War in Irak?

[brucewenham]

Who's for the war in Irak?

[Gość: Melater, Bill]

Sure, I am! I went beyond verbal support already, and I have my tax receipts to
prove it. I hope it'll be enough to write Saddam's frickin' name no one of the
bombs.

[Gość: Wojtek]

Would you care to tell us more about your other than verbal contribution? And
are you sure that bomb with S-m's name will be delivered to the addressee. You
know postal services, don't you.

[Gość: Melater, Bill]

Sure I do know the address: it's the speck of land between Syria and Iran
(another grand set of candidates to have their asses kicked). And you, bleeding-
heart liberal, should quite whining and get it once for all: this bomb would
save your sorry ass, too, so you can enjoy freedom, democracy and your right to
go around and to utter this nonsense.

[Gość: Wojtek]

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry
into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both
emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind... And when the drums of war
have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has
closed , the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will
offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For
this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- William Shakespeare

[Gość: Wojtek]

BillMuchLater,
what did you do to have part of your tax returned? Put a lot of dosh in a big
box "War Effort"?

[Gość: Melater, Bill]

Yeah, Yeah! Why don't you quote some French or British newspapers from 1939?
They thought they could reason with Adolf, too. Did you skip a few hours from
your history class? Or you just a half-baked intellectual?

[Gość: Wojtek]

Well, what happened in '39? Weren't they a bunch of Polish terrorists who
attacked some radio tower in Silesia? Which Adolf are you talking about? Unless
you are after a little slangig match...

[Gość: ewas]

Gość portalu: Wojtek napisał(a):

Q.:
> Well, what happened in '39?

A.:
public attention in Germany was diverted from domestic affairs.

erwas

[Gość: Wojtek]

Thank you, erwas.

[Gość: Dr Shrink]

I rest my case. Next thing I need is you tellig me that September 11 was
orchestrated by Bush's administration. Why not gassing of Kurds and invasion of
Kuwait? You know what, you really deserve to have your fat and lazy European
asses poked by some Saddam or other son of a street worker. And as always,
Americans will replace the "War Effort" donation boxes with the "Help for
Europe" ones.

[Gość: Wojtek]

I never said what you imply. The uncanny similarity with Adolf was suggested
by your pal, Bill.
Why don't you go and look for the terrorists where they are? They are nowhere
near Iraq.

[Gość: Melater, Bill]

There is one terrorist in Iraq for sure: Saddam. Plus, there is money for them,
and there ist a safe haven for them, too. Besides, you would not see them,
because they usually hide behind women and children.
Well, tell me: if not a war in Iraq, then what? Waiting 'till he screws
somebody again? Would you dismiss that, too?

[Gość: Melater, Bill]

Wassup, doc?
What does the "ca" stand for? Cambodia?

[Gość: Dr Shrink]

William, you know full well what ca stands for. Calgary.

[Gość: Melater, Bill]

I knew it! I can smell a Canuck from a mile, eh. Show your true colours now, eh.

this love fest...

[Gość: erwas]

...has to end.

Gość portalu: Melater, Bill napisał(a):

> I knew it! I can smell a Canuck from a mile, eh.

you sensual beast! think before you spurt! the Dr. is the inellectual type and
might feel uncomfortable with you canine manners.

> Show your true colours now, eh

no, no, no. first tell him what YOU're wearing, THEN probe.

erwas

Re...if not war in Iraq, then what?...

