On Aug 2, 7:49 am, Reg > wrote:
> maxine in ri wrote:
> > This morning they're saying that the design was one that (hopefully)
> > was not repeated very often. No pylons, and no suspension supports
> > for a large chunk of the span, just the roadbed and beams under it for
> > support. My guess is the current work which had lanes closed put too
> > much stress on one side of the highway. Lots of barge traffic in the
> > area, so they didn't want to impede or put too many obstacles in the
> > way. Now they have all that nice rubble to clear out (while looking
> > for the ~50 missing cars/people) which will impede barge traffic for a
> > loooong time.
>
> I don't think the work on the road surface had anything to do with
> it. Cutting down the net amount of traffic would result in less stress
> on the structure, not more.
>
> I think this event will reveal some fundamental flaws in their
> inspection regime. Whatever caused it, whether it's erosion
> of the pylons (known as scouring, it has caused collapses
> before. A major incident occurred in upstate NY) or deterioration
> of the structure itself, it should have been caught by their normal
> inspection regime.
>
> --
> Reg

There were no pylons. The bridge had a 450 foot unsupported span with
no suspension according to the report I heard.

maxine in ri
who doesn't know everything, but knows what she knows.

In article >,
"Pete C." > wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> > a lot of places north and to the U. Just learned that my grandnephew (a
> > champion swimmer) is on the dive team ‹ he got certified yesterday. :-)
>
> 'Scuse me??? Got certified yesterday??? Who the f' lets a newly
> certified diver, champion swimmer or not, on a recovery team at an
> extremely hazardous site???
>
> Pete C.
>
> (Open water / Nitrox and I sure as hell wouldn't be diving there)

Beats me, but I'd guess he's probably with someone else. For all I
know, it's part of his training.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com - story and
pics of Ronald McDonald House dinner posted 6-24-2007

Dave Smith > wrote in
:

> PeterLucas wrote:
>>
>> >>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>> >>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>> >>>> direction of a very real threat.
>> >>>
>> >>> What threat???
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
>> >> like a good
>> >> little ostrich.
>> >
>> > Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>>
>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
>> there is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>>
>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.



I see that none of the lefties want to answer this one.



>>
>> >
>> > I ain't the one with the head in the sand, bud...
>> >
>>
>> Yep, you're right there. Yours is firmly stuck up your arse.
>
>
> How many Afghans were on the hijacked planes on 9/11? How many Iraqis
> were there?


As far as I can recall, they were mostly Americans, of which you are
*supposed* to be one, and varying nationalities, including Aussies.


Look through the list youself, asshole, and see for yourself.......


http://www.september11victims.com/Se...ctims_list.htm


Click on each one and look at their faces.



>
> I should not have to tell you there were none. Fifteen of them were
> Saudis. So if you have to attack someone for revenge or to eliminate
> further threat, why did Bush not invade Saudi Arabia?



You really have *no* idea, do you? You just go with the 'populist'
belief.

BFD they weren't from Iraq or Afghanistan.

But the ****ers were trained there, weren't they?

Instead of looking at the outside of the rim, look at the hub.... you
moron.

OMG!! Breaking news!! The US Govt held and *Australian* citizen in Gitmo
after he was caught on the 'other' side in Afghanistan.

He went there, and he trained there, like the Saudis did.


And if I ever see the prick on the streets of Adelaide, he's going to be
spending quite a bit of time in hospital.




> Osmama bin Laden
> in Saudi.
>


That prick hasn't been in Saudi for decades. IIRC his family have
'distanced' themselves from him.


Go hug a tree.


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

"Reg" > wrote

> before. A major incident occurred in upstate NY) or deterioration
> of the structure itself, it should have been caught by their normal
> inspection regime.

regimen?

nancy

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
>
> > > EXCUSE ME!?!? Just "a drop in the bucket"????
> >
> > Compare a few hundred billion to the many trillions of the national
> > budget. Iraq is a drop in the bucket, don't let the "billion" fool you,
> > relative to the total national budget, Iraq is the equivalent of your
> > morning coffee budget.
>
> Perhaps the morning cup of coffee for many years to come. Personally, I
> would rather have that morning coffee money going to build and repair local
> infrastructure that to have it being wasted on men and military equipment
> to be blown up in a war that was based on lies. And of course you would
> know that know viable WMDs were found.
>
> Think about it for a second. Bush and his boys had so much proof of a vast
> arsenal of WMDs that they went to war to disarm Saddam, but they were
> unable to find them. One would expect that if they had had enough proof to
> justify an invasion that they would have had no problem finding them.
>
> Don't you think that if Saddam had had WMDs that he would have used them on
> the invading forces? What on earth do you think he was saving them for?

The WMDs were indeed found and inventoried by the UN UNSCOM team and a
small portion were destroyed before Saddam kicked the UN out. When
Saddam was forced (by threats from Bush BTW) to let the inspectors back
in a decade later, the previously inventoried WMDs were nowhere to be
found. The fact that those WMDs that were previously proven to exist are
still MIA should worry you.

>
>
> > No, I'm one of the folks who knows the real story with the WMDs from
> > someone who was in Iraq on the UNSCOM team and saw them first hand.
>
> In that case, you were probably aware that, while Iraq had had a
> significant WMD program but that it had been dismantled. You would know
> too that, contrary to Bush's demands that Saddam allow the inspectors back
> in, they had been withdrawn by the uS for their own safety because they
> were going to launch air strikes.

The WMD production facilities had been destroyed, the massive inventory
of WMDs had only begun to be destroyed when Saddam kicked the UN out. If
you check the timeline, you will find that Saddam let the inspectors
back in (a decade later) only because of the threat of an attack, and
the inspectors did indeed go in, were unable to locate the previously
inventoried WMDs, and were being harassed and given the run around by
Saddam for some time before Bush finally told them to get out and
proceeded with the threatened attack.

>
> > >
> > > > A good chunk of our tax dollars are being wasted on
> > > > well intentioned but counterproductive "humanitarian aid".
> > >
> > > Funny Uncle Sam gives candy to little countries because he wants
> > > what's in their little panties.*
> >
> > That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the feel good
> > humanitarian aid given to countries that have nothing we want, and only
> > server to exacerbate the problems in those countries.
>
> Should you only offer aid to countries that have something you want?
> Silly me. Of course. That is the way the US often operates. It tried to
> undermine Castro's regime in Cuba because it was communist and therefore
> corrupt and incompetent, but it had no problem with Batista's corrupt,
> incompetent and repressive regime because it kissed American butt. When
> Castro retaliated for those attempts to overthrow is government and
> numerous attempts on his life he responded by nationalizing American
> businesses, so the US turned around and placed an embargo on it. Castro's
> regime is no more repressive than China's, but China is a major trading
> partner. US consumers have no problem shopping at Walmart for cheap Chinese
> goods, but Americans are not allowed to buy Cuban products.

We should not be providing aid that serves only to enable a country to
continue to overpopulate far beyond what their natural resources can
support, it only serves to make the problem worse, make the excess
population further dependent on foreign aid and foster resentment among
the population due to their inability to support themselves.

Cuba is an entirely different issue, with the fundamental difference
being the fact that a communist state by definition enslaves it's
population and holds them hostage.


>
> > > OK, here's a challenge. Tell us EXACTLY WHAT that "largest portion of
> > > our tax dollars" "are being wasted" on "right here in the US."
> >
> > Little things like the "war on drugs" which also includes a lot of
> > foreign spending and by all objective assessments accomplishes next to
> > nothing. Various superstition... er... "faith" based programs. Pet pork
> > projects. Etc.
>
> It's a pity that it was not spent on public education. If it had been, more
> Americans would have known where Iraq was before it was on the nightly
> news.

