| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
18 Apr 2004 04:23:45 AM |
| Object: |
OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?pagewanted=all&position=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 05:47:23 AM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0404180123.e648572@posting.google.com>...
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?pagewanted=all&position=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
F. S. Maude
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22F.%20S.%20Maude%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22F.+S.+Maude%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=FS%20Maude&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Niall Ferguson
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0312070550.1ebe34e0%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
21 Apr 2004 03:43:25 PM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0404190247.7e68b541@posting.google.com>...
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0404180123.e648572@posting.google.com>...
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?pagewanted=all&position=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
F. S. Maude
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22F.%20S.%20Maude%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22F.+S.+Maude%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=FS%20Maude&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
Niall Ferguson
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0312070550.1ebe34e0%40posting.google.com
When U.S. Aided Insurgents, Did It Breed Future Terrorists?
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0404110238.788303c1%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
18 Apr 2004 09:02:28 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?pagewanted=all&position=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=18510aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article that says the
April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be put in a
position to unleash forces of history that will take years, if not
decades, to repair.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
18 Apr 2004 09:56:11 AM |
|
|
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article that says
the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be put in
a position to unleash forces of history that will take years, if not
decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass power
in the first place.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c." |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
18 Apr 2004 12:42:24 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CF6F41A111Ffstone69@207.69.154.205...
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article that says
the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be put in
a position to unleash forces of history that will take years, if not
decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass power
in the first place.
Given to them by Reagan and Bush. But how many GI's died for Bush this
month?
Yang
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
18 Apr 2004 01:35:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:42:24 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CF6F41A111Ffstone69@207.69.154.205...
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article that
says the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be put in
a position to unleash forces of history that will take years, if not
decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass power
in the first place.
Given to them by Reagan and Bush. But how many GI's died for Bush this
month?
Yup. Where's that picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand when you need
it? I didn't know Ossama was "put in a position of power". He inherited
some money and has a vision (for what it's worth). And apparently some
leadership capability and strategic cunning, which puts him a head above
President Sock Puppet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
18 Apr 2004 02:10:10 PM |
|
|
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.18.35.01.781831@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:42:24 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CF6F41A111Ffstone69@207.69.154.205...
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British
in Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article that
says the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be put
in a position to unleash forces of history that will take years,
if not decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass
power in the first place.
Given to them by Reagan and Bush. But how many GI's died for Bush
this month?
Yup.
Nope. Reagan didn't give Saddam power. Saddam bought the vast majority
of his arms from Russia and France. Nor did Reagan arm Osama.
Where's that picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand when you need
it?
Oh, yeah, right, a diplomat shakes somebody's hand after a minor meeting
and that makes them a strategic ally, sure it does.
I didn't know Ossama was "put in a position of power". He inherited
some money and has a vision (for what it's worth). And apparently
some leadership capability and strategic cunning, which puts him a
head above President Sock Puppet.
That's hilarious. Bush got practically the whole Congress to vote for
the Iraq war resolution. Osama's "leadership" has gotten over two-thirds
of his organization destroyed, and *TWO* countries conquered. He's on
the run from everybody, issuing "statements" by remote control and can't
even be seen in public for fear of his life.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 06:42:20 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:10:10 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
That's hilarious. Bush got practically the whole Congress to vote for
the Iraq war resolution. Osama's "leadership" has gotten over two-thirds
of his organization destroyed, and *TWO* countries conquered. He's on
the run from everybody, issuing "statements" by remote control and can't
even be seen in public for fear of his life.
And, like 2-1/2 years after 9/11, he's still alive. The world's only
superpower consuming 1/2 the world's resources can't kill one man?
Something wrong there.
Dubya going to wait him out until he dies of old age?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 07:38:48 AM |
|
|
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.19.11.42.20.861639@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:10:10 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
That's hilarious. Bush got practically the whole Congress to vote for
the Iraq war resolution. Osama's "leadership" has gotten over
two-thirds of his organization destroyed, and *TWO* countries
conquered. He's on the run from everybody, issuing "statements" by
remote control and can't even be seen in public for fear of his life.
