OT: Cartoon

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:09:28 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.

ROFL!

 

[Terry Given]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:09:28 +1300, Terry Given wrote:

Funny, I could have sworn I knew what I meant when I wrote that sentence.


ROFL!

As did I. Actually thats precisely why I did not take English as a
subject in 7th form (final year in high school). In 6th form we studied
a poem by NZ poet Sam Hunt. Like all of his poems, it was simple and
direct, but our teacher disagreed with the entire class as to what the
poem was about. That year Sam Hunt visited our school (he is a great
live show - hilarious, with a unique, captivating voice) and spent 1/4
an hour with our 6th form class. Naturally we asked about the poem, and
he duly agreed with us - much to our delight, and our teachers chagrin.
Nevertheless after Sam Hunt left, when we begin to take the teacher to
task, he let rip with something along the lines of:

"well thats what he might think he meant, but subconsciously...."

which was greeted with hoots of derision, IIRC I got caned for saying
"fuck off" or words to that effect. But we wrote what the teacher wanted
to hear, and passed, and I concluded that it was all a load of bollocks
and concentrated on physics instead, leading me to a career of blowing
things up rather than that of a wordsmith.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Charles Schuler]

You'd have to be an ignorant victim-boob-serf

to believe crap like that!

Are
you simply too stupid to accept it?

This delusion on your part indicates that the Right has successfully
brainwashed and terrified you out of voting against them.

Three "personal" slams and you are out, my friend!

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Terry Given wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

The moneyed are a minority. I'm exorting the Majority!
Fully half of ALL wealth and property in the USA is owned by fewer
than 2% of the people, did you KNOW that? Beyond that, the top 25%
own or receive 80% of our gross national product!! Now how long should
the Majority tolerate that, when they could change it TOMORROW if they
wished. The only obstacle is over-coming the disinformation that this
Majority believes!

dont 100 individuals control more than 75% of the worlds wealth?
--------------------------------
Since it takes between 1% and 2% (it varies year to year) to own 50%
of the US wealth, that wouldn't be true.

I forget where I ran across those numbers, but the US is not all of the
worlds economy - not even half. But they still sound wrong.
----------------------

No, my figures are for the USA.
But the US economy is a major part of the world economy.
In Europe it takes nearly 40% of the people to own half of everything.
Wealth is MUCH more concentrated in few hands in the USA!

http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/WealthDist_TheNation.pdf

The Myth called "Social Darwinism" is not in any way, shape, or form
based on Darwin's Evolution of Species or natural selection.

NO competent theory of evolution suggests that advanced species such
as ours evolved by the strongest guys winning out, or we'd all look
like Neanderthal SwarzeNazi's, and you know what happened to the
Neanderthals!! They ain't here now! Humans evolved to be chief species
by being a hundred times MORE group-cooperative and group-coordinated
than any other species on this rock, and NOT by fighting amongst
ourselves AT ALL! Our superiority resides in keeping the brightest of
our nerds supported by the collective so they could innovate. It
resides in everybody running at danger to one of our weak, not running
away from it. We scared the shit out of every predator on earth because
we did things they didn't evolve to counter, like running at them en
masse, throwing things, and stabbing with sharp spears all at once!
NO other animal does anything like that, the non-victims flee, they
don't counter-attack en masse instantly as we do!

thats just semantics - how you define "strong." Survival of the
fittest....not the strongest. Nevertheless Darwin did get many ideas
from prevailing economic theory. And I care not a jot about "social
darwinism" whatever that may be.
------------------------------------

The Group is always stonger/fitter than the individual. It took an
improvement in the brain to permit this to be utilized. A cooperating
group is more fit than the same number of individuals each for themself.

Okay ;-> The Wealthy only control what we LET them control. If a
Majority became fully aware of their power to stop LETTING them,
then they can change that overnight. The Majority can simply decide
the wealthy ownership of other's property is in abeyance, and it
will be so!


Alas, the majority are sheep.
----------------
Except for that once in a while when they're not, otherwise we would
all still be serfs superintended in the fields by knights on > > horseback.


The ratio of foxes to sheep is quite small. Soma = TV
------------------------------------

Actually, everyone above the lowest-paid 50% is abusing the people
beneath them. They need to be frightened out of it by Majority Terror.

Also it depends how ruthless the minority
are, although annihilating all the serfs leaves only the masters to do
the shitty jobs.
------------------
The ruthlessness factor is important only to the point where you cause
your serfs to become ruthless. Then you're a goner.

maybe. Israel/palestine looks exactly like this, but the wealthy,
well-armed Israelis can flatten the palestinians no matter how pissed
off the palestinians get - hence the almost 4:1 casualty rate, and the
israelis havent even got nasty. Can 10,000,000 angry serfs with sticks
beat one ruthless bastard with a nuke? nope.
-------------------------------------

But nukes aren't useful for domestic squabnles. If you nuke your
slaves you'll have to go back to work!

