We Are All Spaniards

[Jay Honeck]

> Well we do have an election in November and with their success in Spain I
> would very surprised if we don't have a major terrorism attempt in the US
in
> October.

You can bank on it, sadly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Ol56c.33452$po.294444@attbi_s52...
>
> Which is why we don't have that here.
>

We don't have it in theory, we do have it in fact.

[Jay Honeck]

> >1. Spaniards changed their vote not because of terror, but because the
> >government manipulated the information regarding the terror attacks
> >and tried to mislead the people for their own advantage (ring a
> >bell?).

If you read the entire thread, you will find that you have missed this
salient point: It doesn't matter one whit if the Spanish voted for the
Socialists because they were influenced by Martians. Rather, what matters
is this: The terrorists must now perceive that elections and troop
deployments can be influenced by indiscriminate attacks on innocent "soft"
targets.

This is a very bad thing.

> >2. Terrorists are not fighting a religious war. They are fighting the
> >US and its allies, not Christianity.

No one here says they're fighting Christianity, although that is the
under-current of the conversation. But their fight goes well beyond the "US
and its allies." Rather, it encompasses all of Western civilization and
Western morals and standards.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The jews in 1948 were indiscriminate killers. But by your definition the
> Palestinians are rebels too and what they are doing is legitimate,
fighting
> for their native soil.

I, for one, do not blame the Palestinians for fighting for their land.

However, they have lost the moral high ground with their moronic, murderous,
suicidal tactics. Where once we saw rebels, all we see now are terrorists.

Damn shame, too. They very nearly had world opinion on their side.

(Same thing happened to the IRA, by the way. Had they held strictly to
fighting the British, they might have pulled it off. Instead, they started
blowing up innocent civilians, and lost public opinion worldwide.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:HB66c.32444$Cb.525898@attbi_s51...
>
> I, for one, do not blame the Palestinians for fighting for their land.
>

They abandoned their land.

[Jay Honeck]

> > The terrorists (what is "the arab empire"?) are not after world
> > domination, but after their nation's freedom from western domination.
> > They want US and its allies to get out of the middle west.
>
> Jay H? Can you confirm or deny that we western domination and military
> allies in Iowa?

The AFTLOI (Army for the Liberation of Iowa) has a huge following in most
counties outside of Iowa City. Although I am sympathetic of their cause, I
am forced to lay low and keep quiet by the pro-government forces in this
University-town, who rightfully see the US and their allies as their main
source of jobs and income.

It's a damned frustrating place to live, but rest assured -- most of us want
the U.S. and their allies out of the Middle West!

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Wow. I never thought of Brittany Spears as a valiant agent of change,
> crusader of American "culture". I always thought she was just a
> slightly dimwitted so called singer, blessed with a lusty body and
> willing to flaunt it.

Good thing it's Brittany.

If Don had said it was Eminem (as my son firmly believes), I was about to
switch sides and join the Mujahadin in their Holy War!

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Also, why do you assume freedom = democracy? For most people, freedom
> means to be left alone to live their lives any way they want. In your
> case, that means a certain political system, a certain culture, a
> certain moral system, etc. In the case of the arab world, it means
> something different. Who is to say that this is wrong? You can't apply
> your particular moral system to another culture.

Wow -- it's rare to see moral relativism raised to such absurd levels --
even here.

No one is applying a "moral system" to another culture -- we are saying that
democracy is what freedom *is* all about. This crosses all ethnic,
religious, and cultural boundaries.

How do YOU define "freedom," if not freedom from tyranny?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> I, for one, do not blame the Palestinians for fighting for their land.

Unfortunately the Palestinians don't have any land. Never did. Israel
did not kick the Palestinians out of present day Israel.

[Jay Honeck]

> You know, it is that "and our other allies" part that bothers me. The
> infamous "either you are with us, or you are against us" BS. Reality
> is rarely black and white. Zapatero said he will withdraw his forces
> from Irak. Will you stand with Spain after that? Will the victims
> still deserve your sympathy? Or will the mother of that student who
> was blown to bits become your instant enemy?

Welcome to the world. The Islamofascists leave little wiggle room on this
subject.

As far as I'm concerned, the victims will always deserve our sympathy. All
the more so after their government ceases to be our ally.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:BH66c.32319$_w.539465@attbi_s53...
> > > The terrorists (what is "the arab empire"?) are not after world
> > > domination, but after their nation's freedom from western domination.
> > > They want US and its allies to get out of the middle west.
> >
> > Jay H? Can you confirm or deny that we western domination and military
> > allies in Iowa?
>
> The AFTLOI (Army for the Liberation of Iowa) has a huge following in most
> counties outside of Iowa City. Although I am sympathetic of their cause,
I
> am forced to lay low and keep quiet by the pro-government forces in this
> University-town, who rightfully see the US and their allies as their main
> source of jobs and income.
>
> It's a damned frustrating place to live, but rest assured -- most of us
want
> the U.S. and their allies out of the Middle West!
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

LOL!

Good answer!

Jay B

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:tT66c.32343$_w.540027@attbi_s53...
>
> Israel did not kick the Palestinians out of present day Israel.
>

Quite right. The Jews forced no Arabs off their land. Many Arabs, those
that are referred to as Palestinians, abandoned their land at the behest of
their fellow Arabs in Jordan, Syria, etc. They were to leave while the Arab
states drove the Jews into the sea, then the Arabs would return and have all
of the land. Israel would not exist. But the Arabs lost the war, and those
that had abandoned their land within the new state of Israel were now
homeless. The Arabs that didn't abandon their land are now citizens of
Israel. They vote, hold seats in the Knesset, and have the highest standard
of living among any Arabs in the world. Other than the relative few that
control large quantities of oil, of course.

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:19:43 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> wrote:

>Well we do have an election in November and with their success in Spain I
>would very surprised if we don't have a major terrorism attempt in the US in
>October.

The Democrats will be praying very hard against that possibility!
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[a.d.danilecki]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Cub Driver > wrote:
> >
> > > This is addressed in the Wall Street Journal today. The writer points
> > > to Poland as the next probable target, since it too has troops in
> >
> >
> > 14 or so soldiers as far as I know. (at least this is what I have seen on
> TV)
>
> You should get out more. There are over 1500 Polish troops in Iraq.

2.500 Polish soldiers.

Buuut with Spaniards gone and another three countries withdrawing
their support, there would be BIIG problem. We are poor country and
sending more troops would be very unpopular, while if we won't find
replacement, the multinational division would become too weak to keep
their job.

We prefer term Central Europe from Eastern, BTW. There is more
differences between Poles and Russian than between Poles and Germans.

[JohnMcGrew]

In article <hE85c.8720$J05.102917@attbi_s01>, "Michael 182"
> writes:

>How did you get from electing socialists to legitimizing Islam
>fundamentalists?

Quite simple. By staging their attack just before an election, the Islamic
facists effectively took down an entire government. The socialists were
expected to loose by a wide margin before the attack. Most socialist parties
and organizations have been far more friendly to the Islamic cause than anyone
else. Expect similar just before the next election in Britain.

Fortunately, we may be luckier, as such an attack in America would likely have
the opposite effect. We will see.

John

[Alex]

(Wdtabor) wrote in message >...
> ...
> The sooner we drag them out of the sixth century, the fewer of them we will
> have to kill to stop the violence. Dropping the rule of law and self
> determination right into the heart of the middle east in Iraq is the quickest
> way to bring the struggle to an end.

I hope you do realize the contradiction in that last statement...

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<Yw66c.32304$_w.539101@attbi_s53>...
> If you read the entire thread, you will find that you have missed this
> salient point: It doesn't matter one whit if the Spanish voted for the
> Socialists because they were influenced by Martians. Rather, what matters
> is this: The terrorists must now perceive that elections and troop
> deployments can be influenced by indiscriminate attacks on innocent "soft"
> targets.

Then I hope the terrorists are better informed than most people in
this group. If Aznar's administration hadn't manipulated the
information, and if the Spanish people hadn't been 90% against the
invasion of Irak, the bombings, in all probability, woudn't have
changed the election.

> This is a very bad thing.
>
> > >2. Terrorists are not fighting a religious war. They are fighting the
> > >US and its allies, not Christianity.
>
> No one here says they're fighting Christianity, although that is the
> under-current of the conversation. But their fight goes well beyond the "US
> and its allies." Rather, it encompasses all of Western civilization and
> Western morals and standards.

It was explicitly stated that this was a religious war (see cites
below).

I don't think the target is all Western civilization, or they would be
attacking all democratic nations, which they are clearly not. They are
attacking the interests of the US and its allies. They are very
explicit regarding this in their messages through Al-Jazeera.

What I percieve is that a lot of people in the US can't face that they
are the target because that would mean they did something to deserve
it, and that seems to be unthinkable. Hollywood movies have hammered
the concept of "the good american boy" so hard into their brains, that
many seem unable to see it in any other way. Rather, they would have
the "western civilization", the "modern societies" and everything that
is good be the target, so they can demonize the enemy and expect the
rest of the world to join them in this war. Of course, as the rest of
the world does not see it that way (even in the US's allied countries
most people don't see it that way), then the rest of the world must be
wrong and anti-american, and they are "agains us" because they are not
"with us". Bull****.


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message >...
> We are in a religious war. We didn't choose it, but we've got it.

(Corky Scott) wrote in message >...
> ...This thing is religion based, but it's based on an apparently warped
> interpretation of the Koran. But that doesn't matter to them. To the
> people who believe in this Islamic Jihad, it's the most rational thing
> on earth, or they could not be persuaded to die for the cause.

[Alex]

(Wdtabor) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Alex) writes:
>
> >
> >Also, why do you assume freedom = democracy? For most people, freedom
> >means to be left alone to live their lives any way they want. In your
> >case, that means a certain political system, a certain culture, a
> >certain moral system, etc. In the case of the arab world, it means
> >something different. Who is to say that this is wrong? You can't apply
> >your particular moral system to another culture.
> >
>
> This would be why everywhere they gain power over the indigents they impose
> Sahria?

So the US has gained power over Middle East and after that they
started imposing the "American Way"? Not so. The US wants to impose
its influence all over the world, particularly where economic
interests are involved. They do it because they can, which is, in my
opinion, very immoral.

But if you are so caritative that you want to help the world, what
about sending AIDS drugs and food to Africa? It would be much cheaper
and it would help many more people without killing anyone. So tell me,
why is the US not doing this? I'll tell you: because it isn't in the
interest of the US economic powers (read defense, oil, and
reconstruction bussinesses).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>...
> > "John Galban" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > That's a BS myth -- they were most definitely NOT indiscriminante.
> > > >
> > > Boy, I really hate to step into this thread, but there were
> > > incidents of what would be called "terrorism" today by the jewish
> > > factions in pre-Israeli palestine. The bombing of the King David
> > > Hotel in 1946 comes to mind.
> >
> > Better get some more info because that's (KD Hotel) one of the worst
myths.
> > British were warned repeatedly and well in advance and arrogantly
ignored
> > all the warnings.
>
> No Tom, it's not a myth. The bombing actually took place and it was
> done by a faction of the pro-jewish movement (IIRC, the Irgun). The
> bombers admitted their participation publicly.

That's not what I said.

>
> Using your logic, an action is not a terrorist action if you call
> and warn someone in advance.

I would say that's a fair estimate.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:tT66c.32343$_w.540027@attbi_s53...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I, for one, do not blame the Palestinians for fighting for their land.
>
> Unfortunately the Palestinians don't have any land. Never did. Israel
> did not kick the Palestinians out of present day Israel.
>
Most Palestinians came from Jordon...when they were kicked out.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Pm66c.32671$1p.495432@attbi_s54...
> > Well we do have an election in November and with their success in Spain
I
> > would very surprised if we don't have a major terrorism attempt in the
US
> in
> > October.
>
> You can bank on it, sadly.

Well, maybe not (the result, anyway). It's said, and rightfully so I
believe, that the only reason LBJ was elected, in 1964, was to refuse
justification for the JFK assassination.

At the time of his death JFK was looking at losing re-election; his
"satisfaction rating" was down around 30%. I wonder if that was a motivator
for LBJ?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:19:43 -0600, "Gig Giacona"
> > wrote:
>
> >Well we do have an election in November and with their success in Spain I
> >would very surprised if we don't have a major terrorism attempt in the US
in
> >October.
>
> The Democrats will be praying very hard against that possibility!

'Splain, please?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Tom,
>
> > > > And an effective alternative is...what?
> > >
> > > better intelligence work could have prevented 9/11 for a start.
> >
> > And what could we have done with that intelligence?
>
> arrest the would-be pilots before they board the plane?
>
> > I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies, and
> for
> > information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus.
>
> what are the various agencies there for, if not to provide information
> enabling such arrests?

Who is the arresting officer? The World Police Department?


> I appreciate that it's not an easy job. Yet in
> case of 9/11 it was found later, that such information was available.

And if it was? Send the Iraqi Secret Police to make the arrests?


>
> > > Or
> > > choosing our friends more wisely would be a good idea. E.g. not
> > > supplying terrorists like OBL with weapons just because at the
> moment
> > > they are shooting them at people we don't like.
> >
> > We supplied the Muhajeen with weapons to fight off the Soviets in
> > Afghanistan...that was a righteous fight. Oddly, we supplied the
> Soviets
> > with Lend-Lease equipment 40 yers earlier. using that formula, we'd
> never
> > had divorces between couple that once were in love but now want to
> kill each
> > other.
>
> It's not as if the Muhajeen had ever been in love with US or the West,
> nor vice versa. They welcomed the weapons, but it was not so
> unforseeable that they would just as well turn them against us.

We gave aid and weapons to South Korea and it did us very well. It turned
against us with the USSR and France, but not England.

Very little is forseeable -- hindsight is 20/20.



> > Who, under that measure, could we ever consider our "friends"?
>
> People who share our values, a common conception of human rights.
>
> > > Please note that I'm not ruling out military action as an option,
> if
> > > there is reason to believe that possible future terrorist acts can
> be
> > > prevented.
> >
> > Prevented how?
>
> arresting (or killing) the terrorists.

Who's going to make the arrests?

>
> > > Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
> > > openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet again!).
> >
> > What would "finish" that job in your view?
>
> To be honest, I don't know. Support in establishing a stable form of
> gouvernment and also development, I suppose. It is a very difficult
> job, that's for sure, but noone said it would be easy.

Well, how do we begin to "establish a stable from of government"?

BTW, recall that it took 6-8 years to get Japan and Germany back on their
feet after WW2.

> > > Iraq
> > > was never really about terrorism, was it?
> >
> > They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence, possibly
> funding.
>
> Did they? I haven't read about any finds that back up that claim.
> Wouldn't we know about that, given the short supply of WMDs as
> justification for the war?

It's out there...just not in the mainstream media.

For example, two of the 9/11 terrorists met with the head of Iraqi
Intelligence shortly before they came to the US.

>
> But even if this was the case: We should have much rather invaded Saudi
> Arabia if that was our motivation.

With the resistance we had going into an obvious target like Iraq, how much
more resistance would there have been going into Saudi Arabia?


> > For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region; for
> the
> > Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral, infidel"
> > society.
>
> Yes, I agree with that.

With all the hot air about 9/11 being based on various grievances about US
policy, it's "funny" that all their spokesmen said it was NOT the case. "You
worship life, while we worship death" doesn't sound like a policy gripe.

In short, they hate our liberty, our prosperity and our immorality --see the
thread about Brittany Spears :~)

[Jay Honeck]

> Then I hope the terrorists are better informed than most people in
> this group.

Now there is something I really don't want to hang our fate upon.

> > No one here says they're fighting Christianity, although that is the
> > under-current of the conversation. But their fight goes well beyond the
"US
> > and its allies." Rather, it encompasses all of Western civilization
and
> > Western morals and standards.
>
> It was explicitly stated that this was a religious war (see cites
> below).

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>...
> > We are in a religious war. We didn't choose it, but we've got it.

I think you are misinterpreting Dan's proclamation. We are in a "religious
war" of the terrorist's choosing -- not our own.

> What I percieve is that a lot of people in the US can't face that they
> are the target because that would mean they did something to deserve
> it, and that seems to be unthinkable.

Your logic escapes me. How does blowing up innocents on trains in Spain,
blowing up innocents in a night club in Bali, and blowing up innocents in a
hotel in Baghdad punish the U.S.? And how did those people "deserve" it?

If the tenuous connection is "they're all allied with the U.S." well, by
your logic this conflict will have to escalate shortly into a world war.

More importantly, nothing you have said should dissuade anyone from feeling
total and utter contempt for the animals who have perpetrated these
atrocities -- against ALL of humanity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> But if you are so caritative that you want to help the world, what
> about sending AIDS drugs and food to Africa? It would be much cheaper
> and it would help many more people without killing anyone. So tell me,
> why is the US not doing this? I'll tell you: because it isn't in the
> interest of the US economic powers (read defense, oil, and
> reconstruction bussinesses).

Guess again. The Bush Administration has proposed increasing aid to Africa
several times. This proposal has been met with overwhelming apathy by
Congress and the American electorate -- with good reason, IMHO.

The reason we don't excited about helping Africa anymore is because they
seem to have no interest in helping themselves.

In a very real sense, and in the eyes of many Americans, the Somali warlords
of Mogadishu sealed that continent's fate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Buuut with Spaniards gone and another three countries withdrawing
> their support, there would be BIIG problem. We are poor country and
> sending more troops would be very unpopular, while if we won't find
> replacement, the multinational division would become too weak to keep
> their job.
>
> We prefer term Central Europe from Eastern, BTW. There is more
> differences between Poles and Russian than between Poles and Germans.

Thanks for your perspective. It's great to hear from the Polish aviation
community!

And, may I be the first to say, "Welcome to the group!"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <HB66c.32444$Cb.525898@attbi_s51>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> (Same thing happened to the IRA, by the way. Had they held strictly to
> fighting the British, they might have pulled it off. Instead, they started
> blowing up innocent civilians, and lost public opinion worldwide.)

They (Sinn Fein) always had the ballot box, and never needed to resort
to violence.

Much of the violence in NI is purely religious hatred. No, it's not
Moslem against Christian. It's Catholic vs Protestant. They believe in
the same god and the same major revision of a particular religion, but
they still must kill each other over minor differences in beliefs.

NI doesn't just have Republican [0] terrorists, but it also has Loyalist
(pro-British rule) terrorists too (the whole group euphemistically known
as paramilitaries). Both sides have used unjustified violence.

[0] Not to be confused with the US Republican party

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, JohnMcGrew wrote:
> expected to loose by a wide margin before the attack. Most socialist parties
> and organizations have been far more friendly to the Islamic cause than anyone
> else. Expect similar just before the next election in Britain.

Let's see: Britain currently has a socialist (or at least
quasi-socialist) party in power at the moment: the Labour Party. The
Conservative Party is at least as gung-ho, if not more so about
supporting the United States. The 'special relationship' with the US
enjoys strong cross-party support in Britain. The terrorists would
likely just bring in a government with an even stronger resolve to keep
fighting.

I think those who say the Spanish changed the Government because of a
terrorist act are missing the point: the Spanish changed their
government because the one in power tried to lie and distort and spin
about the whole tragic affair and got caught. The Spanish didn't elect
the other lot to appease terrorists, they elected the other lot to
punish the incumbent for bare-faced lying.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> I think those who say the Spanish changed the Government because of a
> terrorist act are missing the point: the Spanish changed their
> government because the one in power tried to lie and distort and spin
> about the whole tragic affair and got caught.

Few, if any, have argued with that. The problem is that outfits like Al Quaida
will not see it this way. Even if their leaders do, they will fomulate in the
ranks the idea that their actions changed the election results and got Spanish
troops pulled out. Sorta like "Ok, you guys did real well last time, go do it
again somewhere else."

