From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #288 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Tuesday, November 30 2004 Volume 06 : Number 288 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] songs of peace, hope and promise for the future [Jim Colbert Subject: [RS] songs of peace, hope and promise for the future Hate to interrupt all the political talk, but I'm putting together the first Folk Show of the year on WPSU-fm and am looking for ideas- songs that offer peace, hope, promise for the future, that sort of thing. I want to kick off the year on a very positive note. We lean toward the more acoustic than the produced, but other than that pretty much anything is fair game. The show will open with Garnet Roger's After All. Suggestions welcome, offlist is fine. Thanks! Jim ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:18:32 -0600 From: Jason Stanley Subject: [RS] You made my point so why even argue? Holy cow. How do you argue with someone who agrees with you? Everyone says Iraq had Wmds? Isn't that what everyone that is against the war is arguing didn't exist? You say in one sentence that if he had them he would use them and in the next he had them but didn't have the weapons, the capacity or the means to use them. Again, I don't think you are in a position to say how much they had of what weapon. If they had anthrax in one house in Fallujah, do you think it is possible they had tons elsewhere that they moved? Anthrax is one of the biological weapons of mass destruction Bush was referring to. What would it take for you to say, oh I guess they did have something? Based on what you just wrote Bush didn't lie. I can cut and paste it but you can read below just as easy. Sure other other countries don't like the U.S. Fortunately they are civilized and don't cut out the tongues of dissenters or throw them off the roofs of 5 story buildings. If you are referring to other Muslim countries, like Iran, just wait until they are near getting the weapons and see what happens. The U.S. will have to act while the rest of the world says "Please stop making Wmd's. Pretty please?" Regarding Iraqis being better off. Last I saw, all the businesses, hospitals, schools are open and there are just a few pockets of resistance around the country. The terrorists have nothing to lose if there are elections and are dying like lemmings jumping off a cliff. It is sad when a civilian gets killed but from what I have read, the terrorists and their IED's are the main culprit.. In your response you mentioned the freedom we are giving them enables them to kill whomever they want? Do you really think the U.S. is responsible for that? That is why the terrorists are called terrorists. I am glad to see you at least think there is the possibility that we will prevail at this. > >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:12:05 -0500 >From: rfoxwell@wso.williams.edu >Subject: Re: [RS] (Off-topic) Did Iraq have Wmd's > >Quoting Jason Stanley : >........... > >Err...lord, I just don't know where to begin. It's difficult to tackle >"refutations" like these, because they are so broad and naive and allow the >claimant to basically get away with anything. Look, nobody thinks that Saddam >was a good guy. Nobody denies that Saddam would love to get his hands on >weapons, and would love to blow us to oblivion if he got them. Hell, nobody >denies that Saddam DID have weapons, and was doing his best to evade UN >restrictions. Okay? Don't take the cheap comeback of saying "oh yeah? Well, >look at what this guy was doing, and now tell me he wasn't bad!" That's >exactly what Bush has been struggling to do, and it's exactly the kind of crap >that we have to put up when pointing out Bush's incredible deceptions. > >Yes, Iraq had Anthrax. Yes, Iraq had missiles. Yes, Iraq was doing its best to >get other material. *But did they have the material that BUSH SAID THEY HAD? >Did they have the kind of capacity that Bush SAID THEY HAVE? No. No, no, no, >no, and no. Yes, they had bad stuff...but so does every other country with any >political clout. Yes, they would have used it given the chance...but so would >every other country that hates us (and there are many other countries who have >much greater capacity to hurt us). Yes, they would love to teach us arrogant >westerners a lesson...but so would every other country. The point is that Iraq >did NOT have *what Bush said they had*, not NEARLY the destructive capabilities >that Bush & Cheney have been scaring us with. Do not sidestep the issue by >saying "but they had bad stuff!" *Of course* they did! That is not the point, >not even close, no matter how hard Bush tries to make it the point. Lord, it's >this kind of codswallop that is supposed to make us feel bad about criticizing >our government for pulling the wool over our eyes. > >As far as honestly believing the intel reports that "fooled" the U.S. and the >British governments...well, I'm sure there are folks far more qualified than I >am who can point out how incredibly flimsy and weak our vaunted "evidence" >was...and who can point out the government's various threats and tactics used >to force various individuals to accept/sign off on the "evidence". Again, if >Bush's response to the evidence being disproven was to say "we were