From: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org (angry-psychos-digest) To: angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Subject: angry-psychos-digest V7 #297 Reply-To: angry-psychos@smoe.org Sender: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "angry-psychos-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. angry-psychos-digest Friday, October 25 2002 Volume 07 : Number 297 Today's Subjects: ----------------- NPR: Re: war on terrorism/sniper [LivTheMdns@aol.com] Re: NPR: Re: war on terrorism/sniper [joe aronow ] Re: NPR: Re: war on terrorism/sniper [LivTheMdns@aol.com] NPR: Sniper & son [tohaveaplan@att.net] NPR: gullible [Sharonda220@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 01:30:29 EDT From: LivTheMdns@aol.com Subject: NPR: Re: war on terrorism/sniper In a message dated 10/23/2002 1:25:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sparrkle_goddess@hotmail.com writes: > > I am not middle eastern. I am North American. I am scared that if the > Us > goes to War with Iraq that they will unleash these weapons of mass > distruction for which they are so critically attacking iraq and korea. All > > that will happen is we will distroy ourselves and solve nothing. Why dont > we just let countries be. The Only way to world peace is to stay out of > each others business. > > Whatever, > Carolyn > 1. We will not use weapons of mass destruction. Have you heard anyone speaking of using any sort of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq? (Not to say that Saddam and/or Osama catching a case of anthrax would bother me in the least) 2. The argument for isolationism does have its strong points. It has already been a policy of the US. We re-adopted it right after World War I and had some temporary success and only experienced a few minor problems (see: World War II). The difference between us having control of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq having control of them is like the difference between a hunter in VA having a gun and the DC sniper having a gun... the weapon is the same, but the user is downright scary. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:44:00 -0700 (PDT) From: joe aronow Subject: Re: NPR: Re: war on terrorism/sniper 1. We will not use weapons of mass destruction. Have you heard anyone speaking of using any sort of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq? (Not to say that Saddam and/or Osama catching a case of anthrax would bother me in the least) No we have not used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq, unless you count Fuel Air Explosive (the most powerful non-nuclear explosive in the world I do believe. But we already have used weapons of mass destruction: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mushrooms anyone? Also the U.S. has used soldiers and civilians in its testing. Most notably, during the Tuskegee experiments (the deilberate infecting of blacks with V.D.) and during the 1950's by having soldiers walk into the fallout area of atomic weapons being developed. 2. The argument for isolationism does have its strong points. It has already been a policy of the US. We re-adopted it right after World War I and had some temporary success and only experienced a few minor problems (see: World War II). The difference between us having control of weapons of mass destruction and Iraq having control of them is like the difference between a hunter in VA having a gun and the DC sniper having a gun... the weapon is the same, but the user is downright scary. Isolation will not work. Especially with an economy as large as the U.S. THe last time the U.S. tried isolationism, both economically and politically, world economic depression followed suit. What I am in favor of is armed weapons inspection teams. We give the Iraqi's 30 minute warning that the inspection teams are coming and resistance will be met with an armed assault. ===== I ask for only three simple things: a warm bed, a hot meal, and ultimate power. Out the 10Base-T, through the router, down the T1, over the leased line, off the bridge, past the firewall...nothing but Net. Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 02:21:26 EDT From: LivTheMdns@aol.com Subject: Re: NPR: Re: war on terrorism/sniper In a message dated 10/23/2002 10:44:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, forsaken26@yahoo.com writes: > 1. We will not use weapons of mass destruction. Have > you heard anyone > speaking of using any sort of weapons of mass > destruction against Iraq? > (Not > to say that Saddam and/or Osama catching a case of > anthrax would bother > me in > the least) > > No we have not used weapons of mass destruction > against Iraq, unless you count Fuel Air Explosive (the > most powerful non-nuclear explosive in the world I do > believe. But we already have used weapons of mass > destruction: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mushrooms anyone? > Also the U.S. has used soldiers and civilians in its > testing. Most notably, during the Tuskegee experiments > (the deilberate infecting of blacks with V.D.) and > during the 1950's by having soldiers walk into the > fallout area of atomic weapons being developed. No, I've never heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (that's sarcasm, see below). I've also never heard of the Tuskeegee experiments with syphilis, I've never heard of the government exposing civilians to