traitorous SOB [Archive] - AviationBanter

Divine Shadow

February 4th 04, 03:12 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/

Well, it can be said of Kerry that at least he went and served his country.
Like most other chickenhawks, W. found other places to be during Vietnam.
He even went so far as to cash in his connections to get placed ahead of a
long list to become a Guard pilot even though he scored the lowest score
possible. His record as a member of the NG is now biting his chickenhawk
ass:

http://www.awolbush.com/

The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil war
and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
character, not a traitor. If you cannot understand that, then I feel sorry
for you. Anyone who does not tow the party line is a traitor? Are you a
communist or just a fascist?
Please read the First 10 Amendments to the Constitution if you have any
questions about it.

I am not a democrat, and I have tended to vote republican in many elections,
not this time though. He lied about why we went to war, lied about his
military career, he lies practically every time he opens his mouth. Clinton
was a rank amatuer compared to this guy:

http://praesentia.us/archives/dishonestdubya.html

Mike Marron

February 4th 04, 03:53 PM

>"Divine Shadow" > wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

>The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil war
>and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
>character, not a traitor.

Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
military record or his anti-war protests that followed, we can attack
his politcal record such as his waffling around with regards to the
current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia.

George Z. Bush

February 4th 04, 04:08 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Divine Shadow" > wrote:
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> >The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil war
> >and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
> >character, not a traitor.
>
> Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
> military record or his anti-war protests that followed, we can attack
> his politcal record such as his waffling around with regards to the
> current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia.

Current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia? What specifically are we talking
about?

George Z.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mike Marron

February 4th 04, 04:22 PM

>"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>>>"Divine Shadow" > wrote:

>>>The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil war
>>>and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
>>>character, not a traitor.

>>Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
>>military record or his anti-war protests that followed, we can attack
>>his politcal record such as his waffling around with regards to the
>>current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia.

>Current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia? What specifically are we talking
>about?

Excuse me. I was referring to the war on terrorism which is actually
global but it's primarily being waged in both Southwest and Southeast
Asia and of course, the Middle East.

B2431

February 4th 04, 07:38 PM

>From: "M. J. Powell"
>Date: 2/4/2004 8:33 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In message >, xray > writes
>>Must be talking about Bush, lying and cheating. We are the laughing
>>stock of the world, going to war under false pretences. What a smear on
>>the honor and credibility of the U.S.
>>Like father like son, one term presidents. It's all over. He is getting
>>deaned. The people of the United States are starting to get the
>>picture. 53 to 47 percent.
>>And what is this story that Bush went awol? (does that stand for away
>>without leave?)
>
>Brit expression: Absent Without Leave.
>
>If it lasts long enough it's 'Desertion'.
>
>Mike
>--
>M.J.Powell
>

U.S. expression = absent without official leave.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

M. J. Powell

February 4th 04, 08:44 PM

In message >, B2431
> writes
>>From: "M. J. Powell"
>>Date: 2/4/2004 8:33 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>In message >, xray > writes
>>>Must be talking about Bush, lying and cheating. We are the laughing
>>>stock of the world, going to war under false pretences. What a smear on
>>>the honor and credibility of the U.S.
>>>Like father like son, one term presidents. It's all over. He is getting
>>>deaned. The people of the United States are starting to get the
>>>picture. 53 to 47 percent.
>>>And what is this story that Bush went awol? (does that stand for away
>>>without leave?)
>>
>>Brit expression: Absent Without Leave.
>>
>>If it lasts long enough it's 'Desertion'.
>>
>>Mike
>>--
>>M.J.Powell
>>
>
>U.S. expression = absent without official leave.

Is there unofficial leave in the US forces?

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

George Shirley

February 4th 04, 09:23 PM

M. J. Powell wrote:

> In message >, B2431
> > writes
>
>>> From: "M. J. Powell"
>>> Date: 2/4/2004 8:33 AM Central Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> In message >, xray > writes
>>>
>>>> Must be talking about Bush, lying and cheating. We are the laughing
>>>> stock of the world, going to war under false pretences. What a smear on
>>>> the honor and credibility of the U.S.
>>>> Like father like son, one term presidents. It's all over. He is getting
>>>> deaned. The people of the United States are starting to get the
>>>> picture. 53 to 47 percent.
>>>> And what is this story that Bush went awol? (does that stand for away
>>>> without leave?)
>>>
>>>
>>> Brit expression: Absent Without Leave.
>>>
>>> If it lasts long enough it's 'Desertion'.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> --
>>> M.J.Powell
>>>
>>
>> U.S. expression = absent without official leave.
>
>
> Is there unofficial leave in the US forces?
>
> Mike

Yeah, it's called AWOL (Absent WithOut Leave)(USN - 1957-1963) and
sometimes Desertion. B-)

George

Peter Kemp

February 4th 04, 09:40 PM

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:35:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:31:11 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
>>
>> First of all, that's off topic crap. Secondly, it's a riotously funny
>> website - the first chunk demonstrates Kerry's excellent service
>> record, then calls him a traitor for exercising his constitutionally
>> guaranteed right to free speech. LOL
>
>The site is a military subject. If you have a problem understanding the
>words, recreation, aviation and military, I suggest you seek a dictionary.

I suggest you understand the word aviation, which you so kindly quoted
above. Kerry was a small boat commander.

Duh!

