Re: I must admit. . .

[Reeza! <howree@cable.navy.mil>]

 At 06:05 AM 12/22/98 +0200, Jukka E Isosaari wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Reeza! wrote:
>
>> Perfectly acceptable to me personally. Please show how it will result in
>> proving that Iraq does not, and will not in the near or forseeable future
>> possess weapons of mass destruction that may be utilized against
>> neighbors, foreign or domestic. Or how it will result in turning the
>> public opinion, iraqi and/or american, touted by the biased US press in
>> such a fashion that it would result in a munificent display of openness,
>> agreeablility, and welcoming to the UN inspectors by the iraqi hosts. Or
>> show how Hussein is now trustworthy, and thereby qualified by the  MIB
>> office of the USG to possess said weapons.
>
>It won't. But please show how bombing the shit out of all the Iraqis will
>accomplish this either? I would imagine getting rid of the lunatic leader
>and establishing a civilized democracy with human rights in place, would
>result in a state that would not be as prone to be as aggressive or
>inclined to use weapons of mass destruction. Or isn't that the  ultimate
>goal?

Ostensibly, the reason for bombing Iraq is to remove their ability to engage in hostilities. We all know how that is supposed to work

>But you are right, I must admit, that not *all* democracies are
>non-aggressive, with USA coming to mind as an example. It seems that
>rotten people with no moral values at the top, result in aggressive
>foreign policies, no matter what the nation.
>
>The bombing will only result in creating more frustrated individuals with
>personal vendettas against the US. (People with dead children/wives, etc.)
>
>With your logic, the US is on a road to kill every non-american on  this
>planet, in order to ensure their own safety. 

I'm not so sure- we did not engage in hostilities against Iraq until AFTER they invaded Kuwait. We did cease and desist when requested by other middle east sovereignties who were members of the UN coalition. 

>Actually, this has been evident quite some time in the US foreign policy: 
>The *only* lives that matter are the American ones. It is also very evident
>in the US film industry (national propaganda/brainwashing machine). Just
>how many war movies have you seen where the US special-forces squads
>venture into the vietnam/arabs and kill hundreds or thousands of people in
>order to save a few US prisoners? Try thinking that in reverse, an  Arab
>squad coming into the US, and killing hundreds of US citizens to save a few
>arabs, for a change. Seeing a few movies like that would do some good to a
>lot of americans in restoring their respect for universal human life. 
>
>Anyway, the point I am trying to make in this, is that the americans don't
>in general seem to put any value on human life, *unless* it is an american.
>This is evident everywhere: in their film industry, their foreign politics,
>and even Bill Gates' donation policies. It seems to be a fact ever  more
>blatant. 
>
>Anyone else notice this?

You shouldn't base your life lessons on what appears on the boob tube. I'll be the first to agree the US media is wholly engaged in propaganda, that Hollywood uses films to convey political messages. Their success is dependant on a couple of factors, among them being whether the viewer is a person capable of rational thought, or a sheeple.

>> >The military is engaged
>> >in creating a threat to justify their existence and continued 
>>
>> EAT MY MILITARY FUCKING SHORTS YOU PUSSY FUCKWAD FAGGOT SON-OF-A-BITCH.
>> The powers of the military are being abused by CIVILIANS who cannot
>> fathom the true purpose of the military, think the military doesn't earn
>> its pay. I have something for YOU to earn, you ewe you.
>> 
>> >economic well-being. Saddam is worth much, much more to them when
>> >he is alive and well in Iraq.
>> 
>> OH YEAH, OH YEAH, THAT is why we dropped leaflets advocating the iraqis
>> do everything in their power to maintain their present, totalitarian
>> regime. GET A FUCKING CLUE YOU GREASY STAIN ON THIS MAILING LIST.
>
>Did I hit a nerve or something?

Yes. Something.

>Usually people resort to name-calling only when feeling badly inferior
>or in lack of any real facts to represent in defence of their case,
>and in general this justifies the strong doubt that the person in
>question is in fact a juvenile.

Or to give greater emphasis to what is being said. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, sound bites don't work on a mailing list.

>I'm sorry, but I won't waste my time on blathering kids like you. 
>
>(Please note: I've Cc:ed the root at your site, as you appear to be so
>childish, and I wouldn't know what a child is doing with a .mil account,
>so you must be using your parent's account or a hacked account,
>both of which are in general very much against the rules..

This should be interesting.

>Or, in the unlikely case that you are actually an adult, please consider
>this as an exemplary sample of Mr Zeebra's skills in delivering verbal
>attacks in defence of his country. Surely you recognize his superiors
>language skills and the qualifications he has for the assignation to the
>national ultra secret verbal cyber-warfare attack squad, designed to
>destroy the egos and PCs of all those who have not bought in to the US
>military propaganda.)
>
>In any case, I realize this is the wrong list for this discussion. 
>Please continue in private, like a good netbaby, if you feel like
>more name-calling. I've already added you to my filters.

and with a sniff and hoisting of the nose, you would step away, without defending the earlier position, only criticizing mine. You poor excuse for a respondee, put on your blinders, install your filters, stick your head into that hole in the sand.

Attn; root@cable.navy.mil- Hi!

Reeza!
============================================================================
DH Key available upon request.


The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense.


"Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt."

-- my older sister