AW: [ RadSafe ] Wag the dog -ENOUGH!
radproject at sbcglobal.net
Thu Feb 7 00:29:06 CST 2008
Everything to do with this thread unrelated in ANY way to radiation/nuclear issues [such as Iraq not involving DU on a technical level, general politics of news coverage, general aspects of the Bush administration not involving energy policy on nuclear/environmental issues, etc., etc.] have absolutely no place on Radsafe.
If anyone has strong feelings and wants to get into debates on these extraneous [to RadSafe] issues they should take them to the countless political & non-technical listsrvs and blogs on the web.
If some minor mention is made on a "political" non-nuclear/environmental radiation technical issue in a radsafe post, and someone wants to reply or criticize the person making the post, the reply should be taken offlist. Avoiding extraneous chatter on political isues would short-circuit the endless back and forth, tit for tat insults between people on extraneous issues which is not the supposed intent of RadSafe.
Stewart Farber, MS Public Health
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06604
 441-8433 [Office]
 522-2817 [Cell]
 367-0791 [Fax]
email: radproject at sbcglobal.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitchell Davis" <mitchrn at suddenlink.net>
To: "'Steven Dapra'" <sjd at swcp.com>; "'Franz Schönhofer'" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>; "'RADSAFE'" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:45 PM
Subject: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] Wag the dog
I am at a loss to determine who is a bigger idiot...you...or Franz.
Mitchell Davis, RN, RRPT
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 9:26 PM
To: Franz Schönhofer; 'RADSAFE'
Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Wag the dog
Good posting, Franz. You may be better informed about what is
going on in the US than are many people who live here.
I too am not a fan of George W. (I prefer to refer to him as
"King George," based upon his rather obvious love of personal power and his
marked ability to use it in a careless and arbitrary manner.)
As far as "international law" is concerned, I have my doubts about
whether or not the US --- or any nation --- should consider itself bound by
such law(s). United Nations resolutions certainly did not give the US any
right to invade Iraq, nor did we have any right to invade Iraq with or
without such resolutions. These invasion freaks become strangely silent
when asked why they were not beating the drums for the United States to
invade Iraq in the 1970s when Iraq was gassing Kurds; or why they didn't
support a US invasion of the USSR when it was gassing Afghans in the
1980s. I often wonder why the invaders didn't want to "see justice done"
in other times or in other countries. Your comments about the US provoking
an internal war in Iraq are right on target. Our utterly unwarranted
meddling there has led to nothing but chaos and bloodshed.
At 12:26 AM 2/7/08 +0100, Franz Schönhofer wrote:
>Since the topic involves the WMD stories, including nuclear bombs, I do not
>hesitate to answer to you and RADSAFE as well - as you did before.
>I do not need "things to be explained to me" by an obvious and ignorant
>hardliner of the official G W propaganda.
>So much about my explanation. But back to your really unacceptable mail:
>What are you talking about international law? The US gives a damn to any
>international laws and agreements. The UN resolutions did not give any
>for foreign invasion - if you claim this, it is a lie. The atrocities (I
>believe that the spelling "attrocities" is wrong) were of course terrible
>and distainful, but did not "oblige the US to invade and see justice done".
>A nice byproduct was of course the huge oil deposits in Iraq...... It
>that more people have been killed after the invasion of the US than by
>Saddam Hussein. The US has provoked an internal war, where different groups
>of islamists are fiercly fighting each others and where - according to US
>sources, which are probably not reliable because of obvious reasons -
>Al-Kaida is involved. Al Kaida was not in Iraq during Saddam Husseins
>I am not going to discuss anything further with you over the list - the
>representative of the GW Bush politics. These politics are over. Let us
>that anything reasonable like the recent denial of funds for "modernizing"
>the nuclear US force etc. etc., which can be read in detail for instance at
>the NTI website or on a variety of US papers.
>I would appreciate if nothing like this political propaganda would appear
>RADSAFE again. You are not going to shut my mouth by your unacceptable
>Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
>Von: Richard D. Urban Jr. [mailto:radmax at earthlink.net]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Februar 2008 09:17
>An: Franz Schönhofer; RADSAFE
>Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Wag the dog
>Once again FRANZ... how many times do you need things explained to you???
>QUIT listening to the European Press. Try Fox News, or even CNN.
>FIRST, I'm sure most here are familiar with the movie WAG THE DOG, which
>came out just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, it tied perfectly
>into President Clinton's announcement, three days after admitting for the
>first time an "inappropriate relationship" with Ms. Lewinsky, that he
>ordered military strikes in two countries. The movie's title comes from an
>old joke, shown in the opening credits of the film: "Why does a dog wag its
>tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail were smarter, the
>tail would wag the dog."
>SECOND, by international law, since Saddam had failed to comply with
>(how many was it again?) UN (insert laugh track here) resolutions, and had
>committed other attrocities like gassing the Kurds, we were obliged to
>invade and see justice done.
>AGAIN FRANZ, THE WORLDS BEST INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES THOUGHT SADDAM HAD WMD!
>Why, BECAUSE...Saddam WANTED the world to think he HAD WMD.
>"60 Minutes Report: Saddam Let The World Think He Had WMD" is the Headline
>from HUFFINGTON POST (a VERY ANTI-BUSH website)
>Here's a direct link to the interview perhaps you didn't hear about this,
>it happened back in November...
>And best for last, perhaps Bush didn't even get it wrong, let alone lie?
>...a translation of one of the captured Iraqi documents, a memorandum from
>the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service to the Military
>Industrialization Commission discusses counterintelligence information
>regarding an informant with knowledge of the locations for Iraqi WMD
>"We were informed by one of our sources working abroad, that foreign
>intelligence is working to obtain information about some military and
>scientific targets in the Country. The undercover source provided us with a
>map of the targets...for the purpose of pointing out the enemy's interest,
>and to enable you to maneuver by CHANGING THE LOCATIONS OF THESE TARGETS,
>order to foil enemy's plans...
>What absolutely was NO LIE...Saddams invasion of Kuwait was no lie, nor the
>mass graves uncovered over there, nor poison gassings, nor rape and torture
>chambers, nor pillaging of moneys to build MULTIPLE palaces, nor...
>American who will NOT tolerate bashing of MY government from anyone.
> >From: Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
> >Sent: Feb 2, 2008 2:38 PM
> >To: RADSAFE <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Wag the dog
> >I have just watched on TV the very interesting film "Wag the dog...
> >...I remind everybody about the claims of a state, that Iraq had WMD,
> >was hiding them in the sand or where so ever...
> >Sorry, I "forgot" to mention that the film "Wag the Dog" is a US one,
> >released in 1997 (ninety ninety seven) and long before the latest Iraq
> >which is officially waged to bring democracy, peace, bla, bla, bla to
More information about the RadSafe