F%2Fwww.cse.org%2Finformed%2Fissues_template.php%2F1383.htm
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"The scientific community, on the other hand,
continues to identify uncertainties in both the
scientific theory of global warming as well as
the ability of the Kyoto Protocol to have any
significant impact on global climate.
[...]
"While many in the policy community appear
intent on action, views on climate change in
the scientific community can hardly be called
a consensus, unless the consensus refers to
the large uncertainties still being examined in
the theory of human-induced global climate
change....
[...]
"Understanding the science of climate change
is a critical precursor to adopting policies that
would impose significant costs on consumers.
Most policy recommendations ultimately lead
to rationing energy, which means higher prices
for consumers. A study by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration found that the costs
of Kyoto could be almost $400 billion annually....
"Before taxpayers should be forced to pay for
such policies, the uncertainties raised by the
scientific community must be addressed. Beyond
the science of global warming, many scientists
are admitting that Kyoto-style solutions would
be ineffective at addressing issues of global
climate. A more appropriate research path is
long-run technological innovation, which can
provide the means to address problems when
they are identified. During this summer's energy
debate Congress should keep this in mind and
avoid policies that threaten the nation's econo-
mic welfare in pursuit of policy solutions to
questions that science has yet to resolve."
______________________________________________________________________
A 100% implimentation of the Kyoto Protocol by
the U.S. would probably bankrupt our economy
within a few years.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
... It wasn't at all supportive of the World Court.
I could go on and on but you would be hard
pressed to get even three folks together that
would agree that international opinion is
important to Bush.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
On April 11, 2002, WorldNetDaily.com posted an article by
Mary Jo Anderson titled: "World Court Now a Reality."
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=%22World+Court%22%2B+%22United+States%22&page=2&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3Df517ed7942a43c1a%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D13%26amp%3BuserQuery%3D%2522World%2BCourt%2522%252B%2B%2522United%2BStates%2522%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.worldnetdaily.com%252Fnews%252Farticle.asp%253FARTICLE_ID%253D27180
26amp%3BinvocationType%3Dnext%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldnetdaily.com%2Fnews%2Farticle.asp%253FARTICLE_ID%253D27180
___________________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"The International Criminal Court was
officially instituted today at the United
Nations headquarters.
"The court, a permanent tribunal to pro-
secute 'crimes against humanity,' strides
onto the world stage without the ratifica-
tion of the United States. Deemed by some
as a grave threat to national sovereignty,
the United States has lodged strenuous
objections to the ICC. As late as Monday
there were reports that President Bush
had sought means to retract the signature
of former president Clinton, who signed
the treaty on his last day in office. A
signature indicates a nation's intent to
seek ratification.
"However, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee would not bring the treaty to the
Senate for a vote.
[...]
"Objections to the court by Americans are
based largely on fears that such a court
could bring politically motivated charges
against U.S. presidents and military per-
sonnel. Crimes of "aggression" have not
as yet been defined, leaving open to future
interpretation any number of military
operations. When one nation defends itself,
is that aggression against another? So-
called crimes against humanity include
vague phrases such as injury to a popula-
tion's "mental health." Who is to determine
when such a crime has been perpetrated?
"Any U.S. citizens prosecuted by the Inter-
national Criminal Court will be denied the
guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. As of
yet, the process for electing and rotating
ICC judges is incomplete. Opponents of
the court suggest that world events in the
near future could find the U.S. and its
citizens at the mercy of a panel of judges
from non-Western nations, or of nations
that seek to extort favorable trade agree-
ments from the U.S. Critics ask: What is to
prevent the court from prosecuting a U.S.
president that topples Saddam Hussein
without first seeking assurance from the
U.N. that such military activity would not
be categorized as a war crime?
"U.S. treaty specialists underscore the
unique danger of the ICC: It is not a
treaty among parties in agreement, but
is instead a new, and many believe dan-
gerous, species of an international instru-
ment that subordinates all nation states
in the world to the rule of the United
Nations' court. The ICC can prosecute
whenever it deems a nation's courts
have failed to prosecute its own viola-
tors of 'human rights.' Never before has
such power been held over nation states,
say court critics.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Having served as a police chief in Korea and
Okinawa, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be
at the mercy of such a political court with judges
appointed by Fidel Castro, Kadafi, or other
such"loony tune" dictators.
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security, and being as how Bush
didn't care about international wishes or
the UN, how is it that now that Saddam is
captured Bush is suddenly saying the Iraqis
should try Saddam and that any trial must
withstand international scrutiny?
======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Galen, I would love to see you diagram the
preceeding sentence for a tough English
teacher.
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security,___________________
\ it | is
\____|_____________ 8^) I
give up.
being as how Bush didn't care about / \n \h
international wishes or the UN,______/ \o \o
\w \w
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:>
I've heard of killing the messenger because you don't like
his news, but attacking the grammar?
=========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Nope, not the grammer -- just the tangled web you wove.
I couldn't understand what you were trying to say.