Quite true. They might even know how to balance their checkbooks or
their cars MPG.

Pete C.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
> > particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
> > very real threat. A good chunk of our tax dollars are being wasted on
> > well intentioned but counterproductive "humanitarian aid". The largest
> > portion of our tax dollars however are being wasted right here in the
> > US.
>
> Pray tell.... what threat is that? The administration admitted that there
> was no link between Iraq and 9/11.

They didn't initially claim one either.

> They also admitted that there turned out
> to be no WMDs, just as the weapons inspectors had reported.

Entirely false. The WMDs are indeed still MIA, however they were indeed
found and inventoried by the UN UNSCOM inspectors. The inventoried WMDs
went MIA some time in the decade that passed after Saddam threw out
those inspectors. The fact that they can not now be located in no way
disproves their existence.

> After
> dismissing the advice of numbers security advisors that there were no WMDs
> and that invading Iraq was a bad idea, Bush found people to tell him what
> he wanted them to say and went ahead. Iraq was no threat to the US. The
> biggest threat to the US seems to be sitting in the Oval Office.

If that's what you believe, you are part of the biggest threat to the
US.

Pete C.

"MareCat" > wrote in
:

> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> 0.25...
>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>>> .25...
>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>>>>>
>>>>> What threat???
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
like
>>>> a good
>>>> little ostrich.
>>>
>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>>
>>
>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
there
>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>
> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.


You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
country.

Isn't that right, leftie?


You *are* an American, aren't you?
You *do* love your country, don't you?
You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?


Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
Leave it up to everyone else, hey?





>>> I ain't the one with the head in the sand, bud...
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yep, you're right there. Yours is firmly stuck up your arse.
>
> LOL. Yeah, you've certainly proved that--NOT.



What was that??? Sorry, I couldn't hear you. Your voice is muffled.


BTW, have you heard of mouthwash?? Your breath smells like shit.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell

PeterLucas wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > Pete C.
> >
> > (Open water / Nitrox and I sure as hell wouldn't be diving there)
>
> Yeah......... you just run away "Pete C"...... and keep on running.
>
> Let the real men do the job.

"Real men" understand the limits of their training and experience and
don't go jumping in doing something stupid where their inexperience is
likely to make them another casualty. Particularly now when it's a
recovery operation which lacks the urgency of a rescue that might
justify pushing the limits of ones training.

Pete C.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> > > Oops.. I stand corrected. I was looking at a section of bridge in I 35
> > > further south. I had zoomed in on a bridge over a narrow band of water that
> > > I had assumed was the Mississippi River, but when I looked at it again just
> > > now I realized that was not it.
> >
> > One of the guys on another newsgroup is a self proclaimed road geek and
> > he's got pictures of lots of interesting stuff on his site. Here's a
> > link with information about the bridge that went down.
> > http://www.visi.com/~jweeks/bridges/pages/ms16.html
>
> Interesting link. I am by no means a road geek, but I worked for our
> provinces highway maintenance branch for a number of years, starting off in
> a highway maintenance yard. In later jobs I spent a lot of time working
> with the bridge crews, bridge inspection crews and construction crews. I
> took a look at the pictures on that site and the first thing I wondered was
> about the weight that was concentrated on just four small concrete
> pedestals, and about the low angle on the supporting arch. So it was
> interesting to read the author's comments about the non redundant structure
> and the inherit danger of failure of a single component leading to a total
> failure as there is no redundancy in the support structure.
>
> Having spent a lot of time with the bridge inspectors I came to understand
> something about the causes of bridge failure, and the bureaucratic
> processes that delay repairs and replacement. People don't realize how
> badly in need of repair some bridges are. We have been lucky. People in
> Quebec were not so lucky last year when a huge bridge deck collapsed on a
> highway in suburban Montreal. There were 5 deaths and a number of injuries
> in that one.

It's not like this was the first bridge collapse in the US either,
unfortunately like every other "wake up call" event, people's memories
rapidly fade as does their attention and then you end up with big
protests over dog fighting *allegations* and no attention to issues of
national importance like infrastructure.

NYC just had that big steam pipe explosion that killed someone and the
attention there lasted what, two days? The big transmission line failure
and blackout a few years back lasted a few weeks in people's attention
before being swept aside and to date nothing of any comprehensive nature
has been done to address that issue either.

Pete C.

In article >,
"Michael \"Dog3\" Lonergan" > wrote:

> got on the plane to come back home. I've been glued to CNN since I walked
> in the door. What a horrible thing to have happen. My thoughts and
> prayers to all. I sure do hope you don't have any friends involved Barb.
>
> Michael

None I'm aware of, other than a grandnephew on a dive team to recover
bodies. This is going to be ugly for at least a couple years until they
get a new bridge -- or something, somewhere. Won't be much bother going
to visit Small Child because while I live less than a mile from 35W, I
also live about 4 miles for 35E -- both of which conjoin 40 miles north
of us to become plain ol' I-35 go to Duluth. Means I'll go around
downtown St. Paul instead of downtown Minneapolis. Going to visit
sisters will be a PITA, though. But we're safe, thanks.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com - story and
pics of Ronald McDonald House dinner posted 6-24-2007

maxine in ri wrote:

> > I think this event will reveal some fundamental flaws in their
> > inspection regime. Whatever caused it, whether it's erosion
> > of the pylons (known as scouring, it has caused collapses
> > before. A major incident occurred in upstate NY) or deterioration
> > of the structure itself, it should have been caught by their normal
> > inspection regime.
> >
> > --
> > Reg
>
> There were no pylons. The bridge had a 450 foot unsupported span with
> no suspension according to the report I heard.


Of course is was supported, It has stood up since it opened in 1967. There
was no suspension because it was not a suspension bridge. It was a steel
arch Deck Truss bridge. Arches are supposed to be able to bear a lot of
weight. Pylon may or may not be an accurate word to describe the concrete
supports or pedestals, two on each side of the river, which support the
ands of the arched metal structure.

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:05:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 1, 9:34 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
>> > Stan Horwitz wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article >, "Pete C." >
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > jmcquown wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > I just heard about the I-35 West bridge between Minneapolis and St. Paul
>> > > > > collapsing, sending cars plunging into the Mississippi River. Please check
>> > > > > in and let us know you're okay!
>> >
>> > > > > Jill
>> >
>> > > > Looks pretty bad, not just one section falling, the whole damn thing
>> > > > came down. Already three confirmed fatalities and I don't think they
>> > > > even have any info back from divers yet.
>> >
>> > > Large parts of the infrastructure here in the states are poorly
>> > > maintained, yet billions of dollars are sent to Iraq. Insane! I am truly
>> > > sorry for the families who lost people in that bridge collapse.
>> >
>> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket
>>
>> EXCUSE ME!?!? Just "a drop in the bucket"????
>
>Compare a few hundred billion to the many trillions of the national
>budget. Iraq is a drop in the bucket, don't let the "billion" fool you,
>relative to the total national budget, Iraq is the equivalent of your
>morning coffee budget.
>
as of oct 2006:

The empirical total of this lying crime in Iraq is $450 billion—that’s
what we’ve spent so far. An extremely conservative estimate is another
$550 billion for whenever we get the hell out of there and health care
costs for the wounded. A cool trillion dollars, easy, all for nothing
but horror, shame, death and international revulsion.

That’s $9,480.86 per American family, money that will be paid out by
the American middle class next 30 years (one could tack on another
$300 billion for interest, but we’ll keep it simple and conservative).
Our corporate media tries to ignore it, but every day more and more
Americans are becoming aware and infuriated at this incredible waste
of such a vast fortune.

