what the hell is ROHS

Really? Wow, every time gun bans were measured by dcreases in crime, the FAILED miserably. Now, I can understand that you are not educated and able to read such studies and data, but since you have a child's mental abilities, we'll let you slide.

Not so here.

Graham

I'm not fighting. I am merely intrigued that every thing he thinks of is related to a homosexual act. Fellatio, anal interourse, etc., everytime he makes a post! One could easily conclude it is these acts he longs to perform on other men.

"Eeyore" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...

You and Ian should split the cost of a hotel room and condoms. So like minded on constant thought about homosexual acts.

Which pretty much confirms what we (the informed world) already knew from before Bush the younger invaded. That is, that Sadam once had chemical weapons and the means to produce them (the USA, UK, France, Russia, etc., still have the receipts to prove it). Many of these were declared and destroyed in later years (not willingly, but destroyed nonetheless). The few stockpiles he had decayed beyond their use-by date long ago.

The article is very misleading about the danger these old stockpiles pose. They are virtually useless as weapons - except perhaps to a terrorist trying to scare people without doing them significant harm. But the stockpiles are a danger to anyone living near by, as serious chemical contaminants.

I think it is interesting to note that while Saddam was happy to use chemical weapons on his neighbouring enemy Iran (although the vast majority of casualties on both sides were killed by far more humane methods, such as bullets and bombs), and used them at least once on his internal enemies, he never once used chemical weapons against the West. When Bush the senior invaded Iraq, there is no doubt that he had working chemical weapons on hand - they were not used, because chemical weapons are very ineffective as weapons. They are not weapons of mass destruction, they are psychological weapons to force your enemies to wear bulky and hot protective suits. The difference in effect between your enemy knowing you have them and are willing to use them, and actually using them, is tiny.

Anyway, it's easy to see that there has been no evidence of WMD found in Iraq if you have but two brain cells to rub together. If such evidence had been found, Bush would be doing a Steve Ballmer monkey dance singing "Told you so" to all the unbelievers in Europe and the USA.

Maybe not, but Brits are Loyal Subjects, with an Obedience mindset.

America is the Land Of The Free!

Cheers! Rich

No, it has failed and is failing there too. Guns need to always be owned by everyone. Otherwise, the last one who owns them wins. And if that is the government, you REALLY lose. Ask anyone who has been gunned down for their political views :)

It surprises me how common sense on these things is so lost on sheeple.

I was watching a Saturday Night Live rerun the other night from just before ROnald Reagan was sworn in for his first term. They did a spoof on how if everyone had nuclear weapons, no one could win. Oh, it was real clever and poiltically biased, and you could tell how smug they were in this. But, I wonder if now looking at how history played out, how do they explain Reagan winning the Cold War with nuclear warheads and a strong military?

How appropriate for someone named after an ass.

In the UK, very few people have guns. Handguns in particular are close to impossible to get within the law, and difficult even outside the law. There is little gun crime, and even fewer occasions when someone actually gets shot. Most of the time, if guns are used it is between criminals (rival drug dealers, that sort of thing) - and if some thug gets shot by another thug, few people shed a tear.

I never understood the American idea of having a gun for "defence". If an armed robber breaks into your house at night, why would you want to draw a gun on him? The chances are not inconsiderable that he will simply shoot you. Personally, I'd rather by robbed than shot and robbed, and would prefer to spend the money on a decent burglar alarm rather than a gun.

Of course, it is all a matter of the different societies we live in. You can't change the USA overnight into a (mostly) gun-safe country like the UK even if there were a practical way to remove guns from society. Any changes would have to be gradual - improve the legal controls (cutting out loopholes like gun fairs), increase gun taxes to discourage buyers, etc. I'm sure Richard would approve.

And for comparison, I live in Norway, which has one of the highest gun-to-people ratios in the western world (I think only Switzerland beats us), yet almost no gun crime. An important point is that handguns, which are by far the most common for gun crimes, are very rare.

Perhaps this is part of why many Americans see guns as important to their society, while Europeans do not. You see, over here we have this thing called "democracy", where governments are elected by the people, of the people, and for the people. We don't always agree with them, and it is no easy job trying to keep everyone in a country happy, but for the most part the politicians do a reasonable job of running the country for its citizens, or they will be out of a job in four or five years. Europeans know their governments are not perfect, but for the most part they are on the same side - we certainly don't fear being gunned down for our political views. Maybe in an American system, as with other banana republics and one-party "democracies", where voting is regularly believed to be rigged, people view the government as an enemy, and need to be able to defend themselves against it.

Reagan did not "win" the Cold War - he happened to have been president when the Soviet Union collapsed from within. Any help he gave it, by forcing the USSR to spend more one the military and thus encouraging economic problems, was offset by the power boost the USSR hard liners got from having a strong enemy (the same trick used by Bush to invent or encourage self-fulfilling prophesies about strong al Quida leaders).

And you know this, how? Did he kiss you after he was done?

Yeah, "Waves of Morons & Dickheads".

-- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell Central Florida

Its an American thing. You wouldn't understand, even if you used Google to look it up.

-- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell Central Florida

Q.E.D, Ignorance IS bliss ;-)

...Jim Thompson

How do Americans tell their ass from a donkey?!

He was willing to play chicken and see if the USSR would bankrupt itself before we did.

-a

You must be the happiest man on the planet! ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Donkeys behave better, you silly boy. That, and you don't have to wipe a donkey. ;-)

I used to work for "Bliss", but he preferred to be called "Ernie" ;-)

I forget they don't have that stuff in the Third World, like the European Union.