And, like 2-1/2 years after 9/11, he's still alive. The world's only
superpower consuming 1/2 the world's resources can't kill one man?
We're not devoting 1/2 the world's resources to hunting Osama. But then
you knew that and were just exaggerating for effect, right?
Something wrong there.
One guy can hide a lot more effectively than a whole army can. Without
an insider to give him up, we'd still be looking for Saddam, too.
Dubya going to wait him out until he dies of old age?
Nah, October is only a few months away... ;-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 09:01:47 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:38:48 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
We're not devoting 1/2 the world's resources to hunting Osama. But then
you knew that and were just exaggerating for effect, right?
Yeah, looks like we aren't expending squat. But, then, we are worthlessly
quagmired in Iraq, now, eh? Brother, can you spare a soldier for
Afghanistan?
Nah, October is only a few months away... ;-)
Only thing Dubya has up his sleeve. I'm beginning to think he could screw
that up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
20 Apr 2004 07:55:27 AM |
|
|
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.20.02.01.47.977787@visi.com:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:38:48 +0000, Fred Stone wrote:
We're not devoting 1/2 the world's resources to hunting Osama. But
then you knew that and were just exaggerating for effect, right?
Yeah, looks like we aren't expending squat.
Several thousand US troops, NATO allies' troops, the latest "donors
conference" netted a few billion smackeroos.
The one "warlord" backed off right away when the US Army showed up.
Didn't hardly have to fire a shot.
But, then, we are worthlessly quagmired in Iraq, now, eh?
Nope. al-Sadr's holed up in a mosque in their museum city hoping for his
fellow Shi'ites to bail him out (not going to happen) and Fallujah is on
the verge of disarming the fighters there in exchange for us lifting the
siege.
Brother, can you spare a soldier for Afghanistan?
They've got enough, thank you very much.
Nah, October is only a few months away... ;-)
Only thing Dubya has up his sleeve. I'm beginning to think he could
screw that up.
It's a slam dunk. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fear gan dia" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 02:24:59 PM |
|
|
Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
in <Xns94CF9A5247CE2fstone69@207.69.154.201>:
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.18.35.01.781831@visi.com:
Where's that picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand when you need
it?
Take your pick:
http://images.google.com/images?q=saddam+rumsfeld
Oh, yeah, right, a diplomat shakes somebody's hand after a minor meeting
and that makes them a strategic ally, sure it does.
Oh come on, we're not Fox Noise viewers - many of us remember
that the US supplied Saddam with billions of dollars worth
of conventional, chemical and biological weapons. That "minor
meeting" took place while Saddam was using poison gas on the
Iranians, with the US's full knowledge and approval. When the
UN condemned Saddam for using chemical weapons, the US was
alone in supporting Iraq - and vetoed the resolution. The
White House also killed any effort in Congress to put even
the slightest pressure against Iraq to stop committing
genocide. Even when Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait, Bush Sr.
was at first inclined to look the other way. It was only
when Saddam threatened the free flow of oil to the west that
he overnight became the US's Antichrist.
What's most depressing is that the US never learns from its
blunders - it installs "our *****" amidst great
bloodshed, and turns a blind eye to his atrocities as long
as he delivers his country's resources to US mega-corporations.
Then as soon as he gets uppity, we find some other son of
a ***** to replace him. It happend with Saddam and it'll happen
5 or 10 years from now with Chalabi.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/566/566p12.htm
--
The Very Irrev. Fear gan dia # http://goddamliberal.port5.com
There's one born again every minute.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
18 Apr 2004 09:59:47 PM |
|
|
SMChristenson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:42:24 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:
Given to them by Reagan and Bush. But how many GI's died for Bush this
month?
Yup. Where's that picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand when you need
it? I didn't know Ossama was "put in a position of power". He inherited
some money and has a vision (for what it's worth). And apparently some
leadership capability and strategic cunning, which puts him a head above
President Sock Puppet.
Didn't the US support Bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
18 Apr 2004 10:13:05 PM |
|
|
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in news:408343D5.2060903@sc.rr.com:
SMChristenson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:42:24 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:
Given to them by Reagan and Bush. But how many GI's died for Bush
this month?