<http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/009046.php>

....but maybe you drink a **** of a lot of coffee.
>>
>> > and while not being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>> > direction of a very real threat.
>>
>> Are you one of those folks who believe that Saddam Hussein was
>> involved in the 9-11 attacks, perhaps even after the Liar-in-Chief
>> admitted he was not?
>
>No, I'm one of the folks who knows the real story with the WMDs from
>someone who was in Iraq on the UNSCOM team and saw them first hand.
>nwhat
and what is the 'real story,' pray tell? they were shipped to syria?
not even bush is rash enough to peddle that tale.

why is this person saw them first hand talking to you and not the
media? no one else seems to 'know' the facts.

your pal,
blake

Dave Smith wrote:

> maxine in ri wrote:
>
>>>I think this event will reveal some fundamental flaws in their
>>>inspection regime. Whatever caused it, whether it's erosion
>>>of the pylons (known as scouring, it has caused collapses
>>>before. A major incident occurred in upstate NY) or deterioration
>>>of the structure itself, it should have been caught by their normal
>>>inspection regime.
>>
>>There were no pylons. The bridge had a 450 foot unsupported span with
>>no suspension according to the report I heard.
>
> Of course is was supported, It has stood up since it opened in 1967. There
> was no suspension because it was not a suspension bridge. It was a steel
> arch Deck Truss bridge. Arches are supposed to be able to bear a lot of
> weight. Pylon may or may not be an accurate word to describe the concrete
> supports or pedestals, two on each side of the river, which support the
> ands of the arched metal structure.

"Footings" is probably the term I should have used.

I think there's a reasonable chance one may have come down as a result
of bridge scour, similar to the Schoharie Creek incident in 1987.
This caused a progressive collapse.

Another possible cause is structural failure due to metal fatigue.

In any case, the design lacked sufficient redundancy to
prevent a progressive collapse. One piece falls, causing them
all to go down. Such older designs require stricter inspection
and maintenance, which it appears didn't happen in this case.

--
Reg

Peter Lucas wrote:
>
>
> >>
> > How many Afghans were on the hijacked planes on 9/11? How many Iraqis
> > were there?
>
> As far as I can recall, they were mostly Americans, of which you are
> *supposed* to be one, and varying nationalities, including Aussies.
>
> Look through the list youself, asshole, and see for yourself.......
>
> http://www.september11victims.com/Se...ctims_list.htm


Unbelievable, You are such an ass. I asked you how many Afghans and mow
many Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 and you came an asshole and a link to
a site that that commemorates the victims. Yes, there were a lot of
victims resulting form the terrorist attack committed by Saudis, Egyptians
and Yemenis........ no Afghans and no Iraqis.


> Click on each one and look at their faces.

Interesting...... which one to I have to click on to get the evidence that
Saddam Hussein was responsible.



> You really have *no* idea, do you? You just go with the 'populist'
> belief.
>
> BFD they weren't from Iraq or Afghanistan.
>
> But the ****ers were trained there, weren't they?

Were they? What happened to the reports that they took flight training in
the US?
Don't forget the first set of lies that came out about how they snuck in
from Canada the night before. It turned out that they had been in the US
for months..... taking flying lessons.

There are lots of terrorists that train in the US, or in US sponsored camps
around the world. Who do you think originally trained and armed the
militant Islamists? It was the US. They wanted to screw the Russians so
they trained and armed the mujahideen and used them to create a Vietnam
type conflict for the Russians to deal with.




> Instead of looking at the outside of the rim, look at the hub.... you
> moron.

Only a moron would think that made sense in this context.


> OMG!! Breaking news!! The US Govt held and *Australian* citizen in Gitmo
> after he was caught on the 'other' side in Afghanistan.

Was that before or after they found an American fighting with the Taliban?
For that matter, there have been quite a few American Muslims fighting
jihad in various places, Afghanistan, Chechneya, Iraq....

> He went there, and he trained there, like the Saudis did.

> And if I ever see the prick on the streets of Adelaide, he's going to be
> spending quite a bit of time in hospital.

Mental hospital?



> > Osmama bin Laden
> > in Saudi.
> >
>
> That prick hasn't been in Saudi for decades. IIRC his family have
> 'distanced' themselves from him.

Of course they have. Their family business makes too much money from
Americans to admit that he is one of them.

On Aug 2, 8:35?am, Bobo Bonobo? > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 9:34 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Stan Horwitz wrote:
>
> > > In article >, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > jmcquown wrote:
>
> > > > > I just heard about the I-35 West bridge between Minneapolis and St. Paul
> > > > > collapsing, sending cars plunging into the Mississippi River. Please check
> > > > > in and let us know you're okay!
>
> > > > > Jill
>
> > > > Looks pretty bad, not just one section falling, the whole damn thing
> > > > came down. Already three confirmed fatalities and I don't think they
> > > > even have any info back from divers yet.
>
> > > Large parts of the infrastructure here in the states are poorly
> > > maintained, yet billions of dollars are sent to Iraq. Insane! I am truly
> > > sorry for the families who lost people in that bridge collapse.
>
> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket
>
> EXCUSE ME!?!? Just "a drop in the bucket"????
>
> > and while not being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
> > direction of a very real threat.
>
> Are you one of those folks who believe that Saddam Hussein was
> involved in the 9-11 attacks, perhaps even after the Liar-in-Chief
> admitted he was not?
>
> > A good chunk of our tax dollars are being wasted on
> > well intentioned but counterproductive "humanitarian aid".
>
> Funny Uncle Sam gives candy to little countries because he wants
> what's in their little panties.*
>
> > The largest portion of our tax dollars however are being wasted right here in the
> > US.
>
> OK, here's a challenge. Tell us EXACTLY WHAT that "largest portion of
> our tax dollars" "are being wasted" on "right here in the US."


That's not any challenge,,, more dollars are wasted on welfare
parasites than all other spending combined.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:05:49 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> >>
> >> On Aug 1, 9:34 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> >> > Stan Horwitz wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article >, "Pete C." >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > jmcquown wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > > > I just heard about the I-35 West bridge between Minneapolis and St. Paul
> >> > > > > collapsing, sending cars plunging into the Mississippi River. Please check
> >> > > > > in and let us know you're okay!
> >> >
> >> > > > > Jill
> >> >
> >> > > > Looks pretty bad, not just one section falling, the whole damn thing
> >> > > > came down. Already three confirmed fatalities and I don't think they
> >> > > > even have any info back from divers yet.
> >> >
> >> > > Large parts of the infrastructure here in the states are poorly
> >> > > maintained, yet billions of dollars are sent to Iraq. Insane! I am truly
> >> > > sorry for the families who lost people in that bridge collapse.
> >> >
> >> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket
> >>
> >> EXCUSE ME!?!? Just "a drop in the bucket"????
> >
> >Compare a few hundred billion to the many trillions of the national
> >budget. Iraq is a drop in the bucket, don't let the "billion" fool you,
> >relative to the total national budget, Iraq is the equivalent of your
> >morning coffee budget.
> >
> as of oct 2006:
>
> The empirical total of this lying crime in Iraq is $450 billion—that’s
> what we’ve spent so far. An extremely conservative estimate is another
> $550 billion for whenever we get the hell out of there and health care
> costs for the wounded. A cool trillion dollars, easy, all for nothing
> but horror, shame, death and international revulsion.
>
> That’s $9,480.86 per American family, money that will be paid out by
> the American middle class next 30 years (one could tack on another
> $300 billion for interest, but we’ll keep it simple and conservative).
> Our corporate media tries to ignore it, but every day more and more
> Americans are becoming aware and infuriated at this incredible waste
> of such a vast fortune.