Now, if they perceive the Conservative Party as being more hawkish than Labour,
they probably will not try to influence the British elections this way, but the
way the media is beginning to spin the two parties here in the States, Al Quaida
might well feel that a victory by the Democrats would be advantageous. *If* they
come to that conclusion, they might also feel that another strike just before
the election would hand Kerry the presidency. That's two "ifs", but the Spanish
elections make that second if much more likely.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<8Ej6c.35875$po.318662@attbi_s52>...
> > But if you are so caritative that you want to help the world, what
> > about sending AIDS drugs and food to Africa? It would be much cheaper
> > and it would help many more people without killing anyone. So tell me,
> > why is the US not doing this? I'll tell you: because it isn't in the
> > interest of the US economic powers (read defense, oil, and
> > reconstruction bussinesses).
>
> Guess again. The Bush Administration has proposed increasing aid to Africa
> several times. This proposal has been met with overwhelming apathy by
> Congress and the American electorate -- with good reason, IMHO.
>
> The reason we don't excited about helping Africa anymore is because they
> seem to have no interest in helping themselves.
>
> In a very real sense, and in the eyes of many Americans, the Somali warlords
> of Mogadishu sealed that continent's fate.

Is that so? Why, then, are the brave american soldiers not fighting these warlords?

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:28R4c.9172$_w.267371@attbi_s53...
> > I don't agree, Jay. I doubt the perpetrators of the explosions in
Madrid
> give
> > a damn what the Spaniards think of them. Do you think they expected
their
> > actions to endear them?
>
> If not to rally men to their cause, for what purpose then?

To rally people against their cause. If they can force the "enemy" into
lashing
out against some state or culture, their cause gets furthered as more and
more
people of those states get affected by the invasion by the foreign state.

> Ultimately, this is about who is in control. Without the masses, the
> terrorists lose.

Unfortunately, nothing rallies the masses like an (offten seen as
unprovoked)
attack from a foreign state.

Paul

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<hzj6c.35852$po.317804@attbi_s52>...
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > We are in a religious war. We didn't choose it, but we've got it.
>
> I think you are misinterpreting Dan's proclamation. We are in a "religious
> war" of the terrorist's choosing -- not our own.

I am arguing that the terrorists are not fighting a religious war, but
a political one.

> > What I percieve is that a lot of people in the US can't face that they
> > are the target because that would mean they did something to deserve
> > it, and that seems to be unthinkable.
>
> Your logic escapes me. How does blowing up innocents on trains in Spain,
> blowing up innocents in a night club in Bali, and blowing up innocents in a
> hotel in Baghdad punish the U.S.? And how did those people "deserve" it?
> If the tenuous connection is "they're all allied with the U.S." well, by
> your logic this conflict will have to escalate shortly into a world war.

You actually think the rest of the world is allied to the US??? You
must be kidding, right? Tell me, how many terrorist attacks have you
seen on Swizerland? Oh, but they are a democracy, aren't they? They
are a "western nation", aren't they? They share your values, don't
they? They treat their women as equals, don't they?

And I wouldn't call it a "tenuous connection". It is exactly what
Al-Quaeda says they're doing, and it is exactly what they *are* doing.
But it doesn't matter, people in the US just don't want to see it.
They cannot see themselves as "the bad guys", no matter how many
millions in the world scream in despair. Of course I am not saying the
terrorists are the good guys, but they *are* rational, and they *have*
a motive, and no, it has nothing to do with religion, as much as the
US is rational about this war, and they have a motive, and no, it has
nothing to do with freedom. Both the religion and the freedom
"motives" are nothing but propaganda on both sides. You chose to
believe it. Did you also buy the WMD argument?

> More importantly, nothing you have said should dissuade anyone from feeling
> total and utter contempt for the animals who have perpetrated these
> atrocities -- against ALL of humanity.

Of course not!!!!!!!!!!! As much as I hate what the US has done to so
many countries, I felt absolutely horrified when WTC happened, and I
also felt terribly sorry for the Spaniards, and I totally adhere to
your original statement "We Are All Spaniards"!!! Terrorists attack
innocent people, regardless what their governments have done, and they
DONT deserve it!

I am not by any means trying to justify terrorism, I am only trying
explain what I percieve is a very narrow and self-centerd view of what
is happening. and that this view is causing more harm than good.

[Gig Giacona]

"Alex" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:<8Ej6c.35875$po.318662@attbi_s52>...
> > > But if you are so caritative that you want to help the world, what
> > > about sending AIDS drugs and food to Africa? It would be much cheaper
> > > and it would help many more people without killing anyone. So tell me,
> > > why is the US not doing this? I'll tell you: because it isn't in the
> > > interest of the US economic powers (read defense, oil, and
> > > reconstruction bussinesses).
> >
> > Guess again. The Bush Administration has proposed increasing aid to
Africa
> > several times. This proposal has been met with overwhelming apathy by
> > Congress and the American electorate -- with good reason, IMHO.
> >
> > The reason we don't excited about helping Africa anymore is because they
> > seem to have no interest in helping themselves.
> >
> > In a very real sense, and in the eyes of many Americans, the Somali
warlords
> > of Mogadishu sealed that continent's fate.
>
> Is that so? Why, then, are the brave american soldiers not fighting these
warlords?


We did or should I say 2 ex-presidents ordered the US Military, in a very
half-ass way, to do just that. A number of troops got their ass handed to
them. The prevailing read on the US people's opinion at the time was Africa
can just implode. This is probability a pretty accurate judgment.

I always find it interesting that people who think the US shouldn't get
involved in foreign entanglements jump at the idea of us helping countries
where we don't have a damn thing to gain.

20 to 30 years from now everybody (US, EU) can go in and pick over the
ashes.

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<xU66c.32731$1p.498199@attbi_s54>...
> > You know, it is that "and our other allies" part that bothers me. The
> > infamous "either you are with us, or you are against us" BS. Reality
> > is rarely black and white. Zapatero said he will withdraw his forces
> > from Irak. Will you stand with Spain after that? Will the victims
> > still deserve your sympathy? Or will the mother of that student who
> > was blown to bits become your instant enemy?
>
> Welcome to the world. The Islamofascists leave little wiggle room on this
> subject.

Sorry, I lost you here...

> As far as I'm concerned, the victims will always deserve our sympathy. All
> the more so after their government ceases to be our ally.

Ok, I'm glad you think that way.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most Palestinians came from Jordon...when they were kicked out.
>

Jordanians ARE Palestinians.

[Rosspilot]

>> I, for one, do not blame the Palestinians for fighting for their land.
>
>Unfortunately the Palestinians don't have any land. Never did. Israel
>did not kick the Palestinians out of present day Israel.

Not only that, but there really is NO SUCH thing as the Palestinian people.
They are Arabs. Period.



www.Rosspilot.com

[Dave Stadt]

"Alex" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:<8Ej6c.35875$po.318662@attbi_s52>...
> > > But if you are so caritative that you want to help the world, what
> > > about sending AIDS drugs and food to Africa? It would be much cheaper
> > > and it would help many more people without killing anyone. So tell me,
> > > why is the US not doing this? I'll tell you: because it isn't in the
> > > interest of the US economic powers (read defense, oil, and
> > > reconstruction bussinesses).
> >
> > Guess again. The Bush Administration has proposed increasing aid to
Africa
> > several times. This proposal has been met with overwhelming apathy by
> > Congress and the American electorate -- with good reason, IMHO.
> >
> > The reason we don't excited about helping Africa anymore is because they
> > seem to have no interest in helping themselves.
> >
> > In a very real sense, and in the eyes of many Americans, the Somali
warlords
> > of Mogadishu sealed that continent's fate.
>
> Is that so? Why, then, are the brave american soldiers not fighting these
warlords?

Because there is no oil or any other economic reason to do so.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Tom,

> > > And what could we have done with that intelligence?
> >
> > arrest the would-be pilots before they board the plane?
> >
> > > I would guess you realize it's not like in the James Bond movies,
and
> > for
> > > information to be even moderately accurate is a bonus.
> >
> > what are the various agencies there for, if not to provide
information
> > enabling such arrests?
>
> Who is the arresting officer? The World Police Department?

Why? The terrorists boarded the planes in the US.

> > I appreciate that it's not an easy job. Yet in
> > case of 9/11 it was found later, that such information was
available.
>
> And if it was? Send the Iraqi Secret Police to make the arrests?

see above.

The terrorists have spent prolonged time in Germany and the US.

> > > > Afghanistan was justified in my view, given that the taliban
> > > > openly supported OBL, only the job was not finished (yet
again!).
> > >
> > > What would "finish" that job in your view?
> >
> > To be honest, I don't know. Support in establishing a stable form
of
> > gouvernment and also development, I suppose. It is a very difficult
> > job, that's for sure, but noone said it would be easy.
>
> Well, how do we begin to "establish a stable from of government"?

> BTW, recall that it took 6-8 years to get Japan and Germany back on
their
> feet after WW2.

Yes exactly. That's what I would call a finished Job and I'm very
grateful for that.

> > > They supplied equipment, training, military intelligence,
possibly
> > funding.
> >
> > Did they? I haven't read about any finds that back up that claim.
> > Wouldn't we know about that, given the short supply of WMDs as
> > justification for the war?
>
> It's out there...just not in the mainstream media.
>
> For example, two of the 9/11 terrorists met with the head of Iraqi
> Intelligence shortly before they came to the US.

> >
> > But even if this was the case: We should have much rather invaded
Saudi
> > Arabia if that was our motivation.
>
> With the resistance we had going into an obvious target like Iraq,
how much
> more resistance would there have been going into Saudi Arabia?

Go after a secondary target, when the main support for Al Quaida comes
from somewhere else? You really believe that this is going to help
much?

> > > For Iraq, the US was the hurdle to his domination of the region;
for
> > the
> > > Islamic fundelemtalists, it was our open, free and "immoral,
infidel"
> > > society.
> >
> > Yes, I agree with that.
>
> With all the hot air about 9/11 being based on various grievances
about US
> policy, it's "funny" that all their spokesmen said it was NOT the
case.

I'm obviously not a spokesman. I never blamed US policy for terrorism
in that way. While it is true, that these "grievances" are felt by some
Arabs, I certainly don't consider them justified. Unfortunately, if
played rightly by people like OBL, they can nonetheless be turned into
a burning desire to kill and hurt. Anything that will increase those
feelings, how unjustified they may be, will play right into OBLs hands.

I still believe that the war on Iraq did if anything raise the threat
of terrorism. Not because it was not in some way justifyable by the way
Saddam ridiculed the UN over the last 10 years and uncertainty about
his military potential, but because it humiliated the Arabs yet again,
while not significantly hurting the supplies of OBL.

> In short, they hate our liberty, our prosperity and our
immorality --see the
> thread about Brittany Spears :~)

Again, there is a lot of truth in that :-)

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen." from my adress

[Dan Luke]

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> Actually, it's all about Brittany Spears.
>
> Their sons, and worse, their daughters, think Brittany is cool.

So that's it: they're fighting against mediocrity and bad taste. I may
change my sympathies.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dan Luke]

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> We look at the movement of Islamofascism as the enemy, and not
> just individual governments. Under that view, Iraq is a legitimate
> strategic target. Iraq did not topple the WTC, but ...Taking Iraq
> first minimzes the number of Moslems we will have to kill to win
> this war.

I find this argument illogical. Before the war, Saddam had radical
Islamists, "Islamofascists," to use your word, under tighter control
than in any other predominantly Muslim country - hell, he was
exterminating them. Now, the lid is off: we have handed the the
radicals a golden opportunity. They are already taking full advantage of
it by organizing and proselytizing masses of followers, something
unthinkable before the invasion. All this was foreseeable. The invasion
was folly; our enemies have been much enriched by it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[a.d.danilecki]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<BHj6c.35891$po.318662@attbi_s52>...

> Thanks for your perspective. It's great to hear from the Polish aviation
> community!
>
> And, may I be the first to say, "Welcome to the group!"

Thank you - but i am not member of the group, i am just lurking here
from time to time, but my interest in piloting is platonic :) It's
just this time, when i saw this thread, i couldn't abstain to mail :)

[Cub Driver]

>Let's see: Britain currently has a socialist (or at least
>quasi-socialist) party in power at the moment: the Labour Party. The
>Conservative Party is at least as gung-ho, if not more so about
>supporting the United States. The 'special relationship' with the US
>enjoys strong cross-party support in Britain. The terrorists would
>likely just bring in a government with an even stronger resolve to keep
>fighting.

Nobody ever said that they were smart.

But still, taking down Blair would be considered a great
accomplishment. They are likely to accomplish that without bombing a
railroad: Labour may well do it for them.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On 18 Mar 2004 03:22:01 -0800, (a.d.danilecki)
wrote:

>We prefer term Central Europe from Eastern, BTW. There is more
>differences between Poles and Russian than between Poles and Germans.

Fascinating how the center of geography has shifted east. It wasn't so
long ago that Berlin was in Eastern Europe, never mind Warsaw.

Poles must find this some comfort after 1945, when the entire nation
was moved to the west (aka "the country on rollerskates").


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Jay Honeck]

> Thank you - but i am not member of the group, i am just lurking here
> from time to time, but my interest in piloting is platonic :)

Lurkers are "members" of this group, too.

And c'mon over to Iowa -- we'll get you into the left seat of an airplane,
pronto!

> It's just this time, when i saw this thread, i couldn't abstain to mail :)

I understand. Happens to me all the time!

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

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<D8r6c.36932$Cb.563433@attbi_s51>...
> > I am not by any means trying to justify terrorism, I am only trying
> > explain what I percieve is a very narrow and self-centerd view of what
> > is happening. and that this view is causing more harm than good.
>
> Okay, Alex, please explain how, in your view, the U.S. has created the
> Islamic terrorists. What have we done, as a nation, to foment terror?

I didn't say the US has created the terrorists; they are responsible
for their own actions. But I believe the US has given them a motive.
I'll repeat my earlier attempt to explain myself:

The US has been interfering with governments all over the world for
many decades. Some very exceptional and highly publized interventions
end up well (WW2). But most of them lead directly or indirectly to
poverty, famine and general misery (Lat.America). In most of these
places the people just sigh and go on in their daily struggle to
survive... Some have mixed feelings because they have the rare
privilege of having access to the US-produced goods.

Maybe the US interventions in the Middle East have been much more
unbearable, or maybe the people there aren't so sheepish and they
fight back.

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<pP66c.32334$_w.539962@attbi_s53>...
> No one is applying a "moral system" to another culture -- we are saying that
> democracy is what freedom *is* all about. This crosses all ethnic,
> religious, and cultural boundaries.

I was about to say that democracy is a particular instance of many
possible freedoms, and I sincerely believe so, but I have to admit
that the universal declaration of human rights, in its article 21,
explicitly states that democracy (although it doesn't name it) is a
human right. So I accept your position.

> How do YOU define "freedom," if not freedom from tyranny?

Please don't tell me you believe that the US is against tyrannies! You
can't be so naive!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Most Palestinians came from Jordon...when they were kicked out.
> >
>
> Jordanians ARE Palestinians.
>
??? IIRC, "Palestine" is a subset.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Alex,


> > The terrorists must now perceive that elections and troop
> > deployments can be influenced by indiscriminate attacks on innocent
"soft"
> > targets.
>
> Then I hope the terrorists are better informed than most people in
> this group.

You are not really thinking this to be remotely possible, are you? The
average terrorist does not posess much more information about world
affairs than what his leaders choose to tell him. While OBL might be
aware of the political situation in Spain and the little support the
military involvement had already before the attack, his troops
certainly only "know" exactly what was stated above: The attack got the
spanish troops out of Iraq, because we frightened them proper. It was a
great victory for holy Islam.

A very bad thing.

> What I percieve is that a lot of people in the US can't face that
they
> are the target because that would mean they did something to deserve
> it, and that seems to be unthinkable.

What makes you think, that if someone is a target, it definitely means,
he deserves it???

If you are shot by a criminal, you obviously deserve it?? Now that's a
strange kind of logic.

regards,
Friedrich

[Frank]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> > As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in terms
>> > of the war on terror, I have to agree with you and Jay here.
>>
>> the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do (at least in the first months)
>> with terrorism. It was to enforce the search on WMD and maybe a little
>> bit
> against
>> Saddam Hussein and his regime (originally fundend by whom?).
>
> Whether we agree on this point or not is irrelevant.
>
> What is relevant is what the terrorists perceive. They have now seen
> that "Bomb+Massive Casualties=Troops out of the Middle East."
>
> No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much
> more vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.

....there is nothing good here, indeed.

So what were the Spanish supposed to do? On the one hand we acknowledge that
the real reason they voted out the incumbent is they were dissatisfied -
which, of course, is just democracy in action. On the other hand we believe
the terrorists preceive the election results as a victory for their side.

Seems like the only alternative left would be for the Spanish to vote for a
government they didn't want.

No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. (C. Jay Honeck)

--
Frank....H

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
>
> ...there is nothing good here, indeed.
>
> So what were the Spanish supposed to do? On the one hand we acknowledge
that
> the real reason they voted out the incumbent is they were dissatisfied -
> which, of course, is just democracy in action. On the other hand we
believe
> the terrorists preceive the election results as a victory for their side.
>
> Seems like the only alternative left would be for the Spanish to vote for
a
> government they didn't want.
>

The government voted out had a substantial lead in the polls prior to the
attack.

[Frank]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Some
>> people have said that in a way Al Quaida has already won in the sad
>> sense, that much of the freedom that the US stood for (and freedom is
>> what these people hate most) in the past has vanished already.
>
> That's nonsense. Let's not play up the hyperbole *too* much, okay?
>
> Bush-haters would have you (and everyone else) believe that our basic
> freedoms have been infringed upon in some demonic way, in order to root
> out
> Osama, and that America has already lost the war on terror. Nothing could
> be further from the truth.
>
> Let's step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and analyze what has
> really changed in our day-to-day lives:
>
> 1. We now have to arrive at the airport 2 hours early when we fly
> commercially. (Formerly it was 1 hour.)
> 2. TFRs pop up occasionally when the President travels.
> 3. Ah, um, hmm.... *Surely* there must be *something* else?

How about the fact that dissent has now become equated with treason. It is
now (apparently) once again justifiable to use force to break up lawful,
peaceful protest.

Or that government officials now can now get away with unprecedented secrecy
in all sorts of matters just by whispering "terrorist threat" three times.

I agree that sweeping statements such as the above a bit over the top. But
equally over the top are sweeping statements such as yours that suggest
that the everything is fine and anyone who thinks otherwise can be
dismissed as raving.



> Not. Precisely NOTHING of consequence has changed. Those first two
> items
> impact a tiny, tiny percentage of our society. 99% of Americans don't
> notice any difference between pre- and post-9/11 America -- because there
> ARE no meaningful changes.
>
> Behind the scenes, "power-to-investigate" kind of stuff *has* changed --
> but
> these don't effect most people in any but the most peripheral way. And
> most of THAT impact is philosophical.

I know you're old enough to have seen what happens when the power to
investigate is abused. The lessons from J.Edgar come to mind.

The search and seizure type protections are there to protect the innocent.
(As are all our constitutional rights.) It's not enough, indeed it is
un-american, to justify removing protections on the basis that "most"
aren't affected. (Caution: Sweeping statement ahead.) None are free unless
all are free!

>
>> Yes, we all of the free societies must stand together to fight this
>> threat. But to believe that the threat of terrorism can be overcome by
>> increasing security and military action more and more will lead to the
>> destruction of precisely what we want to defend, the free society.
>
> I take comfort from the fact that we were able to beat the Japanese in
> World War II -- perhaps the single most warped, hateful, suicidal society
> in the
> history of the world -- and eventually become allies with them. Hell, if
> *that* can happen, anything can.
>
> In this war, the trick is to do PRECISELY what Bush has been doing --
> fight
> terrorists where *they* live.

I'm sure you think I'm a "Bush-hater", and to some extent you're right. But
it's not that I disagree with what he's done so much as I think he's
bungled it so badly.

If that means Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq,
> or the entire Middle East, well, that scenario sure beats waiting until
> the *******s put bombs on trains in Chicago, or kill a busload of school
> kids in Des Moines.
>
> Bottom line: When you're rooting out an insect infestation, you don't just
> kill the roaches in your kitchen -- you go after the nest.

It's just too simplistic to think that if we can just kill another 10, 20
200, 5000 (or whatever number you think exist) terrorists we can all go
home, pat ourselves on the back, and have a beer. If it were true then we
should all feel safer now than 18 months ago. If it were true then West
Bank tourism would be on the rise.

