From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>
>"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>news:2009093010380591745-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2009-09-30 09:50:07 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net>
>> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:2SeryiCsfwwKFAFF(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <6c-dnXas5sKjMF_XnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bill Graham
>>>> <weg9(a)comcast.net> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:h9tef91qgs@n
>>>>> ews6.newsguy.com...
>>>>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:44:17 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Be sure to write the first time you encounter a CHP officer with
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> idea that you have an inherent right to carry a concealed weapon
>>>>>>>> without a permit. I'd be interested to see how that plays out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have spent many happy hours arguing exactly that with California
>>>>>>>> Police officers......My wife's grandson-in-law happens to be one. In
>>>>>>>> many cases they agree with my position on the matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the ChrisH School of Reasoning. If you know one person who
>>>>>>> shares your opinion, that means "everyone" agrees with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had a police officer explain matters to me this way:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If you shoot me when I come to enforce a gun ban, I won't hold it
>>>>>> against
>>>>>> you."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many police disagree with some of the laws that they are required to
>>>>>> enforce, but they do their jobs anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They shouldn't. "It is the responsibility, not the right, of good men
>>>>> to disobey bad laws." - Spencer Tracy, in "Judgment at Nuremberg."
>>>>
>>>> So how come the US military is still using torture and the excuse is
>>>> they were just following orders?
>>>
>>> No discussion of U.S. military "torture" can be complete without a
>>> reading
>>> of Ann Coulter's column on the subject, which puts it somewhat in
>>> perspective:
>>
>> I was always understood, that a dinner date with Anne Coulter was an
>> accurate description of torture, or cruel and unusual punishment.
>
>I'm sure that would be true for a leftist-"liberal." They tend to have
>foaming-at-the-mouth conniption fits at the mere mention of her name.

And yet it is Coulter who accuses people of being traitors just for
daring to disagree with the pro-war, pro-torture, anti-American
agenda.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Rol_Lei Nut on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:O2ZlLbY0JSxKFAoG(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <200910011258549530-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes
>>> On 2009-10-01 11:34:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>>
>> And Saddam was the US's man for the first 20 years for the 30.
>>
>> And Al-qeada & Taliban were originally trained and funded by the USA (to
>> fight the legitimate government in Afghanestan)
>>
> It is impossible to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion with
> you, Chris, because you insist on using it to push your own propaganda
> line.

Now undisputed historical facts are propaganda?
(Undisputed at least by any serious and rational = not extremely right
wing revisionist historians.)

You're on a one-way trip to La La land, Bill...
From: DRS on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KfmdnZFTRanwtVjXnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com
> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:O2ZlLbY0JSxKFAoG(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...

[...]

>> And Saddam was the US's man for the first 20 years for the 30.
>>
>> And Al-qeada & Taliban were originally trained and funded by the USA
>> (to fight the legitimate government in Afghanestan)
>>
> It is impossible to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion with
> you, Chris, because you insist on using it to push your own
> propaganda line. (that everything the US has ever done was evil) Is

In this case Chris H simply stated undisputed historical facts. The US has
a long and murky history of supporting despots and suppressing democracies
when it thought it was in its national interests.



From: Bill Graham on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ibeac5l86fie2mklttpn2q229vncahlrcv(a)4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 22:55:18 +0100, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>In message <gNmdnZYj3NkWn1jXnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bill Graham
>><weg9(a)comcast.net> writes
>>>
>>>"Walter Banks" <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote in message news:4AC4F93B.AA
>>>6C9985(a)bytecraft.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. the problem is we are accustomed to more conventional wars
>>>>>where armies
>>>>> had a home country, and wore uniforms, and assembled together and took
>>>>> up
>>>>> arms against other similar armies. In a terrorist action, or series of
>>>>> terrorist actions such as we are now experiencing, few of the
>>>>>conventional
>>>>> rules apply. In some ways, it is similar to our civil war.....No
>>>>>uniforms,
>>>>> isolated bands of people shooting at other ununiformed isolated bands
>>>>> of
>>>>> people......And, in the same way, it is hard to establish rules of
>>>>>conduct
>>>>> that are cut and dried.
>>>>
>>>> Actually it goes right back to 19 April 1775 Americans won that one but
>>>> 200 years later have not learned the lessons it taught. History
>>>>before that brought
>>>> the assassins, ninja and many other unconventional warriors.
>>>>
>>>> w.
>>>.
>>>So we need new rules of acceptable conduct.
>>You got them in 2008
>>
>>> And my question is, are the UN rules, and the Geneva Convention rules,
>>>applicable to fighting off these kinds of terrorist actions?
>>Yes... They were for the last 40 years in Norther Ireland.
>>
>>> And, if not, then what are we to do before new rules are established,
>>>and who will establish them?
>>
>>They have been well defined and used by many armies. It has just takne
>>the US military a LONG time to realise it's mistakes.
>>
>>> Personally, I don't see any way out right now,
>>Well the US has dug a bloody big hole for itself/
>>
>>> but for us to establish our own rules as we go.
>>Then you LOOSE and loose big time. The rules are already there the US
>>military has to adapt to them,
>>
>>
>>> And this means attacking other rogue countries such as Iran and North
>>>Korea as necessary to keep them from acquiring nuclear weapons and
>>>selling/giving them to terrorists. If there is some other way to
>>>prevent this, I am all ears.....
>>
>>The main rogue state as seen by most of the world is the USA.
>
> You finally got "rogue" right. Now work on the difference between
> "lose" and "loose". I thought the UK was supposed to have a decent
> education system.

Their ability to teach history is also not without some problems......

From: Bill Graham on

"DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:QoOdnd_lNr4iAVjXnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:KfmdnZFTRanwtVjXnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com
>> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:O2ZlLbY0JSxKFAoG(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
> [...]
>
>>> And Saddam was the US's man for the first 20 years for the 30.
>>>
>>> And Al-qeada & Taliban were originally trained and funded by the USA
>>> (to fight the legitimate government in Afghanestan)
>>>
>> It is impossible to carry on any sort of intelligent discussion with
>> you, Chris, because you insist on using it to push your own
>> propaganda line. (that everything the US has ever done was evil) Is
>
> In this case Chris H simply stated undisputed historical facts. The US
> has a long and murky history of supporting despots and suppressing
> democracies when it thought it was in its national interests.
>
>
All of which, true or not, has nothing to do with what I was discussing. I
would like to find some common ground in deciding what to do about our
current dilemma. Regardless of where the fault lies in how we arrived here
to begin with. Apparently, you guys just want us to lie down and die because
of some perceived mistake you think we made in the past. Well, I doubt if
you are going to get your wish. So, why don't you address the current
situation, and work to find a solution, instead of finding someone to blame
for it?