Yup. Where's that picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand when you
need it? I didn't know Ossama was "put in a position of power". He
inherited some money and has a vision (for what it's worth). And
apparently some leadership capability and strategic cunning, which
puts him a head above President Sock Puppet.
Didn't the US support Bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan?
So what, does that mean we own him forever and ever?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 07:04:19 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in news:408343D5.2060903@sc.rr.com:
SMChristenson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:42:24 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:
Given to them by Reagan and Bush. But how many GI's died for Bush
this month?
Yup. Where's that picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand when you
need it? I didn't know Ossama was "put in a position of power". He
inherited some money and has a vision (for what it's worth). And
apparently some leadership capability and strategic cunning, which
puts him a head above President Sock Puppet.
Didn't the US support Bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan?
So what, does that mean we own him forever and ever?
No, but it means we bear some responsibility for arming him.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD \h.c." |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 09:18:00 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:40846C47.1070207@sc.rr.com...
Fred Stone wrote:
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in news:408343D5.2060903@sc.rr.com:
SMChristenson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:42:24 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:
Given to them by Reagan and Bush. But how many GI's died for Bush
this month?
Yup. Where's that picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand when you
need it? I didn't know Ossama was "put in a position of power". He
inherited some money and has a vision (for what it's worth). And
apparently some leadership capability and strategic cunning, which
puts him a head above President Sock Puppet.
Didn't the US support Bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan?
So what, does that mean we own him forever and ever?
No, but it means we bear some responsibility for arming him.
NeoCons? Bear responsibilities?
Why start now?
Yang
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
20 Apr 2004 07:58:06 AM |
|
|
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in news:40846C47.1070207@sc.rr.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in news:408343D5.2060903@sc.rr.com:
SMChristenson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:42:24 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:
Given to them by Reagan and Bush. But how many GI's died for Bush
this month?
Yup. Where's that picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand when you
need it? I didn't know Ossama was "put in a position of power". He
inherited some money and has a vision (for what it's worth). And
apparently some leadership capability and strategic cunning, which
puts him a head above President Sock Puppet.
Didn't the US support Bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan?
So what, does that mean we own him forever and ever?
No, but it means we bear some responsibility for arming him.
He used those weapons up a long time ago.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
20 Apr 2004 10:11:04 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in news:40846C47.1070207@sc.rr.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in news:408343D5.2060903@sc.rr.com:
Didn't the US support Bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan?
So what, does that mean we own him forever and ever?
No, but it means we bear some responsibility for arming him.
He used those weapons up a long time ago.
He used all of them? Are you sure? Did you take inventory?
And even if he did, he and his minions got valuable
experience in using them.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
21 Apr 2004 06:42:50 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 03:11:04 +0000, Colin Day wrote:
He used all of them? Are you sure? Did you take inventory?
I've heard they have Mothra in an aircraft hangar in Bagdad and they're
going to strap an anthrax belly pack on him and fly him across the
Atlantic. Prove they don't. (We all know those UN weapons inspectors are
so incompetent they couldn't find a giant, telepathic, death-ray shooting
insectoid if it stared them in the face.)
And even if he did, he and his minions got valuable experience in using
them.
Thought crime? Are we going to lock up everyone who has read a Pallidan
or Loompanics "How to Build a Silencer" book too?
The well of America's fear has no bottom.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SMChristenson" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 06:39:05 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 02:59:47 +0000, Colin Day wrote:
SMChristenson wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:42:24 -0700, Yang, AthD (h.c.) wrote:
Given to them by Reagan and Bush. But how many GI's died for Bush this
month?
Yup. Where's that picture of Rummy shaking Saddam's hand when you need
it? I didn't know Ossama was "put in a position of power". He inherited
some money and has a vision (for what it's worth). And apparently some
leadership capability and strategic cunning, which puts him a head above
President Sock Puppet.
Didn't the US support Bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
Colin Day aa #1500
Ah, yes. Good point. And, of course, the Bush family love doing business
with Saudis.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
18 Apr 2004 02:25:01 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94CF6F41A111Ffstone69@207.69.154.205>...
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article that says
the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be put in
a position to unleash forces of history that will take years, if not
decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass power
in the first place.
