Runway demolition at Meigs continues [Archive]

mtmueller

August 6th 03, 06:49 PM

The whole concept our forefathers promoted, knowing full well things can get
out of hand, is that once the people are ****ed off enough, they will FORCE
change. Since that has not happened in Chicago politics, one can conclude
the majority of Chicagoans either benefit from, or are ambivalent to corrupt
government.

Democracy in action!

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "mtmueller"
> > wrote:
>
> > You get the government you deserve (and vote in...)
>
> nobody deserves the crap in Chicago.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Robert Henry

August 7th 03, 01:57 AM

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Drew Hamilton wrote:
> > Well, I guess that now that Daley has got his wish, any further small
> > aircraft with engine problems will have to set down at O'Hare instead.
>
> No, that is what city streets are for. If I have a problem, I am going
> to the first place I can find. Airports are secondary.

I found this:

"Pending legal action relating to the March 2003 closure of Meigs Field,
Openlands is working to secure Northerly Island as a world-class park,
providing unparalleled lakefront open space for all of the public to enjoy."

I suggest that the open space be green, flat. Dimensions of 5000' x 100'
would be good.

Bob

Jim Vadek

August 7th 03, 03:52 AM

"mtmueller" > wrote in message
...
> I for one will not do any business in Chicago if I can help it. I will
stay
> away from any trade shows or conventions.

I've already done that. Got some interesting comments from some folks in
Chicago about not doing business with them anymore. In fact, I now make a
point of avoiding any company out of Illinois. But you have to tell them
why...

> Screw Chicago and their Mayor and the horse he rode in on...
>
> You get the government you deserve (and vote in...)

Robert Henry

August 7th 03, 05:51 AM

"Chris W" > wrote in message
...
> mtmueller wrote:
>
> > I for one will not do any business in Chicago if I can help it. I will
stay
> > away from any trade shows or conventions.
>
> Meigs isn't only the latest reason to not do any business in Chicago. It
is
> just the latest attack on the freedoms of those who live and do business
in
> Chicago. I wouldn't step foot in Chicago before the destruction of Meigs
and I
> certainly won't now.
>
Here is some boilerplate to facilitate communication of such. I think it can
be permutated into notice of cessation for other business activities pretty
quickly.

Unfortunately, I am unable attend the [event]; it is being held in the City
of Chicago.

As you may be aware, Chicago has some of the busiest and most congested
airspace in the United States. Regrettably, Chicago Mayor Richard Daly
unilaterally decided to close Meigs Field by tearing up the runway from 2am
to 6am on Monday, 31 March 2003. He did so under the cover of darkness and
with police-escorted heavy machinery. Even more shamefully, there was no
public input sought, or any proper coordination with the Federal Aviation
Administration or the Illinois Department of Transportation.

When asked to explain this action later in the day, Mayor Daly declared that
the airport posed a danger to the safety of Chicago citizens - in his view
terrorists could exploit the proximity of the airport to the city. This
excuse quickly fell apart three days later when Secretary of Homeland
Security Tom Ridge publicly refuted that Meigs Field represented any
terrorism threat to the city or its citizens.

It is also worth noting that Meigs Field provided revenue from the sale of
fuel and the fees imposed on flight operations there. Now, the land will be
turned into a park, regularly consuming considerable taxpayer earnings for
expenses incurred for the care and maintenance that parks require.

Moreover, the other nearby aviation facilities that remain (O'Hare and
Midway) are struggling under the increased load of accepting the arrival and
departures of aircraft that once used Meigs Field. Facilities like Meigs
are referred to as "reliever" airports, providing alternative facilities for
numerous aircraft, thereby avoiding extremely busy airports like O'Hare.
Since this alternative has been demolished, literally, the increased
congestion that results is endangering the safety of the flying public and
all citizens of the greater Chicago area.

This is indeed an ironic, unfortunate and bizarre occurrence during the
100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' accomplishment, proving to the
world that mankind could enjoy the benefits of the freedom, possibilities
and convenience that powered flight offers. The willful destruction of
public facilities worth millions of dollars without soliciting comment and
input from the citizens of Chicago, during a time when our nation is
dismantling tyranny in Iraq, is also an extremely disturbing development.

Thus, I have chosen to refrain from participating in events held in
Chicago - a venue that invokes disquieting images of freedom and democracy
lost.

Thank you for considering my point of view. I sincerely hope that
consideration will be given to selecting a location someplace other than
Chicago for future events.

Mark T. Mueller

August 7th 03, 11:15 AM

Boeing doesn't give a damn about GA. As a Boeing stockholder and having
combed the Annual Reports, I can tell you Phil Condit's decision to relocate
in Chicago has stink all over it. It was a stupid move, and will cost the
company dearly in Tort Claims, since the court system there awards higher on
average than than any other location they considered. There are lawyers that
have relocated to Chicago just licking their chops over Boeing...

There MUST have been another reason, since it sure as hell hasn't helped
Boeing's bottom line or shareholder value. Wonder what pushed the deal over
the top???

And if Daley keeps Meigs as a park, I will eat my hat. He is waiting for the
kickbacks from the Casino boats that will be moored there. Just wait for the
"surprise" announcement in another year or so...

Having grown up across the lake, I have never been a big fan of Chicago or
the Fudgies that go Up North on the weekends. I am even less so now.

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Chris
>
> Do you think we could get Boeing to move out of Chicago since it is so
> anti aviation.
>
> Something like every time we fly commercial, we fly Air Bus birds and
> write a letter to President of Boeing about not flying on Boeing
> aircraft. Enough letters like that might cause some pressure on
> Chicago (If not Meigs, then another GA field with access to city like
> Meigs, for GA).
>
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:07:00 GMT, Chris W > wrote:
>
> >mtmueller wrote:
> >
> >> I for one will not do any business in Chicago if I can help it. I will
stay
> >> away from any trade shows or conventions.
> >
> >Meigs isn't only the latest reason to not do any business in Chicago. It
is
> >just the latest attack on the freedoms of those who live and do business
in
> >Chicago. I wouldn't step foot in Chicago before the destruction of Meigs
and I
> >certainly won't now.
>

Jay Honeck

August 7th 03, 04:06 PM

> Having grown up across the lake, I have never been a big fan of Chicago or
> the Fudgies that go Up North on the weekends. I am even less so now.

Growing up in Wisconsin, we used to call 'em "FIBs".

F*cking Illinois B*stards...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Big John

August 7th 03, 04:23 PM

Mark

Interesting Post.

I sure would hate to see Boeing lose out to those snotty French but
way Company is going, who knows?

