Text 48018, 302 rader
Skriven 2007-02-02 10:20:28 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 48009 av Jay Talbot (1059.fidonews)
Ärende: World's view of USA from bad to worse :(
================================================
02 Feb 07 02:30, Jay Talbot wrote to Roy Witt:
>> JT> So when were WMD's found? Never was last I heard.
>>
>> That shouldn't be the question. The question is, who supplied the
>> world with false information? It wasn't GWB...
JT> I call bullshit.
You mean you're spouting it.
JT> GWB didn't look for any other excuses not to go in.
The entire western world was lied to by western intelligence spys and
agencies. That intelligence claimed that WMDs (not to mention Saddam's
bluff that he had them), were all over Iraq. Saddam was also the one who
was paying 25k$ to every family that produced a human bomber to kill the
enemies of fanatical muslims. It was merely a matter of time for those
25k$ wannabes to start that crazy shit here.
JT> He used the excuse that he "suspected" WMD's, but none ever showed
JT> up.
He used the only intelligence available to him. Even the Congress went
along with that intelligence. They of course, didn't take GWB's word for
it, but actually saw and read the reports first hand.
>> >> JT> Second, Bush has signed quite a few Presidential Signing
>>> JT> Statements, including giving himself a license to ignore
>>> JT> Congress (look it up).
>>>
>>> Generally any executive statement made with the signing of a law can
>>> be said to be a signing statement. There are three categories of
>>> 'signing statements'.
>> JT> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060113.html
>>
>>> JT> Third, he also installed an illegal spying program against
>>> JT> American
>>> JT> > JT> citizens.
>>>
>>> Apparently it's not illegal as the legislative body in DC hasn't shot
>>> it
>>> > down. Nor has any court. And in fact the Congress has renewed it
>>> before it was to expire.
>> JT> Actually, it was illegal. Congress had nothing to do with the
>> JT> spying program until it came under fire by civil rights groups.
>> JT> Now, the Administration is transferring the oversight to a secret
>> JT> court to make it more legal, but it still doesn't make it right.
>>
>> Who created Homeland Security?
JT> Homeland Security had nothing to do with the illegal wiretaps. Bush
JT> signed a decree for the NSA to do it.
And you think terrorist cells and those who would cooperate with them
should be exempt from that? That's insane. The government has been spying
on such activities for longer than you or I have been around. FDR
authorized the same activities on Japanese and German citizens during WW2.
Plenty of spys and saboteurs were caught and imprisoned.
GW acknowledged that he allowed the NSA "to intercept the international
communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related
terrorist organizations."
If you're not tied up in terrorist activities, you have nothing to worry
about. And contrary to popular belief, government spying on such activties
is not illegal.
>> >> JT> Need I go on?
>>>
>>> Only if you have something that hasn't come to light yet.
>>>> JT> and the prez's total incompetence with foreign policy.
>>>>
>>>> You should look at it from a different perspective. The incompetence
>>>> and
>>>> > unreliability of the foreigners plays into the equation more than
>>>> > US
>>>> foreign policy has gone bad.
>>> JT> I differ in opinion. In essence, our foreign policy in the
>>> JT> current Administration has been all about oil.
>>>
>>> So, 911 was because of oil? Where did we benefit from that?
>> JT> Ummm.... No, you took things out of context. 9/11 was caused by
>> JT> some Muslim radicals who hate the US because they consider us
>> JT> unclean infidels. The war on Iraq was mostly caused by revenge
>> JT> (not good in my book either) but also the hopes that the US would
>> JT> benefit greatly by controlling Iraqi oil after the war.
>>
>> JT> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.h
>> JT> tm l
>>
>> Oh? Left wing radicals from Britain know this, how?
JT> News knows no bounds these days.
JT> http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/
JT> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621523/
>> >> JT> When politics and greed mix, it's not a good combo, ya know?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I've been seeing it in the Demoratic led congress for decades.
>> JT> Ah yes, but the last couple of decades has been run by
>> JT> Republicans who proved they couldn't do much better.
>>
>> Actually, they proved that the Democrats aren't as good as their word.
>> Bi-partisan politics is their cry, but they never practice what they
>> preach.
JT> Where is that coming from? The Democrats have done more since this
JT> Congress started than the Republicans did the last two terms.
>>
>>> JT> IMHO, this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
>>>
>>> You're not alone there.
>>>> JT> But if you haven't looked lately, he's not exactly popular here
>>>> JT> at home either.
>>>>
>>>> Neither was Jesus Christ, but he was and still is your only savior.
>>> JT> If I could ever claim to be a Christian, I'd call that statement
>>> JT> blasphemous.
>>>
>>> And then I'd say you don't know what you're talking about.
>> JT> Let me put it this way: Bush is no Jesus Christ.
>>
>> No one ever said that he was...
JT> Then why bring it up at all? Equating GWB to Jesus is about the same
JT> thing.
>> >> JT> But since I don't, I'll call it a bad comparison.
>>>
>>> Good choice.
>>> JT> Jesus didn't send thousands off to die and kill,
>>>
>>> But because of him and his teachings, many millions have fought and
>>> died. And that was only in the 1st millennium after he died.