But Osama and Saddam were buddies with Reagan and Bush Sr.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 09:36:27 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94CF6F41A111Ffstone69@207.69.154.205>...
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article that says
the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be put in
a position to unleash forces of history that will take years, if not
decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass power
in the first place.
There was no election for Osama, but there was an
election for Shrub, oh wait, he lost the vote but
won the election. Well anyway, we can vote
him out this year if we have enough votes
to over come his election chachanery
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
19 Apr 2004 10:25:29 AM |
|
|
(Lawrence Seib) wrote in
news:75ab6396.0404190636.2160b15@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94CF6F41A111Ffstone69@207.69.154.205>...
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article that
says the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be put
in a position to unleash forces of history that will take years, if
not decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass
power in the first place.
There was no election for Osama, but there was an
election for Shrub, oh wait, he lost the vote but
won the election. Well anyway, we can vote
him out this year if we have enough votes
to over come his election chachanery
Nice diversion. Glad to see you can't respond to my point.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
20 Apr 2004 09:13:20 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94D074393395Ffstone69@207.69.154.205>...
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in
news:75ab6396.0404190636.2160b15@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94CF6F41A111Ffstone69@207.69.154.205>...
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British in
Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article that
says the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be put
in a position to unleash forces of history that will take years, if
not decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass
power in the first place.
There was no election for Osama, but there was an
election for Shrub, oh wait, he lost the vote but
won the election. Well anyway, we can vote
him out this year if we have enough votes
to over come his election chachanery
Nice diversion. Glad to see you can't respond to my point.
Thank you, but I did not see that you had much of a point.
Bin laden's power came from being the son of a rich man,
so you seem to be suggesting that capitalsim is somehow
wrong.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
20 Apr 2004 09:50:48 AM |
|
|
(Lawrence Seib) wrote in
news:75ab6396.0404200613.4b81fbac@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D074393395Ffstone69@207.69.154.205>...
(Lawrence Seib) wrote in
news:75ab6396.0404190636.2160b15@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94CF6F41A111Ffstone69@207.69.154.205>...
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British
in Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&selm
=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article
that says the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be
put in a position to unleash forces of history that will take
years, if not decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass
power in the first place.
There was no election for Osama, but there was an
election for Shrub, oh wait, he lost the vote but
won the election. Well anyway, we can vote
him out this year if we have enough votes
to over come his election chachanery
Nice diversion. Glad to see you can't respond to my point.
Thank you, but I did not see that you had much of a point.
Bin laden's power came from being the son of a rich man,
so you seem to be suggesting that capitalsim is somehow
wrong.
Huh? What kind of ***** you been smokin?
Bush's election and Osama's money have nothing to do with the fact that
Osama should have been taken out as soon as he showed his terrorist
stripes, not given several more years to amass power.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
20 Apr 2004 02:56:09 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94D16E56DE9A5fstone69@207.69.154.205>...
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in
news:75ab6396.0404200613.4b81fbac@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D074393395Ffstone69@207.69.154.205>...
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in
news:75ab6396.0404190636.2160b15@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94CF6F41A111Ffstone69@207.69.154.205>...
SMChristenson <smchris@visi.com> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.18.14.02.25.182461@visi.com:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:23:45 -0700, maff wrote:
'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/arts/18RICH.html?
pagewanted=all&posi
tion=
If we're not yet refighting Vietnam, we are playing the British
in Mesopotamia.
Frank Rich
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&selm
=
18510
aff.0403201258.69c8af71%40posting.google.com
Actually, there is a Buzzflash reference today to an article
that says the April casualties were last matched in 1971.
This is why fools, assholes, and demagogues should never to be
put in a position to unleash forces of history that will take
years, if not decades, to repair.
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass
power in the first place.
There was no election for Osama, but there was an
election for Shrub, oh wait, he lost the vote but
won the election. Well anyway, we can vote
him out this year if we have enough votes
to over come his election chachanery
Nice diversion. Glad to see you can't respond to my point.
Thank you, but I did not see that you had much of a point.