I think the argument here is that, eventually, nasty rulers will give up
before they wipe out all the serfs. or their minions will decide that
the serfs are right, and help take out the dictator. Or perhaps the
dictator simply runs out of bullets.
-----------------------------

The serfs are so numerous that if they want, it won't take ten minutes.

But the likelihood is by the time you wipe out 1/2 the
serfs the rest will pretty much fall in line.
------------------------
There are not enough soldiers under a nobility who will be able to take
on a Majority, and any larger army has to be raised from those slaves
themselves! As in Russia, the kids in the tanks do not fire on their
parents!!

So far. Wait. Watch.

-Steve

only time can tell.

Cheers
Terry
----------

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:41:59 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Tom MacIntyre wrote:

No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.
---------
YET!


But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.
-------------------------
That's ONLY because he KNOWS that if EVERYONE had to serve they would
never tolerate idiots taking us to cultural urban wars. They'd vote
to nuke our enemies instead, as we SHOULD be doing.

So, you really think the whole world should be destroyed?

I didn't know you were _that_ fanatical.

Thanks,
Rich
----------------------------

It wouldn't take a quarter of our early air-burst nuclear tests to
turn Islam into a meaningless religion of a few impoverished bedouins.
We survived those pretty well.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:12:08 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 11:44:55 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Tom MacIntyre wrote:


Just because something is a common thing in socialist countries, does
that mean that it can't happen in non-socialist countries? Is it the
defining thing that makes a country socialist?

Tom

reverse your argument, and apply it to your statement re. forced > servitude.
-------------------
You mean having to work for a living? That's not forced servitude,
in serfdom/slavery/servitude you are NOT PAID! In Socialism/Communism
you simply have to work for a living, or else starve! Just like in
real life on earth!


again, too literal. First DMO'C implies Dems are socialists because they
promote mandatory service, and forced servitude is common in socialist
countries.
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...

Re-posted because you deleted it:
-------------
That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat, and to do one's equal
share of the work. If you're paid, it doesn't matter if you HAVE
to or not, you have to work to afford to live, even in the simplest
human society or situation, the earth extracts that, and we merely
decide socially how the burden is divided! The Rich want the rest
of us to do THEIR work FOR them so THEY don't HAVE to,

So who gives a fuck what they want? Are they holding you at
gunpoint?

Slavery depends on the consent of the slave.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Terry Given]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:53:23 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Robert Monsen wrote:

Where does this statistic come from?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3589352&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest

to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no disorder,
to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.


Of course it can't possibly by that insanity runs in families, and
psychotic parents are much more to abuse their kids.


I was going to say something marginally similar, just more along the
lines of it's a correlation, which doesn't imply causation. They
could both be things that are caused by something else, like they're
symptoms of some underlying thing, or something.

Indeed. A strong correlation suggests no more than that closer
examination is required. It certainly does not imply causality.

But OTOH, look at the sorts of correlations used to OK medicines - as
long as the response rate is as good as or a bit better than placebos,
then its good enough. 15:1 is a hell of a correlation!

But Smoking doesn't cause Cancer either, but almost everybody blames
it anyway.

Cheers!
Rich

Cheers
Terry

 

[Tim Wescott]

Robert Monsen wrote:

Terry Given wrote:

Robert Monsen wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


What is interesting is the correlation between schizophrenia and
child abuse - schizophrenics are 15x more likely to have been abused
as children than non-schizophrenics




Where does this statistic come from?


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3589352&thesection=news&thesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=latest


to quote the amazingly brief article:
"Dutch and British studies have confirmed New Zealand findings of high
levels of child abuse among people diagnosed with psychotic disorders
such as schizophrenia. The September edition of the British Journal of
Psychiatry says a study of 8580 people has found that those with
psychotic disorders are three times more likely than people with less
severe disorders, and 15 times more likely than those with no
disorder, to have been sexually abused"

I seem to recall reading more on the new scientist website, but I cant
get to it right now.

IIRC what they are basically saying is that it seems these severe
psychotic conditions can be caused by sufficiently nasty childhood
experiences.

Cheers
Terry


Thanks. They appear to be talking about sexual abuse, not physical abuse
such as spanking.

Corporal punishment, applied in a consistent and loving manner, is not

IMO physical abuse. _Any_ discipline that's applied in a way that a
child can't predict, that's too severe, or that doesn't give the kid
room to grow, will screw the kid up -- possibly for life (but I'm not so
ready to believe that it'll pop out as psychosis).

