usual suspect wrote:
>
> frlcnt wrote:

What's the matter with you? Why are you calling me a "****"?

> >>You forget that we had over forty nations
> >>supporting us in the build up to war.
> >
> > You mean like these:
> >
> > http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...030327-10.html
> >
> > Yep, Latvia has our back.
> >
> > Please note the first sentence of the press release. Most of the
> > nations listed are poor, small and politically unimportant
>
> You elitist snob.

No, my comment above does not reflect on the intrinsic worth of the
people of these nations, only on the value of these nations as wartime
allies.
>
> > and even they
> > were bamboozled into declaring their support by the BIG, FAT LIE about
> > the presence of weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Bamboozled? We gave more than one reason for going to war.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. Saddam isn't nice.

> Those reasons
> are all still operative. Have you read the preliminary report from David
> Kay? If you did, you'd understand Kay's bewilderment at how the media
> overlooked EVERYthing he wrote in it just to claim no WMD program existed.
>
> Here, read it yourself you old cow:

I don't consider myself "old" and I have no physical features that could
be seen as cow-like.

> http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...ter_2089.shtml
>
> Please note the following:

> We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities

BFD. Does the US have WMD-related programme activities? Where do we
get off deciding who can possess such programs and who cannot?

> and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from
> the United Nations.

The US won't even pay UN dues, do you think we would allow UN delegates
to search our military bases?
>
> The very scale of this programme when coupled with the
> conditions in Iraq

Conditions created by US bombing and occupation.

> that have prevailed since the end of
> Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move
> to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities.
>
> Etc.
>
> The Iraqi people are much better off than they were.

So are the US businesses holding the contracts for the re-building of
Iraq.

> Once again you're on the wrong side of history. You chose tyranny in Central
> America,

Like supporting the FSLN in its war of liberation against US-backed
Somoza?

> and you're choosing it again. Shame on you.
>
Shame on you for suggesting that the US gives one flying **** about the
welfare of Iraqi people.
> >
> > The highest approval rating I could find was 73%.
>
> Wow, nearly three out of every four. I'm *so* prone to exaggeration.
>
> > This was before it was revealed that the presence of weapons of
> > mass destruction was a BIG, FAT LIE.
>
> Go read Kay's preliminary report, you depraved skank. We've already
> uncovered aspects of Saddam's WMD programs that were in violation of UN
> resolutions.

Israel is in violation of UN resolutions. When will the US bombs start
to fall?

> Media distortions of what's happening will eventually be
> corrected and everyone will know the truth. What will you bitch about then?
>
> > Interestingly, 29% of the 73% had a close relative or friend
> > serving in the military.
>
> Not interesting at all given that we sent tens of thousands of soldiers,
> sailors, airmen, and Marines.

It's the tainting of the approval rate by this fact that's interesting,
stupid.
>
> > This makes the 'majority approval rate' more a
> > matter of personal interest than political support.
>
> Oh yeah? Ask the families whose members serve in the regular service or
> reserves if they'd support these actions and see.

Can't you read? These _are_ the 29%.

> The kind of people you find in military families are the kind you don't like; they
> tend to believe strongly in duty, family, country, and tend to support their
> President regardless of party.

I don't think blind allegiance to duty, family, country or president is
a noble stand.

> I think you're really reaching in trying
> to minimize the level, and depth, of support.
>
73% - 29% = 44% When adjusted for personal interest bias, the poll with
the most favorable (to the administration) approval rate shows the
majority of Americans did not support initiating a war against Iraq.

> What percentage of those who didn't know someone heading to Iraq opposed
> the war?

You're the president's cheerleader, you tell me.
>
> > (snip)
> >
> >>>(It may be right for OTHER reasons, of course. Just like the War in
> >>>Iraq may be right for other reasons.)
> >>
> >>Plenty of reasons.
> >
> > Like?
>
> Humanitarian: Saddam was a brutal thug who ran his country in a most
> unconscionable manner.

This can be said about a number of current rulers.

> His repression served only himself, his family,
> and his cronies;

This can be said about many current rulers.

> the rest of Iraq languished.

Do you think this could have anything to do with a decade long oil
blockade?

> Like our other wars, we
> will leave the nation better off than we found it.

