Big Kahunas

[Jay Honeck]

http://makeashorterlink.com/?J63F258A6

Say what you will about GW -- he's got big kahunas flying into Iraq to spend
Turkey Day with the troops...

Sounds like even his parents didn't know about it until he didn't show up in
Kennebunkport!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[tony roberts]

> Say what you will about GW -- he's got big kahunas flying into Iraq to spend
> Turkey Day with the troops...

Actually it was a mistake. Someone on the ground in Iraq called back
home and asked if they could send another turkey.
Next thing they knew . . .

(OK I know - duck :)



Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:O8zxb.333225$Fm2.339752@attbi_s04...
> Say what you will about GW -- he's got big kahunas flying into Iraq to
spend
> Turkey Day with the troops...

I guess the PR stunt is working. People apparently believe Bush is in any
significant danger. Whoo hoo.

For his next trick, watch...the final cleanup will, amazingly enough, get
wrapped up just before election day next year.

Sorry..."big kahunas" just isn't what comes to mind when I see all this
politicking.

Pete

[Larry Fransson]

On 2003-11-27 19:19:10 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > said:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J63F258A6
>
> Say what you will about GW -- he's got big kahunas flying into Iraq to spend
> Turkey Day with the troops...

Actually, GW *is* the Big Kahuna. The word you're likely looking for is "cojones".
So what you would be referring to, then, are the Kahuna's cojones.

[Andrew Rowley]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Say what you will about GW -- he's got big kahunas flying into Iraq to spend
>Turkey Day with the troops...

Talking about GW's big kahunas reminds me of this... always makes me
laugh. Scroll down to find GW.

http://www.cameltoe.org/celebrity07.html

[Bob Noel]

In article <O8zxb.333225$Fm2.339752@attbi_s04>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J63F258A6
>
> Say what you will about GW --

Surprise! you got the kneejerk reactions for the usual suspects...

--
Bob Noel

[Ben Smith]

> Talking about GW's big kahunas reminds me of this... always makes me
> laugh. Scroll down to find GW.
>
> http://www.cameltoe.org/celebrity07.html

I managed to do about 20 minutes of scrolling! Thanks for the link - haha..

--
Ben
C-172 - N13258 @ 87Y

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:16:07 GMT, Larry Fransson
> wrote in Message-Id:
<2003112723160716807%lfransson@comcastnet>:

>Actually, GW *is* the Big Kahuna.

ka•hu•na \k€-"hu-n€\ noun [Hawaiian] (1886)
: a Hawaiian witch doctor

(Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

I didn't realize he was a Hawaiian witch doctor; I just thought he
consulted them for personal guidance. :-)

[Jay Honeck]

> > Say what you will about GW --
>
> Surprise! you got the kneejerk reactions for the usual suspects...

Look, Bob, I'm not happy with the job Bush has done in many respects. I may
not even vote for him next year. (*gasp!*)

Aside from politics, however, my point was to say that GW has done several
good things lately. Spending Thanksgiving in a war zone, with the men and
women he has ordered into harm's way, is one of them.

Your blind hatred for the man is clouding your judgment.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Judah]

I think he got his indoctrination just before he gave up snorting coke.

Word is, it started out as a bet from a old college buddy when they were
reading the back of a National Enquirer magazine.

But after considering it, he figured a career in medicine would be a good
fallback if he couldn't make it in politics.

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:16:07 GMT, Larry Fransson
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> <2003112723160716807%lfransson@comcastnet>:
>
>>Actually, GW *is* the Big Kahuna.
>
> ka•hu•na \k€-"hu-n€\ noun [Hawaiian] (1886)
> : a Hawaiian witch doctor
>
> (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
>
> I didn't realize he was a Hawaiian witch doctor; I just thought he
> consulted them for personal guidance. :-)
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article <KOJxb.336495$Tr4.1011479@attbi_s03>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > > Say what you will about GW --
> >
> > Surprise! you got the kneejerk reactions for the usual suspects...
>
> Look, Bob, I'm not happy with the job Bush has done in many respects. I
> may
> not even vote for him next year. (*gasp!*)
>
> Aside from politics, however, my point was to say that GW has done
> several
> good things lately. Spending Thanksgiving in a war zone, with the men
> and
> women he has ordered into harm's way, is one of them.
>
> Your blind hatred for the man is clouding your judgment.


what the heck are you talking about?

--
Bob Noel

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> what the heck are you talking about?

He thinks you're yelling at him, not us.

[Jay Honeck]

> what the heck are you talking about?

Hey, you'll get nowhere with me, imitating my wife! :-)

I take it I misinterpreted your comment?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[R. Hubbell]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:19:10 GMT
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> http://makeashorterlink.com/?J63F258A6
>
> Say what you will about GW -- he's got big kahunas flying into Iraq to spend
> Turkey Day with the troops...
>
> Sounds like even his parents didn't know about it until he didn't show up in
> Kennebunkport!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>


No man it's cojones, I can't make the connection why you think flying into
Iraq means he has big cojones. Big cojones would have meant announcing to the
world that you were spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. Flying in
for 2 hours, unannounced, is not an act of bravery. It's really just a
political stunt. Apparently it's working.


R. Hubbell

[R. Hubbell]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:16:07 GMT
Larry Fransson > wrote:

> On 2003-11-27 19:19:10 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?J63F258A6
> >
> > Say what you will about GW -- he's got big kahunas flying into Iraq to spend
> > Turkey Day with the troops...
>
> Actually, GW *is* the Big Kahuna. The word you're likely looking for is "cojones".
> So what you would be referring to, then, are the Kahuna's cojones.
>

Actaully he's a Big Chickenhawk.

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights
it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with
war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample
opportunity in that person's youth.


R. Hubbell

[Bob Noel]

In article <vXMxb.336284$HS4.2872491@attbi_s01>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > what the heck are you talking about?
>
> Hey, you'll get nowhere with me, imitating my wife! :-)

I'm quite sure...

>
> I take it I misinterpreted your comment?

that would qualify as an understatement.

--
Bob Noel

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 09:57:56 +0100, Martin Hotze wrote:

> And still he finds young boys and girls in funny clothes cheering to him just
> like to a popstar (I wonder if they cheered by order). And how proud they where
> when they got the chance to shake his hand ...

Don't you know how it works? Here's the scoop.

Imagine your audience, the speaker is in front of them, and behind the
speaker is the guy with the outlawed machine gun pointed at the croud, and
behind that guy is the guy with the sign that says applause...

Get the picture now?

Nobody likes him, everybody in the entire world hates him. The only way
he can get applause is to threaten to invade their homes and take their
women. So we applaud every chance we get, big crowds. Some countries
made a mistake and forgot, now see what happens? Ever notice you don't
see any women on TV there? Know why? They're all gone... If he visits
your country you'd do well to remember this fact or you might wake up and
wonder where your mother went?

If you had an ounce of sense you'd realize that everybody has supporters,
even Hitler had those who believed in him, and some still idolize him to
this day and work to further his cause.

[Ben Smith]

> Imagine your audience, the speaker is in front of them, and behind the
> speaker is the guy with the outlawed machine gun pointed at the croud, and
> behind that guy is the guy with the sign that says applause...

LOL - That reminded me of a scene from the 80's sci-fi movie - V: The Final
Battle. :)

--
Ben
C-172 - N13258 @ 87Y

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 15:26:34 +0000, Jay Honeck wrote:

> Aside from politics, however, my point was to say that GW has done several
> good things lately. Spending Thanksgiving in a war zone, with the men and
> women he has ordered into harm's way, is one of them.

I agree it's a good thing, even though I'm sure he was pretty safe he was
most likely in more danger than he would have been over here.

I think what Bob was saying is that the normal Pres. Bush haters (who
would think if he abdicated he did the wrong thing, just because he did
it) said what they always do. You can count on for 100% certain people to
post negative comments about anything he does, and they did so. Some of
them don't even live in our country...

Jay, when are you ever going to learn, you can't post 2 things in the
aviation groups? Religion and politics.

So here's a short guide for you.

If your Mom's church group cooked turkey dinner for the homeless you post
it like this.

Mom's social club cooked dinner for some people last night...

If you voted for a Rep. and you have to post it, do it like this;

I voted last night, but I think I might have voted for the wrong person due
to the confusing ballot, do you think my rights were violated?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Martin Hotze > writes:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Sounds like even his parents didn't know about it until he didn't show up in
> > Kennebunkport!
>
> Do you tell your parents when you fly to a brunch? Hell, it is his goddamn job.
> You elected (well, somehow) him to do this job. Don't you expect your president
> doing things like that?

I most certainly *do* tell my parents (just mother, these days) if I'm
not going to show up at a family gathering at the expected time!

And I most certainly did *not* elect him to do this job; I voted
against him, my state *went* against him, and I'm not a member of the
supreme court.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Peter Duniho]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> [...]
> So here's a short guide for you. [snip]

Or better yet, he could quit *starting* threads with topics that have
nothing to do with aviation.

Yes, I'm just as much to blame, for responding. But I'm not the one
volunteering out of the blue to post PR propoganda. I'm just pointing out
that it's PR propoganda.

Pete

[Blanche]

I was impressed by the flight crew. True, they have radar altimeters
and all sorts of other goodies, but those were the folks with the
"cojones" to fly there in the biggest target around.

[Wdtabor]

>
>No man it's cojones, I can't make the connection why you think flying into
>Iraq means he has big cojones. Big cojones would have meant announcing to
>the
>world that you were spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. Flying in
>for 2 hours, unannounced, is not an act of bravery. It's really just a
>political stunt. Apparently it's working.
>

Announcing the visit would have almost certainly drawn an attack either by
terrorists or by mortars or rockets, more likely killing others there to
celebrate than Bush himself. Endangering others to show off would not have been
brave, it would have been reckless and stupid.



--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Larry Fransson]

On 2003-11-28 11:10:53 -0800, "R. Hubbell" > said:

> Big cojones would have meant announcing to the
> world that you were spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. Flying in
> for 2 hours, unannounced, is not an act of bravery. It's really just a
> political stunt.

He may or may not care what kind if boost it gives him at home. The boost it gave to the troops in Iraq, though, was likely significant. That's probably even more important.

And regardless of the size of anyone's cojones, announcing the world that he was going to be in Iraq would have been beyond brave. It would have been suicidal, especially had he ventured out in public. Regardless of what you think of the man's politics, you can't believe he's that stupid.

[Bob Fry]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> Say what you will about GW

Thanks, I guess I will.

The whole thing was just Bush II playing boy-soldier again. And, I'm
sure he is genuinely concerned about the morale of troops in Iraq,
seeing as how many have been picked off after he declared the war
over. And how many have been killed after he invited the Iraqi
radicals to "bring 'em on".

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Bob Fry > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> > Say what you will about GW
>
> Thanks, I guess I will.
>
> The whole thing was just Bush II playing boy-soldier again. And, I'm
> sure he is genuinely concerned about the morale of troops in Iraq,
> seeing as how many have been picked off after he declared the war
> over. And how many have been killed after he invited the Iraqi
> radicals to "bring 'em on".


Iraq would still act as a magnet for Islamic radicals, even if Bush
weren't there. It is relatively easy for them to get there, as they have
fellow Arabs to aid them.

IMHO, it is better to have them in Iraq than in the US.

[R. Hubbell]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:04:59 GMT
Larry Fransson > wrote:

> On 2003-11-28 11:10:53 -0800, "R. Hubbell" > said:
>
> > Big cojones would have meant announcing to the
> > world that you were spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. Flying in
> > for 2 hours, unannounced, is not an act of bravery. It's really just a
> > political stunt.
>
> He may or may not care what kind if boost it gives him at home. The boost it gave to the troops in Iraq, though, was likely significant. That's probably even more important.


Now you can't believe that he doesn't care about the political boost?
Improving moral was just a small part. But if I was there it wouldn't have
done much for my moral. Think about it. He comes in secretly, stays for
two-three hours and then he's gone. For me, if I was a soldier there, I
would be reminded of how dangerous a place Bush had made it into.

>
> And regardless of the size of anyone's cojones, announcing the world that he was going to be in Iraq would have been beyond brave. It would have been suicidal, especially had he ventured out in public. Regardless of what you think of the man's politics, you can't believe he's that stupid.
>

Being there at all put the troops in danger and annoncing it would have been stupid, I'll
agree wiuth all that.


R. Hubbell

[R. Hubbell]

On 29 Nov 2003 02:01:10 GMT
(Wdtabor) wrote:

> >
> >No man it's cojones, I can't make the connection why you think flying into
> >Iraq means he has big cojones. Big cojones would have meant announcing to
> >the
> >world that you were spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. Flying in
> >for 2 hours, unannounced, is not an act of bravery. It's really just a
> >political stunt. Apparently it's working.
> >
>
> Announcing the visit would have almost certainly drawn an attack either by
> terrorists or by mortars or rockets, more likely killing others there to
> celebrate than Bush himself. Endangering others to show off would not have been
> brave, it would have been reckless and stupid.


Going there at all put those soldiers in danger, it was mostly a stunt.
And a vivd reminder (Bush stayed for 2-3 hrs.) how dangerous a place it
really is now.


My point was really that he doesn't have bog cojones.


R. Hubbell


>
>
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Dan Luke]

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
> Iraq would still act as a magnet for Islamic radicals, even if
> Bush weren't there. It is relatively easy for them to get there,
> as they have fellow Arabs to aid them.
>
> IMHO, it is better to have them in Iraq than in the US.

But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies,
the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling
was mutual. Now, Iraq is a wide-open recruitment and operations
wonderland for terrorists, awash with weapons for their use. We are
immeasurably less secure than we were before Bush and his full-moon
gazing, true-believer, neocon advisors launched this stupid war.

And the Thanksgiving trip?...a shrewd electioneering stunt. If Bush is
master of anything, it is the photo opp.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> that would qualify as an understatement.

Sorry, Bob. Didn't mean to blow up atcha...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, I'm just as much to blame, for responding. But I'm not the one
> volunteering out of the blue to post PR propoganda. I'm just pointing out
> that it's PR propoganda.

Trust me, if he had DRIVEN into Iraq, I wouldn't have posted my comment
here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Now you can't believe that he doesn't care about the political boost?
> Improving moral was just a small part.

Dude, GW could have stayed at his ranch in Texas, and no one would have said
a thing. Flying into Iraq took big balls (however you spell it in
Spanish!), no matter how you cut it.

And I really don't think he gives a rat's ass about what ANYONE thinks about
his motives for going there -- which is one reason I happen to like the guy.
I may not agree with his politics, but it really is quite refreshing to have
a President who is more than just a poll-taker.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:QRcyb.363318$Fm2.363123@attbi_s04...
> Trust me, if he had DRIVEN into Iraq, I wouldn't have posted my comment
> here.

Possibly, but that still doesn't explain why you bothered to post your
comment at all. The fact that he flew to Iraq doesn't make it any more
on-topic.

[Big John]

Dan

I thought Clinton on Omaha Beach took the cake for chutzpah?

If your not jewish and don't know the word, just look it up.

Big John

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:38:09 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
>> Iraq would still act as a magnet for Islamic radicals, even if
>> Bush weren't there. It is relatively easy for them to get there,
>> as they have fellow Arabs to aid them.
>>
>> IMHO, it is better to have them in Iraq than in the US.
>
>But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies,
>the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling
>was mutual. Now, Iraq is a wide-open recruitment and operations
>wonderland for terrorists, awash with weapons for their use. We are
>immeasurably less secure than we were before Bush and his full-moon
>gazing, true-believer, neocon advisors launched this stupid war.
>
>And the Thanksgiving trip?...a shrewd electioneering stunt. If Bush is
>master of anything, it is the photo opp.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Big John
> wrote:

> I thought Clinton on Omaha Beach took the cake for chutzpah?

never mind the stuff his entourage "liberated" from the Navy
ships they used during the visit.

--
Bob Noel

[Martin Hotze]

On 29 Nov 2003 08:18:02 -0800, Bob Fry wrote:

> And, I'm
>sure he is genuinely concerned about the morale of troops in Iraq,
>seeing as how many have been picked off after he declared the war
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>over.
^^^^^

this might sound like nitpicking, but there was no such thing. (If that
happened then there must be a release of all POW); he declared the end of
major combats (on his PR-tour on the carrier).

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[mike regish]

You're kidding there, right? :-)

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:dYcyb.357965$HS4.2997746@attbi_s01...
>
> And I really don't think he gives a rat's ass about what ANYONE thinks
about
> his motives for going there --
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Big John" wrote:
> I thought Clinton on Omaha Beach took the cake for chutzpah?

Oh, for sure Clinton was a master of the photo opp, too.

Both of those draft dodgers, Bush and Clinton, have an awful lot of
chutzpah to strike military poses.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Tom S.]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Big John" wrote:
> > I thought Clinton on Omaha Beach took the cake for chutzpah?
>
> Oh, for sure Clinton was a master of the photo opp, too.
>
> Both of those draft dodgers, Bush and Clinton, have an awful lot of
> chutzpah to strike military poses.

Ummm...Bush the F-102 pilot was a draft dodger? My cousin, the "Air National
Guard F-100 pilot that did a tour of Vietnam" would pop you for that. (And
don't bother with the bogus crap, several times debunked, about his going
AWOL.)

[Big John]

Martin

It's nice to see the thumb uppers out number the thumb downers.

Big John


On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:44:24 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>On 29 Nov 2003 08:18:02 -0800, Bob Fry wrote:
>
>> And, I'm
>>sure he is genuinely concerned about the morale of troops in Iraq,
>>seeing as how many have been picked off after he declared the war
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>over.
> ^^^^^
>
>this might sound like nitpicking, but there was no such thing. (If that
>happened then there must be a release of all POW); he declared the end of
>major combats (on his PR-tour on the carrier).
>
>#m

[R. Hubbell]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:52:57 GMT
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Now you can't believe that he doesn't care about the political boost?
> > Improving moral was just a small part.
>
> Dude, GW could have stayed at his ranch in Texas, and no one would have said
> a thing. Flying into Iraq took big balls (however you spell it in
> Spanish!), no matter how you cut it.

Now you know full well that if he had gone to Texas we'd all heard it
from the pilots down tere. :-)

The risk to Bush was small, the risk to those defending the airspace
and ground was definitely increased.

Election year stunt. I doubt he thought of it. Most likely it was Rice
since she went too. Rice: "I know, go to Iraq instead of Texas"
Bush: "Fine but you're going too."



>
> And I really don't think he gives a rat's ass about what ANYONE thinks about
> his motives for going there -- which is one reason I happen to like the guy.
> I may not agree with his politics, but it really is quite refreshing to have
> a President who is more than just a poll-taker.

He only gives a "rat's ass" when it's time for an election.
I don't like the guy, I'll spare you the reasons why.


R. Hubbell

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Dan Luke" > writes:

> "Big John" wrote:
> > I thought Clinton on Omaha Beach took the cake for chutzpah?
>
> Oh, for sure Clinton was a master of the photo opp, too.
>
> Both of those draft dodgers, Bush and Clinton, have an awful lot of
> chutzpah to strike military poses.

Clinton avoided the draft honestly, for a war most of us now recognize
to have been a tragic mistake, and has always been honest about it.

Bush used family pull to get a safe *and* sought-after National Guard
berth and then appears to have been AWOL a lot, while being rather
pro-war, which strikes many of us as hypocritical.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Tom S." > writes:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Big John" wrote:
> > > I thought Clinton on Omaha Beach took the cake for chutzpah?
> >
> > Oh, for sure Clinton was a master of the photo opp, too.
> >
> > Both of those draft dodgers, Bush and Clinton, have an awful lot of
> > chutzpah to strike military poses.
>
> Ummm...Bush the F-102 pilot was a draft dodger? My cousin, the "Air National
> Guard F-100 pilot that did a tour of Vietnam" would pop you for that. (And
> don't bother with the bogus crap, several times debunked, about his going
> AWOL.)

No evidence of his having been present; how would *you* interpret it?

And he certainly joined the NG to avoid the draft. The bad part is he
used pull to get a desirable berth, and apparently to protect him from
his bad behavior too.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, David Dyer-Bennet
> wrote:

> Clinton avoided the draft honestly

ROTFLMAO!

--
Bob Noel

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bob Noel > writes:

> In article >, David Dyer-Bennet
> > wrote:
>
> > Clinton avoided the draft honestly
>
> ROTFLMAO!

Same way I did -- got deferred until the draft ended.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[mike regish]

I did too. By joining the navy. Kept me out of Vietnam. And I'm not the
least bit ashamed of it. Seemed at the time to be a bogus war. Turned out,
as uninformed as I was, I was right.

mike regish

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, David Dyer-Bennet
> > wrote:
>
> > Clinton avoided the draft honestly
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"mike regish" > writes:

> I did too. By joining the navy. Kept me out of Vietnam. And I'm not the
> least bit ashamed of it. Seemed at the time to be a bogus war. Turned out,
> as uninformed as I was, I was right.

Yeah, I can't claim that my distaste for that war at that time was
based on fully conclusive evidence. But it *is* nice when hindsight
confirms ones judgement of the moment.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Jay Honeck]

> Yeah, I can't claim that my distaste for that war at that time was
> based on fully conclusive evidence. But it *is* nice when hindsight
> confirms ones judgement of the moment.

Funny thing is, many historians (with the benefit of increasing distance
from the emotional event) are now viewing our decision to fight the Viet Nam
war as pivotal in our ultimate Cold War victory over the Soviet Union. Our
willingness to shed the blood of American boys in Viet Nam seems to have
genuinely stopped the Soviets from further mischief all over the world.

Maybe the war wasn't so bogus after all?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:MXvyb.371905$Tr4.1101284@attbi_s03...
> > Yeah, I can't claim that my distaste for that war at that time was
> > based on fully conclusive evidence. But it *is* nice when hindsight
> > confirms ones judgement of the moment.
>
> Funny thing is, many historians (with the benefit of increasing distance
> from the emotional event) are now viewing our decision to fight the Viet
Nam
> war as pivotal in our ultimate Cold War victory over the Soviet Union. Our
> willingness to shed the blood of American boys in Viet Nam seems to have
> genuinely stopped the Soviets from further mischief all over the world.

Five years after the fall of Saigon, the USSR invaded Afghanistan. So much
for that theory.

The only thing the kept the Soviets from mischief was going broke.

>
> Maybe the war wasn't so bogus after all?

It was bogus from start to finish.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > Yeah, I can't claim that my distaste for that war at that time was
> > based on fully conclusive evidence. But it *is* nice when hindsight
> > confirms ones judgement of the moment.
>
> Funny thing is, many historians (with the benefit of increasing distance
> from the emotional event) are now viewing our decision to fight the Viet Nam
> war as pivotal in our ultimate Cold War victory over the Soviet Union. Our
> willingness to shed the blood of American boys in Viet Nam seems to have
> genuinely stopped the Soviets from further mischief all over the world.

Now, *that's* a new one on me. I thought it was *their* loss in
Afghanistan that did it really.

> Maybe the war wasn't so bogus after all?

Still looks grotesquely immoral to me -- fighting to support an
unpopular repressive dictatorship.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Bob Noel]

In article <MXvyb.371905$Tr4.1101284@attbi_s03>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > Yeah, I can't claim that my distaste for that war at that time was
> > based on fully conclusive evidence. But it *is* nice when hindsight
> > confirms ones judgement of the moment.
>
> Funny thing is, many historians (with the benefit of increasing distance
> from the emotional event) are now viewing our decision to fight the Viet
> Nam
> war as pivotal in our ultimate Cold War victory over the Soviet Union.

and many historians will try to tell you that the US forced
Japan into WWII.

break the code. :-(

--
Bob Noel

[Jay Honeck]

> and many historians will try to tell you that the US forced
> Japan into WWII.
>
> break the code. :-(

How?

It really does make one question the accepted versions of history, doesn't
it? I mean, if historians can get things SO wrong, so quickly -- what
chance for accuracy do we have when referring to things that happened a
century ago? Or in the last millennium?

They always say that history is written by the victors, thus warping
reality -- but there seems to be far more to it than that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Don Tuite]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:23:07 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> and many historians will try to tell you that the US forced
>> Japan into WWII.
>>
>> break the code. :-(
>
>How?
>
>It really does make one question the accepted versions of history, doesn't
>it? I mean, if historians can get things SO wrong, so quickly -- what
>chance for accuracy do we have when referring to things that happened a
>century ago? Or in the last millennium?
>
>They always say that history is written by the victors, thus warping
>reality -- but there seems to be far more to it than that.

I'm waiting to see a citation of a non-Japanese historian who thinks
that Japan didn't invade Korea, Manchuria, China, the Pacific islands,
etc., starting long before 12/7/41. The last popular book I remember
on Japanese atrocities was _The Rape of Nanking_ , published in 1997,
_The Comfort Women: Japan's Brutal Regime of Enforced Prostitution in
the Second World War_ came out in 1995.

Don

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fCxyb.372899$Tr4.1107176@attbi_s03...
> > and many historians will try to tell you that the US forced
> > Japan into WWII.
> >
> > break the code. :-(
>
> How?

By shutting down their access to oil and other resources.

>
> It really does make one question the accepted versions of history, doesn't
> it? I mean, if historians can get things SO wrong, so quickly -- what
> chance for accuracy do we have when referring to things that happened a
> century ago? Or in the last millennium?