Big John

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 10:15:56 GMT, "Mark T. Mueller"
> wrote:

>Boeing doesn't give a damn about GA. As a Boeing stockholder and having
>combed the Annual Reports, I can tell you Phil Condit's decision to relocate
>in Chicago has stink all over it. It was a stupid move, and will cost the
>company dearly in Tort Claims, since the court system there awards higher on
>average than than any other location they considered. There are lawyers that
>have relocated to Chicago just licking their chops over Boeing...
>
>There MUST have been another reason, since it sure as hell hasn't helped
>Boeing's bottom line or shareholder value. Wonder what pushed the deal over
>the top???
>
>And if Daley keeps Meigs as a park, I will eat my hat. He is waiting for the
>kickbacks from the Casino boats that will be moored there. Just wait for the
>"surprise" announcement in another year or so...
>
>Having grown up across the lake, I have never been a big fan of Chicago or
>the Fudgies that go Up North on the weekends. I am even less so now.
>
>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Chris
>>
>> Do you think we could get Boeing to move out of Chicago since it is so
>> anti aviation.
>>
>> Something like every time we fly commercial, we fly Air Bus birds and
>> write a letter to President of Boeing about not flying on Boeing
>> aircraft. Enough letters like that might cause some pressure on
>> Chicago (If not Meigs, then another GA field with access to city like
>> Meigs, for GA).

----clip---- to curt length of thread down. See prior postings to
follow all comments.

G.R. Patterson III

August 7th 03, 11:13 PM

Robert Henry wrote:
>
> Here is some boilerplate to facilitate communication of such.

Excellent work, but anyone who copies this should make sure to change the
spelling of the mayor's name to "Daley".

I have done some minor editing, mainly changing matters of personal taste.
I present my version for those few who may prefer it.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Unfortunately, I am unable attend the [event], since it is being held in
Chicago.

As you may be aware, Chicago has some of the busiest and most congested
airspace in the United States. Regrettably, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley
unilaterally decided to close Meigs Field by tearing up the runway in the
wee hours of 31 March 2003. He did so with police-escorted heavy machinery
under the cover of darkness. Even more shamefully, there was no public input
sought, or any coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration or the
Illinois Department of Transportation; in fact, Daley stated later that the
work was deliberately conducted at night to avoid such normal discussion.

When asked to explain this action later in the day, Mayor Daley declared that
the airport posed a danger to the safety of Chicago citizens. In his view
terrorists could exploit the proximity of the airport to the city. This excuse
quickly fell apart three days later when Secretary of Homeland Security Tom
Ridge publicly refuted that Meigs Field represented any terrorism threat to
the city or its citizens, and Daley admitted in a press conference that
terrorism had nothing to do with it.

It is also worth noting that Meigs Field provided revenue from the sale of
fuel and the fees imposed on flight operations there. Now, the land will
be turned into a park, regularly consuming considerable taxpayer earnings
for expenses incurred for the care and maintenance that parks require.

It should also be noted that, even though many operators are now avoiding
flights into Chicago, other nearby aviation facilities that remain (eg.
O'Hare and Midway) are struggling under the increased load of accepting
some of the the arrival and departures of aircraft that once used Meigs
Field. Facilities like Meigs are referred to as "reliever" airports, since
they provide alternative facilities for numerous aircraft, thereby taking
some of the load off extremely busy airports like O'Hare. Since this
alternative has been literally demolished for O'Hare, the resulting
increased congestion is endangering the safety of the flying public and
citizens of the greater Chicago area.

It is indeed ironic, unfortunate, and bizarre that this occurred during the
100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' accomplishment, which announced
to the world that mankind could enjoy the benefits of the freedom,
possibilities, and convenience that powered flight offers. The willful
destruction of public facilities worth millions of dollars without soliciting
comment and input from the citizens of Chicago during a time when our nation
is dismantling tyranny elsewhere in the world is also an extremely disturbing
development.

As one result of this action, I have made the personal decision to refrain
from participating in events held in Chicago - a venue that invokes
disquieting images of freedom and democracy lost.

Thank you for considering my point of view. I sincerely hope that you will
consider selecting a location other than Chicago for future events.

Sincerely,

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

Rich Carr

August 7th 03, 11:33 PM

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message
> >
> Here is some boilerplate to facilitate communication of such. I think it can
> be permutated into notice of cessation for other business activities pretty
> quickly.
>
> Unfortunately, I am unable attend the [event]; it is being held in the City
> of Chicago.

And if you can't quite remember all of the events that you had planned
to attend but now must decline, here's a list:

http://www.chicago.il.org/smi/calendar.cfm

Robert Henry

August 8th 03, 12:46 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>

Fantastic! I appreciate the collaborative assistance! It was a bit late when
I worked it up.

Normally, I would be embarrassed about the misspelling, but in this
case...nevertheless, the accuracy leaves a better impression.

Bob

Robert Henry

August 8th 03, 01:09 AM

"Rich Carr" > wrote:

> And if you can't quite remember all of the events that you had planned
> to attend but now must decline, here's a list:
>
> http://www.chicago.il.org/smi/calendar.cfm

And don't forget that it's easily adaptable for addressing to the event
planners of these and other organizations of affiliation, in advance....

Rosspilot

August 8th 03, 01:54 AM

> An annual convention with 12,000
>attendees might have gotten their attention.

I doubt it. Daley is pathological in his hatred of small planes and those of
us who fly them.

Even after admitting that there was no security threat justifying his
demolition, Daley's Director of Communications answered my scathing letter
condemning
his act as terrorism by saying that they had a duty to "protect the citizens of
Chicago".

www.Rosspilot.com

MLenoch

August 8th 03, 02:36 AM

>I doubt it. Daley is pathological in his hatred of small planes and those of
>us who fly them.
>
Yes he certainly is.
His next plan is to rid Midway of all aircraft except airliners. Watch out.
He'll claim this is in the interest of safety or something like that.
VL

Peter Duniho

August 8th 03, 09:14 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
> An convention of 12,000 isn't even a pimple on an elephants butt. Heck
that
> isn't much more than a couple of years worth of murders in chicago.

At 645 murders per year (that was the 2002 number), it would take almost 20
years to make 12,000 people.

Pete

Tom S.

August 8th 03, 12:41 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> Big John > wrote:
>
> > I sure would hate to see Boeing lose out to those snotty French but
> > way Company is going, who knows?
>
>
> Airbus is a European consortium.
> But it is always funny reading those short minded sentiments.
>
Like the ones the Europeans have been overwhelmingly throwing at the US
since we bailed them out in '45? Bruised little ego's and all...

Ron McKinnon

August 8th 03, 09:45 PM

"Big John" >
> Martin
>
> Your right. Just tell it to the acres of American dead buried in
> France.
>

From that war there are acres of dead of
many countries buried in France, and elsewhere
in Europe, Africa, the South Pacific, and Asia.

Many peoples shared in the liberation of Europe,
and the defeat of the Axis powers everywhere
and many people paid the price of that victory.