Bin laden's power came from being the son of a rich man,
so you seem to be suggesting that capitalsim is somehow
wrong.
Huh? What kind of ***** you been smokin?
Bush's election and Osama's money have nothing to do with the fact that
Osama should have been taken out as soon as he showed his terrorist
stripes, not given several more years to amass power.
Why would Reagan and Bush Sr. have taken out Osama? They were buddies
in the anti-Communist crusade in Afghanistan.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
20 Apr 2004 02:10:52 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94D16E56DE9A5fstone69@207.69.154.205>...
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib) wrote in
news:75ab6396.0404200613.4b81fbac@posting.google.com:
snipage
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to amass
power in the first place.
There was no election for Osama, but there was an
election for Shrub, oh wait, he lost the vote but
won the election. Well anyway, we can vote
him out this year if we have enough votes
to over come his election chachanery
Nice diversion. Glad to see you can't respond to my point.
Thank you, but I did not see that you had much of a point.
Bin laden's power came from being the son of a rich man,
so you seem to be suggesting that capitalsim is somehow
wrong.
snip
Bush's election and Osama's money have nothing to do with the fact that
Osama should have been taken out as soon as he showed his terrorist
stripes, not given several more years to amass power.
Well you see Fred, Afghanistan was taken over by that champion
of human rights, the Taliban. And while Clinton did not
do as you suggested, the Bush administration still wanted
to befriend the Taliban, even shortly after the 9-11.
Here is a report from American Athiests
"In 1997, "pipeline politics" was the focus for
everyone, from oil executives at firms like Enron
and Unocal to planners at the Department of State.
That year the Taliban regime began talks with
American officials, as well as an Argentine-led
consortia, all hoping for lucrative contracts
to build and operate an enormous oil and gas pipeline
system from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to
Pakistan. Taliban officials huddled for several
days in Unocal's Sugarland, Texas headquarters to
discuss the $2 billion deal. Meanwhile, at the
University of Nebraska, Afghan men were undergoing
the first phase of training for pipeline
construction.
All of this transpired even as Osama bin Laden
was, increasingly, on the radar of U.S., Israeli
and British Intelligence services. Pipeline politics
was the order of the day, though, even if it meant
supporting a fundamentalist regime like the Taliban.
It took Osama bin Laden -- scion of the wealthy Saudi
construction family -- to upset the arrangement.
But even with smoke from the 9/11 attacks still
lingering over lower Manhattan, new revelations
surfaced. A book published in France revealed
that the U.S. was still in negotiations for
the pipeline. Former UN Weapons inspector Richard
Butler remarked on this during January 8, 2002
appearance on CNN in an interview with Paula Zahn.
"The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the
Bush administration -- the present one, just
shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI
investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in
Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban
on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan."
Zahn added: "And this book points out that the
FBI's deputy director, John O'Neil, actually
resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was
obstructing..."
-- CIA officer Christina Rocca, now at Department
of State, traveled to Afghanistan weeks prior to
September 11 for consultation with Taliban clerics
about the pipeline. Even more unusual, hired by the
Taliban government as a public relations asset in
the United States was Laila Helms, niece of the
former CIA Director Richard Helms.
-- Back in D.C. Enron was thriving and expanding,
thanks in part to its close relationship with
key insiders. Contacts included the White
House, environmental and regulatory agencies,
even the Central Intelligence Agency. For instance,
CEO Kenneth Lay, who had been a Pentagon official
during the Vietnam War, could tap another Enron
board member -- Frank Wisner, Jr. -- son of former
CIA Deputy Director Frank Wisner, Sr. Over at the
Justice Department was the new Attorney General,
John Ashcroft, who had to disqualify himself from
a departmental criminal probe of Enron when it
was learned that he received nearly $58,000 from
Enron for his failed re-election campaign for
Missouri Senator in 2000. Other beneficiaries of
Enron stock or campaign largesse included Sen.
