|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > July 2005 > Shame on the politicians
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Shame on the politicians
|
|
| Chess Politics 2005-07-20, 8:42 pm |
| Your chess politicians have been behaving very badly. They bicker with
each other like a bunch of spoiled children. It is a total
embarrassment. The world is laughing at your organization.
It is quite pathetic for President Marinello to act so foolishly. How
could you Yanks vote for someone like that? To make matters worst, you
made her the COO and acting ED.
It is equally bad for Mr. Dubeck to bash everyone in sight. This is
worst than the behavior of a flea market salesperson. How could these
people be Presidents of your federation?
At the same time, how could Mr. Goichberg be a board member? Isn't it a
conflict of interest? Mr. Schultz is another story. Neither side should
be governing this federation.
You Yanks are so screwed up.
Cordially,
James Singh
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| James Singh,
How could the Brits keep Tony Blair in office? He's so stupid as to
blindly follow Gearge Bush. Re the tragedy in London, to paraphrase
Bobby Fischer on 9/11, you Brits had it coming.
Mike
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| mike.good...@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
> Re the tragedy in London, to paraphrase
> Bobby Fischer on 9/11, you Brits had it coming.
>
> Mike
You are now officially a shitbag, Mike. XXXX you.
MN
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| Matt,
George Bush, with Blair's help, is responsible for the murder of over a
hundred thousand Iraqis, some 1800 Americans, and some number of
British soldiers. Everyone who voted for either George Bush or Tony
Blair is complicit in mass murder. A war of choice is mass murder. A
war based on lies is mass murder. If justice were to prevail George
Bush would be arrested, shipped off to Guantanimo, tortured for a few
months, and then shot. Fat chance.
Mike
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| Actually I'm an Anglophile. I like nearly everything British, from
their chess to the way they talk (they almost speak English!). I read
the complete Sherlock Holmes, as well as most of Agatha Christie. I'm
just horrified that Blair is blindly following that pile of shit in the
White House. Progressives look to Europe for leadership when our own
is found wanting, only to find Britain just as foolhardy.
Mike
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2005-07-21, 12:32 am |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
> Matt,
>
> George Bush, with Blair's help, is responsible for the murder of over a
> hundred thousand Iraqis, some 1800 Americans, and some number of
> British soldiers.
And the ruler he deposed? How many Kurds did he gas? How many of his
own people did he murder? If Hussein were still in power, do you feel
the Iraqis would be better off?
I'm all for the U.S. not playing world police, but since that decision
is well above my paygrade -- and without trying to perpetuate a cheesy
cliche -- "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs."
You liberals like to think of yourselves as somehow enlightened and
preach "tolerance" and "diversity," but when we actually DO SOEMTHING
about those who murder their own people all of the sudden we're the bad
guys. If Bush *didn't* do anything we'd be insensitive to the plight
of foreign peoples. The old "damned if we do; damned if we don't"
catch-22. Seems like you think everybody would be better off if we
just wagged our finger at Saddam and told him killing his own people
was a no-no.
quote:
> Everyone who voted for either George Bush or Tony
> Blair is complicit in mass murder.
I'm enlisted in the United States Navy and President George W. Bush is
my Commander in Chief. I voted for him TWICE, too. I guess that makes
me John Wayne Gacy.
quote:
> A war of choice is mass murder.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing
which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable
creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the
exertions of better men than him."
-- John Stewart Mill (1806-1873)
quote:
> A war based on lies is mass murder.
"Lies."
EVERY SINGLE Democrat prior to the 2000 election *insisted* that Iraq
had weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence isn't perfect, and
hindsight is 20/20. Try again, Mike. Nice spin, though.
quote:
> If justice were to prevail George
> Bush would be arrested, shipped off to Guantanimo, tortured for a few
> months, and then shot.
Yes. We should torture the man who had the balls to take action
against a ruthless dictator, but we should send our own soldiers,
sailors, Marines, and airment to the gas chamber because they defended
themselves against insurgents by shooting an allegedly unarmed Iraqi
"civilian" who refused to cooperate with authorities in a country
infested with suicide bombers.
Yes. I totally agree.