But as we proudly pat ourselves on the back for
this, we should remember that though countries
like France and other European countries already
under the Nazi heel were the direct and overt
beneficiaries of the Nazi defeat, the Nazis and
their Axis allies were not going to stop there.
Once Britain fell, who would have been next
in their sights?

A victory in Europe was also arguably a victory in
avoiding later waging a continuation of that same
war on US and Canadian soil, but alone now, our
erstwhile allies defeated and gone and their
resources turned against us. Saving 'them',
was also saving ourselves. Anything 'we' did for
them, 'we' also did for ourselves.

Gig Giacona

August 8th 03, 10:50 PM

"Rich Carr" > wrote in message
om...
> "Robert Henry" > wrote in message
> > >
> > Here is some boilerplate to facilitate communication of such. I think it
can
> > be permutated into notice of cessation for other business activities
pretty
> > quickly.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I am unable attend the [event]; it is being held in the
City
> > of Chicago.
>
> And if you can't quite remember all of the events that you had planned
> to attend but now must decline, here's a list:
>
> http://www.chicago.il.org/smi/calendar.cfm

Chi town is not TOOO concerned about terrorism they are having this even...

Aug 28-Sep 1
Muslim American Society - Annual Convention
Hyatt Regency Chicago
Delegates: 10,000
www.masnet.org

Gig Giacona

August 8th 03, 10:52 PM

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message
news:2TBYa.27976$5f.26228@lakeread05...
>
> "Rich Carr" > wrote:
>
> > And if you can't quite remember all of the events that you had planned
> > to attend but now must decline, here's a list:
> >
> > http://www.chicago.il.org/smi/calendar.cfm
>
> And don't forget that it's easily adaptable for addressing to the event
> planners of these and other organizations of affiliation, in advance....
>
>
>

And I can't believe he'd allow aircraft this close to the city.

Aug 16-17
Chicago Air & Water Show
North Avenue Beach
Public
www.cityofchicago.org/specialevents

Tom S.

August 9th 03, 10:13 AM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Tom S." wrote:
> >
> > Like the ones the Europeans have been overwhelmingly throwing at the US
> > since we bailed them out in '45?
>
> "We"? You were there?
>
Musta been...my wife says it, like everything else, was my fault.

Martin Hotze

August 9th 03, 04:55 PM

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 14:25:36 -0500, Big John wrote:

>Martin
>
>Your right. Just tell it to the acres of American dead buried in
>France.

Heck, they are dead. Go yourself and speak with them. Or speak with others
also fighting agains facism and not beeing American and died. You might be
surprised, but there have also been non-US-people opposing and fighting
(and dieing).

>It's obvious that you are too young to have experienced the debacle in
>France during WWII and the help (Marshall Plan) that the US gave to
>help recover.

And you mean for how long someone should say thank you (you? or whom?) for
this? Another 50 years, 100, 500 years? Forever?

As I said before: I was born 30 years after the war _ended_. I do respect
what they did. But I won't put it into account today for rating a nation.
It's been too long ago.

>Big John

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Martin Hotze

August 9th 03, 04:59 PM

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 20:45:12 GMT, Ron McKinnon wrote:

>A victory in Europe was also arguably a victory in
>avoiding later waging a continuation of that same
>war on US and Canadian soil, but alone now, our

you should also check where some of the German submarines have been. They
have been all along the US east coast and only with the invention of radar
it was possible to have a somewhat save route from the US to GB to deliver
troops and supply.

>erstwhile allies defeated and gone and their
>resources turned against us. Saving 'them',
>was also saving ourselves. Anything 'we' did for
>them, 'we' also did for ourselves.

Well, I would put it this way: America has never done something without
first thinking what would be the positive effect for yourself. But this is
the good right of any nation to think this way. But don't wonder that other
countries really _do_ think this way.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

MLenoch

August 9th 03, 05:27 PM

>Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.
>

Good point. No thank you's needed, but to learn the lessons is the value of
remembering the dead.
VL

Martin Hotze

August 9th 03, 05:43 PM

On 09 Aug 2003 16:27:36 GMT, MLenoch wrote:

>>Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.
>>
>
>Good point.

:-))

> No thank you's needed,

fine.

> but to learn the lessons is the value of
>remembering the dead.

I can only speak for myself: I've learned the lesson.

>VL

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Tom S.

August 9th 03, 10:21 PM

"MLenoch" > wrote in message
...
> >Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.
> >
>
> Good point. No thank you's needed, but to learn the lessons is the value
of
> remembering the dead.

And what lesson was derived from the B-17's and B-29's in 1943-45?

MLenoch

August 9th 03, 10:50 PM

>And what lesson was derived from the B-17's and B-29's in 1943-45?
>
>
>

If you really have to know.......(just from the B-17s), my parents looked up to
the skies and saw liberation as they flew onto their targets. Someone was
willing to sacrifice their life to liberate my parents. No need to read too
much into that.
VL

Jay Honeck

August 9th 03, 10:56 PM

> And what lesson was derived from the B-17's and B-29's in 1943-45?

That air power can be truly decisive in war?

That "strategic precision bombing" wasn't yet possible using the Norden
bomb-sight and "dumb" bombs?

That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free to
write this today?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Tom S.

August 10th 03, 04:11 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:L6eZa.106474$o%2.47518@sccrnsc02...
> > And what lesson was derived from the B-17's and B-29's in 1943-45?
>
> That air power can be truly decisive in war?
>
> That "strategic precision bombing" wasn't yet possible using the Norden
> bomb-sight and "dumb" bombs?
>
> That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free to
> write this today?

So "bombing for peace" is NOT like "****ing for virginity"?

Jay Honeck

August 10th 03, 04:22 AM

> So "bombing for peace" is NOT like "****ing for virginity"?

Depends on the circumstances, I guess.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Martin Hotze

August 10th 03, 09:26 AM

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:56:59 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free to
>write this today?

Yes ... and today we can discuss the use of Napalm-like bombs in Iraq. Some
military guy said somethink like "a tough enemy ...blabla..." ... well,
they haven't had to fight against an airforce ... well, really tough ...
sure needs Napalm ...

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Martin Hotze

August 10th 03, 09:27 AM

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 03:22:57 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> So "bombing for peace" is NOT like "****ing for virginity"?
>
>Depends on the circumstances, I guess.

Well, when she is then in "other circumstances", then the ****ing for sure
was not for virginity. *hehe* .. SCNR ... :-))

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Bob Noel

August 10th 03, 11:54 AM

In article >,
wrote:

> >That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free to
> >write this today?
>
> Yes ... and today we can discuss the use of Napalm-like bombs in Iraq.

sure. go ahead and discuss that with the families of coalition forces.

