Discussion:
Pile up in the TdF
(too old to reply)
Ken M
2005-07-07 17:46:00 UTC
Permalink
I just saw this awful pile up! Must have been like 15 or 20 riders. It
was in a wet corner. Lance managed to avoid getting caught in it.

But something else I have noticed, they have REALLY nice streets to
ride in over there! Now I am sure it is because they are in the
spotlight. But still! They look far nicer than the streets I get to
ride on!

Ken
Mike Jacoubowsky
2005-07-07 23:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
I just saw this awful pile up! Must have been like 15 or 20 riders. It
was in a wet corner. Lance managed to avoid getting caught in it.
That's why you don't apply your brakes *in* a wet corner.
Post by Ken M
But something else I have noticed, they have REALLY nice streets to
ride in over there! Now I am sure it is because they are in the
spotlight. But still! They look far nicer than the streets I get to
ride on!
Ken
Streets and roads chosen for the TDF are either already in very good shape
or resurfaced prior to the. The exception would be for sections chosen
deliberately for their... character? Such as that nasty cobblestone stage
last year. But in general it's rare that they ride on bad road surfaces.
Narrow & twisty add enough to the danger.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
b***@invalid.com
2005-07-08 09:55:23 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:04:24 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Post by Ken M
I just saw this awful pile up! Must have been like 15 or 20 riders. It
was in a wet corner. Lance managed to avoid getting caught in it.
That's why you don't apply your brakes *in* a wet corner.
Probably dumb question of the day, but I didn't understand this when I
heard it on OLN. How does applying your brakes cause you to skid?
D DEMAIR
2005-07-08 12:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@invalid.com
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:04:24 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Post by Ken M
I just saw this awful pile up! Must have been like 15 or 20 riders. It
was in a wet corner. Lance managed to avoid getting caught in it.
That's why you don't apply your brakes *in* a wet corner.
Probably dumb question of the day, but I didn't understand this when I
heard it on OLN. How does applying your brakes cause you to skid?
This may not be the best explanation, but here goes:

There is only so much traction available at any given moment. Less when the
road is wet. If 90% of the traction is being used to negotiate the turn,
then you only have 10% remaining for braking. Asking the brakes to give you
any more than that will result in the tire slipping. Once it slips, it's
very hard to recover. Even if you have the reflexes to respond, a tire
that's skidding has even less traction than it did a moment before.

-Don
Bill Sornson
2005-07-08 17:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by D DEMAIR
Post by b***@invalid.com
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 23:04:24 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
Post by Mike Jacoubowsky
Post by Ken M
I just saw this awful pile up! Must have been like 15 or 20
riders. It was in a wet corner. Lance managed to avoid getting
caught in it.
That's why you don't apply your brakes *in* a wet corner.
Probably dumb question of the day, but I didn't understand this when
I heard it on OLN. How does applying your brakes cause you to skid?
There is only so much traction available at any given moment. Less
when the road is wet. If 90% of the traction is being used to
negotiate the turn, then you only have 10% remaining for braking. Asking
the brakes to give you any more than that will result in the
tire slipping. Once it slips, it's very hard to recover. Even if
you have the reflexes to respond, a tire that's skidding has even
less traction than it did a moment before.
Inertia. The bike/body is tracking around a corner. Hit the brakes (esp.
front), and the wheels slow /much/ faster than the frame and rider. Do
nothing and fall to outside; try to correct and tire(s) slide out.

Unlike most things, it's worse when wet (no idea what that means)... BS
r***@earthlink.net
2005-07-12 00:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Streets and roads chosen for the TDF are either already in very good shape or resurfaced prior to the.
That said, I still think their roads -overall- are better maintained
than ours. Try to find a road in France that is in condition as bad as
the upper stretch of Page Mill, and nothing over there compares to
Eureka Canyon.

But tour inclusion does seem to guarantee a re-pave. We got to the
bottom of Portillon in May and found that the French had it closed for
repairs. It will be featured in Stage 15, climbing on the Spanish side
and descending on the French; watch for a nice, fresh smooth surface
for that descent.

- rick
Steve McDonald
2005-07-07 23:25:57 UTC
Permalink
Nice streets?? Ever try riding on wet cobblestones with 3/4-inch
tires?

Steve McDonald
C.J.Patten
2005-07-07 23:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Yes. Don't.
Post by Steve McDonald
Nice streets?? Ever try riding on wet cobblestones with 3/4-inch
tires?
Steve McDonald
Bill
2005-07-09 01:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by C.J.Patten
Yes. Don't.
Post by Steve McDonald
Nice streets?? Ever try riding on wet cobblestones with 3/4-inch
tires?
Steve McDonald
And you guys wonder why I prefer mountain bikes with 1.75" tires.
Bill Baka
Mike Latondresse
2005-07-09 04:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Post by C.J.Patten
Yes. Don't.
Post by Steve McDonald
Nice streets?? Ever try riding on wet cobblestones with
3/4-inch
tires?
Steve McDonald
And you guys wonder why I prefer mountain bikes with 1.75" tires.
Bill Baka
Hey Bill you are backa
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
2005-07-11 03:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
And you guys wonder why I prefer mountain bikes with 1.75" tires.
Bill Baka
Because you're a Fred?
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
2005-07-08 03:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
I just saw this awful pile up! Must have been like 15 or 20 riders. It
was in a wet corner. Lance managed to avoid getting caught in it.
But something else I have noticed, they have REALLY nice streets to
ride in over there! Now I am sure it is because they are in the
spotlight. But still! They look far nicer than the streets I get to
ride on!
The French can maintain their roads due to the fact they aren't
spending billions of dollars a month dropping bombs on
bad people out in the desert.
Ken M
2005-07-08 10:46:55 UTC
Permalink
No the french like terrorists! They even do business with them!

Ken
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-08 10:48:27 UTC
Permalink
At 8 Jul 2005 03:46:55 -0700, message
Post by Ken M
No the french like terrorists! They even do business with them!
Hey, you see? US values are rubbing off after all :-D

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Ken M
2005-07-08 10:57:04 UTC
Permalink
?huh? If you are refering to the U.S. and it's past relations with
terrorists, I will give you that much. But this president will never
make deals with them. He just bombs the heck out of them!

Ken
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-08 11:20:07 UTC
Permalink
At 8 Jul 2005 03:57:04 -0700, message
Post by Ken M
?huh? If you are refering to the U.S. and it's past relations with
terrorists, I will give you that much. But this president will never
make deals with them. He just bombs the heck out of them!
I think you'll find that depends on your definition of terrorist - as
it always did...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Bill
2005-07-09 01:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
At 8 Jul 2005 03:57:04 -0700, message
Post by Ken M
?huh? If you are refering to the U.S. and it's past relations with
terrorists, I will give you that much. But this president will never
make deals with them. He just bombs the heck out of them!
I think you'll find that depends on your definition of terrorist - as
it always did...
Guy
Way off topic, but do you know how much even one bomb costs these days? More
than some of us make in a year. A cruise missile is about a million and
those smart bombs have almost as much electronics as TNT. Dimwits, err,
excuse me, Bush's war is way past the 86 Billion dollar point he told
congress. Now my grandkids will be paying the bill and we still have crappy
streets with no bike lanes.
Bill Baka
Mark Hickey
2005-07-09 02:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
Way off topic, but do you know how much even one bomb costs these days? More
than some of us make in a year. A cruise missile is about a million and
those smart bombs have almost as much electronics as TNT. Dimwits, err,
excuse me, Bush's war is way past the 86 Billion dollar point he told
congress. Now my grandkids will be paying the bill and we still have crappy
streets with no bike lanes.
Bill Baka
I didn't think you could stay away. Heh.

Of course, you're still on the wrong side of the (political) street.
;-)

BTW, those bombs you're complaining about saved tens of thousands of
civilian lives (go back to newsreels of London in WWII if you'd like
to see the alternative). Money well spent, IMHO.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-09 07:39:53 UTC
Permalink
At Fri, 08 Jul 2005 19:58:17 -0700, message
Post by Mark Hickey
those bombs you're complaining about saved tens of thousands of
civilian lives
Up to a point, Lord Copper. They also took rather a lot, and your
statement assumes that the Wa was necessary and right (which is itself
contentious, given that every reason advanced beforehand turned out to
be bogus).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Chuck
2005-07-09 08:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
At Fri, 08 Jul 2005 19:58:17 -0700, message
Post by Mark Hickey
those bombs you're complaining about saved tens of thousands of
civilian lives
Up to a point, Lord Copper. They also took rather a lot, and your
statement assumes that the Wa was necessary and right (which is itself
contentious, given that every reason advanced beforehand turned out to
be bogus).
Any war is wrong unless the politcians are the first to die.
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Guy
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-09 08:43:33 UTC
Permalink
At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:24:06 GMT, message
Post by Chuck
Any war is wrong unless the politcians are the first to die.
Heh! I think we can all unite behind that one :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Ryan Cousineau
2005-07-10 02:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:24:06 GMT, message
Post by Chuck
Any war is wrong unless the politcians are the first to die.
Heh! I think we can all unite behind that one :-)
Guy
Me for sure! I truly believe that the illegitimacy of WWII was
demonstrated the failure of Roosevelt, Churchill, and de Gaulle to die
in battle! Why, I am given to understand that Roosevelt never served a
day in the armed forces in his life!

The cheek!
--
Ryan Cousineau ***@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-10 07:07:03 UTC
Permalink
At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 19:39:04 -0700, message
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Post by Chuck
Any war is wrong unless the politcians are the first to die.
Heh! I think we can all unite behind that one :-)
Me for sure! I truly believe that the illegitimacy of WWII was
demonstrated the failure of Roosevelt, Churchill, and de Gaulle to die
in battle! Why, I am given to understand that Roosevelt never served a
day in the armed forces in his life!
Whereas Churchill was a former First Lord of the Admiralty, fought in
the Boer War and had to be forcible restrained from going over to
France on day D+1. And in fact everybody in the UK who lived and
worked in London or any other major city stood in danger of their
lives throughout most of the second war.

But that's not the point. Modern wars are often as not promoted by
chickenhawks, ready to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood
for their own financial gain.

Of course, it is always possible that convention could be defied and
wars on principle fought. I am still waiting for the date for the
invasion of Zimbabwe.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
The Wogster
2005-07-09 16:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by Bill
Way off topic, but do you know how much even one bomb costs these days? More
than some of us make in a year. A cruise missile is about a million and
those smart bombs have almost as much electronics as TNT. Dimwits, err,
excuse me, Bush's war is way past the 86 Billion dollar point he told
congress. Now my grandkids will be paying the bill and we still have crappy
streets with no bike lanes.
Bill Baka
I didn't think you could stay away. Heh.
Of course, you're still on the wrong side of the (political) street.
;-)
BTW, those bombs you're complaining about saved tens of thousands of
civilian lives (go back to newsreels of London in WWII if you'd like
to see the alternative). Money well spent, IMHO.
London paid in WW-II by siding with it's sworn enemy France, against a
known friend, in Germany during WW-I. If Britain had sided with it's
old Friend Germany in WW-I then WW-II would have never happened, and
Britain would still largely have it's empire. I think that we would be
looking at the "Reise von Deutschland" instead of the "Tour de France",
because the French would have got their butts kicked but good, and might
have lost that territory.

I still think that your grandchildren will be paying for a war, largely
so that you can have cheap gas for your SUV today. I still wonder what
will happen in 20 years when the number of cars is double what it is
today, or in 30 years, when it's triple what it is today.....

W
Ken M
2005-07-09 18:56:32 UTC
Permalink
Funny I was watching something last night on the history channel, and
they were saying that there is we are going to run out of oil, no doubt
about it. The pessemistic ones say it will happen in a couple of
decades, while the optomistic ones say it will happen in about 4 or
five decades. So there is only a couple of decades difference there.
Now since the life expectancy of someone born in the U.S. now is about
85 years, the newborns of today will have to live most to half of thier
lives without oil. HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE?

Ken
Mark Hickey
2005-07-09 21:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
Funny I was watching something last night on the history channel, and
they were saying that there is we are going to run out of oil, no doubt
about it. The pessemistic ones say it will happen in a couple of
decades, while the optomistic ones say it will happen in about 4 or
five decades. So there is only a couple of decades difference there.
Now since the life expectancy of someone born in the U.S. now is about
85 years, the newborns of today will have to live most to half of thier
lives without oil. HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE?
I think the time 'til we are supposed to run out of oil has come and
gone several times already. The latest numbers I've seen, and
estimates from the Saudis suggest that we're nowhere NEAR the point
where we should be worrying about supply.

But OTOH, I hope that by the time those four or five decades roll
around, we'll have worked out some better solutions than burning gas
to get to work.