[Gość: Wojtek]

BillMeLater,
I think you summed up your fuhrer's dilemma pretty well in that question.
Seriously though, why Iraq and why now? Nobody doubts that Saddam is a cruel
tyrant. But he is not much different from other modern dictators. Since when is
America interested in freeing the world from bad boys? It usually supports them
or even sets them up - Panama, Nicaragua, Chile to name but few. The Iraqis had
nothing to do with 9/11! The Iraqis said yes to Inspectors! Saddam is less of a
threat to the World or USA than he was twenty or even ten years ago! These are
the facts that make us, the Wrong-Wingers in Europe question your motives Mr
Right-Winger. By the way, tou going there yourself, or staying in front of a
telly to cheer your boys up?

crusade

[Gość: mishy]

Saddam is not the problem here. It is the American economy that needs a
boost through new contracts in arms industry, and after all you have to test
all these weapons somewhere...don't you?
Well, why not invent a big bad boy somewhere in a remote location (
unidentified by most of the Americans anyway ) and... they are not God
-loving Christians as well !!!
Eventually the US will reap the economical benefits of the invasion and
"Bill all-of-us Later"
By the way what tools do you think Saddam will be fighting them of with?
Their own last season's technology.
Oh, yes, did I mention some Ego's that need to be boosted there as well?
Talking of the "politics-small penis" connection again...

[Gość: wacko jacko]

Gość portalu: Wojtek napisał(a):
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry
into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both
emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind... And when the drums of war
have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has
closed , the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry.
Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will
offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For
this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
- William Shakespeare

Well, well, well. Nice try. The only thing is Shakespeare never wrote it.
It was the hoax. Barbra Streisand knows it the best because she was a victum of
it. She has made a complete ass of herself, not the first time.

[Gość: Wojtek]

Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

> Gość portalu: Wojtek napisał(a) (...) And I am Caesar."
> - William Shakespeare
>
> Well, well, well. Nice try. The only thing is Shakespeare never wrote it.
> It was the hoax. Barbra Streisand knows it the best because she was a victum
of
>
> it. She has made a complete ass of herself, not the first time.

I admit to have taken it from some web page and not from Shakespeare's "Caesar
and ...". Could you tell me more about it, the hoax and the circumstances, and
when did it happen. Serious request.
Regards.

[Gość: Me how]

I am against the war in Iraq.

[Gość: nat]

And so am I - it won't solve anything

[Gość: Wojtek]

brucewehman - OK? So far it looks like no war. Well, on this thread anyway.
I wonder who he works for?

[Gość: kluba1]

brucewenham napisał:

> Who's for the war in Irak?
>
I am for a war WITH Irack and if possible IN Irack. I am afraid that is going
to be not only there. But it already started .

Streisand's hoax

[Gość: wacko jacko]

JULIUS CAESAR QUOTE USED IN DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL GALA SPEECH
(updated 10-02-02)

Introducing her performance of Irving Berlin's "God Bless America" at the
Democratic National Gala, Barbra Streisand read material which she identified
as having been written by William Shakespeare. It had been passed to her by a
friend, but she learned the following day that it is, rather, a passage which
is widely circulated on the internet as an excerpt from Shakespeare's "Julius
Caesar" but which is, in fact, an anonymous composition, not Shakespeare at all.
She wanted this brought to your attention, with the following note from her:

"The authorship of this is important. But it doesn't detract from the fact that
the words themselves are powerful and true and beautifully written. Whoever
wrote this is damn talented and should be writing their own play."
www.barbrastreisand.com/
click on 10/04/02 NEW Truth Alert!

For full text of nonShakespeare's "Julius Cesar"
www.barbrastreisand.com/
click on 9/30/02 BARBRA STREISAND at the Democratic .................

The shit hit the fan very next day. She was humiliated and ambarassed.
Also read a letter to Dick Gephardt where you'll find misspelled names.
Not anymore. They were fixed. She has blamed the errors on staffers.

[Gość: Wojtek]

Thanks, Whacko!

My apologies to all who opposed the war on account of that text being
Shakespeare's. To be honest, I spent an hour today going through both "Julius
Caesar" and "Antony & Cleopatra" in hope of finding it there... Well,
Shakespeare or Falczak, it was an insightful description of crowd behaviour in
certain quarters at certain times.
I am not a fun B S.

[Gość: ANSWER]

[Gość: Wojtek]

Yes?