I for one do not consider national defense a waste. Perhaps in you
idealistic fantasy communist world everyone lives together in peace and
there are no terrorists. I happen to live in the real world and am aware
of the real world dangers the terrorists and their supporters.

Iraq at present is a good example of why we can't negotiate some sort of
peace with the terrorists. The culture of the entire middle east is one
of violence, lies and extremism as the continuing sectarian violence
clearly shows. If you think you have negotiated some sort of peace with
them, while you have you head happily buried in the sand, they are
quietly rearming and preparing to attack you yet again.

>
> <http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/009046.php>
>
> ...but maybe you drink a **** of a lot of coffee.

Two cups each morning. Don't think that counts as a lot.

> >>
> >> > and while not being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
> >> > direction of a very real threat.
> >>
> >> Are you one of those folks who believe that Saddam Hussein was
> >> involved in the 9-11 attacks, perhaps even after the Liar-in-Chief
> >> admitted he was not?
> >
> >No, I'm one of the folks who knows the real story with the WMDs from
> >someone who was in Iraq on the UNSCOM team and saw them first hand.
> >nwhat
> and what is the 'real story,' pray tell? they were shipped to syria?
> not even bush is rash enough to peddle that tale.

The real story of what Saddam did with them during the years that
Clinton and company had their heads in the sand and were undermining our
intelligence services? If we're lucky, what really happened to them is
Saddam hid them really well and now everyone who knew where they are
hidden is dead.

>
> why is this person saw them first hand talking to you and not the
> media? no one else seems to 'know' the facts.

How many UNSCOM team members have you seen talking to the media?

Pete C.

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:59:41 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
wrote:

>"MareCat" > wrote in
:
>
>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> .25...
>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>>>>
>>>> What threat???
>>>>
>>>
>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand like
>>> a good
>>> little ostrich.
>>
>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>
>
>No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why there
>is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>
>
>I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: September 24, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by
American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion
and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic
radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the
Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct
role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either
in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by
the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in
Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the
final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal
appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies
since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16
disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global
Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that
Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and
spread across the globe.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei =5088>

so, yes, the "9-11 victims families" are no doubt pleased as punch by
the whole war in iraq thing. and it costs just pennies a day!

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
wrote:

>"MareCat" > wrote in
:
>
>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>> 0.25...
>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>>>> .25...
>>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What threat???
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
>like
>>>>> a good
>>>>> little ostrich.
>>>>
>>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>>>
>>>
>>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
>there
>>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>>
>> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
>
>
>You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
>in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
>country.
>
>Isn't that right, leftie?
>
>
>You *are* an American, aren't you?
>You *do* love your country, don't you?
>You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?
>
>
>Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
>about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
>Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
>

the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
it. but thanks for the attacks marecat's patriotism. very insightful
and to the point. every patriot should swallow whatever nonsense bush
puts out with no chaser. and like it.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:07:27 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>MareCat wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
>> > particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
>> > very real threat.
>>
>> What threat???
>
>Religious extremists / terrorists. Keep them busy there and it's hard
>for them to get to us here.

yeah, i don't see how they possibly could have gotten here before we
were 'there.' they must not have been reading the script.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:55:17 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." wrote:
>> >
>> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
>> > particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
>> > very real threat. A good chunk of our tax dollars are being wasted on
>> > well intentioned but counterproductive "humanitarian aid". The largest
>> > portion of our tax dollars however are being wasted right here in the
>> > US.
>>
>> Pray tell.... what threat is that? The administration admitted that there
>> was no link between Iraq and 9/11.
>
>They didn't initially claim one either.
>

this is total bullshit.

>> They also admitted that there turned out
>> to be no WMDs, just as the weapons inspectors had reported.
>
>Entirely false. The WMDs are indeed still MIA, however they were indeed
>found and inventoried by the UN UNSCOM inspectors. The inventoried WMDs
>went MIA some time in the decade that passed after Saddam threw out
>those inspectors. The fact that they can not now be located in no way
>disproves their existence.
>

jeez, they couldn't possibly have been destroyed, could they?

>> After
>> dismissing the advice of numbers security advisors that there were no WMDs
>> and that invading Iraq was a bad idea, Bush found people to tell him what
>> he wanted them to say and went ahead. Iraq was no threat to the US. The
>> biggest threat to the US seems to be sitting in the Oval Office.
>
>If that's what you believe, you are part of the biggest threat to the
>US.
>

yeah, i think i saw dave down at the bus station armed with box
cutters. call homeland security!

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
> wrote:
>
> >"MareCat" > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> >> 0.25...
> >>> "MareCat" > wrote in
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> >>>> .25...
> >>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
> >>>>> :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
> >>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
> >>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What threat???
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
> >like
> >>>>> a good
> >>>>> little ostrich.
> >>>>
> >>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
> >there
> >>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
> >>
> >> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
> >
> >
> >You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
> >in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
> >country.
> >
> >Isn't that right, leftie?
> >
> >
> >You *are* an American, aren't you?
> >You *do* love your country, don't you?
> >You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?
> >
> >
> >Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
> >about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
> >Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
> >
>
> the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
> it.

No, actually it isn't. It may appear that way to the short sighted,
however what it actually happening is it is drawing the marginal
terrorists and terrorist supporters out of the woodwork so they can be
dealt with.

The hornets nest had been growing and the hornets started to venture out
and attack us. Now that we are fighting back, we've stirred them up and
we see more coming out of the nest. That doesn't mean our fighting back
created more of them, just that they are now in the open. Ultimately we
will destroy all of them.

Pete C.

"Pete C." wrote:
>
>
> > Think about it for a second. Bush and his boys had so much proof of a vast
> > arsenal of WMDs that they went to war to disarm Saddam, but they were
> > unable to find them. One would expect that if they had had enough proof to
> > justify an invasion that they would have had no problem finding them.
> >
> > Don't you think that if Saddam had had WMDs that he would have used them on
> > the invading forces? What on earth do you think he was saving them for?
>
> The WMDs were indeed found and inventoried by the UN UNSCOM team and a
> small portion were destroyed before Saddam kicked the UN out. When
> Saddam was forced (by threats from Bush BTW) to let the inspectors back
> in a decade later, the previously inventoried WMDs were nowhere to be
> found. The fact that those WMDs that were previously proven to exist are
> still MIA should worry you.

Yes, there were some WMDs in the country. For some reason the US had no
problem with Saddam having and using chemical weapons on the Iranians back
in the 80s. they even gave them satellite intelligence to help them use
their chemical shells more efficiently. The weapons inspectors did find
some obsolete CW supplies and destroyed them. They also had problems with
some of the missiles that the Iraqis had been building or modifying. That
was before the invasion, before Bush's ultimatum. Bush went ahead with the
invasion based on allegations of a vast arsenal of WMDS that they were not
able to find after they invaded.

> > In that case, you were probably aware that, while Iraq had had a
> > significant WMD program but that it had been dismantled. You would know
> > too that, contrary to Bush's demands that Saddam allow the inspectors back
> > in, they had been withdrawn by the uS for their own safety because they
> > were going to launch air strikes.
>
> The WMD production facilities had been destroyed, the massive inventory
> of WMDs had only begun to be destroyed when Saddam kicked the UN out.