We (the world) will only defeat terrorism if we treat it as a problem to be
solved rather than a war to be won. In some cases force will be effective.
In some cases humamitarian efforts will do more. In some cases we may have
to swallow some unpleasantness and do something we'd rather not. In all
cases we should be looking to measure the results to see if we really are
being effective.

--
Frank....H

[Frank]

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "S Green" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> > The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American
>> > Independence took place in America.
>>
>> So what of the native Americans. After all the so called Freedom fighters
>> were the colonialists. They secured independence and then began a
> genocidal
>> assault on the native Americans.
>> Perhaps the raiding parties and attacks by the Indians were the natives
>> trying to secure their rights to live their lives in peace.
>>
>> Maybe that does not count?
>>
>>
>
> I know of no Americans who excuse what was done to the Indians. However,
> your description of what happened is extremely simplistic, ignoring
> efforts by European powers to arm the Indians and foment uprising by them.
>
> Are you seriously arguing that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are fighting
> for the independence of some country? Or that they are trying to institute
> democracy among their people? Are you suggesting that the United States,
> Spain, and other countries deserve to be attacked by terrorists?

The best example of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
today is the whole Israel/Palestine mess. The Palestinians have many
legitemite beefs and in that respect are certainly fighting for their
freedom. But their message is largely lost by their continued use of such
deplorable tactics. Israel is just as culpable for stirring the pot, they
certainly understand that it is in their interests to keep that terrorist
label intact.

--
Frank....H

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
>
> The Palestinians have many legitemite beefs and in that respect
> are certainly fighting for their freedom.
>

In what way are they fighting for their freedom?

[Alex]

"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message >...
> > Then I hope the terrorists are better informed than most people in
> > this group.
>
> You are not really thinking this to be remotely possible, are you? The
> average terrorist does not posess much more information about world
> affairs than what his leaders choose to tell him. While OBL might be
> aware of the political situation in Spain and the little support the
> military involvement had already before the attack, his troops
> certainly only "know" exactly what was stated above: The attack got the
> spanish troops out of Iraq, because we frightened them proper. It was a
> great victory for holy Islam.

I don't know... maybe they read the papers?

I think you can safely bet that Al-Quaeda operatives are highly
trained, intelligent people. WTC wasn't done by brute force. It's nice
to think that the enemy is crazy and attacks randomly and is
illiterate. It's difficult to accept that an intelligent person would
have a motive to kill hundreds of inocents. Of course, a motive valid
for him, in his frame of reference. The problem is precisely this:
understanding their frame of reference. What I see here is that people
don't want to do the effort. So they accept whatever their government
tells them (WMD) in order to rationalize the vengeance they feel they
have a right to (and I'm not saying they don't).

But some people stop and try to get a broader perspective, to rise
above the hatred and thirst of vengeance. Maybe if enough people do
that, then this madness can stop. I think the Spaniards have done just
that. They were brave enough to put an end to it, even when they could
have reacted with violence the way the US did. They did the right
thing and I admire them for that.

I only wish Jay's subject line were true.

> What makes you think, that if someone is a target, it definitely means,
> he deserves it???
> If you are shot by a criminal, you obviously deserve it?? Now that's a
> strange kind of logic.

Of course not. I don't think innocent people deserved to be killed.
But I do think the US governments have done great harm to people
throughout the world, and that they are now recieving a reaction to
some of it. That doesn't mean that the US deserved WTC. Only that
there may be a logic (however sick) behind it.

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "Frank" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > ...there is nothing good here, indeed.
> >
> > So what were the Spanish supposed to do? On the one hand we acknowledge
> that
> > the real reason they voted out the incumbent is they were dissatisfied -
> > which, of course, is just democracy in action. On the other hand we
> believe
> > the terrorists preceive the election results as a victory for their
side.
> >
> > Seems like the only alternative left would be for the Spanish to vote
for
> a
> > government they didn't want.
> >
>
> The government voted out had a substantial lead in the polls prior to the
> attack.
>

As did Dean before the primaries. What's your point? We should appoint
politicians based on polls?

[Dave Stadt]

"Alex" > wrote in message
om...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:<D8r6c.36932$Cb.563433@attbi_s51>...
> > > I am not by any means trying to justify terrorism, I am only trying
> > > explain what I percieve is a very narrow and self-centerd view of what
> > > is happening. and that this view is causing more harm than good.
> >
> > Okay, Alex, please explain how, in your view, the U.S. has created the
> > Islamic terrorists. What have we done, as a nation, to foment terror?
>
> I didn't say the US has created the terrorists; they are responsible
> for their own actions. But I believe the US has given them a motive.
> I'll repeat my earlier attempt to explain myself:
>
> The US has been interfering with governments all over the world for
> many decades. Some very exceptional and highly publized interventions
> end up well (WW2). But most of them lead directly or indirectly to
> poverty, famine and general misery (Lat.America).

Don't even have to leave the country. Look at the fine job we have done
with the American Indians.

[pacplyer]

(Alex) wrote

> I hope so. What I don't know, is whose freedom will eventually win.

pac sez:

Yes, this is the question. Do the ragheads have the freedom to be
left alone in their own countries in their own caves to torture
victims, rape women, burn books and kill media reporters? Not if our
bleeding heart liberals and lawyers have anything to say about it.
This is more than just a fight about religion. It's a fight about
keeping Western ideas out of the new "iron/sand" curtain of Islam. Al
Quieda is just using religion to add steam to the jihad. It's also a
fight about pussy. Over here you essentially have to buy it; over
there you grab it and make it afraid of you. If that doesn't work,
relax, you'll get more virgins than you know what to do with when you
die. It's also a fight against the "haves." International
corporations have been screwing those peasants for years by exploiting
labor for a dollar a day without offering any employment benifits
whatsoever. But don't feel exploited by the U.S. and it's
unscrupulous captains of international industry (like Cheney.) You
can always quit your job and move into the sand. Tyranny was a lot
worse in the Brittish and Roman Empires. You didn't get any choice
there.

What I don't understand is why are we wasting money rebuilding Iraq?
We're just going to have to go back and bomb it in a few years from
now anyway. Those Bathist control freaks are just fading into the
crowd until we leave. The day we're gone, they'll pop out of the
woodwork, burn US flags and crank up the mass grave backhoes again.

Freedom Alex, is exactly what the sole remaining superpower says it
is. Unlike most Americans, I don't believe that everyone deserves it.
I think a population has to be brave enough to overthrow their own
despots. I think Jay is right about random bombers. Kill them all.
Issue a new deck of terrorist cards and make those cards redeemable
for large amounts of compensation when they are returned along with
said terrrorist's head in a sack.

The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
standard of living here and we are truely free to enjoy life, liberty,
and the pursuit of flying little airplanes. I shutter to think what
would happen to me if I wrote the above in downtown Tehran. (which is
the next place we need to take off the map.)

pacplyer - out

[Judah]

They are fighting for the freedom to control Jerusalem again.



"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
.net:

>
> "Frank" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> The Palestinians have many legitemite beefs and in that respect
>> are certainly fighting for their freedom.
>>
>
> In what way are they fighting for their freedom?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> As did Dean before the primaries. What's your point? We should
> appoint politicians based on polls?
>

The previous poster said the real reason the incumbent party was voted out
was because the Spaniards were dissatisfied with them. But the incumbent
party had a large lead in the polls just prior to the attack, so that seems
unlikely. That's the point.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> They are fighting for the freedom to control Jerusalem again.
>

So their goal is conquest then.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> ??? IIRC, "Palestine" is a subset.
>

A subset of what?

In 1923 the British separated the Palestine Mandate at the Jordan River.
The portion of Palestine east of the Jordan, about three fourths of the
total area, became Transjordan and Jews were not permitted to settle there.
A few years later the British added the area of desert connecting
Transjordan with Iraq. In 1946 Transjordan became an independent nation and
was renamed Jordan.

[S Green]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Ol56c.33452$po.294444@attbi_s52...
>
>
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> > "S Green" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>How many Americans register to vote and how many actually do? Democracy
> >>means fig all when you are struggling to survive when others get fat
through
> >>abusing the democratic processes.
> >
> >
> > democracy is dictatorship of the majority.
>
>
>
> Which is why we don't have that here.

No its dictatorship by the minority

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Yw66c.32304$_w.539101@attbi_s53...
> > >1. Spaniards changed their vote not because of terror, but because the
> > >government manipulated the information regarding the terror attacks
> > >and tried to mislead the people for their own advantage (ring a
> > >bell?).
>
> If you read the entire thread, you will find that you have missed this
> salient point: It doesn't matter one whit if the Spanish voted for the
> Socialists because they were influenced by Martians. Rather, what matters
> is this: The terrorists must now perceive that elections and troop
> deployments can be influenced by indiscriminate attacks on innocent "soft"
> targets.

The terrorists are not stupid, they know why the voted as they did and will
not delude themselves. You delude yourself that the terrorists are dim
enough not realise that.

I cannot honestly believe that you think that the Spanish people should have
voted to re elect a self confessed government of liars and cheats just to
look hard.

The vote is the only weapon we have to punish politicians.

The politicians cocked it up not the Spanish people just as the politicians
have cocked up the whole war against terror/Iraq with their lies and
economies with the truth.

[Teacherjh]

>>
> They are fighting for the freedom to control Jerusalem again.

So their goal is conquest then.
<<

Is it conquest to take back what was taken from you? Is it theft to take back
what was stolen from you?

Of course you go back far enough everything was stolen. But if no action is
taken, the strip stays on the console.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is it conquest to take back what was taken from you? Is it theft to
> take back what was stolen from you?
>

What was stolen? Who took it?

[Teacherjh]

>>
> Is it conquest to take back what was taken from you? Is it theft to
> take back what was stolen from you?

What was stolen? Who took it? [re: Palastinians]
<<

I don't know. However I believe that the Palistinians believe that their land
was stolen from them and they want it back. Everyone seems to have a claim on
the Holy Land, and everyone believes that the other's claims are invalid.

I don't know which is right (and don't want to get into the specifics here).
The question stands as above - in theory, if some country conquers land, and
the conquered nation attempts to take it back, would you characterize this
attempt as an attempt at conquest?

Knowing how you are using the words helps avoid misunderstanding them.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know. However I believe that the Palistinians believe that
> their land was stolen from them and they want it back.
>

It wasn't stolen, they abandoned it. The Jews forced no Arabs off their
land. Many Arabs, those that are referred to as Palestinians, abandoned
their land in 1948 at the behest of their fellow Arabs in Jordan, Syria,
etc. They were to leave while the Arab states forced the Jews off their
lands and drove them into the sea, then the Arabs would return and have all
of the land. Israel would not exist. But the Arabs lost the war, and those
that had abandoned their land within the new state of Israel were now
homeless. The Arabs that didn't abandon their land are now citizens of
Israel. They vote, hold seats in the Knesset, and have the highest standard
of living among any Arabs in the world. Other than the relative few that
control large quantities of oil, of course.

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > As did Dean before the primaries. What's your point? We should
> > appoint politicians based on polls?
> >
>
> The previous poster said the real reason the incumbent party was voted out
> was because the Spaniards were dissatisfied with them. But the incumbent
> party had a large lead in the polls just prior to the attack, so that
seems
> unlikely. That's the point.

The incumbent party got caught in some major lies just before the election.
Based on that the results are not surprising at all.

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:14:05 -0600, Frank wrote:

>We (the world) will only defeat terrorism if we treat it as a problem to be
>solved rather than a war to be won. In some cases force will be effective.
>In some cases humamitarian efforts will do more. In some cases we may have
>to swallow some unpleasantness and do something we'd rather not. In all
>cases we should be looking to measure the results to see if we really are
>being effective.

well put.

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On 19 Mar 2004 16:18:08 -0800, pacplyer wrote:

>Freedom Alex, is exactly what the sole remaining superpower says it
>is. Unlike most Americans, I don't believe that everyone deserves it.

Freedom has to be earned.

> I think a population has to be brave enough to overthrow their own
>despots. I think Jay is right about random bombers. Kill them all.
>Issue a new deck of terrorist cards and make those cards redeemable
>for large amounts of compensation when they are returned along with
>said terrrorist's head in a sack.

well, and who makes the list and who makes one a terrorist? CIA? FBI? NATO?
EU? Vatican? The mayor of Otumba, IO?

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On 19 Mar 2004 16:18:08 -0800, pacplyer wrote:

>The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
>standard of living here

thre are many countries with a higher standard.

> and we are truely free to enjoy life, liberty,
>and the pursuit of flying little airplanes.

true

> I shutter to think what
>would happen to me if I wrote the above in downtown Tehran.

you would not make many friends.

>(which is
>the next place we need to take off the map.)

says who? and why should one wonder if some guy in Teheran thinks the same
about NY?

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:41:24 -0000, S Green wrote:

>
>The politicians cocked it up not the Spanish people just as the politicians
>have cocked up the whole war against terror/Iraq with their lies and
>economies with the truth.
>

And as the old government in Spain wanted to shed some light on the issue
they blamed intelligence for their bad work. Now, does this sound familiar?

#m

--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> I bet the British at the time would have disagreed with you. I am certain
> they believed the American rebels / freedom fighters were terrorists.
>

Why is that? Did the Americans attack civilians in Britain?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
>
> I can probably find sources that would indicate that innocent people
> were killed in many wars for independence. But that is not the point.
>
> I think you missed my point. People like you and I absolutely recognize
> the agenda of the Arab terrorists, and the Arab nations that sponsor them
> (some of whom we call "allies"). But the agenda of these terrorists must
> not be clear to many people because there are still people out there,
> like the poster to whom I replied and at least one other in this thread,
> who believe that the way to stop terrorism is to change foreign policy
> and "keep our nose out of other country's business."
>

Well, we should be keeping our nose out of other country's business.
That's got nothing to do with terrorism.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Judah > wrote in message >...
>
> In the eyes of Radical Islamists? Are you kidding?
>
> Israel - it exists
> UK - it gave the land to Israel
>

How much land did the UK give to the Arabs?

[C J Campbell]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
> How many Americans register to vote and how many actually do?

Depends on whether you live in Chicago or not...

Frankly, it is the totalitarian dictatorships that get high voter turnout.
If you are free you may not feel the need to vote -- a lot of people don't
feel strongly one way or another and they like it that way.

Low voter turnout is a symptom of freedom, not the denial of it.

I realize that this goes against the political parties which encourage high
voter turnout in order to validate their 'mandate.' But the fact is that in
America people don't vote unless the government steps on their toes.

It only seems right to me that those who care the most about issues are the
ones who vote and have the most say.

[C J Campbell]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> > They are fighting for the freedom to control Jerusalem again.
>
> So their goal is conquest then.
> <<
>
> Is it conquest to take back what was taken from you? Is it theft to take
back
> what was stolen from you?
>

Israel is the only country that has ever been there. It has been ruled by
various colonial powers from time to time. The Romans called the area
'Palestine' after the extinct Philistines in order to insult the Jews living
there. But it has always been basically the same country.

The 'Palestinians' are an Arabic tribe that is neither native to the area
nor have they ever had a national identity. Their goal is conquest in a vain
attempt to restore the great Islamic empire that held Israel in subjugation
during the Middle Ages.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > They are fighting for the freedom to control Jerusalem again.
>
> So their goal is conquest then.

No, it's reversal of conquest.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, it's reversal of conquest.
>

Oh? What conquest do they seek to reverse?

[Judah]

Depends how far back you go...

Prior to 1967, it was supposed to be controlled by the UN.

Prior to 1948, it was controlled by The British Empire.

Before that, the Turkish Ottoman Empire...

It has been controled by Romans and Babylonians, too.

If you trace it back far enough, you will find it was controlled by some
Giants. And one book even refers to a guy who killed a Ram and had a meal
there with his son - before there even were Jews or Arabs.

Of course, all that is about as relevant as Spain, Britian and France
making their claims on their respective parts of the US.



"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
:

>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>>
>> "Judah" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > They are fighting for the freedom to control Jerusalem again.
>>
>> So their goal is conquest then.
>
> No, it's reversal of conquest.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot
> that would
> not yield to the tongue.

[Judah]

You don't have to convince me. But I'm not an Arab. I'm just trying to
help people see the mind of the Arab terrorist supporters.

To Arab terrorists and their supporters, it doesn't matter that the Arabs
have endless miles of desert that was given to them by the UK after it
won the land from the Ottomans.

To Arab terrorists and their supporters, Israel is their land, and the
Jews who control it need to be pushed back into the sea at all costs. It
was the promise that was made to them by their parents in 1967 when they
left.

And in their mind, anyone who disagrees with them is an Infidel who
deserves to be killed in the name of Allah. That is how they justify
murdering innocent people with suicide bombs.


So you see, if we sit quietly and keep our nose out of the other
country's business, it will only be a matter of time that the Arabs come
after us anyway. Except when they finally do they will be more powerful,
and they won't need to attack us in pot-shots like spiders in the woods.


To illustrate the long term of your plan, consider what would have
happened had we kept our nose out of Hitler's business during WWII. Sure
it's possible that he would never have made it all the way here and would
have just left us alone. Maybe he would have figured that the US was not
interesting enough to be a part of his conquest.

But if he wanted the US, and we had just sat idly by while he
Blitzkrieged all of Europe and Russia, do you think we would have had a
chance against him when he was ready to come up on our shores? With no
help from the Allies who we watched as he slaughtered them?



(Steven P. McNicoll) wrote in
om:

> Judah > wrote in message
> >...
>>
>> In the eyes of Radical Islamists? Are you kidding?
>>
>> Israel - it exists
>> UK - it gave the land to Israel
>>
>
> How much land did the UK give to the Arabs?
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No, it's reversal of conquest.
>
> Oh? What conquest do they seek to reverse?

They want back the territory lost in the '67 war.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> They want back the territory lost in the '67 war.
>

So it's not a reversal of conquest they seek.

[Jay Honeck]

> Of course, all that is about as relevant as Spain, Britian and France
> making their claims on their respective parts of the US.

Or the so-called "Native Americans" making their claims on the North
American continent.

Seems to me I read something about a "land bridge" from Asia?

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

[Jay Barfs Again]

> Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Or the so-called "Native Americans" making their claims on the North
> American continent.

Well Jay they are a **** of a lot more "Native" to America than your
family will ever be.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Barfs Again" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Well Jay they are a **** of a lot more "Native" to America than your
> family will ever be.
>

How so?

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Barfs Again" > wrote in message
.. .
> > Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > Or the so-called "Native Americans" making their claims on the North
> > American continent.
>
> Well Jay they are a **** of a lot more "Native" to America than your
> family will ever be.

There is increasing evidence to the contrary.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Or the so-called "Native Americans" making their claims on the North
> > American continent.
>
> Well Jay they are a **** of a lot more "Native" to America than your
> family will ever be.

Really? My Mother's family traces their roots in North America back to the
18th century. Of course, they spoke French, and were in Canada at the
time...

How much older must my family get before we are considered "Native" to this
continent?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Barfs Again]

> Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Really? My Mother's family traces their roots in North America back to the
> 18th century. Of course, they spoke French, and were in Canada at the
> time...

Well a rooty toot toot for you.

So can my family..... In fact it can be traced back further than that
to its European roots.

But I would be hard pressed to look any Indian from Norther America in
the eye and deny that their roots go back a hell of a lot longer than
you or I could ever lay claim too.

Just what American arrogance gives you the right to make the below
quoted comment that you made just a few hours ago.

> > > Or the so-called "Native Americans" making their claims on the North
> > > American continent.

They've been here for thousands of years Jay and we have been here for
a few hundred.

If they can't claim to be the true "Native American" then prey tell us
all just what can they claim to be.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Barfs Again" > wrote in message
...
>
> If they can't claim to be the true "Native American" then prey tell us
> all just what can they claim to be.
>

Anyone born in America is a native American. It matters not where your
parents were born.

[Wdtabor]

In article t>, "Steven P.
McNicoll" > writes:

>
>
>"Jay Barfs Again" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> Well Jay they are a **** of a lot more "Native" to America than your
>> family will ever be.
>>
>
>How so?
>

OK, I'm about done with the Poor Mistreated Noble Savage crap.

The Amerindians came to the continental United States some 11,000 years ago,
during the stone age. While Europe and Asia made great progress in the arts and
sciences and set out to explore the world, the Amerindians did...

NOTHING.