Was it an answer, Answer? Against?

[Gość: wacko jacko]

The buildup already has begun. The only way to avert the war is Saddam Hussein
to step down. Can anyone picture that? So, at the moment war seams to be a sure
thing. It can only be fought during the winter. After that the weather is
way to hot for soldiers to be wearing heavy, protective gear.

Nat wrote: "..it wont solve anything." That remains to be seen.
Wars usually solve things for some period of time so above opinion is false on
its face.

[Gość: erwas]

Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):


> Nat wrote: "..it wont solve anything." That remains to be seen.
> Wars usually solve things for some period of time so above opinion is false
> on its face.

false on its face?
falls on its face?
is false on its face
is falls on its face?

but you're right. wars DO solve.

erwas

[Gość: Wojtek]

They do, till the next ones.

No justice, no peace - ever.
Amen.

[Gość: erwas]

Gość portalu: Wojtek napisał(a):

> No justice, no peace - ever.
> Amen.

uh oh.

sounds like "last words".

ever try: "Elohim, why hast thou forsaken me?"

erwas

[Gość: Wojtek]

Gość portalu: erwas napisał(a):

> uh oh.
>
> sounds like "last words".
>
> ever try: "Elohim, why hast thou forsaken me?"

ah, but he got up three days later, reassured his accomplices (doubting Thomas
including) then went up in a flash and is sitting now on his father's Right
(capitals here do not denote raised voice!) side making sure the cash flows.
And he certainly made sure that both the Romans and Sanhedrin were punished.
The Roman empire adopted officialy 'turn the other cheek' policy and soon
disappeared; the Sanhedrin and its followers...? You know damn well what
happened. Don,t bring fairy tales to support your views, erwas.

[Gość: wacko jacko]

William Saffire wrote an excellent piece in today's New York Times.
It's about potential war wit Iraq.
You can get it at www.commentators.com/.
It is a free service but you have to create an account with NYT.

[Gość: erwas]

Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisało:
> It is a free service but you have to create an account with NYT.

the only cost is reading debilitated, flaky garbage.
he argues that the US is doing the world at large a stunning favour by
proposing to slaughter Iraquis (which he calls the liberation of Iraq) since
this will reduce oil prices! this guy is not a brainless twit. he just simply
assumes that you (dear reader) are a brainless twit.
the rejuvenating Japan bit is too stupid to even discuss.
the cause of Third World poverty is based on the rich world's refusal to trade
fairly with poor countries, by heavily subsidising farm produce and anything
else that poor countries are capable of producing. Both the US and the EU have
spent untold billions on this policy. money well spent: the food production
industry is practically destroyed in most poor countries. White House and State
Department foreign-policy experts are overwhelmingly directed towards military
and diplomatic issues, not poverty reduction or development issues. global
inequality is worsening rapidly. prices of industrial goods and services
exported from rich countries are increasing faster than the prices of goods and
services exported by poor countries. oil then becomes merely yet another item
poor countries have troublr paying for, but is hardly the cause of their
poverty.

he reckons that if the Turks invade the Kurdish heartland of Iraq, that the
Kurds will happily fight alongside their mortal enemies, and that if the Turks
steal the Kirkuk oil fields (which rightly belong to the Kurds, at least in
their minds) it will "be an incentive for them to patch up relations with pro-
democracy Iraqi Kurds fighting Saddam at their side."

he salivates over the vast gains and profits to be made by US and UK economies
and their oil companies after liberating Iraqi oil fields from the Iraqis and
then gets all high pitched over the "Paris-Moscow-Beijing axis of greed — whose
commerce-driven politicians seek to prop up the doomed Saddam".