Hey wait - I already have! ;-)

Mark "unless we're talking about taco-produced gas" Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Neil Brooks
2005-07-10 00:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by Ken M
Funny I was watching something last night on the history channel, and
they were saying that there is we are going to run out of oil, no doubt
about it. The pessemistic ones say it will happen in a couple of
decades, while the optomistic ones say it will happen in about 4 or
five decades. So there is only a couple of decades difference there.
Now since the life expectancy of someone born in the U.S. now is about
85 years, the newborns of today will have to live most to half of thier
lives without oil. HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE?
I think the time 'til we are supposed to run out of oil has come and
gone several times already. The latest numbers I've seen, and
estimates from the Saudis suggest that we're nowhere NEAR the point
where we should be worrying about supply.
Hm. If I were a Saudi Oil Minister, I'd be hard pressed to be touting
the notion that y'all better start researching and developing
alternative fuels.

Could be bad for business....
Ryan Cousineau
2005-07-10 02:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Brooks
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by Ken M
Funny I was watching something last night on the history channel, and
they were saying that there is we are going to run out of oil, no doubt
about it. The pessemistic ones say it will happen in a couple of
decades, while the optomistic ones say it will happen in about 4 or
five decades. So there is only a couple of decades difference there.
Now since the life expectancy of someone born in the U.S. now is about
85 years, the newborns of today will have to live most to half of thier
lives without oil. HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE?
I think the time 'til we are supposed to run out of oil has come and
gone several times already. The latest numbers I've seen, and
estimates from the Saudis suggest that we're nowhere NEAR the point
where we should be worrying about supply.
Hm. If I were a Saudi Oil Minister, I'd be hard pressed to be touting
the notion that y'all better start researching and developing
alternative fuels.
Could be bad for business....
Okay, if you're a Saudi Oil Minister, and you're going to make a
concerted effort to lie about in-the-ground oil reserves, which way are
you going to do it?

Your choices are:

a) overstate the reserves, causing general complacency about the
long-term supply of oil, and having a damping effect on prices

b) understate the reserves, causing a general concern about the
long-term supply of oil, and driving prices higher

As background information, please note that you are part of an actual
international cartel that does nothing but regulate the oil supply in
order to keep prices in a happy, healthy band. Even if understating the
oil causes a price-hike that drives oil above your goal price, you can
control it to a large extent by simply putting out more oil. And if that
doesn't work? Well, you just have to cry crocodile tears and raise
prices.

I don't actually think any of this is going on, but understand that the
motives for oil-producing countries to overstate their reserves are
about as strong as those of the farmer to tell you he has grown far more
cotton than normal.

ObBike: bicycles, even ones made in solar-powered factories, need a
certain amount of oil products to get them rolling. This should not be a
grave problem, because the tail-end barrels of oil will be priced
according to the needs of markets like plastics and lubricants, and well
outside of the pricing needed to make it a viable fuel. Unless the wells
all run dry on shockingly short notice (say, a few years or less between
the time the end of oil is incontrovertibly recognized, and the time the
last drop, at fuel levels of consumption, would be used), then we'll be
okay.

Besides, we can just go back to using sea mammals as an oil source.
--
Ryan Cousineau ***@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
The Wogster
2005-07-10 12:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Cousineau
ObBike: bicycles, even ones made in solar-powered factories, need a
certain amount of oil products to get them rolling. This should not be a
grave problem, because the tail-end barrels of oil will be priced
according to the needs of markets like plastics and lubricants, and well
outside of the pricing needed to make it a viable fuel. Unless the wells
all run dry on shockingly short notice (say, a few years or less between
the time the end of oil is incontrovertibly recognized, and the time the
last drop, at fuel levels of consumption, would be used), then we'll be
okay.
For lubrication needs, you could use a lot of things, animal and
vegetable based oils, most likely oils made from animal fats, from
animals slaughtered for food. Plastics will probably come mostly from
recycling, in facf there will probably bve a market for broken plastic
items, just to give enough material for new processing.

W
Neil Brooks
2005-07-10 15:10:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Post by Neil Brooks
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by Ken M
Funny I was watching something last night on the history channel, and
they were saying that there is we are going to run out of oil, no doubt
about it. The pessemistic ones say it will happen in a couple of
decades, while the optomistic ones say it will happen in about 4 or
five decades. So there is only a couple of decades difference there.
Now since the life expectancy of someone born in the U.S. now is about
85 years, the newborns of today will have to live most to half of thier
lives without oil. HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE?
I think the time 'til we are supposed to run out of oil has come and
gone several times already. The latest numbers I've seen, and
estimates from the Saudis suggest that we're nowhere NEAR the point
where we should be worrying about supply.
Hm. If I were a Saudi Oil Minister, I'd be hard pressed to be touting
the notion that y'all better start researching and developing
alternative fuels.
Could be bad for business....
Okay, if you're a Saudi Oil Minister, and you're going to make a
concerted effort to lie about in-the-ground oil reserves, which way are
you going to do it?
a) overstate the reserves, causing general complacency about the
long-term supply of oil, and having a damping effect on prices
b) understate the reserves, causing a general concern about the
long-term supply of oil, and driving prices higher
As background information, please note that you are part of an actual
international cartel that does nothing but regulate the oil supply in
order to keep prices in a happy, healthy band. Even if understating the
oil causes a price-hike that drives oil above your goal price, you can
control it to a large extent by simply putting out more oil. And if that
doesn't work? Well, you just have to cry crocodile tears and raise
prices.
I don't actually think any of this is going on, but understand that the
motives for oil-producing countries to overstate their reserves are
about as strong as those of the farmer to tell you he has grown far more
cotton than normal.
While I take your point, I disagree. Sure, it's a balancing act--a
fine line between making them think things are tight today, but that
supply is plentiful down the road. It's done in retail and
commodity-based pricing all the time.
Post by Ryan Cousineau
ObBike: bicycles, even ones made in solar-powered factories, need a
certain amount of oil products to get them rolling. This should not be a
grave problem, because the tail-end barrels of oil will be priced
according to the needs of markets like plastics and lubricants, and well
outside of the pricing needed to make it a viable fuel. Unless the wells
all run dry on shockingly short notice (say, a few years or less between
the time the end of oil is incontrovertibly recognized, and the time the
last drop, at fuel levels of consumption, would be used), then we'll be
okay.
Besides, we can just go back to using sea mammals as an oil source.
That /would/ be otterly ridiculous ;-)
Mark Hickey
2005-07-10 21:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Brooks
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Besides, we can just go back to using sea mammals as an oil source.
That /would/ be otterly ridiculous ;-)
You keep on with that whale of an idea, you'll have the
environmentalists blubbering.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
The Wogster
2005-07-10 01:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
Funny I was watching something last night on the history channel, and
they were saying that there is we are going to run out of oil, no doubt
about it. The pessemistic ones say it will happen in a couple of
decades, while the optomistic ones say it will happen in about 4 or
five decades. So there is only a couple of decades difference there.
Now since the life expectancy of someone born in the U.S. now is about
85 years, the newborns of today will have to live most to half of thier
lives without oil. HOW WILL THEY SURVIVE?
There are two problems, one is that most of the number crunchers didn't
count on new consumption areas like China and India, where growth can be
massive. Those countries account for 2 Billion people, if you add 200
million cars in China and another 200 Million in India, then you have
tripled the worlds consumption. A China with an Army bigger then the US
population, could very easily walk into the Middle East and reduce
availability of oil to the US to zero over night.

There are other energy sources, but many of them are still 20 years
away, and big oil companies with bigger profit margins, want those
technologies to stay 20 years away.

Want a good replacement for a car, how about a bike?

W
Chris Neary
2005-07-10 03:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wogster
There are two problems, one is that most of the number crunchers didn't
count on new consumption areas like China and India, where growth can be
massive. Those countries account for 2 Billion people, if you add 200
million cars in China and another 200 Million in India, then you have
tripled the worlds consumption. A China with an Army bigger then the US
population, could very easily walk into the Middle East and reduce
availability of oil to the US to zero over night.
Earlier this year China passed Japan to become the #2 consumer of oil behind
the good old U.S. of A.

Draw your own conclusions.....



Chris Neary
***@comcast.net

"Information, usually seen as the precondition of debate,
is better understood as its by-product." - Christopher Lasch
The Wogster
2005-07-10 12:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Neary
Post by The Wogster
There are two problems, one is that most of the number crunchers didn't
count on new consumption areas like China and India, where growth can be
massive. Those countries account for 2 Billion people, if you add 200
million cars in China and another 200 Million in India, then you have
tripled the worlds consumption. A China with an Army bigger then the US
population, could very easily walk into the Middle East and reduce
availability of oil to the US to zero over night.
Earlier this year China passed Japan to become the #2 consumer of oil behind
the good old U.S. of A.
Draw your own conclusions.....
Like I said, if China wants the oil, and sends a 200 million man army
into the Middle East, to take it by force, what is the chance a few
thousand American soldiers could defend it, somewhere between zero and
zilch, even with lots of high tech gear.....

W
Ken M
2005-07-10 13:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Well yeah if you are talking about man-power and convention type
weapons. However I somehow think that this is a pretty unlikely
scenerio. I am sure that we have a stockpile, known or hidden of some
sort of bio / chem weapons that we "could" use on the Chinese army if
we desired it. And then there is the nuclear option. We could make
Bejing glow in the dark if they didn't withdraw from the Mid-East.

Ken
Chris Neary
2005-07-10 14:42:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
Well yeah if you are talking about man-power and convention type
weapons. However I somehow think that this is a pretty unlikely
scenerio. I am sure that we have a stockpile, known or hidden of some
sort of bio / chem weapons that we "could" use on the Chinese army if
we desired it. And then there is the nuclear option. We could make
Bejing glow in the dark if they didn't withdraw from the Mid-East.
If that's your best case scenario, I don't want to hear the less attractive
options....



Chris Neary
***@comcast.net

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
Neil Brooks
2005-07-10 15:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
Well yeah if you are talking about man-power and convention type
weapons. However I somehow think that this is a pretty unlikely
scenerio. I am sure that we have a stockpile, known or hidden of some
sort of bio / chem weapons that we "could" use on the Chinese army if
we desired it. And then there is the nuclear option. We could make
Bejing glow in the dark if they didn't withdraw from the Mid-East.
Ken
Easier just to preempt all that and take over Iraq under false
pretenses.
Ken M
2005-07-10 16:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Hey wait a minute WE ALREADY DID THAT!

Ken
The Wogster
2005-07-10 19:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
Well yeah if you are talking about man-power and convention type
weapons. However I somehow think that this is a pretty unlikely
scenerio. I am sure that we have a stockpile, known or hidden of some
sort of bio / chem weapons that we "could" use on the Chinese army if
we desired it. And then there is the nuclear option. We could make
Bejing glow in the dark if they didn't withdraw from the Mid-East.
Taking out Beijing with nukes, would only mean that instead of a 200
Million man army, your looking at a 197 million man army, and China also
has nukes, so they could retailiate and make the entire lower 48 states
glow in the dark, and have much of the worlds sympathy in justifying it.

The 1990's Iraq war, may have been the first fought over oil, it's
unlikely that the current Iraq war will be the last. However any way
you slice it, sending the prime of your youth to fight a war, so that
the old coggers back home can fill up their Caddy's for less then $2.50
a gallon, when the rest of the world is paying over $4.00 a gallon, is a
pretty pathetic sight.

W
Mark Hickey
2005-07-10 21:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wogster
The 1990's Iraq war, may have been the first fought over oil, it's
unlikely that the current Iraq war will be the last. However any way
you slice it, sending the prime of your youth to fight a war, so that
the old coggers back home can fill up their Caddy's for less then $2.50
a gallon, when the rest of the world is paying over $4.00 a gallon, is a
pretty pathetic sight.
You seem to be operating under the impression that somehow a) the US
pays less for oil than anyone else, and b) that the US has somehow
benefited greatly by stealing the Iraqi's oil.

The answers...

a) false (it's a global market - the difference is taxes imposed by
the local governments)
b) false (it's a global market - the Iraqis are selling their oil on
teh world market at market values).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Ryan Cousineau
2005-07-11 03:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wogster
Post by Ken M
Well yeah if you are talking about man-power and convention type
weapons. However I somehow think that this is a pretty unlikely
scenerio. I am sure that we have a stockpile, known or hidden of some
sort of bio / chem weapons that we "could" use on the Chinese army if
we desired it. And then there is the nuclear option. We could make
Bejing glow in the dark if they didn't withdraw from the Mid-East.
Taking out Beijing with nukes, would only mean that instead of a 200
Million man army, your looking at a 197 million man army, and China also
has nukes, so they could retailiate and make the entire lower 48 states
glow in the dark, and have much of the worlds sympathy in justifying it.
The 1990's Iraq war, may have been the first fought over oil, it's
unlikely that the current Iraq war will be the last. However any way
you slice it, sending the prime of your youth to fight a war, so that
the old coggers back home can fill up their Caddy's for less then $2.50
a gallon, when the rest of the world is paying over $4.00 a gallon, is a
pretty pathetic sight.
Your combination of wacky theories and historical ignorance endears you
to all of Usenet.

