William Graham wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message
...
William Graham wrote:

Gregory Shearman wrote in message
...
Saddam made a habit of billiting his troops in hospitals and schools
and
orphanages, so who do you think is responsible for the death of
innocents
during the two gulf wars?

Where did you get your information about where saddam "billets"
his troops?

It was on the news daily during the first gulf war.
Also, Our, "smart bombs" could be directed to take out individual
buildings.....When not tipped with explosive warheads, we could just
destroy
one house out of a string, without any damage to the other houses on the
block. We did not direct our bombs to harm innocent civilians....I know
this, because I know troops who were there. If we had to destroy any
schools
and/or hospitals, it was because Saddam had troops or ammunition stored
there.



Who are you, the summer replacement for Simple Simon?

And obviously, you took first place in the Harvard debating team
competetion.......



Hey...I'm smart enough to know dumbfoch, mindless right-wing trash when
I see it, and you be it.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I *do* believe that SH had more than ample warning about an
impending US
attack, and it certainly wasn't coming from Bush's left wing
detractors.

Again, you're probably right, but you have to also consider that all
the
time we wasted, waltzing with the U.N., and Hans Blix, and the rest of
the floor show, gave Saddam even more time to move his "stuff".

Right. We waltzed. Keep in mind that our own secretary of state
recommended
waltzing for a couple of months. He could not have done this without
your
president's permission.


If you will recall, it was at that point when Colin Powell, seemed to be
at odds with the rest of the administration. Most of the others were in
favor of war at that point. Powell, had been the lone holdout for
additional diplomatic efforts. While he may have earned a few brownie
points, it will be a matter of history, whether his delay may have cost
us, in credibility, with those who must find that elusive "smoking gun".

Dave


So, was Colin Powell thinking for himself (which is why I'd vote for him if
I could), or was he influenced by the horrible liberals that everyone keeps
whining about here?

Be sure to document your response, since I assume you don't have Mr. Powell
over to the house for dinner very often.

You've got me all wrong on that one. I admire Powell, and would love to
see him run for president. But the events, as I stated them, are pretty
much true. I don't know if Powell walked a little bowlegged afterward or
not, but he seems to be back in the fold.

Dave

thunder wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:

To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium
turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting
uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the
fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make
mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the
urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted
to grease the wheels a little too.

Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make
some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of
them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also
like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there,
there is *no* urgency.

*ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of
them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological
weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the
brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the
elimination of havens for terrorists.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:

To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium
turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting
uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the
fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make
mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the
urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted
to grease the wheels a little too.

Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make
some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of
them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also
like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there,
there is *no* urgency.

*ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of
them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological
weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the
brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the
elimination of havens for terrorists.

Dave


Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally
brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those
countries dangle in the wind.

Stability of the Middle East: Get real. You do not believe for a moment that
we contribute to stability. As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern
writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST
stability. You should stop by this link regularly, and read:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Default.asp

Havens: Show me.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:08:52 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:


*ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest
of
them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and
biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe
it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east,
and the elimination of havens for terrorists.

The brutality of Saddam was a given. No one will miss him.
Mid-east stability is still a wait and see. As an aside, the
mid-east might of already been a stable place, if we had kept our
CIA's hands out of it. You are aware that one of the CIA's many
mid-east coups was indirectly responsible for Saddam in the first
place. Do a search on CIA Kassim Saddam. You might find it
interesting.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:43:35 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:

To which I respond; Yea so? So one lead for a source of uranium
turns out to be bogus. Does that mean that Saddam wasn't getting
uranium from other sources? Does this one "oops" negate the
fundamental reasons why we had to shut Hussein down? Humans make
mistakes. Bush may have been a little overzealous, due to the
urgency for action. If you knew what he knew, you might be tempted
to grease the wheels a little too.

Slowly, you are seeing the light. Presidents are allowed to make
some mistakes, but overzealousness in going to war is not one of
them. A prudent, competent, President would make sure. I'd also
like to point out that if the underlying reasons weren't there,
there is *no* urgency.

*ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest of
them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and biological
weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe it), the
brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east, and the
elimination of havens for terrorists.

Dave


Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally
brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those
countries dangle in the wind.

We're sending troops to Africa right now. You can only fight so many
battles without risking the dangerous thinning of your military power.


Stability of the Middle East: Get real. You do not believe for a moment that
we contribute to stability.

That depends. Initially, we are just another disruption. But in the long
term, if we are successful at creating a democracy in the middle of all
those fundamentalist regimes, we can build a foundation to drive other
country's to following that model. Once people get a taste of true
freedom, how can they be expected to live under the harsh rule of a
totalitarian fundamentalist government? And thus the seeds are planted.

As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern
writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST
stability.

They're entitled to their opinions, as we are to ours. But they're no
more credible. The point is that we at least DID something, to make a
change. Sitting around doing nothing, only allows the cancer to
grow.....