--
Bob Noel

Martin Hotze

August 10th 03, 01:04 PM

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:54:18 GMT, Bob Noel wrote:

>> >That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free to
>> >write this today?
>>
>> Yes ... and today we can discuss the use of Napalm-like bombs in Iraq.
>
>sure. go ahead and discuss that with the families of coalition forces.

You mean such nutheads like this teenage-girl .. *hmm* forgot her name (the
one "rescued" out of a hospital) ... who is the new hero (*haha*) and
forgot everything that happened? Sure. I can speak with an umbrella and
expect more response.

Formally declare war first. And you still have to prove (!) the arguments
for invading another (sic) country. None of the "arguments" survived. Well,
guess we have a liar somewhere ... and we have many people believing a
liar.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Jay Honeck

August 10th 03, 02:43 PM

> Formally declare war first. And you still have to prove (!) the arguments
> for invading another (sic) country. None of the "arguments" survived.
Well,
> guess we have a liar somewhere ... and we have many people believing a
> liar.

Martin, let's, for the moment, assume that *everything* President Bush and
Tony Blair have said was a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
No abuse of the Iraqi people. No threats to his neighbors. None of it.

(Of course, you have to ignore 30 years of historic fact to get to this
position, but that hasn't seemed to deter you.)

So, what have we got left? We've STILL got a despot (Saddam) who had
achieved control of a "country" (that was created by the British. It can be
argued that "Iraq" was -- and still is -- a convenient machination of the
western powers.) through illegal means, that has since been removed from
power by the very countries (Britain and the U.S.) that created him -- AND
Iraq -- in the first place.

This is what's known as "justice", and you might want to get a grip on that
fact before you pop a blood vessel.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Martin Hotze

August 10th 03, 03:30 PM

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:43:50 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Formally declare war first. And you still have to prove (!) the arguments
>> for invading another (sic) country. None of the "arguments" survived.
>Well,
>> guess we have a liar somewhere ... and we have many people believing a
>> liar.
>
>Martin, let's, for the moment, assume that *everything* President Bush and
>Tony Blair have said was a lie.

well, IMHO, most of it.
But you are free to name 2 or 3 things and prove it with links to available
sources where he said the truth (regarding Iraq).

> There were no weapons of mass destruction.

back then .. yes. with the consent of whom? Eh? Who OK'ed the use of WMD
back then? But back then he was your friend, then it was OK. :-)

>No abuse of the Iraqi people. No threats to his neighbors. None of it.

hm, this gave you what rights? You are not world police.
And: Have I ever said that the regime was any good?

>(Of course, you have to ignore 30 years of historic fact to get to this
>position, but that hasn't seemed to deter you.)

Hm, I might be wrong, but probably everything what will come now (in Iraq)
will be worse in every term. But this might depend on what you like to
believe.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=Iraq
might be a good startingpoint

>So, what have we got left? We've STILL got a despot (Saddam) who had

Yes, like many others.

Do you know that there are many people in the world who dislike the way how
others live? One group are the muslim extremists who don't like the way how
we live in the western world. Hm, and there are many in our neck of the
woods who don't like how some in the 'eastern' part of the world are living
(ever read about terms like "camelf*ckers", "people who live in caves and
live on [our] petro-dollars", ...?). You can't split this single globe in
two parts and keep the better part. You have to live in peace with everyone
on the same globe. This is true for everything: polution, economy,
world-climate, ...

>achieved control of a "country" (that was created by the British. It can be
>argued that "Iraq" was -- and still is -- a convenient machination of the
>western powers.) through illegal means, that has since been removed from
>power by the very countries (Britain and the U.S.) that created him -- AND
>Iraq -- in the first place.

This is one of the worst arguments I ever heard to justify this invasion.

>This is what's known as "justice", and you might want to get a grip on that
>fact before you pop a blood vessel.

Well, seems that your interpretion of justice is slightly different than
mine. :-)

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Judah

August 10th 03, 04:00 PM

Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 13:43:50 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
<snip>
> hm, this gave you what rights? You are not world police.
> And: Have I ever said that the regime was any good?

You're right, we are not world police. We have the power to do what we
believe to be in our best interest, and will use things like WMD and Nazi-
style mass murders and war crimes to justify our actions to the
"Politically Correct" ignorant masses who like to think that the world is
Mr. Roger's Neighborhood (a childrens television show about a neighborhood
where everybody is nice to each other and gets along all the time).

<snip>

>>So, what have we got left? We've STILL got a despot (Saddam) who had
>
> Yes, like many others.
>
> Do you know that there are many people in the world who dislike the way
> how others live? One group are the muslim extremists who don't like the
> way how we live in the western world. Hm, and there are many in our
> neck of the woods who don't like how some in the 'eastern' part of the
> world are living (ever read about terms like "camelf*ckers", "people
> who live in caves and live on [our] petro-dollars", ...?). You can't
> split this single globe in two parts and keep the better part. You have
> to live in peace with everyone on the same globe. This is true for
> everything: polution, economy, world-climate, ...

Exactly the point. How come in your eyes it is OK for the Extremist Muslim
Monarchies to declare war on the "Western Infidels" but for us to retaliate
and demonstrate the consequences to them is wrong? Is it just because we
are stronger? Is it "unfair".

Life is unfair. If they want to declare themselves as our enemies but not
be squashed by our powers, they have two choices - either become more
powerful and squash us first, or change their policies and become our
allies. Otherwise, we will do what we feel necessary to pre-emptively
protect ourselves from the people who insist that we are their enemies.
Sure, it's popular consensus these days to root for the underdog, and talk
about being fair and all that jazz. But reality is harsh... If you don't
like it, go ahead and wait until they amass enough power to destroy you,
which is clearly their intent anyway. Maybe this time we'll leave you to
suffer the consequences of your own ignorance...

Bob Noel

August 10th 03, 04:42 PM

In article >,
wrote:

> >Martin, let's, for the moment, assume that *everything* President Bush
> >and
> >Tony Blair have said was a lie.
>
> well, IMHO, most of it.
> But you are free to name 2 or 3 things and prove it with links to
> available
> sources where he said the truth (regarding Iraq).

apply the same criteria to your claims. You claim that most of
what they said was a lie. so prove it.

--
Bob Noel

Jay Honeck

August 10th 03, 04:50 PM

> > Maybe this time we'll leave you to
> >suffer the consequences of your own ignorance...
>
> promise?

My family fought in two world wars, defending your land -- the same land my
people fled in the 1850s -- from aggressors.

Trust me -- if many of us have anything to say about future action in
Europe, the answer to your question will be a resounding "Yes".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Martin Hotze

August 10th 03, 04:56 PM

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:42:43 GMT, Bob Noel wrote:

>> well, IMHO, most of it.
>> But you are free to name 2 or 3 things and prove it with links to
>> available
>> sources where he said the truth (regarding Iraq).
>
>apply the same criteria to your claims. You claim that most of
>what they said was a lie. so prove it.