So unless the spanking that you're referring to leaves permanent flat
spots on their behinds its just discipline, not abuse.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:12:08 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

That's merely fuzzy thinking. "Involuntary Servitude" is slavery
without pay. Everyone has to work to eat,...

I was responding to "Everyone has to work to eat."

That is not true, unless you consider begging or dumpster-diving to
be "work."
----------------------------

In a decent society there are no "dumpsters" because everything is
owned, not cast-off, and diving is trespass/theft, and begging is
illegal because it is harrasment/intimidation/theft and because
it is seeking to live without working, which is a crime.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:41:17 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com> wrote in
message news:10os8oum8f1mh0a@corp.supernews.com...

"Terry Given" <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:rvnjd.4708$op3.178679@news.xtra.co.nz...
R. Steve Walz wrote:

[snip]

Having read your posts on this thread, I am inclined to agree with
your
own character assessment - you are dangerously unstable.

Welcome to the club.


I didn't reply because it got too personal.
There was the arrogance of my stepfather
facing me with the same line, "I have the right"

Explain, please, why you ignored and snipped the most relevant parts
of what I posted, and focussed on your own personal sore point.

Better to avoid such people than Kill them!
Obviously I left home and Joined the Army,
where they taught me to kill with my bare hands.
That sure taught me to control my temper!

Wow...I'm impressed. My brother is in the military, but has never made
such claims.

Tom

 

[Robert Monsen]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:24:04 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:


Rich The Philosophizer wrote:


I was going to say something marginally similar, just more along the
lines of it's a correlation, which doesn't imply causation. They
could both be things that are caused by something else, like they're
symptoms of some underlying thing, or something.

But Smoking doesn't cause Cancer either, but almost everybody blames
it anyway.


I hope you're being sarcastic about the smoking comment.


Nope. I'm dead serious.

I coded documents in two, count'em, two, tobacco litigations. I have
seen the documents that refute the so-called "scientific studies" that
"proved" that smoking "causes" cancer. And I have seen the documents
that _show_ that the antis' reports are bogus. But they got buried,
because the antis had an agenda to push. These documtents used to be on
the internet, but they've apparently taken those pages down. They were
on the tobacco companies' websites, so they were probably forced to
take them down.

And that's still notwithstanding that smoking does not cause cancer.

One of the studied that got buried, which was published in the Lancet
or maybe the British Medical Journal, showed a correlation between
personality type and cancer that was so strong, that in the same
data set, the distribution of smokers/nonsmokers was below the noise
level. And it wasn't the only study that showed that correlation.

And the personality type that gives itself cancer is characterized
by rigidity of thinking and lack of emotional outlet, which is perfectly
logical, when you really look at the big picture.


Yes, it's a correlation with no causality indicated in the data
presented in the news report. Either the workers only found correlation
and just assumed a causal link, or there was more research than is being
reported.

Whenever you're dealing with humans it makes the double blind
experiments hard to get by the ethics panels.


Tell me about it!

Cheers!
Rich

Why do you think that everybody seems to believe these studies?

Also, do you smoke? Is it possible that you are attempting to
rationalize your habit?

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:40:15 +0000, Robert Monsen wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:24:04 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:


Rich The Philosophizer wrote:


I was going to say something marginally similar, just more along the
lines of it's a correlation, which doesn't imply causation. They
could both be things that are caused by something else, like they're
symptoms of some underlying thing, or something.

But Smoking doesn't cause Cancer either, but almost everybody blames
it anyway.


I hope you're being sarcastic about the smoking comment.


Nope. I'm dead serious.

I coded documents in two, count'em, two, tobacco litigations. I have
seen the documents that refute the so-called "scientific studies" that
"proved" that smoking "causes" cancer. And I have seen the documents
that _show_ that the antis' reports are bogus. But they got buried,
because the antis had an agenda to push. These documtents used to be on
the internet, but they've apparently taken those pages down. They were
on the tobacco companies' websites, so they were probably forced to
take them down.

And that's still notwithstanding that smoking does not cause cancer.

One of the studied that got buried, which was published in the Lancet
or maybe the British Medical Journal, showed a correlation between
personality type and cancer that was so strong, that in the same
data set, the distribution of smokers/nonsmokers was below the noise
level. And it wasn't the only study that showed that correlation.

And the personality type that gives itself cancer is characterized
by rigidity of thinking and lack of emotional outlet, which is perfectly
logical, when you really look at the big picture.