It makes a difference when a historian has an agenda (the "status quo" for
example, or trying to play "revisionist"), as opposed to objectivity. It's
like other fields of endeavor where the participants pick and choose facts
that support their conclusions, but ignore vast quantities of facts and data
that nullifies their position.


> They always say that history is written by the victors, thus warping
> reality -- but there seems to be far more to it than that.

Even the losers sometime re-write history. See, for example, what Japanese
children are being taught about WW2, or what children in the former Soviet
block were taught about loads of history. Hell, see what OUR kids are being
taught.

[Jay Honeck]

> > > break the code. :-(
> >
> > How?
>
> By shutting down their access to oil and other resources.

???

What does that mean? Who is "their"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:S3zyb.373891$Tr4.1110611@attbi_s03...
> > > > break the code. :-(
> > >
> > > How?
> >
> > By shutting down their access to oil and other resources.
>
> ???
>
> What does that mean? Who is "their"?
Japan's. During the 30's, the Dutch East Indies (IIRC) was the main source
of oil and other resources (Japan had about as many local resources as they
do now.) They were essentially "shut out".

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

>But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies,
>the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling
>was mutual.

This is an oft repeated fallacy. The record indicates otherwise, with solid
evidence of cooperation and non-aggression agreements over the last 13 years.

See the Weekly Standard article "Case Closed" for details.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Judah]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

> "Orval Fairbairn" wrote:
>> Iraq would still act as a magnet for Islamic radicals, even if
>> Bush weren't there. It is relatively easy for them to get there, as
>> they have fellow Arabs to aid them.
>>
>> IMHO, it is better to have them in Iraq than in the US.
>
> But they won't stay. Before Bush's Folly, Saddam had our real enemies,
> the radical Islamists, under his thumb. He hated them and the feeling
> was mutual. Now, Iraq is a wide-open recruitment and operations

So his televised announcement to financially reward the families of suicide
bombers was a message of hatred toward terrorists, then?

[Big John]

David

Got in this thread and hard to back out.

On 30 Nov 2003 12:45:04 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:

----clip----

>Clinton avoided the draft honestly,

----clip----

He redefined the word "is" for us so let me redefine "honestly".

Lie, steal and cheat.

Big John
..

[C J Campbell]

A little editorial quote from Max Boot in the Wall Street Journal on the
subject:

"The most compelling evidence of the success of President Bush's trip to
Iraq was the reaction of the opposition. No, not the Iraqi opposition -- or
"resistance," as the French have taken to calling it. I mean the American
opposition: the Democrats and the news media.

The former were forced to concede that, as a John Edwards adviser put it,
the visit was a "daring move and great politics." In a pathetic attempt to
find something negative to say, Howard Dean's spokesman sound-bited as
follows: "This visit won't change the fact that those brave men and women
should never have been fighting in Iraq in the first place." Thanks, Howard.
I'm sure the troops appreciate your support."

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> The former were forced to concede that, as a John Edwards adviser put it,
> the visit was a "daring move and great politics."

"Great politics", sure. Obviously it was great politics. Daring? Hardly,
and no one was forced to concede that point.

Funny thing about editorials, even those in the WSJ: just like the Usenet,
you can say pretty much anything you want.

Pete

[mike regish]

Put pretty concisely and accurately, if you ask me.

But then, you didn't, did you.

I think dubya knows he's in trouble in the polls. If he were not having poll
trouble, he would not have made the trip. If this were his second term, he
would not have made the trip.

mike regish

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...

> "This visit won't change the fact that those brave men and women
> should never have been fighting in Iraq in the first place." Thanks,
Howard.
> I'm sure the troops appreciate your support."
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > > > > break the code. :-(
> > > >
> > > > How?
> > >
> > > By shutting down their access to oil and other resources.
> >
> > ???
> >
> > What does that mean? Who is "their"?
> Japan's. During the 30's, the Dutch East Indies (IIRC) was the main source
> of oil and other resources (Japan had about as many local resources as
they
> do now.) They were essentially "shut out".

Ah, you mean the Japanese diplomatic code. There were good retaliatory
reasons we cut off their oil and other resources, but that's neither here
nor there.

I thought maybe you were talking up some secret "revisionist historian
code", or something! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I think dubya knows he's in trouble in the polls. If he were not having
poll
> trouble, he would not have made the trip. If this were his second term, he
> would not have made the trip.

Really? It was just on NPR that if the election were held today, not only
would GW take Florida "cleanly", but he'd win the election nationally.

This poll data puts him against any Democrat currently running.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <yzPyb.384086$Tr4.1121415@attbi_s03>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> Ah, you mean the Japanese diplomatic code. There were good retaliatory
> reasons we cut off their oil and other resources, but that's neither here
> nor there.
>
> I thought maybe you were talking up some secret "revisionist historian
> code", or something! :-)

sorry man, the obscure subtle invisible point was that you can
probably find historians taking even the most idiotic side of any issue.

--
Bob Noel

[Jim Weir]

Jay, for the love of honesty, use some reasonable rules. If GW is the only
Republican that has announced and is running, use his numbers as one side.

If there are elebenty-bazzilion Democrats running, add them all TOGETHER and
compare them.

You are far too honest and educated a man to post what you posted.

Jim



"Jay Honeck" >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Really? It was just on NPR that if the election were held today, not only
->would GW take Florida "cleanly", but he'd win the election nationally.
->
->This poll data puts him against any Democrat currently running.


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[mike regish]

His polls are slipping every day, with every soldier killed, with each day
that goes by with no WMD. And he's still got a year to go.

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:UIPyb.386940$Fm2.398013@attbi_s04...
> > I think dubya knows he's in trouble in the polls. If he were not having
> poll
> > trouble, he would not have made the trip. If this were his second term,
he
> > would not have made the trip.
>
> Really? It was just on NPR that if the election were held today, not only
> would GW take Florida "cleanly", but he'd win the election nationally.
>
> This poll data puts him against any Democrat currently running.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Judah" wrote:
>
> So his televised announcement to financially reward the families:
> of suicide bombers was a message of hatred toward terrorists, then?

It's different now. Terrorists are all Saddam's got. And what makes you
think they're radical Islamists?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, for the love of honesty, use some reasonable rules. If GW is the
only
> Republican that has announced and is running, use his numbers as one side.
>
> If there are elebenty-bazzilion Democrats running, add them all TOGETHER
and
> compare them.
>
> You are far too honest and educated a man to post what you posted.

Say what? You think the poll was so flawed as to measure each Democrat's
potential as a candidate as if he was a percentage of the whole Democratic
ticket?

I would hope that the NPR poll would be smart enough to ask something like
"IF Senator Kerry (who was in Iowa City today, BTW. His pilots -- but not
him -- stayed with us!) were the Democratic candidate in the Presidential
Election tomorrow, for whom would you vote -- Bush or Kerry?"

I would expect nothing less from NPR.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Big John > writes:

> David
>
> Got in this thread and hard to back out.

Happens that way sometimes.

> On 30 Nov 2003 12:45:04 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
> ----clip----
>
> >Clinton avoided the draft honestly,
>
> ----clip----
>
> He redefined the word "is" for us so let me redefine "honestly".

No, he insisted that the person questioning him define what he meant
by his question, and then answered the precise question asked. Which
is what anybody with two brain-cells to rub together would do in that
situation -- say as little as you can possibly get away with.

> Lie, steal and cheat.

How many million dollars wasted harassing the Clintons about various
real estate and options transactions, without finding *one single
thing* to even charge them with? (And never mind the chances of
*convicting*; they didn't even find enough to file charges.)

All over less money that Haliburton pocketed from *one* bridge repair
job in Iraq, where they were awarded the contract on a 50 million
dollar bid -- in preference to a 5 million dollar bid from the local
company who had repaired that exact bridge the last time we blew it
up.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > The former were forced to concede that, as a John Edwards adviser put
it,
| > the visit was a "daring move and great politics."
|
| "Great politics", sure. Obviously it was great politics. Daring?
Hardly,
| and no one was forced to concede that point.
|
| Funny thing about editorials, even those in the WSJ: just like the Usenet,
| you can say pretty much anything you want.
|

QED. If he does something right, it is just politics. If he does something
you don't like, it is business as usual.

Or perhaps you had not noticed how cynical your post was?

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> QED. If he does something right, it is just politics. If he does something
> you don't like, it is business as usual.

That's obviously your impression. Suffice to say, it's not shared by all.
In particular, your definition of "something right" is by no means
universal.


> Or perhaps you had not noticed how cynical your post was?

Not noticed? It was *intended* to be cynical. I have a very cynical
opinion of political leadership, Bush included.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >, David Dyer-Bennet
> wrote:

> > He redefined the word "is" for us so let me redefine "honestly".
>
> No, he insisted that the person questioning him define what he meant
> by his question, and then answered the precise question asked. Which
> is what anybody with two brain-cells to rub together would do in that
> situation -- say as little as you can possibly get away with.

No, he twisted the question so as to avoid answering the clear
intent of the original question. Which is what a dishonest person
with two braincells to rub together would do when they wanted to avoid
telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

--
Bob Noel

[mike regish]

....that's none of anybody's business anyway.

mike regish

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm->
> No, he twisted the question so as to avoid answering the clear
> intent of the original question. Which is what a dishonest person
> with two braincells to rub together would do when they wanted to avoid
> telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > QED. If he does something right, it is just politics. If he does
something
| > you don't like, it is business as usual.
|
| That's obviously your impression. Suffice to say, it's not shared by all.
| In particular, your definition of "something right" is by no means
| universal.
|
|
| > Or perhaps you had not noticed how cynical your post was?
|
| Not noticed? It was *intended* to be cynical. I have a very cynical
| opinion of political leadership, Bush included.
|

Whereas I think sometimes politicians, even Bush, will do something because
they think it is the right thing to do.

[Wdtabor]

In article <0bUyb.276099$9E1.1453263@attbi_s52>, "mike regish"
> writes:

>
>His polls are slipping every day, with every soldier killed, with each day
>that goes by with no WMD. And he's still got a year to go.
>

Wishful thinking on your part. Third year of first term poll numbers are always
low for the President. They were for Clinton as well, in fact, they were much
worse for him than Bush's are now.

Right now, people are mentally comparing Bush to some ideal "West Wing" sort of
Presidency in their minds. When he is compared to a real Democrat Dwarf next
year, that will not be the case.

Failing some catastrophe in the economy, get used to GWB till 2008, then Rice
for the next 8.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On 02 Dec 2003 16:18:22 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <0bUyb.276099$9E1.1453263@attbi_s52>, "mike regish"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >His polls are slipping every day, with every soldier killed, with each day
> >that goes by with no WMD. And he's still got a year to go.
> >
>
> Wishful thinking on your part. Third year of first term poll numbers are always
> low for the President. They were for Clinton as well, in fact, they were much
> worse for him than Bush's are now.
>
> Right now, people are mentally comparing Bush to some ideal "West Wing" sort of
> Presidency in their minds. When he is compared to a real Democrat Dwarf next
> year, that will not be the case.
>
> Failing some catastrophe in the economy, get used to GWB till 2008, then Rice
> for the next 8.


I've always like usenet for the great humor! Rice! Good one. She's just
not qualified in so many ways. Of course Dubya isn't either.


R. Hubbell

>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:50:39 -0600 Big John > wrote:

> David
>
> Got in this thread and hard to back out.
>
> On 30 Nov 2003 12:45:04 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
> ----clip----
>
> >Clinton avoided the draft honestly,
>
> ----clip----
>
> He redefined the word "is" for us so let me redefine "honestly".
>
> Lie, steal and cheat.


What's Clinton got to do with this? He's not president anymore.
How far back will you go to make Dubya look better?

And do you really believe that Dubya is an honest man?



R. Hubbell


>
> Big John
> .
>
>

[Frank]

C J Campbell wrote:

> A little editorial quote from Max Boot in the Wall Street Journal on the
> subject:
>
> "The most compelling evidence of the success of President Bush's trip to
> Iraq was the reaction of the opposition. No, not the Iraqi opposition --
> or "resistance," as the French have taken to calling it. I mean the
> American opposition: the Democrats and the news media.
>
> The former were forced to concede that, as a John Edwards adviser put it,
> the visit was a "daring move and great politics." In a pathetic attempt to
> find something negative to say, Howard Dean's spokesman sound-bited as
> follows: "This visit won't change the fact that those brave men and women
> should never have been fighting in Iraq in the first place." Thanks,
> Howard. I'm sure the troops appreciate your support."

That's the trouble with what passes for political discourse nowadays, the
notion that other side is _always_ wrong.

I thought it was a nice gesture. I could choose to see it as political
grandstanding as he will certainly get mileage out of it, but I don't.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar....
--
Frank....H

[Wdtabor]

In article <0w3zb.17525$ZE1.2305@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> writes:

>
>I've always like usenet for the great humor! Rice! Good one. She's just
>not qualified in so many ways.

Imagine if a Republican said something like that about a black woman.

She is a US born citizen over 35 years old. So, the Constitution says she is
qualified if she can get the votes in the Electoral College.

She is brilliant, has extensive foriegn policy experience, a well rounded
education, and impecable character. She is even a concert pianist.

What qualifications do you require? That she look more like Carol Mosley Braun?

OF course, for me, her greatest qualifiaction is that Democrats are scared
sh*tless of her.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Whereas I think sometimes politicians, even Bush, will do something
because
> they think it is the right thing to do.

You are welcome to your *opinion*. You should leave "QED" out of it, as
that implies you are stating a fact.

[Jay Honeck]

> OF course, for me, her greatest qualifiaction is that Democrats are scared
> sh*tless of her.

Hee hee! I wasn't with you, Don, until the very end.

NOW I get it! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom S.]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message
...
>

[Nice example of post-modernism follows]

> No, he insisted that the person questioning him define what he meant
> by his question, and then answered the precise question asked.

Care to quote the exchange?

> Which
> is what anybody with two brain-cells to rub together would do in that
> situation -- say as little as you can possibly get away with.

Just they type we want with all that power.


> > Lie, steal and cheat.
>
> How many million dollars wasted harassing the Clintons about various
> real estate and options transactions, without finding *one single
> thing* to even charge them with? (And never mind the chances of
> *convicting*; they didn't even find enough to file charges.)

Oh, they found plenty to charge him and her with. Martha Stewart is looking
at ten years in jail for MUCH LESS than Hillary got with her cattle futures
alone.

>
All over less money that Haliburton pocketed from *one* bridge repair
> job in Iraq, where they were awarded the contract on a 50 million
> dollar bid -- in preference to a 5 million dollar bid from the local
> company who had repaired that exact bridge the last time we blew it
> up.

David, you integrity is absolutely pathetic.

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:UIPyb.386940$Fm2.398013@attbi_s04...
> > I think dubya knows he's in trouble in the polls. If he were not having
> poll
> > trouble, he would not have made the trip. If this were his second term,
he
> > would not have made the trip.
>
> Really? It was just on NPR that if the election were held today, not only
> would GW take Florida "cleanly", but he'd win the election nationally.
>
> This poll data puts him against any Democrat currently running.
The polls right now are about where Reagan was in 1984 when he cleaned
Mondale's clock and Mondale only carried DC and his home state of Minnesota
(which he only took by about 5000 votes....about .02% margin.

[Jay Honeck]

> And do you really believe that Dubya is an honest man?

I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.

I may not agree with everything he does, but he appears to be honestly
driven by his convictions to do what he does.

And, say what you will -- I'll take THAT over a poll-driven president, any
day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom S.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:yzPyb.384086$Tr4.1121415@attbi_s03...
> > > > > > break the code. :-(
> > > > >
> > > > > How?
> > > >
> > > > By shutting down their access to oil and other resources.
> > >
> > > ???
> > >
> > > What does that mean? Who is "their"?
> > Japan's. During the 30's, the Dutch East Indies (IIRC) was the main
source
> > of oil and other resources (Japan had about as many local resources as
> they
> > do now.) They were essentially "shut out".
>
> Ah, you mean the Japanese diplomatic code. There were good retaliatory
> reasons we cut off their oil and other resources, but that's neither here
> nor there.

It's exactly HERE.
>
> I thought maybe you were talking up some secret "revisionist historian
> code", or something! :-)

No, it's part of history, even if ignored my many in the mainstream.

A history text can only cover so much; what's important is that crucial
issues be covered, not whitewashed.

A good example from last week was the 40th Anniversary of JFK's
assassination. What's conveniently left out is that JFK's approval numbers
were below 30% and it was likely he was going to be a one-termer. Legend has
it that it was the reason LBJ "intervened"; he did not want to go down in
flames, never to run again.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Whereas I think sometimes politicians, even Bush, will do something
| because
| > they think it is the right thing to do.
|
| You are welcome to your *opinion*. You should leave "QED" out of it, as
| that implies you are stating a fact.

QED: you can say anything you want on Usenet.

[mike regish]

If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to Canada.

mike regish

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article <0bUyb.276099$9E1.1453263@attbi_s52>, "mike regish"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >His polls are slipping every day, with every soldier killed, with each
day
> >that goes by with no WMD. And he's still got a year to go.
> >
>
> Wishful thinking on your part. Third year of first term poll numbers are
always
> low for the President. They were for Clinton as well, in fact, they were
much
> worse for him than Bush's are now.
>
> Right now, people are mentally comparing Bush to some ideal "West Wing"
sort of
> Presidency in their minds. When he is compared to a real Democrat Dwarf
next
> year, that will not be the case.
>
> Failing some catastrophe in the economy, get used to GWB till 2008, then
Rice
> for the next 8.
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On 02 Dec 2003 17:37:42 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <0w3zb.17525$ZE1.2305@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >I've always like usenet for the great humor! Rice! Good one. She's just
> >not qualified in so many ways.
>
> Imagine if a Republican said something like that about a black woman.


Ok, I'm imagining, now what? Do you honestly believe this country will
elect a woman as president soon? I think we have a ways to go before that
happens.

>
> She is a US born citizen over 35 years old. So, the Constitution says she is
> qualified if she can get the votes in the Electoral College.
>
> She is brilliant, has extensive foriegn policy experience, a well rounded
> education, and impecable character. She is even a concert pianist.

Her foreign policy experience is to tryo fix things her boss breaks.

She really isn't brilliant. But if you have evidence to counter that let
us see and judge for ourself.
Not sure what the piano will do for her quest for the office. Maybe you can
explain that too.

Now if you ask anyone in Israel they will tell you she's the best.

>
> What qualifications do you require? That she look more like Carol Mosley Braun?

Who?

>
> OF course, for me, her greatest qualifiaction is that Democrats are scared
> sh*tless of her.

I didn't know that either, can you explain the evidence for that?


R. Hubbell




>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:04:26 GMT "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > And do you really believe that Dubya is an honest man?
>
> I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.

Well we all have our vulnerabilities I suppose. Even his own mother had
some doubts about him. That';s rough.

>
> I may not agree with everything he does, but he appears to be honestly
> driven by his convictions to do what he does.
>
> And, say what you will -- I'll take THAT over a poll-driven president, any
> day.

I always feel actions speak louder than words, he doesn't quite get that.

I only hope that you don't have any loved ones in Iraq (or Afghanistan)
acting as targets in the name of whatever it is that's goig on there.


R. Hubbell

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Wdtabor]

In article <4Dgzb.18976$ZE1.4996@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> writes:

>On 02 Dec 2003 17:37:42 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:
>
>> In article <0w3zb.17525$ZE1.2305@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
>> > writes:
>>
>> >
>> >I've always like usenet for the great humor! Rice! Good one. She's just
>> >not qualified in so many ways.
>>
>> Imagine if a Republican said something like that about a black woman.
>
>
>Ok, I'm imagining, now what? Do you honestly believe this country will
>elect a woman as president soon? I think we have a ways to go before that
>happens.
>

We'll see. The Republicans I know are certainly ready and Rice has strong
support among them for 2008. Whether the Democrats are ready to lay aside their
sexual and racial prejudices or not, I do not know.

>>
>> She is a US born citizen over 35 years old. So, the Constitution says she
>is
>> qualified if she can get the votes in the Electoral College.
>>
>> She is brilliant, has extensive foriegn policy experience, a well rounded
>> education, and impecable character. She is even a concert pianist.
>
>Her foreign policy experience is to tryo fix things her boss breaks.
>
>She really isn't brilliant. But if you have evidence to counter that let
>us see and judge for ourself.

Let's see, a PhD when she was 20 might lend some support to the contention.

>Not sure what the piano will do for her quest for the office. Maybe you can
>explain that too.
>

A saxophone seemed to help Clinton.

>Now if you ask anyone in Israel they will tell you she's the best.
>
>>
>> What qualifications do you require? That she look more like Carol Mosley
>Braun?
>
>Who?
>

Intentionally Nazified spelling of one of the Dwarves running for the Dem
nomination. The racist one.

>>
>> OF course, for me, her greatest qualifiaction is that Democrats are scared
>> sh*tless of her.
>
>I didn't know that either, can you explain the evidence for that?
>

The attempts even 5 years ahead of time to denegrate her accomplishments and
intellect by the Dems and the media are certain indicators of the terror she
strikes in their hearts.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article <hEazb.283501$9E1.1471981@attbi_s52>, "mike regish"
> writes:

>
>If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to Canada.
>

Well, OK, but by then we will probably have worked our way down the list of
terrorist supporting states to the point Canada might not be safe.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Larry Fransson]

On 2003-12-02 17:04:13 -0800, "mike regish" > said:

> If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to Canada.

Are you sure? Barbara Streisand and a couple others said they would move to
Canada if GW Bush was elected. They have yet to follow through.

Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[Montblack]

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
> > Not sure what the piano will do for her quest for the office. Maybe you
can explain that too.

> I understand what you can do with a cigar in the oval office <grin> ...but
what the heck is a piano good for?


Much Clinton activity took place under the desk.

Piano gives one much more room to maneuver, more options - twins!

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bob Noel > writes:

> In article >, David Dyer-Bennet
> > wrote:
>
> > > He redefined the word "is" for us so let me redefine "honestly".
> >
> > No, he insisted that the person questioning him define what he meant
> > by his question, and then answered the precise question asked. Which
> > is what anybody with two brain-cells to rub together would do in that
> > situation -- say as little as you can possibly get away with.
>
> No, he twisted the question so as to avoid answering the clear
> intent of the original question. Which is what a dishonest person
> with two braincells to rub together would do when they wanted to avoid
> telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Which is what a trained lawyer *should* be doing in that situation.
If the questioner wasn't satisfied with the answer, he can try again.
If he *is* satisfied, then that's his decision.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > And do you really believe that Dubya is an honest man?
>
> I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise.
>
> I may not agree with everything he does, but he appears to be honestly
> driven by his convictions to do what he does.

"Honest" doesn't mean driven by his *convictions*, though.

In pursuit of his personal goals, he's lied to the public, to
congress, and to our allies for the purpose of getting us all into a
war with Iraq. That's not what *I* mean by "honest". That's
ideoglogically-driven insanity.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[R. Hubbell]

On 03 Dec 2003 13:46:39 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <4Dgzb.18976$ZE1.4996@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
> >On 02 Dec 2003 17:37:42 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <0w3zb.17525$ZE1.2305@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> >> > writes:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I've always like usenet for the great humor! Rice! Good one. She's just
> >> >not qualified in so many ways.
> >>
> >> Imagine if a Republican said something like that about a black woman.
> >
> >
> >Ok, I'm imagining, now what? Do you honestly believe this country will
> >elect a woman as president soon? I think we have a ways to go before that
> >happens.
> >
>
> We'll see. The Republicans I know are certainly ready and Rice has strong
> support among them for 2008. Whether the Democrats are ready to lay aside their
> sexual and racial prejudices or not, I do not know.

What do the democrats have to do with Rice running?

>
> >>
> >> She is a US born citizen over 35 years old. So, the Constitution says she
> >is
> >> qualified if she can get the votes in the Electoral College.
> >>
> >> She is brilliant, has extensive foriegn policy experience, a well rounded
> >> education, and impecable character. She is even a concert pianist.
> >
> >Her foreign policy experience is to tryo fix things her boss breaks.
> >
> >She really isn't brilliant. But if you have evidence to counter that let
> >us see and judge for ourself.
>
> Let's see, a PhD when she was 20 might lend some support to the contention.


That's not proof of brilliance for me. I've heard from people at Stanford
that she isn't real impressive. An oppurtunist that has gotten by on
affirmative action at every chance.



>
> >Not sure what the piano will do for her quest for the office. Maybe you can
> >explain that too.
> >
>
> A saxophone seemed to help Clinton.

You've lost me on this one....

>
> >Now if you ask anyone in Israel they will tell you she's the best.
> >
> >>
> >> What qualifications do you require? That she look more like Carol Mosley
> >Braun?
> >
> >Who?
> >
>
> Intentionally Nazified spelling of one of the Dwarves running for the Dem
> nomination. The racist one.


Whatever you say. german words == nazi words??


>
> >>
> >> OF course, for me, her greatest qualifiaction is that Democrats are scared
> >> sh*tless of her.
> >
> >I didn't know that either, can you explain the evidence for that?
> >
>
> The attempts even 5 years ahead of time to denegrate her accomplishments and
> intellect by the Dems and the media are certain indicators of the terror she
> strikes in their hearts.