When was that? In Dec, 1998 the head of the weapons inspection team wrote a
report that Saddam was obstructing their inspections. Clinton ordered the
team out of Iraq because he was going to use air strikes to force Saddam to
cooperate. Over the next year the Clinton administration was not concerned
about Saddam's WMD program, but it was interesting to see ho things heated
up whenever new revelations came out about Monica Lewinsky, and air strikes
seemed to distract people from the scandal.



> If you check the timeline, you will find that Saddam let the inspectors
> back in (a decade later) only because of the threat of an attack, and
> the inspectors did indeed go in, were unable to locate the previously
> inventoried WMDs, and were being harassed and given the run around by
> Saddam for some time before Bush finally told them to get out and
> proceeded with the threatened attack.


Feel free to check it out. DOn't forget to check Dec, 16, 1998 where the UN
orders the inspectors out of Iraq.
28 February 1991: Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and
arms inspections.

29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic
crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.

13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and
accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.

23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on
weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation
with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons
inspections in Iraq.

14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections
to resume.

17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after
Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still
refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and
Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.

1 March 2000: Hans Blix assumes the post of Unmovic executive chairman.

3 May 2002: Unmovic and Iraqi officials hold talks - Mr Annan says they are
the first to take place at technical level since December 1998.

5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections as Baghdad
seeks assurances that sanctions will be lifted.

31 July 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped
up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections
ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.

1 August 2002: Iraq says the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is welcome
in Baghdad for "technical talks".

12 September 2002: President Bush addresses the UN General Assembly and
warns Iraq that military action will be unavoidable if it does not comply
with UN resolutions on disarmament.

16 September 2002: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says he has received a
letter from the Iraqi Government offering to allow the unconditional return
of weapons inspectors.

24 September 2002: Britain publishes a report on Iraq's weapons programmes.

28 September 2002: Iraq rejects a draft UN resolution proposed by the
United States for with strict new rules for weapons inspections, and Oct.1
2002 where Blix comes to an agreement with Saddams about the weapons
inspectors returning but Colin Powell opposed it.


1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the
return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it
and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

11 October 2002: The US Senate follows the House of Representatives in
authorising President Bush to use force against Iraq.

15 October 2002: Saddam Hussein wins 100% of the vote in a referendum on a
new presidential term for him.

25 October 2002: US formally proposes a new resolution on disarming Iraq to
the UN Security Council.

4 November 2002: Saddam Hussein says Iraq will comply with a new UN
resolution as long as it does not serve as an excuse for US military
action.

8 November 2002: UN Security Council unanimously passes a new resolution on
Iraq's disarmament, warning of "serious consequences" for material
breaches.

12 November 2002: Iraq's parliament rejects the UN resolution.

13 November 2002 Iraq's Government accepts the UN resolution.

18 November 2002: Hans Blix leads UN inspectors back to Baghdad to start
their mission.


>
> Cuba is an entirely different issue, with the fundamental difference
> being the fact that a communist state by definition enslaves it's
> population and holds them hostage.

By definition????? The Cuban people are no worse off under castro than
they were under the US backed Batista, except that their economy suffers
from the US embargo. It is interesting that the US uses the embargo to
destroy the Cuban economy and then points to communism as the cause of the
economic situation there.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 15:59:41 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
> wrote:
>
> >"MareCat" > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> >> .25...
> >>> "MareCat" > wrote in
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
> >>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
> >>>>> direction of a very real threat.
> >>>>
> >>>> What threat???
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand like
> >>> a good
> >>> little ostrich.
> >>
> >> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
> >
> >
> >No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why there
> >is no threat. And never will be any threat.
> >
> >
> >I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
> >
>
> Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
>
> By MARK MAZZETTI
> Published: September 24, 2006
>
> WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by
> American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion
> and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic
> radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the
> Sept. 11 attacks.
>
> The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct
> role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either
> in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by
> the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in
> Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the
> final document.
>
> The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal
> appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies
> since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16
> disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global
> Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that
> Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and
> spread across the globe.
>
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei =5088>
>
> so, yes, the "9-11 victims families" are no doubt pleased as punch by
> the whole war in iraq thing. and it costs just pennies a day!
>
> your pal,
> blake

The "new" terrorists didn't just go from being quiet peaceful model
civilized world citizens to radical terrorists because the US attacked
Iraq. These "new" terrorists have been violent extremists for a long
time and the US in Iraq just pushed them over the edge. They have been a
threat to the civilized world for a long time.

Pete C.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:07:27 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >MareCat wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
> >> > particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
> >> > very real threat.
> >>
> >> What threat???
> >
> >Religious extremists / terrorists. Keep them busy there and it's hard
> >for them to get to us here.
>
> yeah, i don't see how they possibly could have gotten here before we
> were 'there.' they must not have been reading the script.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Geez lefty, that response isn't even coherent, you're slipping.

Pete C.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:55:17 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >Dave Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> "Pete C." wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
> >> > particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
> >> > very real threat. A good chunk of our tax dollars are being wasted on
> >> > well intentioned but counterproductive "humanitarian aid". The largest
> >> > portion of our tax dollars however are being wasted right here in the
> >> > US.
> >>
> >> Pray tell.... what threat is that? The administration admitted that there
> >> was no link between Iraq and 9/11.
> >
> >They didn't initially claim one either.
> >
>
> this is total bullshit.

No, it isn't. It was a misguided attempt to use the very limited
contacts between AQ and Saddam's cronies to distract from the fact that
WMDs hadn't been found, rather than point out the fact that Saddam had
years to hide the WMDs while Clinton and the UN had their heads in the
sand.

>
> >> They also admitted that there turned out
> >> to be no WMDs, just as the weapons inspectors had reported.
> >
> >Entirely false. The WMDs are indeed still MIA, however they were indeed
> >found and inventoried by the UN UNSCOM inspectors. The inventoried WMDs
> >went MIA some time in the decade that passed after Saddam threw out
> >those inspectors. The fact that they can not now be located in no way
> >disproves their existence.
> >
>
> jeez, they couldn't possibly have been destroyed, could they?

Yes, there is a slim possibility that Saddam actually did complete the
destruction of the WMDs after he kicked out the UN teams that had
destroying them. Given Saddam's well known honesty, or lack there of and
the fact that he kicked out the UN teams, the probability the he was
suddenly telling the truth about the WMDs is infinitely small.

>
> >> After
> >> dismissing the advice of numbers security advisors that there were no WMDs
> >> and that invading Iraq was a bad idea, Bush found people to tell him what
> >> he wanted them to say and went ahead. Iraq was no threat to the US. The
> >> biggest threat to the US seems to be sitting in the Oval Office.
> >
> >If that's what you believe, you are part of the biggest threat to the
> >US.
> >
>
> yeah, i think i saw dave down at the bus station armed with box
> cutters. call homeland security!

You really are pathetic. Anyone who disagrees with your leftist
propaganda must be some mindless Bush supporter... yea, right... I've
never supported Bush, I think the is a superstitious wing nut. Your
leftist candidates who believe we can somehow negotiate a peace with the
terrorists however are a true threat to the US and ultimately global
civilization. Just look at history in the middle east and count all the
times the violent dysfunctional cultures over there have honored any
peace agreement - no fingers needed.

