OT: Bob Dylan on 60 Minutes

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:20:09 GMT, dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:11:22 -0400, DustyRhoades wrote:
>
>(top posting corrected)
>[color=green]
>>Learning Richard wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> Idiot Eric Dreher wrote:
>>> >
>>> > As I said, Mike, poor li'l Piss Puppy is obsessed with having the
>>> > government micro-manage our lives. No personal responsibility
>>> > that way.
>>>
>>> WRONG. The Patriot Act seeks to micromanage our lives.
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>> Why? Patriot Act. My wife has no accent and is caucasian. She had
>>> her expired driver's license. Thanks to Ashcroft/Bush racism,
>>> profiling, and paranoia the Government stole four hours of our lives
>>> from us. I want those four hours back.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, one can still ship a cargo container with a bomb in it to
>>> our ports, or one can go blow up a chemical plant with no problem.
>>>
>>> You friggen wannabe conservatives with your spew about less government
>>> have a real problem with cognitive distortion.[/color]
>>
>>No portion of the Patriot Act, passed by the Congress not
>>Ashcroft or the President, has in three years to this day been
>>contested in any court of the land.[/color]
>
>So what, top poster? It doesn't change his point that, IN FACT, it is
>the RIGHT who is intruding-into and controlling our lives. Eric, as
>usual, LIED, as he often does, accusing the left of what, IN REALITY,
>is a failing of the right![/color]

The RIGHT is NOT controlling you....or me...

You have the right and are spewing your left wing drivel here...aren't
you?

If the RIGHT had absolute control...you would be in Gitmo...

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>That is why nobody in the NG
>>cares what you and the other neo fascist on the evil left think.[/color]
>
>More bald-faced lies. Typical, from the right-wingers.[/color]

--

Scott in Florida

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:29:51 GMT, noneyabusiness <me@you.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:41:31 GMT, Scott in Florida
><JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>On 16 Jun 2005 09:20:01 -0700, "Learning Richard"
>><learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>
>>>BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
>>>> Sins of omission? You have to be kidding, you do that in most
>>>> every post. We need not rely on the omissions you post, however.
>>>> We have access to the WMD reports, that came from Saddam himself,
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hey dusty old man...
>>>
>>>even Bush admitted there were no WMDs. It has been shown that the only
>>>reason Saddam even toyed with that lie was to keep his neighbors at
>>>bay. In fact, there is evidence that Saddam tried to clandestinely
>>>inform our intelligence of this fact... but as the investigation of the
>>>"Downing Street memo" will bring to light, once again Bush chose to
>>>omit these tidbits of information when formulating his policy of
>>>invading sovereign nations.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>What happened to the WMD's that Saddam had?
>>
>>He sure did have them...cause he used them....[color=darkred]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/color][/color]
>(Emphasis mine.)
>
>Are you referring to the SCUD missiles he used against Kuwait and
>Israel ? None of these had chemical, biological or nuclear warheads so
>they aren't considered "WMD's". (Lookup "WMD" in any dictionary.)[/color]

Nope...the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds..you remember
that...don't you?
[color=blue]
>
>Maybe you are referring to the mustard gas munitions he used against
>Iran back in the 70's? Otherwise, he has never used anything that
>could be properly labeled a "WMD".
>[color=green]
>>
>>Where are they?[/color]
>
>IF you are referring to the biological/chemical/nuclear warheads
>(well, he never actually MADE a working nuclear bomb), didn't
>Pondscum, er, sorry, UNSCOM account for (most of) them ?
>
>And no hidden stashes found by coalition forces to date has included
>anything in the WMD category.
>
>Seriously though, there is the possibility that some amount of
>chemical/biological *materials* are unaccounted for, and that's a *bad
>thing*, but they've probably been moved to other countries and out of
>reach to any pro Sadam insurgents.
>
>...[/color]

--

Scott in Florida

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:59:39 GMT, Scott in Florida
<JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:29:51 GMT, noneyabusiness <me@you.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:41:31 GMT, Scott in Florida
>><JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On 16 Jun 2005 09:20:01 -0700, "Learning Richard"
>>><learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
>>>>> Sins of omission? You have to be kidding, you do that in most
>>>>> every post. We need not rely on the omissions you post, however.
>>>>> We have access to the WMD reports, that came from Saddam himself,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hey dusty old man...
>>>>
>>>>even Bush admitted there were no WMDs. It has been shown that the only
>>>>reason Saddam even toyed with that lie was to keep his neighbors at
>>>>bay. In fact, there is evidence that Saddam tried to clandestinely
>>>>inform our intelligence of this fact... but as the investigation of the
>>>>"Downing Street memo" will bring to light, once again Bush chose to
>>>>omit these tidbits of information when formulating his policy of
>>>>invading sovereign nations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What happened to the WMD's that Saddam had?
>>>
>>>He sure did have them...cause he used them....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/color]
>>(Emphasis mine.)
>>
>>Are you referring to the SCUD missiles he used against Kuwait and
>>Israel ? None of these had chemical, biological or nuclear warheads so
>>they aren't considered "WMD's". (Lookup "WMD" in any dictionary.)[/color]
>
>Nope...the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds..you remember
>that...don't you?[/color]

Hmm...My memory of that must have been stifled (By Reagan/Bush Sr)
along with the sanctions that Congress wanted to place on Iraq :-o

Otherwise, it might fall into the same category as the mustard gas
attacks against Iran that I referred to below.

(And, even thought it wasn't delivered via a SCUD, any use of CW is a
bad thing.)