The more I read it, the more confused I got.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
If you want to refresh your memory, there is
a good summary of the U.S.'s many efforts to
work with the U.N. for the last several years
prior to the Iraq invasion. Go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Iraq+UN&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D5cdf383a9a362de1%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D8%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DIraq%2BUN%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.channelnewsasia.com%252Fcna%252Fgulfwar%252Fchrono_uniraq.htm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPResults&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
hannelnewsasia.com%2Fcna%2Fgulfwar%2Fchrono_uniraq.htm
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a bad guy and
didn't need to be removed. I'm not suggesting
the US didn't try many times to get the UN to
do something. What I'm saying is that it doesn't
make much sense for Bush to tell us that Saddam
is such a threat that we have to invade Iraq, even
without the majority or the world's backing, and
then behave now like he gives a damn about
what the world thinks. If Saddam was linked to
terrorism and a threat to the US he ought to be
tried here. We've been holding a US citizen here
without even being charged, and certainly Saddam
doesn't rate better treatment than one of our own
citizens. Here is a guy (Bush) who is willing to hold
people from Afghanistan at Gitmo, yet would have
us believe that Saddam should have a trial, and one
that will withstand international scrutiny to boot.
It just doesn't make any sense that Bush would treat
Saddam better than prisoners at Gitmo, and it
doesn't make sense that Bush would flout inter-
national opinion before yet pay it heed now.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack disagreed:
It looks now as though it's probable that Saddam will
be tried first in Iraq by the people he harmed the most.
Remember, the people in Kuwait, Iran, and the Kurds
would also like to see him in their courts.
I doubt that Bush will "...treat Saddam better than
prisoners at Gitmo" as you claimed. I certainly
wouldn't look forward to going into a Iraqi court
to face the sort of charges which will be brought
against him -- with truckloads of evidence and
hundreds of witnesses to back them up.
Do you remember:
"...Mussolini was arrested in the lakeside town
of Dongo with his mistress Claretta Petacci,
while trying to escape dressed as a German
soldier. He was shot the day after his capture,
but it is still unclear exactly who shot him and
how. The Communist Party refused to reveal
the identity of the executioner until well after
the war....
"After his execution; Mussolini's corpse was
taken to a Milan square, the Piazzale Loreto,
where the Germans had displayed the bodies
of executed partisans in 1944. The bodies of
Mussolini, his mistress, and some close asso-
ciates, were hung upside down from the girders
of a garage. Soldiers guarding the bodies were
unable to prevent an immense crowd from taking
out their anger on the exposed corpses. People
spat at them, kicked them, and even pumped
more bullets into them."
[Benito Mussolini's body
History Today, August,
1999, by John Foot]
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Mussolini%2Bdeath&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D4391944d6ce8f30d%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D2%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DMussolini%252Bdeath%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.findarticles.com%252Fcf_dls%252Fm1373%252F8_49%252F55481496%252Fp1%252Farticle.jhtml%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage
3DNSBoom&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.findarticles.com%2Fcf_dls%2Fm1373%2F8_49%2F55481496%2Fp1%2Farticle.jhtml
Happy holidays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
22 Dec 2003 08:49:17 AM |
|
|
On 21 Dec 2003 18:08:32 -0800, (Papa Jack) wrote:
Then why are you attacking Bush's actions in Iraq?
Mainly because Bush is an American president, not the president of Iraq.
Why? Coalitions are formed among nations with a common
set of goals. For example, France, Germany, and Russia had
done extensive questionable business with Saddam's Iraq --
and Saddam owed them many millions. Thus, it really wasn't
in their countries' best interests to invade Iraq with the
U.S..
Granted, but when a minority of nations follow a common cause, it is tough
to present that minority opinion as that of the rest of the world.
Did you look at the list? United Kingdom, Spain, South
Korea, Italy, Japan, Egypt, Portugal, Hungry,... I think
that certainly is international support. You're just peeved
because the folks who "saved" us in WWII were against
it -- i.e., Germany, France, and Russia. 8^)
Think what you like, but when you get less than a third of the world on
your side it hardly represents world opinion. "Multi-national opinion"
(consisting of less than a third of the nations) might be a better term.
Galen, are you saying we should fully support Kyoto?
No. I'm saying that pulling out of the Kyoto agreement was hardly
supportive of international opinion. Right or wrong, Bush acted on his
own.
A 100% implimentation of the Kyoto Protocol by
the U.S. would probably bankrupt our economy
within a few years.
Right or wrong, Bush still acted in what he thinks are in the interests of
*this* country, not international opinion, something he also claimed was
his reason for action in Iraq.
Having served as a police chief in Korea and
Okinawa, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be
at the mercy of such a political court with judges
appointed by Fidel Castro, Kadafi, or other
such"loony tune" dictators.
Again, an example of Bush looking out for America regardless of the rest of
the world.
Nope, not the grammer -- just the tangled web you wove.
Give me a break. I'm an electrical engineer, not an English major.
I couldn't understand what you were trying to say.
The more I read it, the more confused I got.
You could have asked for an explanation, rather than trying to ridicule
that which you do not understand.
It looks now as though it's probable that Saddam will
be tried first in Iraq by the people he harmed the most.
Remember, the people in Kuwait, Iran, and the Kurds
would also like to see him in their courts.
Was Noriega tried in Panama?