I would like to point out that one of the proximate causes of Japan's
attack on Pearl Harbor was the fact that "neutral" America's oil embargo
against Japan was greatly hurting Japan in its war efforts (at the time,
mostly against China). I am not well-read enough to claim WW II, Pacific
Theatre, was the first war fought over oil, but it may have been.

As for Iraq being a war about oil, well, there would have been easier
ways to get it. For one thing, the US could have just bought it from
Saddam. Indeed, he desperately wanted to sell it.

ObBike: Today's stage was a doozy. I loved both Rasmussen's glorious
stage win, and Voight's clever capture of the yellow jersey. Rasmussen's
effort looked inhuman. If he wins the Maillot Pois, it's going to be one
of those glorious
--
Ryan Cousineau ***@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Dr. Long Duck Dong
2005-07-13 03:24:57 UTC
Permalink
look, kids ... topic drift.

a pileup in the TdF. With NUKES!!!
Post by The Wogster
Post by Ken M
Well yeah if you are talking about man-power and convention type
weapons. However I somehow think that this is a pretty unlikely
scenerio. I am sure that we have a stockpile, known or hidden of some
sort of bio / chem weapons that we "could" use on the Chinese army if
we desired it. And then there is the nuclear option. We could make
Bejing glow in the dark if they didn't withdraw from the Mid-East.
Taking out Beijing with nukes, would only mean that instead of a 200
Million man army, your looking at a 197 million man army, and China also
has nukes, so they could retailiate and make the entire lower 48 states
glow in the dark, and have much of the worlds sympathy in justifying it.
The 1990's Iraq war, may have been the first fought over oil, it's
unlikely that the current Iraq war will be the last. However any way you
slice it, sending the prime of your youth to fight a war, so that the old
coggers back home can fill up their Caddy's for less then $2.50 a gallon,
when the rest of the world is paying over $4.00 a gallon, is a pretty
pathetic sight.
W
Mike Latondresse
2005-07-10 17:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wogster
Post by Chris Neary
Post by The Wogster
There are two problems, one is that most of the number crunchers
didn't count on new consumption areas like China and India, where
growth can be massive. Those countries account for 2 Billion
people, if you add 200 million cars in China and another 200
Million in India, then you have tripled the worlds consumption.
A China with an Army bigger then the US population, could very
easily walk into the Middle East and reduce availability of oil
to the US to zero over night.
Earlier this year China passed Japan to become the #2 consumer of
oil behind the good old U.S. of A.
Draw your own conclusions.....
Like I said, if China wants the oil, and sends a 200 million man
army into the Middle East, to take it by force,
Silly arguement....read up on logistics.
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-09 07:38:20 UTC
Permalink
At Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:09:01 -0700, message
Post by Bill
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Post by Ken M
?huh? If you are refering to the U.S. and it's past relations with
terrorists, I will give you that much. But this president will never
make deals with them. He just bombs the heck out of them!
I think you'll find that depends on your definition of terrorist - as
it always did...
Way off topic, but do you know how much even one bomb costs these days?
Yes, about $5. A bag of fertiliser and a gallon of diesel.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
The Wogster
2005-07-09 17:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
At Fri, 08 Jul 2005 18:09:01 -0700, message
Post by Bill
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Post by Ken M
?huh? If you are refering to the U.S. and it's past relations with
terrorists, I will give you that much. But this president will never
make deals with them. He just bombs the heck out of them!
I think you'll find that depends on your definition of terrorist - as
it always did...
Way off topic, but do you know how much even one bomb costs these days?
Yes, about $5. A bag of fertiliser and a gallon of diesel.
Actually I think they use fuel oil, same base stock, but different
processing.

W
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-09 17:52:27 UTC
Permalink
At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 13:00:08 -0400, message
Post by The Wogster
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Post by Bill
Way off topic, but do you know how much even one bomb costs these days?
Yes, about $5. A bag of fertiliser and a gallon of diesel.
Actually I think they use fuel oil, same base stock, but different
processing.
If you say so. last time I was involved in the quarrying industry was
over a decade ago, back then they called it ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate /
Fuel Oil) but the fuel oil was "red" diesel (i.e. diesel oil with no
road fuel duty applied). That may have been restricted to the
supplier I was dealing with, though; they made POGs. It was all a
long time ago.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Ken M
2005-07-09 16:00:20 UTC
Permalink
86 billion? Last time I heard it was up over 200 billion, or maybe I
was hearing things. But yeah you are right, your grandkids, and
probably your great grandkids will pay for "operation Iraqi freedom"!

Ken
Mark Hickey
2005-07-09 21:34:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
86 billion? Last time I heard it was up over 200 billion, or maybe I
was hearing things. But yeah you are right, your grandkids, and
probably your great grandkids will pay for "operation Iraqi freedom"!
If the Iraqi democracy does indeed succeed (as I believe it will), I
believe the effect on the region will make the price tag look like
peanuts in comparison to the benefit. It's easy enough to see that
terrorist leaders agree, given their response to the concept.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-09 21:49:48 UTC
Permalink
At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:34:43 -0700, message
Post by Mark Hickey
If the Iraqi democracy does indeed succeed (as I believe it will), I
believe the effect on the region will make the price tag look like
peanuts in comparison to the benefit.
That sounds to me very much like the triumph of hope over experience.
Middle Eastern countries in general don't "do" Western-style
democracy.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Ryan Cousineau
2005-07-10 02:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:34:43 -0700, message
Post by Mark Hickey
If the Iraqi democracy does indeed succeed (as I believe it will), I
believe the effect on the region will make the price tag look like
peanuts in comparison to the benefit.
That sounds to me very much like the triumph of hope over experience.
Middle Eastern countries in general don't "do" Western-style
democracy.
Do you believe this is a cultural failure, the horrid aftermath of the
colonial legacy, or do you have another explanation?

ObBike: there is some glorious footage I saw earlier this year from the
tour of Qatar where CSC engaged in some of the most amazing echelon
tactics I have ever seen. Formed up as second echelon on the road, they
suddenly formed up in the lead-end gutter and powered through the top
end of the first echelon. They then reformed in echelon ahead of the
now-dysfunctional former-first echelon, and the CSC gang powered away
down the road.
--
Ryan Cousineau ***@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-10 07:12:18 UTC
Permalink
At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 19:44:35 -0700, message
Post by Ryan Cousineau
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Post by Mark Hickey
If the Iraqi democracy does indeed succeed (as I believe it will), I
believe the effect on the region will make the price tag look like
peanuts in comparison to the benefit.
That sounds to me very much like the triumph of hope over experience.
Middle Eastern countries in general don't "do" Western-style
democracy.
Do you believe this is a cultural failure, the horrid aftermath of the
colonial legacy, or do you have another explanation?
Cultural "failure"? No. Cultural difference. For many
Middle-Eastern states people feel far greater allegiance to their
family, tribal or religious groupings than to their (often largely
arbitrary) nationality. Same in the Balkans.
Post by Ryan Cousineau
ObBike: there is some glorious footage I saw earlier this year from the
tour of Qatar where CSC engaged in some of the most amazing echelon
tactics I have ever seen. Formed up as second echelon on the road, they
suddenly formed up in the lead-end gutter and powered through the top
end of the first echelon. They then reformed in echelon ahead of the
now-dysfunctional former-first echelon, and the CSC gang powered away
down the road.
Cool! Drop 'em in style :-D

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Mark Hickey
2005-07-10 15:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:34:43 -0700, message
Post by Mark Hickey
If the Iraqi democracy does indeed succeed (as I believe it will), I
believe the effect on the region will make the price tag look like
peanuts in comparison to the benefit.
That sounds to me very much like the triumph of hope over experience.
Middle Eastern countries in general don't "do" Western-style
democracy.
I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a "Western-style democracy"
in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you? Every polititian and pundit
I've heard discussing the issue has acknowledged that it will be a
very different arrangement than ours.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-10 15:32:14 UTC
Permalink
At Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:07:07 -0700, message
Post by Mark Hickey
I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a "Western-style democracy"
in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you? Every polititian and pundit
I've heard discussing the issue has acknowledged that it will be a
very different arrangement than ours.
Which is, I guess, why the current process looks indistinguishable
form the 19th Century Imperialist practice of replacing the dictator
you didn't like with one you did ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Mark Hickey
2005-07-10 21:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
At Sun, 10 Jul 2005 08:07:07 -0700, message
Post by Mark Hickey
I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a "Western-style democracy"
in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you? Every polititian and pundit
I've heard discussing the issue has acknowledged that it will be a
very different arrangement than ours.
Which is, I guess, why the current process looks indistinguishable
form the 19th Century Imperialist practice of replacing the dictator
you didn't like with one you did ;-)
'Cept for that little detail that the "dictator" is gonna be elected
by a popular vote, and rule with a constitution put together by
elected officials. Sounds like an improvement to me... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-11 10:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Post by Mark Hickey
I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a "Western-style democracy"
in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you? Every polititian and pundit
I've heard discussing the issue has acknowledged that it will be a
very different arrangement than ours.
Which is, I guess, why the current process looks indistinguishable
form the 19th Century Imperialist practice of replacing the dictator
you didn't like with one you did ;-)
'Cept for that little detail that the "dictator" is gonna be elected
by a popular vote,
As was Mugabe....
Post by Mark Hickey
and rule with a constitution put together by
elected officials. Sounds like an improvement to me... ;-)
Sounds like an attempt at Western-style democracy to me. I wonder how
long it will last?


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer
The Wogster
2005-07-10 19:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:34:43 -0700, message
Post by Mark Hickey
If the Iraqi democracy does indeed succeed (as I believe it will), I
believe the effect on the region will make the price tag look like
peanuts in comparison to the benefit.
That sounds to me very much like the triumph of hope over experience.
Middle Eastern countries in general don't "do" Western-style
democracy.
I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a "Western-style democracy"
in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you? Every polititian and pundit
I've heard discussing the issue has acknowledged that it will be a
very different arrangement than ours.
The problem most Americans have, is that they have a very narrow view of
how a government can be run, the way the USA is run. There are actually
a few ways to run government. It really should be up to the people of
Iraq to choose one, unfortunately like Russians, they have had "bad"
systems so long, nobody remembers anything different. I suspect within
5-10 years they will be back to having a military sanctioneddictator
because that is what they are used to.

W
Mark Hickey
2005-07-10 21:24:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wogster
Post by Mark Hickey
I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a "Western-style democracy"
in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you? Every polititian and pundit
I've heard discussing the issue has acknowledged that it will be a
very different arrangement than ours.
The problem most Americans have, is that they have a very narrow view of
how a government can be run, the way the USA is run. There are actually
a few ways to run government. It really should be up to the people of
Iraq to choose one, unfortunately like Russians, they have had "bad"
systems so long, nobody remembers anything different. I suspect within
5-10 years they will be back to having a military sanctioneddictator
because that is what they are used to.
I don't know about that - I agree there will be some pressure by those
who stand to benefit to drift back... but I also believe the Iraqi
constitution will sensitize the population to what they have to lose
if that happens. I'm not really sure what the Iraqi government will
look like 20 years from now, but I'm sure it will be an improvement
over Saddam's ideas of an ideal Iraqi government. ;-) Ideally it will
be such a roaring success that it will cause tremendous unrest in all
the other countries in the region. No better way to change the
playing field, IMHO.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
f***@yahoo.com
2005-07-10 22:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Wogster
I suspect within
Post by The Wogster
5-10 years they will be back to having a military sanctioneddictator
because that is what they are used to.
I don't know about that - I agree there will be some pressure by those
who stand to benefit to drift back... but I also believe the Iraqi
constitution will sensitize the population to what they have to lose
if that happens. I'm not really sure what the Iraqi government will
look like 20 years from now, but I'm sure it will be an improvement
over Saddam's ideas of an ideal Iraqi government. ;-)
But, Mark, based on the history of your postings: If you're 100%
wrong, I doubt you'll ever mention it. You'll find some way to pretend
your favorite group of neo-cons was right all along.

I'm still waiting for your acknowledgement that Bush's WMD excuse for
this war, and his "9/11 connection" excuse for this war, were
fabrications.