How do you plan on restoring the antiquities lost?

> Power is restored,
> schools are again open, and we have plans to help with infrastructure
> and hospitals.

That's nice. First we destroy the infrastructure, then we're pay
ourselves to rebuild it with the proceeds from the sale of Iraqi oil.
>
> Regional threat: Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors. No? Ask Iran.
> Ask Kuwait. Ask the Saudis. Ask Jordan.

That's funny, I only see only two of Iraq's neighbors, Kuwait and
Turkey, on the list of nations supporting the war.

> With Saddam out of play, the
> Iranians no longer have justification for continuing with their own WMD
> programs (their cooperation with IAEA is slowly moving along).

If they don't move fast enough or far enough for our liking, would you
support a war against Iran?

> The fact that Saddam was deposed led to our mutual decision with the Saudis to
> withdraw our troops from that nation.

Thanks ever so much.
>
> Anti-terrorism: Saddam allowed terror groups and individual terrorists
> safe passage in and through his borders.

There is no confirmed link between Iraq and state sponsored terrorist
acts against Americans.

> We attacked one al-Qaeda camp in northern Iraq in the first weeks of actions.

Proof? You'll have to do better than an aerial shot of an
indistinguishable training camp.

> Saddam had Abu Abbas
> killed in the months leading up to the war. Abu Abbas, if you've
> forgotten, was the mastermind behind the hijacking of the cruise ship
> Achille Lauro. We also have intel that an al-Qaeda operative (Zarqawi)
> received medical treatment in Baghdad after fleeing US reprisals in
> Afghanistan.

Is the presence of one or two known criminals sufficient cause to
declare war on an entire nation of people?
>
> > (snip)
> >
> >>This is about animals, not Iraq. That said, hunting does not affect
> >>vegetarians or urban dwellers. It does affect countryfolk and hunters
> >>and people who eat meat. You are still trying to force them to live
> >>according to your weak, shattered conscience. Your intolerance is on
> >>full display.
> >
> > If someone decided to shoot 'your' feral cats, would you tolerate it as
> > a matter of their personal choice?
>
> Irrelevant, since the ferals are within the city limits and are thus
> protected from such actions.

It is not irrelevant for the purpose of revealing if you do, indeed,
consider killing animals, not the property of anyone, a matter of
personal choice.
>
> > I'm "affected" everytime a whitetail bleeds out in the short grass or a
> > duck is blasted out of the sky.
>
> Ipse dixit, but you *are* quite affected.

It was your misuse of the word. That's why I was careful to use
quotation marks.

> Whitetails are more likely to
> bleed to death from internal injuries after being hit by cars than from
> arrows or bullets.

Irrelevant. Normally, when a car hits an animal, it's an accident.
Isn't this true in Texas?

> Do you also seek to ban driving?
>
No, but I think lower speed limits should be enforced at dawn and dusk
to accommodate deer and other wildlife on the move. I think in areas of
high deer concentrations fences should be installed, funneling deer to
well-posted crossing areas and all drivers should be on notice that deer
are likely to be present.

> > (snip)
> >>>In animal experimentation and factory farming, the billions of animals
> >>>tortured and murdered each year for no good reason form the REAL
> >>>majority.
> >>
> >>Animals are neither tortured
> >
> > Yes, they are. Do a PubMed search on pain management experimentation or
> > burn research. Exemptions for pain relief requirements are readily
> > granted whenever analgesics would interfere with the purpose of the
> > study. There's a category for these laboratory animals, "Pain and
> > Distress without Relief". We don't know how many are suffering because
> > no one keeps track of the most frequently used species, mus and rattus.
>
> No need for PubMed. You call it torture, I call it valid and important
> research.

Nonetheless, it is the intentional infliction of unrelieved pain.
That's torture, no matter what goal is achieved. Japanese soldiers
sought valid and important research on naval movements when they crammed
bamboo sticks under the fingernails of Allied prisoners of war. Does
that mean what they did was not torture?
>
> >>or murdered.
> >>specific legal definition.
> >
> > Bullshit!
>
> No, I'm correct. You seek to use certain words for emotional impact
> rather than accurate and genuine description. That's fine. It's still
> hyperbole.
>
> > People can use language in whatever way they want to
> > highlight import and lend emotive meaning to a word.
>
> I haven't denied anyone the use of such language but I will always point
> out that emotive meanings often have NO basis in reality. You lead with
> your feelings, I'll lead with intellect.