I doubt that Bush will "...treat Saddam better than
prisoners at Gitmo" as you claimed. I certainly
wouldn't look forward to going into a Iraqi court
to face the sort of charges which will be brought
against him -- with truckloads of evidence and
hundreds of witnesses to back them up.
Bush already is treating Saddam better than those he holds in Cuba. Saddam
is going to have a trail, Bush has said so, while the people at Gitmo
haven't even been charged. I'll bet Saddam gets to walk various places,
the prisoners at Gitmo are routinely trundled around in little carts pushed
by their guards. I could go on and on.
It's this "I don't care about international opinion, I'm gonna do what I
think is right." stance that Bush takes vis-a-vis his seeming regard for
international opinion concerning the treatment of Saddam that I find
inconsistent. I don't think it makes much sense.
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
23 Dec 2003 03:21:05 PM |
|
|
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<s31auvcdqlrhukqma7q0j6pud2hqt5umes@4ax.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
=========================================================================
[snip]
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Yep, and millions of Iraqis are glad we rescued
them from the tyrant's tortures and executions.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I don't doubt that a bit.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
Then why are you attacking Bush's actions in Iraq?
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Mainly because Bush is an American president, not
the president of Iraq.
============================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Then you're saying FDR had no business in
exerting influence in the formation and
operation of new governments in Germany
and Japan after W.W.II? BTW, are you aware
we still have American military troops
stationed in both Germany and Japan?
In the "so-what" category, I was part of
the negotiating team which returned
governmental control of Okinawa to Japan
in 1973. Sure hope it doesn't take that
long in Iraq.
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Bush snubbed international opinion then
and went ahead with the "Coalition of the
Willing."
======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Does that seem logical to you, Galen?
The Coalition included 63 nations. For
a list of these nations, go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Iraq+Coalition&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3Dc4fcae9551ebb98%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D3%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DIraq%2BCoalition%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%252F%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPIndex&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%2F
The list did NOT include France, Germany, or
Russia. Apparently, you and the other liberals
seem to consider these three opposing countries
to be "international opinion." Why?
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
It also accounted for less than 1/3 of the countries in the world,
according to the US Department of State, these 63 nations. I
consider a coalition that can only attract less than a third of
the
world to be less than international support....
=========================================================================
Papa Jack shook his head:
Why? Coalitions are formed among nations with a common
set of goals. For example, France, Germany, and Russia had
done extensive questionable business with Saddam's Iraq --
and Saddam owed them many millions. Thus, it really wasn't
in their countries' best interests to invade Iraq with the
U.S..
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Granted, but when a minority of nations follow
a common cause, it is tough to present that
minority opinion as that of the rest of the
world.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Did you look at the list? United Kingdom, Spain, South
Korea, Italy, Japan, Egypt, Portugal, Hungry,... I think
that certainly is international support. You're just peeved
because the folks who "saved" us in WWII were against
it -- i.e., Germany, France, and Russia. 8^)
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Think what you like, but when you get less than a
third of the world on your side it hardly represents
world opinion. "Multi-national opinion"
(consisting of less than a third of the nations)
might be a better term.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
... The US pulled out of Kyoto....
=========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Galen, are you saying we should fully support Kyoto?
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
No. I'm saying that pulling out of the Kyoto
agreement was hardly supportive of international
opinion. Right or wrong, Bush acted on his own.
============================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, but I don't understand WHO you believe
was supposed to help him act? I'm sure he
did consult with his senior secretaries
of state, defense, .... I'm sure he also
consulted with congressional leaders. He
probably talked with various leaders in
other countries.
If I were to write a job description for the
President of the U.S., I would start with his
responsibility to ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE UNITED STATES. There are many other duties
and responsibilities, but that is first and
foremost.
============================================================
Papa Jack continued:
On May 21, 2003, Wayne E. Brough's column was
titled: "Kyoto Again Stalks the Senate." Go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Kyoto%2Bsenate&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D47e14a45d8ec76e8%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D4%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DKyoto%252Bsenate%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cse.org%252Finformed%252Fissues_template.php%252F1383.htm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPResults&remove_url=http%3A
2F%2Fwww.cse.org%2Finformed%2Fissues_template.php%2F1383.htm
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"The scientific community, on the other hand,
continues to identify uncertainties in both the
scientific theory of global warming as well as
the ability of the Kyoto Protocol to have any
significant impact on global climate.
[...]
"While many in the policy community appear
intent on action, views on climate change in
the scientific community can hardly be called
a consensus, unless the consensus refers to
the large uncertainties still being examined in
the theory of human-induced global climate
change....
[...]
"Understanding the science of climate change
is a critical precursor to adopting policies that
would impose significant costs on consumers.
Most policy recommendations ultimately lead
to rationing energy, which means higher prices
for consumers. A study by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration found that the costs
of Kyoto could be almost $400 billion annually....
"Before taxpayers should be forced to pay for
such policies, the uncertainties raised by the
scientific community must be addressed. Beyond
the science of global warming, many scientists
are admitting that Kyoto-style solutions would
be ineffective at addressing issues of global
climate. A more appropriate research path is
long-run technological innovation, which can
provide the means to address problems when
they are identified. During this summer's energy
debate Congress should keep this in mind and
avoid policies that threaten the nation's econo-
mic welfare in pursuit of policy solutions to
questions that science has yet to resolve."