- Frank Krygowski
Mark Hickey
2005-07-11 01:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by The Wogster
I suspect within
Post by The Wogster
5-10 years they will be back to having a military sanctioneddictator
because that is what they are used to.
I don't know about that - I agree there will be some pressure by those
who stand to benefit to drift back... but I also believe the Iraqi
constitution will sensitize the population to what they have to lose
if that happens. I'm not really sure what the Iraqi government will
look like 20 years from now, but I'm sure it will be an improvement
over Saddam's ideas of an ideal Iraqi government. ;-)
But, Mark, based on the history of your postings: If you're 100%
wrong, I doubt you'll ever mention it. You'll find some way to pretend
your favorite group of neo-cons was right all along.
You make the mistake of assuming I'm ever wrong... ;-) Hey, I'll
admit that no one can know for sure what's going to happen in Iraq
over the next decade or two. The thing I'm certain about is that if
it DOES go well, it will likely have a profound effect on the entire
region.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
I'm still waiting for your acknowledgement that Bush's WMD excuse for
this war, and his "9/11 connection" excuse for this war, were
fabrications.
The "WMD excuses" were discussed ad nauseum on this forum, and have
been exhaustively examined by bipartisan commissions who all
determined that the intelligence was bad, but that there's no evidence
of collusion in "tainting" that evidence. UNMOVIC thought Iraq still
had large stocks of WMD - I think it's safe to say that GWB didn't
influence their opinion.

And as for the "9/11 connection" - that's nothing but a fabrication
all right... but not in the way you claim. You guys have never, ever
come up with a single quote that back up your claim that the
administration tried to "tie the two together". Yet you believe that
somehow GWB brainwashed millions of people into thinking there was a
connection, even while he (GWB) was making many clear, documented
statements to the contrary. That's a pretty neat trick, IMHO - it
would be a bit like claiming that Jobst claims that bicycles hang from
the upper spokes.

But you knew that. I'm kinda surprised you wanna bring it up again
given the fact that you weren't able to prove it last time either.
Have you found the "smoking gun" or just hoping we all forgot?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
f***@yahoo.com
2005-07-11 03:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
I'm still waiting for your acknowledgement that Bush's WMD excuse for
this war, and his "9/11 connection" excuse for this war, were
fabrications.
The "WMD excuses" were discussed ad nauseum on this forum, and have
been exhaustively examined by bipartisan commissions who all
determined that the intelligence was bad, but that there's no evidence
of collusion in "tainting" that evidence.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy." ...

Which is what was being said in many discussions, including those
taking place here.

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell
this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take
military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case
was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD
capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." ...

Again, nothing new there. Those ideas were being put forth here,
apparently at the same time British government officials were
acknowledging them in secret meetings.
Post by Mark Hickey
And as for the "9/11 connection" - that's nothing but a fabrication
all right... but not in the way you claim. You guys have never, ever
come up with a single quote that back up your claim that the
administration tried to "tie the two together".
:-) Didn't you catch W's speech about a week ago?
"Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every
picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real," he said. "It is
worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country."

Bush laid out his case for why the effort is important to U.S. security
and said the insurgents in Iraq are failing.

"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance
of freedom," Bush said. "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we
forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to
men like [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi."

"We are fighting against men with blind hatred," Bush said. "They wear
no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are
trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will
on September 11, 2001. They will fail."

No attempt to link the Iraq war and 9/11 in there? He does it as he
always did, by careful juxtaposition - the kind of thing that sucked in
millions of foggy thinkers before the invasion. And sucked in his True
Believers.

One further quote from that article:
"Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, however, rejected the president's attempt
to link the Iraq war to 9/11.

'I think the American people are a lot smarter than that,' he said.
'They've figured this out.' "
Post by Mark Hickey
Yet you believe that
somehow GWB brainwashed millions of people into thinking there was a
connection..."
Yes, that's what I believe, and now, several years later, that's what a
majority of Americans believe too.
Post by Mark Hickey
...even while he (GWB) was making many clear, documented
statements to the contrary.
:-) Oh, you have pre-war statements from W saying "Iraq had nothing to
do with 9/11, but we're going to invade it anyway" ? Gosh, that must
have slipped by a few hundred million Americans!
Post by Mark Hickey
I'm kinda surprised you wanna bring it up again
given the fact that you weren't able to prove it last time either.
Mark, it's impossible to "prove" to certain people that smelling
certain flowers doesn't cure cancer. It's impossible to "prove" to
certain people that all aluminum frames don't ride "harsh." And I
wouldn't doubt that someone, somewhere is positive the sun actually
rises in the west.

I know I won't ever prove to _you_ that W's party line is anything but
God's true revelation. Luckily, there are others reading this.

- Frank Krygowski
Bill Sornson
2005-07-11 05:19:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
I'm still waiting for your acknowledgement that Bush's WMD excuse
for this war, and his "9/11 connection" excuse for this war, were
fabrications.
The "WMD excuses" were discussed ad nauseum on this forum, and have
been exhaustively examined by bipartisan commissions who all
determined that the intelligence was bad, but that there's no
evidence of collusion in "tainting" that evidence.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy." ...
In British lingo "fixed" means prepared or presented, not rigged or faked.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
And as for the "9/11 connection" - that's nothing but a fabrication
all right... but not in the way you claim. You guys have never, ever
come up with a single quote that back up your claim that the
administration tried to "tie the two together".
:-) Didn't you catch W's speech about a week ago?
"Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed.
Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real," he said. "It
is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country."
Bush laid out his case for why the effort is important to U.S.
security and said the insurgents in Iraq are failing.
"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the
advance of freedom," Bush said. "The only way our enemies can succeed
is if we forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi
people to men like [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi."
"We are fighting against men with blind hatred," Bush said. "They wear
no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are
trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will
on September 11, 2001. They will fail."
No attempt to link the Iraq war and 9/11 in there? He does it as he
always did, by careful juxtaposition - the kind of thing that sucked
in millions of foggy thinkers before the invasion. And sucked in his
True Believers.
Oh, BS. Refering to the CLIMATE that existed after 9-11 is not the same as
declaring who did it. Everyone /knows/ who did it (and did almost
immediately).
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Yet you believe that
somehow GWB brainwashed millions of people into thinking there was a
connection..."
Yes, that's what I believe, and now, several years later, that's what
a majority of Americans believe too.
Post by Mark Hickey
...even while he (GWB) was making many clear, documented
statements to the contrary.
:-) Oh, you have pre-war statements from W saying "Iraq had nothing
to do with 9/11, but we're going to invade it anyway" ? Gosh, that
must have slipped by a few hundred million Americans!
What he said was that, in light of what happened on 9-11 (and other events
previously), /and/ the UN's refusal to enforce its own myriad resolutions,
AND all the intelligence that indicated Saddam had WMDs, supported
terrorists, and DID have established ties to AQ, the US had to act. Turned
out that a lot of people had been fooled, but it that weren't the case and
the US hadn't acted then the very same detractors would be howling about
/that/.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
I'm kinda surprised you wanna bring it up again
given the fact that you weren't able to prove it last time either.
I know I won't ever prove to _you_ that W's party line is anything but
God's true revelation. Luckily, there are others reading this.
YOU sure jumped in there fast with a God reference, not Mark. Typical, but
nicely done...
Tom Keats
2005-07-11 05:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by f***@yahoo.com
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy." ...
In British lingo "fixed" means prepared or presented, not rigged or faked.
Actually, it means "made fast", or "fastened to",
or "stuck to". Affixed.

Yeah, I know -- everybody luvs a pedant.

Incidentally, a "typo" (typographical error) is /not/ a matter
pf hitting the wrong key on the keyboard. It's the result of
misreading while transcribing from one medium to another. A
typical typo occurs when badly scrawled handwriting is transcribed
to print. For example, somebody might handwrite the word "odium",
but the transcriber reads and subsequently typesets it as "opium".

Hitting the wrong key is just a typing error, which is distinct
from a typo[graphical] error.

It feels good getting all that pedantry out of my system.
Now I can get on with Life again :-)

I think I'll make a salmon sandwich.


cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
f***@yahoo.com
2005-07-11 05:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by f***@yahoo.com
"We are fighting against men with blind hatred," Bush said. "They wear
no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are
trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will
on September 11, 2001. They will fail."
No attempt to link the Iraq war and 9/11 in there? He does it as he
always did, by careful juxtaposition - the kind of thing that sucked
in millions of foggy thinkers before the invasion. And sucked in his
True Believers.
Oh, BS. Refering to the CLIMATE that existed after 9-11 is not the same as
declaring who did it. Everyone /knows/ who did it (and did almost
immediately).
Oh? The guys with "blind hatred" who "did it" were almost all Saudis.


Now, why was it that we invaded Iraq, instead of Saudi Arabia? Was it
because when writing an executive order, Iraq is easier to spell?
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by f***@yahoo.com
:-) Oh, you have pre-war statements from W saying "Iraq had nothing
to do with 9/11, but we're going to invade it anyway" ? Gosh, that
must have slipped by a few hundred million Americans!
What he said was that, in light of what happened on 9-11 (and other events
previously), /and/ the UN's refusal to enforce its own myriad resolutions,
AND all the intelligence that indicated Saddam had WMDs, supported
terrorists, and DID have established ties to AQ, the US had to act. Turned
out that a lot of people had been fooled, but it that weren't the case and
the US hadn't acted then the very same detractors would be howling about
/that/.
You're right about one part: A lot of people were fooled. You could
tell who they were by what they were saying at the time - that is, they
were parroting the neo-con doctrine.

But a lot of people weren't fooled. They were saying "Saddam has no
WMDs. This proposed invasion is unjustified. This does not meet the
moral criteria for a just war. This has nothing to do with 9/11." And
so on.

And, what do you know - they were right!

But the diehard W fans still won't admit that. Never will, I suppose!

- Frank Krygowski
Bill Sornson
2005-07-11 06:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by f***@yahoo.com
"We are fighting against men with blind hatred," Bush said. "They
wear no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They
are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake
our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail."
No attempt to link the Iraq war and 9/11 in there? He does it as he
always did, by careful juxtaposition - the kind of thing that sucked
in millions of foggy thinkers before the invasion. And sucked in
his True Believers.
Oh, BS. Refering to the CLIMATE that existed after 9-11 is not the
same as declaring who did it. Everyone /knows/ who did it (and did
almost immediately).
Oh? The guys with "blind hatred" who "did it" were almost all Saudis.
Now, why was it that we invaded Iraq, instead of Saudi Arabia? Was it
because when writing an executive order, Iraq is easier to spell?
NOW who's trying to link 9-11 to Iraq? {rotfl} We invaded /Afghanistan/
because they trained and supported the terrorists who pulled off the plane
attacks, AND gave OBL safe haven. Iraq came later, as a result of the
changed world post-9/11. (The many millions liberated from decades of
oppression don't care how well W spells, BTW.)
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by f***@yahoo.com
:-) Oh, you have pre-war statements from W saying "Iraq had nothing
to do with 9/11, but we're going to invade it anyway" ? Gosh, that
must have slipped by a few hundred million Americans!
What he said was that, in light of what happened on 9-11 (and other
events previously), /and/ the UN's refusal to enforce its own myriad
resolutions, AND all the intelligence that indicated Saddam had
WMDs, supported terrorists, and DID have established ties to AQ, the
US had to act. Turned out that a lot of people had been fooled, but
{if} that weren't the case and the US hadn't acted then the very same
detractors would be howling about /that/. {typo fixed}
You're right about one part: A lot of people were fooled. You could
tell who they were by what they were saying at the time - that is,
they were parroting the neo-con doctrine.
Like Kerry, Clinton, etc?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
But a lot of people weren't fooled. They were saying "Saddam has no
WMDs. This proposed invasion is unjustified. This does not meet the
moral criteria for a just war. This has nothing to do with 9/11."
The same ones who'd be howling if Bush had done nothing (waiting for more UN
flaccidity) and Iraq HAD had what all the intelligence sources said he did?
And if he'd supplied even a little of it to A-Q or another group? I'm sure
they'd've been real understanding about that.

Say goodnight, Frankie.

Goodnight, Frankie.

Bill S.
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-11 10:03:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:41:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
Post by Bill Sornson
NOW who's trying to link 9-11 to Iraq? {rotfl} We invaded /Afghanistan/
because they trained and supported the terrorists who pulled off the plane
attacks, AND gave OBL safe haven.
See, that's where they went wrong. If they wanted to get the guys who
trained Al-Quaeda and OBL, they should have invaded Langley, VA...