>> JT> Right, but it didn't have to be that way. Religious lunatics
>> JT> should
>> JT> > JT> stay out of politics and positions of power and influence.
>>
>> Religion has spawned more wars and killed more people since the dawn
>> of the first idle than anything else. Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc..
JT> Yeah, I know this. More have died at the hands of Christians than any
JT> other religion in history.
>> >> JT> his followers did much later on. Huge difference.
>>>
>>> So far, George has only lost 3000...
>> JT> Right, but how many more thousands have come back severely
>> JT> wounded?
>> JT> > JT> And to each of the "only" 3000+ families who have to deal
>> JT> with it every day, what would you say?
>>
>> What do you suppose was said to the 3000 who died on 9/11? Sorry,
>> that's
>> > the way it goes?
JT> A lot of people died that day, I know this. I will tell you what some
JT> things that were promised though that didn't happen.
And this has to do with what?
JT> The tribute memorial hasn't been built yet, no construction started
JT> either. The Freedom Tower wasn't even started until Dec. 19th, 2006.
That tribute is supposed to be a privately funded enterprise. Talk to
mayor Bloomberg of NY about that.
JT> Osama Bin shithead hasn't been found/killed yet.
All in good time. If he's still alive.
>> JT> Personally, I know of one young woman who's without her husband
>> JT> now. He was only 21 and died right before x-mas by a roadside
>> JT> bomb. I can't imagine a more painful way to go. Neither she nor
>> JT> he deserved it, and I can say the same for the 3000+ as well.
>>
>> You do know that the US military is an all volunteer military, right?
>> By
>> > joining up, you know what may lie ahead of you come peace or war and
>> you take an oath to do your duty. I'd say that they knew what they
>> were doing and took their chances, just like every civilian in Iraq
>> and other
>> > countries where life is in danger on a daily basis. Fortunately we
>> have a leader who has vowed that it won't happen in our country as
>> long as he's the President. What the Dems do with the WH after he's
>> gone is beyond his control and I fret on a daily basis that the Dems
>> never regain the WH as long as there's a threat to this country out
>> there, for as long as they maintain abandoning an ally in time of
>> need.
JT> I realize the US military is volunteer at this time. But no, they had
JT> no idea he was heading off to war until the orders came.
That's no excuse. He knew what may happen before he signed the papers
making him government property to do with as the US Army wishes.
JT> He took the oath, did his duty, and died. Why should it happen here?
It shouldn't, if our guys in Iraq are allowed to do their job over there.
JT> Iraqis and terrorists have plenty Americans over there to shoot at
JT> and bomb.
But they're killing more natives than they are westerners.
JT> The "Dems" as you put it are going to put the reigns on a President
I doubt that. First of all, everything they do to attempt to stop him is
just hot air and nothing more. The troops are already there anyway.
JT> who's whole premus has been that he has absolute power and answers to
JT> no one.
And yet he's acknowledged that he has gotten the message from the American
people; who're the only people he has to answer to. This is why there are
3 branches of government spelled out in the Constitution. Executive,
Legislative and Judicial. Note that the legislative branch makes laws, not
foriegn policy. They may drivel lots of rhetoric, but their so-called
resolutions don't hold any power over the Excecutive branch of government
like they want you to believe.
JT> The President isn't above the law, and it's time he faces the blind
JT> lady of justice.
What law has he violated?
>> >> >> JT> Other than that, I agree with others. Try some happy news
>> >> >> JT> for
>>> >> JT> a
>>>> JT> change. :)
>>>>
>>>> In all of the years that I've known Michiel, he's never had anything
>>>> happy to say. Oh, I'll take that back; just once he was happy that I
>>>> agreed with him on one issue.
>>> JT> lol! Well, I can't argue with you on that. I haven't been around
>>> JT> in
>>> JT> > JT> quite some time. I'll tell ya though, the whole Intel and
>>> JT> IBM solving the power leaks in processor chips made me smile. :)
>>>
>>> You mean my processor has a leak?!
>> JT> lol! Yes, it does. Where do you think all that heat comes from?
>> JT> The
>> JT> > JT> micro-transistors, when they get smaller, had a horrible
>> JT> power leak and caused a ton of over heating.
>>
>> Is that why they made the processor chip bigger and mounted it to a
>> big heatsink with a fan blowing over it?
JT> Sort of. The ship is still very small in the casing you see, which
JT> allows for easier heat dissipation. What this break through will
JT> allow is the chip to get smaller, but still keep power consumption
JT> and heat low enough that a heatsink and fan still work. Also, the
JT> smaller the chip, the more "cores" you can put on a processor die.
JT> Intel seems to think they wanna put hundreds of cores in a puter.
I used to build test stations for checking each of those little 'cores'
... At that time, c1980, one chip circuit on a core was .1 inch or less
square. How much smaller do they need it to be? BTW, I was part of a team
of engineers who came up with a method of welding dinky wires from the
chips to their respective pins. We developed a laser dot to aim the wire
feeder. All of this under a microscope.
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|