I had the misfortune to live in a totalitarian Communist dictartorship for many
years of my life. it always offended me how little respect propagandists paid
to peoples intelligence by mechanically mouthing stock phrases of abuse at
their adversaries. who needs to hear these bumper sticker wisdoms. how sad it
is that current American society is assumed to be a brainless herd to be fed
nutriment-free fodder.

don't send any more crap from William or Rush or other such-like preachers, or
I'll get upset again and write long epistles.
erwas

[Gość: Wojtek]

Safire: Thank you for the informative, timely and interesting editorial today.

I bet you think it's a wind up. If not that,I must be raving mad. Well,
neither. All you do now is put quotation marks on the above statement. Its
author is hiding behind 'btanne1696' nick. What am I talking about? Ok, you
follow the link to Safire's article Wacko kindly provided and since erwas
kindly read it for you (spot on, erwas!) you go straight down the page and
press 'forum' button. And this is where the value of Wacko's post lies. He let
you in to mine of information on Obese America's mental health. That's where
you can find 'btanne 1696'. That's where you can find 'phillyfanatic'
writing "...why our brave Prez (and I love him) cannot see that the Israeli's
attack to kill the Hamas killer leader was a necessity..." and 'bogwan1' writing
"The only thing that will swing the EU to our side is a few 9/11 happenings in
their midst." and on and on...in similar vain.
Jacko, wake up!

[Gość: wacko jacko]

erwas take a pill. Relax man. What is it? You can't stomach an opposing view?
Not everyone shares your convictions.
Bill Saffire is a respected and renown columnist. Never heard of him?
I respect you disagrement, but to call it a crop is silly.
I am sending you a link to Mort Kondracke ( who is moderate and closer to
democrats but not a nut like late Paul Wellstone )
www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/kondracke/00/2002/kond1021.html

Woktek, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify.

[Gość: erwas]

Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

> erwas take a pill. Relax man. What is it? You can't stomach an opposing view?
> Not everyone shares your convictions.

jacko, let me explain two things to you:
1. this is a discussion. you present one set of views, I counter it with
another. there is nothing pathological about this, it does not mean that I
cannot stomach opposing views; it simply means that I do not agree, perhaps
even disagree strongly. so I do get a little florid in my form; it does not
mean that I need therapy. try to write a post without ladelling lathering gobs
of advice (not to mention invective). as someone once said: "I hate to take
your advice, you obviously need it so badly yourself."
2. views are one thing, misinformation is another. Safire is one member of a
growing bandwagon of populist manipulators of the angry rabble that want to
cause pain, death and destruction in the name of American values. this man
fixes "facts" for the unwashed masses so they can feel justified in hating
those nasty little brown subhumans whom they are about to kill in large
numbers. he suggests that we are doing this for their sakes, that we are going
to liberate them and feed the hungry Third World. tell me jacko, do you really
belive that the US is about to attack one of the worlds largest oil producers
so as to bring "liberaton" to its people and to feed all the hungry and
diposessed of the world? let me suggest the following possibility: the US is
going to come into posession of vast oil reserves and continue disposessing the
already diposessed.

> Bill Saffire is a respected and renown columnist. Never heard of him?

he is famous, not universally respected, and I do read his pieces sometimes
just to see what kind of wild tangents the deranged are travelling on. I even
know how to spell his name correctly.
erwas

American imperialism and subhumans

[Gość: wacko jacko]

Your reaction to the Saffire's piece was so intense I thought you need a chill
pill. Maybe I was wrong.
Are you an excitable person? I don't mean to insult you.
How can you write that Saffire is a populist manipulator is beyond me.
Even Carville and Begala don't characterize him as such. To say that he writes
for the hungry masses is disingenuous. As you know NYT is not a regular Joe
newspaper. It is rather addressed to the elites.

In colleges Saffire is not respected at all. That is Noam Chomsky territory.
Are you in that environment? I think you are. Are you against globalisation?
I can't be sure, but you sound like you are.

Well, there is the world outside colleges.