You should stop by this link regularly, and read:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Default.asp

Havens: Show me.

Do you not read the news? They uncovered a "major" terrorist training
camp in the northern section of Iraq, sometime during the middle of the
"war".

Dave

thunder wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:08:52 +0000, Dave Hall wrote:

*ONE* of the reasons was evidently not there. But all of the rest
of
them still were. There was still the issue of chemical and
biological weapons (Yea I know, until you see them you won't believe
it), the brutality of Saddam, and the stability of the middle east,
and the elimination of havens for terrorists.

The brutality of Saddam was a given. No one will miss him.
Mid-east stability is still a wait and see. As an aside, the
mid-east might of already been a stable place, if we had kept our
CIA's hands out of it. You are aware that one of the CIA's many
mid-east coups was indirectly responsible for Saddam in the first
place.

You are correct. This country does have a very poor record, for
interfering in the affairs of other nations, if we feel it's to our best
interest. In the case of Iraq and Saddam, they were our friends,
because we shared a common enemy, Iran, at the time. Where we go wrong,
is that we fail to consider the constantly changing political atmosphere
in this region of the world. What might be today's friend, could turn
out to be tomorrow's enemy. This practice transcends partisan politics.
We tend to judge by our own set of morals and principles, which may be
different then that of the people in those other countries. We have a
weakness for wanting other countries to be more like us, as we have more
rights and freedoms as most other nations.
Then we face a catch 22 situation. If we keep our heads out of world
politics, we get accused of being "isolationists". If we do become
involved, we get accused of trying to police the world. It seems that no
matter what we do, we can't seem to please everyone....

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Brutality of Saddam: We are hypocrites in that regard. There are equally
brutal regimes in Africa, and your president lets the citizens of those
countries dangle in the wind.

We're sending troops to Africa right now. You can only fight so many
battles without risking the dangerous thinning of your military power.

We are??? That's interesting. Today's news says: PRETORIA, South Africa
(CNN) -- President Bush will decide in the next few days whether to send
U.S. troops to Liberia to enforce a cease-fire, according to U.S. Secretary
of State Colin Powell.



As early as a year ago, numerous Middle Eastern
writers were saying that to attack Saddam would strike a blow AGAINST
stability.

They're entitled to their opinions, as we are to ours. But they're no
more credible.

Right. What do they know? They're just Arabs who happen to live in the
region. Imagine what your response would be if some Arab editor in a Cairo
newspaper wrote a column about crime in Philadelphia, never having visited
the city.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't
have
is
health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to.

There's a difference between access to health care and (practical) access
to
health care insurance, particularly for poor or middle income people.

Fact is, the majority of poor people work at
low wage jobs. They are on the battle lines of American commerce, actually
delivering the services or building the widgets at $10 an hour, or often
less.
These jobs rarely include health insurance any more. When you're paying
$1000-1200 a month for a worker's wages, adding 30, 40, 50 percent
to that total to fund health insurance doesn't make economic sense.


Gould, we already know most of the prerecorded responses which will be
forthcoming from Dave, NOYB, etc. For instance, "Well...then 'they' can
better themselves and get higher paying jobs if they don't like the ones
they already have. I picked myself up by my bootstraps!"

Great idea. What if all of "them" get better jobs? Do you suppose NOYB would
mind checking into a hotel with his own toilet cleaning tools?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

Even those "millions" have access to health care. What they don't
have
is
health care insurance and many of them CHOOSE not to.

There's a difference between access to health care and (practical)
access
to
health care insurance, particularly for poor or middle income people.

Fact is, the majority of poor people work at
low wage jobs. They are on the battle lines of American commerce,
actually
delivering the services or building the widgets at $10 an hour, or often
less.
These jobs rarely include health insurance any more. When you're paying
$1000-1200 a month for a worker's wages, adding 30, 40, 50 percent
to that total to fund health insurance doesn't make economic sense.


Gould, we already know most of the prerecorded responses which will be
forthcoming from Dave, NOYB, etc. For instance, "Well...then 'they' can
better themselves and get higher paying jobs if they don't like the ones
they already have. I picked myself up by my bootstraps!"

Actually, I blame the insurance companies for making the insurance
unaffordable. Of course, thanks to the McCarron-Ferguson Act, they operate
under different rules than the rest of us...making them exempt from many
anti-trust laws.

The Bush Administration is tackling this issue from the right direction.
First, he's squeezing the trial lawyer's profits by pushing punitive damage
caps. Secondly, he's squeezing the insurance companies by pushing
Association Health Plans (AHP's), that allow organized "groups" to purchase
competitive group plans ACROSS STATE LINES. (No longer will the insurance
companies be able to "cherry pick" the most lucrative states to operate in).
Finally, he's lowering the cost of administering the health care. How? By
insuring more people are insured, hospitals and doctors won't be writing off
the non-insured patient expenses against the patients that actually pay
their bill.

I'd love to see Congress repeal the McCarron-Ferguson Act.