wrong, but >we have to forge ahead", then there would be little reason to think that we >manufactured evidence. But when he followed it up with one excuse after >another, attempting to shift focus from evidence to other issues...well, that's >what you do when you've been caught in a lie and are trying to cover your >tracks. That is not the policy of an honest government. > >God, there's so much else to say, I just don't know where else to go. I'll >limit myself to this, given that this is the issue that I weighed in on >originally. (I'll let others present the obvious case for terror of the >Patriot Act and its various guises.) I'll hit just one other thing: you say >that I'm not qualified to make determinations from intelligence reports that I >haven't read, but then you say "trust me, [the Iraqi people] are happier >without him and keeping their body parts intact"? Seriously? And you know >that how? We're just supposed to trust your expert knowledge? Never mind that >the Iraqis hate us with a vengeance. Never mind that many Iraqis have >*testified* to preferring Saddam's regime to the anarchy and rampant random >killing that we have invited/inflicted on the country. Never mind that few >"body parts" remain "intact" when they are subject to landmines, explosive >attacks, and gunfire from those who have chosen to explore the "freedom" we >have granted them by killing whomever they please. Forgive me, but no, I do >not just trust that they are better off, not when so many signs point to >exactly the opposite. Like I said earlier, I believe--though I do not >know--that there is potential to pull this out of the fire and save this >mess...but that would not change the nature of what Bush has perpetrated. > >- --Chris > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:35:01 -0500 >From: "Kristen Myshrall" >Subject: Re: [RS] Lawrence, KS show > >www.flemingartists.com/sh-itin.html > >:) Kristen > > > >>From: "kunigunda" >>Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org >>To: >>Subject: Re: [RS] Lawrence, KS show >>Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:39:37 -0600 >> >>Kristen, anybody - What schedule? It's not on the one linked to his >>website. >> >> >> >>>*grin* Yes I'm sure...trust me! Oh, I just checked... it's on Richard's >>>schedule now. >>> >>> >>Frantic for confimation in KC >>Carrie >> >> > >_________________________________________________________________ >Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! >http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ > >------------------------------ > >End of shindell-list-digest V6 #287 >*********************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:36:04 -0500 From: rfoxwell@wso.williams.edu Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic) You made my point so why even argue? My God. The obtuseness here is just...it's just stunning. I can't write now, I have to go shake this off and try again later. I'm more scared than ever that more than half of the country possesses a mindset like this, lacking any sort of subtlety or nuance. My lord. Canada doesn't feel far enough away right now. I'll be back when I've had a chance to collect my jaw from the floor. Quoting Jason Stanley : > Holy cow. How do you argue with someone who agrees with you? > Everyone says Iraq had Wmds? Isn't that what everyone that is against > the war is arguing didn't exist? > You say in one sentence that if he had them he would use them and in the > next he had them but didn't have the weapons, the capacity or the means > to use them. Again, I don't think you are in a position to say how much > they had of what weapon. If they had anthrax in one house in Fallujah, > do you think it is possible they had tons elsewhere that they moved? > Anthrax is one of the biological weapons of mass destruction Bush was > referring to. What would it take for you to say, oh I guess they did > have something? Based on what you just wrote Bush didn't lie. > I can cut and paste it but you can read below just as easy. Sure other > other countries don't like the U.S. Fortunately they are civilized and > don't cut out the tongues of dissenters or throw them off the roofs of 5 > story buildings. If you are referring to other Muslim countries, like > Iran, just wait until they are near getting the weapons and see what > happens. The U.S. will have to act while the rest of the world says > "Please stop making Wmd's. Pretty please?" > Regarding Iraqis being better off. Last I saw, all the businesses, > hospitals, schools are open and there are just a few pockets of > resistance around the country. The terrorists have nothing to lose if > there are elections and are dying like lemmings jumping off a cliff. It > is sad when a civilian gets killed but from what I have read, the > terrorists and their IED's are the main culprit.. In your response you > mentioned the freedom we are giving them enables them to kill whomever > they want? Do you really think the U.S. is responsible for that? That > is why the terrorists are called terrorists. > I am glad to see you at least think there is the possibility that we > will prevail at this. > > > > >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:12:05 -0500 > >From: rfoxwell@wso.williams.edu > >Subject: Re: [RS] (Off-topic) Did Iraq