Peter Kemp

George Z. Bush

February 4th 04, 11:47 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
> >>>"Divine Shadow" > wrote:
>
> >>>The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil war
> >>>and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
> >>>character, not a traitor.
>
> >>Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
> >>military record or his anti-war protests that followed, we can attack
> >>his politcal record such as his waffling around with regards to the
> >>current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia.
>
> >Current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia? What specifically are we talking
> >about?
>
> Excuse me. I was referring to the war on terrorism which is actually
> global but it's primarily being waged in both Southwest and Southeast
> Asia and of course, the Middle East.

OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the Taliban;
in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a military
adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
one of them.

George Z.
>
>

B2431

February 4th 04, 11:55 PM

>From: "M. J. Powell"

>
>In message >, B2431
> writes
>>>From: "M. J. Powell"
>>>Date: 2/4/2004 8:33 AM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>In message >, xray > writes
>>>>Must be talking about Bush, lying and cheating. We are the laughing
>>>>stock of the world, going to war under false pretences. What a smear on
>>>>the honor and credibility of the U.S.
>>>>Like father like son, one term presidents. It's all over. He is getting
>>>>deaned. The people of the United States are starting to get the
>>>>picture. 53 to 47 percent.
>>>>And what is this story that Bush went awol? (does that stand for away
>>>>without leave?)
>>>
>>>Brit expression: Absent Without Leave.
>>>
>>>If it lasts long enough it's 'Desertion'.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>--
>>>M.J.Powell
>>>
>>
>>U.S. expression = absent without official leave.
>
>Is there unofficial leave in the US forces?
>
>Mike
>--
>M.J.Powell
>
Yes, it's called a pass or compensatory time off.

Danh, U. S. Air Force, retired

Mike Marron

February 5th 04, 12:11 AM

>"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Excuse me. I was referring to the war on terrorism which is actually
>>global but it's primarily being waged in both Southwest and Southeast
>>Asia and of course, the Middle East.

>OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
>before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the Taliban;
>in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a military
>adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
>one of them.

This has all been explained/debated/argued countless times before.

Sorry amigo, but you're just gonna have to get used to the GOP
controlling the White House for (at least!) another four years! ;)

Ed Rasimus

February 5th 04, 12:42 AM

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:47:00 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
>before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the Taliban;
>in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a military
>adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
>one of them.
>
>George Z.

Might want to update your terrorism charts there. We've got troops
deployed around the world and the fight isn't just against OBL and the
the Taliban. There's terrorist activity in the Philippines, in
Somalia, in several countries in Africa, in S. America and many more
places. Almost all of the hot spots have small detached units of US
military deployed.

And, I'd say characterizing Operation Iraqi Freedom as "waged for
still unexplained reasons" is a gross over-simplification. There have
been lots of reasons explained and they extend well beyond this canard
of "no WMD".

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

George Z. Bush

February 5th 04, 12:45 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> >>Excuse me. I was referring to the war on terrorism which is actually
> >>global but it's primarily being waged in both Southwest and Southeast
> >>Asia and of course, the Middle East.
>
> >OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
> >before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the
Taliban;
> >in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a
military
> >adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
> >one of them.
>
> This has all been explained/debated/argued countless times before.
>
> Sorry amigo, but you're just gonna have to get used to the GOP
> controlling the White House for (at least!) another four years! ;)

You're entitled to your opinion and that's what makes for horse races! (^-^)))

Tarver Engineering

February 5th 04, 02:40 AM

"Divine Shadow" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
>
>
> Well, it can be said of Kerry that at least he went and served his
country.

GW's service is as good as Kerry's, one either served, or they did not.

Tarver Engineering

February 5th 04, 02:40 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Divine Shadow" > wrote:
>
> [snipped for brevity]
>
> >The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and evil
war
> >and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man of
> >character, not a traitor.
>
> Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
> military record or his anti-war protests that followed,

Actually, Kerry is very much at risk politically for being a traitor.

Tarver Engineering

February 5th 04, 02:51 AM

"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 15:35:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Peter Kemp" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:31:11 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
> >>
> >> First of all, that's off topic crap. Secondly, it's a riotously funny
> >> website - the first chunk demonstrates Kerry's excellent service
> >> record, then calls him a traitor for exercising his constitutionally
> >> guaranteed right to free speech. LOL
> >
> >The site is a military subject. If you have a problem understanding the
> >words, recreation, aviation and military, I suggest you seek a
dictionary.
>
> I suggest you understand the word aviation, which you so kindly quoted
> above. Kerry was a small boat commander.

Thanks for dropping by.

Tarver Engineering

February 5th 04, 02:52 AM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Marron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> > >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
> > >>>"Divine Shadow" > wrote:
> >
> > >>>The fact that he came home from what he felt to be an immoral and
evil war
> > >>>and tried to stop it using his Constitutional rights makes him a man
of
> > >>>character, not a traitor.
> >
> > >>Most excellent point. However, while we cannot attack Kerry on his
> > >>military record or his anti-war protests that followed, we can attack
> > >>his politcal record such as his waffling around with regards to the
> > >>current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia.
> >
> > >Current unpleasantries in Southwest Asia? What specifically are we
talking
> > >about?
> >
> > Excuse me. I was referring to the war on terrorism which is actually
> > global but it's primarily being waged in both Southwest and Southeast
> > Asia and of course, the Middle East.
>
> OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling?

Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and the voted against funding the troops in
the field.