They were still in the stone age when we got here. Sitting on the richest two
continents on the planet, they didn't make 100 years of progress in 10,000
years. In the Continental US, there were never more than 2 million hunter
gatherers living in an almost constant state of warfare and starvation. They
had their chance and did nothing worthwhile with it. If we had never come here,
they'd still be bashing each other witth stone axes instead of running casinos.

Our people came here and in 400 years built a nation that feeds the world and
touched the moon. We earned this place. It is ours. They fell by the wayside
because their culture stifled progress and inovation. They were doomed the
moment people with ambition and a culture that rewarded progress set foot on
the continent.

Cultures are subject to natural selection just like species.

Don

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Jay Barfs Again
> wrote:

> If they can't claim to be the true "Native American" then prey tell us
> all just what can they claim to be.

And what do I do? How pure must the bloodline be? I'm part native
american and part who knows.

--
Bob Noel

[Teacherjh]

>>
> They want back the territory lost in the '67 war.

So it's not a reversal of conquest they seek.
<<

That sounds to me like the definition of reversal of conquest.

As for

>>
It wasn't stolen, they abandoned it [...] in 1948 at the behest of their fellow

Arabs in Jordan, Syria, etc. They were to leave while the Arab states
forced the Jews off their lands [...] But the Arabs lost the war, and those
that had abandoned their land within the new state of Israel were now
homeless. The Arabs that didn't abandon their land are now citizens of
Israel.
<<

Arabs fought the Jews and lost. It may be a tactical error, it may be
trickery,
it may be lack of firepower, it may be lots of things. But they were there,
there was a war, they lost, they want it back.

Whether WE see it that way is one thing, but THEY see it that way.
So, how should I decide who's way of seeing it is "correct"?

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jay Honeck]

> But I would be hard pressed to look any Indian from Norther America in
> the eye and deny that their roots go back a hell of a lot longer than
> you or I could ever lay claim too.

I don't think I can say it any better than Mr. Tabor has -- see his post, up
a few in this thread.

The American Indians had their chance. They blew it -- same as my French
ancestors blew it, and my German ancestors blew it, and my Irish ancestors
blew it.

It's hard, but the truth sometimes is...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> But I would be hard pressed to look any Indian from Norther America in
> the eye and deny that their roots go back a hell of a lot longer than
> you or I could ever lay claim too.

One other thing....

By your somewhat frayed logic, I should be able to fly over to Baden, back
in Germany, look 'em squarely in the eye, and demand my friggin' land back.
After all, my roots go back a helluva lot farther than any of THEM can
likely claim.

Wish me luck!

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

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 01:50:47 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:
>
>The American Indians had their chance. They blew it -- same as my French
>ancestors blew it, and my German ancestors blew it, and my Irish ancestors
>blew it.

Well, actually, it took from 1171 to 1949, but the Irish struggle is a
counter-example.

Don

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> That sounds to me like the definition of reversal of conquest.
>

The Palestinians didn't lose any land in the '67 war.


>
> Arabs fought the Jews and lost. It may be a tactical error, it may be
> trickery,
> it may be lack of firepower, it may be lots of things. But they were
there,
> there was a war, they lost, they want it back.
>
> Whether WE see it that way is one thing, but THEY see it that way.
> So, how should I decide who's way of seeing it is "correct"?
>

Yup, they fought over land and lost. Had they won they would have pushed
the Jews off their land. Instead, the Jews won and the Arabs that remained
on their land in the new state of Israel still have it.

[C J Campbell]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> Whether WE see it that way is one thing, but THEY see it that way.
> So, how should I decide who's way of seeing it is "correct"?
>

Some people cannot distinguish between an open mind and an empty head.

[Teacherjh]

>> Some people cannot distinguish between an open mind and an empty head.

The distinction is not as coarse as you make it out to be.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dan Luke]

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> Cultures are subject to natural selection just like species.

Hey, lookee ya'll: it's a gen - u - wine social Darwinist.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> >
> > Arabs fought the Jews and lost. It may be a tactical error, it may be
> > trickery,
> > it may be lack of firepower, it may be lots of things. But they were
> there,
> > there was a war, they lost, they want it back.
> >
> > Whether WE see it that way is one thing, but THEY see it that way.
> > So, how should I decide who's way of seeing it is "correct"?
> >
>
> Yup, they fought over land and lost. Had they won they would have pushed
> the Jews off their land. Instead, the Jews won and the Arabs that
remained
> on their land in the new state of Israel still have it.
>

Additionally, it was the Arabs that *started* that war, and did so on one of
the holiest of Jewish days hoping for a tactical advantage.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
...
>
> Additionally, it was the Arabs that *started* that war, and did so
> on one of the holiest of Jewish days hoping for a tactical advantage.
>

Yom Kippur? That was the 1973 war.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, pacplyer wrote:
> The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
> standard of living here and we are truely free to enjoy life, liberty,
> and the pursuit of flying little airplanes.

Ummm, speaking as a member of "the rest of the world", I don't hate the
US. Quite the contrary.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:VS37c.51751$po.493927@attbi_s52...
> > Of course, all that is about as relevant as Spain, Britian and France
> > making their claims on their respective parts of the US.
>
> Or the so-called "Native Americans" making their claims on the North
> American continent.
>
> Seems to me I read something about a "land bridge" from Asia?
>

Right, and I'd ask "A bridge to what land"? Land that was re-conquered every
other year for thousands of years? Land that was passed over every year in
transit? Hey...didn't they have deeds to the land? Why not?

I know a primitive lifestyle is attractive to some...but come on!!

[jhandl]

Judah > wrote in message >...
> To Arab terrorists and their supporters, Israel is their land, and the
> Jews who control it need to be pushed back into the sea at all costs. It
> was the promise that was made to them by their parents in 1967 when they
> left.
>
> And in their mind, anyone who disagrees with them is an Infidel who
> deserves to be killed in the name of Allah. That is how they justify
> murdering innocent people with suicide bombs.
>
> So you see, if we sit quietly and keep our nose out of the other
> country's business, it will only be a matter of time that the Arabs come
> after us anyway. Except when they finally do they will be more powerful,
> and they won't need to attack us in pot-shots like spiders in the woods.

You contradict yourself: either the terrorists want the control of
Israel, or they are after world domination. Hitler was after world
domination. The islamic terrorists are not. You seem to fear that the
rest of the world is like th US...
Don't fear, it's not.

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:VS37c.51751$po.493927@attbi_s52...
> > Of course, all that is about as relevant as Spain, Britian and France
> > making their claims on their respective parts of the US.
>
> Or the so-called "Native Americans" making their claims on the North
> American continent.
>

Jay, quit talking out of your asshole! Its so much ****

[S Green]

">
> To illustrate the long term of your plan, consider what would have
> happened had we kept our nose out of Hitler's business during WWII. Sure
> it's possible that he would never have made it all the way here and would
> have just left us alone. Maybe he would have figured that the US was not
> interesting enough to be a part of his conquest.
>
> But if he wanted the US, and we had just sat idly by while he
> Blitzkrieged all of Europe and Russia, do you think we would have had a
> chance against him when he was ready to come up on our shores? With no
> help from the Allies who we watched as he slaughtered them?

Highly likely that Hitler would have won. The only war the Americans have
won on their own was the Civil War.

[pacplyer]

Dylan Smith > wrote in message >...
> In article >, pacplyer wrote:
> > The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
> > standard of living here and we are truely free to enjoy life, liberty,
> > and the pursuit of flying little airplanes.
>
> Ummm, speaking as a member of "the rest of the world", I don't hate the
> US. Quite the contrary.

Sorry Dylan,

I should have said "much of the world." Pays to proof read one's own
diatribes from time to time. ;-)

pacplyer

[pacplyer]

Martin Hotze > wrote in message >...
> On 19 Mar 2004 16:18:08 -0800, pacplyer wrote:
>
> >Freedom Alex, is exactly what the sole remaining superpower says it
> >is. Unlike most Americans, I don't believe that everyone deserves it.
>
> Freedom has to be earned.
>
> > I think a population has to be brave enough to overthrow their own
> >despots. I think Jay is right about random bombers. Kill them all.
> >Issue a new deck of terrorist cards and make those cards redeemable
> >for large amounts of compensation when they are returned along with
> >said terrrorist's head in a sack.
>
> well, and who makes the list and who makes one a terrorist? CIA? FBI? NATO?
> EU? Vatican? The mayor of Otumba, IO?
>
> #m


Good Point Martin. I don't think I want any of those groups you
listed by themselves making the list. And it's true in the Mideast
that one man's patriot is another man's terrorist. How about basing
it on the taking of lives of innocent bystanders. That way, we could
include Los Angeles gangsters on the list too, who participate in
random drive-by-shootings for member initiation. BTW, I noticed you
left the UN off that list. Probably wise, since they move so slowly.

pac

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Wdtabor wrote:

> OK, I'm about done with the Poor Mistreated Noble Savage crap.....
> Our people came here and in 400 years built a nation that feeds the
world and
> touched the moon. We earned this place. It is ours. They fell by the
wayside
> because their culture stifled progress and inovation......
> Cultures are subject to natural selection just like species.

Making no statement regarding the general conversation here, I'd suggest
that you read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond for a reasonable
refutation of your supposition regarding the relative worth of cultures.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2004

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Frank,

> We (the world) will only defeat terrorism if we treat it as a problem
to be
> solved rather than a war to be won. In some cases force will be
effective.
> In some cases humamitarian efforts will do more. In some cases we may
have
> to swallow some unpleasantness and do something we'd rather not. In
all
> cases we should be looking to measure the results to see if we really
are
> being effective.

sums it up very well, fully agreed.

regards,
Friedrich

[Jay Honeck]

> Making no statement regarding the general conversation here, I'd suggest
> that you read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond for a reasonable
> refutation of your supposition regarding the relative worth of cultures.

I read the book -- interesting stuff. Diamond makes some good observations.

It's too bad it's written and constructed so awkwardly -- which, IMHO, made
for a terrible read -- because it deserves a wider reading. It's just one
of those books that, given a good editor, could have been a truly fun read.
Instead, by the second chapter I was forcing myself to slog on, in hopes of
gleaning whatever the heck it was he was trying to say.

In the end, the slog is worth it -- but what a terrible price to pay for a
bit of insight!

He didn't change my view of the world -- but his book does present an
interesting alternative viewpoint.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Judah]

So you think that if they are successful at pushing the Jews out of
Israel, they will just be content and stop?

Sure... I can see that happening. Give Israel over to Palestine, and we
will all of a sudden have World Peace!


(jhandl) wrote in
om:

> Judah > wrote in message
> >...
>> To Arab terrorists and their supporters, Israel is their land, and the
>> Jews who control it need to be pushed back into the sea at all costs.
>> It was the promise that was made to them by their parents in 1967 when
>> they left.
>>
>> And in their mind, anyone who disagrees with them is an Infidel who
>> deserves to be killed in the name of Allah. That is how they justify
>> murdering innocent people with suicide bombs.
>>
>> So you see, if we sit quietly and keep our nose out of the other
>> country's business, it will only be a matter of time that the Arabs
>> come after us anyway. Except when they finally do they will be more
>> powerful, and they won't need to attack us in pot-shots like spiders
>> in the woods.
>
> You contradict yourself: either the terrorists want the control of
> Israel, or they are after world domination. Hitler was after world
> domination. The islamic terrorists are not. You seem to fear that the
> rest of the world is like th US...
> Don't fear, it's not.
>

[Wdtabor]

In article <Byp7c.56556$SR1.102160@attbi_s04>, "Marc J. Zeitlin"
> writes:

>Wdtabor wrote:
>
>> OK, I'm about done with the Poor Mistreated Noble Savage crap.....
>> Our people came here and in 400 years built a nation that feeds the
>world and
>> touched the moon. We earned this place. It is ours. They fell by the
>wayside
>> because their culture stifled progress and inovation......
>> Cultures are subject to natural selection just like species.
>
>Making no statement regarding the general conversation here, I'd suggest
>that you read "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond for a reasonable
>refutation of your supposition regarding the relative worth of cultures.
>

I don't really have time just now to read some book that might, or might not,
be relevant to what I said. If you have an argument to advance, please do so.

But I am not trying to compare the relative worth of cultures, I am comparing
results. Had the Amerindian culture rewarded knowledge and ambition as ours
did, considering the vast resources thay had at their disposal, a successful
culture would have been large and strong enough to resist us.

Instead, they were still in the stone age after 11,000 years. It doesn't matter
how noble or valuable they might have been from some subjective viewpoint,
objectively they failed.

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

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Judah
> writes:

>
>So you think that if they are successful at pushing the Jews out of
>Israel, they will just be content and stop?
>
>Sure... I can see that happening. Give Israel over to Palestine, and we
>will all of a sudden have World Peace!
>

Yeah, feeding the crocodile always works.

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

[Alex]

Martin Hotze > wrote in message >...
> On 19 Mar 2004 16:18:08 -0800, pacplyer wrote:
>
> >Freedom Alex, is exactly what the sole remaining superpower says it
> >is. Unlike most Americans, I don't believe that everyone deserves it.
>
> Freedom has to be earned.

Excuse me? Who are you? A slave owner?

[Alex]

Please, Martin, he's not worth your effort...


Martin Hotze > wrote in message >...
> On 19 Mar 2004 16:18:08 -0800, pacplyer wrote:
>
> >The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
> >standard of living here
>
> thre are many countries with a higher standard.
>
> > and we are truely free to enjoy life, liberty,
> >and the pursuit of flying little airplanes.
>
> true
>
> > I shutter to think what
> >would happen to me if I wrote the above in downtown Tehran.
>
> you would not make many friends.
>
> >(which is
> >the next place we need to take off the map.)
>
> says who? and why should one wonder if some guy in Teheran thinks the same
> about NY?
>
> #m

[Frank]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Frank" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> The Palestinians have many legitemite beefs and in that respect
>> are certainly fighting for their freedom.
>>
>
> In what way are they fighting for their freedom?

Depends.....

If one believes they have a legitimate right to a country then the answer is
obvious.

If one believes otherwise, that is that Israel owns the land free and clear,
then they must be fighting for equal rights as citizens.

I don't know the answer, but as a simple test answer this question. Should a
Palestinian be voting in an Israeli election or not. If not then where?

Because I think we'd all agree that if one isn't allowed to vote, then one
isn't free.
--
Frank....H

[Dan Luke]

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> But I am not trying to compare the relative worth of cultures, I am
> comparing results. Had the Amerindian culture rewarded knowledge
> and ambition as ours did, considering the vast resources thay had at
> their disposal, a successful culture would have been large and strong
> enough to resist us.

So conquest and extermination of one culture by another is justified on
the grounds that it's the conquered culture's fault for being weaker
than the conqueror?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Wdtabor wrote:

> I don't really have time just now to read some book that might, or
might not,
> be relevant to what I said. If you have an argument to advance, please
do so.

As I said, I have no argument to advance.

> But I am not trying to compare the relative worth of cultures, I am
comparing
> results. Had the Amerindian culture rewarded knowledge and ambition as
ours
> did, considering the vast resources thay had at their disposal, a
successful
> culture would have been large and strong enough to resist us.

And the book I mentioned describes why your analysis of the relative
effects of "cultural" differences is incorrect. The results are clearly
the same, but how we got there matters, and your interpretation of that
(according to "Guns, Germs, and Steel") is flawed.

> Instead, they were still in the stone age after 11,000 years. It
doesn't matter
> how noble or valuable they might have been from some subjective
viewpoint,
> objectively they failed.

Yes, but not due to their culture, which is what you were emphasizing.
That's the only point I was trying to make.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin

[Rob Perkins]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

>ah well. I just jumped on another OT post. sorry.
>(And BTW you are not spaniard. Your roots are in central Europe, most
>likely in Germany.)

***sigh***

I know I'm jumping in late. But this is exactly the kind of thing
which makes it so very difficult for Europe to ever be a totally
united place.

Rob

[Rob Perkins]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:

>
>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> We are in a religious war. We didn't choose it, but we've got it.
>
>
>Really? Maybe we should take "separation of church and state" more
>seriously here and break that link. Say what you will about these people
>attacking us, but they are not stupid and they see the strong Christian
>leaning of the US government administration.

What did they miss about the last US administration, that still got
two embassies, a warship, and 17 sailors killed dead?

You're making a red herring with that argument, Peter.

Rob

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

>"Wdtabor" wrote:
>> But I am not trying to compare the relative worth of cultures, I am
>> comparing results. Had the Amerindian culture rewarded knowledge
>> and ambition as ours did, considering the vast resources thay had at
>> their disposal, a successful culture would have been large and strong
>> enough to resist us.
>
>So conquest and extermination of one culture by another is justified on
>the grounds that it's the conquered culture's fault for being weaker
>than the conqueror?
>

There is a difference between something being justified and it's being
inevitable.

OK, let's look at it from a Democrat perspective. There are about 285 million
people in the US, how about if the 2 million wealthiest buy up all the deeds
and evict the other 283 million, keeping the entire country for themsleves as
a giant hunting and fishing preserve. What about the 283million homeless, or
the hundreds of millions of others around the world who will starve to death if
the US agricultural bounty is converted to a big game park? Would you allow
that now? Then why would it have been reasonable then?

Those resources simply were not going to be wasted while people starved to
death around the world. Had we not moved in, the Russians would have moved in
from the northwest, or the Spanish from the south, or the French from Canada.

It can certainly be said that there were unethical measures used in how the
transition was made, but the simple truth is that Ameridian culture was doomed
the moment navigational technology broke their isolation.

Don



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

[Rob Perkins]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Rosspilot" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Because it is a TACTIC, not an ENTITY.
>> There is nothing to "wipe out".
>>
>
>Tactics cannot be defeated?

Not as such. The Anarchists of the late 19th Century used the same
tactics to try and undo society.

Rob

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
>
> Depends.....
>
> If one believes they have a legitimate right to a country then the
> answer is obvious.
>

They were given a country. Why do they need another one and why aren't the
Jewish Palestinians entitled to one?


>
> If one believes otherwise, that is that Israel owns the land free
> and clear, then they must be fighting for equal rights as citizens.
>

Israeli Arab citizens have rights equal with Israeli Jews.


>
> I don't know the answer, but as a simple test answer this question.
> Should a Palestinian be voting in an Israeli election or not. If not
> then where?
>

How are you using the term Palestinian here? There is no Palestinian
nationality, there never was. There are two nations that were created on
the former Palestine Mandate, Israel and Jordan. All Israeli citizens, Arab
and Jew, vote in Israeli elections. What nation, other than the US, allows
non-citizens to vote in it's elections?

[Alex]

(pacplyer) wrote in message >...

> What I don't understand is why are we wasting money rebuilding Iraq?

Your "honorable" government members are making money with it like
noone has seen before. Which is, probably, one of the main motives for
the invasion.

> We're just going to have to go back and bomb it in a few years from
> now anyway.

Sure, greed never ends.

> ... I think Jay is right about random bombers. Kill them all.
> Issue a new deck of terrorist cards and make those cards redeemable
> for large amounts of compensation when they are returned along with
> said terrrorist's head in a sack.

Israel is following your advice quite well. Do you think Israel can
sit back and relax now? How many more inocent victims will this
assasination have caused?

> The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
> standard of living here and we are truely free to enjoy life, liberty,
> and the pursuit of flying little airplanes.

Jeez, how vain can you be?! People enjoy life and freedom outside of
the US too, you know? More freedom I think; their governments aren't
all over their wherabouts.

Seriously, though: I don't think people in the world *hate* the US;
only their actions regarding foreign policy. There is much to be
admired from the US, and a lot to be despised.

I, for one, watched amazed how Bush threw incredibly feeble excuses
and lies to an astonishingly gullible public after 9/11. Noone I know
could believe how stupid Mr. Bush had to be to think he could go away
with such blatant lies. Yet he did... I feel truly sorry for the
people who can't see beyond the propaganda machine, as obvious as it
is. But I know there are a lot of people in the US who can see beyond,
and a lot of very brave people who openly state their opposition. I
feel sad because we are all victims of a lunatic who reached power
through electoral fraud (which, in the US, is the ultimate irony) and
is driving the world to a nightmare only to satisfy his and his
friend's greed. That, and having the support of their gullible
followers, who really believe Iraq was invaded because of Saddam or,
worst yet, because of WMD or, worst even, because of some link with
Al-Qaeda, is the saddest thing in the world.