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer
Bill Sornson
2005-07-11 15:45:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:41:42 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
Post by Bill Sornson
NOW who's trying to link 9-11 to Iraq? {rotfl} We invaded
/Afghanistan/ because they trained and supported the terrorists who
pulled off the plane attacks, AND gave OBL safe haven.
See, that's where they went wrong. If they wanted to get the guys who
trained Al-Quaeda and OBL, they should have invaded Langley, VA...
Cute, but you'd need a machine to suspend and {ain't no word for it --
juxtapose non-simultaneously?} the time-space continuum to make it relevant.
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-11 15:57:04 UTC
Permalink
At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:45:19 GMT, message
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Post by Bill Sornson
NOW who's trying to link 9-11 to Iraq? {rotfl} We invaded
/Afghanistan/ because they trained and supported the terrorists who
pulled off the plane attacks, AND gave OBL safe haven.
See, that's where they went wrong. If they wanted to get the guys who
trained Al-Quaeda and OBL, they should have invaded Langley, VA...
Cute, but you'd need a machine to suspend and {ain't no word for it --
juxtapose non-simultaneously?} the time-space continuum to make it relevant.
It was an example of what we over here call irony, Bill. Some of us
are not entirely convinced by the 21st Century "do what we say, not
what we have always done in the past and still occasionally do now"
school of international politics.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Chris Neary
2005-07-11 14:04:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
The same ones who'd be howling if Bush had done nothing (waiting for more UN
flaccidity) and Iraq HAD had what all the intelligence sources said he did?
And if he'd supplied even a little of it to A-Q or another group? I'm sure
they'd've been real understanding about that.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that those individuals and groups who opposed
the war have had a much better track record in grasping the current reality
and predicting the future than those who have favored and executed the war.

This does not make me sleep better.


Chris Neary
***@comcast.net


"When I feel good, I attack.
When I don't feel so good, I attack."

- Alexandre Vinokourov
Bill Sornson
2005-07-11 15:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Neary
Post by Bill Sornson
The same ones who'd be howling if Bush had done nothing (waiting for
more UN flaccidity) and Iraq HAD had what all the intelligence
sources said he did? And if he'd supplied even a little of it to A-Q
or another group? I'm sure they'd've been real understanding about
that.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that those individuals and groups who
opposed the war have had a much better track record in grasping the
current reality and predicting the future than those who have favored
and executed the war.
Except that to them predicting the future means "hope America fails because
we hate GWB so much".
Chris Neary
2005-07-11 19:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chris Neary
Nevertheless, the fact remains that those individuals and groups who
opposed the war have had a much better track record in grasping the
current reality and predicting the future than those who have favored
and executed the war.
Except that to them predicting the future means "hope America fails because
we hate GWB so much".
You realize a corollary to your statement would be 'predicting the future
means "hope America succeeds because we love GWB so much."'

Based the record to date, loving GWB appears to cloud people's judgment,
while hating him improves it.

This also does not make me sleep better.


Chris Neary
***@comcast.net

"Prize the doubt, low kinds exist without"
- Inscription at Ramsmeyer Hall, Ohio State University
Bill Sornson
2005-07-11 19:49:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Neary
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chris Neary
Nevertheless, the fact remains that those individuals and groups who
opposed the war have had a much better track record in grasping the
current reality and predicting the future than those who have
favored and executed the war.
Except that to them predicting the future means "hope America fails
because we hate GWB so much".
You realize a corollary to your statement would be 'predicting the
future means "hope America succeeds because we love GWB so much."'
Hardly. Most people (of any nation) put love of country way above current
politics.

Why on earth should it be "partisan" to hope that peace and freedom take
hold in the Middle East?
Post by Chris Neary
Based the record to date, loving GWB appears to cloud people's
judgment, while hating him improves it.
False premise; absurd conclusion.
Post by Chris Neary
This also does not make me sleep better.
Try melatonin.

:-P
Chris Neary
2005-07-13 02:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chris Neary
Post by Bill Sornson
Except that to them predicting the future means "hope America fails
because we hate GWB so much".
You realize a corollary to your statement would be 'predicting the
future means "hope America succeeds because we love GWB so much."'
Hardly. Most people (of any nation) put love of country way above current
politics.
Yet you feel no shame at demonizing others who love their country but
believe poor decisions are being made. Sad.
Post by Bill Sornson
Why on earth should it be "partisan" to hope that peace and freedom take
hold in the Middle East?
It's not.

I also hope the nuclear waste will not be radioactive, but the data says not
to bet that way.

Both camps hope for a successful outcome, but have different interpretations
of the data presented to them. It is tragic that the camp which has a much
poorer batting average at predicting the future is so unwilling to
re-examine the basis for their predictions. Better to believe a fantasy than
to have your core beliefs challenged, I guess.
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chris Neary
Based the record to date, loving GWB appears to cloud people's
judgment, while hating him improves it.
False premise; absurd conclusion.
Bingo. We have a winner.
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chris Neary
This also does not make me sleep better.
Try melatonin.
A wiser approach is to treat the cause, not the symptom.






Chris Neary
***@comcast.net

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
Bill Sornson
2005-07-13 05:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Neary
Post by Bill Sornson
Post by Chris Neary
Post by Bill Sornson
Except that to them predicting the future means "hope America fails
because we hate GWB so much".
You realize a corollary to your statement would be 'predicting the
future means "hope America succeeds because we love GWB so much."'
Hardly. Most people (of any nation) put love of country way above
current politics.
Yet you feel no shame at demonizing others who love their country but
believe poor decisions are being made. Sad.
Chris, learn to read. What I said was that SOME people (Michael Moore comes
to mind; afterall, he's on record as saying Americans are stupid) ACTIVELY
ROOT FOR THE U.S. TO FAIL. That's completely different from believing that
"poor decisions are being made" (hell, some obviously are).
Post by Chris Neary
Post by Bill Sornson
Why on earth should it be "partisan" to hope that peace and freedom
take hold in the Middle East?
It's not.
Ah, but it DOES seem to be partisan to hope that current US policy /fails/.
Now THAT is sad. (Thankfully, I think it's only a handful that actively
roots that way.)

Bill S.
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-13 08:22:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 19:49:47 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
Post by Bill Sornson
Most people (of any nation) put love of country way above current
politics.
Truly is it said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"
(Samuel Johnson).


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer

Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-11 10:03:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:19:59 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
Post by Bill Sornson
In British lingo "fixed" means prepared or presented, not rigged or faked.
No, fixed is often used in the UK in the sense of rigging, e.g. in
football and cricket where there have been substantial rows about
match-fixing.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer
Mark Hickey
2005-07-11 12:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:19:59 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
Post by Bill Sornson
In British lingo "fixed" means prepared or presented, not rigged or faked.
No, fixed is often used in the UK in the sense of rigging, e.g. in
football and cricket where there have been substantial rows about
match-fixing.
It also means riding with only one gear and no freewheel. What's your
point?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-11 14:27:14 UTC
Permalink
At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 05:52:55 -0700, message
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by Just zis Guy, you know?
Post by Bill Sornson
In British lingo "fixed" means prepared or presented, not rigged or faked.
No, fixed is often used in the UK in the sense of rigging, e.g. in
football and cricket where there have been substantial rows about
match-fixing.
It also means riding with only one gear and no freewheel. What's your
point?
That Bill was wrong when he stated: "In British lingo "fixed" means
prepared or presented, not rigged or faked."

Actually the usage he suggests, prepared or presented, is much more
American than British. A USian might say they were fixing supper, a
Brit would not. Check the differences between Chambers and the OED.

The principal common British usages are:

* attach or position securely (fixed to the floor)
* repaired (I fixed it)
* decided or settled on (that's fixed, then)
* arranged (Jim Fixed It For Me)
* unchanging, constant or permanent (a fixed feast)
* deviously influenced (the match was fixed)

Ad as a Brit, most of us would understand the phrase:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a
perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen
as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military
action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the
policy." ..

as meaning that the intelligence data was being selected for support
of the policy, and the presentation of the facts carefully tailored to
support that policy. The usage has, again from the British
perspective, strong connotations of dishonesty, as in match-fixing or
police "fitting up" suspects with planted "evidence".

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Mark Hickey
2005-07-11 13:09:18 UTC
Permalink
For a guy who claims others have a problem sifting through facts, I
find it kinda amazing that you can toss out the thousands of hours of
investigation and sleuthing done by several bipartisan commissions as
unimportant, but can will latch onto the opinions of a single British
diplomat as the one and true gospel. Who's flying blind here?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
And as for the "9/11 connection" - that's nothing but a fabrication
all right... but not in the way you claim. You guys have never, ever
come up with a single quote that back up your claim that the
administration tried to "tie the two together".
:-) Didn't you catch W's speech about a week ago?
"Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every
picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real," he said. "It is
worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country."
Bush laid out his case for why the effort is important to U.S. security
and said the insurgents in Iraq are failing.
"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance
of freedom," Bush said. "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we
forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to
men like [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi."
"We are fighting against men with blind hatred," Bush said. "They wear
no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are
trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will
on September 11, 2001. They will fail."
Are you really that out of touch with reality, Frank? I mean - REALLY
that out of touch? You honestly don't know about Zarqawi's Al Qaeda
connection, and his current operations in Iraq? You DID notice that
this quote was from a WEEK ago, not three years ago, right?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
No attempt to link the Iraq war and 9/11 in there?
Read my lips... Al Qaeda. Zarqawi. Any questions?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
He does it as he
always did, by careful juxtaposition - the kind of thing that sucked in
millions of foggy thinkers before the invasion. And sucked in his True
Believers.
If by "True Believers" you mean those who are actually paying
attention to current events, yes. That it comes as a surprise to you
that we're fighting Al Qaeda-style terrorism in Iraq right now is a
bit shocking to me.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
"Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, however, rejected the president's attempt
to link the Iraq war to 9/11.
'I think the American people are a lot smarter than that,' he said.
'They've figured this out.' "
Leave it to the left to set up a straw man and then state the obvious.
Hoo boy.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Yet you believe that
somehow GWB brainwashed millions of people into thinking there was a
connection..."
Yes, that's what I believe, and now, several years later, that's what a
majority of Americans believe too.
Do you believe steel frames go soft? Just as much evidence to support
that old wive's tale too.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
...even while he (GWB) was making many clear, documented
statements to the contrary.
:-) Oh, you have pre-war statements from W saying "Iraq had nothing to
do with 9/11, but we're going to invade it anyway" ? Gosh, that must
have slipped by a few hundred million Americans!
We've gone over and over and over this one, Frank. You seem to have a
very selective memory. Bush and Cheney both said many times that
there was no evidence that Saddam or the Baathist regime was directly
involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
I'm kinda surprised you wanna bring it up again
given the fact that you weren't able to prove it last time either.
Mark, it's impossible to "prove" to certain people that smelling
certain flowers doesn't cure cancer. It's impossible to "prove" to
certain people that all aluminum frames don't ride "harsh." And I
wouldn't doubt that someone, somewhere is positive the sun actually
rises in the west.
And it's impossible to "prove" to you that even though Bush said the
opposite repeatedly, and though you've got no proof, that he somehow
claimed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Even more naive than
believing aluminum rides "harsh", IMHO, given the intense scrutiny on
the subject.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
I know I won't ever prove to _you_ that W's party line is anything but
God's true revelation. Luckily, there are others reading this.
Isn't it easier when you try to demean others by assuming their views
aren't simply based on the facts you can't refute?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Neil Brooks
2005-07-11 13:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
For a guy who claims others have a problem sifting through facts, I
find it kinda amazing that you can toss out the thousands of hours of
investigation and sleuthing done by several bipartisan commissions as
unimportant, but can will latch onto the opinions of a single British
diplomat as the one and true gospel. Who's flying blind here?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
And as for the "9/11 connection" - that's nothing but a fabrication
all right... but not in the way you claim. You guys have never, ever
come up with a single quote that back up your claim that the
administration tried to "tie the two together".
:-) Didn't you catch W's speech about a week ago?
"Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every
picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real," he said. "It is
worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country."
Bush laid out his case for why the effort is important to U.S. security
and said the insurgents in Iraq are failing.
"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance
of freedom," Bush said. "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we
forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to
men like [Abu Musab al-] Zarqawi."
"We are fighting against men with blind hatred," Bush said. "They wear
no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are
trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will
on September 11, 2001. They will fail."
Are you really that out of touch with reality, Frank? I mean - REALLY
that out of touch? You honestly don't know about Zarqawi's Al Qaeda
connection, and his current operations in Iraq? You DID notice that
this quote was from a WEEK ago, not three years ago, right?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
No attempt to link the Iraq war and 9/11 in there?
Read my lips... Al Qaeda. Zarqawi. Any questions?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
He does it as he
always did, by careful juxtaposition - the kind of thing that sucked in
millions of foggy thinkers before the invasion. And sucked in his True
Believers.
If by "True Believers" you mean those who are actually paying
attention to current events, yes. That it comes as a surprise to you
that we're fighting Al Qaeda-style terrorism in Iraq right now is a
bit shocking to me.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
"Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, however, rejected the president's attempt
to link the Iraq war to 9/11.
'I think the American people are a lot smarter than that,' he said.
'They've figured this out.' "
Leave it to the left to set up a straw man and then state the obvious.
Hoo boy.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Yet you believe that
somehow GWB brainwashed millions of people into thinking there was a
connection..."
Yes, that's what I believe, and now, several years later, that's what a
majority of Americans believe too.
Do you believe steel frames go soft? Just as much evidence to support
that old wive's tale too.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
...even while he (GWB) was making many clear, documented
statements to the contrary.
:-) Oh, you have pre-war statements from W saying "Iraq had nothing to
do with 9/11, but we're going to invade it anyway" ? Gosh, that must
have slipped by a few hundred million Americans!
We've gone over and over and over this one, Frank. You seem to have a
very selective memory. Bush and Cheney both said many times that
there was no evidence that Saddam or the Baathist regime was directly
involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
I'm kinda surprised you wanna bring it up again
given the fact that you weren't able to prove it last time either.
Mark, it's impossible to "prove" to certain people that smelling
certain flowers doesn't cure cancer. It's impossible to "prove" to
certain people that all aluminum frames don't ride "harsh." And I
wouldn't doubt that someone, somewhere is positive the sun actually
rises in the west.
And it's impossible to "prove" to you that even though Bush said the
opposite repeatedly, and though you've got no proof, that he somehow
claimed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Even more naive than
believing aluminum rides "harsh", IMHO, given the intense scrutiny on
the subject.
I'll tell you why I agree with FK and disagree with you on this score,
Mark: a /huge/ number of Americans don't get their news the way you
do, or the way I do.