______________________________________________________________________
A 100% implimentation of the Kyoto Protocol by
the U.S. would probably bankrupt our economy
within a few years.
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Right or wrong, Bush still acted in what he
thinks are in the interests of *this* country,
not international opinion, something he also
claimed was his reason for action in Iraq.
============================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Hmmmm. If you see:
US BEST INTERESTS vs. INTERNATIONAL OPINION
you seem to believe POTUS should elect to
damage the U.S.'s best interests in order
to curry international opinion?
Why?
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
... It wasn't at all supportive of the World Court.
I could go on and on but you would be hard
pressed to get even three folks together that
would agree that international opinion is
important to Bush.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
On April 11, 2002, WorldNetDaily.com posted
an article by Mary Jo Anderson titled: "World
Court Now a Reality."
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=%22World+Court%22%2B+%22United+States%22&page=2&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3Df517ed7942a43c1a%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D13%26amp%3BuserQuery%3D%2522World%2BCourt%2522%252B%2B%2522United%2BStates%2522%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.worldnetdaily.com%252Fnews%252Farticle.asp%253FARTICLE_ID%253D27180
26amp%3BinvocationType%3Dnext%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldnetdaily.com%2Fnews%2Farticle.asp%253FARTICLE_ID%253D27180
___________________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"The International Criminal Court was
officially instituted today at the United
Nations headquarters.
"The court, a per
anent tribunal to pro-
secute 'crimes against humanity,' strides
onto the world stage without the ratifica-
tion of the United States. Deemed by some
as a grave threat to national sovereignty,
the United States has lodged strenuous
objections to the ICC. As late as Monday
there were reports that President Bush
had sought means to retract the signature
of former president Clinton, who signed
the treaty on his last day in office. A
signature indicates a nation's intent to
seek ratification.
"However, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee would not bring the treaty to the
Senate for a vote.
[...]
"Objections to the court by Americans are
based largely on fears that such a court
could bring politically motivated charges
against U.S. presidents and military per-
sonnel. Crimes of "aggression" have not
as yet been defined, leaving open to future
interpretation any number of military
operations. When one nation defends itself,
is that aggression against another? So-
called crimes against humanity include
vague phrases such as injury to a popula-
tion's "mental health." Who is to determine
when such a crime has been perpetrated?
"Any U.S. citizens prosecuted by the Inter-
national Criminal Court will be denied the
guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. As of
yet, the process for electing and rotating
ICC judges is incomplete. Opponents of
the court suggest that world events in the
near future could find the U.S. and its
citizens at the mercy of a panel of judges
from non-Western nations, or of nations
that seek to extort favorable trade agree-
ments from the U.S. Critics ask: What is to
prevent the court from prosecuting a U.S.
president that topples Saddam Hussein
without first seeking assurance from the
U.N. that such military activity would not
be categorized as a war crime?
"U.S. treaty specialists underscore the
unique danger of the ICC: It is not a
treaty among parties in agreement, but
is instead a new, and many believe dan-
gerous, species of an international instru-
ment that subordinates all nation states
in the world to the rule of the United
Nations' court. The ICC can prosecute
whenever it deems a nation's courts
have failed to prosecute its own viola-
tors of 'human rights.' Never before has
such power been held over nation states,
say court critics.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Having served as a police chief in Korea and
Okinawa, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to
be at the mercy of such a political court with
judges appointed by Fidel Castro, Kadafi, or
other such"loony tune" dictators.
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Again, an example of Bush looking out for America
regardless of the rest of the world.
============================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Okay? So? Isn't that exactly what we expect
him to do??????
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security, and being as how Bush
didn't care about international wishes or
the UN, how is it that now that Saddam is
captured Bush is suddenly saying the Iraqis
should try Saddam and that any trial must
withstand international scrutiny?
======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Galen, I would love to see you diagram the
preceeding sentence for a tough English
teacher.
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security,___________________
\ it | is
\____|_____________ 8^) I
give up.
being as how Bush didn't care about / \n \h
international wishes or the UN,______/ \o \o
\w \w
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:>
I've heard of killing the messenger because you don't like
his news, but attacking the grammar?
=========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Nope, not the grammer -- just the tangled web
you wove.
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Give me a break. I'm an electrical engineer,
not an English major.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
But I thought my "clever" reply was funny.
Don't you have a sense of humor, Galen?
=========================================================================
Papa Jack continued:
I couldn't understand what you were trying to say.
The more I read it, the more confused I got.