[G.R. Patterson III]

S Green wrote:
>
> The only war the Americans have won on their own was the Civil War.

Tell that to the Mexicans and Philipinos.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Judah]

(Wdtabor) wrote in
:

> In article >, Judah
> > writes:
>
>>
>>So you think that if they are successful at pushing the Jews out of
>>Israel, they will just be content and stop?
>>
>>Sure... I can see that happening. Give Israel over to Palestine, and we
>>will all of a sudden have World Peace!
>>
>
> Yeah, feeding the crocodile always works.
>

Till he takes his next dump...

[Dan Luke]

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> ...There are
> about 285 million people in the US, how about if the 2 million
> wealthiest buy up all the deeds and evict the other 283 million,
> keeping the entire country for themsleves as a giant hunting and
> fishing preserve. What about the 283million homeless, or
> the hundreds of millions of others around the world who will
> starve to death if the US agricultural bounty is converted to a
> big game park? Would you allow that now?

I would have thought a Libertarian would have no problem at all with
this idea. In fact, it sounds very much like the Libertarian Party
position on environmental protection.

> Those resources simply were not going to be wasted while people
> starved to death around the world. Had we not moved in, the Russians
> would have moved in from the northwest, or the Spanish from the south,
> or the French from Canada.

So all of human history will be a series of violent resource grabs by
overpopulated, aggressive nations? Don't you see rapidly diminishing
opportunities for these kinds of grabs? What will the future be like if
no human moral force restrains such naked plunder? We're running out of
aborigines to evict.

> ...the simple truth is that Ameridian culture
> was doomed the moment navigational technology broke their isolation.

Granted. Have you ever considered that the stupidest thing humans can
possibly do is to attempt to establish contact with space-faring alien
beings? "Hey! Conquistadors! We're over here!"
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Jay Honeck]

> I, for one, watched amazed how Bush threw incredibly feeble excuses
> and lies to an astonishingly gullible public after 9/11. Noone I know
> could believe how stupid Mr. Bush had to be to think he could go away
> with such blatant lies. Yet he did... I feel truly sorry for the
> people who can't see beyond the propaganda machine, as obvious as it
> is. But I know there are a lot of people in the US who can see beyond,
> and a lot of very brave people who openly state their opposition. I
> feel sad because we are all victims of a lunatic who reached power
> through electoral fraud (which, in the US, is the ultimate irony) and
> is driving the world to a nightmare only to satisfy his and his
> friend's greed. That, and having the support of their gullible
> followers, who really believe Iraq was invaded because of Saddam or,
> worst yet, because of WMD or, worst even, because of some link with
> Al-Qaeda, is the saddest thing in the world.

Please pack this drivel away, once and for all...

How is GW getting rich on Iraq?

How is it that the major nations of the world, the United Nations, and your
patron saint, Bill Clinton, were all convinced that Saddam had weapons of
mass destruction, and publicly stated so before the war? (Not a huge leap
of faith, given that Saddam ADMITTED to having them, and USED them on his
own people.)

How is it that the Supreme Court of our country -- packed, as it was, with
Clinton appointees -- perpetrated an "electoral fraud" on us all?

When are folks of your ilk going to realize that we actually, finally, for a
brief moment in time, have a president who says what he means, means what he
says, and doesn't back down because some ABC Pollster -- or foreign
dignitary -- tells him that the folks in Newark or Paris don't agree with
his positions?

Personally, I do not agree with everything Bush does. However, if you're
going to impugn the man's character, at least back it up with some logic and
a few facts -- not just the left-wing's tired re-hash of old lies and
innuendo.

And, by the way...how 'bout that new Garmin G1000?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Stadt]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dan Luke"
> > writes:
>
> >"Wdtabor" wrote:
> >> But I am not trying to compare the relative worth of cultures, I am
> >> comparing results. Had the Amerindian culture rewarded knowledge
> >> and ambition as ours did, considering the vast resources thay had at
> >> their disposal, a successful culture would have been large and strong
> >> enough to resist us.
> >
> >So conquest and extermination of one culture by another is justified on
> >the grounds that it's the conquered culture's fault for being weaker
> >than the conqueror?
> >
>
> There is a difference between something being justified and it's being
> inevitable.
>
> OK, let's look at it from a Democrat perspective. There are about 285
million
> people in the US, how about if the 2 million wealthiest buy up all the
deeds
> and evict the other 283 million, keeping the entire country for
themsleves as
> a giant hunting and fishing preserve. What about the 283million homeless,
or
> the hundreds of millions of others around the world who will starve to
death if
> the US agricultural bounty is converted to a big game park? Would you
allow
> that now? Then why would it have been reasonable then?
>
> Those resources simply were not going to be wasted while people starved to
> death around the world. Had we not moved in, the Russians would have moved
in
> from the northwest, or the Spanish from the south, or the French from
Canada.
>
> It can certainly be said that there were unethical measures used in how
the
> transition was made, but the simple truth is that Ameridian culture was
doomed
> the moment navigational technology broke their isolation.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Plus, the Europeans did nothing to the Indians that they didn't do to
themselves. Ritual murder, slavery, genocide and torture were all part of
the culture.

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:31:26 +0100, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>How come we choose from just two people to
>run for president and 50 for Miss America?
>
>I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.

>How come we choose from just two people to
>run for president and 50 for Miss America?

There are a lot more qualified candidates and it doesn't take cash to
buy a vote?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get elected.

[pacplyer]

Martin Hotze > wrote in message >...
> On 19 Mar 2004 16:18:08 -0800, pacplyer wrote:
>
> >The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
> >standard of living here
>
> there are many countries with a higher standard.

Yes, that's true. I should have said "much of the world." But out of
the almost three hundred countries in the world, the U.S. has
two-hundred below it by most measures, and that's what we're talking
about here. The "have-not" countries seem to be havens for terrorist
groups.
>
> > and we are truely free to enjoy life, liberty,
> >and the pursuit of flying little airplanes.
>
> true
>
> > I shutter to think what
> >would happen to me if I wrote the above in downtown Tehran.
>
> you would not make many friends.
>
> >(which is
> >the next place we need to take off the map.)
>
> says who? and why should one wonder if some guy in Teheran thinks the same
> about NY?
>
> #m

Let's see... they been burning American flags in the streets of Iran
for thirty years. Martin, we already know what the fundamentalist
movement there thinks of the U.S. Next target? Says who? The next
U.S. president, that's who (I elect that man to office.) The
significant questions for the next U.S. administration are: 1. Is it a
safe haven for terrorists? 2. Is the WMD program a significant threat
or, just as bad, unknown.

I for one, will support any invasion to discover those facts if
inspectors are not happy. I am however, against long occupation, like
our situation in Iraq. Why is it: the bleeding hearts always favor
Isolationism? If one sticks his head in the sand and says: I have no
proof of nuke development, therefore I shall not invade; that does not
stop a functioning warhead from entering his city once OBL's guys
finally get enough componants somewhere to put one together.

pacplyer

[pacplyer]

Great post Jay. Right on the money. I too have major issues with
Bush/Cheney but all things considered feel that they are reasonable
operators. Can't stand the GA impact by dept. of home defense/TSA,
labor law trashing, Patriot Act, other things. But those men did the
best they could with the crappy intel they were given on the war
front. Remember, it was the Clinton admin that meddled around with
the CIA stipulating that they could no longer hire any "unsavory
characters." Thank god for term limits.

pac


"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> Please pack this drivel away, once and for all...
>
> How is GW getting rich on Iraq?
>
> How is it that the major nations of the world, the United Nations, and your
> patron saint, Bill Clinton, were all convinced that Saddam had weapons of
> mass destruction, and publicly stated so before the war? (Not a huge leap
> of faith, given that Saddam ADMITTED to having them, and USED them on his
> own people.)
>
> How is it that the Supreme Court of our country -- packed, as it was, with
> Clinton appointees -- perpetrated an "electoral fraud" on us all?
>
> When are folks of your ilk going to realize that we actually, finally, for a
> brief moment in time, have a president who says what he means, means what he
> says, and doesn't back down because some ABC Pollster -- or foreign
> dignitary -- tells him that the folks in Newark or Paris don't agree with
> his positions?
>
> Personally, I do not agree with everything Bush does. However, if you're
> going to impugn the man's character, at least back it up with some logic and
> a few facts -- not just the left-wing's tired re-hash of old lies and
> innuendo.
>
> And, by the way...how 'bout that new Garmin G1000?

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Dan Luke wrote:
> Granted. Have you ever considered that the stupidest thing humans can
> possibly do is to attempt to establish contact with space-faring alien
> beings? "Hey! Conquistadors! We're over here!"

We can't avoid it. In the frequency range from about 100KHz to about
2GHz, the Earth has been brighter than the sun for at least 40 years.
Any being that is capable of pointing a radiotelescope our way within
40LY will know that there is something a little unusual about the Sol
system by now.

On the other hand, the laws of physics means it will take them a little
while to get here.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> S Green wrote:
> >
> > The only war the Americans have won on their own was the Civil War.
>
> Tell that to the Mexicans and Philipinos.
>
Quite...though in the 20th century the US has been the Dennis Eckersley of
wartime.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"pacplyer" > wrote in message
m...
> Great post Jay. Right on the money. I too have major issues with
> Bush/Cheney but all things considered feel that they are reasonable
> operators. Can't stand the GA impact by dept. of home defense/TSA,
> labor law trashing, Patriot Act, other things.

Considering that wuring WW2, the US intered members of it's populace, the US
response after 9/11 was rather "mild". Remember that it was Bubba who first
had concrete barriers placed in front of the White House,,,during a time of
peace.

> But those men did the
> best they could with the crappy intel they were given on the war
> front. Remember, it was the Clinton admin that meddled around with
> the CIA stipulating that they could no longer hire any "unsavory
> characters."

That goes back the 70's and the Tower Commission, at the behest of the
radical left. But it was Clinton that pretty much held that technical
surveillance (satellite) would be adequate. That was criminally ignorant.
The path of terrorism unanswered during the Clinton regime is sickening.

Anyone was to claim that had Gore been in office he would NOT have declared
martial law after 9/11?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:31:26 +0100, Martin Hotze
> > wrote:
>
> >How come we choose from just two people to
> >run for president and 50 for Miss America?
> >
> >I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get
elected.
>
> >How come we choose from just two people to
> >run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Actually, during the nomination process probably a hundred candidates "throw
their hat in the ring". The 2004 election had, what, seven candidates on the
ballot (Green, Libertarian, Natural Rights, Perotistas, Reform party,
Catered party...)?

>
> There are a lot more qualified candidates and it doesn't take cash to
> buy a vote?

Just big tits.

[Newps]

> Martin Hotze > wrote in message >...

>>Freedom has to be earned.



What a dumbass thing to say. Freedom is a god given right.

[Newps]

> Martin Hotze > wrote in message >...
>
>>On 19 Mar 2004 16:18:08 -0800, pacplyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
>>>standard of living here
>>
>>there are many countries with a higher standard.



No, there's not.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:

(pacplyer) wrote:
>
>> I for one, will support any invasion to discover those facts if
>> inspectors are not happy.
>
>
>to reduce it to a personal platform: let's assume that you are doing
>something
>illegal. Intelligence has no chance to get enough evidence (for the sake of
>the
>argument). Now: shall police - just because they are not happy of the outcome
>
>and they don't have 100% proof that you are _INNOCENT_ (rings a bell?) have
>every right to search your house (without a warrant) and your belongings?
>[well,
>in the name of terrorism this is already the law in the US]
>

OK, lets do make it personal.

A known thug, who you know for a fact has killed many people, approaches you on
the street and threatens you. He is holding his hand in his jacket pocket as
though he has a gun in there. He says he has a gun, but you cannot actually see
if he has it or if he is bluffing.

You, on the other hand, do have a gun. What are you going to do? Give him first
shot? Wait to see if he is lying about having the gun? Demand that a third
party, who hates you as much as the thug, be allowed to peek inside the pocket
and tell you if there is a gun?

Or are you going to assume his threat is sincere and take him out first?

Don

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

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
>>>>>standard of living here
>>>>
>>>>there are many countries with a higher standard.
>>
>>
>>
>>No, there's not.

> Norway tops UN list over best places to live



The UN list? You've got to be kidding.

[Doug Carter]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> Norway tops UN list over best places to live (...)

A UN list showing the U.S. in an unfavorable light? GASP!!

Better check your meds dude; this is the same U.N. that
appointed Lybia as the chair of the human rights commission.

"January 2003, The Libyan candidate, diplomat and former
journalist Najat al-Hajjaji, won 33 votes in a secret
ballot of the 53-country Commission, with 17 states
abstaining and three voting no -- apparently including the
United States."

[Frank]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Frank" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Depends.....
>>
>> If one believes they have a legitimate right to a country then the
>> answer is obvious.
>>
>
> They were given a country. Why do they need another one and why aren't
> the Jewish Palestinians entitled to one?

>
>>
>> If one believes otherwise, that is that Israel owns the land free
>> and clear, then they must be fighting for equal rights as citizens.
>>
>
> Israeli Arab citizens have rights equal with Israeli Jews.
>
>
>>
>> I don't know the answer, but as a simple test answer this question.
>> Should a Palestinian be voting in an Israeli election or not. If not
>> then where?
>>
>
> How are you using the term Palestinian here? There is no Palestinian
> nationality, there never was. There are two nations that were created on
> the former Palestine Mandate, Israel and Jordan. All Israeli citizens,
> Arab
> and Jew, vote in Israeli elections. What nation, other than the US,
> allows non-citizens to vote in it's elections?

Then why do these folks keep calling themselves Palestinians? What was all
that negotiating borders for? Right, wrong or indifferent there are a lot
of people that feel they have a claim to something there. Even Israel
agrees with that in priniciple.

I don't know, but it's my understanding that the people in the camps and in
the disputed areas aren't on either the Jordanian or the Israeli voting
roles. They consider themselves Palestinians and they, apparently, have
various treaties/accords/agreements to support that notion. If I am wrong
and they _were_ able to vote for or against Sharon last election then I
will be suprised that they haven't been able to put up numbers that would
infuence the election.

Israel has agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state, although they
certainly aren't happy about it. Understandable in that no one want's to
give up land. But they are in the driver's seat when it comes to the peace
process and dragging this out just causes too much pain and suffering on
both sides.

The Israelis aren't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. The
sooner Israel gives up trying to avoid actually handing over the promised
territory the better.
--
Frank....H

[Alex]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:<6BM7c.61319$_w.945434@attbi_s53>...
> Please pack this drivel away, once and for all...

No problem, there's obviously no point in arguing with you. One last
thing I would like to say, though. In this discussion you have shown
how far from being a Spaniard you are, inspite of your own subject
line.

[Paul Sengupta]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
.net...
> It wasn't stolen, they abandoned it. The Jews forced no Arabs off their
> land.

http://www.palestine-un.org/info/ref.html

Paul

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:zwZ7c.74677$_w.1027638@attbi_s53...
>
>
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> > Newps > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
> >>>>>standard of living here
> >>>>
> >>>>there are many countries with a higher standard.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>No, there's not.
>
> > Norway tops UN list over best places to live
>
>
>
> The UN list? You've got to be kidding.

Notice the criteria the UN uses in their list.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> >
> > "Frank" > wrote in message ...
> > How are you using the term Palestinian here? There is no Palestinian
> > nationality, there never was. There are two nations that were created
on
> > the former Palestine Mandate, Israel and Jordan. All Israeli citizens,
> > Arab
> > and Jew, vote in Israeli elections. What nation, other than the US,
> > allows non-citizens to vote in it's elections?
>
> Then why do these folks keep calling themselves Palestinians? What was all
> that negotiating borders for? Right, wrong or indifferent there are a lot
> of people that feel they have a claim to something there. Even Israel
> agrees with that in priniciple.
>

Calling themselves Palestinians is like someone from Georgia calling
themself a "Southerner".

[Newps]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>>
>>The UN list? You've got to be kidding.
>
>
> Notice the criteria the UN uses in their list.


I didn't bother to read it. Nothing the UN says could possibly matter.

[Rob Perkins]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

>> Better check your meds dude;
>
>well, I can afford medicamentation (can you?)

Easily. A sufficiently peaceful upbringing and a good education (all
Federally subsidized, by the way, and not lightly), positioned me to
take work that offers health insurance.

Now, I buy my own health "insurance," at a premium rate fully
one-forth of that which my boss would be charged. So he pays me the
premium money as salary, grossed-up for taxes, and I keep the
difference to take care of deductibles and copays.

It helps marvelously that I don't abuse any substance except processed
carbohydrates.

Now, what about the unfortunate in the country?

Well, for "uninsured children", there is *always* medicaid and WIC.
For the "uninsured seniors", there is Medicare. All three are Federal
programs. Those in the middle can quit smoking and buy the individual
stuff, in most States. The rest have decent ARISTA coverage through
their companies.

Just because your system has one solution, doesn't mean the U.S.
solution is so wanting that it needs to be razed and replaced. Fewer
people suffer (materially) in the U.S. than anywhere else in the
world.

Rob

[Doug Carter]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> well, I can afford medicamentation (can you?)

Yep and I actually pay for them directly instead of
laundering the money through a government.

> another 33 countries to invade? ;-)

So many countries, so little time. Well, perhaps only a
dozen or so at a whack as we do have to keep up our
tradition of rebuilding aggressor countries in Europe,
Asia and now the Middle East.

[Wdtabor]

(Wdtabor) wrote:
>
>> You, on the other hand, do have a gun. What are you going to do? Give him
>> first shot?
>
>Am I able to hide? [1]
>
>If not: very tough question. I can't sincerely answer it without being in the
>
>situation.
>
>#m
>
>[1] might sound like a coward, but I can life with that
>--

Can you live with him killing the next unarmed person he encounters if you
succeed in hiding?

I'm not sure I could.

Don

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

[Wdtabor]

>
>Calling themselves Palestinians is like someone from Georgia calling
>themself a "Southerner".
>

No, its like someone from Arizona calling himself a southerner. Technically
correct but culturally iff base.

Don

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
>
> Then why do these folks keep calling themselves Palestinians?
>

I believe the UN declared a Palestinian refugee to be anyone who had lived
in Palestine for two years or more prior to the Arab attack on the new state
of Israel in 1948 and had lost their homes and livelihood as a result of
that conflict. Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees. The Arab states
refused to absorb the Arab refugees so they were left in camps in what would
have been the new Arab state in Palestine.


>
> What was all that negotiating borders for?
>

Which negotiations?


>
> Right, wrong or indifferent there are a lot
> of people that feel they have a claim to something there. Even Israel
> agrees with that in priniciple.
>

The Arabs claim all of the land, including the state of Israel.


>
> I don't know, but it's my understanding that the people in the camps
> and in the disputed areas aren't on either the Jordanian or the Israeli
> voting roles.
>

Well of course they're not on Israeli voting rolls. Why would they be?
They're not citizens of Israel. Those that had property in Israel would be
on Israeli voting rolls if they hadn't abandoned their land.

I don't know if there are any Jordanian voting rolls.


>
> They consider themselves Palestinians and they, apparently, have
> various treaties/accords/agreements to support that notion.
>

They consider themselves Palestinians because they either lived in the
Palestine region before the war or are descendents of someone that lived
there. They are not citizens of Palestine, there is no nation of Palestine
and there never was one.


>
> If I am wrong
> and they _were_ able to vote for or against Sharon last election then I
> will be suprised that they haven't been able to put up numbers that would
> infuence the election.
>

Did you vote in the last Israeli election? If not, why not?


>
> Israel has agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state, although they
> certainly aren't happy about it.
>

Israel agreed to the creation of an Arab state in Palestine 57 years ago!
That is, the Jews in Palestine agreed to the partition plan that would have
created a second Arab state from the Palestine Mandate.