They don't read the paper. They don't peruse "reputable" news
sources--either with a reputation for neutrality or with equal
representation of opposing viewpoints. They don't follow those news
stories back to source documents to get as close to the truth as they
possibly can.

They watch prime time television and--though they curse the
interruption of their favorite show--they listen to their President.
They don't parse his every word. They just listen.

When W says what Frank has quoted W as saying, I happen to agree that
what they hear is a direct connection between Hussein and the 9/11
attacks--a message they, indeed, have been pounded with by their
President since that dreadful day. Sure, you know, and Sorni knows,
and I know what that /means/, but we're in the minority.

When they've surveyed (a representative sampling of) the general
populace in the past, what % could name the VP? Half a dozen cabinet
members? The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS? /All/ the justices of the
SCOTUS? Know who Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton are?? It's woefully low.

IMO, The target audience for those "juxtapositions" gets the message .
. . loud and clear.
Mark Hickey
2005-07-12 03:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil Brooks
I'll tell you why I agree with FK and disagree with you on this score,
Mark: a /huge/ number of Americans don't get their news the way you
do, or the way I do.
They don't read the paper. They don't peruse "reputable" news
sources--either with a reputation for neutrality or with equal
representation of opposing viewpoints. They don't follow those news
stories back to source documents to get as close to the truth as they
possibly can.
They watch prime time television and--though they curse the
interruption of their favorite show--they listen to their President.
They don't parse his every word. They just listen.
When W says what Frank has quoted W as saying, I happen to agree that
what they hear is a direct connection between Hussein and the 9/11
attacks--a message they, indeed, have been pounded with by their
President since that dreadful day. Sure, you know, and Sorni knows,
and I know what that /means/, but we're in the minority.
When they've surveyed (a representative sampling of) the general
populace in the past, what % could name the VP? Half a dozen cabinet
members? The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS? /All/ the justices of the
SCOTUS? Know who Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton are?? It's woefully low.
IMO, The target audience for those "juxtapositions" gets the message .
. . loud and clear.
I don't disagree with you - just on the primary source of the
misinformation. To be sure, GWB has often intimated that 9/11 changed
a lot of things, including our patience with those who fund and
support terror, and it's also brought down the threshold for action.
Some would argue that's a "linkage" - I would say it's just common
sense (I doubt many of us would want it any other way).

OTOH, I *have* heard many, many newscasters babbling on about "GWB's
claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11", even though no one can produce
any quote or evidence of GWB making that link. But like with most
things (think "steel frames going soft"), repeat it often enough and
it becomes true, at which time it's reported by more and more talking
heads and by more newspapers.

So I think we're "almost" in agreement - I'm certainly with you on the
deplorable state of knowledge most citizens possess about the facts on
nearly all political issues. I suspect more people would think SCOTUS
is an unmentionable part of the male anatomy than part of our judicial
system. ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
f***@yahoo.com
2005-07-11 18:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
"We are fighting against men with blind hatred," Bush said. "They wear
no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are
trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will
on September 11, 2001. They will fail."
Are you really that out of touch with reality, Frank? I mean - REALLY
that out of touch? You honestly don't know about Zarqawi's Al Qaeda
connection, and his current operations in Iraq? You DID notice that
this quote was from a WEEK ago, not three years ago, right?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
No attempt to link the Iraq war and 9/11 in there?
Read my lips... Al Qaeda. Zarqawi. Any questions?
Yes. _Before_ our invasion of Iraq got so many non-Iraqi
anti-Americans motivated to enter Iraq and fight "the imperialist
Americans", what was the exact connection between Iraq and 9/11?

It absolutely astounds me that there are people so dogmatically
pro-Bush that they _still_ believe there was a connection.
Post by Mark Hickey
That it comes as a surprise to you
that we're fighting Al Qaeda-style terrorism in Iraq right now is a
bit shocking to me.
:-) Nice job, Mark. "Al Qaeda-style" means what, exactly? Same
tactics, or same ethnic group? Personally, I think it's more valid to
say we're fighting resistance saboteurs who don't want imperialist
invaders in their region. But of course, that wouldn't match what W's
scriptwriters churn out.

IOW, it seems to me that "Al Qaeda-style" means running airliners into
skyscrapers, bombing nightclubs, bombing subways, bombing trains. The
distinguishing hallmark is targeting large groups of civilians in other
countries.

Bombing opposing occupying armies has been done ever since bombs
existed. When you decide to invade another country, no matter what the
pretense, it's a standard situation. It's something you should plan
for.
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
"Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, however, rejected the president's attempt
to link the Iraq war to 9/11.
'I think the American people are a lot smarter than that,' he said.
'They've figured this out.' "
Leave it to the left to set up a straw man and then state the obvious.
Hoo boy.
You seem to ignore the fact that 3 years ago, something like 70%
believed the justifications constructed for the invasion, specifically
9/11 and WMD. Only about 40% believe that now. It's not a straw man
to say the public was mislead, and now mostly realizes it.
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Yet you believe that
somehow GWB brainwashed millions of people into thinking there was a
connection..."
Yes, that's what I believe, and now, several years later, that's what a
majority of Americans believe too.
Do you believe steel frames go soft? Just as much evidence to support
that old wive's tale too.
:-) Don't care to acknowledge poll data, eh?
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
:-) Oh, you have pre-war statements from W saying "Iraq had nothing to
do with 9/11, but we're going to invade it anyway" ? Gosh, that must
have slipped by a few hundred million Americans!
We've gone over and over and over this one, Frank. You seem to have a
very selective memory. Bush and Cheney both said many times that
there was no evidence that Saddam or the Baathist regime was directly
involved in the 9/11 attacks.
What we need, Mark, are _pre_-invasion statements by those two that say
"there is no evidence that Saddam or the Baathist regime was directly
involved in the 9/11 attacks," or words to that effect.

I honestly don't recall any such statements until our invasion was
accomplished. Why not post a few from before the invasion?

- Frank Krygowski
Mark Hickey
2005-07-12 03:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
"We are fighting against men with blind hatred," Bush said. "They wear
no uniform. They respect no laws of warfare or morality. They are
trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will
on September 11, 2001. They will fail."
Are you really that out of touch with reality, Frank? I mean - REALLY
that out of touch? You honestly don't know about Zarqawi's Al Qaeda
connection, and his current operations in Iraq? You DID notice that
this quote was from a WEEK ago, not three years ago, right?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
No attempt to link the Iraq war and 9/11 in there?
Read my lips... Al Qaeda. Zarqawi. Any questions?
Yes. _Before_ our invasion of Iraq got so many non-Iraqi
anti-Americans motivated to enter Iraq and fight "the imperialist
Americans", what was the exact connection between Iraq and 9/11?
Errrrrr, I dunno. You keep bringing it up. I don't believe there was
any direct connection.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
It absolutely astounds me that there are people so dogmatically
pro-Bush that they _still_ believe there was a connection.
It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility (that there WAS a
connection), but think about it Frank... you claim that people develop
such strong feelings about a polititian that they can ignore facts -
yet you're doing the same thing by trying (again) to claim that GWB
claimed something he never claimed, even in the face of a total lack
of evidence.

What would you say if I claimed Howard Dean took an outrageous
position (errrr, something SPECIFIC, that is...) that I had no proof
of, even though he had directly contradicted ever taking that position
over and over, and in fact had stated the opposite many times. You'd
no doubt accuse me of being brainwashed by Rush or something equally
glib - but it's not a whit different when you reverse the political
spectrum, y'know.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
That it comes as a surprise to you
that we're fighting Al Qaeda-style terrorism in Iraq right now is a
bit shocking to me.
:-) Nice job, Mark. "Al Qaeda-style" means what, exactly? Same
tactics, or same ethnic group? Personally, I think it's more valid to
say we're fighting resistance saboteurs who don't want imperialist
invaders in their region. But of course, that wouldn't match what W's
scriptwriters churn out.
It would also make it a bit hard to explain why many/most of 'em
aren't even Iraqis, huh?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
IOW, it seems to me that "Al Qaeda-style" means running airliners into
skyscrapers, bombing nightclubs, bombing subways, bombing trains. The
distinguishing hallmark is targeting large groups of civilians in other
countries.
Seriously - you haven't ever read about the Zarqawi - Al Qaeda
linkage? I do admit I'm amazed (and I'm not kidding). This isn't
exactly a debatable point...
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Bombing opposing occupying armies has been done ever since bombs
existed. When you decide to invade another country, no matter what the
pretense, it's a standard situation. It's something you should plan
for.
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
"Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, however, rejected the president's attempt
to link the Iraq war to 9/11.
'I think the American people are a lot smarter than that,' he said.
'They've figured this out.' "
Leave it to the left to set up a straw man and then state the obvious.
Hoo boy.
You seem to ignore the fact that 3 years ago, something like 70%
believed the justifications constructed for the invasion, specifically
9/11 and WMD. Only about 40% believe that now. It's not a straw man
to say the public was mislead, and now mostly realizes it.
If you can produce a SINGLE quote where GWB claimed Iraq was involved
in the 9/11 attacks, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I wish you'd quit
beating that poor dead horse skeleton... BTW, I thought there was
probably WMD in Iraq before the invasion as well - but that put me in
good company, including the UN weapons inspection team, Al Gore, Bill
Clinton, John Kerry, etc. Errrrr, that's a loose definition of "good
company" BTW. ;-)
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Yet you believe that
somehow GWB brainwashed millions of people into thinking there was a
connection..."
Yes, that's what I believe, and now, several years later, that's what a
majority of Americans believe too.
Do you believe steel frames go soft? Just as much evidence to support
that old wive's tale too.
:-) Don't care to acknowledge poll data, eh?
One quote Frank (and I type that knowing full well you know you can't
produce it).
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
:-) Oh, you have pre-war statements from W saying "Iraq had nothing to
do with 9/11, but we're going to invade it anyway" ? Gosh, that must
have slipped by a few hundred million Americans!
We've gone over and over and over this one, Frank. You seem to have a
very selective memory. Bush and Cheney both said many times that
there was no evidence that Saddam or the Baathist regime was directly
involved in the 9/11 attacks.
What we need, Mark, are _pre_-invasion statements by those two that say
"there is no evidence that Saddam or the Baathist regime was directly
involved in the 9/11 attacks," or words to that effect.
I honestly don't recall any such statements until our invasion was
accomplished. Why not post a few from before the invasion?
I've done that... there were more than a few of 'em as well. I just
don't have time to dig 'em up right now... sorry. But tell you what -
you produce ONE quote backing up your position, and I'll do the
digging. Heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
r***@aol.com
2005-07-12 04:58:30 UTC
Permalink
... you're doing the same thing by trying (again) to claim that GWB
claimed something he never claimed, even in the face of a total lack
of evidence.
What would you say if I claimed Howard Dean took an outrageous
position (errrr, something SPECIFIC, that is...) that I had no proof
of, even though he had directly contradicted ever taking that position
over and over, and in fact had stated the opposite many times. You'd
no doubt accuse me of being brainwashed by Rush or something equally
glib - but it's not a whit different when you reverse the political
spectrum, y'know.
If you can produce a SINGLE quote where GWB claimed Iraq was involved
in the 9/11 attacks, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I wish you'd quit
beating that poor dead horse skeleton...
One quote Frank (and I type that knowing full well you know you can't
produce it).
We've gone over and over and over this one, Frank. You seem to have a
Post by Mark Hickey
very selective memory. Bush and Cheney both said many times that
there was no evidence that Saddam or the Baathist regime was directly
involved in the 9/11 attacks.
But tell you what -
you produce ONE quote backing up your position, and I'll do the
digging. Heh.
Bush said that Saddam was "an ally of al Qaeda."