Pete C.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Think about it for a second. Bush and his boys had so much proof of a vast
> > > arsenal of WMDs that they went to war to disarm Saddam, but they were
> > > unable to find them. One would expect that if they had had enough proof to
> > > justify an invasion that they would have had no problem finding them.
> > >
> > > Don't you think that if Saddam had had WMDs that he would have used them on
> > > the invading forces? What on earth do you think he was saving them for?
> >
> > The WMDs were indeed found and inventoried by the UN UNSCOM team and a
> > small portion were destroyed before Saddam kicked the UN out. When
> > Saddam was forced (by threats from Bush BTW) to let the inspectors back
> > in a decade later, the previously inventoried WMDs were nowhere to be
> > found. The fact that those WMDs that were previously proven to exist are
> > still MIA should worry you.
>
> Yes, there were some WMDs in the country. For some reason the US had no
> problem with Saddam having and using chemical weapons on the Iranians back
> in the 80s. they even gave them satellite intelligence to help them use
> their chemical shells more efficiently. The weapons inspectors did find
> some obsolete CW supplies and destroyed them.

The UNSCOM inspectors found large chemical weapons production facilities
and somewhat smaller biological weapons production facilities. They
found very large stockpiles of ready to use chemical weapons and barrels
of chemical agent. They also found the beginnings of nuclear weapons
development facilities (gas centrifuges).

The UN teams completed destruction of the production facilities and had
begun destruction of the stockpiles when Saddam kicked them out. A
decade later when Saddam let the UN inspectors back in under threat of
attack by Bush, the inspectors were unable to locate the remaining
stockpiles they had inventoried years earlier.

> They also had problems with
> some of the missiles that the Iraqis had been building or modifying. That
> was before the invasion, before Bush's ultimatum. Bush went ahead with the
> invasion based on allegations of a vast arsenal of WMDS that they were not
> able to find after they invaded.

The only part you got right there was that the remaining stockpiles of
WMDs have still not been located or accounted for.

>
> > > In that case, you were probably aware that, while Iraq had had a
> > > significant WMD program but that it had been dismantled. You would know
> > > too that, contrary to Bush's demands that Saddam allow the inspectors back
> > > in, they had been withdrawn by the uS for their own safety because they
> > > were going to launch air strikes.
> >
> > The WMD production facilities had been destroyed, the massive inventory
> > of WMDs had only begun to be destroyed when Saddam kicked the UN out.
>
> When was that? In Dec, 1998 the head of the weapons inspection team wrote a
> report that Saddam was obstructing their inspections. Clinton ordered the
> team out of Iraq because he was going to use air strikes to force Saddam to
> cooperate. Over the next year the Clinton administration was not concerned
> about Saddam's WMD program, but it was interesting to see ho things heated
> up whenever new revelations came out about Monica Lewinsky, and air strikes
> seemed to distract people from the scandal.

All you got right there was Clinton's attempts at distractions.

>
>
> > If you check the timeline, you will find that Saddam let the inspectors
> > back in (a decade later) only because of the threat of an attack, and
> > the inspectors did indeed go in, were unable to locate the previously
> > inventoried WMDs, and were being harassed and given the run around by
> > Saddam for some time before Bush finally told them to get out and
> > proceeded with the threatened attack.
>
> Feel free to check it out. DOn't forget to check Dec, 16, 1998 where the UN
> orders the inspectors out of Iraq.
> 28 February 1991: Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and
> arms inspections.
>
> 29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic
> crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.
>
> 13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and
> accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.
>
> 23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on
> weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.
>
> 31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation
> with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons
> inspections in Iraq.
>
> 14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections
> to resume.
>
> 17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.
>
> 16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after
> Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still
> refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.
>
> 17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and
> Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.
>
> 1 March 2000: Hans Blix assumes the post of Unmovic executive chairman.
>
> 3 May 2002: Unmovic and Iraqi officials hold talks - Mr Annan says they are
> the first to take place at technical level since December 1998.
>
> 5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections as Baghdad
> seeks assurances that sanctions will be lifted.
>
> 31 July 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped
> up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections
> ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.
>
> 1 August 2002: Iraq says the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is welcome
> in Baghdad for "technical talks".
>
> 12 September 2002: President Bush addresses the UN General Assembly and
> warns Iraq that military action will be unavoidable if it does not comply
> with UN resolutions on disarmament.
>
> 16 September 2002: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says he has received a
> letter from the Iraqi Government offering to allow the unconditional return
> of weapons inspectors.
>
> 24 September 2002: Britain publishes a report on Iraq's weapons programmes.
>
> 28 September 2002: Iraq rejects a draft UN resolution proposed by the
> United States for with strict new rules for weapons inspections, and Oct.1
> 2002 where Blix comes to an agreement with Saddams about the weapons
> inspectors returning but Colin Powell opposed it.
>
> 1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the
> return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it
> and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.
>
> 11 October 2002: The US Senate follows the House of Representatives in
> authorising President Bush to use force against Iraq.
>
> 15 October 2002: Saddam Hussein wins 100% of the vote in a referendum on a
> new presidential term for him.
>
> 25 October 2002: US formally proposes a new resolution on disarming Iraq to
> the UN Security Council.
>
> 4 November 2002: Saddam Hussein says Iraq will comply with a new UN
> resolution as long as it does not serve as an excuse for US military
> action.
>
> 8 November 2002: UN Security Council unanimously passes a new resolution on
> Iraq's disarmament, warning of "serious consequences" for material
> breaches.
>
> 12 November 2002: Iraq's parliament rejects the UN resolution.
>
> 13 November 2002 Iraq's Government accepts the UN resolution.
>
> 18 November 2002: Hans Blix leads UN inspectors back to Baghdad to start
> their mission.

Interesting how your timeline stops where it would become relevant to
the discussion.

>
> >
> > Cuba is an entirely different issue, with the fundamental difference
> > being the fact that a communist state by definition enslaves it's
> > population and holds them hostage.
>
> By definition????? The Cuban people are no worse off under castro than
> they were under the US backed Batista, except that their economy suffers
> from the US embargo.

The Cuban people are captives in their own country. Having a worthless
corrupt government is one thing, not being able to escape from it is
quite another. If things were so peachy in Cuba, people wouldn't be
risking their lives trying to escape.

> It is interesting that the US uses the embargo to
> destroy the Cuban economy and then points to communism as the cause of the
> economic situation there.

Cuba has trade with a number of other countries, if communism wasn't the
problem, their economy should be doing just fine without trade with the
US.

Pete C.

Nancy Young wrote:


> "maxine in ri" > wrote
>
> > support. My guess is the current work which had lanes closed put too
> > much stress on one side of the highway.
>
> Once on Mythbusters there was something about the stress on
> steel and how, if you got a vibration going at just the perfect
> rate, you could bring down a building. I know they were
> resurfacing, I wonder about those machines that chew up the
> asphalt for replacement. They usually don't just repave over
> bridges, they grind some of the asphalt load off. Of course we
> will find out eventually, seems like maybe it was a combination of the
> heat and the construction activity along with some weakness that
> did this bridge in. Those poor people.


There is a famous case of a newly - built bridge collapsing in the
Pacific Northwest around 1940. IIRC it was a suspension bridge and
the wind set up harmonic vibrations that eventually collapsed it. It
was a big deal at the time, you may have seen newsreel footage of
it...

Really long and high bridges somewhat oogie me out. I've crossed the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge a number of times and I am frankly glad when we
get over it. One time some friends had a flat tire on this
bridge...an "adventure" I'm glad I missed (it happened when they were
going out to the Delaware shore for the weekend, I was supposed to be
with them but I came the next weekend instead).

Of course there is also the scary footage from the San Francisco
earthquake of 1989, with those cars going off of the Bay Bridge...

In any case, I hope all you birds up there in the MSP area are
okay...