/sarcasm
quote:
> Fat chance.
>
> Mike
Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not
started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11,
2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not
brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac
from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly
three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or
crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when
an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't.
I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for
incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in
Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for
hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling,
slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and
fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in
mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of
nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide
bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First
Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead
of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
I'll care when Clinton-appointed judges stop ordering my government to
release photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, which are sure to set off
the Islamic extremists just as Newsweek's lies did a few weeks ago.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave Marine roughing up
an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have
been
humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest assured
that I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not
to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank
that I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat,
and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is
complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can
absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and -- you guessed it
-- I don't care.
Maybe I'm just an insensitive bastard, Mike; or maybe you're just
XXXXed in the head. I suspect the latter, as your support of the
terrorist attacks on London proves it.
Go XXXX yourself.
MN
| |
|
| mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
> Actually I'm an Anglophile. I like nearly everything British,
> from their chess to the way they talk (they almost speak English!).
> I read the complete Sherlock Holmes, as well as most of Agatha
> Christie. I'm just horrified that Blair is blindly following
> that pile of shit in the White House. ...
The Labour Party's recent victory in the general election should not
be construed as 'proof' that most people in the UK approve of Tony
Blair's subservient support of US foreign and military policies.
--Nick
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-07-21, 3:32 am |
| On 20 Jul 2005 20:16:39 -0700, mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
>Progressives look to Europe for leadership when our own
>is found wanting, only to find Britain just as foolhardy.
A lot of folks did that in the 1930s.
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2005-07-21, 3:32 am |
| Nick wrote:
quote:
> The Labour Party's recent victory in the general election should not
> be construed as 'proof' that most people in the UK approve of Tony
> Blair's subservient support of US foreign and military policies.
>
> --Nick
Why does Blair have to be a "subservient support[er]" of the U.S.
because he sees the right thing to do and <GASP!> has the stones to
play the hand?
Is it *so* far-fetched to think that maybe -- just MAYBE -- getting rid
of Saddam Hussein was a GOOD THING and other people agree??
Regards,
Matt
| |
| RSHaas@aol.com 2005-07-21, 3:32 am |
| English women seem to be rather busty. Cooking, however, is not one
of their great achievements.
Old Haasie
| |
| Equinorm@AOL.com 2005-07-21, 3:33 am |
| Matt:
I don't condone Mr. Goodall's original post re: the terrorist
attacks on London. His later posts do suggest that his first post did
not accurately and fully reflect his feelings and I hope that this is
in fact the case. Anyone who rejoices in the death of innocents for
political reasons is close to being a lost soul, IMO.
This is perhaps not the best place for a dialogue on the wisdom of
our intervention in Iraq. I will just note that, even among those who
strongly believe that the intervention was a mistake, there are very
few who would not acknowledge that deposing Hussein was by itself a
good thing. The real questions posed by the intervention are not
whether getting rid of Hussein is, when taken in isolation, a positive
step, but rather whether the means employed are justified by that end
and what the other consequences of the intervention will be. On these
questions, I believe that reasonable men can disagree.
- Geof
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 3:33 am |
| Hi Geof!
I was actually trying to be misunderstood, in the way Fischer was. I
think he gets a bad rap because he is so consumed with his
anti-semitism that his political opinions are obscured, and actually
quite mainstream in Europe.
I agree that deposing Sadam was a good thing. However, it was not
worth 1800 American lives, hundreds of British lives and over a hundred
thousand Iraqi lives. No way in hell was it worth it. Sadam murdered
his countrymen at a steady rate, but it would take decades for him to
catch up to the toll exacted by George Bush in two years.
Mike
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-07-21, 3:33 am |
| On 20 Jul 2005 22:34:29 -0700, mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
quote:
>Hi Geof!
>
>I was actually trying to be misunderstood, in the way Fischer was. I
>think he gets a bad rap because he is so consumed with his
>anti-semitism that his political opinions are obscured, and actually
>quite mainstream in Europe.