I think they're just pointing out the facts. But whatever shoe fits, wear.


R. Hubbell



>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 01:04:13 GMT "mike regish" > wrote:

> If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to Canada.


Let me know what you find. B.C. is actually nice, there's a fair bit of
rain. But rain vs. crazy republicans with Machiavellian methods seems like
a simple call.

R. Hubbell

>
> mike regish
>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <0bUyb.276099$9E1.1453263@attbi_s52>, "mike regish"
> > > writes:
> >
> > >
> > >His polls are slipping every day, with every soldier killed, with each
> day
> > >that goes by with no WMD. And he's still got a year to go.
> > >
> >
> > Wishful thinking on your part. Third year of first term poll numbers are
> always
> > low for the President. They were for Clinton as well, in fact, they were
> much
> > worse for him than Bush's are now.
> >
> > Right now, people are mentally comparing Bush to some ideal "West Wing"
> sort of
> > Presidency in their minds. When he is compared to a real Democrat Dwarf
> next
> > year, that will not be the case.
> >
> > Failing some catastrophe in the economy, get used to GWB till 2008, then
> Rice
> > for the next 8.
> >
> > --
> > Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> > PP-ASEL
> > Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:hEazb.283501$9E1.1471981@attbi_s52...
| If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to
Canada.
|

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:13:29 +0100 Martin Hotze > wrote:

> "R. Hubbell" > wrote:
>
> > Not sure what the piano will do for her quest for the office. Maybe you can
> > explain that too.
>
> I understand what you can do with a cigar in the oval office <grin> ... but what
> the heck is a piano good for?


That's what I asked the original poster. All I heard was something about
Clinton's Saxopohne. Still unsure how the piano helps her cause.

R. Hubbell

>
> *hehe*
>
> #m
> --
> Politician never lie. They just tell their own truth.
> (Dave in r.a.p.)

[mike regish]

I was waiting for that.

What? No reference to traitor?

mike regish

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:hEazb.283501$9E1.1471981@attbi_s52...
> | If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to
> Canada.
> |
>
> Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
>
>

[Big John]

David

You didn't directly address my "lie, steal and cheat".
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````
Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".

Stole furniture from White House when he left and had to return it
(WSJ and other sources)

Cheated on Hillery (admitted on TV)

Comments.

I thought I was being nice by not bringing up the under the table pay
off to pardon the guy who stole millions from poor old folks and
skipped to Switzerland.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc

Goes on and on and on.

Best President we ever had :o(.

Makes Nixon look like 'poster boy' of Presidents.

Big John


On 02 Dec 2003 01:38:48 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:

>Big John > writes:
>
>> David
>>
>> Got in this thread and hard to back out.
>
>Happens that way sometimes.
>
>> On 30 Nov 2003 12:45:04 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
>> wrote:
>>
>> ----clip----
>>
>> >Clinton avoided the draft honestly,
>>
>> ----clip----
>>
>> He redefined the word "is" for us so let me redefine "honestly".
>
>No, he insisted that the person questioning him define what he meant
>by his question, and then answered the precise question asked. Which
>is what anybody with two brain-cells to rub together would do in that
>situation -- say as little as you can possibly get away with.
>
>> Lie, steal and cheat.
>
>How many million dollars wasted harassing the Clintons about various
>real estate and options transactions, without finding *one single
>thing* to even charge them with? (And never mind the chances of
>*convicting*; they didn't even find enough to file charges.)
>
>All over less money that Haliburton pocketed from *one* bridge repair
>job in Iraq, where they were awarded the contract on a 50 million
>dollar bid -- in preference to a 5 million dollar bid from the local
>company who had repaired that exact bridge the last time we blew it
>up.

[Big John]

Mike

Polls were over 60 in this monings paper. Doesn't sound like a loser
to me..

Big John


On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:04:12 GMT, "mike regish" >
wrote:

>His polls are slipping every day, with every soldier killed, with each day
>that goes by with no WMD. And he's still got a year to go.
>
>mike regish
>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:UIPyb.386940$Fm2.398013@attbi_s04...
>> > I think dubya knows he's in trouble in the polls. If he were not having
>>> poll trouble, he would not have made the trip. If this were his second term,
>>>he would not have made the trip.
>>
>>
>> Really? It was just on NPR that if the election were held today, not only
>> would GW take Florida "cleanly", but he'd win the election nationally.
>>
>> This poll data puts him against any Democrat currently running.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>>
>

[mike regish]

I'm talking about the polls favoring the war in Iraq.

People will wise up eventually. They might have pliable minds, but the fact
remains that this war is proving to be unjustified.

mike regish

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Mike
>
> Polls were over 60 in this monings paper. Doesn't sound like a loser
> to me..
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:04:12 GMT, "mike regish" >
> wrote:
>
> >His polls are slipping every day, with every soldier killed, with each
day
> >that goes by with no WMD. And he's still got a year to go.
> >
> >mike regish
> >
> >"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> >news:UIPyb.386940$Fm2.398013@attbi_s04...
> >> > I think dubya knows he's in trouble in the polls. If he were not
having
> >>> poll trouble, he would not have made the trip. If this were his second
term,
> >>>he would not have made the trip.
> >>
> >>
> >> Really? It was just on NPR that if the election were held today, not
only
> >> would GW take Florida "cleanly", but he'd win the election nationally.
> >>
> >> This poll data puts him against any Democrat currently running.
> >> --
> >> Jay Honeck
> >> Iowa City, IA
> >> Pathfinder N56993
> >> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> >> "Your Aviation Destination"
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[mike regish]

And that compares to the war in Iraq how?