George Z. Bush

February 5th 04, 02:23 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:47:00 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling? And
> >before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the
Taliban;
> >in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a
military
> >adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not being
> >one of them.
> >
> >George Z.
>
> Might want to update your terrorism charts there. We've got troops
> deployed around the world and the fight isn't just against OBL and the
> the Taliban. There's terrorist activity in the Philippines, in
> Somalia, in several countries in Africa, in S. America and many more
> places. Almost all of the hot spots have small detached units of US
> military deployed.

I am perfectly aware that anti-western terrorist activity has existed in
numerous places throughout the world. What I said was that many people did not
feel that Iraq was one of those places where that kind of activity took place,
or even, I might add, where training for it took place.

> And, I'd say characterizing Operation Iraqi Freedom as "waged for
> still unexplained reasons" is a gross over-simplification. There have
> been lots of reasons explained and they extend well beyond this canard
> of "no WMD".

You're entitled to your opinion. There certainly have been lots of reasons
advanced for launching this war and, as quickly as one proves to be untrue,
another one is presented until it, too, proves to be untrue, followed by another
one.....etc. You may be gullible enough to believe what you are told by the
government, but after the second unsubstantiated reason, I no longer believe
anything they have to say on the subject. Just between the two of us, I've
already concluded to my own satisfaction that the real reasons we entered this
war were (1) to complete the Gulf War, left undone by the President's father,
(2) to topple Sadaam Hussein for his attempted assassination of the President's
father, and (3) to secure de facto control over the sea of oil on which Iraq
sits. Since none of these reasons would have sat well with the public if
presented, alternative reasons had to be contrived. Unfortunately, each of
those alternative reasons upon examination was shown to be quite obviously
contrived .

But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be willing
to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for launching
this war rather than those offered by our government.

George Z.

Ed Rasimus

February 5th 04, 02:47 PM

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:23:26 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

>
>You're entitled to your opinion. There certainly have been lots of reasons
>advanced for launching this war and, as quickly as one proves to be untrue,
>another one is presented until it, too, proves to be untrue, followed by another
>one.....etc. You may be gullible enough to believe what you are told by the
>government, but after the second unsubstantiated reason, I no longer believe
>anything they have to say on the subject. Just between the two of us, I've
>already concluded to my own satisfaction that the real reasons we entered this
>war were (1) to complete the Gulf War, left undone by the President's father,
>(2) to topple Sadaam Hussein for his attempted assassination of the President's
>father, and (3) to secure de facto control over the sea of oil on which Iraq
>sits. Since none of these reasons would have sat well with the public if
>presented, alternative reasons had to be contrived. Unfortunately, each of
>those alternative reasons upon examination was shown to be quite obviously
>contrived .
>
>But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be willing
>to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
>eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for launching
>this war rather than those offered by our government.

Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)

You might want to check who buys and uses Iraqi oil--the French and
the Russians mostly. Less than 5% of American oil purchases come from
Iraq. It mostly goes to Europe and N. Asia.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Kevin Brooks

February 5th 04, 03:20 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:47:00 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >OK, but he voted against the war on terrorism, so where's the waffling?
And
> > >before you say it, the war on terrorism is the war against OBL and the
> Taliban;
> > >in many people's eyes, it does NOT include the war on Iraq. That's a
> military
> > >adventure waged for still unexplained reasons, the war on terrorism not
being
> > >one of them.
> > >
> > >George Z.
> >
> > Might want to update your terrorism charts there. We've got troops
> > deployed around the world and the fight isn't just against OBL and the
> > the Taliban. There's terrorist activity in the Philippines, in
> > Somalia, in several countries in Africa, in S. America and many more
> > places. Almost all of the hot spots have small detached units of US
> > military deployed.
>
> I am perfectly aware that anti-western terrorist activity has existed in
> numerous places throughout the world. What I said was that many people
did not
> feel that Iraq was one of those places where that kind of activity took
place,
> or even, I might add, where training for it took place.

Never heard of Salman Pak, huh? Large terrorist training facility in Iraq
overrun by the USMC during the advance northward?

www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/iraq.report/

www.militarycity.com/iraq/1746678.html

Gee, another case of facts inconveniently interfering with a George Z
rant...who'd have thunk it?

Brooks

<snip>

Mike Marron

February 5th 04, 03:40 PM

>"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>You're entitled to your opinion. There certainly have been lots of reasons
>advanced for launching this war and, as quickly as one proves to be untrue,
>another one is presented until it, too, proves to be untrue, followed by another
>one.....etc. You may be gullible enough to believe what you are told by the
>government, but after the second unsubstantiated reason, I no longer believe
>anything they have to say on the subject. Just between the two of us, I've
>already concluded to my own satisfaction that the real reasons we entered this
>war were (1) to complete the Gulf War, left undone by the President's father,
>(2) to topple Sadaam Hussein for his attempted assassination of the President's
>father, and (3) to secure de facto control over the sea of oil on which Iraq
>sits. Since none of these reasons would have sat well with the public if
>presented, alternative reasons had to be contrived. Unfortunately, each of
>those alternative reasons upon examination was shown to be quite obviously
>contrived .

>But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be willing
>to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
>eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for launching
>this war rather than those offered by our government.

>George Z.

And after all's said and done, everything you just wrote ain't worth a
pitcher of warm spit because even if no WMD's are found, history will
forgive us!

S. Sampson

February 5th 04, 03:47 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
>
> What I said was that many people did not
> feel that Iraq was one of those places where that kind of activity took place,
> or even, I might add, where training for it took place.

Name five people running the United States Government (i.e., "many people")
who thought along these lines. Name five Generals.