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
You could have asked for an explanation, rather
than trying to ridicule that which you do not
understand.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled bigger:
What do I have to do? I started with "Papa Jack
laughed." Then, I put one of those silly smiley
faces after the aborted diagram.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
If you want to refresh your memory, there is
a good summary of the U.S.'s many efforts to
work with the U.N. for the last several years
prior to the Iraq invasion. Go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Iraq+UN&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D5cdf383a9a362de1%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D8%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DIraq%2BUN%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.channelnewsasia.com%252Fcna%252Fgulfwar%252Fchrono_uniraq.htm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPResults&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
hannelnewsasia.com%2Fcna%2Fgulfwar%2Fchrono_uniraq.htm
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I'm not saying Saddam wasn't a bad guy and
didn't need to be removed. I'm not suggesting
the US didn't try many times to get the UN to
do something. What I'm saying is that it doesn't
make much sense for Bush to tell us that Saddam
is such a threat that we have to invade Iraq, even
without the majority or the world's backing, and
then behave now like he gives a damn about
what the world thinks. If Saddam was linked to
terrorism and a threat to the US he ought to be
tried here. We've been holding a US citizen here
without even being charged, and certainly Saddam
doesn't rate better treatment than one of our own
citizens. Here is a guy (Bush) who is willing to hold
people from Afghanistan at Gitmo, yet would have
us believe that Saddam should have a trial, and one
that will withstand international scrutiny to boot.
It just doesn't make any sense that Bush would treat
Saddam better than prisoners at Gitmo, and it
doesn't make sense that Bush would flout inter-
national opinion before yet pay it heed now.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack disagreed:
It looks now as though it's probable that Saddam will
be tried first in Iraq by the people he harmed the most.
Remember, the people in Kuwait, Iran, and the Kurds
would also like to see him in their courts.
I doubt that Bush will "...treat Saddam better than
prisoners at Gitmo" as you claimed. I certainly
wouldn't look forward to going into a Iraqi court
to face the sort of charges which will be brought
against him -- with truckloads of evidence and
hundreds of witnesses to back them up.
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Bush already is treating Saddam better than those
he holds in Cuba. Saddam is going to have a trail,
Bush has said so, while the people at Gitmo
haven't even been charged. I'll bet Saddam gets
to walk various places, the prisoners at Gitmo are
routinely trundled around in little carts pushed
by their guards. I could go on and on.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack said:
Saddam is going to have a trial for the murder
of thousands of innocents and other crimes against
humanity. He will be disgraced and he will be
convicted. Then, he will probably be executed.
The captive enemy combatants at Gitmo are, for
all practical purposes, being treated as POWs.
Many will eventually be sent home without any
further legal actions by the U.S.. Others, if
there is evidence, may be tried for any crimes
they committed.
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
It's this "I don't care about international
opinion, I'm gonna do what I think is right."
stance that Bush takes vis-a-vis his seeming
regard for international opinion concerning
the treatment of Saddam that I find inconsis-
tent. I don't think it makes much sense.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack comments:
Are you suggesting the POTUS shoudn't do
what he thinks is right -- but, should
instead cave in to the pressures of dip-
lomats? I doubt the majority of Americans
would agree with that so long as we are a
major power.
Happy holidays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Galen Hekhuis" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
23 Dec 2003 04:16:54 PM |
|
|
On 23 Dec 2003 13:21:05 -0800, (Papa Jack) wrote:
Then you're saying FDR had no business in
exerting influence in the formation and
operation of new governments in Germany
and Japan after W.W.II?
No, that is NOT what I am saying at all.
BTW, are you aware
we still have American military troops
stationed in both Germany and Japan?
Yes.
In the "so-what" category, I was part of
the negotiating team which returned
governmental control of Okinawa to Japan
in 1973.
You're quite right in saying that is in the "so what" category.
Sure hope it doesn't take that
long in Iraq.
Yep, but I don't understand WHO you believe
was supposed to help him act? I'm sure he
did consult with his senior secretaries
of state, defense, .... I'm sure he also
consulted with congressional leaders. He
probably talked with various leaders in
other countries.
I would expect him to realize that the US does not exist in a vacuum in
this world, and to be able to articulate clearly to the citizens when he
feels his actions (which were clearly in the minority if he could get only
less than a third of the world to join him in his "Coalition of the
Willing") are necessary and yet in conflict with world opinion. Something
he did not do. Something which he still has not done. The reasons he
gives for invading Iraq change from month to month.
If I were to write a job description for the
President of the U.S., I would start with his
responsibility to ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE UNITED STATES. There are many other duties
and responsibilities, but that is first and
foremost.
I would say that his responsibility is to ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, rather than just being interested in
preserving a political entity. I prefer a president who acts in behalf of
the people, rather than some government, even if that government happens to
be the US.
Hmmmm. If you see:
US BEST INTERESTS vs. INTERNATIONAL OPINION
you seem to believe POTUS should elect to
damage the U.S.'s best interests in order
to curry international opinion?
Why?
When there is a conflict between the interests of the citizens vs the
government, I would hope the president would act in the best interest of
the citizens, even if the result is damage to the government. Despots and
tyrants are often most concerned with preserving their governments and/or
political boundaries, elected representatives are (in theory) supposed to
look out for their people.
Okay? So? Isn't that exactly what we expect
him to do??????
No. I've told you again and again, the president's responsibility is to
the people, NOT the government.
But I thought my "clever" reply was funny.
Don't you have a sense of humor, Galen?
It's not that I don't have a sense of humor, it's just that I didn't find
that funny. But what do I know? I didn't find "Hee Haw" to be funny
either.
What do I have to do? I started with "Papa Jack
laughed." Then, I put one of those silly smiley
faces after the aborted diagram.
