Text 48024, 380 rader
Skriven 2007-02-03 04:58:42 av Jay Talbot (1076.fidonews)
Kommentar till text 48018 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: Re: 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.
No.
> 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.
So called "intelligence" was nothing less than a sham. GWB can claim ignorance
all he wants, but he never even gave not going to war a second thought. I
don't know about you, but I think I'd rather have our forces here so we can
fight the "25k$ wannabes" should they actually start attacking.
> JT> He used the excuse that he "suspected" WMD's, but none ever showed 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.
No, I don't believe he did. As a matter of fact, his administration ignored
all the intelligence collected during the Clinton administration on up to
9/11.
> >> >> 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.
I'm sure there are spies among us, but not thousands.
> 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.
Um, no. He allowed the NSA to wiretap without getting a warrant, and without
probable cause. He knew that warrants would be hard to get on thousands of
innocent people, so he made the whole thing a secret, and illegal as hell.
Also, I believe there are also international treaties that prohibit such
things. Again, he went around the law. But then again, there are also treaties
against POW torture, but he took care of that too...
> >> >> 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?
It means that if it truly meant something to our govt, they'd have come
through on those promises.
> 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.
Fair enough. Municipalities have a hard enough time raising money for things
that are necessary.
> JT> Osama Bin shithead hasn't been found/killed yet.
>
> All in good time. If he's still alive.
He's still alive. They can't find him because there are no maps for the area
he's in, and they're not willing to do it.
> >> 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.
Wrong, as Bush 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.
Congress has already said they won't put our people over there in any more
danger than they already are by cutting funding. They will, however, figure
out ways to keep a "surge" of 25k more troops from going over there, and work
towards a phased withdraw. We'll probably keep some bases there for training
their forces.
> JT> Iraqis and terrorists have plenty Americans over there to shoot at and
> JT> bomb.
>
> But they're killing more natives than they are westerners.
Only because they choose to fight in populated areas. They won't fight in the
desert because it'd be too easy for us to send in fighter jets and bomb the
hell out of them. Basically, they're using everyone around them as meat
shields, the cowards that they are. Of course, our troops also have done their
fair share of killing/raping/pillaging civilians as well.
> 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.
Right, but at least they will make him pay for the illegal stuff he's done.
> 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.
Actually, the Legislative branch holds all the funding for anything that goes
on in our govt, so they do have some power. They are the ones that have to
declare war, the President can't do it on his own. Congress only ok'd two
years of war, with the President reporting every 60 days to update them on how
it's going. He hasn't updated them with anything but lies, until lately; now
that he knows he's screwed.
And yes, the people have spoken, and there are many more calling for
impeachment hearings. Oh, and Congress can call for investigations,
impeachment, and removal from office. I'd be lieing if I said that I didn't
think he needs to be investigated, he does.
> 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?
Illegal warrantless wiretaps. Lieing to Congress. Lieing to the American
people. Breaking international treaties.
> >> >> >> 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 allow
> JT> is the chip to get smaller, but still keep power consumption and heat
> JT> low enough that a heatsink and fan still work. Also, the smaller the
> JT> chip, the more "cores" you can put on a processor die. Intel seems to
> JT> 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.
Now see, that's damn cool. Now they use a lot higher powered microscopes. :) I
think Intel just finished transition to 65nm fab, and plan to transition
smaller within the year. AMD is following suite with 65nm chips, and they also
plan to take it smaller in a few year. AMD has a partnership with IBM, so
they'll have the new tech pretty quick. Intel wants to put hundreds of cores
in a processor. AMD says that's not the answer and wants to do specialized
co-processors. I wonder who'll be right.... How things change, huh?
Jay
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: (1:124/2700)
|