WMD are where?
the trucks produced what?
WMD can be deployed over Europe in how many minutes?
Which African country sold uranium to Iraq?

and yes, their army was such a danger that it needed Napalm-like weapons.
Their airforce and their missiles have been the biggest threat to the area
and to the western world.
Why haven't you just nuked them? Quick and clean.

pick up google and use the news sorces of your smallest disbelieve to prove
it. Well, you could even have listened to the UN inspectors ... but what do
I know ...

best of all: you belive all this and the very best: you are on the best way
to reelect this guy who again will bring along Ashcroft and all his
right-wing [republican] church-runners.

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Martin Hotze

August 10th 03, 05:13 PM

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:50:58 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> > Maybe this time we'll leave you to
>> >suffer the consequences of your own ignorance...
>>
>> promise?
>
>My family fought in two world wars, defending your land

_my_ land? *bah*

>Trust me -- if many of us have anything to say about future action in
>Europe, the answer to your question will be a resounding "Yes".

Thank you. What a positive outcome this has.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Morgans

August 10th 03, 05:25 PM

HEY EVERYONE !!!!!!

No one can change Martin's mind. It is already made up.

Religion and politics have no place in this forum.

I have no record as a net nanny, but I had to chip in on this one.
--
Jim in NC--

Martin Hotze

August 10th 03, 05:41 PM

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:25:06 -0400, Morgans wrote:

>No one can change Martin's mind. It is already made up.
>

Actually, it changed.

>Religion and politics have no place in this forum.
>

you're right.

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
Don't like your neighbor? -> https://tips.fbi.gov/

Bombing for peace is like ****ing for virginity.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 10th 03, 07:49 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> well, IMHO, most of it.
> But you are free to name 2 or 3 things and prove it with links to
available
> sources where he said the truth (regarding Iraq).
>

Just as you're free to name 2 or 3 things and prove it with links to
available sources where he said an untruth (regarding Iraq).

Bob Noel

August 10th 03, 09:04 PM

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:42:43 GMT, Bob Noel wrote:
>
> >> well, IMHO, most of it.
> >> But you are free to name 2 or 3 things and prove it with links to
> >> available
> >> sources where he said the truth (regarding Iraq).
> >
> >apply the same criteria to your claims. You claim that most of
> >what they said was a lie. so prove it.
>
> WMD are where?
> the trucks produced what?
> WMD can be deployed over Europe in how many minutes?
> Which African country sold uranium to Iraq?

I said "prove it", not ask questions. Your questions are not proof.

>
> and yes, their army was such a danger that it needed Napalm-like weapons.

who had the napalm-like weapons?

> Their airforce and their missiles have been the biggest threat to the
> area
> and to the western world.
> Why haven't you just nuked them? Quick and clean.

nukes are not clean.

--
Bob Noel

David Reinhart

August 10th 03, 09:21 PM

The point is not whether or not they *ever* existed. We know they existed at
one point because we *gave* some to Iraq. The question was, and continues to
be, did Iraq pose a clear and present danger to the United States?

Iraq dismantled plants and disposed of weapons on hand because it didn't want
inspetors finding them? Let me see...I think that would mean the inspections
were working.

Did Iraq own any delivery system capable of reaching the U.S. Another no.

Is there any proof (not administration assertions, *proof*) that Iraq was
providing material assistance to terrorist organizations. Again, no.

Was Hussein oppressing his people, murdering and torturing them? You better
believe he was. Was this something to take before the world and ask their
assistance in stopping? You better believe it. Is that what we did? No way.

I want my government to give me true, honest reasons for going to war. I want
to be treated like an intelligent, rational person who is capable of listening
to the arguments and making my own decisions. I want my representatives to
listen to my concerns and take them into account when deciding to send my
friends and neighbors into harm's way and I'm not getting any of that.

Dave Reinhart

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > WMD are where?
> >
>
> Little of them has been found to date. Does that prove to you that they
> never existed? Saddam has also not yet been found, by that logic he never
> existed.

Gary L. Drescher

August 10th 03, 09:59 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> who had the napalm-like weapons?

The US had napalm-like weapons, and used them against troops in Iraq. There
has been widespread news coverage of this fact. See, for example,
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/2382846/detail.html .

Newps

August 10th 03, 10:37 PM

David Reinhart wrote:

> Iraq dismantled plants and disposed of weapons on hand because it didn't want
> inspetors finding them? Let me see...I think that would mean the inspections
> were working.

On two occasions they agreed to dispose of the weapons and let the UN in
to inspect to prove they had done that. They did not. The weapons
inspections were a joke.

Tom S.

August 11th 03, 02:21 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:q_rZa.113148$Ho3.14510@sccrnsc03...
> > Formally declare war first. And you still have to prove (!) the
arguments
> > for invading another (sic) country. None of the "arguments" survived.
> Well,
> > guess we have a liar somewhere ... and we have many people believing a
> > liar.
>
> Martin, let's, for the moment, assume that *everything* President Bush and
> Tony Blair have said was a lie. There were no weapons of mass
destruction.
> No abuse of the Iraqi people. No threats to his neighbors. None of it.

Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear
and Biological Weapons Agenda
Khidhir Hamza, Jeff Stein

Khidhir Hamza was the physicist in charge of nuclear development
in Iraq, who defected in 2001.

"The Iraqi scientist who designed Baghdad's nuclear bomb
tells how he did it in secret with the cynical help of U.S., French, German,
and British suppliers and experts, and kept it hidden from U.N. inspectors
after the Gulf War. Today, he says, Saddam Hussein is only months away from
making a workable bomb and has every intention of using it. "

Jay Honeck

August 11th 03, 07:06 PM

> You mean? It (the war) was for oil? NO WAY. Can't believe that.

I don't believe this comes as a surprise to anyone.

A threatened oil supply -- the lifeblood of all modern economies -- was one
of many legitimate reasons to take out Saddam.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Robert Perkins

August 11th 03, 07:44 PM

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:13:56 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>>My family fought in two world wars, defending your land
>
>_my_ land? *bah*

I think people forget that all of Western Europe's modern prosperity
has its roots in the Marshall Plan. In hindsight perhaps Martin thinks
we offered Austria a quick fix and 50 years of military stability in
the region? For example, I don't seem to recall that very much of the
Serbo-croatian violence spilled over into Hungary or Austria. (Though
I do know of a bombing attempt between two such groups in Zurich;
friends of mine were living in the same apartment building at the
time, but that appears to be the extent of it.)

>>Trust me -- if many of us have anything to say about future action in
>>Europe, the answer to your question will be a resounding "Yes".
>
>Thank you. What a positive outcome this has.