Why are you crying so much about Third World countries? They are all in the
hands of dictators and thieves. USA pumped bilions into Haiti with no aparent
result. Poor haitians still attempting to escape that hell on earth.
What difference does it make who is the oppressor, Papa Doc Duvalier or Jean
Bertrand Aristide? Is Saddam Hussein any better? BTW I think he is a dead man
walking.

[Gość: Wojtek]

wacko,
Yes, I see your point and to clarify here we go: "Safire, thank you..." was a
post I found in NYT forum devoted to Safire's articles and which chimed in
nicely with your "excelent piece" praise. Excelent example of crap it was! Take
the 'one-pundit's possible scenario bit - it is one sided, simplistic and
optimistic disregard for reality. Of course, it's only his and only possible,
so there it is where he is being clever, peddling this Hollywood scenario to
his ansuspecting fans. You should know how it works. Anyway,I didn't comment on
the article itself because erwas did it, and much better than I would have done.
Safire (one 'f' only) has a fan club and it struck me that you may belong in
there since you see him as "widely respected". People see and hear what they
like to see and hear and I heard him being described as a "'token conservative'
among the New York slime", so there we are... All the quotes in my previous
post come from the discussion going on around Safire's articles from July this
year, which you can find pressing "forum" under the article.
wacko, wake up, you are walking with the wrong crowd - is what I really wanted
to say. Stick with us, we are lovely bunch.
Cheers

[Gość: wacko jacko]

I like you guys but I am a conservative. The left wing agenda doesn't appeal
to me at all. No, I am not a Safire follower and I wouldn't bother to
participate in his forum. I didn't even know it existed since I read NYT in
print. As for term "token conservative", well he is the only one on NYT
payroll. The rest of the crowd is to the left wall.
You can take an interesting trip to the past and read some of the staff written
before the Gulf War. At that time it was Safire who was right in his
prediction. And believe you me Safire is widely respected not by my standards.
Unless you're with Gore Vidal and Chomsky.

All this is an academic discussion as we have no say in it. More or less it is
done deal. The war is near whether we like it or not.

PS. In 1994 Peter Jennings, who claims not to be biased, said on election night
while it became apparent Republicans won control of the House that the voters
behave like a bunch of 5 year old children. So the conclusion is when you vote
for a democrat you're smart, when you vote for a republican you are 5 year old.
Peter Jennings is widely respected.

[Gość: Wojtek]

www.guardian.co.uk/comment/0.3604.822212.00.html

[Gość: Wojtek]

If you get 'Sorry' page, press the 'Guardian Unlimited homepage' and, once
there:
'Paul Foot: the people must protest.' in Pick of the day.

not that I hope for a change in you, still...

[kamilaksiezyc]

I don`t agree for Bush,because in Irak live people such as we.War in Irak will
be new international war.I am for Irak.In USA live many people,who make very
more money and They stolen country thirth world.We must help their.New war is
stupped.War isn`t finish problem.I think that USA for 11 September want make
III war world.And I hate America for this.

[Gość: Wojtek]

Don't hate, forgive for they know not what they are doing. Amen.

hate alone...

[Gość: mishy]

...will not protect you from the bombs.
Fight and defend yourselves.
Z Bogiem, whichever one!

The cost of peace

[Gość: wacko jacko]

I see everybody more or less is against the war, any war, for variety of
reasons. All I can see is a pure emotion driving the thought process.
War is bad and people like us get killed is all I can read. Not good enough.
Can any one make a rational argument against the war?

[Gość: Wojtek]

Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

> I see everybody more or less is against the war, any war, for variety of
> reasons. All I can see is a pure emotion driving the thought process.
> War is bad and people like us get killed is all I can read. Not good enough.
> Can any one make a rational argument against the war?

Rational!? It is quite apparent, even at a cursory reading of this thread,
that there is no point in arguing with you. You will simply not get it! All you
can do is to quote "respectable" names, and... more names. This is about a
difference between 'right' and 'wrong' and not right and left, for starters!