That means you pretty much will suck as a lover, friend, son, brother,
husband and father. Congratulations.
>
> > Lucily, it's not
> > within your power to limit language to technical wording and legalese.
>
> Engage in emotive appeals, sophistry, and semantics all you want, just
> know that it isn't intellectually stimulating.

Unlike the official press release from the CIA chief, you mean?

> You'll only preach to
> your choir.

Ditto.

(snip)

> > Here we go again. That's all you and Ball have, a lame accusation that
> > people who support animal rights are insincere and disingenous. All
> > this does is highlight the strictures of your own moral universe.
>
> You and other ARAs have yet to show sincerity and genuine concern for
> others and other species.

Describe a demonstration of sincere and genuine concern for others and
other species.

> You are misanthropic, and you only use
> "compassion" for animals as a cover for your hatred of mankind.

I neither hate nor love humans as a group. My feelings about humans are
constructed on a case by case basis.
>
> >>you
> >>are merely an ideologue. Animals do not participate in democratic
> >>processes among their own species
> >
> > Most humans alive today do not particicapte in democratic processes.
> > What's your point?
>
> Ask the nitwit to whom I replied what his was. Animals do NOT have
> rights -- ontologically,

Existence bestows basic rights, though offers no protection for those
rights.

> naturally,

Do humans?

> legally.

Laws change. A hundred years ago, women, workers and children had few
rights.

(snip)

> > The rules in a feral cat colony are pretty inflexible, every cat knows
> > them, youngsters are taught them, and those that choose to breech them
> > are ruthlessly punished or exiled. Feral cats don't vote, but they're
> > more socialized than humans.
>
> Anthropomorphism

Not at all, years of observation of the social behavior of feral cats.
Read Leyhausen if you need a biologist's confirmation.

> and misanthropy.
>
Why? Because I say that cat society is more strictly organized than
human society? You're overly sensitive.
>
> Killing isn't the aim of terrorists.

I didn't say it was, did I? Killing is a tool.

> It's not easy to scare those whom
> you kill.

Ummm, you sure got me there.

> Terrorism is a crime of mind as much as a crime of assault,
> it's an attempt to extort something from others using intimidation
> rather than reason.
>
I'll go along with that and add that it is the last resort of those
without a legitimate channel to satisfy their socio/politico/economic
needs.

> > AR activists are liberators and vandals.
>
> No, you're terrorists. You seek to force others through your use of
> violent action to do what you cannot get them to do with reason or facts
> mainly because you have neither.

Sometimes you have to settle for punishment and revenge.

> Your views are radical and have no
> popular appeal

That can be said about every historical movement for the advancement of
rights.

>, which is why public sentiments are growing against your
> radical movement.

Prove it.

> Does liberation include setting loose animals which will kill livestock

Isn't it up to the farmer to protect his chickens and rabbits from mink,
wild and captive-bred?

> and other members of its own species who aren't littermates?

Are you talking about territoriality among muselids? It's true a life
of captivity might make animals ill-equipped to organize themselves in
the wild, but if one survives, it's a victory.

> That's insane, Mary.

I'm not Mary. Mary is my housemate. She follows the Atkin's diet and
is currently vacationing in Munich.

> You're only a lawless

Laws are like language, they're changeable..

> and antisocial

I spent two days last week distributing groceries from the Food Bank to
house-bound seniors. What have you done for humans lately? I mean,
besides throwing tourist dollars at them.

> charlatan.

Aren't we all?

> Your principles shallow

Hey, that's what I was going to say about you.

> and your contempt for mankind is deep.

Correction: My contempt for some members of "mankind" is deep.
Clearly, you feel the same.
>
> >>Review the
> >>list of articles in my previous replies to you.
> >
> > If I do will I find evidence of AR terrorists?
>
> You'll find text of your nasty little communique about Huntingdon,

The *******s! I like beagles.

> as
> well as news accounts about ALF/ELF terror activities.

Hurrah. Any humans killed? I didn't think so.