And Cheney repeatedly insinuated the 'link' between
Saddam and Osama when he claimed on Meet the Press
among other places that it was "pretty well proven"
that Attah met with Iraqi secret service in Prague.
This like so many other tidbits turned out to be
fabrication. Later Cheney tried to claim that he
absolutely never said that, nope , never, not me.
Hey dude, they actually record those shows ya know.
Mark Hickey
2005-07-12 13:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@aol.com
Bush said that Saddam was "an ally of al Qaeda."
And Cheney repeatedly insinuated the 'link' between
Saddam and Osama when he claimed on Meet the Press
among other places that it was "pretty well proven"
that Attah met with Iraqi secret service in Prague.
This like so many other tidbits turned out to be
fabrication. Later Cheney tried to claim that he
absolutely never said that, nope , never, not me.
Hey dude, they actually record those shows ya know.
Sorry, but I missed the bit about "involved in 9/11" in all that.

There's absolutely no doubt that Saddam DID fund terrorists, but there
is some question about some of the intelligence that was gathered
pre-war on the subject (including reports from European intelligence
about the Attah / Iraqi meeting in Prague).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Just zis Guy, you know?
2005-07-12 13:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
There's absolutely no doubt that Saddam DID fund terrorists
Hey, what a coincidence! So did the US Government! :-D


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"Let’s have a moment of silence for all those Americans who are stuck
in traffic on their way to the gym to ride the stationary bicycle."
- Earl Blumenauer
lowkey
2005-07-12 13:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Not that trying to drag a thread back on topic ever works but I found this
article in the paper today about the London bombing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050712.wlondon0712/BNStory/International/

'Sales of bicycles in London have climbed since Thursday's Tube and bus
bombings as workers look for alternatives to public transport, the capital's
biggest cycle retailer said Tuesday.

"On Thursday we sold about four times more bikes than we would normally," he
said. "Since then we have seen sales of around double what they usually
would be. Obviously this increase has a direct correlation to something and
we pretty much know what that is."'
r***@aol.com
2005-07-12 05:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Mark Hickey wrote:
But tell you what -
Post by Mark Hickey
you produce ONE quote backing up your position, and I'll do the
digging. Heh.
Washington Post, June 18, 2004:

"Bush, in a February 2003 radio address, said: 'Iraq has sent
bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has
also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late
1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq
is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist
planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in
northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.'"

Heh.

That's some pretty serious hardcore lying, wouldn't
you agree?
Mark Hickey
2005-07-12 13:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
But tell you what -
Post by Mark Hickey
you produce ONE quote backing up your position, and I'll do the
digging. Heh.
"Bush, in a February 2003 radio address, said: 'Iraq has sent
bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has
also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late
1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq
is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist
planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in
northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad.'"
Heh.
That's some pretty serious hardcore lying, wouldn't
you agree?
Again - it seems I missed the link to being directly involved in the
9/11 attack. Perhaps you could point it out to me.

Like I said in a (minutes...) earlier post - there's no doubt that
Saddam DID support terrorists. None. Which of the above reports were
true, and which ones were fabricated by the source is harder to say.
Bush was hardly the first administration to believe such things (but
you knew that, right?).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
r***@aol.com
2005-07-13 06:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Like I said in a (minutes...) earlier post - there's no doubt that
Saddam DID support terrorists. None. Which of the above reports were
true, and which ones were fabricated by the source is harder to say.
??They were all fabrications. The thing that's hard
to say is how anyone could be so gullible in the face of
such relentless baldface lying.
Post by Mark Hickey
Bush was hardly the first administration to believe such things (but
you knew that, right?).
No administration, not even the current one, believed
that Saddam supported al Qaeda in any way.

R
Mark Hickey
2005-07-13 06:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@aol.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Like I said in a (minutes...) earlier post - there's no doubt that
Saddam DID support terrorists. None. Which of the above reports were
true, and which ones were fabricated by the source is harder to say.
??They were all fabrications. The thing that's hard
to say is how anyone could be so gullible in the face of
such relentless baldface lying.
Post by Mark Hickey
Bush was hardly the first administration to believe such things (but
you knew that, right?).
No administration, not even the current one, believed
that Saddam supported al Qaeda in any way.
You should do some reading on the subject. No one who has will even
try to deny that Saddam openly supported suicide bombers in Israel,
though he reduced the payments to the families to around $10K IIRC
when the US was leaning on him toward the end. I guess that was his
idea of a "humanitarian effort". ;-)

I have absolutely no doubt that some of the reports were false, and
that some were true.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
f***@yahoo.com
2005-07-12 15:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Yes. _Before_ our invasion of Iraq got so many non-Iraqi
anti-Americans motivated to enter Iraq and fight "the imperialist
Americans", what was the exact connection between Iraq and 9/11?
Errrrrr, I dunno. You keep bringing it up. I don't believe there was
any direct connection.
Yet before the invasion, you'd argue against anyone who said there was
no connection. Like the main party figurehead, you'd argue by
implication, but the argument was clear.
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
It absolutely astounds me that there are people so dogmatically
pro-Bush that they _still_ believe there was a connection.
It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility (that there WAS a
connection)...
Yep. To be more specific, it absolutely astounds me that there are
people posting here that _still_ maintain the possibility of a
connection.
Post by Mark Hickey
yet you're doing the same thing by trying (again) to claim that GWB
claimed something he never claimed, even in the face of a total lack
of evidence.
Please, Mark, you're pretending you've never listened to a politician
before. A skilled politician will always state things so as to convey
the message he wants, yet leave wiggle room in case he's proven
stupidly wrong.

The evasive speech patterns get much better when the figurehead in
question has world-class speechwriters hired by wealthy donors to the
party he works for. IOW, it's too bad we get almost no chance to
listen to an unscripted, unrehearsed W. If we did, there would be
plenty of specific claims of links.

But this supremely scripted, supremely isolated administration knows
better than to let its figurehead speak on his own. Without a radio
link.
Post by Mark Hickey
What would you say if I claimed Howard Dean took an outrageous
position ...
I'd say Howard Dean is a jerk, and I'd say you're changing the subject.
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
That it comes as a surprise to you
that we're fighting Al Qaeda-style terrorism in Iraq right now is a
bit shocking to me.
:-) Nice job, Mark. "Al Qaeda-style" means what, exactly? Same
tactics, or same ethnic group? Personally, I think it's more valid to
say we're fighting resistance saboteurs who don't want imperialist
invaders in their region. But of course, that wouldn't match what W's
scriptwriters churn out.
It would also make it a bit hard to explain why many/most of 'em
aren't even Iraqis, huh?
<sigh> Before we invaded Iraq and thus provided the those guerillas
with an immediate motive and target, the non-Iraqis were not in Iraq.
The reports of fighters "pouring over the borders" into Iraq came
_after_ we got there. Yet another one of the negative effects of this
morally unjustified invasion.
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
IOW, it seems to me that "Al Qaeda-style" means running airliners into
skyscrapers, bombing nightclubs, bombing subways, bombing trains. The
distinguishing hallmark is targeting large groups of civilians in other
countries.
Seriously - you haven't ever read about the Zarqawi - Al Qaeda
linkage? I do admit I'm amazed (and I'm not kidding). This isn't
exactly a debatable point...
The point you're supposed to be making is that Al Qaeda was operating
out of Iraq _before_ the invasion, and that Iraq was involved in 9/11,
and that Saddam had WMDs ready to go in 45 minutes. You might also
remind us about the yellow cake nuclear fuel he was importing. At the
time, THOSE were the justifications for this insane mess.

Again: Many people were saying all those were false. We proved to be
right. But you'll wriggle out of your chair before you admit it.
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
You seem to ignore the fact that 3 years ago, something like 70%
believed the justifications constructed for the invasion, specifically
9/11 and WMD. Only about 40% believe that now. It's not a straw man
to say the public was mislead, and now mostly realizes it.
If you can produce a SINGLE quote where GWB claimed Iraq was involved
in the 9/11 attacks, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I wish you'd quit
beating that poor dead horse skeleton...
Oh, I'm _sure_ you wish I'd drop that subject! :-) But your man (and
his string-pullers) certainly did mislead the public by carefully
scripted suggestion. Yes, I wish the public weren't so gullible. But
then, they had little chance to see your man responding to, say, direct
unscripted and unvetted questions in news conferences!

But as this article (and many, many others) say, the public believed
the 9/11 connection because the administration led them to believe it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
Post by Mark Hickey
BTW, I thought there was
probably WMD in Iraq before the invasion as well ...
And I didn't. I guess that's the closest we'll ever get to an
admission you were wrong, eh?
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
:-) Don't care to acknowledge poll data, eh?
One quote Frank (and I type that knowing full well you know you can't
produce it).
At this point, Mark, only the most diehard Bush fans - or rather,
neo-con Republican fans - are pretending that Bush's bosses didn't
mislead the country as to the reason for the war.

The radio playing into your guy's ear did its job: it prevented him
from saying so specifically, and kept him to the speechwriter's
phrasing. The lack of spontaneous news conferences worked well: it
kept him from having to babble his own responses to hard questions.
But there's no question in any rational mind that this was a
premeditated invasion sold by deception.

BTW, you remind me of my dear departed mother-in-law, who was
absolutely convinced Richard Nixon was an angel... until several months
after he resigned, that is. And the little old lady who lived next
door to my aunt, who seemed similarly convinced Bill Clinton was a
virgin. Party loyalty can be amazing!

- Frank Krygowski
Mark Hickey
2005-07-13 07:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Yes. _Before_ our invasion of Iraq got so many non-Iraqi
anti-Americans motivated to enter Iraq and fight "the imperialist
Americans", what was the exact connection between Iraq and 9/11?
Errrrrr, I dunno. You keep bringing it up. I don't believe there was
any direct connection.
Yet before the invasion, you'd argue against anyone who said there was
no connection. Like the main party figurehead, you'd argue by
implication, but the argument was clear.
You've really lost it, I'm afraid. I'll bet you you can't find a
single quote from me claiming that Iraq was involved in the 9/11
attack. I've never assumed that Iraq was involved in 9/11, so I'm a
little unclear just why I'd try to intimate that it was...
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
It absolutely astounds me that there are people so dogmatically
pro-Bush that they _still_ believe there was a connection.
It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility (that there WAS a
connection)...
Yep. To be more specific, it absolutely astounds me that there are
people posting here that _still_ maintain the possibility of a
connection.
Are you claiming that a connection would be a physical impossibility?
That a dictator who tried to have an ex-president assassinated would
balk at helping out with an attack on the US? You really think that
is IMpossible?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
yet you're doing the same thing by trying (again) to claim that GWB
claimed something he never claimed, even in the face of a total lack
of evidence.
Please, Mark, you're pretending you've never listened to a politician
before. A skilled politician will always state things so as to convey
the message he wants, yet leave wiggle room in case he's proven
stupidly wrong.
... I guess GWB's such a genius that no one can even post the words he
used to do so. Maybe it's like that Mission Impossible schtick where
the words all self-destruct 10 seconds after he said 'em, leaving no
trace on the video or audio tape. ;-)
Post by f***@yahoo.com
The evasive speech patterns get much better when the figurehead in
question has world-class speechwriters hired by wealthy donors to the
party he works for. IOW, it's too bad we get almost no chance to
listen to an unscripted, unrehearsed W. If we did, there would be
plenty of specific claims of links.
But this supremely scripted, supremely isolated administration knows
better than to let its figurehead speak on his own. Without a radio
link.
Would it bother you if I said the above sounds paranoid? To summarize
"the guy can convince the US public of things he never says, even
though he often claims just the opposite". I mean, just how good IS
GWB in your opinion anyway?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
What would you say if I claimed Howard Dean took an outrageous
position ...
I'd say Howard Dean is a jerk, and I'd say you're changing the subject.
And I'd say you're still as off-base as the example you snipped.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
That it comes as a surprise to you
that we're fighting Al Qaeda-style terrorism in Iraq right now is a
bit shocking to me.
:-) Nice job, Mark. "Al Qaeda-style" means what, exactly? Same
tactics, or same ethnic group? Personally, I think it's more valid to
say we're fighting resistance saboteurs who don't want imperialist
invaders in their region. But of course, that wouldn't match what W's
scriptwriters churn out.
It would also make it a bit hard to explain why many/most of 'em
aren't even Iraqis, huh?
<sigh> Before we invaded Iraq and thus provided the those guerillas
with an immediate motive and target, the non-Iraqis were not in Iraq.
The reports of fighters "pouring over the borders" into Iraq came
_after_ we got there. Yet another one of the negative effects of this
morally unjustified invasion.
If they're there simply because they want to kill Americans, it's
probably better they're trying to kill heavily armed Americans in Iraq
than unarmed women and children in Boise.