The reason we invaded Iraq, and why we will invade Syria, is that they are a
threat to western civilization. Whether terrorist, conventional, or NBC, these
governments have only one reason to exist, and it has nothing to do with trade
and cultural exchange.

Rather than go to Mars, our government needs an energy policy that is based
on fusion, and until we do, we will continue to pay these regimes with revenue
collected for the purchase of their fossil fuels.

George Z. Bush

February 5th 04, 03:54 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:23:26 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >You're entitled to your opinion. There certainly have been lots of reasons
> >advanced for launching this war and, as quickly as one proves to be untrue,
> >another one is presented until it, too, proves to be untrue, followed by
another
> >one.....etc. You may be gullible enough to believe what you are told by the
> >government, but after the second unsubstantiated reason, I no longer believe
> >anything they have to say on the subject. Just between the two of us, I've
> >already concluded to my own satisfaction that the real reasons we entered
this
> >war were (1) to complete the Gulf War, left undone by the President's father,
> >(2) to topple Sadaam Hussein for his attempted assassination of the
President's
> >father, and (3) to secure de facto control over the sea of oil on which Iraq
> >sits. Since none of these reasons would have sat well with the public if
> >presented, alternative reasons had to be contrived. Unfortunately, each of
> >those alternative reasons upon examination was shown to be quite obviously
> >contrived .
> >
> >But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be
willing
> >to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
> >eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for
launching
> >this war rather than those offered by our government.
>
> Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
> what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
> in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
> over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)

Different war and different administration.
>
> You might want to check who buys and uses Iraqi oil--the French and
> the Russians mostly. Less than 5% of American oil purchases come from
> Iraq. It mostly goes to Europe and N. Asia.

You might want to take a look at the following link, which will provide you with
a fairly comprehensive report on the condition of the Iraqi oil fields as of
last May:

http://www.csis.org/hill/ts030514ebel.pdf

If you can dig your way through it, I think you'll agree that we are controlling
Iraqi oil, and precious little is going anywhere without our OK. Do you really
think we'd approve selling and shipping oil to two of the countries that
insisted that we direct our anti-Sadaam efforts through the UN? We gave up
French fries, but we'd send them oil?

George Z.

George Z. Bush

February 5th 04, 03:57 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
>
> >You're entitled to your opinion. There certainly have been lots of reasons
> >advanced for launching this war and, as quickly as one proves to be untrue,
> >another one is presented until it, too, proves to be untrue, followed by
another
> >one.....etc. You may be gullible enough to believe what you are told by the
> >government, but after the second unsubstantiated reason, I no longer believe
> >anything they have to say on the subject. Just between the two of us, I've
> >already concluded to my own satisfaction that the real reasons we entered
this
> >war were (1) to complete the Gulf War, left undone by the President's father,
> >(2) to topple Sadaam Hussein for his attempted assassination of the
President's
> >father, and (3) to secure de facto control over the sea of oil on which Iraq
> >sits. Since none of these reasons would have sat well with the public if
> >presented, alternative reasons had to be contrived. Unfortunately, each of
> >those alternative reasons upon examination was shown to be quite obviously
> >contrived .
>
> >But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be
willing
> >to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
> >eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for
launching
> >this war rather than those offered by our government.
>
> >George Z.
>
> And after all's said and done, everything you just wrote ain't worth a
> pitcher of warm spit because even if no WMD's are found, history will
> forgive us!

Maybe and maybe not. IAC, differences of opinion is what makes for good horse
races, so stay tuned.

George Z.

Mike Marron

February 5th 04, 04:11 PM

>"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>And after all's said and done, everything you just wrote ain't worth a
>>pitcher of warm spit because even if no WMD's are found, history will
>>forgive us!

>Maybe and maybe not. IAC, differences of opinion is what makes for good horse
>races, so stay tuned.

Er um, put this bit of "history" in your pipe and smoke it:

U.S. troops should keep fighting until Saddam Hussein is removed from
power....

Agree 75%
Disagree 21%

[February 1991 poll by USA TODAY]

Juvat

February 5th 04, 04:54 PM

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

>Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
>what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
>in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
>over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)

No argument...the Coalition of UN nations was defending the
sovereignty of Kuwait. There was no mission against the axis of evil.

>You might want to check who buys and uses Iraqi oil--the French and
>the Russians mostly. Less than 5% of American oil purchases come from
>Iraq. It mostly goes to Europe and N. Asia.

Fair enough, was I mistaken when various news sources (including
FoxNews "fair and balanced"...hehe) reported that one way of paying
for our freeing the iraqi people would be through iraqi oil revenue?
Think of it as a thank you. Perhaps we will demand payment as a proper
jesture of gratitude. (So who cares where it is sold, we only need
concern ourselves with receiving a portion of the income.)

How do you suppose we convince the iraqi authority to pay american
taxpayers for their efforts? Stop and think about that, there is no
central iraqi government...not yet anyway. We are currently
controlling (I'm happy to use the expression "administering" iraqi oil
as a euphemism). I suspect this will not always be the case, nor do I
have a crystal ball predicting when american control/administration
will end.

Juvat

George Z. Bush

February 5th 04, 07:02 PM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> >>And after all's said and done, everything you just wrote ain't worth a
> >>pitcher of warm spit because even if no WMD's are found, history will
> >>forgive us!
>
> >Maybe and maybe not. IAC, differences of opinion is what makes for good
horse
> >races, so stay tuned.
>
> Er um, put this bit of "history" in your pipe and smoke it:
>
> U.S. troops should keep fighting until Saddam Hussein is removed from
> power....
>
> Agree 75%
> Disagree 21%
>
> [February 1991 poll by USA TODAY]

I never disagreed about that. I was one of the 75% that thought that Daddy Bush
should have stalled sending out his cease fire order for about a week or ten
days, and the whole job would have been done by then. Instead, he acted like a
wuss and we ended up with another 12 years or so of having to put up with Sadaam
and his shenanigans.