Yeah; consider that. I think Austria is already not a NATO member,
meaning it has no voice in that alliance's councils. It might be a
member of some trade alliances with the West, but I think the only one
it really has is with Switzerland and two Scandinavian countries.

I shudder to think what would happen if the U.S., with by far the
largest armed force in Europe, were to entirely withdraw. France and
Germany are still remarkably ethnocentric, with capable and educated
workforces and access to significant natural resources. In other
words, without strong economic and military alliances like NATO,
what's to stop them from overwhelming Poland and Austria yet again, I
wonder?

What would, as well, prevent India or China, or an alliance of Islamic
nations, from getting visions of larger Empires, with eyes on wealthy
Europe, were the U.S. to publicly repudiate its alliances in Europe
and withdraw again across the sea?

Better the devil you know, says I. But if you're really opposed to it,
then I'll offer that you can renounce any flight training you got in
the U.S., cut off all your business relationships with all Americans,
and your government can refuse the tourist dollars, and formally stand
up in the U.S. Embassy declaring that no more Americans will be
permitted entry into Austria for any reason. No use profiting from our
system of laws and our economy if you're all dead-set against

Say, that reminds me of an episode I had with an Austrian Border
Policeman years ago at the Sankt Margrethen border post, where the
policeman, apparantly upon seeing I was an American missionary,
decided that I owed the 150 shillings or so in import tax on my
friend's property. I was almost not permitted entry (after already
having been fully and legally "angemeldet" and everything).

When I looked over the import laws and consulted with my Austrian
friends in Vorarlberg, I learned that he had far outstepped his
bounds. Didn't seem to matter; he harrassed us until I paid the tax on
property that wasn't mine.

Perhaps this man feels similarly towards Americans as Martin does.

Rob, an otherwise enthusiastic fan of the Alpine region

john smith

August 12th 03, 01:33 AM

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Well, I would put it this way: America has never done something without
> first thinking what would be the positive effect for yourself. But this is
> the good right of any nation to think this way. But don't wonder that other
> countries really _do_ think this way.

That is evident from all the European companies that are bitching about
not getting a piece of the Iraq rebuilding money. We won't pay for the
fight, but sure, we'll take the money to rebuild what was destroyed.

john smith

August 12th 03, 01:50 AM

David Reinhart wrote:
> I want my government to give me true, honest reasons for going to war. I want
> to be treated like an intelligent, rational person who is capable of listening
> to the arguments and making my own decisions. I want my representatives to
> listen to my concerns and take them into account when deciding to send my
> friends and neighbors into harm's way and I'm not getting any of that.

Gee, Dave... have you read the Patriot Act?
Pretty un-American stuff in there.

john smith

August 12th 03, 01:52 AM

Bob Noel wrote:
> > Why haven't you just nuked them? Quick and clean.

> nukes are not clean.

That's the arguement for neutron weapons. We would build them, but the
Europeans think they are barbaric.

Judah

August 12th 03, 03:18 AM

No. If an enemy believes he wants to start a war in order to change his
situation, peace can only be achieved by convincing the enemy that 'the
grass won't be greener on the other side.' There are two ways to do this.
One is to convince him through diplomatic discussions, and form a treaty
or roundtable with him to discuss the issues that come up and work them
out.

The other way is to scare the hell out of him by showing him that if he
decides to fight he is going to lose.

Or I guess you can go to peace rallies and have hunger strikes in the
name of peace, and hand over your land, your rights, and your freedom by
default.

Your analogy sounds cute, but it's really off the mark.

"Tom S." > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:L6eZa.106474$o%2.47518@sccrnsc02...
>> > And what lesson was derived from the B-17's and B-29's in 1943-45?
>>
>> That air power can be truly decisive in war?
>>
>> That "strategic precision bombing" wasn't yet possible using the
>> Norden bomb-sight and "dumb" bombs?
>>
>> That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free
>> to write this today?
>
> So "bombing for peace" is NOT like "****ing for virginity"?
>

Tom S.

August 12th 03, 04:11 AM

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Hotze wrote:
> > Well, I would put it this way: America has never done something without
> > first thinking what would be the positive effect for yourself. But this
is
> > the good right of any nation to think this way. But don't wonder that
other
> > countries really _do_ think this way.
>
> That is evident from all the European companies that are bitching about
> not getting a piece of the Iraq rebuilding money. We won't pay for the
> fight, but sure, we'll take the money to rebuild what was destroyed.

Does someone have a text file of the story of "The Little Red Hen" they can
send to Martin?

Tom S.

August 12th 03, 04:17 AM

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> No. If an enemy believes he wants to start a war in order to change his
> situation, peace can only be achieved by convincing the enemy that 'the
> grass won't be greener on the other side.' There are two ways to do this.
> One is to convince him through diplomatic discussions, and form a treaty
> or roundtable with him to discuss the issues that come up and work them
> out.
>
> The other way is to scare the hell out of him by showing him that if he
> decides to fight he is going to lose.
>
> Or I guess you can go to peace rallies and have hunger strikes in the
> name of peace, and hand over your land, your rights, and your freedom by
> default.
>
> Your analogy sounds cute, but it's really off the mark.

It's not my analog; I was being sarchastic towards the one who originally
posted it. It was stupid back in the 60's and remains stupid today.

>
>
> "Tom S." > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:L6eZa.106474$o%2.47518@sccrnsc02...
> >> > And what lesson was derived from the B-17's and B-29's in 1943-45?
> >>
> >> That air power can be truly decisive in war?
> >>
> >> That "strategic precision bombing" wasn't yet possible using the
> >> Norden bomb-sight and "dumb" bombs?
> >>
> >> That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free
> >> to write this today?
> >
> > So "bombing for peace" is NOT like "****ing for virginity"?
> >

Robert Perkins

August 12th 03, 08:34 AM

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:57:18 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>> Perhaps this man feels similarly towards Americans as Martin does.

>I don't judge about 600 million Americans on the viewpoint of a few as
>you did on about 8 million on the viewpoint of one government employee.

How you got from A to B on that one is stumping me, Martin. I compared
you to one border guard, I thought. And conditionally, at that, which
lends me the belief that you've conditioned yourself to hate the U.S.
government, and apparantly everyone who agrees with what it's doing.

>This would be the same if I would judge your system by only knowing the
>FAA.

Nah, use the Social Security Administration. They cut checks, after
all!

Rob

Robert Perkins

August 12th 03, 08:42 AM

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:00:44 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>Austria never was a member of NATO and hopefully never will be a member.

I think there's mutual agreement on that note. Its strength as owner
of some important mountain passes and tunnels to the south make
needing to be a member of NATO less necessary. That, and the fact that
you arm yourselves to the teeth and every able man is in the military,
more or less.