radiation (especially before anyone fully comprehended the effects of radiation). I've also never heard of the government exposing 7th Day Adventists to C. burnetii, testing the dispersal of serratia from ships in the San Francisco ports or testing the spread of B. globigii throughout the New York subway system. I've never heard of the binary shells used by the government to keep two precursors of chemical weapons separated until firing them (a loophole in the ban) and I've never heard of recruits being exposed to drops of mustard agents as part of their training. I never said that the government hasn't done some pretty rotten and questionable things. I also would defend some of these actions because hindsight is always 20/20 and often shows a bigger landscape (some of the things that are now known dangerous were thought harmless before). I never said that we never did use weapons of mass destruction... that would be ignoring those mushroom clouds that I know nothing about. I'm just saying that weapons of mass destruction use against Iraq hasn't been thought about too seriously, and that it's not too agreeable with what the US wishes to get done there (regime change, WMD control). Iraq has a very high literacy rate (Mid 90's I believe). I get the feeling that forming a new democracy (you know... with more than one candidate on the ballots) is entirely possible for that nation. > > 2. The argument for isolationism does have its strong > points. It has > already been a policy of the US. We re-adopted it > right after World > War I > and had some temporary success and only experienced a > few minor > problems > (see: World War II). The difference between us having > control of > weapons of > mass destruction and Iraq having control of them is > like the difference > between a hunter in VA having a gun and the DC sniper > having a gun... > the > weapon is the same, but the user is downright scary. > > Isolation will not work. Especially with an economy as > large as the U.S. THe last time the U.S. tried > isolationism, both economically and politically, world > economic depression followed suit. What I am in favor > of is armed weapons inspection teams. We give the > Iraqi's 30 minute warning that the inspection teams > are coming and resistance will be met with an armed > assault. My support of isolationism was 100% pure sarcasm. I didn't expect anyone to actually think I was serious. Armed inspectors isn't the solution, most of the inspectors aren't very well trained in shooting people and probably would not do well in a fire fight. I am in favor of the inspections though, since if Saddam decided that he will put up a fight and keep them locked out of sites, the US would be more justified in launching an attack, and would not have to worry about as much criticism for their loss of the moral high ground. My last reply to this thread before going off list and sending stuff out privately. Mike - --- I was offered a penny for my thoughts, I put in my two cents and ended up losing money on the deal. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:15:37 +0000 From: tohaveaplan@att.net Subject: NPR: Sniper & son Well, today all of our theories are laid to rest. It was not the Zodiac killer (well, probably not). Not terrorsits (well, probably not). And from what I can tell not some stoopid backwoods yokel (again, probably not since he is from Jersey- all the backwoods are chemical plants now). Which brings me back to what I said yesterday- that it is just a couple of assholes killing innocent people with the intention of making a quick buck (or ten million of them). The whole sniper thing boils down to as stupid a plan as some guy wanting to kill hostages to get out of a bank he just robbed- except the jerkoff didn't want to put himself in a position of being cornered. I am sure we will hear all about the guy's mental disorder with those in uniform since he was a military guy- but it all boils down to money and a total lack of humanity. I take back what I said yesterday about putting them in solitary. I hope they put him in the general population and let the inmates take care of them. And I pray the 17-y-o is tried as an adult. BTW: anyone know if the death penalty is an option in MD? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:53:45 EDT From: Sharonda220@aol.com Subject: NPR: gullible I am just pissed off at how gullible people around me are. Maybe not even just gullible but willing to look the other way. My boyfriend's roommate believes the guy he found in bed with his girlfriend two months ago when he says they didn't do anything. You've got to be kidding me. My boyfriend's parents believe that their middle son just happened to "find" a bike and decided to keep it. That just pisses me off. Part of the reason is because my boyfriend hates me dad because my dad doesn't like him and we always fight about it. Like he insults my family because my mom doesn't keep our house as neat as his parents do but he doesn't have a diploma. His sister is about to have her 3rd kid at age 20 and now his younger brother steals all kinds of crap. That pisses me off. My kids are not going to be like that. My family may be messy but hey! I would never trade that for morals. I wish that there was more of an emphasis on parental responsibility in this country. Shari ------------------------------ End of angry-psychos-digest V7 #297 ***********************************