Yes, it's a correlation with no causality indicated in the data
presented in the news report. Either the workers only found correlation
and just assumed a causal link, or there was more research than is being
reported.

Whenever you're dealing with humans it makes the double blind
experiments hard to get by the ethics panels.


Tell me about it!

Cheers!
Rich


Why do you think that everybody seems to believe these studies?

For the same reason so many people seem to think George W. Bush is
the best thing since Abe Lincoln.

Also, do you smoke? Is it possible that you are attempting to
rationalize your habit?

Of course not.

The blamers miss one very important fact:

If smoking _caused_ cancer, not only would there be no smoker
who ever escaped, but there would be no non-smoker who ever
got cancer.

And that simply is not true.

But they've never let the truth get in the way of their agenda.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:43:10 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

If smoking _caused_ cancer, not only would there be no smoker
who ever escaped, but there would be no non-smoker who ever
got cancer.

Talk about fuzzy logic...

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 23:01:24 +0000, Robert Monsen wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:40:15 +0000, Robert Monsen wrote:


Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 20:24:04 -0800, Tim Wescott wrote:



Rich The Philosophizer wrote:



I was going to say something marginally similar, just more along the
lines of it's a correlation, which doesn't imply causation. They
could both be things that are caused by something else, like they're
symptoms of some underlying thing, or something.

But Smoking doesn't cause Cancer either, but almost everybody blames
it anyway.


I hope you're being sarcastic about the smoking comment.


Nope. I'm dead serious.

I coded documents in two, count'em, two, tobacco litigations. I have
seen the documents that refute the so-called "scientific studies" that
"proved" that smoking "causes" cancer. And I have seen the documents
that _show_ that the antis' reports are bogus. But they got buried,
because the antis had an agenda to push. These documtents used to be on
the internet, but they've apparently taken those pages down. They were
on the tobacco companies' websites, so they were probably forced to
take them down.

And that's still notwithstanding that smoking does not cause cancer.

One of the studied that got buried, which was published in the Lancet
or maybe the British Medical Journal, showed a correlation between
personality type and cancer that was so strong, that in the same
data set, the distribution of smokers/nonsmokers was below the noise
level. And it wasn't the only study that showed that correlation.

And the personality type that gives itself cancer is characterized
by rigidity of thinking and lack of emotional outlet, which is perfectly
logical, when you really look at the big picture.



Yes, it's a correlation with no causality indicated in the data
presented in the news report. Either the workers only found correlation
and just assumed a causal link, or there was more research than is being
reported.

Whenever you're dealing with humans it makes the double blind
experiments hard to get by the ethics panels.


Tell me about it!

Cheers!
Rich


Why do you think that everybody seems to believe these studies?


For the same reason so many people seem to think George W. Bush is
the best thing since Abe Lincoln.


The folks who advocate these studies don't really have much of an axe to
grind. In fact, I'd say they are working against one of the richest,
most powerful lobbying organizations in the world. It took *years* for
the word to get through their smoke screen (so to speak).


Also, do you smoke? Is it possible that you are attempting to
rationalize your habit?


Of course not.

The blamers miss one very important fact:

If smoking _caused_ cancer, not only would there be no smoker
who ever escaped, but there would be no non-smoker who ever
got cancer.

And that simply is not true.


I guess what you are trying to say is that it doesn't cause, but simply
affects the chances of getting cancer. I'll buy that. That would be
consistent with the statistical studies that suggest there is a
correlation between smoking and getting cancer.

But they've never let the truth get in the way of their agenda.


Whose agenda is this? Seems like the big tobacco companies have more of
a motive to lie than the CDC.

Well, I could track down and dig out all the documents that got buried in
the crusade, and I could track down and dig out all the documents that
expose the fudged data, bad methodology, and outright fraud in the crusade,
but they are all a matter of public record, and I'm no more going to
change anybody's mind than the man in the moon.

Blame whatever you want.

But it's a pretty powerful feeling knowing that I'm in charge of
my life.

(OOh! he's gonna get cancer! he's gonna get killed by a drunk
driver! he's gonna piss off a cop and get shot! he's gonna get
raped by a homo! maybe he is a homo!)

I'll be thanking the peanut gallery in advance for their insight and
wisdom on the matter. ;-)

;^j
Rich

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

{Re:Smoking]
Why do you think that everybody seems to believe these studies?

For the same reason so many people seem to think George W. Bush is
the best thing since Abe Lincoln.
---------------------------

No, all THAT proves is that the ignorant can, for a time, outnumber the
educated.

Also, do you smoke? Is it possible that you are attempting to
rationalize your habit?

Of course not.