>You haven't learned much while you was here. But to complete your
>picture: we live in cages and I am only online because my wive works the
>generator to produce some power for the computer.

Oh, quite to the contrary.

And this is important for everyone to know about Austria:

I thought Austria was one of the most welcoming and salutory nations
I'd ever visited, except for one run-in with a remarkably officious
border guard. I met hundreds or thousands of Austrians, and can say
with certain veracity that Martin is not a representative sample of
how they actually treat people.

I became aquainted with people from Salzburg, Vienna, Graz, Bregenz,
Feldkirch, and Dornbirn. One of them was a rather ignorant
ethnocentrist with no real opinions about the news, one was better
educated and more humble, all of the young people I met were distantly
friendly, and distantly fascinated with the American way of life. I
hiked the trails, rode the trains, spent the money, ate the food, in
short, I lived there.

By all means, make a visit. Those who do will find better behaved
representatives of the country than around here.

Rob

Bob Noel

August 12th 03, 10:53 AM

In article >, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

> > Perhaps this man feels similarly towards Americans as Martin does.
>
> I don't judge about 600 million Americans on the viewpoint of a few as
> you did on about 8 million on the viewpoint of one government employee.

sure you do.

--
Bob Noel

Montblack

August 12th 03, 04:19 PM

Marty, Marty, Marty.

That's 300 million Americans, the rest are Mexican *illegals.*

--
Montblack

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
> I don't judge about 600 million Americans on the viewpoint of a few as
> you did on about 8 million on the viewpoint of one government employee.

Bob Noel

August 12th 03, 09:30 PM

In article >, "Montblack"
> wrote:

> Marty, Marty, Marty.
>
> That's 300 million Americans, the rest are Mexican *illegals.*

Mexicans are Americans.

so are Columbians, Canadians, etc.

--
Bob Noel

Steven P. McNicoll

August 12th 03, 09:43 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Mexicans are Americans.
>
> so are Columbians, Canadians, etc.
>

That's not correct, you're confusing countries with continents. "Americans"
is used to describe US citizens. Mexicans, Canadians, and Americans are
"North Americans", while Colombians are "South Americans".

Montblack

August 12th 03, 10:24 PM

("Bob Noel" wrote)
> > Marty, Marty, Marty.
> >
> > That's 300 million Americans, the rest are Mexican *illegals.*

> Mexicans are Americans.
>
> so are Columbians, Canadians, etc.

When the hijackers in Pakistan are checking passports, they're from
"Canada", "Columbia" and "Mexico."

"...no, no...not American's."

--
Montblack

Steven P. McNicoll

August 12th 03, 10:33 PM

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> When the hijackers in Pakistan are checking passports, they're from
> "Canada", "Columbia" and "Mexico."
>

"Columbia" is the USA, "Colombia" is a nation in South America.

Bob Noel

August 12th 03, 11:13 PM

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > Mexicans are Americans.
> >
> > so are Columbians, Canadians, etc.
>
> That's not correct, you're confusing countries with continents.

nope. no confusion at all.

> "Americans" is used to describe US citizens.

true enough. But the citizens of the other countries in the Americas
don't share your US-centric view.

> Mexicans, Canadians, and Americans are
> "North Americans", while Colombians are "South Americans".

and all those countries are in the Americas.

--
Bob Noel

Steven P. McNicoll

August 12th 03, 11:29 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> nope. no confusion at all.
>

Oh, but there is.

>
> true enough. But the citizens of the other countries in the Americas
> don't share your US-centric view.
>

I didn't offer an opinion.

Bob Noel

August 13th 03, 01:06 AM

In article . net>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > nope. no confusion at all.
>
> Oh, but there is.

yep, you're right. There is confusion.

--
Bob Noel

Robert Perkins

August 13th 03, 06:41 AM

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:13:32 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>> "Americans" is used to describe US citizens.
>
>true enough. But the citizens of the other countries in the Americas
>don't share your US-centric view.

Nuts, that confuses the issue again for me.

*I*'d rather call us all Americans, from Tierra del Fuego all the way
to Barrow and points north.

*Some Canadians* I've talked to resent being called "Americans". Out
of respect for their usage, I haven't done it. I don't know how those
in Central America feel about it. I'm pretty sure the southern Latinos
and Brazilians call us something like "norteamericanos".

Argh.

Rob

Ron Natalie

August 13th 03, 02:47 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message link.net...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > When the hijackers in Pakistan are checking passports, they're from
> > "Canada", "Columbia" and "Mexico."
> >
>
> "Columbia" is the USA, "Colombia" is a nation in South America.
>
Our former mayor endeavored to keep the Colombia in the District.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 13th 03, 04:49 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Our former mayor endeavored to keep the Colombia in the District.
>

?

Steven P. McNicoll

August 13th 03, 05:28 PM

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Marion Barry had a little run in with the law when he was caught smoking
crack
> on video. This lead to various campaign slogans like
> Give Barry another crack at mayor.
> and Marion Barry: Let's keep the Colombia in the District.
>

Shouldn't that be Colombian?

Steven P. McNicoll

August 14th 03, 01:22 PM

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jay Leno made this comment August 4, regarding the effort now
> underway to write a constitution for Iraq: "Hey, why don't we
> send them ours? It worked well for us for over two hundred years ...
> and we're not using it anymore ..."
>

Actually, it had worked for us for just over seventy years when we ceased
using it.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 14th 03, 01:27 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Does not owning a delivery system that can strike the US from Iraq mean
Iraq
> was a threat to the US?
>

Oops. That should have been, "Does not owning a delivery system that can
strike the US from Iraq mean Iraq was not a threat to the US?"

Larry Dighera

August 14th 03, 06:06 PM

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:20:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in Message-Id:
et>:

>
>"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The point is not whether or not they *ever* existed. We know they
>> existed at one point because we *gave* some to Iraq.
>>
>
>Not all of the critics of the war are aware of that.
>

Some proponents of the war are not logical:

"The U.S. military hasn't found any "weapons of mass destruction"
in Iraq, but that doesn't mean the war wasn't a good idea, says
President Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer. "I think the burden is
on those people who think Saddam Hussain didn't have weapons of
mass destruction to tell the world where they are," Fleischer
said. Reported in the New York Times.
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Steven P. McNicoll

August 14th 03, 06:14 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Some proponents of the war are not logical:
>

But none of the opponents are.

John Clonts

August 14th 03, 08:19 PM

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Jay Leno made this comment August 4, regarding the effort now
> > underway to write a constitution for Iraq: "Hey, why don't we
> > send them ours? It worked well for us for over two hundred years ...
> > and we're not using it anymore ..."
> >
>
> Actually, it had worked for us for just over seventy years when we ceased
> using it.
>
>

Please explain, I'm listening...