Just let it go. A joke that has to be explained probably wasn't that good
to begin with.
Saddam is going to have a trial for the murder
of thousands of innocents and other crimes against
humanity. He will be disgraced and he will be
convicted. Then, he will probably be executed.
That's a lot more than folks at Gitmo who haven't even been charged. The
president hasn't promised a trail for them and he has already promised one
for Saddam.
The captive enemy combatants at Gitmo are, for
all practical purposes, being treated as POWs.
Many will eventually be sent home without any
further legal actions by the U.S.. Others, if
there is evidence, may be tried for any crimes
they committed.
Did the president promise them a trial? Huh?
Are you suggesting the POTUS shoudn't do
what he thinks is right -- but, should
instead cave in to the pressures of dip-
lomats? I doubt the majority of Americans
would agree with that so long as we are a
major power.
A lesson that you haven't learned and it seems Bush hasn't either: Power
(even major power) must be used responsibly and with great restraint,
always being mindful of the others in your community (which is, in this
case, the planet Earth).
Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam's Hole -- and the Democrats. |
24 Dec 2003 02:30:20 PM |
|
|
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<s31auvcdqlrhukqma7q0j6pud2hqt5umes@4ax.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
=========================================================================
[snip]
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Yep, and millions of Iraqis are glad we rescued
them from the tyrant's tortures and executions.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I don't doubt that a bit.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
Then why are you attacking Bush's actions in Iraq?
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Mainly because Bush is an American president, not
the president of Iraq.
============================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Then you're saying FDR had no business in
exerting influence in the formation and
operation of new governments in Germany
and Japan after W.W.II?...
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
No, that is NOT what I am saying at all.
============================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Would you like to explain what you really
meant to say, Galen?
============================================================
Papa Jack commented:
BTW, are you aware
we still have American military troops
stationed in both Germany and Japan?
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Yes.
============================================================
Papa Jack commented:
In the "so-what" category, I was part of
the negotiating team which returned
governmental control of Okinawa to Japan
in 1973.
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
You're quite right in saying that is in the
"so what" category.
======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Awwww. You're not impressed. Shucks. 8^)
======================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Bush snubbed international opinion then
and went ahead with the "Coalition of the
Willing."
======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Does that seem logical to you, Galen?
The Coalition included 63 nations. For
a list of these nations, go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Iraq+Coalition&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3Dc4fcae9551ebb98%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D3%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DIraq%2BCoalition%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%252F%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPIndex&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpa-iraq.org%2F
The list did NOT include France, Germany, or
Russia. Apparently, you and the other liberals
seem to consider these three opposing countries
to be "international opinion." Why?
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
It also accounted for less than 1/3 of the countries in the
world,
according to the US Department of State, these 63 nations. I
consider a coalition that can only attract less than a third of
the
world to be less than international support....
=========================================================================
Papa Jack shook his head:
Why? Coalitions are formed among nations with a common
set of goals. For example, France, Germany, and Russia had
done extensive questionable business with Saddam's Iraq --
and Saddam owed them many millions. Thus, it really wasn't
in their countries' best interests to invade Iraq with the
U.S..
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Granted, but when a minority of nations follow
a common cause, it is tough to present that
minority opinion as that of the rest of the
world.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Did you look at the list? United Kingdom, Spain, South
Korea, Italy, Japan, Egypt, Portugal, Hungry,... I think
that certainly is international support. You're just peeved
because the folks who "saved" us in WWII were against
it -- i.e., Germany, France, and Russia. 8^)
============================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Think what you like, but when you get less than a
third of the world on your side it hardly represents
world opinion. "Multi-national opinion"
(consisting of less than a third of the nations)
might be a better term.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
... The US pulled out of Kyoto....
=========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Galen, are you saying we should fully support Kyoto?
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
No. I'm saying that pulling out of the Kyoto
agreement was hardly supportive of international
opinion. Right or wrong, Bush acted on his own.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, but I don't understand WHO you believe
was supposed to help him act?
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I would expect him to realize that the US does
not exist in a vacuum in this world,...
==========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
Do you really believe the President of the U.S.
doesn't know that? He's a really bright guy
with a whole gaggle of true experts to advise
him. You make yourself seem ignorant when
you make such ridiculous statements.
I would expect YOU to realize the U.S. is the
only "superpower" on earth right now, so more
is expected of us by the "little guys."
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
...and to be able to articulate clearly to
the citizens when he feels his actions ...
are necessary and yet in conflict with world
opinion....
==========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
On September 13, 2002, President Bush spoke
to the U.N. to "articulate clearly" that
actions by the U.N. were necessary. This
speech was seen worldwide. When the U.N.
refused to act Bush did as he promised.
Bush included similar explanation in his
last "State of the Union" speech to Congress.
This included:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=%22state+of+the+union%22&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3De4977bde722c8b60%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D1%26amp%3BuserQuery%3D%2522state%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bunion%2522%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.whitehouse.gov%252Fnews%252Freleases%252F2002%252F01%252F20020129-11.html%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp
3BfromPage%3DNSCPResults&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fnews%2Freleases%2F2002%2F01%2F20020129-11.html
[...]