The blamers miss one very important fact:

If smoking _caused_ cancer, not only would there be no smoker
who ever escaped, but there would be no non-smoker who ever
got cancer.
-------------------------------

You clearly do not understand statistical causation and have a
defective mathematical background. Anyone who understands Theory
of Science knows you flunked the course.

And that simply is not true.
-----------------------------

Nor does it have to be for smoking to cause disease.

But they've never let the truth get in the way of their agenda.

Good Luck!
Rich
--------------------------

If it were not true, praytell, what in the world would this imaginary
"Agenda" of yours be?? Sounds politically paranoid to me.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Dennis M. O'Connor]

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" <NOSPAM@dslextreme.com>
wrote...

"Dennis M. O'Connor" <dmoc@primenet.com> wrote ...
"hamilton" <hamilton@deminsional.com> wrote...
Here is truth:
Conservatives want to control your life, but will let you keep your
money.
Liberals want to control your money, but will let you keep your
life.

What bullshit. Kerry is advocating a draft ("mandatory service")
for all young adults. No "Conservative" is doing that.

Umm, the draft's already mandatory. It's part of the law.

No, registration for the draft is mandatory, and only for men.
The draft itself is inactive. No one is being drafted NOW.

But Kerry proposed mandatory service for all high school students.
And Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of NY pushed a bill in Congress
for mandatory military service.

Forced servitude to the state is a common thing in socialist countries,
so it is no surprise that the Democrats are pushing it.

And show me someone from either side that is willing to let
competent adults make their own decisions about what they
eat, drink, breath, smoke or inject into themselves !

To quote your own words, "> What bullshit."

I see no meaning in your response.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 23:23:35 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:03:21 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

That's not what's stopping them. What is stopping them is that they
wouldn't be able to get the oil for many years.

Notwithstanding the evil of mass murder on such an incomprehensible
scale.

The oil is away from population centers, no problem.


And I must admit, it's not inconceivable that the people waging
the "war" are trying to minimize collateral damage.

Are they evil, or just participating in somebody's karma?

;^j
Rich
------------
Those two things are the same. We have languished in every war that
we did not finally become grimly mercilous in prosecuting. Dresden,
Hiroshima/Nagasaki, those were turning points, we stoppped > > apologizing
for collateral damage and INTENDED to kill civilians, which is
where
a nation's power resides. We feel shamefaced later, perhaps, but
it
takes that to win decisively, or a mere cessation results, and not
a victory. The army that controls all news and kills barbarically
always wins. Anything less wastes our soldiers' lives on > > half-hearted
efforts taking and re-taking the same ground. The army that > > obliterates
any resistive city, faction or region to make a horrific example
of
them, is the one who has no more such trouble after they have made
their "will to win" QUITE clear to their enemy, even if they must > > kill
EVERY ENEMY CIVILIAN! An enemy will resist until they are certain > > they
will be killed to the last baby if they do not surrender!


This is extremely sick.
-------------------

But true.

At least in those instances, the US didn't _start_ the bloody thing.
----------------

We didn't "start" 9/11 or the first gulf war.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 05:14:07 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 23:23:35 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:03:21 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

That's not what's stopping them. What is stopping them is that they
wouldn't be able to get the oil for many years.

Notwithstanding the evil of mass murder on such an incomprehensible
scale.

The oil is away from population centers, no problem.


And I must admit, it's not inconceivable that the people waging
the "war" are trying to minimize collateral damage.

Are they evil, or just participating in somebody's karma?

;^j
Rich
------------
Those two things are the same. We have languished in every war that
we did not finally become grimly mercilous in prosecuting. Dresden,
Hiroshima/Nagasaki, those were turning points, we stoppped > > apologizing
for collateral damage and INTENDED to kill civilians, which is
where
a nation's power resides. We feel shamefaced later, perhaps, but
it
takes that to win decisively, or a mere cessation results, and not
a victory. The army that controls all news and kills barbarically
always wins. Anything less wastes our soldiers' lives on > > half-hearted
efforts taking and re-taking the same ground. The army that > > obliterates
any resistive city, faction or region to make a horrific example
of
them, is the one who has no more such trouble after they have made
their "will to win" QUITE clear to their enemy, even if they must > > kill
EVERY ENEMY CIVILIAN! An enemy will resist until they are certain > > they
will be killed to the last baby if they do not surrender!


This is extremely sick.
-------------------
But true.


At least in those instances, the US didn't _start_ the bloody thing.
----------------
We didn't "start" 9/11 or the first gulf war.

No, but neither of them are killing people today. The US _did_ start

the one people are dying of while we talk about who needs history
lessons.

Ach, why do I try to teach a stone to think?

Stupe.