Fischer is mainstream? His anti-semitism obscures the fact that most
of his other political and historical opinions are also nutball.
quote:
>I agree that deposing Sadam was a good thing. However, it was not
>worth 1800 American lives, hundreds of British lives and over a hundred
>thousand Iraqi lives. No way in hell was it worth it. Sadam murdered
>his countrymen at a steady rate, but it would take decades for him to
>catch up to the toll exacted by George Bush in two years.
>
>Mike
Can you substantiate this? AFAIK, the deaths resulting from Sadam's
domestic massacres and his wars with Iran and Kuwait *far* exceed
Iraqi casualties in the current war.
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 3:33 am |
| I think the comparitive figures don't count the Iran and Kuwait wars,
just the peacetime massacres. I'm a newspaper junkie, and I read it in
one of my papers. Accurate figures are hard to come by, since the
sources all have an agenda.
Mike
| |
|
| Mike Goodall wrote :
quote:
> George Bush, with Blair's help, is responsible for the murder of over a
> hundred thousand Iraqis,
Mike, the first sentence is very inaccurate, simply a lie so I`m skipping
the rest of your post, although I don`t quite agree with Matt Nemmers. Look
here :
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
The number of victims is between 22580 and 25881 today. Unfortunately it has
been growing every day.
| |
| Sam Sloan 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
| On 20 Jul 2005 21:45:47 -0700, "RSHaas@aol.com" <RSHaas@aol.com>
wrote:
quote:
> English women seem to be rather busty. Cooking, however, is not one
>of their great achievements.
>
>Old Haasie
>
Better than Finnish cooking.
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
|
Sure, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing when viewed in
isolation. It would also be great to depose the rulers of N. Korea, China,
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and most of the
countries of Africa. Any volunteers?
Problem is, Saddam Hussein was not our problem, it was the Iraqis' problem,
and to some extent the problem of countries in the area. Even if he had
poison gas and other WMDs, how could he use them against us? God knows how
many nukes are floating around the former Soviet republics, and we were
worried about a few coffee cans filled with poisonous substances, buried
under the sands of Iraq.
There's no way to escape the reality that our premise for going in there was
based on some combination of incompetence or deceit. However you slice it,
it doesn't look good. We were either incompetent in our intelligence
gathering, or deceitful in playing up the WMDs. It's not necessary to
speculate on the exact proportion of each, because there are no other
ingredients at play here except, maybe, altruism, which is the dumbest
reason of all for going to war.
The question of democratization of countries ruled by despotic regimes is
more complex than whether it's right or wrong to intervene in another
country's affairs, or to dispose of a "dictator." Americans have this
romantic obsession with "democracy" which borders on the lunatic. To have a
genuine republican form of government requires the emergence of statesmen,
and a reasonably enlightened electorate. Where is Iraq's James Madison?
Today, if free and open elections were held in many arab countries, the
overwhelming winners would be islamists.
Don't wish for something -- you might get it.
"Matt Nemmers" <qcchess@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1121919145.210706.155910@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> Nick wrote:
>
> Why does Blair have to be a "subservient support[er]" of the U.S.
> because he sees the right thing to do and <GASP!> has the stones to
> play the hand?
>
> Is it *so* far-fetched to think that maybe -- just MAYBE -- getting rid
> of Saddam Hussein was a GOOD THING and other people agree??
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt
>
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:01:53 -0400, "Angelo DePalma"
<adpspammersgotohell@tellurian.net> wrote:
quote:
>Sure, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing when viewed in
>isolation. It would also be great to depose the rulers of N. Korea, China,
>Russia, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and most of the
>countries of Africa. Any volunteers?
quote:
>Problem is, Saddam Hussein was not our problem, it was the Iraqis' problem,
>and to some extent the problem of countries in the area. Even if he had
>poison gas and other WMDs, how could he use them against us? God knows how
>many nukes are floating around the former Soviet republics, and we were
>worried about a few coffee cans filled with poisonous substances, buried
>under the sands of Iraq.
quote:
>There's no way to escape the reality that our premise for going in there was
>based on some combination of incompetence or deceit. However you slice it,
>it doesn't look good. We were either incompetent in our intelligence
>gathering, or deceitful in playing up the WMDs. It's not necessary to
>speculate on the exact proportion of each, because there are no other
>ingredients at play here except, maybe, altruism, which is the dumbest
>reason of all for going to war.
quote:
>The question of democratization of countries ruled by despotic regimes is
>more complex than whether it's right or wrong to intervene in another
>country's affairs, or to dispose of a "dictator." Americans have this
>romantic obsession with "democracy" which borders on the lunatic. To have a
>genuine republican form of government requires the emergence of statesmen,
>and a reasonably enlightened electorate. Where is Iraq's James Madison?