>
> Understandable in that no one want's to
> give up land. But they are in the driver's seat when it comes to the peace
> process and dragging this out just causes too much pain and suffering on
> both sides.
>
> The Israelis aren't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. The
> sooner Israel gives up trying to avoid actually handing over the promised
> territory the better.
>

Arafat was offered over 90% of the "occupied territories" and control of
most of Jerusalem four years ago as a STARTING point in negotiations. He
turned it down. The Arabs aren't interested in peace, they're only
interested in the destruction of Israel.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:

(Wdtabor) wrote:
>
>> Can you live with him killing the next unarmed person he encounters if you
>> succeed in hiding?
>>
>> I'm not sure I could.
>
>As I said before: I've never been close enough to a dangerous situation
>forcing
>me to make decisions about life and death.
>

Not referring only to the scenario in question, those sorts of decisions should
be made ahead of time, not in a moment of fear and stress. Such occasions are
not times for hesitation or indecision. I know what I would do, and I would do
it without hesitation or remorse.

It's sort of like flying through a cloud, if you trust in your procedure and
instruments you will come out the other side just fine, but if you go by your
feelings of the moment, you exit the cloud through the bottom.

Don



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

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Rob Perkins > wrote:

>
> So why are there bus tours of seniors travelling to Canada buying their
> medication?

He said there is insurance, not free drugs. You want free drugs go to a
socialist country.


>>Fewer
>>people suffer (materially) in the U.S. than anywhere else in the
>>world.
>
>
> IBTD.

And you'd be wrong.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Notice the criteria the UN uses in their list.
>
> I didn't bother to read it. Nothing the UN says could possibly matter.

Here is the pertinent quote from the article:

The index builds on three main factors: life expectancy, education and per
capita income in 173 countries

Of course, they ignore the dozens of other more important criteria, not the
least of which are "weather" and "freedom"...

And they don't explain how these stats are impacted by the difference
between a tiny, largely homogenous population versus a gigantic, wildly
diverse population. And, and, and...

The real measure of the world's opinion is this: How many people are
fighting and dying to get into FINLAND? You just don't see too many
people floating on inner-tubes for weeks to get there...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> No problem, there's obviously no point in arguing with you. One last
> thing I would like to say, though. In this discussion you have shown
> how far from being a Spaniard you are, inspite of your own subject
> line.

Sorry, Alex. I completely misread the situation in Spain, and my feelings
of solidarity with them were clearly misplaced. If you had followed the
more recent thread "We are All Spaniards -- NOT", you would know how I feel
about this.

I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed the
terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way that
cannot be measured.

I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly evident
that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once ruled
the seas, and much of the world.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Jcj8c.83648$_w.1132827@attbi_s53...
> I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed the
> terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way
that
> cannot be measured.
>
> I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly
evident
> that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
> third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once
ruled
> the seas, and much of the world.

And barely 200 years ago Spain was one of the three (Spain, England,
France), if not THE dominant power(s) and most prosperous nations in the
world. Today they're like a bunch of burned out old hags. They were never
really invaded, but the destroyed themselves from within. And so it goes...

[Tony Cox]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Jcj8c.83648$_w.1132827@attbi_s53...
> > I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed
the
> > terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way
> that
> > cannot be measured.
> >
> > I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly
> evident
> > that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
> > third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once
> ruled
> > the seas, and much of the world.
>
> And barely 200 years ago Spain was one of the three (Spain, England,
> France), if not THE dominant power(s) and most prosperous nations in the
> world. Today they're like a bunch of burned out old hags. They were never
> really invaded, but the destroyed themselves from within. And so it
goes...

You also have to remember that Spain is just one generation
removed from a fascist dictatorship. As such, its political
institutions are somewhat fragile and its political class is
immature. The socialists never really expected to win, and
are in a way caught up in their own rhetoric.

That said, the new governments position is certainly irresponsible.
No matter what one might think of Bush/Blair and how we got
there, the question that should be asked is "What would happen
if *all* troops pulled out?". Clearly, the result would be a civil war,
further instability, the possible restoration of the Ba'athist régime,
and the resumption of mass killings. As the new Spanish government
would prefer to analyze the situation by describing the occupation
as "a joke" (so ok, how would you make it better?) and by calling
Blair "a dick head", it is clear that they aren't ready for a place at
the top table.

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Jcj8c.83648$_w.1132827@attbi_s53...
> > No problem, there's obviously no point in arguing with you. One last
> > thing I would like to say, though. In this discussion you have shown
> > how far from being a Spaniard you are, inspite of your own subject
> > line.
>
> Sorry, Alex. I completely misread the situation in Spain, and my feelings
> of solidarity with them were clearly misplaced. If you had followed the
> more recent thread "We are All Spaniards -- NOT", you would know how I
feel
> about this.
>
> I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed the
> terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way
that
> cannot be measured.
>
> I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly
evident
> that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
> third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once
ruled
> the seas, and much of the world.
> --

The Spanish are more of a first world nation than the US ever will be Jay.
All empires come and go. Same will happen to the US. History is a great
place to begin learning about the future. Mind you you need a history in the
first place.

[John Harper]

Up until this thread, I always thought Jay was a decent guy.
I looked forward sometime to flying across the country and
staying at his hotel.

This thread has been an eye-openeer, and this particular mail
has finally prompted me to get to my keyboard. This is unbelievably
patronising. The former Spanish government took Spain into
a war against the expressed will of the Spanish people, just
as my government's country did (the United Kingdom). The purported
basis for the war has been demonstrated now to have been false.
The Spanish people have voted, in a democratic way, to remove
that government.

I know it's hard for quite a few Americans to accept it (evidently
including Jay), but just because the US government wants to do
something, doesn't mean that everyone in the whole world should
agree with them.

Guess if I ever do come to Iowa City (not honestly very likely), I'll
be looking for another hotel.

John

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Jcj8c.83648$_w.1132827@attbi_s53...
> > No problem, there's obviously no point in arguing with you. One last
> > thing I would like to say, though. In this discussion you have shown
> > how far from being a Spaniard you are, inspite of your own subject
> > line.
>
> Sorry, Alex. I completely misread the situation in Spain, and my feelings
> of solidarity with them were clearly misplaced. If you had followed the
> more recent thread "We are All Spaniards -- NOT", you would know how I
feel
> about this.
>
> I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed the
> terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way
that
> cannot be measured.
>
> I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly
evident
> that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
> third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once
ruled
> the seas, and much of the world.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://www.palestine-un.org/info/ref.html
>

The Jews forced no Arabs off their land.

[Ben Jackson]

In article <1080160340.555275@sj-nntpcache-5>,
John Harper > wrote:
>The Spanish people have voted, in a democratic way, to remove
>that government.
>
>I know it's hard for quite a few Americans to accept it

My cat frequently leads me to the counter by the treats and whines.
I can sit here in my office and think, "I will give the cat a treat no
matter what," before I go downstairs. If I go to give him a treat and
he runs in front of me and whines before I do, it doesn't matter to my
cat that there is a perfectly logical alternative reason why he got a
treat. The lesson that is reinforced for him is, "I whine, I get treats".

I've seen plenty of perfectly logical alternative explanations to the
outcome of the Spanish elections. I don't think any of them will dissuade
terrorists from learning the lesson, "I can change the election if I blow
stuff up."

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Jay Honeck]

> Guess if I ever do come to Iowa City (not honestly very likely), I'll
> be looking for another hotel.

Sad, but we'll get by without you, John.

If a conversation about world politics so upsets your delicate nature, I can
only wonder how you survive in the real world.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[S Green]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:6ln8c.83869$1p.1229226@attbi_s54...
> In article <1080160340.555275@sj-nntpcache-5>,
> John Harper > wrote:
> >The Spanish people have voted, in a democratic way, to remove
> >that government.
> >
> >I know it's hard for quite a few Americans to accept it
>
> My cat frequently leads me to the counter by the treats and whines.
> I can sit here in my office and think, "I will give the cat a treat no
> matter what," before I go downstairs. If I go to give him a treat and
> he runs in front of me and whines before I do, it doesn't matter to my
> cat that there is a perfectly logical alternative reason why he got a
> treat. The lesson that is reinforced for him is, "I whine, I get treats".
>
> I've seen plenty of perfectly logical alternative explanations to the
> outcome of the Spanish elections. I don't think any of them will dissuade
> terrorists from learning the lesson, "I can change the election if I blow
> stuff up."

You guys are real cry babies

[S Green]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Gmn8c.84408$Cb.1107621@attbi_s51...
> > Guess if I ever do come to Iowa City (not honestly very likely), I'll
> > be looking for another hotel.
>
> Sad, but we'll get by without you, John.
>
> If a conversation about world politics so upsets your delicate nature, I
can
> only wonder how you survive in the real world.
Jerk!

[Jay Honeck]

> > If a conversation about world politics so upsets your delicate nature, I
> can
> > only wonder how you survive in the real world.
> Jerk!

Wow -- you must've thought long and hard on that one before pushing
"Send"...

Why is it that people of your ilk can't seem to discuss world events like
gentlemen?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Wdtabor]

>
>> > If a conversation about world politics so upsets your delicate nature, I
>> can
>> > only wonder how you survive in the real world.
>> Jerk!
>
>Wow -- you must've thought long and hard on that one before pushing
>"Send"...
>
>Why is it that people of your ilk can't seem to discuss world events like
>gentlemen?
>--


Because when people's political position is based entirely on emotion and
devoid of logic, refuting it doesn't just challenge their ideas, it challenges
their identity. They react to disagreement as though it were an attack on them
personally.

Don

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

[Dave Stadt]

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:Jcj8c.83648$_w.1132827@attbi_s53...
> > > No problem, there's obviously no point in arguing with you. One last
> > > thing I would like to say, though. In this discussion you have shown
> > > how far from being a Spaniard you are, inspite of your own subject
> > > line.
> >
> > Sorry, Alex. I completely misread the situation in Spain, and my
feelings
> > of solidarity with them were clearly misplaced. If you had followed
the
> > more recent thread "We are All Spaniards -- NOT", you would know how I
> feel
> > about this.
> >
> > I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed
the
> > terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way
> that
> > cannot be measured.
> >
> > I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly
> evident
> > that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
> > third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once
> ruled
> > the seas, and much of the world.
> > --
>
> The Spanish are more of a first world nation than the US ever will be Jay.
> All empires come and go. Same will happen to the US. History is a great
> place to begin learning about the future. Mind you you need a history in
the
> first place.

That's the best joke of this very long thread. Spain a first world
country......I nearly spilt my Barq's root beer over that one.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> The real measure of the world's opinion is this: How many people are
> fighting and dying to get into FINLAND? You just don't see too many
> people floating on inner-tubes for weeks to get there...


Or the best one of all, the old 50 something chevy sedan with barrels
welded on for floats and a prop attached to the driveshaft. The picture
of the Cuban driving, sitting there with the window down and his arm
resting on the top of the door like he's driving to town is priceless.

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>>The real measure of the world's opinion is this: How many people are
>>fighting and dying to get into FINLAND?
>
>
>
> well, Finnland is too far away from Cuba .. they take the next best chance.

Well according to you it's about the 7th best chance.

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:


>
> proof it.
> give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in Austria,
> Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.

There's no opportunity in Europe. Germany and France have their economy
standing still, not growing. Here in the States our economy is growing
at an average 4% rate, right in the sweet spot for avoiding inflation,
etc. We are humming right along like we always do. You all sit there
and bitch and whine. Like you always do.

[Newps]

Last week I heard that 70% of the Brits approved of the war. Was this
in error?



John Harper wrote:

> Up until this thread, I always thought Jay was a decent guy.
> I looked forward sometime to flying across the country and
> staying at his hotel.
>
> This thread has been an eye-openeer, and this particular mail
> has finally prompted me to get to my keyboard. This is unbelievably
> patronising. The former Spanish government took Spain into
> a war against the expressed will of the Spanish people, just
> as my government's country did (the United Kingdom). The purported
> basis for the war has been demonstrated now to have been false.
> The Spanish people have voted, in a democratic way, to remove
> that government.
>
> I know it's hard for quite a few Americans to accept it (evidently
> including Jay), but just because the US government wants to do
> something, doesn't mean that everyone in the whole world should
> agree with them.
>
> Guess if I ever do come to Iowa City (not honestly very likely), I'll
> be looking for another hotel.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

> give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in
> Austria,
> Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.

Have you watched any TV in the UK? 'nuff said.

:-)

--
Bob Noel

[Wdtabor]

>
>> give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in
>> Austria,
>> Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.
>
>Have you watched any TV in the UK? 'nuff said.
>
>:-)
>

Uh, have you ever seen the condition of the average Brit's teeth?

I mean, I'm a dentist, so it would be expected I would notice, but just look at
them.

Their dental health system alone should religate them to third world status.

Don

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

[Roy Epperson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Gmn8c.84408$Cb.1107621@attbi_s51...
> > Guess if I ever do come to Iowa City (not honestly very likely), I'll
> > be looking for another hotel.
>
> Sad, but we'll get by without you, John.
>
> If a conversation about world politics so upsets your delicate nature, I
can
> only wonder how you survive in the real world.

'cause it's real easy to hide behind a keyboard and a newsgroup......

[John Harper]

Yes. I don't know where you heard it (Fox maybe?) but it
absolutely is not the case. I can't recall exact figures from
a year ago, but there was always a majority of the country
against it. There was a brief blip just after the start of things
when the level of approval went up, before things started to
get ugly and the real long term problem became apparent.

John

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Tfp8c.85877$_w.1145038@attbi_s53...
> Last week I heard that 70% of the Brits approved of the war. Was this
> in error?
>
>
>
> John Harper wrote:
>
> > Up until this thread, I always thought Jay was a decent guy.
> > I looked forward sometime to flying across the country and
> > staying at his hotel.
> >
> > This thread has been an eye-openeer, and this particular mail
> > has finally prompted me to get to my keyboard. This is unbelievably
> > patronising. The former Spanish government took Spain into
> > a war against the expressed will of the Spanish people, just
> > as my government's country did (the United Kingdom). The purported
> > basis for the war has been demonstrated now to have been false.
> > The Spanish people have voted, in a democratic way, to remove
> > that government.
> >
> > I know it's hard for quite a few Americans to accept it (evidently
> > including Jay), but just because the US government wants to do
> > something, doesn't mean that everyone in the whole world should
> > agree with them.
> >
> > Guess if I ever do come to Iowa City (not honestly very likely), I'll
> > be looking for another hotel.
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Uh, have you ever seen the condition of the average Brit's teeth?
>
> I mean, I'm a dentist, so it would be expected I would notice, but
> just look at them.
>
> Their dental health system alone should religate them to third world
> status.
>

No fluoridation, but they saved their precious bodily fluids.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:DCn8c.84520$Cb.1106337@attbi_s51...
> > > If a conversation about world politics so upsets your delicate nature,
I
> > can
> > > only wonder how you survive in the real world.
> > Jerk!
>
> Wow -- you must've thought long and hard on that one before pushing
> "Send"...

Yes...for him.
>
> Why is it that people of your ilk can't seem to discuss world events like
> gentlemen?

Probably because he's NOT a gentleman, and he certainly doesn't seem mature.
Petulant brat is more the indication. No wonder so many not only _want_ a
welfare state, but NEED one.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John Harper" > wrote in message
news:1080160340.555275@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Up until this thread, I always thought Jay was a decent guy.
> I looked forward sometime to flying across the country and
> staying at his hotel.
>
> This thread has been an eye-openeer, and this particular mail
> has finally prompted me to get to my keyboard. This is unbelievably
> patronising. The former Spanish government took Spain into
> a war against the expressed will of the Spanish people,

John, Spain is NOT a democracy where each issue is decided seperately.

> just
> as my government's country did (the United Kingdom). The purported
> basis for the war has been demonstrated now to have been false.

Nope! Based on the bombing, it quite RIGHT.

> The Spanish people have voted, in a democratic way, to remove
> that government.

Their right...just like Germany voted in their choice in the 30's.

>
> I know it's hard for quite a few Americans to accept it (evidently
> including Jay), but just because the US government wants to do
> something, doesn't mean that everyone in the whole world should
> agree with them.

We don't ask the to agree with us and we certainly don't ask theri
PERMISSION.

>
> Guess if I ever do come to Iowa City (not honestly very likely), I'll
> be looking for another hotel.

FOAD.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "S Green" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:Jcj8c.83648$_w.1132827@attbi_s53...
> > > > No problem, there's obviously no point in arguing with you. One last
> > > > thing I would like to say, though. In this discussion you have shown
> > > > how far from being a Spaniard you are, inspite of your own subject
> > > > line.
> > >
> > > Sorry, Alex. I completely misread the situation in Spain, and my
> feelings
> > > of solidarity with them were clearly misplaced. If you had followed
> the
> > > more recent thread "We are All Spaniards -- NOT", you would know how I
> > feel
> > > about this.
> > >
> > > I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed
> the
> > > terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a
way
> > that
> > > cannot be measured.
> > >
> > > I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly
> > evident
> > > that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
> > > third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once
> > ruled
> > > the seas, and much of the world.
> > > --
> >
> > The Spanish are more of a first world nation than the US ever will be
Jay.
> > All empires come and go. Same will happen to the US. History is a great
> > place to begin learning about the future. Mind you you need a history in
> the
> > first place.
>
> That's the best joke of this very long thread. Spain a first world
> country......I nearly spilt my Barq's root beer over that one.
>
_NOBODY_ EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISTION!!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:ubp8c.85156$Cb.1112104@attbi_s51...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >
> > The real measure of the world's opinion is this: How many people are
> > fighting and dying to get into FINLAND? You just don't see too many
> > people floating on inner-tubes for weeks to get there...
>
>
> Or the best one of all, the old 50 something chevy sedan with barrels
> welded on for floats and a prop attached to the driveshaft. The picture
> of the Cuban driving, sitting there with the window down and his arm
> resting on the top of the door like he's driving to town is priceless.

In 1973 I got to see the Berlin Wall, ostensibly built to keep people OUT,
yet all the guns (and people shot) were on the other side of the wall. 'Nuff
said?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:icp8c.84595$1p.1239039@attbi_s54...
>
>
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The real measure of the world's opinion is this: How many people are
> >>fighting and dying to get into FINLAND?
> >
> >
> >
> > well, Finnland is too far away from Cuba .. they take the next best
chance.
>
> Well according to you it's about the 7th best chance.

Haiti and the Dominican Republic are closer to Cuba than the US, just 61
miles versus 93 to the US...and the current runs towards the East.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:_ep8c.85864$_w.1143259@attbi_s53...
>
>
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>
> >
> > proof it.
> > give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in
Austria,
> > Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.

Well, let's look at houses:

When I was in college, as a bachelor, I had a bigger apartment than most
people in Wuopre had for raising a family.

A 2000 square foot, three bedrom house on a nice 1/4 acre lot is common
here; in Europe, that's a palace mostly for the aristocracy. Our aristocracy
is based on merit, not bloodlines.

In France, people RENT dogs to walk so they can look affluent; here a dog or
two is damn near standard equipment for most homes.

>
> There's no opportunity in Europe. Germany and France have their economy
> standing still, not growing. Here in the States our economy is growing
> at an average 4% rate, right in the sweet spot for avoiding inflation,
> etc. We are humming right along like we always do. You all sit there
> and bitch and whine. Like you always do.

We bitch because things aren't as good as they should be...he bitches
because things....well, for him, they SUCK!!

[Devil's Advocate]

> Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Why is it that people of your ilk can't seem to discuss world events like
> gentlemen?

Maybe because some of the other worldly people in this group get fed up
with watching some of you Americans discuss it like assholes.

[pacplyer]

Doug Carter > wrote in message >...
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> > well, I can afford medicamentation (can you?)
>
> Yep and I actually pay for them directly instead of
> laundering the money through a government.
>
> > another 33 countries to invade? ;-)
>
> So many countries, so little time. Well, perhaps only a
> dozen or so at a whack as we do have to keep up our
> tradition of rebuilding aggressor countries in Europe,
> Asia and now the Middle East.

Yeah Doug, this rebuilding crap is really slowing us down. ;-) Funny
how everybody wants to get in on that, but they don't want to do any
of the hard, dirty work first.