"We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I
will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will
not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The
United States of America will not permit the world's
most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's
most destructive weapons.
"Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun.
This campaign may not be finished on our watch --
yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
"We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror
camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our
sense of security would be false and temporary.
History has called America and our allies to action,
and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to
fight freedom's fight.
"Our first priority must always be the security of our
nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send
to Congress. My budget supports three great goals
for America: We will win this war; we'll protect our
homeland; and we will revive our economy...."
Since then, President Bush has give numerous speeches
to the public with added information on the terrorist
threat and the Iraq campaign. He's also visited with
foreign leaders to further explain his positions and
to seek their support.
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
...and yet in conflict with world opinion....
==========================================================================
Papa Jack asked:
"World opinion" is a big word to use, Galen.
I think a large percentage of the world's
opinion is with us. Do you have any proof
that I am wrong?
Sometimes radical liberals get confused
because much of the news media tend to
"spin" the news to perpetuate this myth.
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
...Something he did not do. Something which
he still has not done. The reasons he gives
for invading Iraq change from month to month.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
See comments above. You are wrong, Galen.
He's done an excellent job -- giving speeches
and using senior officials to further explain
policies and actions. It's just that folks
like you don't like what he says, so you deny
he's said it.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack stated:
If I were to write a job description for the
President of the U.S., I would start with his
responsibility to ACT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE UNITED STATES. There are many other duties
and responsibilities, but that is first and
foremost.
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
I would say that his responsibility is to ACT
IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES, rather than just being interested
in preserving a political entity. I prefer a
president who acts in behalf of the people,
rather than some government, even if that
government happens to be the US.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Sorry, Galen, but that is a false distinction
which just doesn't impress me very much. I
cannot envision a presidential action which
would be in the best interests of the United
States, but NOT in the best interests of the
citizens of the U.S..
======================================================================
Papa Jack continued:
On May 21, 2003, Wayne E. Brough's column was
titled: "Kyoto Again Stalks the Senate." Go to:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Kyoto%2Bsenate&page=1&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D47e14a45d8ec76e8%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D4%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DKyoto%252Bsenate%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cse.org%252Finformed%252Fissues_template.php%252F1383.htm%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPResults&remove_url=http%3A
2F%2Fwww.cse.org%2Finformed%2Fissues_template.php%2F1383.htm
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
[...]
"The scientific community, on the other hand,
continues to identify uncertainties in both the
scientific theory of global warming as well as
the ability of the Kyoto Protocol to have any
significant impact on global climate.
[...]
"While many in the policy community appear
intent on action, views on climate change in
the scientific community can hardly be called
a consensus, unless the consensus refers to
the large uncertainties still being examined in
the theory of human-induced global climate
change....
[...]
"Understanding the science of climate change
is a critical precursor to adopting policies that
would impose significant costs on consumers.
Most policy recommendations ultimately lead
to rationing energy, which means higher prices
for consumers. A study by the U.S. Energy
Information Administration found that the costs
of Kyoto could be almost $400 billion annually....
"Before taxpayers should be forced to pay for
such policies, the uncertainties raised by the
scientific community must be addressed. Beyond
the science of global warming, many scientists
are admitting that Kyoto-style solutions would
be ineffective at addressing issues of global
climate. A more appropriate research path is
long-run technological innovation, which can
provide the means to address problems when
they are identified. During this summer's energy
debate Congress should keep this in mind and
avoid policies that threaten the nation's econo-
mic welfare in pursuit of policy solutions to
questions that science has yet to resolve."
______________________________________________________________________
A 100% implimentation of the Kyoto Protocol by
the U.S. would probably bankrupt our economy
within a few years.
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Right or wrong, Bush still acted in what he
thinks are in the interests of *this* country,
not international opinion, something he also
claimed was his reason for action in Iraq.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Hmmmm. If you see:
US BEST INTERESTS vs. INTERNATIONAL OPINION
then you seem to believe POTUS should elect to
damage the U.S.'s best interests in order to
curry international opinion?
Why?
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
When there is a conflict between the
interests of the citizens vs the
government, I would hope the presi-
dent would act in the best interest
of the citizens, even if the result
is damage to the government. Despots
and tyrants are often most concerned
with preserving their governments
and/or political boundaries, elected
representatives are (in theory) sup-
posed to look out for their people.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Galen, I'm allergic to straw. You're
building all sorts of false strawmen
here in this thread.
If you're going to try to trash President
Bush, you should make specific allegations
and provide facts to back them up. All
this vague innuendo is simply sleazy.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
... It wasn't at all supportive of the World Court.
I could go on and on but you would be hard
pressed to get even three folks together that
would agree that international opinion is
important to Bush.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
On April 11, 2002, WorldNetDaily.com posted
an article by Mary Jo Anderson titled: "World
Court Now a Reality."
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=%22World+Court%22%2B+%22United+States%22&page=2&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3Df517ed7942a43c1a%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D13%26amp%3BuserQuery%3D%2522World%2BCourt%2522%252B%2B%2522United%2BStates%2522%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.worldnetdaily.com%252Fnews%252Farticle.asp%253FARTICLE_ID%253D27180
26amp%3BinvocationType%3Dnext%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldnetdaily.com%2Fnews%2Farticle.asp%253FARTICLE_ID%253D27180
___________________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"The International Criminal Court was
officially instituted today at the United
Nations headquarters.