>Today, if free and open elections were held in many arab countries, the
>overwhelming winners would be islamists.
quote:
>Don't wish for something -- you might get it.
Well reasoned post.
It's worth noting that one of the targets against which the radical
Islamists first planned to crash an airplane was Ataturk's tomb.
| |
| Liam Too 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
| Mike Murray wrote:
quote:
> Well reasoned post.
>
> It's worth noting that one of the targets against which the radical
> Islamists first planned to crash an airplane was Ataturk's tomb.
The mausoleum of Mustafa Kemal? It is "Quite The Big Thing" to see in
Ankara.
| |
| George John 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
|
mike.goodall@comcast.net wrote:
Dear Mike,
[SNIP]
quote:
> and over a hundred
> thousand Iraqi lives.
I recommend you do a quick search of the Web to find estimates of how
many needlessly died under S.H. Estimates I found range from 350,000
to 1.2 million.
[SNIP]
Sincerely,
George John
| |
| mike.goodall@comcast.net 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
| Dear George,
You may be right about Sadam's carnage. The wide fluctuation in
estimates suggests that nobody really knows. Maybe our George has less
blood on his hands than has Sadam. Whoopie!!
Sincerely, Mike
| |
| Jürgen R. 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
| On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:28:24 +0200, "Jerzy" <jciruk@poczta.fm> wrote:
quote:
>Mike Goodall wrote :
>
>Mike, the first sentence is very inaccurate, simply a lie so I`m skipping
>the rest of your post, although I don`t quite agree with Matt Nemmers. Look
>here :
>http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
>
>The number of victims is between 22580 and 25881 today. Unfortunately it has
>been growing every day.
I have no idea how accurate these numbers are, but they are
incomplete. The U.S. has been bombing Iraq routinely since 1991.
It seems that nobody knows how many people died in the 1991 war.
quote:
>
| |
|
|
quote:
>
> I have no idea how accurate these numbers are, but they are
> incomplete. The U.S. has been bombing Iraq routinely since 1991.
>
> It seems that nobody knows how many people died in the 1991 war.
Yeah, yeah anonymouse, you blame the USA for the WW2 too instead of your
grandfather Hitler.
| |
|
| RSHaas@aol.com wrote:
quote:
> English women seem to be rather busty.
> Cooking, however, is not one of their great achievements.
In the book, 'Interview with a Grandmaster', Yasser Seirawan
said that his mother, being British, was unable to cook well
enough to save her own life. In response, Claire Summerscale
'took great exception on behalf of British women everywhere'.
An elderly Englishwoman recently told me that she was pleased
that Britain has become a more diverse society in part because
good Chinese and Indian restaurants have become more common.
--Nick
| |
| Angelo DePalma 2005-07-21, 8:33 pm |
|
Of course, they hate all secular governments.
"Mike Murray" <mikemurray@despammed.com> wrote
quote:
> It's worth noting that one of the targets against which the radical
> Islamists first planned to crash an airplane was Ataturk's tomb.
>
| |
|
| Matt Nemmers wrote:
quote:
> Nick wrote:
>
> Why does Blair have to be a "subservient support[er]" of the U.S.
> because he sees the right thing to do and <GASP!> has the stones to
> play the hand?
My statement referred to the common perception in the UK that
Tony Blair's support of US foreign and military policies is
'subservient' and *not necessarily* in the best interests of
the people in the UK. Indeed, I have heard some people (who
are not Muslims, by the way) denounce Tony Blair's foreign
policy not only as 'subservient' but also as 'deeply immoral'.