mike regish

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> David
>
> You didn't directly address my "lie, steal and cheat".
>
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````
`````
> Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".
>
> Stole furniture from White House when he left and had to return it
> (WSJ and other sources)
>
> Cheated on Hillery (admitted on TV)
>
> Comments.
>
> I thought I was being nice by not bringing up the under the table pay
> off to pardon the guy who stole millions from poor old folks and
> skipped to Switzerland.
>
> Etc.
>
> Etc.
>
> Etc
>
> Goes on and on and on.
>
> Best President we ever had :o(.
>
> Makes Nixon look like 'poster boy' of Presidents.
>
> Big John
>
>
> On 02 Dec 2003 01:38:48 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
> >Big John > writes:
> >
> >> David
> >>
> >> Got in this thread and hard to back out.
> >
> >Happens that way sometimes.
> >
> >> On 30 Nov 2003 12:45:04 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> ----clip----
> >>
> >> >Clinton avoided the draft honestly,
> >>
> >> ----clip----
> >>
> >> He redefined the word "is" for us so let me redefine "honestly".
> >
> >No, he insisted that the person questioning him define what he meant
> >by his question, and then answered the precise question asked. Which
> >is what anybody with two brain-cells to rub together would do in that
> >situation -- say as little as you can possibly get away with.
> >
> >> Lie, steal and cheat.
> >
> >How many million dollars wasted harassing the Clintons about various
> >real estate and options transactions, without finding *one single
> >thing* to even charge them with? (And never mind the chances of
> >*convicting*; they didn't even find enough to file charges.)
> >
> >All over less money that Haliburton pocketed from *one* bridge repair
> >job in Iraq, where they were awarded the contract on a 50 million
> >dollar bid -- in preference to a 5 million dollar bid from the local
> >company who had repaired that exact bridge the last time we blew it
> >up.
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:00:44 -0600 Big John > wrote:

> David
>
> You didn't directly address my "lie, steal and cheat".
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````
> Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".

The man blew it there but over a personal problem. The republicans had
some issues in their own ranks. The guy leading the charge bowed out
suddenly when it was discovered he fooled around and he was so proud and
righteous before that was pointed out.


>
> Stole furniture from White House when he left and had to return it
> (WSJ and other sources)

This sounds bogus to me, can you back that up? Sounds like smear.
Cheap smear at that.

>
> Cheated on Hillery (admitted on TV)


A personal problem that the Republicans helped create and certainly doesn't
come into play in performing his duties. Do you also berate co-workers that
have had extra-marital affairs? I'll bet you don't since you seemm to have
some decency.

>
> Comments.
>
> I thought I was being nice by not bringing up the under the table pay
> off to pardon the guy who stole millions from poor old folks and
> skipped to Switzerland.

Vague references to pardons? To be fair you should know that presidential
pardons have a history of being ripe smelling to even the most hardened nose.

>
> Etc.
>
> Etc.
>
> Etc
>
> Goes on and on and on.
>
> Best President we ever had :o(.
>
> Makes Nixon look like 'poster boy' of Presidents.


More great usenet humor, remember that the Chinese really liked Nixon.
Do you remember why? Nixon liked how they dealt with their affairs.
Nixon and the chinese were birds of a feather.
BTW, Nixon resigned right.

To take someone's personal problems and turn that into "he's a
bad president he is human" is a weak argument.

Anyway it's all moot, Clinton's no longer president.


R. Hubbell

>
> Big John
>
>
> On 02 Dec 2003 01:38:48 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
> >Big John > writes:
> >
> >> David
> >>
> >> Got in this thread and hard to back out.
> >
> >Happens that way sometimes.
> >
> >> On 30 Nov 2003 12:45:04 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> ----clip----
> >>
> >> >Clinton avoided the draft honestly,
> >>
> >> ----clip----
> >>
> >> He redefined the word "is" for us so let me redefine "honestly".
> >
> >No, he insisted that the person questioning him define what he meant
> >by his question, and then answered the precise question asked. Which
> >is what anybody with two brain-cells to rub together would do in that
> >situation -- say as little as you can possibly get away with.
> >
> >> Lie, steal and cheat.
> >
> >How many million dollars wasted harassing the Clintons about various
> >real estate and options transactions, without finding *one single
> >thing* to even charge them with? (And never mind the chances of
> >*convicting*; they didn't even find enough to file charges.)
> >
> >All over less money that Haliburton pocketed from *one* bridge repair
> >job in Iraq, where they were awarded the contract on a 50 million
> >dollar bid -- in preference to a 5 million dollar bid from the local
> >company who had repaired that exact bridge the last time we blew it
> >up.
>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Big John > writes:

> David
>
> You didn't directly address my "lie, steal and cheat".
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````
> Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".

More than any other president has done. He seems to actually value
integrity.

> Stole furniture from White House when he left and had to return it
> (WSJ and other sources)

Widely debunked.

> Cheated on Hillery (admitted on TV)

Big deal. I take for granted that anybody at that level has "cheated"
on their spouse; power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. The cases we
actually *hear* about are a tiny portion of the cases that occur, and
are randomly selected.

Besides, we have no idea what his actual deal with his wife was; so
far as I'm concerned she's the only one with standing to complain of
his behavior.

> Comments.

There are a few.

I notice you've had nothing to say about the fraud Halliburton and
Dick Cheney have been profiting from, and the long string of lies out
of the White House to get us into this war, and the deliberate
"outing" of an undercover CIA operative to punish her husband for
writing a report critical of the administration's position (the
"yellowcake" scandal). Or his brother's illegally purging black
voters from the rolls in Florida to get Bush elected in the first
place. Frankly the crimes of this administration take us back to
19th-century levels, or perhaps to third-world hellhole levels.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Earl Grieda]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:hEazb.283501$9E1.1471981@attbi_s52...
> | If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to
> Canada.
> |
>
> Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
>
>
There is a good science fiction novel, Russian Spring by Norman Sprinrad,
that is starting to appear prophetic. Essentially, the U.S. has become a
conservative bastion ruled and populated by buffons, where the best and the
brightest leave for other countries. Europe and Russia have joined together
and are creating an energetic space program along with an open, tolerant
society.

Our current President Doofus, and his supporters, are helping make this
fictional story more plausible every day.

Earl G.

[C J Campbell]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
| >
| There is a good science fiction novel, Russian Spring by Norman Sprinrad,
| that is starting to appear prophetic. Essentially, the U.S. has become a
| conservative bastion ruled and populated by buffons, where the best and
the
| brightest leave for other countries. Europe and Russia have joined
together
| and are creating an energetic space program along with an open, tolerant
| society.
|
| Our current President Doofus, and his supporters, are helping make this
| fictional story more plausible every day.

Let me know when the Europeans become paragons of tolerance.

[Wdtabor]

In article .net>, "Earl
Grieda" > writes:

>There is a good science fiction novel, Russian Spring by Norman Sprinrad,
>that is starting to appear prophetic. Essentially, the U.S. has become a
>conservative bastion ruled and populated by buffons, where the best and the
>brightest leave for other countries. Europe and Russia have joined together
>and are creating an energetic space program along with an open, tolerant
>society.

Why would the best and brightest leave a conservative, capitalist society where
their talents and efforts would bring them success to have the fruits of their
labors plundered by a socialist regime?

Those who would leave would be the failures who THINK they are the best and
brightest, taking their degrees in Fench literature and art history with them.

Oh dear, how will we get along without them?

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Montblack]

("Earl Grieda" wrote)
> There is a good science fiction novel, Russian Spring by Norman
Sprinrad,that is starting to appear prophetic. Essentially, the U.S. has
become a conservative bastion ruled and populated by buffons, where the best
and the brightest leave for other countries. Europe and Russia have joined
together and are creating an energetic space program along with an open,
tolerant society.


Haven't read that book. I'm still plowing my way through John Adams, and now
The Da Vinci Code has been dropped in my lap.

I used to really like *thin* comic books....

It's *all* fiction - unless it's about the Chinese being the dominant world
power - for the next 100 years.

It's all about China folks. If you don't think so, just wait a few more
years...you'll see.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Big John]

David

David. Once more. I just don't suffer fools and sleep soundly.

You Texas 'Two Step' around the original post and now instead of
acknowledging the short combings of the last Democratic
administration, you blow hot air and try to overwhelm all with Crap.

Take your last shot. You've got GW for five more years so drop your
pants, bend over and joy it.

Big John

gone----------------------------------------
*
*
*
>plonk<


On 03 Dec 2003 22:59:11 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:

>Big John > writes:
>
>> David
>>
>> You didn't directly address my "lie, steal and cheat".
>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````
>> Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".
>
>More than any other president has done. He seems to actually value
>integrity.
>
>> Stole furniture from White House when he left and had to return it
>> (WSJ and other sources)
>
>Widely debunked.
>
>> Cheated on Hillery (admitted on TV)
>
>Big deal. I take for granted that anybody at that level has "cheated"
>on their spouse; power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. The cases we
>actually *hear* about are a tiny portion of the cases that occur, and
>are randomly selected.
>
>Besides, we have no idea what his actual deal with his wife was; so
>far as I'm concerned she's the only one with standing to complain of
>his behavior.
>
>> Comments.
>
>There are a few.
>
>I notice you've had nothing to say about the fraud Halliburton and
>Dick Cheney have been profiting from, and the long string of lies out
>of the White House to get us into this war, and the deliberate
>"outing" of an undercover CIA operative to punish her husband for
>writing a report critical of the administration's position (the
>"yellowcake" scandal). Or his brother's illegally purging black
>voters from the rolls in Florida to get Bush elected in the first
>place. Frankly the crimes of this administration take us back to
>19th-century levels, or perhaps to third-world hellhole levels.

[Jay Honeck]

> In pursuit of his personal goals, he's lied to the public, to
> congress, and to our allies for the purpose of getting us all into a
> war with Iraq. That's not what *I* mean by "honest". That's
> ideoglogically-driven insanity.

And what, in your view of the world, were these secret reasons that he
"lied" about?

In your view, what were his REAL motives for ousting Saddam?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> > In pursuit of his personal goals, he's lied to the public, to
> > congress, and to our allies for the purpose of getting us all into a
> > war with Iraq. That's not what *I* mean by "honest". That's
> > ideoglogically-driven insanity.
>
> And what, in your view of the world, were these secret reasons that he
> "lied" about?

"Secret"? Very clear; he wanted to topple Saddam Hussein.

> In your view, what were his REAL motives for ousting Saddam?

Probably large to one-up his father.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>

[Brian Burger]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, mike regish wrote:

> If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to Canada.

Canada has a great tradition as a refuge for the more sensible sort of
American!

Not just Vietnam, either. Consider the Yanks who *did* want to fight while
the US was waffling around with neutrality in the two World Wars!

:)

Brian.

>
> mike regish
>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <0bUyb.276099$9E1.1453263@attbi_s52>, "mike regish"
> > > writes:
> >
> > >
> > >His polls are slipping every day, with every soldier killed, with each
> day
> > >that goes by with no WMD. And he's still got a year to go.
> > >
> >
> > Wishful thinking on your part. Third year of first term poll numbers are
> always
> > low for the President. They were for Clinton as well, in fact, they were
> much
> > worse for him than Bush's are now.
> >
> > Right now, people are mentally comparing Bush to some ideal "West Wing"
> sort of
> > Presidency in their minds. When he is compared to a real Democrat Dwarf
> next
> > year, that will not be the case.
> >
> > Failing some catastrophe in the economy, get used to GWB till 2008, then
> Rice
> > for the next 8.
> >
> > --
> > Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> > PP-ASEL
> > Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG
>
>
>

[Ash Wyllie]

mike regish opined

>I'm talking about the polls favoring the war in Iraq.

>People will wise up eventually. They might have pliable minds, but the fact
>remains that this war is proving to be unjustified.

But will they wise up before the election?


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

[Bob Noel]

In article >, David Dyer-Bennet
> wrote:

> > Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".
>
> More than any other president has done. He seems to actually value
> integrity.

wow! That is pretty close to the dumbest thing I've read on
usenet.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article . ca>,
Brian Burger > wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, mike regish wrote:
>
> > If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to
> > Canada.
>
> Canada has a great tradition as a refuge for the more sensible sort of
> American!
>
> Not just Vietnam, either. Consider the Yanks who *did* want to fight
> while
> the US was waffling around with neutrality in the two World Wars!
>
> :)
>

some people just aren't happy. whining when the US doesn't
take action and more whining when the US does.

--
Bob Noel

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:37:13 -0600 Big John > wrote:

> David
>
> David. Once more. I just don't suffer fools and sleep soundly.
>
> You Texas 'Two Step' around the original post and now instead of
> acknowledging the short combings of the last Democratic
> administration, you blow hot air and try to overwhelm all with Crap.
>
> Take your last shot. You've got GW for five more years so drop your
> pants, bend over and joy it.
>
> Big John
>
> gone----------------------------------------
> *
> *
> *
> >plonk<

Looks like you're new to usenet. Don't get too worked up. I hope you
don't plonk everyone you disagree with. But then again I guess that's
the republican way. So little tolerance for opposing or alternate views.


R. Hubbell


>
>
> On 03 Dec 2003 22:59:11 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
> >Big John > writes:
> >
> >> David
> >>
> >> You didn't directly address my "lie, steal and cheat".
> >> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````
> >> Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".
> >
> >More than any other president has done. He seems to actually value
> >integrity.
> >
> >> Stole furniture from White House when he left and had to return it
> >> (WSJ and other sources)
> >
> >Widely debunked.
> >
> >> Cheated on Hillery (admitted on TV)
> >
> >Big deal. I take for granted that anybody at that level has "cheated"
> >on their spouse; power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. The cases we
> >actually *hear* about are a tiny portion of the cases that occur, and
> >are randomly selected.
> >
> >Besides, we have no idea what his actual deal with his wife was; so
> >far as I'm concerned she's the only one with standing to complain of
> >his behavior.
> >
> >> Comments.
> >
> >There are a few.
> >
> >I notice you've had nothing to say about the fraud Halliburton and
> >Dick Cheney have been profiting from, and the long string of lies out
> >of the White House to get us into this war, and the deliberate
> >"outing" of an undercover CIA operative to punish her husband for
> >writing a report critical of the administration's position (the
> >"yellowcake" scandal). Or his brother's illegally purging black
> >voters from the rolls in Florida to get Bush elected in the first
> >place. Frankly the crimes of this administration take us back to
> >19th-century levels, or perhaps to third-world hellhole levels.
>

[C J Campbell]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
| In article .net>, "Earl
| Grieda" > writes:
|
| >There is a good science fiction novel, Russian Spring by Norman Sprinrad,
| >that is starting to appear prophetic. Essentially, the U.S. has become a
| >conservative bastion ruled and populated by buffons, where the best and
the
| >brightest leave for other countries. Europe and Russia have joined
together
| >and are creating an energetic space program along with an open, tolerant
| >society.
|
| Why would the best and brightest leave a conservative, capitalist society
where
| their talents and efforts would bring them success to have the fruits of
their
| labors plundered by a socialist regime?
|
| Those who would leave would be the failures who THINK they are the best
and
| brightest, taking their degrees in Fench literature and art history with
them.
|
| Oh dear, how will we get along without them?
|

The Europeans have not changed their tune since the sixteenth century. They
have always regarded Americans as rustics and buffoons and themselves as the
epitome of tolerance and culture. This, from a continent that is barely able
to feed itself, is unwilling or unable to defend itself, and where the
height of fashion is American western wear and where American music reigns
supreme.

Europeans have given rise to a rapid succession of tyrants that culminated
in the 20th century with nearly the complete annihilation of the human race.
Beginning with the Napoleonic wars, America has had to intervene repeatedly
to save Europe from the megalomaniac madmen the cretins continually select
as their rulers. They are classist beyond belief, celebrating ugly little
traditions like Boxing Day, where the lower classes are given gifts by their
social superiors. European philosophy is equally ugly, socialist,
relativistic, and even nihilist in its point of view.

The few Americans who buy into the European view have always tried to
portray themselves as cultural elites. In fact, the movie stars and effete
snobs who think Europe is so great are usually either uneducated high school
dropouts or products of insular liberal arts programs delivered in ivory
towers.

Oh, yeah -- there is nothing so intolerant as the promoters of 'tolerance.'
Frankly, if it was not likely to end in a world-wide conflagration, it would
be better to just pull our military peacekeepers out of Europe and let the
continent implode in its own pride and hubris. Unfortunately, the Europeans
cannot be entrusted to not hurl nuclear weapons at each other, so the
presence of our troops will be necessary for a long time to come.

[Montblack]

("R. Hubbell" wrote)
> Looks like you're new to usenet. Don't get too worked up. I hope you
> don't plonk everyone you disagree with. But then again I guess that's
> the republican way. So little tolerance for opposing or alternate views.


I don't have a horse, a donkey, or an elephant in this fight but......

It's my observation that a person will be labeled intolerant, unless they
(whole-heartedly) swallow whatever "alternative" viewpoints the left is
sponsoring.

Big John, please consider *unplonking* David ...for the holidays <g>

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Jay Honeck]

> > In your view, what were his REAL motives for ousting Saddam?
>
> Probably large to one-up his father.

A flippant -- and certainly not a very lucid -- answer.

I find it hard to believe you don't have a better theory up your sleeve.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[R. Hubbell]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 05:12:41 GMT "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > > In your view, what were his REAL motives for ousting Saddam?
> >
> > Probably large to one-up his father.
>
> A flippant -- and certainly not a very lucid -- answer.
>
> I find it hard to believe you don't have a better theory up your sleeve.


Not sure if the OP meant this or not. But yes he certainly is trying to clean
up after his Dad's screw ups. Guess who took us to Somalia where we got our
asses kicked. Dad Bush. Guess who sent help to the Somalians? That's a
guy name Osama Bin Laden. Who put Saddam in power?

Who was intrumental in getting Dubya elected? Dad Bush, ex-cia chief,
ex-president. And father with lots of unfinished business. That's my
boy! I guess the only thing Dubya has left to do is keep his food down
on his next visit to Japan! :)

R. Hubbell

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:41:29 -0600 "Montblack" > wrote:

> ("R. Hubbell" wrote)
> > Looks like you're new to usenet. Don't get too worked up. I hope you
> > don't plonk everyone you disagree with. But then again I guess that's
> > the republican way. So little tolerance for opposing or alternate views.
>
>
> I don't have a horse, a donkey, or an elephant in this fight but......

You can't expect us to believe that!

>
> It's my observation that a person will be labeled intolerant, unless they
> (whole-heartedly) swallow whatever "alternative" viewpoints the left is
> sponsoring.

No "swallowing" involved as you can see from the definition for tolerance:

"sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or
conflicting with one's own"


It's another step toward enlightenment to understand opposition.


>
> Big John, please consider *unplonking* David ...for the holidays <g>

Now that's a good idea! This is supposed to be a place for discourse.
A little decorum would do us all good, if only for the holidays. Make
better humans of us all. Maybe even throw in a dash of humility to
round things out.


R. Hubbell

>
> --
> Montblack
> http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif
>
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > It's all about China folks. If you don't think so, just wait a few more
> > years...you'll see.
>
> chinese teenage population outnumbers the total population of the USA.
Well,
> calculate what will happen in 1 or 2 generations.

Sony must be salivating, with THAT kind of market for their Playstation
games...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:

>
>"Montblack" > wrote:
>
>> It's all about China folks. If you don't think so, just wait a few more
>> years...you'll see.
>
>chinese teenage population outnumbers the total population of the USA. Well,
>calculate what will happen in 1 or 2 generations.
>

We probably would have been better off leaving them as communists. Teaching
them capitalism takes the hobbles off.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article <5_Ozb.422240$HS4.3350892@attbi_s01>, "Jay Honeck"
> writes:

>
>In your view, what were his REAL motives for ousting Saddam?
>--

They're not going to like it, but the real motive was to change the character
of the middle east and make it a less volitile place, while killing as few
people in the process as possible.

The alternative would have been to pascify the place by killing a LOT of
Moslems.

Leaving as it was, and putting up with terrorism forever, as Europe seems
willing to do, was not an acceptable option.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article <5_Ozb.422240$HS4.3350892@attbi_s01>, "Jay Honeck"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >In your view, what were his REAL motives for ousting Saddam?
> >--
>
> They're not going to like it, but the real motive was to change the
character
> of the middle east and make it a less volitile place, while killing as few
> people in the process as possible.

Yet when Saddam was at the height of his military strength and at the height
of his terrorist atrocities, the US *supported* him on the grounds that his
regime was a *stabilizing* influence.

> Leaving as it was, and putting up with terrorism forever, as Europe seems
> willing to do, was not an acceptable option.

As the CIA pointed out, invading Iraq will likely increase, not decrease,
our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

--Gary

[Wdtabor]

In article <Tn1Ab.32648$_M.137701@attbi_s54>, "Gary L. Drescher"
> writes:

>> Leaving as it was, and putting up with terrorism forever, as Europe seems
>> willing to do, was not an acceptable option.
>
>As the CIA pointed out, invading Iraq will likely increase, not decrease,
>our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
>

That would be the same CIA that has been totally wrong about terrorist
intentions for the last 20 years?

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Well, socialism by its _ideals_ is not that bad, the idea itself is good.
|

Socialism is nothing but organized banditry. It is a terrible concept.

| > Unfortunately, the Europeans
| > cannot be entrusted to not hurl nuclear weapons at each other, so the
| > presence of our troops will be necessary for a long time to come.
|
| and you still want to have some of the European countries share your ideas
| within NATO? Or: if this is your mindset, than you have a really bad
mindset.
|
|
| 3 questions:
| do you have a passport?
| can you point at Europe on a globe?
| have you ever been outside of your county/state/USA?
|

Yes to all three, if it is any of your business.

The express purpose of NATO is to keep Europeans from indulging in their
penchant for slaughtering one another by ensuring that an attack on one is
deemed an attack on all. Despite this, most of the NATO members have
consistently refused to honor their NATO commitments, including their
obligations incurred by the last attacks by terrorist groups. Italy, for
example, still protects terrorists that are wanted in Turkey.

NATO would not function at all without the presence of US peacekeeping
troops to keep a lid on things. The United States in many ways served the
same function in keeping the peace in western Europe as the Soviet Union did
in the east. Now that Russia is no longer able to fulfill its obligations
there, the US has had to intervene in much of eastern Europe as well, even
in some of the former Soviet republics.

Your comments about America's "youth" and your unfounded assumptions of my
own lack of exposure to European culture reflect the typical European
ignorance of American history and culture that I previously condemned.
America is not 200 years old; it is a blend of cultures at least as old as
anything Europe has to offer. The United States as a national political
entity is older than Germany, Poland, and several other European nations.
Great Britain might reasonably claim to be older than the United States, but
the other European countries are little older than WW II, built on the ashes
of earlier entities that have little in common in either boundaries or
culture other than name.

Even allowing that post-war France is somewhat the same country is pre-war
France and giving the French some claim to being an older country, most
other European nations did not come into existence before Napoleon. Before
that, most of Europe was nothing but a collection of tiny feudal estates
ruled by petty overlords whose chief form of recreation seems to have been
burning down other feudal estates.

But let us not forget Spain and Portugal, who might really have legitimate
claims to being old. Oh, too late, the rest of Europe did forget about them
and continues to ignore them to this day. I dare say that those two
countries find far more respect in America than they do anywhere in Europe.
You would do well to remember why the Europeans who came to America did so
in the first place, and the heritage they brought with them.

Even if European culture really was older than that of the US, you fail to
demonstrate how it is somehow 'better.' Little enough of that ancient
European culture remains -- mostly reverently preserved in museums. France
of 2003, for example, has almost nothing in common with the empire of
Charlemagne. The language, people, customs, architecture, art, music,
political institutions, and everything else in modern Europe would probably
be completely unrecognizable and horrify the benighted barbarians you so
proudly claim as your heritage. Only the violence remains. The modern
European has nothing more to do with castles and Stonehenge than the modern
American has to do with Chichen Itza or ancient cliff dwellers of the
southwest. You want to rest on the laurels of the long vanished tribes of
1000 years ago, go right ahead.

And don't even get me started on the supposedly ancient nations of Asia and
Africa.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> writes:

>Even allowing that post-war France is somewhat the same country is pre-war
>France and giving the French some claim to being an older country, most
>other European nations did not come into existence before Napoleon. Before
>that, most of Europe was nothing but a collection of tiny feudal estates
>ruled by petty overlords whose chief form of recreation seems to have been
>burning down other feudal estates.
>

The problem with France is that, while our revolution was led by our best
people, theirs chopped the heads off their best and brightest, thus removing
the cream from their gene pool.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[C J Campbell]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:4GNyb.275746$ao4.947242@attbi_s51...
| Put pretty concisely and accurately, if you ask me.
|
| But then, you didn't, did you.
|
| I think dubya knows he's in trouble in the polls. If he were not having
poll
| trouble, he would not have made the trip. If this were his second term, he
| would not have made the trip.
|
| mike regish

So far, the only arguments that I have heard against us going into Iraq was
fears that we would not behave like Americans: establishing democracy and
the rule of law, rebuilding the infrastructure, eliminating a threat to the
very foundations of civilization, and giving freedom to Iraqis. No, all the
arguments against us being there are based on fears that we will behave like
Europeans -- the Crusades, colonialism, mass exploitation, looting of the
subject country, and enslaving the population.

It appears, despite assertions to the contrary, that we are remaining more
true to our American ideals there rather than giving in to European cultural
excesses.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> (Wdtabor) wrote:
>
> > while our revolution was led by our best people,
>
> well, by _that_ time those people were mostly those we gave the choice of
> "hanging or America".

Actually, I thought that your area of Europe was handing out choices of "hanging
or be a British mercenary".

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <q4Nxb.7819$ZE1.4509@fed1read04>,
"R. Hubbell" > wrote:
> No man it's cojones, I can't make the connection why you think flying into
> Iraq means he has big cojones. Big cojones would have meant announcing to
> the
> world that you were spending Thanksgiving with the troops in Iraq. Flying in
> for 2 hours, unannounced, is not an act of bravery. It's really just a
> political stunt. Apparently it's working.


I seriously doubt that. Flying into Baghdad was a fairly large risk
even given the security precautions. If all Bush was after was
political points, he could have scored those easily without ever leaving
Washington, D.C.



JKG

[Montblack]

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
> > And what, in your view of the world, were these secret reasons that he
"lied" about?

> maybe the turkey was the secret? :-)))
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33090-2003Dec3.html


From the story:
A contractor had roasted and primped the turkey to adorn the buffet line,
while the 600 soldiers were served from cafeteria-style steam trays, the
officials said. They said the bird was not placed there in anticipation of
Bush's stealthy visit, and military sources said a trophy turkey is a
standard feature of holiday chow lines.


Contractor / Iraq / Military / Presidential visit

....$47,000 Thanksgiving Day (table dressing) military turkey.

That's my taxpayer guess <g>. Am I too low?

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[G.R. Patterson III]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> hm. I am from Europe. Mainland Europe (there is only mainland Europe *bg*).
> I am living in mailand Europe, in a neutral country, and we have the Euro as our
> currency. Now this explanation doesn't leave very much room for choices :-))

Fine, but in the mid-1700s, Europe was a hodge-podge of duchies, kingdoms, and
God knows what else. As I recall, you are living in Austria. That area, and the
area north of there now known as Bavaria provided most of the troops that
England sent over here during our revolution and many of the troops used later
in the Napoleonic wars. My ancestors called them "Hessians" because many of them
were from that area.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[mike regish]

Then you haven't been paying attention.

mike regish

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, David Dyer-Bennet
> > wrote:
>
> > > Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".
> >
> > More than any other president has done. He seems to actually value
> > integrity.
>
> wow! That is pretty close to the dumbest thing I've read on
> usenet.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[mike regish]

You are without a doubt the most contemptuous, hateful and outright arrogant
person I've yet run into, and there are some doozies in the pro-bush tribe.
Get off your high horse and get in touch with reality at some point in your
miserable life.

I don't plonk anybody, but that may just change. I'm sure that will break
your heart.

I'll bet you make a lot of money.

mike regish

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:4GNyb.275746$ao4.947242@attbi_s51...
> | Put pretty concisely and accurately, if you ask me.
> |
> | But then, you didn't, did you.
> |
> | I think dubya knows he's in trouble in the polls. If he were not having
> poll
> | trouble, he would not have made the trip. If this were his second term,
he
> | would not have made the trip.
> |
> | mike regish
>
> So far, the only arguments that I have heard against us going into Iraq
was
> fears that we would not behave like Americans: establishing democracy and
> the rule of law, rebuilding the infrastructure, eliminating a threat to
the
> very foundations of civilization, and giving freedom to Iraqis. No, all
the
> arguments against us being there are based on fears that we will behave
like
> Europeans -- the Crusades, colonialism, mass exploitation, looting of the
> subject country, and enslaving the population.
