FWD: Saddam Hussein Found Guilty & Sentenced to Hang!

Rand Simberg heeft uiteengezet op 5-11-2006 :
On 5 Nov 2006 12:35:06 -0500, in a place far, far away,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:

If the Dems don't regain control of either house, it will be largely
because of lunatic ravings like this.

Democrats - give me a break. They are just as screwed up as the
Republicans, with their right-wing policies shrouded in window dressing.

Still, there is little question that the current administration has
committed war crimes - and presumably they will see justice at some point -
or perhaps they will simply run away and hide in South America somewhere
...

In your dreams. Which is to say, loony leftist fantasies.

Euh.. Guys, this is NOT a politics newsgroup (or am I missing something
here?)

(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) wrote in news:454e19aa$1
@news.sentex.net:

In article ,
OM wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...dam/index.html

...The only thing that would have made this more fun was if John
DeLancie was the judge!

The only thing that would be more fun would be if Bush, Cheney,
and Rumsfield were also sentanced to the gallows for their
war crimes.

The US will not try them for war crimes (at most, they could be impeached),
and the US will not give them up for trial in another country. So if you
want them, you'll have to take them by force. The US will utterly destroy
anyone who tries.

Now *that* would be fun to watch...


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:

Still, there is little question that the current administration has committed
war crimes - and presumably they will see justice at some point - or
perhaps they will simply run away and hide in South America somewhere ...

In your dreams. Which is to say, loony leftist fantasies.

Why do Americans not have the ability to think about politics in
anything more than left/right - it's so 2-Dimensional. Has the ability
to have a rational discussion been exercised from the USA? Why are
Americans so narrow-minded? It's no wonder your country has become such
a disaster in the last quarter-century or so! It's so sad.

So while I believe the current administration should be charged for their
war crimes, I also believe the best solution in Iraq at the moment is
putting in another 200,000 or so US troops (best solution would have been
not to invade the only secular Islamic nation in the Middle East - but
that door has closed!). Tell me, is that a "looney leftist fantasy"?

Nick
know me well, think I'm right-wing

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:

Why are
Americans so narrow-minded?

Why do you beat your kids?

Because their mother is American!

It's no wonder your country has become such
a disaster in the last quarter-century or so! It's so sad.

laughing

You obviously know nothing about our country.

Sadly, I know way too much!

Nick

Nicholas Fitzpatrick wrote:

You obviously know nothing about [the US].

Sadly, I know way too much!

Please don't hesitate to head down to the nearest US border crossing and
brief the officials on duty about your findings. They are very
open-minded folks and would love to hear more. Moreover, if what you
tell them is interesting enough, it's virtually guaranteed that they'll
pass it on to their superiors.

--
Dave Michelson

On 5 Nov 2006 15:01:21 -0500, in a place far, far away,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

But answer these questions? Why is there so much visual poverty in the
USA if the country is so rich?

Poor in this country live materially much better than royalty did a
century ago. There is no true poverty in the US, visual or otherwise,
except for those who choose it, or are mentally ill (generally the
same thing).

Why are there neighbourhoods that people are not safe to walk in,
in daylight!

Mostly because of our nutty drug policies.

Why is the crime rate
so much higher than most places, yet the prison population is 10 times
higher than most places!

Again, our nutty drug policies.

In any other nation, if one of these issues
occurred, there would be work to get rid of it. In the USA, it seems all
anyone does is finger-point.

Yes, that's what we mean by your not knowing much about it. We have
in fact spent trillions of dollars over the years in an attempt to
address these problems. It may not be effective (welfare rarely is),
but it's more than "finger pointing."

It's so sad to see such a potentially great nation screw up so badly.

It's not a "potentially" great nation. No modifier on "great nation"
is required.

In article H9r3h.264826$R63.210146@pd7urf1no,
Dave Michelson wrote:

Please don't hesitate to head down to the nearest US border crossing and
brief the officials on duty about your findings. They are very
open-minded folks and would love to hear more. Moreover, if what you
tell them is interesting enough, it's virtually guaranteed that they'll
pass it on to their superiors.

In my experience, US border guards, really don't seem
that open-minded ... tough to tell, often when I'm passing through the
border, they seem more interested at making snide remarks to each other
about who they've got in lock-up, than doing a professional job.

But answer these questions? Why is there so much visual poverty in the
USA if the country is so rich? Why are there neighbourhoods that
people are not safe to walk in, in daylight! Why is the crime rate
so much higher than most places, yet the prison population is 10 times
higher than most places! In any other nation, if one of these issues
occurred, there would be work to get rid of it. In the USA, it seems all
anyone does is finger-point.

It's so sad to see such a potentially great nation screw up so badly.

Nick

On 5 Nov 2006 17:29:48 -0500, in a place far, far away,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:

Poor in this country live materially much better than royalty did a
century ago. There is no true poverty in the US, visual or otherwise,
except for those who choose it, or are mentally ill (generally the
same thing).

There is no poverty in the US, visual or otherwise, except for those
who choose it? My god, are you absolutely blind and insane???

No. Neither. Didn't you read what I wrote?

Why are there neighbourhoods that people are not safe to walk in,
in daylight!

Mostly because of our nutty drug policies.

Drug policies? What are you getting at. Drug policies are much harsher
in the USA than most places.

That's what I mean.

And drug usage is lower in the USA than
most places. Are you saying it is the harsh drug polices that create
unsafe neighbourhoods?

Yes. Just as prohibition created the mafia and organized crime, the
current drug laws drive up prices, eliminate legitimate drug sellers,
and fund modern street gangs.

On 5 Nov 2006 18:00:52 -0500, in a place far, far away,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:

No. Neither. Didn't you read what I wrote?

I did, but it seemed to be blaming the poor for their problems.

I'm saying that there are very few truly poor here. The ones that
are, are poor due to their own choices and behavior. If you want to
call that "blaming the poor for their problems," then so be it. If
you choose to subsidize bad choices and behavior, you're likely to get
a lot more of it.

Rather
than acknowledging that society as a whole has created the circumstances
that these problems thrive.

Why would I "acknowledge" something that's untrue?

Again, we spend hundreds of billions every year on federal programs to
keep people out of poverty. If people choose not to take advantage of
them, there's not much more to be done.

On 5 Nov 2006 17:57:40 -0500, in a place far, far away,
(Nicholas Fitzpatrick) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article .com,
wrote:
do we even HAVE 200,000 or 300,000 troops available with all the
equiptement needed to support them for a extended stay in iraq?

frankly this should of been done BEFORE invasion....

Yes, it should have. And there were even those inside the administration
pointing this out.

today its too late......

Not really. Put a draft in place. Ramp up training. Drop a few
billion dollars. It will take 2 or 3 years to get into place, but
I really don't see any alternative now.

better a civil war starts and we withdraw to the borders so the mess
doesnt spill into other countries.....

So it would be cleaner to occupy Iran, Libya, and Saudi Arabia? I think
that would only make things worse.

I don't think we should necessarily "occupy" any of them. But we
should continue to toss out or kill leaders of governments that
support terrorism. Eventually, they'll get the message.