As far as I can recall of the surveys, most people who *did* vote
for the Labour Party (which was led by Tony Blair) in the recent
general election did *not* make that choice because they supported
Tony Blair's policy in Iraq. The war in Iraq tended to be
perceived as a negative political factor for Tony Blair.
quote:
> Is it *so* far-fetched to think that maybe -- just MAYBE -- getting
> rid of Saddam Hussein was a GOOD THING and other people agree??
In the UK, the debate about the war on Iraq has been about far more
complex considerations than what Matt Nemmers has just written (above).
--Nick
| |
| Matt Nemmers 2005-07-22, 12:31 am |
| Nick wrote:
quote:
> Matt Nemmers wrote:
>
> My statement referred to the common perception in the UK that
> Tony Blair's support of US foreign and military policies is
> 'subservient' and *not necessarily* in the best interests of
> the people in the UK. Indeed, I have heard some people (who
> are not Muslims, by the way) denounce Tony Blair's foreign
> policy not only as 'subservient' but also as 'deeply immoral'.
>
> As far as I can recall of the surveys, most people who *did* vote
> for the Labour Party (which was led by Tony Blair) in the recent
> general election did *not* make that choice because they supported
> Tony Blair's policy in Iraq. The war in Iraq tended to be
> perceived as a negative political factor for Tony Blair.
>
>
> In the UK, the debate about the war on Iraq has been about far more
> complex considerations than what Matt Nemmers has just written (above).
>
> --Nick
Regardless of what the Brits might think of Bush or Tony Blair, my
sympathies go out to those whose families were -- or were themselves --
hurt in today's cowardly attacks in London. Know that the Americans
support you and will be behind (or in front of) you every step of the
way in bringing these bastards to justice.
Regards,
Matt
| |
| Jürgen R. 2005-07-22, 3:31 am |
| On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:33:05 +0200, "Jerzy" <jciruk@poczta.fm> wrote:
quote:
>
>
>Yeah, yeah anonymouse, you blame the USA for the WW2 too instead of your
>grandfather Hitler.
I don't know what 'blaming the USA' is supposed to mean. A country is
not a moral entity.
| |
| Jürgen R. 2005-07-22, 3:31 am |
| On 21 Jul 2005 20:13:49 -0700, "Matt Nemmers" <qcchess@mchsi.com>
wrote:
quote:
>Nick wrote:
>
>Regardless of what the Brits might think of Bush or Tony Blair, my
>sympathies go out to those whose families were -- or were themselves --
>hurt in today's cowardly attacks in London. Know that the Americans
>support you and will be behind (or in front of) you every step of the
>way in bringing these bastards to justice.
The trouble is that justice is not what is being accomplished; and it
is not unreasonable to doubt that the goals of the US government have
little to do with justice. Retribution, perhaps. And a case can be
made for retribution, but it is foolish to believe that the world is
made safer as a consequence.
There is still a chance that the people directly responsible for the
bombing in London will be punished. But remember that those directly
responsible for the NY catastrophy are already dead and that those
ultimately responsible are and will remain at large.
quote:
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt
| |
|
| >>>> http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
quote:
>
> I don't know what 'blaming the USA' is supposed to mean. A country is
> not a moral entity.
Yeah, yeah and in this way you are trying to excuse your grandpa Hitler.
| |
|
| Matt Nemmers wrote:
quote:
> Nick wrote:
>
> Regardless of what the Brits might think of Bush or Tony Blair, my
> sympathies go out to those whose families were -- or were themselves --
> hurt in today's cowardly attacks in London. Know that the Americans
> support you and will be behind (or in front of) you every step of the
> way in bringing these bastards to justice.
Mr Nemmers, your sympathies are appreciated.
History did not begin yesterday, however, and some of us may recall
that sometimes the United States has seemed less than completely
supportive in the 'bringing to justice' of IRA 'terrorist suspects'.
A friend of mine (who often uses a London tube station that was bombed)
has said that he believes that the sympathies recently lavished on
Londoners--while appreciated, of course--seem rather disproportionate
to what Londoners have suffered. How would 50+ civilian deaths in
London compare to a day's worth of 'collateral damage' in Iraq?
Notwithstanding the recent bombings, Londoners may still consider
themselves far more fortunate than the people in many other places.
--Nick
|
| |
|
|