have Wmd's > > > >Quoting Jason Stanley : > >........... > > > >Err...lord, I just don't know where to begin. It's difficult to tackle > >"refutations" like these, because they are so broad and naive and allow the > >claimant to basically get away with anything. Look, nobody thinks that > Saddam > >was a good guy. Nobody denies that Saddam would love to get his hands on > >weapons, and would love to blow us to oblivion if he got them. Hell, > nobody > >denies that Saddam DID have weapons, and was doing his best to evade UN > >restrictions. Okay? Don't take the cheap comeback of saying "oh yeah? > Well, > >look at what this guy was doing, and now tell me he wasn't bad!" That's > >exactly what Bush has been struggling to do, and it's exactly the kind of > crap > >that we have to put up when pointing out Bush's incredible deceptions. > > > >Yes, Iraq had Anthrax. Yes, Iraq had missiles. Yes, Iraq was doing its > best to > >get other material. *But did they have the material that BUSH SAID THEY > HAD? > >Did they have the kind of capacity that Bush SAID THEY HAVE? No. No, no, > no, > >no, and no. Yes, they had bad stuff...but so does every other country with > any > >political clout. Yes, they would have used it given the chance...but so > would > >every other country that hates us (and there are many other countries who > have > >much greater capacity to hurt us). Yes, they would love to teach us > arrogant > >westerners a lesson...but so would every other country. The point is that > Iraq > >did NOT have *what Bush said they had*, not NEARLY the destructive > capabilities > >that Bush & Cheney have been scaring us with. Do not sidestep the issue by > >saying "but they had bad stuff!" *Of course* they did! That is not the > point, > >not even close, no matter how hard Bush tries to make it the point. Lord, > it's > >this kind of codswallop that is supposed to make us feel bad about > criticizing > >our government for pulling the wool over our eyes. > > > >As far as honestly believing the intel reports that "fooled" the U.S. and > the > >British governments...well, I'm sure there are folks far more qualified than > I > >am who can point out how incredibly flimsy and weak our vaunted "evidence" > >was...and who can point out the government's various threats and tactics > used > >to force various individuals to accept/sign off on the "evidence". Again, > if > >Bush's response to the evidence being disproven was to say "we were wrong, > but > >we have to forge ahead", then there would be little reason to think that we > >manufactured evidence. But when he followed it up with one excuse after > >another, attempting to shift focus from evidence to other issues...well, > that's > >what you do when you've been caught in a lie and are trying to cover your > >tracks. That is not the policy of an honest government. > > > >God, there's so much else to say, I just don't know where else to go. I'll > >limit myself to this, given that this is the issue that I weighed in on > >originally. (I'll let others present the obvious case for terror of the > >Patriot Act and its various guises.) I'll hit just one other thing: you > say > >that I'm not qualified to make determinations from intelligence reports that > I > >haven't read, but then you say "trust me, [the Iraqi people] are happier > >without him and keeping their body parts intact"? Seriously? And you know > >that how? We're just supposed to trust your expert knowledge? Never mind > that > >the Iraqis hate us with a vengeance. Never mind that many Iraqis have > >*testified* to preferring Saddam's regime to the anarchy and rampant random > >killing that we have invited/inflicted on the country. Never mind that few > >"body parts" remain "intact" when they are subject to landmines, explosive > >attacks, and gunfire from those who have chosen to explore the "freedom" we > >have granted them by killing whomever they please. Forgive me, but no, I > do > >not just trust that they are better off, not when so many signs point to > >exactly the opposite. Like I said earlier, I believe--though I do not > >know--that there is potential to pull this out of the fire and save this > >mess...but that would not change the nature of what Bush has perpetrated. > > > >- --Chris > > > >------------------------------ > > > >Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:35:01 -0500 > >From: "Kristen Myshrall" > >Subject: Re: [RS] Lawrence, KS show > > > >www.flemingartists.com/sh-itin.html > > > >:) Kristen > > > > > > > >>From: "kunigunda" > >>Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org > >>To: > >>Subject: Re: [RS] Lawrence, KS show > >>Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:39:37 -0600 > >> > >>Kristen, anybody - What schedule? It's not on the one linked to his > >>website. > >> > >> > >> > >>>*grin* Yes I'm sure...trust me! Oh, I just checked... it's on Richard's > >>>schedule now. > >>> > >>> > >>Frantic for confimation in KC > >>Carrie > >> > >> > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! > >http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ > > > >------------------------------ > > > >End of shindell-list-digest V6 #287 > >*********************************** ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #288 ***********************************