--
Best
Greg

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
> wrote:
>
>>"MareCat" > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>>> 0.25...
>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>>>>> .25...
>>>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
>>>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
>>>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What threat???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
>>like
>>>>>> a good
>>>>>> little ostrich.
>>>>>
>>>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
>>there
>>>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
>>>
>>> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
>>
>>
>>You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
>>in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
>>country.
>>
>>Isn't that right, leftie?
>>
>>
>>You *are* an American, aren't you?
>>You *do* love your country, don't you?
>>You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?

>>Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
>>about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
>>Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
>>
>
> the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
> it. but thanks for the attacks marecat's patriotism. very insightful
> and to the point. every patriot should swallow whatever nonsense bush
> puts out with no chaser. and like it.

But, Blake, doncha know that every good little citizen should blindly follow
its leaders, regardless of how corrupt and flat-out WRONG they are?? What's
the matter with you??

I just love it when the righties play the patriotism card (although I didn't
think it was fashionable to do so anymore). In their minds, if anyone
disagrees with the administration, they MUST be anti-American. Smacks of
Hitler. It's pretty scary, actually.

Wonder if they have Fox News down in Oz? I'm beginning to think so.

Mary

Pete C. wrote:


> MareCat wrote:
>
> > "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
> > > particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
> > > very real threat.
>
> > What threat???
>
> Religious extremists / terrorists. Keep them busy there and it's hard
> for them to get to us here.


I've almost come to the conclusion that the best thing we could do is
withdraw from that whole mess and leave the whole lot of them to their
insane intercinine devices...they can spend the next few centuries
fighting amongst themselves (it's all they know how to do). It's
simply not worth the amount of spilled blood and squandered treasure
that the US and it's allies have poured into the place...

Our presence there simply adds more fuel to an already raging fire, if
we withdrew we in the West would be *somewhat* less of a target...

I used to think that our presence there could do some good, but it
makes no matter when you are dealing with a bunch of backwards
religious psychotics (which ALL muslims are)...

Let's put it this way: the muslims/Arabs. in the Middle East can't
even manage their OWN affairs (the only successful country in the
whole huge area is Israel), as long as they are squabbling amongst
themselves they won't have the time or resources to target us in the
secular West...

[As for Iran, the best thing to put them into their place might be for
the US and Israel to arrange a little nuclear "demonstration" over one
of their secondary cities. That would nicely put the kibbosh on the
budding Iranian nuclear threat. This is something that needs to be
addressed - NOW...we don't want to repeat the mistake of Munich
1938.]

--
Best
Greg

MareCat wrote:

> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
>
> .25...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "MareCat" > wrote in
> :
>
> >> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
> >>> particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
> >>> very real threat.
>
> >> What threat???
>
> > Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand like a
> > good
> > little ostrich.
>
> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
>
> I ain't the one with the head in the sand, bud...


Pay no mind to PeterBREATH L, Mary, he is just doing a little negative
shilling and trolling for the Australian Tourist Board...


:-)

--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > MareCat wrote:
> >
> > > "Pete C." > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not being
> > > > particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the direction of a
> > > > very real threat.
> >
> > > What threat???
> >
> > Religious extremists / terrorists. Keep them busy there and it's hard
> > for them to get to us here.
>
> I've almost come to the conclusion that the best thing we could do is
> withdraw from that whole mess and leave the whole lot of them to their
> insane intercinine devices...they can spend the next few centuries
> fighting amongst themselves (it's all they know how to do). It's
> simply not worth the amount of spilled blood and squandered treasure
> that the US and it's allies have poured into the place...

That would certainly be nice, unfortunately we've provided their
immature culture / collapsed civilization with too much technology to be
able to keep them contained to their own little cesspool.

>
> Our presence there simply adds more fuel to an already raging fire, if
> we withdrew we in the West would be *somewhat* less of a target...

Only an illusion, if we withdraw we won't see them for a while... while
they continue to arm and plan for their assault on us.

>
> I used to think that our presence there could do some good, but it
> makes no matter when you are dealing with a bunch of backwards
> religious psychotics (which ALL muslims are)...

Actually it's all religious zealots, regardless of the religion that are
the threat to global civilization. The muslims are just the most visible
example at the moment.

>
> Let's put it this way: the muslims/Arabs. in the Middle East can't
> even manage their OWN affairs (the only successful country in the
> whole huge area is Israel), as long as they are squabbling amongst
> themselves they won't have the time or resources to target us in the
> secular West...

If only it was that simple where we could just leave them to continue
killing each other and keep them contained in their little oil filled
cesspool.

>
> [As for Iran, the best thing to put them into their place might be for
> the US and Israel to arrange a little nuclear "demonstration" over one
> of their secondary cities. That would nicely put the kibbosh on the
> budding Iranian nuclear threat. This is something that needs to be
> addressed - NOW...we don't want to repeat the mistake of Munich
> 1938.]

Yea, that's another problem with no easy solution.

Pete C.

"Gregory Morrow" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote:

>> Once on Mythbusters there was something about the stress on
>> steel and how, if you got a vibration going at just the perfect
>> rate, you could bring down a building. I know they were
>> resurfacing, I wonder about those machines that chew up the
>> asphalt for replacement. They usually don't just repave over
>> bridges, they grind some of the asphalt load off. Of course we
>> will find out eventually, seems like maybe it was a combination of the
>> heat and the construction activity along with some weakness that
>> did this bridge in. Those poor people.

> There is a famous case of a newly - built bridge collapsing in the
> Pacific Northwest around 1940. IIRC it was a suspension bridge and
> the wind set up harmonic vibrations that eventually collapsed it. It
> was a big deal at the time, you may have seen newsreel footage of
> it...

I first saw that not all that long ago. It FREAKED me out! (laugh)
How disturbing was that?

> Really long and high bridges somewhat oogie me out. I've crossed the
> Chesapeake Bay Bridge a number of times and I am frankly glad when we
> get over it.

That's a long one.

> One time some friends had a flat tire on this
> bridge...

What is up with that? Like, could your car break down
in a less convenient spot? I know, the Lincoln Tunnel at rush hour.
Geez. It's like a car practical joke. Heh heh, he'll be screwed
if I get a flat tire right now. Traffic will back up for miles and he
can't pull off.

> Of course there is also the scary footage from the San Francisco
> earthquake of 1989, with those cars going off of the Bay Bridge...

There was one in Connecticut, a slice of the bridge just neatly
disappeared. Scary.

nancy

Stan Horwitz wrote:


> Large parts of the infrastructure here in the states are poorly
> maintained, yet billions of dollars are sent to Iraq. Insane! I am
> truly sorry for the families who lost people in that bridge collapse.

I'm grateful for the "ignore branch" feature of my newsreader.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