I was never against getting rid of Sadaam.....I just didn't like the way junior
chose to do it. He lied to the American people, the Congress and even the UN
about the reasons he wanted to start a war with Iraq. He just didn't want to
take the chance of being turned down if he told the truth about his reasons, so
he chose to lie about them. That's why I'm not one of his fans.

I don't understand why you guys put up with his lies. You got all bent outta
shape over Clinton lying about getting a BJ, but you bend over backwards making
excuses for lying about going to war, like as if Clinton's lies cost the country
more lives than Bush's did.

George Z.

George Z. Bush

February 5th 04, 07:08 PM

"Juvat" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
> blurted out:
>
> >Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
> >what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
> >in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam.

Not really. We gave him back his oil fields, and then the UN laid on sanctions
that prevented him from selling oil except for limited purposes, like getting
money to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people. I'm sure that he cheated,
but he clearly didn't exercise full control over it.

George Z.

Ed Rasimus

February 5th 04, 11:09 PM

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
>blurted out:
>
>>Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
>>what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
>>in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
>>over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)
>
>No argument...the Coalition of UN nations was defending the
>sovereignty of Kuwait. There was no mission against the axis of evil.

The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

It simply doesn't track that we would suddenly revert to some sort of
oppressive colonial policy.
>
>>You might want to check who buys and uses Iraqi oil--the French and
>>the Russians mostly. Less than 5% of American oil purchases come from
>>Iraq. It mostly goes to Europe and N. Asia.
>
>Fair enough, was I mistaken when various news sources (including
>FoxNews "fair and balanced"...hehe) reported that one way of paying
>for our freeing the iraqi people would be through iraqi oil revenue?
>Think of it as a thank you. Perhaps we will demand payment as a proper
>jesture of gratitude. (So who cares where it is sold, we only need
>concern ourselves with receiving a portion of the income.)

The first half of your paragraph is correct. The report, however, was
that the oil revenue could be used to support the reconstruction of
Iraqi infrastructure--in other words the oil of Iraq would build the
free nation of Iraq. Makes eminent sense to me.

There is no "demand payment" or gesture of gratitude involved.
>
>How do you suppose we convince the iraqi authority to pay american
>taxpayers for their efforts? Stop and think about that, there is no
>central iraqi government...not yet anyway. We are currently
>controlling (I'm happy to use the expression "administering" iraqi oil
>as a euphemism). I suspect this will not always be the case, nor do I
>have a crystal ball predicting when american control/administration
>will end.

No one has that crystal ball, but a stable, democratic Iraq would
certainly be beneficial to the region and a stable Middle-East would
be beneficial to the US.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

George Shirley

February 6th 04, 12:06 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat >
> wrote:
>
>
>>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
>>blurted out:
>>
>>
>>>Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
>>>what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
>>>in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
>>>over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)
>>
>>No argument...the Coalition of UN nations was defending the
>>sovereignty of Kuwait. There was no mission against the axis of evil.
>
>
> The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
> Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
> that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
> We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
> rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
> them as the become economic giants.

Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
illegal immigrants today. <BSEG

George

snipped the rest of a very good post

Ed Rasimus

February 6th 04, 12:35 AM

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
> wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
>> Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
>> that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
>> We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
>> rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
>> them as the become economic giants.
>
>Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
>Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
>territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
>still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
>kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
>illegal immigrants today. <BSEG
>

Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

George Shirley

February 6th 04, 01:02 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
>>>Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
>>>that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
>>>We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
>>>rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
>>>them as the become economic giants.
>>
>>Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
>>Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
>>territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
>>still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
>>kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
>>illegal immigrants today. <BSEG
>>
>
>
> Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

That's absolutely true. We gave the Phillipines back but kept the rest
of the stuff we took before the turn of the 20th. I know a lot of
Filipinos who often state that they wish the US had kept them but they
were way to much trouble to govern as the majority wanted freedom. The
Puerto Ricans can't seem to make up their minds what they want and the
Pacific Islands we are on seem happy with the status quo

Still, we 'Muricans seem to have done a pretty good job of ridding
ourselves of colonalism.

George

Juvat

February 6th 04, 03:45 AM

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ed Rasimus
blurted out:

>The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
>Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
>that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
>We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
>rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
>them as the become economic giants.

As noted in another (quicker) response...true since WWI. While I
agree, I know folks that view the basing of US troops in foreign
nations as a form of imperialism.

>It simply doesn't track that we would suddenly revert to some sort of
>oppressive colonial policy.

I agree with you; if you inferred that I think we'll be running Iraq
as a puppet, that is not what I implied.

>The first half of your paragraph is correct. The report, however, was
>that the oil revenue could be used to support the reconstruction of
>Iraqi infrastructure--in other words the oil of Iraq would build the
>free nation of Iraq. Makes eminent sense to me.

And the sharp debater would ask, "Currently, companies from which
nations benefit monetarily in this reconstruction effort?" The short
answer is the US and UK.

Like you I get emails forwarded from guys in the sandbox telling of
the good deeds that are largely unreported. But I think competitive
bidding amongst global competitors would help bring about a quicker
end to our occupation of Iraq.