Phil Gramm, Nicholas Calio (White House director
of legislative affairs), Margaret Tutweiler
(Ambassador to Morocco), Charlotte Bears
(Undersecretary of State), Spencer Abraham
(Energy Secretary), Donald Rumsfeld (Defense) and
Marc Racicot (attorney, now RNC Chairman)."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
20 Apr 2004 04:10:57 PM |
|
|
(Lawrence Seib) wrote in
news:75ab6396.0404201110.19a80ad2@posting.google.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94D16E56DE9A5fstone69@207.69.154.205>...
(Lawrence Seib) wrote in
news:75ab6396.0404200613.4b81fbac@posting.google.com:
snipage
I agree. Osama and Saddam should never have been allowed to
amass power in the first place.
There was no election for Osama, but there was an
election for Shrub, oh wait, he lost the vote but
won the election. Well anyway, we can vote
him out this year if we have enough votes
to over come his election chachanery
Nice diversion. Glad to see you can't respond to my point.
Thank you, but I did not see that you had much of a point.
Bin laden's power came from being the son of a rich man,
so you seem to be suggesting that capitalsim is somehow
wrong.
snip
Bush's election and Osama's money have nothing to do with the fact
that Osama should have been taken out as soon as he showed his
terrorist stripes, not given several more years to amass power.
Well you see Fred, Afghanistan was taken over by that champion
of human rights, the Taliban. And while Clinton did not
do as you suggested, the Bush administration still wanted
to befriend the Taliban, even shortly after the 9-11.
Yep, eight years of Clinton not doing anything was somehow upset by
eight months of Bush's "obsession with Saddam". Sure. Riiiight.
Here is a report from American Athiests
"In 1997, "pipeline politics" was the focus for
everyone, from oil executives at firms like Enron
and Unocal to planners at the Department of State.
That year the Taliban regime began talks with
American officials, as well as an Argentine-led
consortia, all hoping for lucrative contracts
to build and operate an enormous oil and gas pipeline
system from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to
Pakistan. Taliban officials huddled for several
days in Unocal's Sugarland, Texas headquarters to
discuss the $2 billion deal. Meanwhile, at the
University of Nebraska, Afghan men were undergoing
the first phase of training for pipeline
construction.
All of this transpired even as Osama bin Laden
was, increasingly, on the radar of U.S., Israeli
and British Intelligence services. Pipeline politics
was the order of the day, though, even if it meant
supporting a fundamentalist regime like the Taliban.
It took Osama bin Laden -- scion of the wealthy Saudi
construction family -- to upset the arrangement.
Disowned and outlawed scion.
<snip the rest of the insinuations>
Why is any of that more credible than the reports of Osama's connections
with Saddam?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
21 Apr 2004 06:27:02 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
All of this transpired even as Osama bin Laden
was, increasingly, on the radar of U.S., Israeli
and British Intelligence services. Pipeline politics
was the order of the day, though, even if it meant
supporting a fundamentalist regime like the Taliban.
It took Osama bin Laden -- scion of the wealthy Saudi
construction family -- to upset the arrangement.
Disowned and outlawed scion.
<snip the rest of the insinuations>
Why is any of that more credible than the reports of Osama's connections
with Saddam?
Because the Osama/Saddam connection was A LIE made up by Bush's buddies.
Whereas the Taliban pipeline thing
ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
You always seem to get reality and fantasy confused.
Ideal qualifications for a Bush supporter !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: 'Lawrence of Arabia' Redux |
21 Apr 2004 07:11:26 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:40865a76$0$244$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
All of this transpired even as Osama bin Laden
was, increasingly, on the radar of U.S., Israeli
and British Intelligence services. Pipeline politics
was the order of the day, though, even if it meant
supporting a fundamentalist regime like the Taliban.
It took Osama bin Laden -- scion of the wealthy Saudi
construction family -- to upset the arrangement.
Disowned and outlawed scion.
<snip the rest of the insinuations>
Why is any of that more credible than the reports of Osama's
connections with Saddam?
Because the Osama/Saddam connection was A LIE made up by Bush's
buddies.
No, it's not.
Whereas the Taliban pipeline thing
ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
And it was eeeeeeevil.
You always seem to get reality and fantasy confused.
Ideal qualifications for a Bush supporter !
Spoken by a truly objective reporter.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