MareCat wrote:
>
> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 16:56:34 +0000 (UTC), PeterLucas >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>"MareCat" > wrote in
> m:
> >>
> >>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> >>> 0.25...
> >>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
> >>>> :
> >>>>
> >>>>> "PeterLucas" > wrote in message
> >>>>> .25...
> >>>>>> "MareCat" > wrote in
> >>>>>> :
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The billions sent to Iraq are a drop in the bucket and while not
> >>>>>>>> being particularly well spent are at least being thrown in the
> >>>>>>>> direction of a very real threat.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What threat???
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Go hug a ****ing tree, then go stick your head back in the sand
> >>like
> >>>>>> a good
> >>>>>> little ostrich.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Predictable response...and of course you didn't answer my question.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No.......... *you* give us all a plausable explanation as to why
> >>there
> >>>> is no threat. And never will be any threat.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure the 9-11 victims families would *love* to hear it.
> >>>
> >>> Uh...9-11 had nothing to do with Iraq.
> >>
> >>
> >>You're right. It's got to do with *any* terrorist activity, *anywhere*
> >>in the world that will either directly, or indirectly, affect your
> >>country.
> >>
> >>Isn't that right, leftie?
> >>
> >>
> >>You *are* an American, aren't you?
> >>You *do* love your country, don't you?
> >>You *are* willing to defend your country and your people, aren't you?
>
> >>Or......... do you just want to sit on your arse and bitch and moan
> >>about what you think is right or wrong, and never do anything.
> >>Leave it up to everyone else, hey?
> >>
> >
> > the war on iraq is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, not reducing
> > it. but thanks for the attacks marecat's patriotism. very insightful
> > and to the point. every patriot should swallow whatever nonsense bush
> > puts out with no chaser. and like it.
>
> But, Blake, doncha know that every good little citizen should blindly follow
> its leaders, regardless of how corrupt and flat-out WRONG they are?? What's
> the matter with you??
>
> I just love it when the righties play the patriotism card (although I didn't
> think it was fashionable to do so anymore). In their minds, if anyone
> disagrees with the administration, they MUST be anti-American. Smacks of
> Hitler. It's pretty scary, actually.
>
> Wonder if they have Fox News down in Oz? I'm beginning to think so.
>
> Mary

It's sad how people like you will accuse people who disagree with you of
blindly following the administration i.e. Bush. I don't agree with
99.999% of what the administration does, but suddenly I'm blindly
following them because I don't agree with you on the terrorist threat.

Sorry babe, it doesn't work that way. I look at all the facts and make
my own assessments, I don't blindly follow anyone, not Bush, nor anyone
else on the "right" or "left". I'd be more than happy to shit can Bush
and company and of course Bush is going away anyway, but looking at the
current field of potential replacements I'm not seeing anyone who looks
like they really have a grasp on what needs to be done, either about
terrorism, deteriorating US infrastructure, deteriorating US education,
growing energy issues, or much of anything else.

All I see these days are an extreme "left" and an extreme "right" who
are blindly focused on trying to attack and undermine each other while
the country crumbles around them. The ultimate problem is the majority
of the population is quite centrist, but we're only being given a choice
of two extremes.

Pete C.

Default User wrote:
>
> Stan Horwitz wrote:
>
> > Large parts of the infrastructure here in the states are poorly
> > maintained, yet billions of dollars are sent to Iraq. Insane! I am
> > truly sorry for the families who lost people in that bridge collapse.
>
> I'm grateful for the "ignore branch" feature of my newsreader.

But, but, that's like censorship or political correctness. How are we
ever supposed to solve the worlds ills if we can't have a
(semi)civilized debate? Why do you thing the arab / islamic world is in
such dire straights? It's because they are unable to acknowledge their
faults and look for ways to improve themselves, they stifle all dissent
and debate.

Pete C.

On Aug 2, 1:50?pm, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> There is a famous case of a newly - built bridge
> collapsing in the Pacific Northwest around 1940.
> IIRC it was a suspension bridge and the wind set up
> harmonic vibrations that eventually collapsed it. It
> was a big deal at the time, you may have seen newsreel
> footage of it...

Tacoma Narrows bridge. It was eventually rebuilt. A
new, second suspension span was opened recently.

Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> I've almost come to the conclusion that the best thing we could do is
> withdraw from that whole mess and leave the whole lot of them to their
> insane intercinine devices...they can spend the next few centuries
> fighting amongst themselves (it's all they know how to do). It's
> simply not worth the amount of spilled blood and squandered treasure
> that the US and it's allies have poured into the place...


I have similar thoughts about Afghanistan. They may or may not have been a
threat to the West, though only because the anarchy allowed them to run
terrorist training camps because there was no legitimate government
authority to intercede. better to just quarantine the entire country.
Demolish the air strip and cut off all air traffic. Barricade the highways
and the railways. Place armed guards at the passes and use armed patrols to
interdict smugglers. Let it rot in its filth.

> I used to think that our presence there could do some good, but it
> makes no matter when you are dealing with a bunch of backwards
> religious psychotics (which ALL muslims are)...

It might have if they had had any value for freedom and democracy. They
don't.

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote
>
> > Nancy Young wrote:
>
> >> Once on Mythbusters there was something about the stress on
> >> steel and how, if you got a vibration going at just the perfect
> >> rate, you could bring down a building. I know they were
> >> resurfacing, I wonder about those machines that chew up the
> >> asphalt for replacement. They usually don't just repave over
> >> bridges, they grind some of the asphalt load off. Of course we
> >> will find out eventually, seems like maybe it was a combination of the
> >> heat and the construction activity along with some weakness that
> >> did this bridge in. Those poor people.
>
> > There is a famous case of a newly - built bridge collapsing in the
> > Pacific Northwest around 1940. IIRC it was a suspension bridge and
> > the wind set up harmonic vibrations that eventually collapsed it. It
> > was a big deal at the time, you may have seen newsreel footage of
> > it...
>
> I first saw that not all that long ago. It FREAKED me out! (laugh)
> How disturbing was that?
>
> > Really long and high bridges somewhat oogie me out. I've crossed the
> > Chesapeake Bay Bridge a number of times and I am frankly glad when we
> > get over it.
>
> That's a long one.

Haven't been on that one. I've been on a few steel mesh bridges that
would be less than pleasant to break down on though.

>
> > One time some friends had a flat tire on this
> > bridge...
>
> What is up with that? Like, could your car break down
> in a less convenient spot? I know, the Lincoln Tunnel at rush hour.
> Geez. It's like a car practical joke. Heh heh, he'll be screwed
> if I get a flat tire right now. Traffic will back up for miles and he
> can't pull off.

A flat tire will not stop you from driving, just slow you down. Stopping
in the middle of a tunnel like that to try to change it would border on
reckless endangerment. Just continue driving at the best pace you can
manage until you get out the other end and can pull to the side.

>
> > Of course there is also the scary footage from the San Francisco
> > earthquake of 1989, with those cars going off of the Bay Bridge...
>
> There was one in Connecticut, a slice of the bridge just neatly
> disappeared. Scary.

Yep, and there were many others. CNN had a segment today where they
started with that "Galloping Girdy" collapse and went through the dozens
of others up to yesterday. Then there are the big power grid failures,
the steam pipe explosions, water main breaks, etc. Shows how quickly
people forget about each of these wake up calls and nothing is ever done
to rectify the underlying problems.

Pete C.

> Tacoma Narrows bridge. It was eventually rebuilt. A
> new, second suspension span was opened recently.

I drive on the old one and the new one every day. The traffic used to
be horrible, but now with the new bridge, it's sooooo much better. The
old one only has traffic heading west, the new one, east. The Kitsap
Peninsula is going to grow like crazy now since that traffic issue has
been solved!

"Pete C." > wrote in
:

> PeterLucas wrote:
>>
>> "Pete C." > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > Pete C.
>> >
>> > (Open water / Nitrox and I sure as hell wouldn't be diving there)
>>
>> Yeah......... you just run away "Pete C"...... and keep on running.
>>
>> Let the real men do the job.
>
> "Real men" understand the limits of their training and experience and
> don't go jumping in doing something stupid where their inexperience is
> likely to make them another casualty.


S'funny, I would have thought that Emergency Services training was quite
good over there. It is here.
And, given your scenario, if someone has just completed a Police Rescue
dive course, how long should they stand in the background before you
deem them "experienced" enough to cope with this sort of job?




>Particularly now when it's a
> recovery operation which lacks the urgency of a rescue that might
> justify pushing the limits of ones training.
>


You been tapdancing for long?


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

"People sleep safely in their beds because rough men stand ready in
the night to do violence to those who would do them harm"
-- George Orwell