If they're there because their leadership is terrified of what is
going on in Iraq, then we're on the right track politically (or more
accurately, Iraq is). You might have noticed the terrorists are no
longer killing many Americans, but are concentrating on trying to
break the will of the new government.

Sounds like they're there for the second reason.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
IOW, it seems to me that "Al Qaeda-style" means running airliners into
skyscrapers, bombing nightclubs, bombing subways, bombing trains. The
distinguishing hallmark is targeting large groups of civilians in other
countries.
Seriously - you haven't ever read about the Zarqawi - Al Qaeda
linkage? I do admit I'm amazed (and I'm not kidding). This isn't
exactly a debatable point...
The point you're supposed to be making is that Al Qaeda was operating
out of Iraq _before_ the invasion, and that Iraq was involved in 9/11,
and that Saddam had WMDs ready to go in 45 minutes. You might also
remind us about the yellow cake nuclear fuel he was importing. At the
time, THOSE were the justifications for this insane mess.
Sigh... again with that Iraq - 9/11 connection. BTW, the UN weapons
inspection teams figured he had WMD, and though much was made of one
bogus document about Iraq attempting to purchase uranium from Niger,
there are other instances that are actually well-documented (though
for some odd reason, the mainstream media seemed to not mention that
very often). The first of many articles I found with a quick google
search:

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/168/documentid/1761/history/3,2360,652,168,1761
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Again: Many people were saying all those were false. We proved to be
right. But you'll wriggle out of your chair before you admit it.
All you have to do is prove the claim of an Iraq - 9/11 connection.
You keep "wiggling" yourownself trying to pretend it exists, and are
now reduced to saying it was done through such clever speech writing
that it can't possibly be read without the "secret meaning"
disappearing in a puff of electrons.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
You seem to ignore the fact that 3 years ago, something like 70%
believed the justifications constructed for the invasion, specifically
9/11 and WMD. Only about 40% believe that now. It's not a straw man
to say the public was mislead, and now mostly realizes it.
If you can produce a SINGLE quote where GWB claimed Iraq was involved
in the 9/11 attacks, we can discuss it. Otherwise, I wish you'd quit
beating that poor dead horse skeleton...
Oh, I'm _sure_ you wish I'd drop that subject! :-) But your man (and
his string-pullers) certainly did mislead the public by carefully
scripted suggestion. Yes, I wish the public weren't so gullible. But
then, they had little chance to see your man responding to, say, direct
unscripted and unvetted questions in news conferences!
But as this article (and many, many others) say, the public believed
the 9/11 connection because the administration led them to believe it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
Like I said over and over and over - people like you keep claiming
it's true, and newscasters report it as gospel... yet you wonder how
the "secret" got out? LOL.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
BTW, I thought there was
probably WMD in Iraq before the invasion as well ...
And I didn't. I guess that's the closest we'll ever get to an
admission you were wrong, eh?
The fact remains there is NO doubt at all that Saddam had them, and
he's never told anyone what happened to them. Do the math, but it's
still unlikely that they just vaporized. I hope that there's some
explanation that doesn't leave the missing weapons in the hands of
those who'd use them.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by f***@yahoo.com
:-) Don't care to acknowledge poll data, eh?
One quote Frank (and I type that knowing full well you know you can't
produce it).
At this point, Mark, only the most diehard Bush fans - or rather,
neo-con Republican fans - are pretending that Bush's bosses didn't
mislead the country as to the reason for the war.
Hmmm... I guess that the Democrat Senators on the commissions studying
the subject are really "neo-con Republican fans". Imagine that. I'm
glad to hear it though - maybe we can seat a couple new judges now.
Post by f***@yahoo.com
The radio playing into your guy's ear did its job: it prevented him
from saying so specifically, and kept him to the speechwriter's
phrasing. The lack of spontaneous news conferences worked well: it
kept him from having to babble his own responses to hard questions.
But there's no question in any rational mind that this was a
premeditated invasion sold by deception.
I'm sure you have a much better handle on this than GWB's ideological
enemies who did their best to uncover the truth, Frank... I'm sure
that you would have found the evidence that several months of
painstaking work by several commissions couldn't uncover. Or wait -
you claim to have already found it... Hmmmm. Why haven't you written
a book?
Post by f***@yahoo.com
BTW, you remind me of my dear departed mother-in-law, who was
absolutely convinced Richard Nixon was an angel... until several months
after he resigned, that is. And the little old lady who lived next
door to my aunt, who seemed similarly convinced Bill Clinton was a
virgin. Party loyalty can be amazing!
I'm loyal to facts, not party. I have known Republicans who were as
irrational about Bill Clinton as you are about GWB, though. Every
time the guy sneezed, it was a great conspiracy of some sort (sound
familiar?)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
dgk
2005-07-11 16:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by The Wogster
Post by Mark Hickey
I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a "Western-style democracy"
in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you? Every polititian and pundit
I've heard discussing the issue has acknowledged that it will be a
very different arrangement than ours.
The problem most Americans have, is that they have a very narrow view of
how a government can be run, the way the USA is run. There are actually
a few ways to run government. It really should be up to the people of
Iraq to choose one, unfortunately like Russians, they have had "bad"
systems so long, nobody remembers anything different. I suspect within
5-10 years they will be back to having a military sanctioneddictator
because that is what they are used to.
I don't know about that - I agree there will be some pressure by those
who stand to benefit to drift back... but I also believe the Iraqi
constitution will sensitize the population to what they have to lose
if that happens. I'm not really sure what the Iraqi government will
look like 20 years from now, but I'm sure it will be an improvement
over Saddam's ideas of an ideal Iraqi government. ;-) Ideally it will
be such a roaring success that it will cause tremendous unrest in all
the other countries in the region. No better way to change the
playing field, IMHO.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Mark, our neocon government doesn't care about democracy, it cares
only about global, unfettered capitalism. The Cheney-Rumsfeld
thinktank, Project for a NEW AMERICAN CENTURY makes clear that they
want US capitalism to rule the world. Step one was placing permanent
military bases in central Asia and the Middle East. A client state,
run by Chalabi, was their dream. It still is.
gds
2005-07-11 16:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by dgk
A client state,
run by Chalabi, was their dream. It still is.
How close are dreams and nightmares!
Mark Hickey
2005-07-12 03:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by dgk
Mark, our neocon government doesn't care about democracy, it cares
only about global, unfettered capitalism. The Cheney-Rumsfeld
thinktank, Project for a NEW AMERICAN CENTURY makes clear that they
want US capitalism to rule the world.
And I have to agree that it's probably the best way to fix the
problems in the middle east. When the population is getting a good
education, interacting with the rest of the planet via commerce, and
are enjoying the "good life", they're not going to be so eager to
strap on a bomb belt and go for a bus ride.

I'm not aware of a developed country that isn't trying to enhance
their own slice of the global market - I hardly think this is a
uniquely Bush-initiated trend. Has always been so.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Mike Kruger
2005-07-12 01:46:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a "Western-style
democracy"
Post by Mark Hickey
in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you? Every polititian
and pundit
Post by Mark Hickey
I've heard discussing the issue has acknowledged that it
will be a
Post by Mark Hickey
very different arrangement than ours.
There's this Bush guy. Not sure he's a credible source though.
Here are quotes from ONE of his speeches:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html
These sound pretty much like a "western democracy" in Iraq to
me -- western including American constitutional forms,
parliamentary/presidential forms like France, federal
republics like Germany, states with substantial interplay with
religious bodies like Spain, constitutional monarchies, the
House of Commons and the House of Lords, Chicago under the
Daleys and a variety of other forms.


"Helping construct a stable democracy"
"Whenever people are given a choice in the matter, they prefer
lives of freedom to lives of fear."
"America's task in Iraq is not only to defeat an enemy, it is
to give strength to a friend - a free, representative
government that serves its people and fights on their behalf."
"...national election that will bring forward new leaders
empowered by the Iraqi people"
"some have questioned whether the Iraqi people are ready for
self-government, or even want it. And all along, the Iraqi
people have given their answer. In settings where Iraqis have
met to discuss their country's future, they have endorsed
representative government. And they are practicing
representative government. Many of Iraq's cities and towns now
have elected town councils or city governments - and beyond
the violence, a civil society is emerging."
"the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the
stability and security that democracy requires"
"a free Iraq can quickly gain economic independence and a
better quality of life"
"the Iraqi people will choose a transitional national
assembly, the first freely-elected, truly representative
national governing body in Iraq's history. This assembly will
serve as Iraq's legislature, and it will choose a transitional
government with executive powers. The transitional national
assembly will also draft a new constitution, which will be
presented to the Iraqi people in a referendum scheduled for
the fall of 2005. Under this new constitution, Iraq will elect
a permanent government by the end of next year."
Mark Hickey
2005-07-12 03:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Hickey
Post by Mark Hickey
I haven't heard anyone seriously suggest a "Western-style
democracy"
Post by Mark Hickey
in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you? Every polititian
and pundit
Post by Mark Hickey
I've heard discussing the issue has acknowledged that it
will be a
Post by Mark Hickey
very different arrangement than ours.
There's this Bush guy. Not sure he's a credible source though.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html
These sound pretty much like a "western democracy" in Iraq to
me -- western including American constitutional forms,
parliamentary/presidential forms like France, federal
republics like Germany, states with substantial interplay with
religious bodies like Spain, constitutional monarchies, the
House of Commons and the House of Lords, Chicago under the
Daleys and a variety of other forms.
My motorcycle has some parts similar to those on the Cherokee 180 I
used to fly. But that doesn't make my motorcycle an airplane.

There will of course be similarities between various types of
democratic governments - but it's clear that Iraq's govenment is going
to be very, very different than the typical American / European
government. That just doesn't mean that ever single aspect will be
different.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
waxbytes
2005-07-09 06:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
I just saw this awful pile up! Must have been like 15 or 20 riders. I
was in a wet corner. Lance managed to avoid getting caught in it
But something else I have noticed, they have REALLY nice streets t
ride in over there! Now I am sure it is because they are in th
spotlight. But still! They look far nicer than the streets I get t
ride on
Ken
Feel about the same as our streets when you hit them though

--
waxbytes
Ryan Cousineau
2005-07-10 03:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken M
I just saw this awful pile up! Must have been like 15 or 20 riders. It
was in a wet corner. Lance managed to avoid getting caught in it.
But something else I have noticed, they have REALLY nice streets to
ride in over there! Now I am sure it is because they are in the
spotlight. But still! They look far nicer than the streets I get to
ride on!
I think it's largely in the course preparation. If you had the benefit
of a total rolling road closure from the beginning to the end of an
event, and the finances to properly prepare and police such a thing,
there's a lot of roads in North America that would look really good, too.

The Tour meanders along all kinds of minor routes through the
countryside, only occasionally heading onto major roads (the stage into
Paris is one exception...). If you actually check out the mountain
roads, they're rarely more than two-lane twisty roads up and down the
hillside somewhere out in the country. That's not an especially special
circumstance by itself, though France is obviously blessed with a wide
variety of mountains in several different regions, and also, it's
France, the most tourist-beloved country on the planet, from which we
may discern a certain general natural attractiveness.

But if a theoretical Tour de America were to require a few signature HC
climbs, well...

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mfiebach/dp_p_Trail_Ridge_Road/p
rofile.html

That might do. There appear to be several passes in Colorado that peak
well above Galibier's 2645m, though I have no idea whether any of them
have the same technical challenge as the cruelest Alpine and Pyrenean
monsters.
Post by Ken M
Ken
Feel about the same as our streets when you hit them though.
--
Ryan Cousineau ***@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Ken M
2005-07-10 10:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Well Tour de America? How about Adventure Cycling's TransAmerica route?
I think it's a touch longer than the TdF but from what I have read it
gives a pretty good taste of different terrain.

Ken

The AC website is down for maintaince.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...