>
> It appears, despite assertions to the contrary, that we are remaining more
> true to our American ideals there rather than giving in to European
cultural
> excesses.
>
>

[Montblack]

("Mike Regish" wrote)
<some odd anti-Mormie stuff snipped>

> I'll bet you make a lot of money.

I was with you up until ...right about here. <g>

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:49:49 +0000, Bob Noel wrote:

> some people just aren't happy. whining when the US doesn't
> take action and more whining when the US does.

They would whine if you hung 'em with a new rope...

[Jay Honeck]

> Jeff... (the most outright arrogant person [with a buddy who is the most
> hateful (he's homophobic transgender, so I suppose he has every right to
> be hateful)])

Dang, Jeff, I was going to refute your statement, and reclaim the "most
hateful" title for myself -- but your buddy simply can't be beat! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:21:24 +0000, Gary L. Drescher wrote:

> As the CIA pointed out, invading Iraq will likely increase, not decrease,
> our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

You can't possibly believe this. After all, they rubber stamped the
British report that many claim is what Bush is lying to America on.

Isn't it funny how they're reliable as time when it supports a negative
opinion of the president and unreliable when it supports him?

[Big John]

R Hubbell

Oh, I've been around for a little while.

As I said in post. "I just don't suffer fools".

I just let them rant on.

Big John


On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:45:57 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:37:13 -0600 Big John > wrote:
>
>> David
>>
>> David. Once more. I just don't suffer fools and sleep soundly.
>>
>> You Texas 'Two Step' around the original post and now instead of
>> acknowledging the short combings of the last Democratic
>> administration, you blow hot air and try to overwhelm all with Crap.
>>
>> Take your last shot. You've got GW for five more years so drop your
>> pants, bend over and joy it.
>>
>> Big John
>>
>> gone----------------------------------------
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> >plonk<
>
>Looks like you're new to usenet. Don't get too worked up. I hope you
>don't plonk everyone you disagree with. But then again I guess that's
>the republican way. So little tolerance for opposing or alternate views.
>
>
>R. Hubbell
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 03 Dec 2003 22:59:11 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Big John > writes:
>> >
>> >> David
>> >>
>> >> You didn't directly address my "lie, steal and cheat".
>> >> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````
>> >> Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".
>> >
>> >More than any other president has done. He seems to actually value
>> >integrity.
>> >
>> >> Stole furniture from White House when he left and had to return it
>> >> (WSJ and other sources)
>> >
>> >Widely debunked.
>> >
>> >> Cheated on Hillery (admitted on TV)
>> >
>> >Big deal. I take for granted that anybody at that level has "cheated"
>> >on their spouse; power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. The cases we
>> >actually *hear* about are a tiny portion of the cases that occur, and
>> >are randomly selected.
>> >
>> >Besides, we have no idea what his actual deal with his wife was; so
>> >far as I'm concerned she's the only one with standing to complain of
>> >his behavior.
>> >
>> >> Comments.
>> >
>> >There are a few.
>> >
>> >I notice you've had nothing to say about the fraud Halliburton and
>> >Dick Cheney have been profiting from, and the long string of lies out
>> >of the White House to get us into this war, and the deliberate
>> >"outing" of an undercover CIA operative to punish her husband for
>> >writing a report critical of the administration's position (the
>> >"yellowcake" scandal). Or his brother's illegally purging black
>> >voters from the rolls in Florida to get Bush elected in the first
>> >place. Frankly the crimes of this administration take us back to
>> >19th-century levels, or perhaps to third-world hellhole levels.
>>

[Big John]

Montblack

Guess I missused the term.

I had planned on gracefully (ungracefully) backing out of
participation in the thresd and hoping that some the views expressed
did kill someone who believed and acted on them.

Thanks for your rational comment.

Big John

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:41:29 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>("R. Hubbell" wrote)
>> Looks like you're new to usenet. Don't get too worked up. I hope you
>> don't plonk everyone you disagree with. But then again I guess that's
>> the republican way. So little tolerance for opposing or alternate views.
>
>
>I don't have a horse, a donkey, or an elephant in this fight but......
>
>It's my observation that a person will be labeled intolerant, unless they
>(whole-heartedly) swallow whatever "alternative" viewpoints the left is
>sponsoring.
>
>Big John, please consider *unplonking* David ...for the holidays <g>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Jeffrey Voight
> wrote:

> I would also say that Monday Morning Quarterbacking has the benefit of
> 20/20 vision,

the sad part is that not all hindsight is 20/20.

--
Bob Noel

[R. Hubbell]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:42:45 -0600 Big John > wrote:

> R Hubbell
>
> Oh, I've been around for a little while.
>
> As I said in post. "I just don't suffer fools".
>
> I just let them rant on.

Agreed, me too. If the shoe fits wear it.


R. Hubbell

>
> Big John
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:45:57 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 16:37:13 -0600 Big John > wrote:
> >
> >> David
> >>
> >> David. Once more. I just don't suffer fools and sleep soundly.
> >>
> >> You Texas 'Two Step' around the original post and now instead of
> >> acknowledging the short combings of the last Democratic
> >> administration, you blow hot air and try to overwhelm all with Crap.
> >>
> >> Take your last shot. You've got GW for five more years so drop your
> >> pants, bend over and joy it.
> >>
> >> Big John
> >>
> >> gone----------------------------------------
> >> *
> >> *
> >> *
> >> >plonk<
> >
> >Looks like you're new to usenet. Don't get too worked up. I hope you
> >don't plonk everyone you disagree with. But then again I guess that's
> >the republican way. So little tolerance for opposing or alternate views.
> >
> >
> >R. Hubbell
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03 Dec 2003 22:59:11 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Big John > writes:
> >> >
> >> >> David
> >> >>
> >> >> You didn't directly address my "lie, steal and cheat".
> >> >> `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````
> >> >> Stood up on TV and admitted to the world that he "lied".
> >> >
> >> >More than any other president has done. He seems to actually value
> >> >integrity.
> >> >
> >> >> Stole furniture from White House when he left and had to return it
> >> >> (WSJ and other sources)
> >> >
> >> >Widely debunked.
> >> >
> >> >> Cheated on Hillery (admitted on TV)
> >> >
> >> >Big deal. I take for granted that anybody at that level has "cheated"
> >> >on their spouse; power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. The cases we
> >> >actually *hear* about are a tiny portion of the cases that occur, and
> >> >are randomly selected.
> >> >
> >> >Besides, we have no idea what his actual deal with his wife was; so
> >> >far as I'm concerned she's the only one with standing to complain of
> >> >his behavior.
> >> >
> >> >> Comments.
> >> >
> >> >There are a few.
> >> >
> >> >I notice you've had nothing to say about the fraud Halliburton and
> >> >Dick Cheney have been profiting from, and the long string of lies out
> >> >of the White House to get us into this war, and the deliberate
> >> >"outing" of an undercover CIA operative to punish her husband for
> >> >writing a report critical of the administration's position (the
> >> >"yellowcake" scandal). Or his brother's illegally purging black
> >> >voters from the rolls in Florida to get Bush elected in the first
> >> >place. Frankly the crimes of this administration take us back to
> >> >19th-century levels, or perhaps to third-world hellhole levels.
> >>
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 01:09:42 GMT Jeffrey Voight > wrote:

> No, no. I'm the most arrogant, and one of my buddies is the most hateful.
>
> However, I would point out that in following this thread, you've
> contributed nothing but 'one-liners.'
>
> I can't tell if you're attempting to defend Europe's past behavior or if
> you're just anti-current-U.S. administration.
>
> I'm not 100% on board with some of the decisions that our current
> administration has made.
>
> However, I do know that the president's visit to Iraq boosted the morale
> of the troops in that dining facility by orders of magnitude if even for
> a short time period.


Boosted the moral of 600 troops of how many troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Thousands. You're argument is really bringing home the fact that it was
a political stunt. If he was sincere and meant it to be a morale booster
he would have involved many, many more troops. But be honest it's way
too dangerous over there for him to do that. In fact once the wheels of
AF1 left Iraq those troops were reminded of just how dangerous a place
it is there.

>
> I would also say that Monday Morning Quarterbacking has the benefit of
> 20/20 vision, but actually making tough decisions often includes the use
> of blinders. Some of these blinders are placed by rules and
> regulations, some of them are based upon impulse decisions.
>
> We went into Iraq knowing that there were WMD. We have since been
> unsuccessful in discovering them. We have also recently learned that
> Mr. Hussein may very well have been bragging that he had WMD when in
> reality, he had paused (and, yes, paused is the right word) his
> development while the U.N. microscope clips were holding him down.
>
> Mr. Hussein did some bad bad things to his country and his neighbors.
> The U.N. blew an awful lot of smoke up everybody's butts with sanctions
> and idle threats. When it came time to put-up or shut-up, they chose
> the shut-up stance.

Any country with lots of oil does bad, bad things to there people with
few exceptions.


The Iraqis are "knuckleheads" because they don't see things our way?
You aren't arrogant but myopic. Big differences between the two.
Now get back to your TV watching and shopping and fornicating like a
good domesticated citizen should. ;)


R. Hubbell

[R. Hubbell]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:49:49 GMT Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article . ca>,
> Brian Burger > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, mike regish wrote:
> >
> > > If that truly becomes the case, I will seriously consider moving to
> > > Canada.
> >
> > Canada has a great tradition as a refuge for the more sensible sort of
> > American!
> >
> > Not just Vietnam, either. Consider the Yanks who *did* want to fight
> > while
> > the US was waffling around with neutrality in the two World Wars!
> >
> > :)
> >
>
> some people just aren't happy. whining when the US doesn't
> take action and more whining when the US does.


So are you saying you're happy when they take action and happy when
they don't? Not sure which position is better. But it's an
interesting, alternate position to take.


R. Hubbell




>
> --
> Bob Noel

[R. Hubbell]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 19:51:06 -0600 "Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 02:49:49 +0000, Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > some people just aren't happy. whining when the US doesn't
> > take action and more whining when the US does.
>
> They would whine if you hung 'em with a new rope...

That's sounds like a retro-republican solution to deal with people
with alternate, differing views. Are you hoping for its revival to
cleanse the globe of those who would oppose your views?


R. Hubbell

>

[C J Campbell]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:nq8Ab.311733$ao4.1062502@attbi_s51...
| You are without a doubt the most contemptuous, hateful and outright
arrogant
| person I've yet run into, and there are some doozies in the pro-bush
tribe.
| Get off your high horse and get in touch with reality at some point in
your
| miserable life.
|

I am not sure what you are saying -- honestly. Are you contending that we
are looting Iraq, raping the women, and bringing our soldiers home loaded
with Iraqi TVs (as Iraq did to Kuwait)? If not, what do you think we are
doing there?

You have not been following this news group for very long if you think I am
an enthusiastic supporter of Bush. However, when he is right he deserves
credit for it.

Now, I will tell you what I think is contemptuous, hateful, and outright
arrogant: the anti-Bush clowns who can't stand the thought that the man
could possibly do anything right. They are absolutely foaming at the mouth
over it. They are furious that we have not begun looting Iraqi oil fields.
They are absolutely incensed that our soldiers are doing everything possible
to not appear to be an occupying force -- even endangering their own lives
to do it. The anti-Bush crowd is livid that not only are we not looting the
country, but we have no intention of allowing France, Germany, or Russia to
loot the country, either. And the thing that gets them the most -- Bush
appears to actually be sincere about his reasons for invading Iraq and he
appears determined to make good on his promises there.

Now, I think it is extremely hateful, contemptuous, and arrogant to wish
that our own soldiers who are faithfully serving our country will meet
disaster just to serve the anti-Bush crowd's political agenda and give Bush
a black eye.

| I don't plonk anybody, but that may just change. I'm sure that will break
| your heart.

If the truth hurts, you should probably plonk me. In any event, I have the
same opinion of you that you have of me. In fact, my opinion of you is even
lower. However, I will not plonk you. I don't feel it necessary to only read
posts from people who agree with me. However, I understand your need to
avoid opinions dissenting from your own point of view, so don't be ashamed
if you have such a weak character.

|
| I'll bet you make a lot of money.
|

How much money I make is none of your business. However, I am retired and
devote my time to flight instructing, so I arguably make no money at all.
:-)

[Bob Noel]

In article <SHeAb.23487$ZE1.11162@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

> Boosted the moral of 600 troops of how many troops in Afghanistan and
> Iraq?
> Thousands. You're argument is really bringing home the fact that it was
> a political stunt. If he was sincere and meant it to be a morale booster
> he would have involved many, many more troops.

You are assuming that the other troops wouldn't
see any value to his visit. While some were probably
whining that they weren't visited or had extra duty because
of the visit, I'm convinced that most of the troops were pleased
(including the troops serving in other locations around the world).

> But be honest it's way
> too dangerous over there for him to do that. In fact once the wheels of
> AF1 left Iraq those troops were reminded of just how dangerous a place
> it is there.

A significant number of the military people I work with have
been deployed over there or are going to be deployed. Trust me,
they know it's a dangerous place - a POTUS visit wouldn't change that.
They don't need to be "reminded."

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article <rZeAb.23773$ZE1.10604@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

> > some people just aren't happy. whining when the US doesn't
> > take action and more whining when the US does.
>
> So are you saying you're happy when they take action and happy when
> they don't?

No. I didn't say that.

--
Bob Noel

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:10:14 -0500, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
>Martin Hotze wrote:
>>
>> hm. I am from Europe. Mainland Europe (there is only mainland Europe *bg*).
>> I am living in mailand Europe, in a neutral country, and we have the Euro as our
>> currency. Now this explanation doesn't leave very much room for choices :-))
>
>Fine, but in the mid-1700s, Europe was a hodge-podge of duchies, kingdoms, and
>God knows what else. As I recall, you are living in Austria.

yes. (and to your earlier post you haven't even mentioned the Habsburg
monarchy, owning most of Europe then, and also parts of Mexico).

> That area, and the
>area north of there now known as Bavaria provided most of the troops that
>England sent over here during our revolution and many of the troops used later
>in the Napoleonic wars. My ancestors called them "Hessians" because many of them
>were from that area.


*muahahahahahhaahahha*

you're a really funny person.

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:24:20 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

>Are you contending that we
>are looting Iraq, raping the women, and bringing our soldiers home loaded
>with Iraqi TVs (as Iraq did to Kuwait)? If not, what do you think we are
>doing there?

naaahhh. no TVs.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/artifacts_4-14.html
(for example)

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 23:24:20 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

>They are furious that we have not begun looting Iraqi oil fields.

Well, many people are expecting exactly this to happen every day now.
But not done by Bush but by Americans. It is not a good impression that
grew in many heads all over the world. It might be wrong, but the
impression is here.

(...)
>Now, I think it is extremely hateful, contemptuous, and arrogant to wish
>that our own soldiers who are faithfully serving our country will meet
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
they do?

>disaster just to serve

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Big John]

Dam dead nerves in fingers :o( Little or no sense of feel.

I of course mean't to say "didn't kill someone" vs the way it came out
as "did kill someone".

Big John


On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:50:53 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>Montblack
>
>Guess I missused the term.
>
>I had planned on gracefully (ungracefully) backing out of
>participation in the thresd and hoping that some the views expressed
>did kill someone who believed and acted on them.
>
>Thanks for your rational comment.
>
>Big John
>
>On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 22:41:29 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:
>
>>("R. Hubbell" wrote)
>>> Looks like you're new to usenet. Don't get too worked up. I hope you
>>> don't plonk everyone you disagree with. But then again I guess that's
>>> the republican way. So little tolerance for opposing or alternate views.
>>
>>
>>I don't have a horse, a donkey, or an elephant in this fight but......
>>
>>It's my observation that a person will be labeled intolerant, unless they
>>(whole-heartedly) swallow whatever "alternative" viewpoints the left is
>>sponsoring.
>>
>>Big John, please consider *unplonking* David ...for the holidays <g>

[mike regish]

You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the inspections a
chance. You can't honestly say that he did. Had he given them the time they
(and we "Bush haters") wanted, and Iraq was found to be in serious
non-compliance, all these "Bush-haters" would have been behind this war,
even though it was just a diversion.

I'll admit, I can't stand the guy. He's as phony as a three dollar bill. But
war was not a last resort for him. It was a given. If he could admit that,
I'd have at least a little respect for him. If he could say, in light of the
lack of WMD with total access, in light of the absence of any connection to
9/11, that maybe he should have waited instead of rushing to war, I would
have an easier time supporting this war. But he can't-or rather, won't.
Neither can you. He just keeps changing the reason, and you just keep
following along like sheep. And even if he did, that doesn't change the fact
the this war was to divert attention from his failure in Afghanistan. Now
he's got 2 major failures and you can't admit that, even in hindsight. Not
even a little.And none of what you say about what I'm supposedly furious
about is even close to the truth. It just further demonstrates your refusal,
or inability, to deal with reality.

I used to be an independent. Now I see how truly ugly the republicans are.
In all these discussions, almost without exception, the Bush lovers-almost
all republicans-are the first to get derisive and start throwing epithets. I
guess that's what you have to do when the facts overwhelm your position. The
"Bush-haters" as you call us, seem to be able to discuss differences,
probably because we have reality on our side.

As for the money comment, it seems also, that the more money one has, the
more in favor of Bush one is. I wonder why?

mike regish

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:nq8Ab.311733$ao4.1062502@attbi_s51...
> | You are without a doubt the most contemptuous, hateful and outright
> arrogant
> | person I've yet run into, and there are some doozies in the pro-bush
> tribe.
> | Get off your high horse and get in touch with reality at some point in
> your
> | miserable life.
> |
>
> I am not sure what you are saying -- honestly. Are you contending that we
> are looting Iraq, raping the women, and bringing our soldiers home loaded
> with Iraqi TVs (as Iraq did to Kuwait)? If not, what do you think we are
> doing there?
>
> You have not been following this news group for very long if you think I
am
> an enthusiastic supporter of Bush. However, when he is right he deserves
> credit for it.
>
> Now, I will tell you what I think is contemptuous, hateful, and outright
> arrogant: the anti-Bush clowns who can't stand the thought that the man
> could possibly do anything right. They are absolutely foaming at the mouth
> over it. They are furious that we have not begun looting Iraqi oil fields.
> They are absolutely incensed that our soldiers are doing everything
possible
> to not appear to be an occupying force -- even endangering their own lives
> to do it. The anti-Bush crowd is livid that not only are we not looting
the
> country, but we have no intention of allowing France, Germany, or Russia
to
> loot the country, either. And the thing that gets them the most -- Bush
> appears to actually be sincere about his reasons for invading Iraq and he
> appears determined to make good on his promises there.
>
> Now, I think it is extremely hateful, contemptuous, and arrogant to wish
> that our own soldiers who are faithfully serving our country will meet
> disaster just to serve the anti-Bush crowd's political agenda and give
Bush
> a black eye.
>
> | I don't plonk anybody, but that may just change. I'm sure that will
break
> | your heart.
>
> If the truth hurts, you should probably plonk me. In any event, I have the
> same opinion of you that you have of me. In fact, my opinion of you is
even
> lower. However, I will not plonk you. I don't feel it necessary to only
read
> posts from people who agree with me. However, I understand your need to
> avoid opinions dissenting from your own point of view, so don't be ashamed
> if you have such a weak character.
>
> |
> | I'll bet you make a lot of money.
> |
>
> How much money I make is none of your business. However, I am retired and
> devote my time to flight instructing, so I arguably make no money at all.
> :-)
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> Now, I will tell you what I think is contemptuous, hateful, and
> outright arrogant: the anti-Bush clowns who can't stand the
> thought that the man could possibly do anything right. They
> are absolutely foaming at the mouth over it.

One is reminded of exactly the same phenomenon during the Clinton
administration.

I have made it plain in these newsgroups that I am disappointed in
Bush's presidency, particularly his decision to invade Iraq, which I
believe is a strategic blunder in the war on terrorism. Nevertheless,
the shrieking chorus of Bush haters disturbs me. It reveals the power of
hateful propaganda, both left- and right-wing, in America nowadays.
People aren't thinking; they are allowing themselves to be led.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Jay Honeck]

> You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
> resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the inspections
a
> chance. You can't honestly say that he did. Had he given them the time
they
> (and we "Bush haters") wanted, and Iraq was found to be in serious
> non-compliance, all these "Bush-haters" would have been behind this war,

???

Where would YOU have drawn the line, Mike? Ten years? 12? 15?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

Certainly more than the time Bush allowed. Frankly, I would have preferred
to have a permanent team of inspectors stationed there than rushing to war.

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fSlAb.442217$Tr4.1229658@attbi_s03...
> > You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
> > resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the
inspections
> a
> > chance. You can't honestly say that he did. Had he given them the time
> they
> > (and we "Bush haters") wanted, and Iraq was found to be in serious
> > non-compliance, all these "Bush-haters" would have been behind this war,
>
> ???
>
> Where would YOU have drawn the line, Mike? Ten years? 12? 15?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:gRkAb.315222$275.1065859@attbi_s53...
| You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
| resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the inspections
a
| chance.

Inspections were given a chance for more than 10 years. How much of a chance
did you want? Meanwhile, Hussein was murdering millions of his own people,
financing terrorist attacks all over the world, and continuing to threaten
his neighbors. I wonder how many people had to die before you thought action
was necessary?

However, my point stands. I find the constant anti-Bush, anti-American, off
topic postings from you, Hotze, Dighera and others to be every bit as vile
as you think my postings are. I don't think Hotze in particular has ever
posted on topic. You might want to think about that before you threaten to
plonk people that you consider to be "contemptuous, arrogant, and hateful."
Or even rich.

I did not start this thread. I did not post on it until the thread had been
running for several days. If I am offensive, it is deliberately so -- you
deserve it. If polite people remain silent while you keep up your constant
stream of poison, it is not because they agree with you. I am old and no
longer have any reason to be ashamed over anything. Somebody has to stand up
to hateful bullies like you. Whether you plonk me or not, I will continue to
do so.

[C J Campbell]

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
| It made me furious during the Clinton administration, as well. People
| don't seem to understand that *we* elected him. Whether one's
| individual vote was for the guy or not, *we*, collectively, elected
| these officials.
|

I have a genuine concern that this country has become so polarized
politically that we are on the brink of civil war.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 07:59:14 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>we are on the brink of civil war

I believe you have hit upon the current administration's belief also.

[Larry Dighera]

On 04 Dec 2003 17:04:07 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>
>> In your view, what were his REAL motives for ousting Saddam?
>
>Probably large[ly] to one-up his father.

One is able to hypothesize many pragmatic reasons for baby Bush's
military action, but his daddy got him elected. And his daddy was
roundly faulted for failing to remove Sadam from power in '91, so
among other more rational reasons, baby Bush's desire to help his
father belatedly save face, and avenge the attempt on his father's
life must have been significant motives, as would have been the desire
to repay his benefactor(s).

(One can only hope his religious beliefs were insignificant in there
effect on his decisions.)

[mike regish]

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. Look in the mirror sometime. And take
the blinders off.

BTW, how disappointed were you when no weapons were found? How disappointed
were you when the link to 9/11 was disproved? How disappointed were you when
the "yellowcake" scam was debunked? How disappointed were you when the
Iraqis didn't welcome us with open arms? How many young American lives do we
have to lose before you accept the truth?

You just can't get over that disagreeing with the administration is being
more American than blind faith, can you? You can't get away from that "We
needed to save the Iraqis" crap since you don't have any other legs to stand
on, can you?

You may just be getting senile. You're to be pitied more than despised.

mike regish

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:gRkAb.315222$275.1065859@attbi_s53...
> | You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
> | resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the
inspections
> a
> | chance.
>
> Inspections were given a chance for more than 10 years. How much of a
chance
> did you want? Meanwhile, Hussein was murdering millions of his own people,
> financing terrorist attacks all over the world, and continuing to threaten
> his neighbors. I wonder how many people had to die before you thought
action
> was necessary?
>
> However, my point stands. I find the constant anti-Bush, anti-American,
off
> topic postings from you, Hotze, Dighera and others to be every bit as vile
> as you think my postings are. I don't think Hotze in particular has ever
> posted on topic. You might want to think about that before you threaten to
> plonk people that you consider to be "contemptuous, arrogant, and
hateful."
> Or even rich.
>
> I did not start this thread. I did not post on it until the thread had
been
> running for several days. If I am offensive, it is deliberately so -- you
> deserve it. If polite people remain silent while you keep up your constant
> stream of poison, it is not because they agree with you. I am old and no
> longer have any reason to be ashamed over anything. Somebody has to stand
up
> to hateful bullies like you. Whether you plonk me or not, I will continue
to
> do so.
>
>

[mike regish]

Um, he was appointed. I watched the whole thing.

mike regish

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> It made me furious during the Clinton administration, as well. People
> don't seem to understand that *we* elected him. Whether one's
> individual vote was for the guy or not, *we*, collectively, elected
> these officials.
>
> Jeff...
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
> > "C J Campbell" wrote:
> >
> >>Now, I will tell you what I think is contemptuous, hateful, and
> >>outright arrogant: the anti-Bush clowns who can't stand the
> >>thought that the man could possibly do anything right. They
> >>are absolutely foaming at the mouth over it.
> >
> >
> > One is reminded of exactly the same phenomenon during the Clinton
> > administration.
> >
> > I have made it plain in these newsgroups that I am disappointed in
> > Bush's presidency, particularly his decision to invade Iraq, which I
> > believe is a strategic blunder in the war on terrorism. Nevertheless,
> > the shrieking chorus of Bush haters disturbs me. It reveals the power of
> > hateful propaganda, both left- and right-wing, in America nowadays.
> > People aren't thinking; they are allowing themselves to be led.

[Earl Grieda]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:gRkAb.315222$275.1065859@attbi_s53...
> | You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
> | resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the
inspections
> | a chance.
>
> Inspections were given a chance for more than 10 years. How much of a
chance
> did you want? Meanwhile, Hussein was murdering millions of his own people,
> financing terrorist attacks all over the world, and continuing to threaten
> his neighbors. I wonder how many people had to die before you thought
action
> was necessary?
>

Since when has "murdering millions of his own people" become a justification
for pre-emptive military invasion by the United States? This has occurred
throughout the world, but only in Iraq is it being used as an excuse to
justify the American invasion. In fact, it was not until it became apparent
to the world that there were no WMDs, and no terrorists, that this excuse
started to become popular. Ironically, Iraq is now becoming a terrorist
haven.

Where is the evidence that Hussein was "financing terrorist attacks all over
the world"? This is another conservative exaggeration or fabrication.

Bush was right-on in regard to Afganishtan and he deserves credit for that
action. However, quite simply, there is, and was, no justification for the
military invasion of Iraq by the US. It was done soley to appease the
conservative Chicken Hawks in the Bush adminstration. Bush and Cheny need
to be impeached, tried, and imprisoned for this crime. That our military is
dying due to the incompetence of Bush is criminal.

Nor, to keep on topic for this thread, was sneaking into Iraq and sneaking
out 2 hours later a sign that the president has balls. I think it did have
a minor, temporary boost to troop morale, but was soon forgotten. Although
I am not a Hillary fan, it is apparent the she has more balls than Bush by
her going to Afganishtan.

> However, my point stands. I find the constant anti-Bush, anti-American,
off
> topic postings from you, Hotze, Dighera and others to be every bit as vile
> as you think my postings are. I don't think Hotze in particular has ever
> posted on topic. You might want to think about that before you threaten to
> plonk people that you consider to be "contemptuous, arrogant, and
hateful."
> Or even rich.
>
> I did not start this thread. I did not post on it until the thread had
been
> running for several days. If I am offensive, it is deliberately so -- you
> deserve it. If polite people remain silent while you keep up your constant
> stream of poison, it is not because they agree with you. I am old and no
> longer have any reason to be ashamed over anything. Somebody has to stand
up
> to hateful bullies like you. Whether you plonk me or not, I will continue
to
> do so.
>

Perhaps you consider yourself polite but you come across as a grumpy old
man. Your uncalled for insult of the Europeans a few days ago is a good
example of your mean spiritness. Also, I love the way that conservatives
equate opposistion to the Iraq war as being anti-American. If you can't win
with the facts then call those who disagree with you traitors.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:27:03 GMT, mike regish wrote:

>How many young American lives do we
>have to lose before you accept the truth?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:31:25 GMT, "Earl Grieda"
> wrote:

>Where is the evidence that Hussein was "financing terrorist attacks all over
>the world"? This is another conservative exaggeration or fabrication.

I don't have direct links handy (use Google), but IMHO Hussein himself said
something like handing out money to the 9/11 terrorist'S families, or to
terrorists in Israel. For sure, Hussein is/was no Saint. I agree on that.
Fully.

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[R. Hubbell]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 07:59:14 -0800 "C J Campbell" > wrote:

>
> "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> ...
> | It made me furious during the Clinton administration, as well. People
> | don't seem to understand that *we* elected him. Whether one's
> | individual vote was for the guy or not, *we*, collectively, elected
> | these officials.
> |
>