Martin Hotze wrote (in unarchived fashion)

to reduce it to a personal platform: let's assume that you are doing
something
illegal. Intelligence has no chance to get enough evidence (for the
sake of the
argument). Now: shall police - just because they are not happy of the
outcome
and they don't have 100% proof that you are _INNOCENT_ (rings a bell?)
have
every right to search your house (without a warrant) and your
belongings? [well,
in the name of terrorism this is already the law in the US]

#m



Pac sez:

Good question. If I'm connected to WMD? Sure. No one has the right
to grow anthrax in their bathtub. And I want my neighbor's suspicious
activity followed up on too. Only a fool wants to live next to a
raghead nerve-toxin lab.

Do I want police digging around in my house because they saw me doing
150mph/>300km/hr on the freeway this afternoon? No. That's why we
have lawyers. To sue the power-hungry cops after the unwarranted
intrusion. I agree It's a fine balancing act, and to be sure, dept
of homeland defense is abusing the patriot act already. And that is
not unexpected knowing the cop wish-list that they've had for years.
This is why I am for bombing outlaw states that send their operatives
over here. (helps keep them busy and helps keep the war over there.)
This reduces the need for Tom Ridge to defend the fatherland at all
costs (including his suspensions of freedom.) But Martin, surely you
can see that this "big stick" policy is working. Haven't you noticed
how friendly Libya is, all of a sudden? Do we see a pattern yet?

pacplyer

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Tfp8c.85877$_w.1145038@attbi_s53...
> Last week I heard that 70% of the Brits approved of the war. Was this
> in error?

Question for John is: Does it matter (to him)?

>
>
> John Harper wrote:
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Martin Hotze
> > wrote:
>
> > give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in
> > Austria,
> > Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.
>
> Have you watched any TV in the UK? 'nuff said.
>
> :-)
>
And we think we have it bad!!! :~}

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Uh, have you ever seen the condition of the average Brit's teeth?
> >
> > I mean, I'm a dentist, so it would be expected I would notice, but
> > just look at them.
> >
> > Their dental health system alone should religate them to third world
> > status.
> >
>
> No fluoridation, but they saved their precious bodily fluids.
>
They save their pee and call it "beer"?

[Tony Cox]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:Tfp8c.85877$_w.1145038@attbi_s53...
> Last week I heard that 70% of the Brits approved of the war. Was this
> in error?

It is about 48% in favour, 43% against, as of Mar 16.
Not much different from what it is in the US.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F16%2Fwstam216 .xml

As for the Iraqis, they are 70% vs. 29%, which is a
statistic many of the moaners would do well to remember.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwterr317 .xml

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And barely 200 years ago Spain was one of the three (Spain, England,
> > France), if not THE dominant power(s) and most prosperous nations in the
> > world. Today they're like a bunch of burned out old hags. They were
never
> > really invaded, but the destroyed themselves from within. And so it
> goes...
>
> You also have to remember that Spain is just one generation
> removed from a fascist dictatorship.

Is it even that long? Dictatorship or elected, it takes many generations to
get that our of your system. Notice the hardship the old Soviet bloc is
having coming into the modern world. Several lifetimes of someone running
everyones lives is hard to overcome.

>As such, its political
> institutions are somewhat fragile and its political class is
> immature. The socialists never really expected to win, and
> are in a way caught up in their own rhetoric.

Well, as the adage goes, "They made their bed, now let them sleep in it."

>
> That said, the new governments position is certainly irresponsible.
> No matter what one might think of Bush/Blair and how we got
> there, the question that should be asked is "What would happen
> if *all* troops pulled out?". Clearly, the result would be a civil war,
> further instability, the possible restoration of the Ba'athist régime,
> and the resumption of mass killings. As the new Spanish government
> would prefer to analyze the situation by describing the occupation
> as "a joke" (so ok, how would you make it better?) and by calling
> Blair "a dick head", it is clear that they aren't ready for a place at
> the top table.

Some people have to learn all their lessons the hard way. What's the old
line from Santayana about not learning from history?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Devil's Advocate" > wrote in message
...
> > Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > Why is it that people of your ilk can't seem to discuss world events
like
> > gentlemen?
>
> Maybe because some of the other worldly people in this group get fed up
> with watching some of you Americans discuss it like assholes.

Speaking of assholes...got a mirror?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> As for the Iraqis, they are 70% vs. 29%, which is a
> statistic many of the moaners would do well to remember.
>
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwterr317 .xml

I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from their
positions of power and privilege?

[Newps]

Talk to any grunt Private from the US Army home on leave and they will
tell you that every single average Iraqi is thrilled beyond belief that
we did this for them.



Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>>As for the Iraqis, they are 70% vs. 29%, which is a
>>statistic many of the moaners would do well to remember.
>>
>>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwterr317 .xml
>
> I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from their
> positions of power and privilege?
>
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> They save their pee and call it "beer"?
>

They saved their precious bodily fluids from fluoridation. Fluoridation is
a communist plot.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:pPr8c.86220$Cb.1140501@attbi_s51...
> Talk to any grunt Private from the US Army home on leave and they will
> tell you that every single average Iraqi is thrilled beyond belief that
> we did this for them.

I'm sure they are after being on the **** end of the stick for so
long...but, as you said, those are the "average" (whats the Arab equivalent
for Joe Doaks??) people.

Learning to live under liberty as an independant and self-directed people is
not going to be easy, just as Eastern Europe is showing us now, over a dozen
years after the Soviet collapse. All too many there want to run home to
Mama.

I hope they can pull it off -- it might snowball through the region like
Europe did in the late 80's and early 90's.

>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >
> >>As for the Iraqis, they are 70% vs. 29%, which is a
> >>statistic many of the moaners would do well to remember.
> >
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwterr317 .xml
> >
> > I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from their
> > positions of power and privilege?

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> wrote:

> _NOBODY_ EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISTION!!!

*finally*... gosh I was waiting for it...

--
Bob Noel

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > They save their pee and call it "beer"?
> >
>
> They saved their precious bodily fluids from fluoridation. Fluoridation
is
> a communist plot.

I notice the Russians have about the same caliber of dental work as the
Brits.

I used to work with a guy who has recently immigrated from the old USSR. His
dental work was like the old jokes about a redneck with one tooth. And he
was one of the higher-ups, a former (literally) rocket scientist with the
old Soviet space program.

Oh...three weeks after hitting the US his mother filed for Social Security
benefits.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/24/04 6:44 PM:

>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>> As for the Iraqis, they are 70% vs. 29%, which is a
>> statistic many of the moaners would do well to remember.
>>
>>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwter
> r317.xml
>
> I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from their
> positions of power and privilege?

I wonder how many of those 29% have lost a loved one in the current war?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> > wrote:
>
> > _NOBODY_ EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISTION!!!
>
> *finally*... gosh I was waiting for it...
>
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are
fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion
to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our
weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Tom Sixkiller at
> wrote on 3/24/04 6:44 PM:
>
> >
> > "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
> >> As for the Iraqis, they are 70% vs. 29%, which is a
> >> statistic many of the moaners would do well to remember.
> >>
> >>
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwter
> > r317.xml
> >
> > I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from their
> > positions of power and privilege?
>
> I wonder how many of those 29% have lost a loved one in the current war?

How many of the 71% lost one BEFORE the war?

[Philip Sondericker]

in article Jcj8c.83648$_w.1132827@attbi_s53, Jay Honeck at
wrote on 3/24/04 9:04 AM:

>> No problem, there's obviously no point in arguing with you. One last
>> thing I would like to say, though. In this discussion you have shown
>> how far from being a Spaniard you are, inspite of your own subject
>> line.
>
> Sorry, Alex. I completely misread the situation in Spain, and my feelings
> of solidarity with them were clearly misplaced. If you had followed the
> more recent thread "We are All Spaniards -- NOT", you would know how I feel
> about this.
>
> I stopped "Being a Spaniard" the moment the Spanish electorate handed the
> terrorists their biggest victory. They have endangered us all in a way that
> cannot be measured.

What is it about the Spanish elections that confuses people so? Everyting
about them is perfectly rational.

The leaders of Spain, much like our own leaders, told their people that
sending troops to Iraq and defeating Saddam Hussein would help keep them
safe from Al Qaida. After having sent troops to Iraq, and subsequently
suffering a terrorist attack from Al Qaida that was roughly equivalent to
the 9-11 attacks in terms of percentage of the population killed, the
Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?

> I still feel compassion for the innocent victims, but it is plainly evident
> that the Spanish people have rightly earned their world status as a
> third-tier nation. It's hard to believe that these same people once ruled
> the seas, and much of the world.

How many decades hence will historians be saying the same thing about the
U.S? In our lifetimes? In a hundred years? Empires have never lasted, and
they never will. It's a simple and unavoidable fact.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/24/04 7:14 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , Tom Sixkiller at
>> wrote on 3/24/04 6:44 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
>>> hlink.net...
>>>> As for the Iraqis, they are 70% vs. 29%, which is a
>>>> statistic many of the moaners would do well to remember.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwter
>>> r317.xml
>>>
>>> I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from their
>>> positions of power and privilege?
>>
>> I wonder how many of those 29% have lost a loved one in the current war?
>
> How many of the 71% lost one BEFORE the war?

I think the point here is that perhaps we shouldn't dismiss someone's
opinion based on information that we simply don't have. Remember the little
conversation we had about classifying opinions we disagree with as
"tantrums"?

[Tony Cox]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
> and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
> Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?

Why is it that when I hear "logically" and "people" in the same
sentence I have to repress a snort? Oh well. The questions that
the "Spanish people" should have asked themselves are:-

1) Will withdrawal from the coalition make us safer from Al Qaida
blackmail or not, especially since we have outposts in Morocco
and OBL has claimed us as the lost Moorish land of Andalusia?

2) If everyone withdrew from the coalition, what will happen to
Iraq?

3) Why should Britain and the US lift a finger in future to help
us if we pull out of the coalition and insult them at the same time?

Someone should have explained to them exactly what they were
voting for.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
news:BC879450.CFBD3%> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwter
> >>> r317.xml
> >>>
> >>> I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from
their
> >>> positions of power and privilege?
> >>
> >> I wonder how many of those 29% have lost a loved one in the current
war?
> >
> > How many of the 71% lost one BEFORE the war?
>
> I think the point here is that perhaps we shouldn't dismiss someone's
> opinion based on information that we simply don't have. Remember the
little
> conversation we had about classifying opinions we disagree with as
> "tantrums"?

Dismissing a difference of (well founded) opinion and dismissing a tantrum
are two VERY different things. Someone comes off as a whiney brat and one
really doesn't give a damn what they opinion is. Unsubstantiated claims,
logical fallacies are bad enough, but the tantrums come when someone starts
seeing they're LOSING..particularly a cherished belief (i.e., a security
blanket). You do know the difference, I'd imagine, so don't patronize, okay?


For example, there's been a bunch of stories about people in Iraq that lost
loved ones in the war and are still grateful to see Saddam ousted.

Another example would be to look up the story of the farmer whose family
members were killed in an accidental bombing my Lt. George McGovern during
the later days of WW2. They managed to talk some 30 -35 years later and the
conversation is amazing. Look it up!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> What is it about the Spanish elections that confuses people so? Everyting
> about them is perfectly rational.
>
> The leaders of Spain, much like our own leaders, told their people that
> sending troops to Iraq and defeating Saddam Hussein would help keep them
> safe from Al Qaida.

Is that what they told them? If they did, they were patently NUTS! Anyone
who gets to the top of a country and spouts such drivel deserves to lose.

>After having sent troops to Iraq, and subsequently
> suffering a terrorist attack from Al Qaida that was roughly equivalent to
> the 9-11 attacks in terms of percentage of the population killed, the
> Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
> and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
> Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?

Boy, those Spaniards must believe in the tooth fairy as well.

> How many decades hence will historians be saying the same thing about the
> U.S? In our lifetimes? In a hundred years? Empires have never lasted, and
> they never will. It's a simple and unavoidable fact.

Nice non-sequitur.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to
Iraq
> > and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe
from
> > Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?
>
> Why is it that when I hear "logically" and "people" in the same
> sentence I have to repress a snort? Oh well. The questions that
> the "Spanish people" should have asked themselves are:-
>
> 1) Will withdrawal from the coalition make us safer from Al Qaida
> blackmail or not, especially since we have outposts in Morocco
> and OBL has claimed us as the lost Moorish land of Andalusia?
>
> 2) If everyone withdrew from the coalition, what will happen to
> Iraq?
>
> 3) Why should Britain and the US lift a finger in future to help
> us if we pull out of the coalition and insult them at the same time?
>
> Someone should have explained to them exactly what they were
> voting for.

A few days before the election, the old party was well out in front in the
polls. Doesn't sound like they were ****ed off to me.

(I wouldn't put it past the socialists to have planted the bomb).

Evidently the Spanish DO live in LaLa land!!

[Jay Honeck]

> NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
> surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
> fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are
> fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion
> to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our
> weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

"Weeeee....are the knights who say....NEEEK!"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Why is it that people of your ilk can't seem to discuss world events
like
> > gentlemen?
>
> Maybe because some of the other worldly people in this group get fed up
> with watching some of you Americans discuss it like assholes.

"Worldly" people needn't resort to name-calling -- the last refuge of the
incompetent.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Here in the States our economy is growing
> > at an average 4% rate, right in the sweet spot for avoiding inflation,
> > etc. We are humming right along like we always do.
>
> *hehe* good one.

Don't let the media fool you, Martin. Our economy *is* humming along, and
doing better than ever.

Remember, this is an election year, and the Republicans are in office. That
means that the ONLY economic news receiving popular airtime is the bad news.

Personally, our hotel business is up 30% over last year. Now part of that
is the fact that we were brand new -- but do you REALLY think a luxury
suites hotel would be doing so well if the U.S. economy was doing poorly?

Don't believe everything you read. Anyone who is unemployed right now in
the U.S. probably have a reason to be unemployed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:zCA8c.89779$1p.1346776@attbi_s54...
> > NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
> > surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
> > fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are
> > fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical
devotion
> > to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our
> > weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
>
> "Weeeee....are the knights who say....NEEEK!"

"No, let's not go to rec.aviation.piloting; 'tis a silly place".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:7NA8c.93739$po.720870@attbi_s52...
> > > Here in the States our economy is growing
> > > at an average 4% rate, right in the sweet spot for avoiding inflation,
> > > etc. We are humming right along like we always do.
> >
> > *hehe* good one.
>
> Don't let the media fool you, Martin. Our economy *is* humming along, and
> doing better than ever.
>
> Remember, this is an election year, and the Republicans are in office.
That
> means that the ONLY economic news receiving popular airtime is the bad
news.
>
> Personally, our hotel business is up 30% over last year. Now part of that
> is the fact that we were brand new -- but do you REALLY think a luxury
> suites hotel would be doing so well if the U.S. economy was doing poorly?

The company I work for ownes/operates 12 hotels in five states and that
division is doing well. Our other division developes mini and strip malls.
That division is also doing very well of late.

> Don't believe everything you read. Anyone who is unemployed right now in
> the U.S. probably have a reason to be unemployed.

One thing with the economy the last couple years is the amazing growth of
people going into self-employment. There was an article recently of (IIRC)
948,000 new businesses being started over the past months (don't recall how
many months).

Tom
--
"Flying an airplane is just like riding
a bike -- it's just a lot harder to put
baseball cards in the spokes" -- Capt. Rex Cramer

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Philip Sondericker
> writes:

>Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
>and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
>Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?
>

A basic education in history?

Churchill warned that appeasement was feeding the crocodile in hopes he would
eat you last. He did not say that fighting the crocodile was a guarantee of
safety, just that appeasement was certain to get you eaten sooner or later.

Don

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

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:

>
>> Germany and France have their economy
>> standing still, not growing.
>
>
>how you come to put Germany's economy together with France's? they don't have
>
>really much in common (except the same market, the EU).
>

Unemployment in Germany is 10%, what is it in France?

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

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Anyone who is unemployed right now in
> the U.S. probably have a reason to be unemployed.

Yeah, I've got one. There are no jobs in New Jersey for a telecommunications
systems engineer or C coder. Glad to know things are doing so well in Iowa, but
it sucks on this side of the country.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Anyone who is unemployed right now in
> > the U.S. probably have a reason to be unemployed.
>
> Yeah, I've got one. There are no jobs in New Jersey for a
telecommunications
> systems engineer or C coder. Glad to know things are doing so well in
Iowa, but
> it sucks on this side of the country.

George, can you tunnel out of Jersey and jump the barbed wire fences across
to another state?

Tom
--
"Flying an airplane is just like riding
a bike -- it's just a lot harder to put
baseball cards in the spokes" -- Capt. Rex Cramer

[Jay Honeck]

> "No, let's not go to rec.aviation.piloting; 'tis a silly place".

"Icky-icky-icky-icky-pe-tang-ang-ang-ang....!"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> George, can you tunnel out of Jersey and jump the barbed wire fences across
> to another state?

I have family reasons to keep me in NJ for at least two more years and probably
six more.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Jay Honeck]

> > George, can you tunnel out of Jersey and jump the barbed wire fences
across
> > to another state?
>
> I have family reasons to keep me in NJ for at least two more years and
probably
> six more.

Sorry, George. I know how that goes. (I was stuck in Wisconsin for decades
for the same reasons.)

Can you take your skills independent?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ZQC8c.94326$po.724204@attbi_s52...
> > > George, can you tunnel out of Jersey and jump the barbed wire fences
> across
> > > to another state?
> >
> > I have family reasons to keep me in NJ for at least two more years and
> probably
> > six more.
>
> Sorry, George. I know how that goes. (I was stuck in Wisconsin for
decades
> for the same reasons.)

Ditto. OTOH, back in '89, I left a good job in Colorado, which entailed
about 150-200 hours of flying annually, company equipment (T182RG, 340 and a
Conquest) and moved to Arizona to be closer to my in-laws as they were
getting on in years. Worst mistake I ever made!!

Last summer I had the opportunity to go back to the old company, and come
summmer, when I become (FINALLY) an empty-nester, we'll make it permanent.

>
> Can you take your skills independent?

Good question -- can you, George?

(I imagine you've already tried, but here's hoping)

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/24/04 9:31 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> news:BC879450.CFBD3%> >
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwter
>>>>> r317.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from
> their
>>>>> positions of power and privilege?
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how many of those 29% have lost a loved one in the current
> war?
>>>
>>> How many of the 71% lost one BEFORE the war?
>>
>> I think the point here is that perhaps we shouldn't dismiss someone's
>> opinion based on information that we simply don't have. Remember the
> little
>> conversation we had about classifying opinions we disagree with as
>> "tantrums"?
>
> Dismissing a difference of (well founded) opinion and dismissing a tantrum
> are two VERY different things. Someone comes off as a whiney brat and one
> really doesn't give a damn what they opinion is. Unsubstantiated claims,
> logical fallacies are bad enough, but the tantrums come when someone starts
> seeing they're LOSING..particularly a cherished belief (i.e., a security
> blanket). You do know the difference, I'd imagine, so don't patronize, okay?

You're the one calling people "whiney brats", and you're accusing ME of
being patronizing?

> For example, there's been a bunch of stories about people in Iraq that lost
> loved ones in the war and are still grateful to see Saddam ousted.
>
> Another example would be to look up the story of the farmer whose family
> members were killed in an accidental bombing my Lt. George McGovern during
> the later days of WW2. They managed to talk some 30 -35 years later and the
> conversation is amazing. Look it up!

I'm aware of that story, thanks. Why do you think it would be of particular
interest to me?

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/24/04 9:34 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What is it about the Spanish elections that confuses people so? Everyting
>> about them is perfectly rational.
>>
>> The leaders of Spain, much like our own leaders, told their people that
>> sending troops to Iraq and defeating Saddam Hussein would help keep them
>> safe from Al Qaida.
>
> Is that what they told them? If they did, they were patently NUTS! Anyone
> who gets to the top of a country and spouts such drivel deserves to lose.

Well, that means President Bush deserves to lose, because that's exactly
what he told us.

>> After having sent troops to Iraq, and subsequently
>> suffering a terrorist attack from Al Qaida that was roughly equivalent to
>> the 9-11 attacks in terms of percentage of the population killed, the
>> Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
>> and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
>> Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?
>
> Boy, those Spaniards must believe in the tooth fairy as well.

A bit over half of them have wised up, apparently.