....
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>>
>>Maybe you are referring to the mustard gas munitions he used against
>>Iran back in the 70's? Otherwise, he has never used anything that
>>could be properly labeled a "WMD".
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>Where are they?[/color]
>>
>>IF you are referring to the biological/chemical/nuclear warheads
>>(well, he never actually MADE a working nuclear bomb), didn't
>>Pondscum, er, sorry, UNSCOM account for (most of) them ?
>>
>>And no hidden stashes found by coalition forces to date has included
>>anything in the WMD category.
>>
>>Seriously though, there is the possibility that some amount of
>>chemical/biological *materials* are unaccounted for, and that's a *bad
>>thing*, but they've probably been moved to other countries and out of
>>reach to any pro Sadam insurgents.
>>
>>...[/color][/color]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:31:16 -0400, [email]MikeHunt@lycos.com[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>Better back up a bit. Those opposed to the President are are
>trying to rewrite history for political purposes
>
>The list of WMDs was not complied by the UN or the US. Saddam
>was required to list all of the weapons he had that were in
>violation of previous UN resolutions, as part of the ceasefire
>ending the first gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
>[/color]

And like a good little boy, he told the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.

YEAH, RIIIGHT!

....

[color=blue]
>Iraq was required to account for and destroy all offensive
>weapons and all of its WMDs. UN inspector where to verify that
>Iraq in fact destroyed those weapons. Iraq began to comply,
>reluctantly. Eventually they expelled the inspectors and began to
>fire on coalition aircraft the flew over Iraq to protect the no
>fly Zones in the north and south and to target known stocks of
>the banned weapons. We fired back. As time wore on the UN passed
>resolution after resolution to force Iraq to comply, after 12
>years the US said enough is enough and obtained a resolution from
>he UN that was passed unamously. The UN however because of
>Russia, Germany and France, all of whom later turned out to be in
>collaboration with Iraq in the oil for food program, chose not to
>enforce the UN resolution that threatened serious consequences. A
>collation of UN members led by the US and the UK in their right
>to self defense did decide to enforce the resolution. Iraq was
>given several opportunities to provide proof that the weapon were
>distorted or account for those that were not, all the way up to
>the day before the invasion began. They choose not to comply.
>The question has to be where are those weapon that Iraq had on
>that list that were never accounted for, NOT whether they existed
>or not. The slack jaws in this NG saying anything different have
>not idea of what they are talking about. They simply do not like
>the idea that the American people have put republicans in control
>of the Presidency the House and almost in control of the Senate.
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>noneyabusiness wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:41:31 GMT, Scott in Florida
>> <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> >On 16 Jun 2005 09:20:01 -0700, "Learning Richard"
>> ><learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
>> >>> Sins of omission? You have to be kidding, you do that in most
>> >>> every post. We need not rely on the omissions you post, however.
>> >>> We have access to the WMD reports, that came from Saddam himself,
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Hey dusty old man...
>> >>
>> >>even Bush admitted there were no WMDs. It has been shown that the only
>> >>reason Saddam even toyed with that lie was to keep his neighbors at
>> >>bay. In fact, there is evidence that Saddam tried to clandestinely
>> >>inform our intelligence of this fact... but as the investigation of the
>> >>"Downing Street memo" will bring to light, once again Bush chose to
>> >>omit these tidbits of information when formulating his policy of
>> >>invading sovereign nations.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What happened to the WMD's that Saddam had?
>> >
>> >He sure did have them...cause he used them....
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[/color]
>> (Emphasis mine.)
>>
>> Are you referring to the SCUD missiles he used against Kuwait and
>> Israel ? None of these had chemical, biological or nuclear warheads so
>> they aren't considered "WMD's". (Lookup "WMD" in any dictionary.)
>>
>> Maybe you are referring to the mustard gas munitions he used against
>> Iran back in the 70's? Otherwise, he has never used anything that
>> could be properly labeled a "WMD".
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> >Where are they?[/color]
>>
>> IF you are referring to the biological/chemical/nuclear warheads
>> (well, he never actually MADE a working nuclear bomb), didn't
>> Pondscum, er, sorry, UNSCOM account for (most of) them ?
>>
>> And no hidden stashes found by coalition forces to date has included
>> anything in the WMD category.
>>
>> Seriously though, there is the possibility that some amount of
>> chemical/biological *materials* are unaccounted for, and that's a *bad
>> thing*, but they've probably been moved to other countries and out of
>> reach to any pro Sadam insurgents.
>>
>> ...[/color]
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>noneyabusiness wrote:[color=green]
>>[/color]
>[color=green]
>> Are you referring to the SCUD missiles he used against Kuwait and
>> Israel ? None of these had chemical, biological or nuclear warheads so
>> they aren't considered "WMD's". (Lookup "WMD" in any dictionary.)
>>
>> Maybe you are referring to the mustard gas munitions he used against
>> Iran back in the 70's? Otherwise, he has never used anything that
>> could be properly labeled a "WMD".
>>[color=darkred]
>> >
>> >Where are they?[/color]
>>
>> IF you are referring to the biological/chemical/nuclear warheads
>> (well, he never actually MADE a working nuclear bomb), didn't
>> Pondscum, er, sorry, UNSCOM account for (most of) them ?
>>
>> And no hidden stashes found by coalition forces to date has included
>> anything in the WMD category.
>>
>> Seriously though, there is the possibility that some amount of
>> chemical/biological *materials* are unaccounted for, and that's a *bad
>> thing*, but they've probably been moved to other countries and out of
>> reach to any pro Sadam insurgents.
>>
>> ...[/color][/color]