"The court, a permanent tribunal to pro-
secute 'crimes against humanity,' strides
onto the world stage without the ratifica-
tion of the United States. Deemed by some
as a grave threat to national sovereignty,
the United States has lodged strenuous
objections to the ICC. As late as Monday
there were reports that President Bush
had sought means to retract the signature
of former president Clinton, who signed
the treaty on his last day in office. A
signature indicates a nation's intent to
seek ratification.
"However, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations
Committee would not bring the treaty to the
Senate for a vote.
[...]
"Objections to the court by Americans are
based largely on fears that such a court
could bring politically motivated charges
against U.S. presidents and military per-
sonnel. Crimes of "aggression" have not
as yet been defined, leaving open to future
interpretation any number of military
operations. When one nation defends itself,
is that aggression against another? So-
called crimes against humanity include
vague phrases such as injury to a popula-
tion's "mental health." Who is to determine
when such a crime has been perpetrated?
"Any U.S. citizens prosecuted by the Inter-
national Criminal Court will be denied the
guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. As of
yet, the process for electing and rotating
ICC judges is incomplete. Opponents of
the court suggest that world events in the
near future could find the U.S. and its
citizens at the mercy of a panel of judges
from non-Western nations, or of nations
that seek to extort favorable trade agree-
ments from the U.S. Critics ask: What is to
prevent the court from prosecuting a U.S.
president that topples Saddam Hussein
without first seeking assurance from the
U.N. that such military activity would not
be categorized as a war crime?
"U.S. treaty specialists underscore the
unique danger of the ICC: It is not a
treaty among parties in agreement, but
is instead a new, and many believe dan-
gerous, species of an international instru-
ment that subordinates all nation states
in the world to the rule of the United
Nations' court. The ICC can prosecute
whenever it deems a nation's courts
have failed to prosecute its own viola-
tors of 'human rights.' Never before has
such power been held over nation states,
say court critics.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Having served as a police chief in Korea and
Okinawa, I certainly wouldn't have wanted to
be at the mercy of such a political court with
judges appointed by Fidel Castro, Kadafi, or
other such"loony tune" dictators.
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Again, an example of Bush looking out for America
regardless of the rest of the world.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Okay? So? Isn't that exactly what we expect
him to do??????
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
No. I've told you again and again, the
president's responsibility is to the
people, NOT the government.
==========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
More straw. You're still trying to make
an artificial distinction, Galen. We're
NOT ruled by a king.
"...that this nation, under God, shall
have a new birth of freedom. . . and
that government of the people, by the
people, and for the people shall not
perish from the earth."
[Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address]
http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=Lincoln%2BGettysburg&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D1d7cf1c2fa20fbe1%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D5%26amp%3BuserQuery%3DLincoln%252BGettysburg%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flibertyonline.hypermall.com%252FLincoln%252Fgettysburg.html%26amp%3BinvocationType%3D-%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPIndex&remove_url
http%3A%2F%2Flibertyonline.hypermall.com%2FLincoln%2Fgettysburg.html
"We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America."
[Preamble to the U.S. Constitution]
When the POTUS acts in the best interests of
the UNITED STATES, he's acting in the best
interests of the "government of the people,
by the people, and for the people."
==========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security, and being as how Bush
didn't care about international wishes or
the UN, how is it that now that Saddam is
captured Bush is suddenly saying the Iraqis
should try Saddam and that any trial must
withstand international scrutiny?
======================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Galen, I would love to see you diagram the
preceeding sentence for a tough English
teacher.
Being as how he was such a threat to our
national security,___________________
\ it | is
\____|___________ 8^) I
give up.
being as how Bush didn't care about / \n \h
international wishes or the UN,______/ \o \o
\w \w
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:>
I've heard of killing the messenger because you don't like
his news, but attacking the grammar?
=========================================================================
Papa Jack laughed:
Nope, not the grammer -- just the tangled web
you wove.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Give me a break. I'm an electrical engineer,
not an English major.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
But I thought my "clever" reply was funny.
Don't you have a sense of humor, Galen?
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
It's not that I don't have a sense of humor,
it's just that I didn't find that funny. But
what do I know? I didn't find "Hee Haw" to
be funny either.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
You didn't like "Hee Haw?" That's almost
un-American!!!!
You probably better stay away from Texas. 8^)
=========================================================================
Papa Jack smiled:
What do I have to do? I started with "Papa
Jack laughed." Then, I put one of those
silly smiley faces after the aborted diagram.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
Just let it go. A joke that has to be explained
probably wasn't that good to begin with.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack said:
That depends on the audience, doesn't it?
=========================================================================
Papa Jack continued:
I couldn't understand what you were trying to say.
The more I read it, the more confused I got.
=========================================================================
Galen Hekhuis wrote:
You could have asked for an explanation, rather
than trying to ridicule that which you do not
understand.
=========================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
If you want to refresh your memory, there is
a good summary of the U.S.'s many efforts to
work with the U.N. for the la | | | | | | | | |