[Gość: wacko jacko]

I can't make you opine. Sorry to disappoint you but it’s always between right
and left.
So called moderates have no say in anything except voting booth.
Even if it is right or wrong this time I’d still like to see coherent and
rational argument from either side. Dear Wojtek I promise you I can get it if
it’s not about the poor children
and women being killed. It really has to be better than that.
On the other hand are you able to get my argument when I present it?
In your thought process, you are dismissing my intelligence only on the basis
of my political affiliation. In your mind conservative equals stupid,
socialist equals smart.
In 1938 FDR floated a régime change in Germany with UK and France. Neither
government was for it at the time.

[Gość: Wojtek]

Rational arguments against war (= any war) can only be made from moral
viewpoint. We could argue presenting honest, 'real' thoughts or just lots of
qoutations from books of philosophy, religions, science... which could be fun
and quite educational but I somehow doubt it possible here. So, simply (and
naively): Right and wrong, Good and Evil are not independently existing
phenomena, they are absent outside "the web of humanity". These are qualifiers,
ethical statements. And what we, humans, value most? Life. The right to live is
the basic right in our value system. War is a life destroyer therefore is
Wrong. Rational enough for you.
From any other viewpoint, this must analized case by case on their particular
merits and drawbacks. In other words, which war, in what circumstances, for
whom... kind of questions. As far as the war with Iraq is concerned, you know
my arguments from previous posts but I can repeat in one word (or two):
basically unjustified

[Gość: wacko jacko]

>And what we, humans, value most? Life. The right to live is the basic right
>in our value system. War is a life destroyer therefore is Wrong. Rational
>enough for you.
Regretably not enough. I'd like to bring to your attention a motto of the
state of New Hampshire "Live free or die".
For Americans there are two mor rights on top of life. These are Liberty and
Pursuit of Happiness.

Well, I've read your previous posts in this topic and I couldn't find what
your argument was. I don't count the nonshakespearian one. I know you against
this war because it's as you put it "basically injustified". I also understand
that from moral standpoint the war is wrong, it is Evil.
What does it mean "basically unjustified"? Can you tell us more?

[Gość: Wojtek]

In "...if not War in Iraq, then what..." post I stated my reasons.

home.earthlink.net/"whosgoing to hell/oil.htm

[Gość: Wojtek]

sorry


home.earthlink.net/"whosgoingtohell/oil.htm

[Gość: wacko jacko]

the link is broken.

[Gość: Wojtek]

yeah, sorry. You go there, if you really want to, by following that broken
link then, by typing "whosgoingtohell", then 'pressing on the new page "extend
search to entire net", then pressing 'Satan for president' and once there
press "price of gassoline"... But it's just a limp joke, so forget it. Consider
just my 3 arguments: - no 9/11 link

- yes to inspectors

- his basically 'unthreatening' position at present...

Let me ask you Jacko this: how close to your doorstep must war be happening
before you think and feel in terms of the'human web'?

[Gość: wacko jacko]

Wojtek's question:
"Let me ask you Jacko this: how close to your doorstep must war be happening
before you think and feel in terms of the'human web'?"

How close? Well, I live in New York and I witnessed the tragedy.
And I also smelled it.
Was that an act of war or a soothing peace? Please.

[Gość: Wojtek]

Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

> Wojtek's question:
> "Let me ask you Jacko this: how close to your doorstep must war be happening
> before you think and feel in terms of the'human web'?"
>
> How close? Well, I live in New York and I witnessed the tragedy.
> And I also smelled it.
> Was that an act of war or a soothing peace? Please.


Then go and turn Saudi Arabia into a pile of rubble, for fuck's sake!

[Gość: wacko jacko]

Wojtek's statet reasons for being against the war:
"The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11! The Iraqi said yes to Inspectors!
Saddam is less of a threat to the World or USA than he was twenty or even ten
years ago! These are the facts that make us, the Wrong-Wingers in Europe
question your motives Mr Right-Winger. By the way, tou going there yourself,
or staying in front of a telly to cheer your boys up?"