> I have a genuine concern that this country has become so polarized
> politically that we are on the brink of civil war.


I don't think there's enough polarization for that. Most people are
hopelessly apathetic. Look at the percentage of people that register
to vote. Look at the percentage of registered voters that vote.
Look at the recent debacle in California. Voters coerced into voting for
a guy who they think can fix all their troubles since he was able to do so
in his movies. And on and on. I just don't think there are anywhere
near enough people with the kind of fervor required to take up arms against
each other.

R. Hubbell

>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article <IZlAb.316634$ao4.1071509@attbi_s51>, "mike regish"
> wrote:

> Certainly more than the time Bush allowed. Frankly, I would have
> preferred
> to have a permanent team of inspectors stationed there than rushing to
> war.

So, in your mind, war can never be justified.

--
Bob Noel

[R. Hubbell]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 07:22:29 -0800 "C J Campbell" > wrote:

>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:gRkAb.315222$275.1065859@attbi_s53...
> | You are so out of touch. Tell me. Bush keeps saying that war is a last
> | resort. If he meant that, then why didn't he at least give the inspections
> a
> | chance.
>
> Inspections were given a chance for more than 10 years. How much of a chance
> did you want? Meanwhile, Hussein was murdering millions of his own people,
> financing terrorist attacks all over the world, and continuing to threaten
> his neighbors. I wonder how many people had to die before you thought action
> was necessary?

So you have felt sorrow for the Iraqi people. It seems you have a bigger
place in your heart and mind for them then your own fellow americans who's
views oppose yours. Unfortunately most (all ?) oil rich nations have the
same problems. Despots.


>
> However, my point stands. I find the constant anti-Bush, anti-American, off
> topic postings from you, Hotze, Dighera and others to be every bit as vile
> as you think my postings are. I don't think Hotze in particular has ever
> posted on topic. You might want to think about that before you threaten to
> plonk people that you consider to be "contemptuous, arrogant, and hateful."

Anyone resorting to labeling fellow americans anti-american when those
fellow americans have opposing views is certainly irony in its purest
form. America is about dissent and opposing views and the right to express
those views. It's not about having special areas cordoned off for Bush
supporters while any Bush opposition is banned to some distant, off-camera
corner.

> Or even rich.

Of course he was pointing out the fact that the Bush bandwagon gathers those
scared souls who are worried about their pots of money. Huddling around
a pot of money as we are marched into a dangerous future seems empty to me.

>
> I did not start this thread. I did not post on it until the thread had been
> running for several days. If I am offensive, it is deliberately so -- you
> deserve it. If polite people remain silent while you keep up your constant
> stream of poison, it is not because they agree with you. I am old and no
> longer have any reason to be ashamed over anything. Somebody has to stand up
> to hateful bullies like you. Whether you plonk me or not, I will continue to
> do so.

I've had a chance to read some of your postings and it seems to me that you
need a fresh perspective on who's hateful. I find your posts to be filled
with exactly the things you are accusing the poster for. The tone and
quantity of your postings clearly paints a mean picutre. But I am willing
to accept your views and know that it's healthy to be able to understand
opposition. Usenet is about discourse. And I hope we always will have it
available to us.


R. Hubbell

>
>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:25:44 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

>I don't think there's enough polarization for that.

while we are at it: this one just came in on a mailinglist:

http://www.google.com/search?q=miserable+failure

*hihi*

martin

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[mike regish]

Yeah, Bob. That would be the logical conclusion from that statement.

mike regish

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <IZlAb.316634$ao4.1071509@attbi_s51>, "mike regish"
> > wrote:
>
> > Certainly more than the time Bush allowed. Frankly, I would have
> > preferred
> > to have a permanent team of inspectors stationed there than rushing to
> > war.
>
> So, in your mind, war can never be justified.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[mike regish]

You obviously don't recognize sarcasm when you read it.

I'll explain for you and I'll try to use small words.

Bob's statement was a desperate, yet feeble attempt to take a simple
statement about a specific set of circumstances and turn it into a
generalization. (That means he thinks I feel that way about all situations
in all circumstances-ok?) Since it made no logical sense at all, and I
realized that said statement was not worth rebutting, I wrote the response
you see. It's the same thing you are trying to do
with your response.

So if I write "Yeah Jeff. That's what I think," will you now understand that
I really don't think that at all, or should I explain it some more for you?

Do you get it now?

Jeez...

mike regish

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> So, the U.N. was totally wrong in threatening .mil action? I suppose
> that parents shouldn't discipline children and criminals are simply
> misunderstood.
>
> Jeff...
>
> mike regish wrote:
> > Yeah, Bob. That would be the logical conclusion from that statement.
> >
> > mike regish
> >
> > "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>In article <IZlAb.316634$ao4.1071509@attbi_s51>, "mike regish"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Certainly more than the time Bush allowed. Frankly, I would have
> >>>preferred
> >>>to have a permanent team of inspectors stationed there than rushing to
> >>>war.
> >>
> >>So, in your mind, war can never be justified.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Bob Noel
> >
> >
> >

[mike regish]

Yeah Jeff. That would be the logical conclusion.

Do you get it, or should I explain again?

mike regish

"Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
...
> Ah, I get it. Your sarcasm was lost on me since it tasted so much like
> your prior posts.
>
> So, now you're agreeing that .mil action was the appropriate response?
>
> Jeff...
>
> mike regish wrote:
> > You obviously don't recognize sarcasm when you read it.
> >
> > I'll explain for you and I'll try to use small words.
> >
> > Bob's statement was a desperate, yet feeble attempt to take a simple
> > statement about a specific set of circumstances and turn it into a
> > generalization. (That means he thinks I feel that way about all
situations
> > in all circumstances-ok?) Since it made no logical sense at all, and I
> > realized that said statement was not worth rebutting, I wrote the
response
> > you see. It's the same thing you are trying to do
> > with your response.
> >
> > So if I write "Yeah Jeff. That's what I think," will you now understand
that
> > I really don't think that at all, or should I explain it some more for
you?
> >
> > Do you get it now?
> >
> > Jeez...
> >
> > mike regish
> >
> > "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>So, the U.N. was totally wrong in threatening .mil action? I suppose
> >>that parents shouldn't discipline children and criminals are simply
> >>misunderstood.
> >>
> >>Jeff...
> >>
> >>mike regish wrote:
> >>
> >>>Yeah, Bob. That would be the logical conclusion from that statement.
> >>>
> >>>mike regish
> >>>
> >>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <IZlAb.316634$ao4.1071509@attbi_s51>, "mike regish"
> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Certainly more than the time Bush allowed. Frankly, I would have
> >>>>>preferred
> >>>>>to have a permanent team of inspectors stationed there than rushing
to
> >>>>>war.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, in your mind, war can never be justified.
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Bob Noel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >

[Bob Noel]

In article <5KqAb.41541$_M.188141@attbi_s54>, "mike regish"
> wrote:

> Yeah, Bob. That would be the logical conclusion from that statement.

It is certainly disingenuous to complain about President Bush
not allowing enough time for the inspectors when you apparently
would rather have given Iraq infinite time and wouldn't answer the
question about how much time would have been enough.

I'm just trying to figure out if you are someone who believes
no war is ever justified. Your statements, including the
sacrastic one, certainly are consistent with that.



>
> mike regish
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <IZlAb.316634$ao4.1071509@attbi_s51>, "mike regish"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Certainly more than the time Bush allowed. Frankly, I would have
> > > preferred
> > > to have a permanent team of inspectors stationed there than rushing to
> > > war.
> >
> > So, in your mind, war can never be justified.
> >
> > --
> > Bob Noel
>
>

--
Bob Noel

[mike regish]

And yours are consistent with somebody who prefers to be in a constant state
of war.

You obviously see only what you want to see. There's an old saying I like
and I'm going to practice here. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes
your time and annoys the pig."

mke regish

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <5KqAb.41541$_M.188141@attbi_s54>, "mike regish"
> > wrote:
>
> > Yeah, Bob. That would be the logical conclusion from that statement.
>
> It is certainly disingenuous to complain about President Bush
> not allowing enough time for the inspectors when you apparently
> would rather have given Iraq infinite time and wouldn't answer the
> question about how much time would have been enough.
>
> I'm just trying to figure out if you are someone who believes
> no war is ever justified. Your statements, including the
> sacrastic one, certainly are consistent with that.
>
>
>
> >
> > mike regish
> >
> > "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article <IZlAb.316634$ao4.1071509@attbi_s51>, "mike regish"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Certainly more than the time Bush allowed. Frankly, I would have
> > > > preferred
> > > > to have a permanent team of inspectors stationed there than rushing
to
> > > > war.
> > >
> > > So, in your mind, war can never be justified.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Bob Noel
> >
> >
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Wdtabor]

>
>I'm just trying to figure out if you are someone who believes
>no war is ever justified. Your statements, including the
>sacrastic one, certainly are consistent with that.
>
>

Nah, just no war in which the US prevails.

Don
--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Bob Noel]

In article <t5uAb.442477$HS4.3482390@attbi_s01>, "mike regish"
> wrote:

> And yours are consistent with somebody who prefers to be in a constant
> state
> of war.

you haven't been paying attention.



> You obviously see only what you want to see.

yeah, obviously.


> There's an old saying I like
> and I'm going to practice here. "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It
> wastes
> your time and annoys the pig."

I notice you are still ducking the question. Or that
just something that I want to see...

--
Bob Noel

[Rosspilot]

>just no war in which the US prevails.

In this "War on Terror" (idiotic concept to begin with) how are we ever going
to know when we've "prevailed"?

When there are no more suicidal zealots?

www.Rosspilot.com

[mike regish]

Yep.

mike regish

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-

>Or that
> just something that I want to see...
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Big John]

Don

Was your father killed in a '51 landing at Miho, Japan, era 1948/1949?

Big John

On 07 Dec 2003 00:09:53 GMT, (Wdtabor) wrote:

----clip----

[R. Hubbell]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:08:12 GMT Jeffrey Voight > wrote:

> My mom just forwarded this to me. It was a much more elegant account
> than what my buddy-on-the-ground (works for Bremmer) sent me. I didn't
> have an appropriate place to post it, so I chose the least inflamatory
> recent post I could find in the thread.


And this sure isn't the appropriate place for it either.
It's amusing that he had to have secret service all over to protect him
from his "own" troops. The elated feeling is a common phenomenon by the way.
I can't remember the name for it, but in this case it was no doubt amplified.
Seeing something/someone that represents home when you're far from home and
in a dangerous place no less is intoxicating. It's a similar experience to
the ones ones that some have when attending some church services.


R. Hubbell

>
> Jeff...
>
> > Some of you may appreciate this first hand account of Thanksgiving in
> Iraq.....email...
> > Subject: First Hand Account of Thanksgiving 2003 We knew there
> was a dinner planned with Ambassador Bremer and LTG Sanchez. There were
> 600 seats available and all the units in the division were tasked
> > with filling a few tables. Naturally, the 501st MI battalion got our
> table.
> > Soldiers were grumbling about having to sit through another dog-and-pony
> > show, so we had to pick soldiers to attend. I chose not to go.
> But, about 1500 the G2, LTC Devan, came up to me and with a smile,
> asked me
> > to come to dinner with him, to meet him in his office at 1600 and bring a
> > camera. I didn't really care about getting a picture with Sanchez or
> Bremer,
> > but when the division's senior intelligence officer asks you to go,
> you go.
> > We were seated in the chow hall, fully decorated for Thanksgiving when
> > aaaaallllll kinds of secret service guys showed up. That was
> my first clue, because Bremer's been here before and his personal
> > security detachment is not that big. Then BG Dempsey got up to speak,
> and he
> > welcomed ambassador Bremer and LTG Sanchez. Bremer thanked us all and
> pulled
> > out a piece of paper as if to give a speech. He mentioned that the
> President
> > had given him this thanksgiving speech to give to the troops. He then
> paused
> > and said that the senior man present should be the one to give it. He
> then
> > looked at Sanchez, who just smiled. Bremer then said that we
> should probably get someone more senior to read the
> > speech. Then, from behind the camouflage netting, the President of the
> > United States came around. The mess hall actually erupted with hollering.
> > Troops bounded to their feet with shocked smiles and just began cheering
> > with all their hearts. The building actually shook. It was just unreal. I
> > was absolutely stunned. Not only for the obvious, but also because I was
> > only two tables away from the podium. There he stood, less than
> thirty feet
> > away from me! The cheering went on and on and on. Soldiers
> were hollering, cheering, and a lot of them were crying. There was
> > not a dry eye at my table. When he stepped up to the cheering, I could
> > clearly see tears running down his cheeks. It was the most surreal moment
> > I've had in years. Not since my wedding and Aaron being born. Here
> was this
> > man, our President, came all the way around the world, spending 17
> hours on
> > an airplane and landing in the most dangerous airport in the world,
> where a
> > plane was shot out of the sky not six days before. Just to
> spend two hours with his troops. Only to get on a plane and spend
> > another 17 hours flying back. It was a great moment, and I will never
> forget
> > it. He delivered his speech, which we all loved, when he looked right
> at me
> > and held his eyes on me. Then he stepped down and was just mobbed by the
> > soldiers. He slowly worked his way all the way around the chow hall and
> > shook every last hand extended. Every soldier who wanted a photo with the
> > President got one. I made my way through the line, got dinner, then
> wolfed
> > it down as he was still working the room. You could tell he
> was really enjoying himself. It wasn't just a photo
> > opportunity. This man was actually enjoying himself! He worked his
> way over
> > the course of about 90 minutes towards my side of the room. Meanwhile, I
> > took the opportunity to shake a few hands. I got a picture with
> Ambassador
> > Bremer, Talabani (acting Iraqi president) and Achmed Chalabi (another
> member
> > of the ruling council) and Condaleeza Rice, who was there with him.
> I felt like I was drunk. He was getting closer to my table so I
> went back
> > over to my seat. As he passed and posed for photos, he looked my in
> the eye
> > and "How you doin', captain." I smiled and said "God bless you, sir." To
> > which he responded "I'm proud of what you do, captain." Then moved
> on. Grace and Peace, Anthony P. Clark+
> > Church of the Holy Spirit
> > 601 South Highland Avenue
> > Apopka, FL 32703
> > 407.886.1740
>
>
>
> Rosspilot wrote:
> >>just no war in which the US prevails.
> >
> >
> > In this "War on Terror" (idiotic concept to begin with) how are we ever going
> > to know when we've "prevailed"?
> >
> > When there are no more suicidal zealots?
> >
> > www.Rosspilot.com
> >
> >

[R. Hubbell]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:18:07 GMT Jeffrey Voight > wrote:

> You think presidents volunteer to have Secret Service? I rather think
> that it's SOP. From his own troops? Don't be silly. Of course, from

He has a say in it but yes he will have some no matter what. It's an
interesting predicament to be visiting his/the/US troops and yet at the same
time have "aaaaallllll kinds of secret service guys" to protect you
from those same troops.


> U.S. troops. We do have some weirdo's. From the general populace of
> Iraq? Sure, why wouldn't he?


But the general population of Iraq wasn't allowed into the chow hall. I
wonder how many weapons were in that chow hall. That could be a tense
situation if the soldiers were carrying sidearms too.


>
> I do get your point about the elation one feels about seeing and
> experiencing things that remind them of home. I'm sure I felt it in
> Somalia when boxes with Recees cups showed up (don't mail Recees cups to
> hot zones. They make Recees soup.) I know I felt it when recent
> periodicals would show up other places. I suppose I felt slightly
> overwhelmed at the present of Mr. Clinton when he came to Fort Drum when
> I worked in the HQ. It doesn't belittle that what Mr. Bush did raised
> the morale of the troops.

I don't think anyone's belittling what he did. But to call it an act
of bravery is a stretch. Yes the troops enjoyed the visit but it was
an election year play. Plain and simple.



>
> Maybe he could have done the same thing with a subscription to porn for
> the troops, but it would have been out of character (although, probably
> would have made for more significant morale).

Not sure about that. Maybe for some of them.

>
> The religious aspect of the letter, I could have done without, but I am
> very supportive of religious freedom, and it wasn't my place to modify
> the letter in any way.


Sometimes people find religion while involved in harrowing circumstances.
No harm there.


>
> Either way you slice it, the recognition of danger is certainly there.
> The boost to morale of the troops is there. Looking at the title of
> this thread, Big Kahunas, I dunno, it seems to provide evidence.

Evidence of what? You lost me there.

>
> I do, however, think I'm done with this thread. I enjoyed a good
> argument. The brief flamewar was kind of fun to read. I'm going back
> to studying for my written.

Good luck with it.


R. Hubbell

>
> Thanks, all.
>
> Jeff...
>
>
> R. Hubbell wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:08:12 GMT Jeffrey Voight > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>My mom just forwarded this to me. It was a much more elegant account
> >>than what my buddy-on-the-ground (works for Bremmer) sent me. I didn't
> >>have an appropriate place to post it, so I chose the least inflamatory
> >>recent post I could find in the thread.
> >
> >
> >
> > And this sure isn't the appropriate place for it either.
> > It's amusing that he had to have secret service all over to protect him
> > from his "own" troops. The elated feeling is a common phenomenon by the way.
> > I can't remember the name for it, but in this case it was no doubt amplified.
> > Seeing something/someone that represents home when you're far from home and
> > in a dangerous place no less is intoxicating. It's a similar experience to
> > the ones ones that some have when attending some church services.
> >
> >
> > R. Hubbell
> >
> > aaaaallllll kinds of secret service guys showed
> >>Jeff...
> >>
> >> > Some of you may appreciate this first hand account of Thanksgiving in
> >>Iraq.....email...
> >> > Subject: First Hand Account of Thanksgiving 2003 We knew there
> >>was a dinner planned with Ambassador Bremer and LTG Sanchez. There were
> >>600 seats available and all the units in the division were tasked
> >> > with filling a few tables. Naturally, the 501st MI battalion got our
> >>table.
> >> > Soldiers were grumbling about having to sit through another dog-and-pony
> >> > show, so we had to pick soldiers to attend. I chose not to go.
> >> But, about 1500 the G2, LTC Devan, came up to me and with a smile,
> >>asked me
> >> > to come to dinner with him, to meet him in his office at 1600 and bring a
> >> > camera. I didn't really care about getting a picture with Sanchez or
> >>Bremer,
> >> > but when the division's senior intelligence officer asks you to go,
> >>you go.
> >> > We were seated in the chow hall, fully decorated for Thanksgiving when
> >> > aaaaallllll kinds of secret service guys showed up. That was
> >>my first clue, because Bremer's been here before and his personal
> >> > security detachment is not that big. Then BG Dempsey got up to speak,
> >>and he
> >> > welcomed ambassador Bremer and LTG Sanchez. Bremer thanked us all and
> >>pulled
> >> > out a piece of paper as if to give a speech. He mentioned that the
> >>President
> >> > had given him this thanksgiving speech to give to the troops. He then
> >>paused
> >> > and said that the senior man present should be the one to give it. He
> >>then
> >> > looked at Sanchez, who just smiled. Bremer then said that we
> >>should probably get someone more senior to read the
> >> > speech. Then, from behind the camouflage netting, the President of the
> >> > United States came around. The mess hall actually erupted with hollering.
> >> > Troops bounded to their feet with shocked smiles and just began cheering
> >> > with all their hearts. The building actually shook. It was just unreal. I
> >> > was absolutely stunned. Not only for the obvious, but also because I was
> >> > only two tables away from the podium. There he stood, less than
> >>thirty feet
> >> > away from me! The cheering went on and on and on. Soldiers
> >>were hollering, cheering, and a lot of them were crying. There was
> >> > not a dry eye at my table. When he stepped up to the cheering, I could
> >> > clearly see tears running down his cheeks. It was the most surreal moment
> >> > I've had in years. Not since my wedding and Aaron being born. Here
> >>was this
> >> > man, our President, came all the way around the world, spending 17
> >>hours on
> >> > an airplane and landing in the most dangerous airport in the world,
> >>where a
> >> > plane was shot out of the sky not six days before. Just to
> >>spend two hours with his troops. Only to get on a plane and spend
> >> > another 17 hours flying back. It was a great moment, and I will never
> >>forget
> >> > it. He delivered his speech, which we all loved, when he looked right
> >>at me
> >> > and held his eyes on me. Then he stepped down and was just mobbed by the
> >> > soldiers. He slowly worked his way all the way around the chow hall and
> >> > shook every last hand extended. Every soldier who wanted a photo with the
> >> > President got one. I made my way through the line, got dinner, then
> >>wolfed
> >> > it down as he was still working the room. You could tell he
> >>was really enjoying himself. It wasn't just a photo
> >> > opportunity. This man was actually enjoying himself! He worked his
> >>way over
> >> > the course of about 90 minutes towards my side of the room. Meanwhile, I
> >> > took the opportunity to shake a few hands. I got a picture with
> >>Ambassador
> >> > Bremer, Talabani (acting Iraqi president) and Achmed Chalabi (another
> >>member
> >> > of the ruling council) and Condaleeza Rice, who was there with him.
> >> I felt like I was drunk. He was getting closer to my table so I
> >>went back
> >> > over to my seat. As he passed and posed for photos, he looked my in
> >>the eye
> >> > and "How you doin', captain." I smiled and said "God bless you, sir." To
> >> > which he responded "I'm proud of what you do, captain." Then moved
> >>on. Grace and Peace, Anthony P. Clark+
> >> > Church of the Holy Spirit
> >> > 601 South Highland Avenue
> >> > Apopka, FL 32703
> >> > 407.886.1740
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Rosspilot wrote:
> >>
> >>>>just no war in which the US prevails.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>In this "War on Terror" (idiotic concept to begin with) how are we ever going
> >>>to know when we've "prevailed"?
> >>>
> >>>When there are no more suicidal zealots?
> >>>
> >>>www.Rosspilot.com
> >>>
> >>>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:08:12 GMT, Jeffrey Voight wrote:

>It was the most surreal moment
> > I've had in years. Not since my wedding and Aaron being born. Here
>was this
> > man, our President, came all the way around the world, spending 17
>hours on
> > an airplane and landing in the most dangerous airport in the world,
>where a
> > plane was shot out of the sky not six days before.

the priorities are in their right order. When the time comes when I put
somebody outside my family above somebody from my family then I am really
in big troubles.

(and no, I can't understand how anybody can get wild and cheer and shout
only because of seeing an elected [read: doing my job] politician; and this
has nothing to do with Bush.)

> > (...)
> > As he passed and posed for photos, he looked my in
>the eye
> > and "How you doin', captain." I smiled and said "God bless you, sir." To
> > which he responded "I'm proud of what you do, captain." Then moved
>on. Grace and Peace, Anthony P. Clark+
> > Church of the Holy Spirit

at least the right mindset. :-)

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Wdtabor]

In article >,
(Rosspilot) writes:

>
>>just no war in which the US prevails.
>
>In this "War on Terror" (idiotic concept to begin with) how are we ever going
>to know when we've "prevailed"?
>
>When there are no more suicidal zealots?
>

When the people in the countries who spawn the suicidal zealots understand that
harboring those who hate and intend violence against civilians is
counterproductive and police their own zealots.

Several middle eastern countries who formerly sheltered terrorists have already
come to that conclusion, but there are still a few to go.


Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Big John
> writes:

>
>Don
>
>Was your father killed in a '51 landing at Miho, Japan, era 1948/1949?
>
>Big John
>

Nope. My father was a radar bombardier in a B-24 flying out of India, and
later, Chunking, and survived the war. He never flew again after the war, and
died of natural causes before I got my certificate.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Jay Honeck]

> In this "War on Terror" (idiotic concept to begin with) how are we ever
going
> to know when we've "prevailed"?
>
> When there are no more suicidal zealots?

I think "victory", in this case, can only be defined as "waging war
elsewhere". In other words, as long as the War on Terror is NOT being
fought in this country, we win.

Thus, by that definition, we are winning.

As soon as there is another September 11th attack, however, we lose another
battle.

And so it shall go... :-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> (and no, I can't understand how anybody can get wild and cheer and shout
> only because of seeing an elected [read: doing my job] politician; and
this
> has nothing to do with Bush.)

It's an odd thing, I'll agree. In America, the President is supposed to be
"just another guy" -- but in reality, he's our King, our Leader, and, in
truth, the most powerful man in the world.

When he's around, the trappings and evidence of power are everywhere -- and
the thrill is quite palpable.

I guess there's just something about seeing a guy with the responsibility of
the world upon his shoulders that gives one pause.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rosspilot]

>
>> In this "War on Terror" (idiotic concept to begin with) how are we ever
>going
>> to know when we've "prevailed"?
>>
>> When there are no more suicidal zealots?
>
>I think "victory", in this case, can only be defined as "waging war
>elsewhere". In other words, as long as the War on Terror is NOT being
>fought in this country, we win.
>
>Thus, by that definition, we are winning.
>
>As soon as there is another September 11th attack, however, we lose another
>battle.
>
>And so it shall go... :-(
>--

:-( indeed . . . because that means we are going to have to get used to a
stream of Americans (our children) coming home dead, or maimed, crippled,
psychologically scarred, and otherwise irreparably damaged. It means we are at
*perpetual* war. Who is the first White House aspirant (or occupant) who will
say that?






www.Rosspilot.com

[Wdtabor]

>
>I think "victory", in this case, can only be defined as "waging war
>elsewhere". In other words, as long as the War on Terror is NOT being
>fought in this country, we win.
>
>Thus, by that definition, we are winning.
>
>As soon as there is another September 11th attack, however, we lose another
>battle.
>
>And so it shall go... :-(

Sadly, I think we have to expect another attack on our soil, either another big
one or a number of smaller ones, late next summer.

Our enemies have been promised a 'better deal' if Bush is not re-elected and we
should expect a maximum effort on their part to wage successful attacks in
hopes of influencing the election against him.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

>
>:-( indeed . . . because that means we are going to have to get used to a
>stream of Americans (our children) coming home dead, or maimed, crippled,
>psychologically scarred, and otherwise irreparably damaged. It means we are
>at
>*perpetual* war. Who is the first White House aspirant (or occupant) who
>will
>say that?
>

Bush did warn us this would be a long war, one that would last well beyond his
term in office. Perhaps beyond our generation's time.

But it need not be perpetual if the rule of law and capitalism can be
successfully instilled in the middle east. Thugs do not prosper under the rule
of law, at least when the rule of law applies to the government as well as the
people, and capitalists do not slaughter their customers.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Rosspilot]

>
>Our enemies have been promised a 'better deal' if Bush is not re-elected

Could you elaborate on this? Are you just assuming this or are you aware of
communication between "our enemies" and any candidate? And just who again are
our "enemies"?



www.Rosspilot.com

[Wdtabor]

>>
>>Our enemies have been promised a 'better deal' if Bush is not re-elected
>
>Could you elaborate on this? Are you just assuming this or are you aware of
>communication between "our enemies" and any candidate? And just who again
>are
>our "enemies"?
>
>

I am not alledging any 'secret deals' or anything like that. However, the
PUBLIC statements of several of the dwarves suggesting administration of Iraq
should be turned over to the UN are sufficient reason for the Islamofascists to
prefer one of them be in office, since the UN had already proved it would not
stand up against terrorism, anti-semitism, or Islamofascist aggression in any
of a dozen places in Africa and Asia where Islamofascists are subjecting other
religous groups to subjugation under Sharia and even genocide.

Our enemies are the Islamofascists. They are significant political factions in
many Moslem countries.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Martin Hotze]

On 07 Dec 2003 16:58:39 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:

>Our enemies are the Islamofascists. They are significant political factions in
>many Moslem countries.

Oh. This sounds like the arguments from "the other side": "America is our
enemy! Down with capitalism and their bigot way of life."

_*BOTH*_ having such viewpoints will hardly lead to a working solution.

#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Tom]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >> In this "War on Terror" (idiotic concept to begin with) how are we ever
> >going
> >> to know when we've "prevailed"?
> >>
> >> When there are no more suicidal zealots?
> >
> >I think "victory", in this case, can only be defined as "waging war
> >elsewhere". In other words, as long as the War on Terror is NOT being
> >fought in this country, we win.
> >
> >Thus, by that definition, we are winning.
> >
> >As soon as there is another September 11th attack, however, we lose
another
> >battle.
> >
> >And so it shall go... :-(
> >--
>
> :-( indeed . . . because that means we are going to have to get used to
a
> stream of Americans (our children) coming home dead, or maimed, crippled,
> psychologically scarred, and otherwise irreparably damaged. It means we
are at
> *perpetual* war. Who is the first White House aspirant (or occupant) who
will
> say that?
>
The war against terrorism is much the same war that humans have conducted
against tyrants, and their lust for power, for millennia.

Short of humans losing that "lust for power" trait, nothing will change
significantly. In much the same sense, the battle against crime (real crime,
not the made up stuff) will never abate.

[Tom]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Our enemies have been promised a 'better deal' if Bush is not re-elected
>
> Could you elaborate on this? Are you just assuming this or are you aware
of
> communication between "our enemies" and any candidate? And just who again
are
> our "enemies"?
>
>
Are those enemies the foreign variety, or the domestic variety?

[Jay Honeck]

> Um, he was appointed. I watched the whole thing.

Ah, Mike. Once again I must pull out the Big Guns....

Read it and weep...

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/usmap-large.gif
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[R. Hubbell]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:07:54 GMT Martin Hotze > wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:25:44 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:
>
> >I don't think there's enough polarization for that.
>
> while we are at it: this one just came in on a mailinglist:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=miserable+failure


That's clever, I guess the ranking system is working properly.


R. Hubbell

>
> *hihi*
>
> martin
>
> --
> http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
> http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[R. Hubbell]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 17:29:03 GMT "mike regish" > wrote:

> Um, he was appointed. I watched the whole thing.

Yes appointed by the supreme court. Someone mentioned blinders but it's
starting to look more like blindness.


Forget who said it...

"Some leave a mark in history and some leave a stain."


R. Hubbell


>
> mike regish
>
> "Jeffrey Voight" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It made me furious during the Clinton administration, as well. People
> > don't seem to understand that *we* elected him. Whether one's
> > individual vote was for the guy or not, *we*, collectively, elected
> > these officials.
> >
> > Jeff...
> >
> > Dan Luke wrote:
> > > "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > >
> > >>Now, I will tell you what I think is contemptuous, hateful, and
> > >>outright arrogant: the anti-Bush clowns who can't stand the
> > >>thought that the man could possibly do anything right. They
> > >>are absolutely foaming at the mouth over it.
> > >
> > >
> > > One is reminded of exactly the same phenomenon during the Clinton
> > > administration.
> > >
> > > I have made it plain in these newsgroups that I am disappointed in
> > > Bush's presidency, particularly his decision to invade Iraq, which I
> > > believe is a strategic blunder in the war on terrorism. Nevertheless,
> > > the shrieking chorus of Bush haters disturbs me. It reveals the power of
> > > hateful propaganda, both left- and right-wing, in America nowadays.
> > > People aren't thinking; they are allowing themselves to be led.
>
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 14:44:31 GMT "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > (and no, I can't understand how anybody can get wild and cheer and shout
> > only because of seeing an elected [read: doing my job] politician; and
> this
> > has nothing to do with Bush.)
>
> It's an odd thing, I'll agree. In America, the President is supposed to be
> "just another guy" -- but in reality, he's our King, our Leader, and, in
> truth, the most powerful man in the world.
>
> When he's around, the trappings and evidence of power are everywhere -- and
> the thrill is quite palpable.
>
> I guess there's just something about seeing a guy with the responsibility of
> the world upon his shoulders that gives one pause.

Cult of personality. Power is intoxicating.
It's a common emotion when people are around other people with great power
or notoriety or great wealth.


"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power."
Ashleigh Brilliant


R. Hubbell

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[R. Hubbell]

On 07 Dec 2003 16:29:09 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> >
> >I think "victory", in this case, can only be defined as "waging war
> >elsewhere". In other words, as long as the War on Terror is NOT being
> >fought in this country, we win.
> >
> >Thus, by that definition, we are winning.
> >
> >As soon as there is another September 11th attack, however, we lose another
> >battle.
> >
> >And so it shall go... :-(
>
> Sadly, I think we have to expect another attack on our soil, either another big
> one or a number of smaller ones, late next summer.

Why would they wait until then? What have you heard?

>
> Our enemies have been promised a 'better deal' if Bush is not re-elected and we
> should expect a maximum effort on their part to wage successful attacks in
> hopes of influencing the election against him.


Promised a better deal by whom? You are starting to sound like Chicken
Little. Unless you really do have some information and if that's so you
have my apology.


R. Hubbell

>
> Don
>
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On 07 Dec 2003 12:16:51 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article >,
> (Rosspilot) writes:
>
> >
> >>just no war in which the US prevails.
> >
> >In this "War on Terror" (idiotic concept to begin with) how are we ever going
> >to know when we've "prevailed"?
> >
> >When there are no more suicidal zealots?
> >
>
> When the people in the countries who spawn the suicidal zealots understand that
> harboring those who hate and intend violence against civilians is
> counterproductive and police their own zealots.


What about countries that spawn serial killers or domestic terrorists?
Have we made sure that no more will be "spawned" right here at home?


>
> Several middle eastern countries who formerly sheltered terrorists have already
> come to that conclusion, but there are still a few to go.

Would you feel better about getting attacked by zealots from Afghanistan
if they called them selves the The Holy Taliban Army?

Let's just cut to the chase the only reason we are involved in the
middle east is because "the american way of life is not negotiable"*


"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi



R. Hubbell

* quote from Dad Bush



>
>
> Don
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:

>
>On 07 Dec 2003 16:58:39 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:
>
>>Our enemies are the Islamofascists. They are significant political factions
>in
>>many Moslem countries.
>
>Oh. This sounds like the arguments from "the other side": "America is our
>enemy! Down with capitalism and their bigot way of life."
>
>_*BOTH*_ having such viewpoints will hardly lead to a working solution.
>

And you think that if our side lives under some delusion that they are not our
enemies, that will make things better?

They have been quite clear that the ONLY endpoint they find acceptable is the
entire world living under a single Islamic theocracy. They are willing to take
centuries to get there, but they intend to continue to make war on us, and on
other factions within Islam, until they succeed or someone wipes them out.

They really cannot succeed in taking over the world militarily, but it is only
a matter of time before they obtain weapons capable of hurting us severely.
They do not care if they cannot win, their ideology and theology require them
to do battle with us, and with other factions of Islam, even in the face of
certain loss.

The only long term solution for us, other than making Islam an extinct
religion, is for us to make the other Moslems understand that harboring the
Islamofacists among them can only lead to destruction, and then let them weed
them out.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article <DRTAb.27633$ZE1.17808@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> writes:

>>
>> Sadly, I think we have to expect another attack on our soil, either another
>big
>> one or a number of smaller ones, late next summer.
>
>Why would they wait until then? What have you heard?
>

That our next presidential election, which is what they hope to influence, is
in November.

Late summer or early fall would be the optimum time to create an appearance of
failure in the War on Terror by killing a large number of American civilians.
There is really no way for us to stop them from launching successful attacks on
civilians if they are willing to die doing it. In the long run we can prevail,
but in the short term they can launch at least a few more large scale attacks,
and I expect them to do so when it will be most likely to influence our
politics in their favor.

>>
>> Our enemies have been promised a 'better deal' if Bush is not re-elected
>and we
>> should expect a maximum effort on their part to wage successful attacks in
>> hopes of influencing the election against him.
>
>
>Promised a better deal by whom? You are starting to sound like Chicken
>Little. Unless you really do have some information and if that's so you
>have my apology.
>

Try reading a newspaper.

As I replied to someone else, the PUBLIC statements of a number of the Dems
have promised them a turnover of Iraq to the UN, which is the equivalent of
surrender.

An opposition party candidate should never undermine foreign policy in a time
of war by promising a better deal. They could either support the current
administration's policy, promise that if they get elected, they will be an even
worse opponent (as Reagan did) or they can shut up about the matter, but
offering the enemy what they want if they get elected only invites an attempt
to sway the election by killing our people.

In my mind, failing to understand that basic principle of statemanship, that
dissent on foreign policy stops at the waters edge, which has been a maxim of
US politics as long as we have been a nation, forever disqualifies them for
public office.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article <2YTAb.27636$ZE1.521@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> writes:

>> When the people in the countries who spawn the suicidal zealots understand
>that
>> harboring those who hate and intend violence against civilians is
>> counterproductive and police their own zealots.
>
>
>What about countries that spawn serial killers or domestic terrorists?
>Have we made sure that no more will be "spawned" right here at home?
>

I see, so long as there is a single nutcase or fanatic who emerges here, we
cannot defend ourselves from organized terrorists from abroad.

>
>>
>> Several middle eastern countries who formerly sheltered terrorists have
>already
>> come to that conclusion, but there are still a few to go.
>
>Would you feel better about getting attacked by zealots from Afghanistan
>if they called them selves the The Holy Taliban Army?
>
>Let's just cut to the chase the only reason we are involved in the
>middle east is because "the american way of life is not negotiable"*
>

On our soil? No, it is not. We do not need to impose our way of life on others,
but we are fully justified in defending attacks on our way of life from abroad
and in pre-emptively addressing threats to our country.

>
>"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
>whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
>or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi
>
>

That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other pacisifists,
contemptible.

The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Martin Hotze]

On 08 Dec 2003 14:19:50 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:

>As I replied to someone else, the PUBLIC statements of a number of the Dems
>have promised them a turnover of Iraq to the UN, which is the equivalent of
>surrender.
>
>An opposition party candidate should never undermine foreign policy in a time
>of war by promising a better deal.

I was afraid after reading your lsat post, but now I am really scared. ...
But not from the folks in the Arabic world ... I am scared from people with
your mindset.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Martin Hotze]

On 08 Dec 2003 14:19:51 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:

>
>I see, so long as there is a single nutcase or fanatic who emerges here, we
>cannot defend ourselves from organized terrorists from abroad.


Hey! How about gasing them? This would be a 'clean' solution. hmm ...
reminds of something .... *methinks* ... well ...


#m

--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Frank]

Wdtabor wrote:

> In article <2YTAb.27636$ZE1.521@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
<snip>

>>Let's just cut to the chase the only reason we are involved in the
>>middle east is because "the american way of life is not negotiable"*

>
> On our soil? No, it is not. We do not need to impose our way of life on
> others, but we are fully justified in defending attacks on our way of life
> from abroad and in pre-emptively addressing threats to our country.

Trouble with the preemptive policy is that North Korea could use the same
argument to justify a launch tomorrow. Or India on Pakistan. Or any number
of other conflicts around the world. Each side convinced they are on the
side of good and must defeat evil before it spreads.

The strength of America is more than just the military, we just don't use it
effectivly (if at all).

The "war on terror" as practiced up to now can never be won. I agree with
you though that the solution is to get other countries to realize it is not
in their best interests to harbor terrorists. We disaggree on the methods.
Forcing cooperation at gunpoint only dooms us to be forever the occupiers.

No, we need to mobilize some of our other strengths to win this war. We are
the most adept marketers in the world. That, backed up by some honest
humanitarian efforts (and maybe some judicious covert ops) is what will win
the day for us.

>>
>>"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
>>whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
>>or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi
>>
>>
>
> That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
> pacisifists, contemptible.

Anyone that can describe Gandhi as contemptible is....

What Gandhi stood for and what the above statememt means is that the use of
force will not "win the war". His legacy is that non-violent protest can
work and is indeed very effective because it creates so much sympathy for
the cause and exposes so much of the true nature of the opponent. The
Palestinians would do well to take a lesson from him (and other examples).

>
> The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.
>
> Don
>

If the survivor's legacy is to become dependant on force then they will end
up being no better than those who came before.

--
Frank....H

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:



>I was afraid after reading your lsat post, but now I am really scared. ...
>But not from the folks in the Arabic world ... I am scared from people with
>your mindset.

and:

>
>Hey! How about gasing them? This would be a 'clean' solution. hmm ...
>reminds of something .... *methinks* ... well ...
>
>
>#m
>

Ahh, already sunk to the level of putting words in my mouth and vague fears of
the boogeyman.

I didn't expect your pretense of 'reason' to collapse so quickly.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Frank > writes:

>
>Trouble with the preemptive policy is that North Korea could use the same
>argument to justify a launch tomorrow. Or India on Pakistan. Or any number
>of other conflicts around the world. Each side convinced they are on the
>side of good and must defeat evil before it spreads.
>

To use pre-emption, you must be capable of a decisive blow. Should N. Korea
launch its 3 nukes at us tomorrow, (assuming they have them and the delivery
capability), they would sting us, but we would then dump such nuclear fire on
them that Godzilla's would be popping up as far away as the Aleutians.

On the other hand, we could, if that little gargoyle succeeding in really
frightening us, pre-emptively take them out.

>The strength of America is more than just the military, we just don't use it
>effectivly (if at all).
>
>The "war on terror" as practiced up to now can never be won. I agree with
>you though that the solution is to get other countries to realize it is not,
their best interests to harbor terrorists. We disaggree on the methods.
>Forcing cooperation at gunpoint only dooms us to be forever the occupiers.
>

No, once they understand the real balance of the world and take our resolve
seriously, it will not be necessary to occupy anyplace. We only must be in Iraq
now because we allowed ourselves to be seen as lacking in resolve in the past.


>No, we need to mobilize some of our other strengths to win this war. We are
>the most adept marketers in the world. That, backed up by some honest
>humanitarian efforts (and maybe some judicious covert ops) is what will win
>the day for us.
>

I agree that making them capitalist, representative republics will create
lasting peace, but the fascist totalitarian states and feudal theocracies have
be broken first.



>>>
>>>"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
>>>whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
>>>or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
>> pacisifists, contemptible.
>
>Anyone that can describe Gandhi as contemptible is....
>
>What Gandhi stood for and what the above statememt means is that the use of
>force will not "win the war". His legacy is that non-violent protest can
>work and is indeed very effective because it creates so much sympathy for
>the cause and exposes so much of the true nature of the opponent. The
>Palestinians would do well to take a lesson from him (and other examples).
>

His methods worked only because he faced a civilized enemy that cared about
world opinion. Had he faced an enemy with Britain's power led by Stalin or Pol
Pot, he would be remembered as an idealistic fool who got his people
exterminated.


>>
>> The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.
>>
>> Don
>>
>
>If the survivor's legacy is to become dependant on force then they will end
>up being no better than those who came before.
>

They end up alive and free so long as the remain strong.

That is better enough for me.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[John Galban]

Martin Hotze > wrote in message >...
> On 08 Dec 2003 14:19:51 GMT, Wdtabor wrote:
>
> >
> >I see, so long as there is a single nutcase or fanatic who emerges here, we
> >cannot defend ourselves from organized terrorists from abroad.
>
>
> Hey! How about gasing them? This would be a 'clean' solution. hmm ...
> reminds of something .... *methinks* ... well ...
>

I declare this post to be a technical violation of Godwin's law.
Thread over. You lose, Martin. :-)

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Martin Hotze]

On 8 Dec 2003 14:09:37 -0800, John Galban wrote:

> I declare this post to be a technical violation of Godwin's law.
>Thread over. You lose, Martin. :-)

and as it is not good to reply while declared over ...: I'm glad it is over
and take the loss on me. :-)

>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

#m

ahh! follow up to poster
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[Frank]

Wdtabor wrote:

> In article >, Frank > writes:
>
>>
>>Trouble with the preemptive policy is that North Korea could use the same
>>argument to justify a launch tomorrow. Or India on Pakistan. Or any number
>>of other conflicts around the world. Each side convinced they are on the
>>side of good and must defeat evil before it spreads.
>>
>
> To use pre-emption, you must be capable of a decisive blow. Should N.
> Korea launch its 3 nukes at us tomorrow, (assuming they have them and the
> delivery capability), they would sting us, but we would then dump such
> nuclear fire on them that Godzilla's would be popping up as far away as
> the Aleutians.

Wow. 3 nukes would "sting" us? That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude.
And after we nuked 'em we could just go about our business as if nothing
happened?

> On the other hand, we could, if that little gargoyle succeeding in really
> frightening us, pre-emptively take them out.
>

And so we learn no lessons from the past. It's just business as usual
whereby we are either killing people actively or sowing the seeds for the
next generation to be killed.

I want us to be looking for ways to make things better and avoid both of
your scenarios. And I believe we have the potential to do so.

>>The strength of America is more than just the military, we just don't use
>>it effectivly (if at all).
>>
>>The "war on terror" as practiced up to now can never be won. I agree with
>>you though that the solution is to get other countries to realize it is
>>not,
> their best interests to harbor terrorists. We disaggree on the methods.
>>Forcing cooperation at gunpoint only dooms us to be forever the occupiers.
>>
>
> No, once they understand the real balance of the world and take our
> resolve seriously, it will not be necessary to occupy anyplace. We only
> must be in Iraq now because we allowed ourselves to be seen as lacking in
> resolve in the past.
>

Partly true, we must be seen as resolute. But to think that just because we
have all the power they will just do as we say is to deny history. Unless
we win they're cooperation we most certainly will have to occupy them,
otherwise another dictator comes along and the process must be repeated.

But just as North Korea is reacting to perceived threats precipitated by
being included in the "axis of evil", then so will other countries become
afraid of us. And that will lead them to take defensive measures. And
sooner or later we'll have to point our gun at them. And so that process
will be repeated.



>
>>No, we need to mobilize some of our other strengths to win this war. We
>>are the most adept marketeers in the world. That, backed up by some honest
>>humanitarian efforts (and maybe some judicious covert ops) is what will
>>win the day for us.
>>
>
> I agree that making them capitalist, representative republics will create
> lasting peace, but the fascist totalitarian states and feudal theocracies
> have be broken first.

It will go a long way but it also takes a sense fairness and protections for
the "little guy" that is often overlooked (especially when that comes in
competition with capitalists). Without that they just end up with another
totalitarian eventually.

Exporting capitalism is fine as long as we export compassion in equal doses.
And we'd better start cleaning up our own house because the "capitalists"
here have just about bought up all of our representatives. We can hardly
expect newly created democracies to grasp the nuances of effective,
successful free government when all we can hold up for a model is full of
corruption.

>
>
>>>>
>>>>"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the
>>>>homeless, whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of
>>>>totalitarianism
>>>>or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
>>> pacisifists, contemptible.
>>
>>Anyone that can describe Gandhi as contemptible is....
>>
>>What Gandhi stood for and what the above statememt means is that the use
>>of force will not "win the war". His legacy is that non-violent protest
>>can work and is indeed very effective because it creates so much sympathy
>>for the cause and exposes so much of the true nature of the opponent. The
>>Palestinians would do well to take a lesson from him (and other examples).
>>
>
> His methods worked only because he faced a civilized enemy that cared
> about world opinion. Had he faced an enemy with Britain's power led by
> Stalin or Pol Pot, he would be remembered as an idealistic fool who got
> his people exterminated.

Perhaps so, but what he did was show it _could_ work, and at great risk to
himself. Certainly nothing to hold in comtempt. And the lessons have been
used elsewhere. Romania comes to mind, certainly Ceacesceu (sp?) wasn't
much interested in world opinion.

This is part of my point. In today's world of instant communication Stalin,
Pol Pot, Saddam should have a much harder time concealing this sort of
thing from the world. Part of America's offense in the "war on terror"
should be to actively promote free access (as in beer AND speech) to the
internet all over the world and particularly poor areas. We should become
champions of free speech for everyone around the world, not just here at
home.

Free speech is not just a cornerstone of American life, it is one of the
most effective tools we have to combat terrorism. But it must be truly free
and that's not easy, even for us. We know all too well how much crap you
have to listen to when you let everyone have a say.

For us to wield the tool of free speech effectivly we must practice what we
preach. That means making hard choices and swallowing a few pills we may
not like. Such as reversing the current administrations policies of closing
off information. Such as considering policies of censorship of the internet
in China grounds for sanctions. When we have the courage and the will to
make the sacrifices this involves then we will be on the road to actually
winning a "war on terror".


>
>>>
>>> The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>
>>If the survivor's legacy is to become dependant on force then they will
>>end up being no better than those who came before.
>>
>
> They end up alive and free so long as the remain strong.
>
> That is better enough for me.
>
> Don
>

I don't want America to settle for 'good enough'. We are a great country
only as long as we strive to be better. We will lose the "war on terror" as
long as we have the attitude that as long as they're not bombing my house
that's good enough.

We should be working towards a day when any use of force on our part is
considered a failure on our part to be smart enough to find another way. It
is no victory for America if all we can say is "We're so powerful you must
all just do as we say."

We are not free if we must keep others down by force. No one is free unless
all are free.

Sorry for the long rant....
--
Frank....H

[Frank]

Jeffrey Voight wrote:

<snip>

> While it's a shame that some of the Iraqi people behave like
> preschoolers with machine guns, but that's the way it is. You see
> similar behavior in our cities when basketball teams lose.
>
> Jeff...
>

Thereby making it predictable and something we _could_ be expected to plan
for.

--
Frank....H

[Frank]

Wdtabor wrote:

> In article <5_Ozb.422240$HS4.3350892@attbi_s01>, "Jay Honeck"
> > writes:
>
>>
>>In your view, what were his REAL motives for ousting Saddam?
>>--
>
> They're not going to like it, but the real motive was to change the
> character of the middle east and make it a less volitile place, while
> killing as few people in the process as possible.
>
> The alternative would have been to pascify the place by killing a LOT of
> Moslems.
>
> Leaving as it was, and putting up with terrorism forever, as Europe seems
> willing to do, was not an acceptable option.
>

Actually I agree with you. I seems that the best explanation of the "why" is
just as you state.

The problem I have is twofold - The concept of preemption is only workable
if the preemptor is "pure as the driven snow".

And even if the above were true -

They bungled it so badly they've cost us more than we'll ever gain.
--
Frank....H

[Geoffrey Barnes]

"Frank" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps so, but what he did was show it _could_ work, and at great risk to
> himself. Certainly nothing to hold in comtempt. And the lessons have been
> used elsewhere. Romania comes to mind, certainly Ceacesceu (sp?) wasn't
> much interested in world opinion.

Did you see what they did to Ceacesceu and his wife? That wasn't exactly
Ghandi-esque, and it certainly doesn't qualify as "non-violent".

> This is part of my point. In today's world of instant communication
Stalin,
> Pol Pot, Saddam should have a much harder time concealing this sort of
> thing from the world.

But Saddam was able to conceal this exact sort of thing from the world.
Thousands upon thousands of people were rounded up and executed after the
1991 war. Journalists were everywhere, and some of them even reported (or
at least tried to report) what was going on. The news was ignored by the
rest of the world.

[R. Hubbell]

On 08 Dec 2003 14:19:51 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <2YTAb.27636$ZE1.521@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
> >> When the people in the countries who spawn the suicidal zealots understand
> >that
> >> harboring those who hate and intend violence against civilians is
> >> counterproductive and police their own zealots.
> >
> >
> >What about countries that spawn serial killers or domestic terrorists?
> >Have we made sure that no more will be "spawned" right here at home?
> >
>
> I see, so long as there is a single nutcase or fanatic who emerges here, we
> cannot defend ourselves from organized terrorists from abroad.


I'm not sure if you do see, I think you're blinded by something but I'm not
sure what it is. I would say Bush and co. are the scariest bunch of zealots
running loose these days. I think it's ironic that Bush and co. have
similar zeal with bringing death.

How about Union Carbide in Bhopal that was 100,000? And look what our
mining companies do to countries around the world. Oil companies ravage
any place they show up. So it's okay with you that our corporations run
around wreaking havoc as long as it's in the name of "progress"?



>
> >
> >>
> >> Several middle eastern countries who formerly sheltered terrorists have
> >already
> >> come to that conclusion, but there are still a few to go.
> >
> >Would you feel better about getting attacked by zealots from Afghanistan
> >if they called them selves the The Holy Taliban Army?
> >
> >Let's just cut to the chase the only reason we are involved in the
> >middle east is because "the american way of life is not negotiable"*
> >
>
> On our soil? No, it is not. We do not need to impose our way of life on others,
> but we are fully justified in defending attacks on our way of life from abroad
> and in pre-emptively addressing threats to our country.


Well we are certainly imposing our way of life on others both directly and
indirectly. Do you understand what our consumption is doing to this
planet?

>
> >
> >"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
> >whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
> >or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi
> >
> >
>
> That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other pacisifists,
> contemptible.
>
> The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.

And what world would that be that remains?

R. Hubbell

>
> Don
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On 08 Dec 2003 14:19:50 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <DRTAb.27633$ZE1.17808@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
> >>
> >> Sadly, I think we have to expect another attack on our soil, either another
> >big
> >> one or a number of smaller ones, late next summer.
> >
> >Why would they wait until then? What have you heard?
> >
>
> That our next presidential election, which is what they hope to influence, is
> in November.
>
> Late summer or early fall would be the optimum time to create an appearance of
> failure in the War on Terror by killing a large number of American civilians.


That wouldn't portray a failure in the War on Terror it would be a failure to
act on intelligence information. And it wouldn't alter how people voted.



> There is really no way for us to stop them from launching successful attacks on
> civilians if they are willing to die doing it. In the long run we can prevail,

Sure there is, you're uninformed if you think otherwise. Our intelligence
gathering is downplayed quite often but don't believe it. We know what's
going on in most all corners of the globe.

> but in the short term they can launch at least a few more large scale attacks,
> and I expect them to do so when it will be most likely to influence our
> politics in their favor.


Who's "they" that you keep mentioning by the way? Are you talking about Osama
Bin Laden? He's a cripple and I hear he is on a dialysis machine. Or do
you mean the Saudi's? Who ever "they" are I believe you're getting lousy
information.




>
> >>
> >> Our enemies have been promised a 'better deal' if Bush is not re-elected
> >and we
> >> should expect a maximum effort on their part to wage successful attacks in
> >> hopes of influencing the election against him.
> >
> >
> >Promised a better deal by whom? You are starting to sound like Chicken
> >Little. Unless you really do have some information and if that's so you
> >have my apology.
> >
>
> Try reading a newspaper.
>
> As I replied to someone else, the PUBLIC statements of a number of the Dems
> have promised them a turnover of Iraq to the UN, which is the equivalent of
> surrender.


The democrats have promised something to who?

>
> An opposition party candidate should never undermine foreign policy in a time
> of war by promising a better deal. They could either support the current
> administration's policy, promise that if they get elected, they will be an even

You sir are living a world of make believe.


> worse opponent (as Reagan did) or they can shut up about the matter, but
> offering the enemy what they want if they get elected only invites an attempt
> to sway the election by killing our people.

Now we finally get to your stance. If you don't aggree, shut up.

>
> In my mind, failing to understand that basic principle of statemanship, that
> dissent on foreign policy stops at the waters edge, which has been a maxim of
> US politics as long as we have been a nation, forever disqualifies them for
> public office.

The world you paint a picture of won't ever exist there are too many smart,
compassionate people to let it happen. Relax it'll be okay.

"I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy, if only because it offers us
the opportunity of self-fulfilling prophecy. "

Arthur C. Clarke



R. Hubbell


>
> Don
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article nk.net>, Tom
Fleischman > writes:

>
>In article >, Wdtabor
> wrote:
>>
>> To use pre-emption, you must be capable of a decisive blow. Should N. Korea
>> launch its 3 nukes at us tomorrow, (assuming they have them and the
>delivery
>> capability), they would sting us, but we would then dump such nuclear fire
>on
>> them that Godzilla's would be popping up as far away as the Aleutians.
>>
>> On the other hand, we could, if that little gargoyle succeeding in really
>> frightening us, pre-emptively take them out.
>
>Jesus, you sound like your mouth is watering at the thought of using
>nuclear weapons. You can't seriously be advocating nuclear holocaust,
>can you? Man, you are a nightmare. You remind me of the character Gen.
>Buck Turgitsen in "Dr. Strangelove":
>
>"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but it would be no
>more than 20-30 million killed, tops".
>
>You are scary, dude! You really creep me out.
>

Good.

That is the whole point of deterence.

If we are to live at peace, we must make sure the monsters of the world clearly
understand we have the ability AND the resolve to utterly destroy them if they
threaten us.

We cannot create a world where we sit and sing kumbaya and the monsters turn
into good guys. There will always be monsters wherever the good guys do
nothing. So the best we can do is to kill a few monsters now and then to bring
clarity to the minds of the others.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article <MbcBb.29223$ZE1.17885@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> writes:

>
>> There is really no way for us to stop them from launching successful
>attacks on
>> civilians if they are willing to die doing it. In the long run we can
>prevail,
>
>Sure there is, you're uninformed if you think otherwise. Our intelligence
>gathering is downplayed quite often but don't believe it. We know what's
>going on in most all corners of the globe.
>

I am not slighting the success of the intelligence folks at preventing follow
ups attacks to 9/11/01, they have done remarkably well, but there is no way to
prevent a handful of fanatics willing to die from shooting up a mall in Peoria
or Kansas City.

We can never be invulnerable to those sorts of attacks short of making this
coutry a virtual prison.

>> but in the short term they can launch at least a few more large scale
>attacks,
>> and I expect them to do so when it will be most likely to influence our
>> politics in their favor.
>
>
>Who's "they" that you keep mentioning by the way? Are you talking about
>Osama
>Bin Laden? He's a cripple and I hear he is on a dialysis machine. Or do
>you mean the Saudi's? Who ever "they" are I believe you're getting lousy
>information.
>

Only in the movies do the bad guys lay down their arms and go back to being
farmers when their leader goes down. There are still many Islamofascists out
there to take up their cause.

SNIP

>> As I replied to someone else, the PUBLIC statements of a number of the Dems
>> have promised them a turnover of Iraq to the UN, which is the equivalent of
>> surrender.
>
>
>The democrats have promised something to who?
>

To everyone, that they will turn Iraq over to the UN, which is the same thing
as turning it back over to the Baathists or the radical Shia.

SNIP

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Frank > writes:

>>
>> To use pre-emption, you must be capable of a decisive blow. Should N.
>> Korea launch its 3 nukes at us tomorrow, (assuming they have them and the
>> delivery capability), they would sting us, but we would then dump such
>> nuclear fire on them that Godzilla's would be popping up as far away as
>> the Aleutians.
>
>Wow. 3 nukes would "sting" us? That seems like an awfully cavalier attitude.
>And after we nuked 'em we could just go about our business as if nothing
>happened?
>

Comparatively speaking, it would be a sting. And their options are limited,
they could either go for military targets hoping to dampen our responce, or
civilian targets to create the most casualties, but they just don't have enough
to cover all bases.

And we damned well better not let them get enough.