>There is no "demand payment" or gesture of gratitude involved.

OK, but if we broke it and we get to fix it (whilst getting paid for
it) the latter can be considered payment. I've read posts in this
forum where guys think it is only right US and UK companies get the
contracts because we sent our troops into harm's way. If that isn't
forced "gratitude," I don't know what is.

>No one has that crystal ball, but a stable, democratic Iraq would
>certainly be beneficial to the region and a stable Middle-East would
>be beneficial to the US.

Absolutely, but I prefer democratic to "stable" (the Shah's Iran was
stable)...and peaceful. I want our brothers and sisters in arms to
come home in one piece. I'd prefer this not turn into our version of
Northern Ireland.

Juvat

[email protected]

February 6th 04, 04:13 AM

"M. J. Powell" > wrote:

>
>Brit expression: Absent Without Leave.

'Official Leave' actually.Mike.
(used in Canada too)
--

-Gord.

Keith Willshaw

February 6th 04, 07:39 AM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat >
> wrote:

>
> The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
> Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
> that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
> We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure.

Hmm so remind me how California, Arizona and New Mexico
came to be US States again.

I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898

Keith

Charles Gray

February 6th 04, 08:53 AM

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:40:13 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>>"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>
>>But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be willing
>>to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
>>eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for launching
>>this war rather than those offered by our government.
>
>>George Z.
>
>And after all's said and done, everything you just wrote ain't worth a
>pitcher of warm spit because even if no WMD's are found, history will
>forgive us!
>
>
Maybe not-- if we get the joy of having an Iraqi Northern Ireland
three years from now with all sides shooting at the U.S. troops who
are there-- with the other alternative being pulling out and watching
the nation fall apart, you'll start to see many people coming forward
proclaiming how stupid a decision it was. (Many of them who were i
nteh cheerleading section for the invasion when it looked like it
would be a slamndunk).
The Easy part was the invasion-- but this conflict will not be a
success until the U.S. can pull out leaving a stable government that
is at least a decent authoritarian republic. Our track record on that
isn't nearly as good as it is in the military area.

George Z. Bush

February 6th 04, 12:22 PM

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat >
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
>> Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
>> that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
>> We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure.
>
> Hmm so remind me how California, Arizona and New Mexico
> came to be US States again.
>
> I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898
>
Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence from us
post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we turned
them loose?

George Z.

Stephen Harding

February 6th 04, 12:48 PM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:23:26 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>You're entitled to your opinion. There certainly have been lots of reasons
>>advanced for launching this war and, as quickly as one proves to be untrue,
>>another one is presented until it, too, proves to be untrue, followed by another
>>one.....etc. You may be gullible enough to believe what you are told by the
>>government, but after the second unsubstantiated reason, I no longer believe
>>anything they have to say on the subject. Just between the two of us, I've
>>already concluded to my own satisfaction that the real reasons we entered this
>>war were (1) to complete the Gulf War, left undone by the President's father,
>>(2) to topple Sadaam Hussein for his attempted assassination of the President's
>>father, and (3) to secure de facto control over the sea of oil on which Iraq
>>sits. Since none of these reasons would have sat well with the public if
>>presented, alternative reasons had to be contrived. Unfortunately, each of
>>those alternative reasons upon examination was shown to be quite obviously
>>contrived .
>>
>>But, that's my take, and you're entitled to your own. However, I'd be willing
>>to bet that with the perfect vision provided by hindsight, history will
>>eventually accept one or all of my reasons as the true reason(s) for launching
>>this war rather than those offered by our government.
>
> Since you acknowledge the perfection of hindsight, you might review
> what we did after we took control of the sea of oil on which Iraq sits
> in 1991. We turned control back over to Sadaam. We turned Kuwait back
> over to the Kuwaitis (after we put out the fires for them.)
>
> You might want to check who buys and uses Iraqi oil--the French and
> the Russians mostly. Less than 5% of American oil purchases come from
> Iraq. It mostly goes to Europe and N. Asia.

I might add that about 24% of US oil needs come from *all*
Mideast sources combined. A significant amount to be sure, but
hardly enough to bother with such expensive efforts at "control".

Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela are the top four
foreign providers. I suppose George will think we already
have SA's oil under our control, but how about the other three?

Surely we'd need to control those significant sources of oil.
Are those governments aware the US controls their oil? Or are
they our lapdogs, with overt control efforts unnecessary?

SMH

Stephen Harding

February 6th 04, 12:56 PM

Juvat wrote:

> How do you suppose we convince the iraqi authority to pay american
> taxpayers for their efforts? Stop and think about that, there is no
> central iraqi government...not yet anyway. We are currently
> controlling (I'm happy to use the expression "administering" iraqi oil
> as a euphemism). I suspect this will not always be the case, nor do I
> have a crystal ball predicting when american control/administration
> will end.

I don't believe there was ever any thinking there would be some
direct payment from Iraqi oil sales to the US treasury.

Instead, Iraqi oil would be used to pay for all the things a fair
and decent Iraqi government would need to fund. That would mean
a reasonable military, police, courts, roads, etc. Not dozens
of presidential palaces, WMD programs, suppression of ethnicities
or religious groups within the country, etc.

The Iraqi oil industry ends up not being especially productive at
the moment, so these costs have been transfered to American tax
payers instead.

No payoffs and not much in the way of "control" at the moment, and
probably not for some time to come.