1. We don't know what exactly they had to do with 9/11. Czechs are still
sticking to their story about Atta'a meetings in Prague. CIA is denying it.
2. No, Iraq did not agreed to let inspectors have unlimited access to all
sites. Saddam is sticking to his and Annan 1998 agreement. USA will not accept
it.
3. Iraq is a clear but not necessarily present danger. It is not a military
power but its covert activities and support for terrorism.

The difference is that in case of emergency you, Europeans as you said, will
call Fire Department. We Americans are the Fire Department.

I know the last sentence was not addressed to me, but for the record in US we
don't have tellies we have TV sets.

[Gość: Wojtek]

V. Havel officialy stated to disregard that as it is 'a canard'.
I am the first to admit your 'Fire dep.' role in Yugoslavia. Europe is guilty
like hell on that score. I said so in another topic. Still, War with Iraq is
unjustified.


Keep up the lack of questioning, analitical thinking (or thinking, full stop)
and stay tuned to Cable TV!!!

Signed
Dick Cheney
Don Rumsfeld
Dubya & Dumbya in one

[Gość: wacko jacko]

I can see clearly now.

I am stupid. I cannot think or think analitically.

I have a wire implanted in the remains of my incapable brain.
That wire is directly connected to the brain of my incredibly stupid president.
His thoughts ar mine. We are one brain now.
Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are in fact controlling our thinking process and
jump starting it when it stalls.

Congratulations Wojtek. I am throwing my arms up.
Signing off, wacko jacko.

[Gość: Wojtek]

OK, sorry.

Limping attempt at at a limp joke, sorry again.

[Gość: erwas]

Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał(a):

> >And what we, humans, value most? Life.

hate to be so argumentative, but: your reply to your own questin is incorrect.

what do humans value most? happiness. all your remaining arguments are based on
the assumption that humans value life more than they value anything.
humans are often ready to sacrifice life for what they value most. they die for
love, they die for happiness.
erwas

[Gość: Wojtek]

erwas,
You shot me in the back, while firing at Wacko's hat. It was me who said it
anf he just quoted it to disagree the same way you do.
I certainly know what you both mean! I am allowing myself some time off to
ponder over it, as I find it debatable. Shall be back with heavy artillery!!!
(If I can find it.)

[Gość: Wojtek]

erwas,
no need for anything heavy here. What you are really saying is this: life of
happiness is better than life of misery (sure!); I'd rather be dead than live
like this (some 'yes', majority 'no', if only for the 'hope' element). Anyway,
you have to 'have' this life to be able to make the choice to die. Happiness is
relative, life is absolute in this context. Remember the long and agonizing
process to make the right decission over the Maltese twins in a London hospital
few years ago? The courts decided (against the parents' wish) to allow
to 'kill' one to give a Chance of life (and I stress 'chance') to the other in
the face of certain death for both if they were left without surgical
intervention. Another thing, euthanasia is still unlawful basically worldwide.
People are free to choose, of course, but there still are countries where
suicide is 'against' the law, ridiculious but true.
I think I stick with my "Life is of supreme value in our value system"
statement.

Wacko,
I don't really mind your choosing to take offence at your convenience but don't
activate my 'bulshit X-ray alarm' with silly 'contrarguments' about the Checs
or corrections of my "telly" for the American "TV-sets", as long as you know
what I mean - American English is Not Standard English Yet. You
invite 'certain' posts if you go like this.

the gun, still smoking

[Gość: erwas]

Gość portalu: Wojtek napisał(a):

> erwas,
> You shot me in the back, while firing at Wacko's hat.

actually, I was aiming at my foot.

[Gość: Wojtek]

Well, I don't think you are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but... but I'll let you off the hook. O.J. Simpson got off, why shouldn't
you. Gentlemen should be protected, they are so rare.