>> On the other hand, we could, if that little gargoyle succeeding in really
>> frightening us, pre-emptively take them out.
>>
>
>And so we learn no lessons from the past. It's just business as usual
>whereby we are either killing people actively or sowing the seeds for the
>next generation to be killed.
>
>I want us to be looking for ways to make things better and avoid both of
>your scenarios. And I believe we have the potential to do so.
>

I also want to avoid either course, but I believe the way to do that is to make
it crystal clear that attacking us is suicide and making us really nervous is
dangerous and foolish.


SNIP Anti capitalist rant
>>>>
>>>> That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
>>>> pacisifists, contemptible.
>>>
>>>Anyone that can describe Gandhi as contemptible is....
>>>
>>>What Gandhi stood for and what the above statememt means is that the use
>>>of force will not "win the war". His legacy is that non-violent protest
>>>can work and is indeed very effective because it creates so much sympathy
>>>for the cause and exposes so much of the true nature of the opponent. The
>>>Palestinians would do well to take a lesson from him (and other examples).
>>>
>>
>> His methods worked only because he faced a civilized enemy that cared
>> about world opinion. Had he faced an enemy with Britain's power led by
>> Stalin or Pol Pot, he would be remembered as an idealistic fool who got
>> his people exterminated.
>
>Perhaps so, but what he did was show it _could_ work, and at great risk to
>himself. Certainly nothing to hold in comtempt. And the lessons have been
>used elsewhere. Romania comes to mind, certainly Ceacesceu (sp?) wasn't
>much interested in world opinion.
>

Romania lost it's protector when the Eastern Block fell apart. Without that
shift in power, protests would have been put down by slaughter, as was the
tradition there. Aside from which, there was considerable violence in that
change of government, it was just sufficeintly decisive and sudden that
casualties were reduced.

Aside from which, non-violent protest in the face of totalitarian states has
sledom produced results. Think of the Chinese student who stood in front of
that tank. It made a great picture, but he was clubbed to death shortly
afterward and the rest of the non-violent protesters driven off or slaughtered.

>This is part of my point. In today's world of instant communication Stalin,
>Pol Pot, Saddam should have a much harder time concealing this sort of
>thing from the world. Part of America's offense in the "war on terror"
>should be to actively promote free access (as in beer AND speech) to the
>internet all over the world and particularly poor areas. We should become
>champions of free speech for everyone around the world, not just here at
>home.
>

Saddam killed 300,000 while being inspected by the UN.

SNIP

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article <jQbBb.29221$ZE1.11595@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> writes:

>> >
>> >Let's just cut to the chase the only reason we are involved in the
>> >middle east is because "the american way of life is not negotiable"*
>> >
>>
>> On our soil? No, it is not. We do not need to impose our way of life on
>others,
>> but we are fully justified in defending attacks on our way of life from
>abroad
>> and in pre-emptively addressing threats to our country.
>
>
>Well we are certainly imposing our way of life on others both directly and
>indirectly. Do you understand what our consumption is doing to this
>planet?
>

Providing gainful employment to millions in third world countries who would
otherwise starve to death along with their children.


>>
>> >
>> >"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
>> >whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
>> >or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi
>> >
>> >
>>
>> That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
>pacisifists,
>> contemptible.
>>
>> The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.
>
>And what world would that be that remains?
>

So long as we do not allow the monsters to obtain nuclear weapons, the world
will do just fine. If, on the other hand, we weaken in our resolve and let
every tin pot dictator to get nukes, either by making their own or buying them
from North Korea, then things could get really messy.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Frank]

Geoffrey Barnes wrote:

>
> "Frank" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Perhaps so, but what he did was show it _could_ work, and at great risk
>> to himself. Certainly nothing to hold in comtempt. And the lessons have
>> been used elsewhere. Romania comes to mind, certainly Ceacesceu (sp?)
>> wasn't much interested in world opinion.
>
> Did you see what they did to Ceacesceu and his wife? That wasn't exactly
> Ghandi-esque, and it certainly doesn't qualify as "non-violent".

I did see it and it certainly was not "non-violent". As despicable as he was
I still wouldn't condone it. But his regime was toppled by non-violent
protest and that is what we're talking about.

>> This is part of my point. In today's world of instant communication
> Stalin,
>> Pol Pot, Saddam should have a much harder time concealing this sort of
>> thing from the world.
>
> But Saddam was able to conceal this exact sort of thing from the world.
> Thousands upon thousands of people were rounded up and executed after the
> 1991 war. Journalists were everywhere, and some of them even reported (or
> at least tried to report) what was going on. The news was ignored by the
> rest of the world.

Shame on anyone, anywhere for ignoring any such atrocities.

I said it badly but I'm talking about going forward. Get the internet into
the hands of the people. While there are certainly fine journalists out
there, the news organizations that we rely on for delivery are failing
miserably and can no longer be trusted to fulfil their role.

It's also a way for us to demonstrate to the world that we really mean it
when we talk about free speech. We in America know open dialog is crucial
to democracy so exporting it can only help us in the long run.

--
Frank....H

[Frank]

C J Campbell wrote:

<snip>
>
> The Europeans have not changed their tune since the sixteenth century.
> They have always regarded Americans as rustics and buffoons and themselves
> as the epitome of tolerance and culture. This, from a continent that is
> barely able to feed itself, is unwilling or unable to defend itself, and
> where the height of fashion is American western wear and where American
> music reigns supreme.

I wonder for how much longer this will be true. During the month I was in
Germany and France this year I saw signs of a growing movement to boycott
American goods.

And to bring this actually on topic....The big news on the Monday after the
Paris Air Show was that an order for (approx) 30 airliners had gone to Air
Bus because of the lack of American presence. A week later a German airline
decided to go with Dornier instead of Boeing also. So in two weeks we lost
close to 40 aircraft sales. How much was due to anti-American sentiment is
perhaps debatable, but it was a huge blow to our economy and it's a trend
that must not be ignored.


> Europeans have given rise to a rapid succession of tyrants that culminated
> in the 20th century with nearly the complete annihilation of the human
> race.

If it's one thing history shows us it's that there is always a ready supply
of tyrants waiting for an opportunity. We as Americans tend to think of
ourselves as being exempt from that because our system is geared to keep it
out, but our history is not exacly un-blemished.

<snip>

--
Frank....H

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Frank > writes:

>> But Saddam was able to conceal this exact sort of thing from the world.
>> Thousands upon thousands of people were rounded up and executed after the
>> 1991 war. Journalists were everywhere, and some of them even reported (or
>> at least tried to report) what was going on. The news was ignored by the
>> rest of the world.
>
>Shame on anyone, anywhere for ignoring any such atrocities.
>

OK, so we don't ignore it. Then what, write a strongly worded letter to "The
Times"?

Or send in troops to take out the monster?

Because monsters like Saddam are not going to stop killing their opponents, and
their relatives and aquaintences, unless they believe that someone will get up
on their hind legs and punish them.

We may not have known the number of people he killed, but we, and the UN, knew
it was in the tens of thousands, and neither the UN, nor his Moslem neighbors
did a damned thing about it until the Cop on the Corner showed up.


>I said it badly but I'm talking about going forward. Get the internet into
>the hands of the people. While there are certainly fine journalists out
>there, the news organizations that we rely on for delivery are failing
>miserably and can no longer be trusted to fulfil their role.
>
I agree that the internet is a great tool for getting inforamtion around the
barriers set up to contain it, but you can't even change my behavior by posting
something critical to usenet, much less the Saddams and Pol Pots of the world.
Sooner or later, you need the presence, or the credible threat, of troops on
the ground to effect that change.

>It's also a way for us to demonstrate to the world that we really mean it
>when we talk about free speech. We in America know open dialog is crucial
>to democracy so exporting it can only help us in the long run.
>

Well, exporting the rule of law in the form of a representative republic would
be a good thing, but I would not inflict democracy on even our worst enemies.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On 09 Dec 2003 14:42:26 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <jQbBb.29221$ZE1.11595@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
> >> >
> >> >Let's just cut to the chase the only reason we are involved in the
> >> >middle east is because "the american way of life is not negotiable"*
> >> >
> >>
> >> On our soil? No, it is not. We do not need to impose our way of life on
> >others,
> >> but we are fully justified in defending attacks on our way of life from
> >abroad
> >> and in pre-emptively addressing threats to our country.
> >
> >
> >Well we are certainly imposing our way of life on others both directly and
> >indirectly. Do you understand what our consumption is doing to this
> >planet?
> >
>
> Providing gainful employment to millions in third world countries who would
> otherwise starve to death along with their children.


I doubt a lot of them would call it gainful employment. More like indentured
servants. Not to mention what those companies do to the environment.

>
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
> >> >whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
> >> >or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> That he cannot see the difference is why I find Gandhi, and other
> >pacisifists,
> >> contemptible.
> >>
> >> The difference he fails to see is the world left to the survivors.
> >
> >And what world would that be that remains?
> >
>
> So long as we do not allow the monsters to obtain nuclear weapons, the world


Wakeup call, monsters already have nukes. One nations monster is another's
ally.


> will do just fine. If, on the other hand, we weaken in our resolve and let
> every tin pot dictator to get nukes, either by making their own or buying them
> from North Korea, then things could get really messy.

Things already are messy. Most of the "tin pot dictators" that can produce nukes
have been created directly or indirectly by us.


"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless,
whether the mad destruction is brought under the name of totalitarianism
or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"
Mahatma Gandhi


R. Hubbell

>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On 09 Dec 2003 14:42:26 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <MbcBb.29223$ZE1.17885@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >> There is really no way for us to stop them from launching successful
> >attacks on
> >> civilians if they are willing to die doing it. In the long run we can
> >prevail,
> >
> >Sure there is, you're uninformed if you think otherwise. Our intelligence
> >gathering is downplayed quite often but don't believe it. We know what's
> >going on in most all corners of the globe.
> >
>
> I am not slighting the success of the intelligence folks at preventing follow
> ups attacks to 9/11/01, they have done remarkably well, but there is no way to
> prevent a handful of fanatics willing to die from shooting up a mall in Peoria
> or Kansas City.


Or snipers from killing people at random. How about the 40,000 that die every
year from car accidents. Or the 35,000 from the flu. What's the real threat?


>
> We can never be invulnerable to those sorts of attacks short of making this
> coutry a virtual prison.

A virtual prison wouldn't work.


>
> >> but in the short term they can launch at least a few more large scale
> >attacks,
> >> and I expect them to do so when it will be most likely to influence our
> >> politics in their favor.
> >
> >
> >Who's "they" that you keep mentioning by the way? Are you talking about
> >Osama
> >Bin Laden? He's a cripple and I hear he is on a dialysis machine. Or do
> >you mean the Saudi's? Who ever "they" are I believe you're getting lousy
> >information.
> >
>
> Only in the movies do the bad guys lay down their arms and go back to being
> farmers when their leader goes down. There are still many Islamofascists out
> there to take up their cause.

But you still haven't said who "they" are?

>
> SNIP
>
> >> As I replied to someone else, the PUBLIC statements of a number of the Dems
> >> have promised them a turnover of Iraq to the UN, which is the equivalent of
> >> surrender.
> >
> >
> >The democrats have promised something to who?
> >
>
> To everyone, that they will turn Iraq over to the UN, which is the same thing
> as turning it back over to the Baathists or the radical Shia.


The UN will get involved, it may take a long time but we're screwed in so deep
now that we will need them to help extricate us from this big mess.


R. Hubbell

>
> SNIP
>
> Don
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article <EWmBb.29325$ZE1.20603@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> writes:

> >
>> >Well we are certainly imposing our way of life on others both directly and
>> >indirectly. Do you understand what our consumption is doing to this
>> >planet?
>> >
>>
>> Providing gainful employment to millions in third world countries who would
>> otherwise starve to death along with their children.
>
>
>I doubt a lot of them would call it gainful employment. More like indentured
>servants. Not to mention what those companies do to the environment.
>
>>

How compassionate of you.

After all, it is certainly prefferable that they starve with their children
rather than break solidarity with their union brothers and accept a wage below
what you think suitable.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article <a0nBb.29326$ZE1.6721@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> writes:

>>
>> I am not slighting the success of the intelligence folks at preventing
>follow
>> ups attacks to 9/11/01, they have done remarkably well, but there is no way
>to
>> prevent a handful of fanatics willing to die from shooting up a mall in
>Peoria
>> or Kansas City.
>
>
>Or snipers from killing people at random. How about the 40,000 that die
>every
>year from car accidents. Or the 35,000 from the flu. What's the real
>threat?
>

How about flying?

There are risks, like flying or traveling by car, that I accept willingly in
return for the joy or convenience I receive.,

There are risks, like disease that cannot practically be avoided and are not
the work of malice.

But I do not accept the risk of being shot or blown up by a religious zealot
while getting a coffee at Starbucks. The risk i\of being killed by a terrorist
is not something that goes along with an activity or convenience I freely
chose, and it is not a risk of normal life, it is an act of war by a bunch of
thugs and I need not accept the loss of one life to it as OK or unimportant.

Don



--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On 09 Dec 2003 20:13:33 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <a0nBb.29326$ZE1.6721@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
> >>
> >> I am not slighting the success of the intelligence folks at preventing
> >follow
> >> ups attacks to 9/11/01, they have done remarkably well, but there is no way
> >to
> >> prevent a handful of fanatics willing to die from shooting up a mall in
> >Peoria
> >> or Kansas City.
> >
> >
> >Or snipers from killing people at random. How about the 40,000 that die
> >every
> >year from car accidents. Or the 35,000 from the flu. What's the real
> >threat?
> >
>
> How about flying?
>
> There are risks, like flying or traveling by car, that I accept willingly in

Now we're getting somewhere, there are risks. Life is risky.
You even said that it's impossible to secure the entire country.
Now draw the conclusion.

> return for the joy or convenience I receive.,
>
> There are risks, like disease that cannot practically be avoided and are not
> the work of malice.
>
> But I do not accept the risk of being shot or blown up by a religious zealot
> while getting a coffee at Starbucks. The risk i\of being killed by a terrorist
> is not something that goes along with an activity or convenience I freely
> chose, and it is not a risk of normal life, it is an act of war by a bunch of
> thugs and I need not accept the loss of one life to it as OK or unimportant.

See above.


R. Hubbell

>
> Don
>
>
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On 09 Dec 2003 20:13:33 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <EWmBb.29325$ZE1.20603@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
> > >
> >> >Well we are certainly imposing our way of life on others both directly and
> >> >indirectly. Do you understand what our consumption is doing to this
> >> >planet?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Providing gainful employment to millions in third world countries who would
> >> otherwise starve to death along with their children.
> >
> >
> >I doubt a lot of them would call it gainful employment. More like indentured
> >servants. Not to mention what those companies do to the environment.
> >
> >>
>
> How compassionate of you.

So we're doing them a favor?

>
> After all, it is certainly prefferable that they starve with their children
> rather than break solidarity with their union brothers and accept a wage below
> what you think suitable.


I think you don't know what some US corporations are doing in other
"emerging" countries. The fact you mention unions means you really
have no idea. An interesting world you've created for yourself, I
guess we all create our own.



R. Hubbell

>
> Don
>
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Jay Honeck]

> I think you don't know what some US corporations are doing in other
> "emerging" countries.

Enlighten us, please.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Rosspilot]

>
>> I think you don't know what some US corporations are doing in other
>> "emerging" countries.
>
>Enlighten us, please.
>--

I am not attempting to enlighted anyone, but this morning, I was in a store
shopping. (This is very rare for me).

I spotted a shrink-wrapped, shadowbox frame, 11x14, of exceptionally high
quality.
I use these types of items in my business, so I looked VERY closely at it. It
was made in Thailand. Now here's the thing . . . it was selling for $ 5.99.
The 8x10 was only $3.99.

So I ask myself, how can something this nice be made, packaged (these are GLASS
and very fragile pieces), transported from the other side of the planet, loaded
onto trucks, delivered, unpacked and placed for sale at $6? How can there be
enough profit for all the parties involved in the process?

I'm guessing that the cost to make them in Thailand must be real low, huh? <G>

I bought a dozen of each.




www.Rosspilot.com

[Wdtabor]

In article <kivBb.29415$ZE1.25509@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> writes:

>
>I think you don't know what some US corporations are doing in other
>"emerging" countries.

Providing a means for them to emerge.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Jay Honeck]

> So I ask myself, how can something this nice be made, packaged (these are
GLASS
> and very fragile pieces), transported from the other side of the planet,
loaded
> onto trucks, delivered, unpacked and placed for sale at $6? How can there
be
> enough profit for all the parties involved in the process?
>
> I'm guessing that the cost to make them in Thailand must be real low, huh?
<G>

It's amazing, isn't it? I don't pretend to understand how they can possibly
make that stuff in Thailand cheaper than we can make it here -- the shipping
alone has to cost 50% or more of that six bucks.

I was just out shopping for my kid's Xmas presents. On the shelf was a
"real" "GI Joe", for $21.00. Next to it was a knock-off that actually had
MORE cool stuff, for $4.99. Funny thing is, BOTH were made in China -- so
what's the difference? One said "Hasbro", and one was "No Name" -- what do
I care?

I bought TWO of the No-Names...

I'd guess that the Thai (and Chinese) people are simply more dedicated to
what they're trying to do economically than we are...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Frank]

Wdtabor wrote:

> In article >, Frank > writes:
>

<snip>

>>
>>Shame on anyone, anywhere for ignoring any such atrocities.
>>
>
> OK, so we don't ignore it. Then what, write a strongly worded letter to
> "The Times"?
>
> Or send in troops to take out the monster?
>
> Because monsters like Saddam are not going to stop killing their
> opponents, and their relatives and aquaintences, unless they believe that
> someone will get up on their hind legs and punish them.

Agreed. I'm sure I didn't say it explicitly before so I'll say it now. I
don't think for a moment that the days of using force are over yet. But I
want to see us working toward that day and I don't see much evidence of us
doing that right now.

You make it sound as if there are only two options: "Do nothing" or "Nuke
the *******". I'll admit that there are scenarios where that might be true
but usually there are other avenues to persue.

As an example take the "sanctions" imposed on Iraq. Many scoff and say they
didn't work and they are right. But we pretty much guaranteed they wouldn't
work by not pressuring others to support them and turning a blind eye when
we knew they were being violated. In other words, we weren't as committed
to using our economic power as we are now to using our military. As a
result we lost much of our moral high ground.

Military force must be a last resort for it to have any chance of being
morally justified.


> We may not have known the number of people he killed, but we, and the UN,
> knew
> it was in the tens of thousands, and neither the UN, nor his Moslem
> neighbors did a damned thing about it until the Cop on the Corner showed
> up.
>
>
>>I said it badly but I'm talking about going forward. Get the internet into
>>the hands of the people. While there are certainly fine journalists out
>>there, the news organizations that we rely on for delivery are failing
>>miserably and can no longer be trusted to fulfil their role.
>>
> I agree that the internet is a great tool for getting inforamtion around
> the barriers set up to contain it, but you can't even change my behavior
> by posting something critical to usenet, much less the Saddams and Pol
> Pots of the world. Sooner or later, you need the presence, or the credible
> threat, of troops on the ground to effect that change.

I hope you don't think I was suggesting that posting "Saddam is a big fat
idiot" in rec.soc.heads_of_state would make a big difference......

I'm talking about ensuring a conduit for the free flow of ideas which we
know makes it harder for dictators to gain and/or maintain power. And of
course in times of crisis it can be invaluable for tactical matters. Just
look at how it helped during the attempted coup in Russia some years back.
Or during the Bosnia fighting.

Once again I don't rule out the possibility that troops will be needed. But
I don't rule out anything that has the potential to avoid the need in the
first place. And we also get the benefit of overtly doing something to
promote our ideals.

>>It's also a way for us to demonstrate to the world that we really mean it
>>when we talk about free speech. We in America know open dialog is crucial
>>to democracy so exporting it can only help us in the long run.
>>
>
> Well, exporting the rule of law in the form of a representative republic
> would be a good thing, but I would not inflict democracy on even our worst
> enemies.
>
> Don
>
Killing's too good for 'em, let 'em have Congress!
--
Frank....H

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cMMBb.302393$Dw6.1006170@attbi_s02...
> > So I ask myself, how can something this nice be made, packaged (these
are
> GLASS
> > and very fragile pieces), transported from the other side of the planet,
> loaded
> > onto trucks, delivered, unpacked and placed for sale at $6? How can
there
> be
> > enough profit for all the parties involved in the process?
> >
> > I'm guessing that the cost to make them in Thailand must be real low,
huh?
> <G>
>
> It's amazing, isn't it? I don't pretend to understand how they can
possibly
> make that stuff in Thailand cheaper than we can make it here -- the
shipping
> alone has to cost 50% or more of that six bucks.
>
> I was just out shopping for my kid's Xmas presents. On the shelf was a
> "real" "GI Joe", for $21.00. Next to it was a knock-off that actually had
> MORE cool stuff, for $4.99. Funny thing is, BOTH were made in China -- so
> what's the difference? One said "Hasbro", and one was "No Name" -- what
do
> I care?
>
> I bought TWO of the No-Names...
>
> I'd guess that the Thai (and Chinese) people are simply more dedicated to
> what they're trying to do economically than we are...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


Saw a tid bit on the news a week or so ago. For 40 months in a row the
number of manufacturing jobs in this country has gone down. In the mean
time worker productivity has gone up significantly. Don't know if any
conclusions can be made but it sounds suspicious.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> Saw a tid bit on the news a week or so ago. For 40 months in a row the
> number of manufacturing jobs in this country has gone down. In the mean
> time worker productivity has gone up significantly. Don't know if any
> conclusions can be made but it sounds suspicious.

That's simple. At least 1/3 of the cost of an employee is overhead. If the
company involved has a good retirement and benefits package, the cost is more
like 2/3. Even if you have to pay time-and-a-half, it's cheaper to work two
employees 12 hours a day than to work three employees 8 hours a day. The only
problem is that, if you keep employees working lots of overtime, after a few
months, they get tired and the amount they do per hours goes down. You may fix
that by setting the workday at 14 hours, but at some point, the overtime pay
gets to be more than just hiring another person.

If your employees are "professionals", however, you don't have to pay them for
the overtime. The real problem there is that many of these people were working
long hours well before the current recession, so there's not a lot of room for
"productivity" increases.

So. If you increase the work day from 8 to 12 hours and fire every third person,
the number of jobs just went down by 33.3% and productivity went up by 33.3%.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

[Carl Ellis]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:kcSAb.459975$Tr4.1278480@attbi_s03...
> > Um, he was appointed. I watched the whole thing.
>
> Ah, Mike. Once again I must pull out the Big Guns....
>
> Read it and weep...
>
> http://mwhodges.home.att.net/usmap-large.gif
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Jay -

Your map does not show what you think it shows.

This map details the number of counties won, which says nothing about the
popular vote or electoral votes. It does emphasize the rather odd metric
of squares miles per candidate. I'm not sure what that indicates other than
perhaps it indicates a rural vote favoring Bush.

If you do a web search you'll see reports of between 200,000 to 500,000
popular votes favoring Gore and of course an argument of what that really
means.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/2003

[R. Hubbell]

On 10 Dec 2003 19:14:07 GMT (Wdtabor) wrote:

> In article <kivBb.29415$ZE1.25509@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >I think you don't know what some US corporations are doing in other
> >"emerging" countries.
>
> Providing a means for them to emerge.


I was talking about this emerge from the dictionary:
"to rise from an obscure or inferior position or condition"

So you assume that they are in an inferior position or condition
and that's part of the problem. And you must assume no matter
what the corporations to it's progress. But that's unfortunately
not true.


>
> Don
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:04:00 GMT "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I think you don't know what some US corporations are doing in other
> > "emerging" countries.
>
> Enlighten us, please.


Well that might be a tall order. :) But if you are really interested in
becoming enlightned I would suggest that you seek out the stories yourself.
You know, why take my word for it?

Here's a start:

Union Carbide > 100,000 people died from that catastrophe

Parents in India selling their children off to work in sweatshops
(there's no real shop to speak of, more like a hovel.) making cheap goods
for the "civilized" world.

The tropical hardwoods showing up in all manner of home furnishings are
coming from clear cutting that would make even the most hardened lumber
baron gasp.

It's all there if you really want to know. Heck Nat. Geographic had a story
recently from corners of the globe about exploit and indentured servitude
not just as local social problems but as a result of trying to keep the
price of goods absurdly low to undercut the country going even lower.

Those $5 picture frames will have a long term cost that cannot be paid back.


R. Hubbell

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Earl Grieda]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cMMBb.302393$Dw6.1006170@attbi_s02...
>
> It's amazing, isn't it? I don't pretend to
> understand how they can possibly make that stuff
> in Thailand cheaper than we can make it here --
> the shipping alone has to cost 50% or more of that
> six bucks.
>
> I was just out shopping for my kid's Xmas presents.
> On the shelf was a "real" "GI Joe", for $21.00. Next
> to it was a knock-off that actually had MORE cool stuff,
> for $4.99. Funny thing is, BOTH were made in China -- so
> what's the difference? One said "Hasbro", and one was
> "No Name" -- what do I care?
>
> I bought TWO of the No-Names...
>
> I'd guess that the Thai (and Chinese) people are simply
> more dedicated to what they're trying to do economically
> than we are...
> --

Oh yes, that's right. The "Thai (and Chinese) people are simply more
dedicated to what they're trying to do economically than we are".

Perhaps the fact that the workers are paid 24 cents an hour and work 84
hours a week might have something to do with it. But who cares what the
Chinese are paid. We get our toys dirt-cheap.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/7449186.htm


Earl G.

[leslie]

Jay Honeck ) wrote:
: > I think you don't know what some US corporations are doing in other
: > "emerging" countries.
:
: Enlighten us, please.
:
http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/econ101/survey.html
: Globalization Survey Reveals U.S. Corporations Prefer Dictatorships

"American businesses may say they believe in democracy, but they are
not putting their money where their mouth is, according to a report
by a Washington-based think tank..."

Corporations have a similar management style.

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(leslie) wrote:

> Jay Honeck ) wrote:
> : > I think you don't know what some US corporations are doing in other
> : > "emerging" countries.
> :
> : Enlighten us, please.
> :
> http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/econ101/survey.html
> : Globalization Survey Reveals U.S. Corporations Prefer Dictatorships
>
> "American businesses may say they believe in democracy, but they are
> not putting their money where their mouth is, according to a report
> by a Washington-based think tank..."
>
> Corporations have a similar management style.

consumers in the US and across the world also have responsibility.

--
Bob Noel

[Gig Giacona]

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Perhaps the fact that the workers are paid 24 cents an hour and work 84
> hours a week might have something to do with it. But who cares what the
> Chinese are paid. We get our toys dirt-cheap.
> http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/7449186.htm
>
>
> Earl G.


But Earl, How can this be? China is a Communist Worker's Paradise.

But you are right on one point. I couldn't care less how much China's
workers are paid.

[Tom]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cMMBb.302393$Dw6.1006170@attbi_s02...
>
> It's amazing, isn't it? I don't pretend to understand how they can
possibly
> make that stuff in Thailand cheaper than we can make it here -- the
shipping
> alone has to cost 50% or more of that six bucks.

One branch of our company ships entire computer systems to Eastern Europe
for about $16; it's slow, but my maintaining the pipeline timing, they
arrive "in time"

>
> I'd guess that the Thai (and Chinese) people are simply more dedicated to
> what they're trying to do economically than we are...


Well, having been brought up in poverty, they understand the work ethic,
something lost on most Americans. They want to do the job right; Americans
just want to do the job (and collect the paycheck).

Americans want to consume like free-marketers, but want to work like
socialists.

[Tom]

"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
> I am not attempting to enlighted anyone, but this morning, I was in a
store
> shopping. (This is very rare for me).
>
> I spotted a shrink-wrapped, shadowbox frame, 11x14, of exceptionally high
> quality.
> I use these types of items in my business, so I looked VERY closely at it.
It
> was made in Thailand. Now here's the thing . . . it was selling for $
5.99.
> The 8x10 was only $3.99.
>
> So I ask myself, how can something this nice be made, packaged (these are
GLASS
> and very fragile pieces), transported from the other side of the planet,
loaded
> onto trucks, delivered, unpacked and placed for sale at $6? How can there
be
> enough profit for all the parties involved in the process?
>
> I'm guessing that the cost to make them in Thailand must be real low, huh?
<G>

The cost is low and the quality is high. Americans lose on both aspects.

> I bought a dozen of each.

That's how they sell cheap...the produce in large volumes and have very low
rates of re-wrok and rejections.

[Tom]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (leslie) wrote:
>
> > Jay Honeck ) wrote:
> > : > I think you don't know what some US corporations are doing in other
> > : > "emerging" countries.
> > :
> > : Enlighten us, please.
> > :
> > http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/econ101/survey.html
> > : Globalization Survey Reveals U.S. Corporations Prefer Dictatorships
> >
> > "American businesses may say they believe in democracy, but they are
> > not putting their money where their mouth is, according to a report
> > by a Washington-based think tank..."
> >
> > Corporations have a similar management style.

But...but..I thought they were "empowering" their employees?


> consumers in the US and across the world also have responsibility.

For...????