Robert Perkins

August 14th 03, 11:33 PM

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:20:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>> Did Iraq own any delivery system capable of reaching the U.S. Another no.
>>
>
>Does not owning a delivery system that can strike the US from Iraq mean Iraq
>was a threat to the US?

Iraq didn't have people to hand-carry the weapons? I think they did,
and I'd call that a delivery system.

Rob

Wdtabor

August 15th 03, 12:13 AM

>On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:20:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>>> Did Iraq own any delivery system capable of reaching the U.S. Another no.
>>>
>>
>>Does not owning a delivery system that can strike the US from Iraq mean Iraq
>>was a threat to the US?
>
>Iraq didn't have people to hand-carry the weapons? I think they did,
>and I'd call that a delivery system.
>

How about Fedex or UPS?

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Steven P. McNicoll

August 15th 03, 03:48 AM

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> Please explain, I'm listening...
>

1860

There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented a state from seceding
from the union. In fact, several states, I believe New York and Virginia
were among them, incorporated language in their ratification announcement
reserving the right to secede. Documents written at the time of the
Constitutional Convention clearly indicate that the right of secession was
recognized by the founders.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 15th 03, 03:48 AM

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
>
> Iraq didn't have people to hand-carry the weapons? I think they did,
> and I'd call that a delivery system.
>

As would I.

David Reinhart

August 15th 03, 04:06 AM

No, but I read the book. As a matter of fact, I have this sneaking supicion
that there are a lot of people in our government have read Clancy's books and
have confused fact and fiction. I'd love to have Jack Ryan as president. The
problem is he doesn't exist.

Dave Reinhart

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "David Reinhart" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That reminds of a cartoon that came out when India first tested a nuclear
> > weapon. There were a bunch of people standing outside a barn with "Top
> Secret"
> > signs on it. Inside was an elephant with an atom bomb on its back and a
> mahout
> > on its neck. The caption read "At last comrades, we have first strike
> > capabilty". How paranoid to you want to be?
> >
>
> Ever seen "The Sum of All Fears"?

Steven P. McNicoll

August 15th 03, 04:12 AM

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, but I read the book. As a matter of fact, I have this sneaking
supicion
> that there are a lot of people in our government have read Clancy's books
and
> have confused fact and fiction. I'd love to have Jack Ryan as president.
The
> problem is he doesn't exist.
>

So you think Clancy's stuff is pretty far fetched?

G.R. Patterson III

August 15th 03, 02:36 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Please explain, I'm listening...
> >
>
> 1860
>
> There was nothing in the Constitution that prevented a state from seceding
> from the union.

Correct. After the War between the States concluded, the Feds arrested
Jefferson Davis and charged him with treason. The prosecutor then polled
the chief justice of the Supreme Court, who opined that the verdict would
be "not guilty". In his opinion, Davis was a citizen of a foreign country
at the time of the alleged offenses. Charges were hurriedly dropped.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

David Reinhart

August 15th 03, 10:35 PM

No, I think it's *fiction*. Clancy has created his own universe headed by a
modern King Arthur who can do no wrong. The real world is a lot bigger and
more complicated that the one that exists between the covers of Mr. Clancy's
books.

Dave Reinhart

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "David Reinhart" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, but I read the book. As a matter of fact, I have this sneaking
> supicion
> > that there are a lot of people in our government have read Clancy's books
> and
> > have confused fact and fiction. I'd love to have Jack Ryan as president.
> The
> > problem is he doesn't exist.
> >
>
> So you think Clancy's stuff is pretty far fetched?

Steven P. McNicoll

August 16th 03, 10:29 PM

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, I think it's *fiction*. Clancy has created his own universe headed by
> a modern King Arthur who can do no wrong. The real world is a lot bigger
> and more complicated that the one that exists between the covers of Mr.
> Clancy's books.
>

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say Clancy's work is not
farfetched, but you go on to essentially say Clancy has created a fantasy
world.

Bob Noel

August 16th 03, 11:25 PM

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say Clancy's work is not
> farfetched, but you go on to essentially say Clancy has created a fantasy
> world.

The media playing along with the Government in not reporting the
whereabouts of a carrier?

Politicians selecting someone because of their ability (e.g., good man
in a crisis)?

Journalists admitting they were stupid?

of course it's farfetched.

--
Bob Noel

Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo

August 16th 03, 11:45 PM

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> In article et>,
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> > You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say Clancy's work is not
> > farfetched, but you go on to essentially say Clancy has created a fantasy
> > world.
>
> The media playing along with the Government in not reporting the
> whereabouts of a carrier?
>
> Politicians selecting someone because of their ability (e.g., good man
> in a crisis)?
>
> Journalists admitting they were stupid?
>
> of course it's farfetched.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

But then, Bob, there's always the one, the ONLY, I give you Geraldo
Rivera! Sand map(s) anyone!

I think after Capone's safe and then, Geraldo's summa of summas in the
Big Apple during the Mayoral election when Rivera says to the Rabbi with
Rivera's usual journalistic class, style and panache, to wit, "Let's
face facts here, Rabbi, only an outright 'schmuck' or a 'Yenta' would
not want to have the Hasidic vote in New York City!" As my old 'Big
Apple' neighbor, Sid W., would quip forthwith, 'Oyyyyyyy!' Only Rivera!

Doc Tony

David Reinhart

August 17th 03, 01:11 AM

No, what I meant was that as fiction its actual semblance to reality is
irrelvant.

Dave Reinhart

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "David Reinhart" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, I think it's *fiction*. Clancy has created his own universe headed by
> > a modern King Arthur who can do no wrong. The real world is a lot bigger
> > and more complicated that the one that exists between the covers of Mr.
> > Clancy's books.
> >
>
> You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say Clancy's work is not
> farfetched, but you go on to essentially say Clancy has created a fantasy
> world.

Peter Duniho

August 17th 03, 06:03 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say Clancy's work is not
> farfetched, but you go on to essentially say Clancy has created a fantasy
> world.

There is nothing contradictory about not being farfetched and yet being a
fantasy. A fantasy can be quite plausible, and yet still be fantasy.

Steven P. McNicoll

August 18th 03, 12:48 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is nothing contradictory about not being farfetched and yet being a
> fantasy. A fantasy can be quite plausible, and yet still be fantasy.
>

Not in this usage.

far-fetched (färfcht) adj.

Not readily believable because of improbable elements therein: a
far-fetched analogy; a far-fetched excuse.

fan·ta·sy (fnt-s, -z) n. pl. fan·ta·sies

1. The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. See Synonyms at
imagination.
2. Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.
3. A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.
4.
a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.
b. An example of such fiction.
5. An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream,
usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.
6. An unrealistic or improbable supposition.
7. Music. See fantasia.
8. A coin issued especially by a questionable authority and not intended
for use as currency.
9. Obsolete. A hallucination.