SMH

Stephen Harding

February 6th 04, 01:48 PM

Charles Gray wrote:

> Maybe not-- if we get the joy of having an Iraqi Northern Ireland
> three years from now with all sides shooting at the U.S. troops who
> are there-- with the other alternative being pulling out and watching
> the nation fall apart, you'll start to see many people coming forward
> proclaiming how stupid a decision it was. (Many of them who were i
> nteh cheerleading section for the invasion when it looked like it
> would be a slamndunk).
> The Easy part was the invasion-- but this conflict will not be a
> success until the U.S. can pull out leaving a stable government that
> is at least a decent authoritarian republic. Our track record on that
> isn't nearly as good as it is in the military area.

I think you're comments are generally true.

I personally don't require that Iraq (or Afghanistan) becomes a
liberal democracy. It would be preferable, but the only requirement
I would demand, is a government that is not especially driven to
undermine American interests or security.

The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
US really requires. I can't say that an Iraq with three (or more)
warring factions is really worse than one with a strong ruthless
central leader openly hostile to the US.

SMH

Harry Andreas

February 6th 04, 04:31 PM

In article >, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:

> > I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898
> >
> Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence from us
> post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we turned
> them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Keith Willshaw

February 6th 04, 05:07 PM

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> > > I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898
> > >
> > Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence
from us
> > post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we
turned
> > them loose?
>
> A protectorate.
> As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).
>

I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.

Keith

Tarver Engineering

February 6th 04, 05:37 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:54:45 GMT, Juvat >
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
> > Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
> > that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
> > We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure.
>
> Hmm so remind me how California, Arizona and New Mexico
> came to be US States again.

California suceded from Mexico and asked to be a State, thus "Republic of
California" is on our flag.

George Z. Bush

February 6th 04, 05:38 PM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Charles Gray wrote:
>
> > Maybe not-- if we get the joy of having an Iraqi Northern Ireland
> > three years from now with all sides shooting at the U.S. troops who
> > are there-- with the other alternative being pulling out and watching
> > the nation fall apart, you'll start to see many people coming forward
> > proclaiming how stupid a decision it was. (Many of them who were i
> > nteh cheerleading section for the invasion when it looked like it
> > would be a slamndunk).
> > The Easy part was the invasion-- but this conflict will not be a
> > success until the U.S. can pull out leaving a stable government that
> > is at least a decent authoritarian republic. Our track record on that
> > isn't nearly as good as it is in the military area.
>
> I think you're comments are generally true.
>
> I personally don't require that Iraq (or Afghanistan) becomes a
> liberal democracy. It would be preferable, but the only requirement
> I would demand, is a government that is not especially driven to
> undermine American interests or security.
>
> The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
> US really requires.

Really? I wonder why it's taken us so long to break the government that
replaced the Shah in Iran. They're still there, doing their fundamentalist
thing regardless of our displeasure, some 30+ years after they took over. What
you're suggesting is merely blowing hard.....much more easily said than done.

> ............I can't say that an Iraq with three (or more)
> warring factions is really worse than one with a strong ruthless
> central leader openly hostile to the US.

Tarver Engineering

February 6th 04, 05:39 PM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Juvat wrote:
>
> > How do you suppose we convince the iraqi authority to pay american
> > taxpayers for their efforts? Stop and think about that, there is no
> > central iraqi government...not yet anyway. We are currently
> > controlling (I'm happy to use the expression "administering" iraqi oil
> > as a euphemism). I suspect this will not always be the case, nor do I
> > have a crystal ball predicting when american control/administration
> > will end.
>
> I don't believe there was ever any thinking there would be some
> direct payment from Iraqi oil sales to the US treasury.

John Kerry made his own children *******s; imagine what he will do for your
children.

George Z. Bush

February 6th 04, 05:40 PM

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
> > > I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898
> > >
> > Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence from
us
> > post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we turned
> > them loose?
>
> A protectorate.
> As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).

That's a relief. For a brief moment, I was afraid you were going to say they
were a colony. A protectorate is much better than a colony, isn't it?

Tarver Engineering

February 6th 04, 06:02 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Charles Gray wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe not-- if we get the joy of having an Iraqi Northern Ireland
> > > three years from now with all sides shooting at the U.S. troops who
> > > are there-- with the other alternative being pulling out and watching
> > > the nation fall apart, you'll start to see many people coming forward
> > > proclaiming how stupid a decision it was. (Many of them who were i
> > > nteh cheerleading section for the invasion when it looked like it
> > > would be a slamndunk).
> > > The Easy part was the invasion-- but this conflict will not be a
> > > success until the U.S. can pull out leaving a stable government that
> > > is at least a decent authoritarian republic. Our track record on that
> > > isn't nearly as good as it is in the military area.
> >
> > I think you're comments are generally true.
> >
> > I personally don't require that Iraq (or Afghanistan) becomes a
> > liberal democracy. It would be preferable, but the only requirement
> > I would demand, is a government that is not especially driven to
> > undermine American interests or security.
> >
> > The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
> > US really requires.
>
> Really? I wonder why it's taken us so long to break the government that
> replaced the Shah in Iran. They're still there, doing their
fundamentalist
> thing regardless of our displeasure, some 30+ years after they took over.
What
> you're suggesting is merely blowing hard.....much more easily said than
done.

The civil government in Iran is broken, havn't you been paying attention?

Kevin Brooks

February 6th 04, 10:22 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898
> > > >
> > > Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence
from
> us
> > > post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we
turned
> > > them loose?
> >
> > A protectorate.
> > As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).
>
> That's a relief. For a brief moment, I was afraid you were going to say
they
> were a colony. A protectorate is much better than a colony, isn't it?