>> How many decades hence will historians be saying the same thing about the
>> U.S? In our lifetimes? In a hundred years? Empires have never lasted, and
>> they never will. It's a simple and unavoidable fact.
>
> Nice non-sequitur.

It's not a non-sequitur. Jay made a comment about a once-mighty empire
falling into mediocrity, and since we're on the subject of global hegemony,
I thought I'd point out what always happens to empires, that's all.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Wdtabor at
wrote on 3/25/04 5:32 AM:

> In article >, Philip Sondericker
> > writes:
>
>> Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
>> and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
>> Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?
>>
>
> A basic education in history?
>
> Churchill warned that appeasement was feeding the crocodile in hopes he would
> eat you last. He did not say that fighting the crocodile was a guarantee of
> safety, just that appeasement was certain to get you eaten sooner or later.
>
> Don

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Iraq is connected to either the
9-11 attacks or the Madrid bombings...

[Philip Sondericker]

in article .net, Tony Cox
at wrote on 3/24/04 8:43 PM:

> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
>> and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
>> Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?
>
> Why is it that when I hear "logically" and "people" in the same
> sentence I have to repress a snort? Oh well. The questions that
> the "Spanish people" should have asked themselves are:-
>
> 1) Will withdrawal from the coalition make us safer from Al Qaida
> blackmail or not, especially since we have outposts in Morocco
> and OBL has claimed us as the lost Moorish land of Andalusia?

No, they should ask why staying in Iraq will help them with any of the
above.

> 2) If everyone withdrew from the coalition, what will happen to
> Iraq?

Actually, I think it's up to the leader of said coalition to explain exactly
what they intend to do in Iraq, and for how long.

> 3) Why should Britain and the US lift a finger in future to help
> us if we pull out of the coalition and insult them at the same time?

> Someone should have explained to them exactly what they were
> voting for.

Amazingly patronizing. Speaking of "insulting" an entire country...

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Can you take your skills independent?

Not really. The SE work is pretty specific to telecom and that industry continues
to go downhill. Most of the outfits here are still laying off. The various pieces
of AT&T are laying off the most skilled individuals and then trying to hire them
back as consultants at reduced salaries and/or no benefits. Since this is skilled,
compartmentalized work, those jobs are not available to anyone else. My former
employer is not hiring back, even on a consultant basis. They're down to something
under half the size they were in 2001, and just had yet another layoff. I've seen
ads by companies in other fields (such as pharmaceuticals) that state they will not
hire former telecom people.

As a C coder, I'm obsolete here. Everything is C++, Java, Perl, etc., and it's
not unusual for the skills list in an ad to require experience in over ten specific
systems and languages. They also want that to be experience - more schooling only
wastes your money. My database experience is Informix and INGRES. They want Oracle.
With employers getting literally thousands of resumes for every position, they take
only people who are a perfect match for the job.

The point is, this is typical of the situation in the NY/NJ area. Unemployment is
about 7%, most of it is white collar, and it really grates to have someone try to
tell the world that anyone who wants a job can have one in the U.S.. Even Home
Depot will refuse to hire someone with a Master's degree, 'cause they're
overqualified.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Tony Cox]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article .net, Tony
Cox
> at wrote on 3/24/04 8:43 PM:
>
> > Someone should have explained to them exactly what they were
> > voting for.
>
> Amazingly patronizing. Speaking of "insulting" an entire country...

It is not "amazingly patronizing" to expect an ally to consider the
impact on its partners. Especially Spain, which has benefited
handsomely from the EU and the security provided by the western
powers over the last 20 years.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Philip Sondericker
> writes:

>
>I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Iraq is connected to either the
>9-11 attacks or the Madrid bombings...
>
>

The same way that Normandy was connected to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

In WW2, we fought the fascist axis. We did not choose to land our forces in
Europe at Berlin, tactics and strategy determined where our attack would be
launched.

Now, we are fighting Islamofascism and again, strategy and tactics determine
where we will attack them. Look at a map. Anywhere other than Iraq that we
might have chosen as a starting point would have left us fighting a unified
Moslem world, probably under the leadership of Saddam. But by taking Saddam out
first, the possiblilty of unification is eliminated and we can now address the
problem areas in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia individually and in whatever way
is appropriate.

Hopefully, it has become apparent to them that their situation, with Iraq and
Afghanistan occupied, is militarily untenable, and they will see the light and
eject the Islamofascist elements within their countries without further miltary
action on our part.

Even as far away as Lybia, Kadahfi has seen the error of his ways and decided
that having nukes to share with terrorists is not so good an idea as he
thought. If Iran makes the same choice, great, the days of the mullahs there
are numbered anyway as their young population transforms the country.

But one way or another, Bush intends to be done with Islamofascist terrorism
and is on track to get it done. He, or his staff, is a LOT smarter than his
critics would like to believe. Being underestimated by his opponents has been
part of his political strategery for a long time.

Don


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

[Frank]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> "Frank" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Then why do these folks keep calling themselves Palestinians?
>
> I believe the UN declared a Palestinian refugee to be anyone who had lived
> in Palestine for two years or more prior to the Arab attack on the new
> state of Israel in 1948 and had lost their homes and livelihood as a
> result of
> that conflict. Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees. The Arab states
> refused to absorb the Arab refugees so they were left in camps in what
> would have been the new Arab state in Palestine.
>>
>> What was all that negotiating borders for?
>
> Which negotiations?


Pick one. Both sides periodically get together and come up with some new
agreement. Then both sides go home and figure out a way to screw it up. The
point is that both sides have acknowledged that each has a claim.


>
>> Right, wrong or indifferent there are a lot
>> of people that feel they have a claim to something there. Even Israel
>> agrees with that in priniciple.
>
> The Arabs claim all of the land, including the state of Israel.


Not all Arabs, specifically the ones that are interested in peace do not.
Hamas' support dries up as soon as this new state is created and the people
no longer have to pass thru Israeli checkpoints to get to work.


>
>>
>> I don't know, but it's my understanding that the people in the camps
>> and in the disputed areas aren't on either the Jordanian or the Israeli
>> voting roles.
>>
>
> Well of course they're not on Israeli voting rolls. Why would they be?
> They're not citizens of Israel. Those that had property in Israel would
> be on Israeli voting rolls if they hadn't abandoned their land.
>
> I don't know if there are any Jordanian voting rolls.


But if there are then these other would be on them? (That's a real question
btw). This discussion started about a question of whether one is a
terrorist or a freedom fighter. To me a large part of that issue can be
clarified by whether or not people in these refugee camps have the right to
vote somewhere.


>> They consider themselves Palestinians and they, apparently, have
>> various treaties/accords/agreements to support that notion.
>>
>
> They consider themselves Palestinians because they either lived in the
> Palestine region before the war or are descendents of someone that lived
> there. They are not citizens of Palestine, there is no nation of
> Palestine and there never was one.


But there supposedly is one coming if agreement can be reached, right?



>> If I am wrong
>> and they _were_ able to vote for or against Sharon last election then I
>> will be suprised that they haven't been able to put up numbers that would
>> infuence the election.
>>
>
> Did you vote in the last Israeli election? If not, why not?


My point/question is that if the Arabs in question are not citizens of
Israel and they are not citizens of Jordan and they have some legitimate
(by agreement) claim on the land then that would support the "freedom
fighter" label.



>> Israel has agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state, although they
>> certainly aren't happy about it.
>>
>
> Israel agreed to the creation of an Arab state in Palestine 57 years ago!
> That is, the Jews in Palestine agreed to the partition plan that would
> have created a second Arab state from the Palestine Mandate.


Has it been that long? You'd think they could've made more progress.

But you seem to be saying that there is a basis for these people to believe
they are Palestinians, unless this second Arab state the Jews agreed to is
to be called something else. In which case they would be
something-else-ians.



>> Understandable in that no one want's to
>> give up land. But they are in the driver's seat when it comes to the
>> peace process and dragging this out just causes too much pain and
>> suffering on both sides.
>>
>> The Israelis aren't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. The
>> sooner Israel gives up trying to avoid actually handing over the promised
>> territory the better.
>>
> Arafat was offered over 90% of the "occupied territories" and control of
> most of Jerusalem four years ago as a STARTING point in negotiations. He
> turned it down. The Arabs aren't interested in peace, they're only
> interested in the destruction of Israel.


What Arafat turned down was a Swiss cheese map that didn't have a continuous
border to be found. Kinda like saying Chicago and St. Louis are one country
but everything in between is something else.

You describe it as a starting point. Maybe it was. If so, it strikes me as
not a very good one. To me it looks like a way for Israel to appear to
offer something and then be able say it was the other sides fault for not
taking it. Even though it was a deal they themselves would never agree to
were the situations reversed.

Either way, Israel has shown it is no more interested in peace than the
Arabs. It is definitely in Sharon's interest to keep provoking more
attacks. His power comes from NOT giving up any land. It's a shame groups
like Hamas play right into his hands. But ultimately Israel has more
opportunity to resolve this.

What I find so ironic about this whole mess is that of all the peoples of
the world, Jews should understand what it means to be displaced, occupied,
and otherwise oppressed.

--
Frank....H

[Frank]

Tony Cox wrote:

> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article .net, Tony
> Cox
>> at wrote on 3/24/04 8:43 PM:
>>
>> > Someone should have explained to them exactly what they were
>> > voting for.
>>
>> Amazingly patronizing. Speaking of "insulting" an entire country...
>
> It is not "amazingly patronizing" to expect an ally to consider the
> impact on its partners. Especially Spain, which has benefited
> handsomely from the EU and the security provided by the western
> powers over the last 20 years.

I agree with your idea, but we have hardly treated anyone as partners. And
it seems to me that even you don't think so either. "We provided" doesn't
imply much of a partnership role for the "providee".

And of course if you consider the United States to be just one of the
"partners" then we would, by the above, have to consider their position
just as much as you expect them to see it our way.

--
Frank....H

[Frank]

Doug Carter wrote:

> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>> Norway tops UN list over best places to live (...)
>
> A UN list showing the U.S. in an unfavorable light? GASP!!
>
> Better check your meds dude; this is the same U.N. that
> appointed Lybia as the chair of the human rights commission.
>
> "January 2003, The Libyan candidate, diplomat and former
> journalist Najat al-Hajjaji, won 33 votes in a secret
> ballot of the 53-country Commission, with 17 states
> abstaining and three voting no -- apparently including the
> United States."

So what's the problem? The US got to vote. If it didn't come out the way we
wanted, we have the opportunity to change it next time around. That's the
way it's supposed to work. What doesn't work is only going along with the
UN when one agrees with it. Rule of law and all that.

And besides, by putting someone like this in charge of the commission could
conceivably do more to foster human rights because of the extra scrutiny.

Diplomat, former journalist? I've never heard of him, does he have some
record of human rights abuse? Or does he have a history of speaking out
against oppression?

--
Frank....H

[Frank]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

<snip>
>
> As a C coder, I'm obsolete here. Everything is C++, Java, Perl, etc., and
> it's not unusual for the skills list in an ad to require experience in
> over ten specific systems and languages. They also want that to be
> experience - more schooling only wastes your money. My database experience
> is Informix and INGRES. They want Oracle. With employers getting literally
> thousands of resumes for every position, they take only people who are a
> perfect match for the job.

Wow, you sound like my alter ego in a parallel universe. I too was a C coder
and did database work with Informix and INGRES (and Progress). I see a very
similar situation here in Milwaukee.

Although I have a good, stable job at the moment, I would be hard pressed if
I had to go looking right now. Moving is not an option.

It's even worse for my brother. He was downsized a little more than 2 years
ago (he produced sales/training videos) and has found nothing steady in his
field. He's not really the type to strike out on his own and that's about
the only real chance he has right now.

> The point is, this is typical of the situation in the NY/NJ area.
> Unemployment is about 7%, most of it is white collar, and it really grates
> to have someone try to tell the world that anyone who wants a job can have
> one in the U.S.. Even Home Depot will refuse to hire someone with a
> Master's degree, 'cause they're overqualified.
>
> George Patterson
> Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that
> would
> not yield to the tongue.


--
Frank....H

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Frank > writes:

>
>Not all Arabs, specifically the ones that are interested in peace do not.
>Hamas' support dries up as soon as this new state is created and the people
>no longer have to pass thru Israeli checkpoints to get to work.
>


Since all the econimic activity is in Israel, and that is where the work is, a
Palestinian state will still mean passing through Israeli checkpoints to get to
work.

Don

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

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Frank > writes:

>
>So what's the problem? The US got to vote. If it didn't come out the way we
>wanted, we have the opportunity to change it next time around. That's the
>way it's supposed to work. What doesn't work is only going along with the
>UN when one agrees with it. Rule of law and all that.
>

The 'problem' is that the US is a soveriegn country, not part of a world
democracy.

Don

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

[Frank]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

<snip>
>
> One thing with the economy the last couple years is the amazing growth of
> people going into self-employment. There was an article recently of (IIRC)
> 948,000 new businesses being started over the past months (don't recall
> how many months).
>
> Tom

How many were still in business after a year? I could see where rapid growth
in self-employment might be a symptom of a bad economy. After all, if there
are no employers hiring....



--
Frank....H

[Frank]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:_ep8c.85864$_w.1143259@attbi_s53...
>>
>>
>> Martin Hotze wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > proof it.
>> > give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in
> Austria,
>> > Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.
>
> Well, let's look at houses:
>
> When I was in college, as a bachelor, I had a bigger apartment than most
> people in Wuopre had for raising a family.
>
> A 2000 square foot, three bedrom house on a nice 1/4 acre lot is common
> here; in Europe, that's a palace mostly for the aristocracy. Our
> aristocracy is based on merit, not bloodlines.

You may want to be a little careful here. That house you describe is no
longer affordable unless you have 2 wage earners. When I started college
the norm was to have one parent stay home to raise the children. Today,
most are farmed out to surrogates.

Also, Europe does not have vast tracts of unused land next to cities to
parcel off into 1/4 acre lots.

Space is not the only criteria in judging quality of home life.

<snip>
--
Frank....H

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Can you take your skills independent?
> The point is, this is typical of the situation in the NY/NJ area.
Unemployment is
> about 7%, most of it is white collar, and it really grates to have someone
try to
> tell the world that anyone who wants a job can have one in the U.S.. Even
Home
> Depot will refuse to hire someone with a Master's degree, 'cause they're
> overqualified.

Jay didn't say/infer you or anyone could have the job you WANT, or even your
old one. The world, you know very well, doesn't work like that.

Personally, I'd like to have the job of professional golfer, but I'm a bit
under-qualified for that one.

You might, though, find these two articles interesting as they pertain to
the telecomm industry.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_comm-telecom.htm

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/epstein-perils_of_transition.html

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Doug Carter wrote:
>
> > Martin Hotze wrote:
> >
> >> Norway tops UN list over best places to live (...)

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=955 (Sweden: Poorer Than You
Think )

> >
> > A UN list showing the U.S. in an unfavorable light? GASP!!
> >
> > Better check your meds dude; this is the same U.N. that
> > appointed Lybia as the chair of the human rights commission.
> >
> > "January 2003, The Libyan candidate, diplomat and former
> > journalist Najat al-Hajjaji, won 33 votes in a secret
> > ballot of the 53-country Commission, with 17 states
> > abstaining and three voting no -- apparently including the
> > United States."
>
> So what's the problem? The US got to vote. If it didn't come out the way
we
> wanted, we have the opportunity to change it next time around. That's the
> way it's supposed to work.

That's why the US does _NOT_ have direct democracy.

> What doesn't work is only going along with the
> UN when one agrees with it. Rule of law and all that.
>

Outsourcing Foreign Policy and "The International Community"
by Thomas Sowell (March 23, 2004)

http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=3574

> And besides, by putting someone like this in charge of the commission
could
> conceivably do more to foster human rights because of the extra scrutiny.

You're not serious, are you?

>
> Diplomat, former journalist? I've never heard of him, does he have some
> record of human rights abuse? Or does he have a history of speaking out
> against oppression?

From Libya? You're not serious, are you?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yeah, I've got one. There are no jobs in New Jersey for
> a telecommunications systems engineer or C coder. Glad to
> know things are doing so well in Iowa, but it sucks on this
> side of the country.
>

Have you considered moving?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> >
> > "Newps" > wrote in message
> > news:_ep8c.85864$_w.1143259@attbi_s53...
> >>
> >>
> >> Martin Hotze wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > proof it.
> >> > give me some examples where or why people suffer (materially) more in
> > Austria,
> >> > Italy, Switzerland, Germany, France, UK, Australia than in the USA.
> >
> > Well, let's look at houses:
> >
> > When I was in college, as a bachelor, I had a bigger apartment than most
> > people in Wuopre had for raising a family.
> >
> > A 2000 square foot, three bedrom house on a nice 1/4 acre lot is common
> > here; in Europe, that's a palace mostly for the aristocracy. Our
> > aristocracy is based on merit, not bloodlines.
>
> You may want to be a little careful here. That house you describe is no
> longer affordable unless you have 2 wage earners.

(Non-sequitur)

And many DO it with one wage earner.

> When I started college
> the norm was to have one parent stay home to raise the children. Today,
> most are farmed out to surrogates.

(Non-sequitur)

> Also, Europe does not have vast tracts of unused land next to cities to
> parcel off into 1/4 acre lots.

(Non-sequitur) You should work for the UN!

> Space is not the only criteria in judging quality of home life.

But overcrowding certainly is. Matter of fact, it would be a primary
consideration...just not in the statist UN's eyes where everyone needs to be
watched.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Yeah, I've got one. There are no jobs in New Jersey for
> > a telecommunications systems engineer or C coder. Glad to
> > know things are doing so well in Iowa, but it sucks on this
> > side of the country.
> >
>
> Have you considered moving?

Not possible for the next two to six years.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:

>>Germany and France have their economy
>>standing still, not growing.
>
>
>
> how you come to put Germany's economy together with France's? they don't have
> really much in common (except the same market, the EU).

Even better. The fact is both economies are growing at less than 1/2%
per year.

[Newps]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>Anyone who is unemployed right now in
>>the U.S. probably have a reason to be unemployed.
>
>
> Yeah, I've got one. There are no jobs in New Jersey for a telecommunications
> systems engineer or C coder. Glad to know things are doing so well in Iowa, but
> it sucks on this side of the country.
>

Then why do you live there?

[Newps]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:


> The point is, this is typical of the situation in the NY/NJ area. Unemployment is
> about 7%, most of it is white collar, and it really grates to have someone try to
> tell the world that anyone who wants a job can have one in the U.S.. Even Home
> Depot will refuse to hire someone with a Master's degree, 'cause they're
> overqualified.

There are jobs available, just not where you live. That's your choice
and not anybody elses fault.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Frank > wrote:

> How many were still in business after a year? I could see where rapid
> growth
> in self-employment might be a symptom of a bad economy. After all, if
> there
> are no employers hiring....


otoh - it might be a symptom of idiots in the management of the
large companies.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Frank > wrote:

> > A 2000 square foot, three bedrom house on a nice 1/4 acre lot is common
> > here; in Europe, that's a palace mostly for the aristocracy. Our
> > aristocracy is based on merit, not bloodlines.
>
> You may want to be a little careful here. That house you describe is no
> longer affordable unless you have 2 wage earners.

oh please, that house is certainly affordable on one income.
Many people do it.

--
Bob Noel

[Jay Honeck]

> > Have you considered moving?
>
> Not possible for the next two to six years.

Well, George, you've obviously got:

a) An alternate source of income

or

b) A gigantic bank account

or

c) An incredibly inexpensive lifestyle

:-)

We've survived with little income over these last 19 months, and we don't
expect things to be wildly profitable for another two years, as we plow
everything we make back into the business -- so I know a bit about what
you're going through...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> Then why do you live there?

Because my wife lives here.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Well, George, you've obviously got:
> a) An alternate source of income

The unemployment ran out last Summer.

> b) A gigantic bank account

I have enough to last about 4 more months at the current deficit rate. Can I
interest you in a Maule? That will build it back up pretty nicely.

> c) An incredibly inexpensive lifestyle

I try to keep it as cheap as possible.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Noel" wrote:
> otoh - it might be a symptom of idiots in the management
> of the large companies.

Bingo. Working for a large corporation is like working for the
government - without the job security.
--
Dan
[refugee from corporate la-la land]