Since that protectorate status only continues for as long as its citizens
wish, yes, it is much better than being a colony. The Puerto Ricans have
repeatedly discussed the option of either seeking statehood or independence,
and they seem to prefer the status quo.

Brooks

>
>

Peter Stickney

February 7th 04, 03:56 AM

In article >,
George Shirley > writes:
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
>>>>Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
>>>>that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
>>>>We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
>>>>rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
>>>>them as the become economic giants.
>>>
>>>Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
>>>Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
>>>territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
>>>still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
>>>kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
>>>illegal immigrants today. <BSEG
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."
> That's absolutely true. We gave the Phillipines back but kept the rest
> of the stuff we took before the turn of the 20th. I know a lot of
> Filipinos who often state that they wish the US had kept them but they
> were way to much trouble to govern as the majority wanted freedom. The
> Puerto Ricans can't seem to make up their minds what they want and the
> Pacific Islands we are on seem happy with the status quo

That's not quite true - We turned Cuba loose in 1912, IIRC.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Peter Stickney

February 7th 04, 04:00 AM

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, "George Z. Bush"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898
>> > >
>> > Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence
> from us
>> > post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we
> turned
>> > them loose?
>>
>> A protectorate.
>> As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).
>>
>
> I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
as States.
We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Stephen Harding

February 7th 04, 02:03 PM

George Z. Bush wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message

>>The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
>>US really requires.
>
> Really? I wonder why it's taken us so long to break the government that
> replaced the Shah in Iran. They're still there, doing their fundamentalist
> thing regardless of our displeasure, some 30+ years after they took over. What
> you're suggesting is merely blowing hard.....much more easily said than done.

More like 25 years.

I'm not aware that the US has *really tried* to break the Islamic
Republic of Iran.

SMH

Stephen Harding

February 7th 04, 02:14 PM

Peter Stickney wrote:

> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>
>>"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence
>>
>>from us
>>
>>>>post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we
>>
>>turned
>>
>>>>them loose?
>>>
>>>A protectorate.
>>>As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).
>>>
>>
>>I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.
>
>
> Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
> "Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
> as States.
> We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.

Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
a "commonwealth".

Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
Not a state. Not independent.

SMH

George Z. Bush

February 7th 04, 03:32 PM

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> George Shirley > writes:
> > Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Ed Rasimus wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
> >>>>Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
> >>>>that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
> >>>>We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
> >>>>rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
> >>>>them as the become economic giants.
> >>>
> >>>Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
> >>>Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
> >>>territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
> >>>still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
> >>>kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
> >>>illegal immigrants today. <BSEG
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."
> > That's absolutely true. We gave the Phillipines back but kept the rest
> > of the stuff we took before the turn of the 20th. I know a lot of
> > Filipinos who often state that they wish the US had kept them but they
> > were way to much trouble to govern as the majority wanted freedom. The
> > Puerto Ricans can't seem to make up their minds what they want and the
> > Pacific Islands we are on seem happy with the status quo
>
> That's not quite true - We turned Cuba loose in 1912, IIRC.

And let's not forget the Philippines, which we got from Spain after the
Spanish-American War in 1898. The Tydings-McDuffie Act, enacted in 1934, while
ostensibly providing for their independence, merely formalized their
relationship with the United States in what appeared to be a colonial
relationship. They finally got their independence from us after WWII,
presumably as a reward for being a good, well-behaved colony for a half century
or so.

George Z.

George Z. Bush

February 7th 04, 03:40 PM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
> >>The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
> >>US really requires.
> >
> > Really? I wonder why it's taken us so long to break the government that
> > replaced the Shah in Iran. They're still there, doing their fundamentalist
> > thing regardless of our displeasure, some 30+ years after they took over.
What
> > you're suggesting is merely blowing hard.....much more easily said than
done.
>
> More like 25 years.
>
> I'm not aware that the US has *really tried* to break the Islamic
> Republic of Iran.

You should be, unless you have some other reason for us to cozy up to that Iraqi
thug, Sadaam Hussein, in his 8 year long war with Iran. You do realize that we
furnished Sadaam with technical military support (on the most efficacious
methods of using chemical weapons in tactical situations, for instance) as well
as military intelligence of value to him that we had picked up in the course of
our normal intelligence work.

We didn't do those things with the expectation that they would have no effect on
the Ayatollah's hold on the Iranian government and people. We were trying to
help Sadaam win his war and bring down the Ayatollah and his government.

George Z.

George Z. Bush

February 7th 04, 03:52 PM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Keith Willshaw" > writes:
> >
> >>"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence
> >>
> >>from us
> >>
> >>>>post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we
> >>
> >>turned
> >>
> >>>>them loose?
> >>>
> >>>A protectorate.
> >>>As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).
> >>>
> >>
> >>I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.
> >
> >
> > Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
> > "Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
> > as States.
> > We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.
>
> Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
> a "commonwealth".
>
> Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
> Not a state. Not independent.

If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states, what are
they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous definitions
to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.

George Z.

Kevin Brooks

February 7th 04, 04:05 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Peter Stickney wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > writes:
> > >
> > >>"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >>>In article >, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>>I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to
1898
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their
independence
> > >>
> > >>from us
> > >>
> > >>>>post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until
we
> > >>
> > >>turned
> > >>
> > >>>>them loose?
> > >>>
> > >>>A protectorate.
> > >>>As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.
> > >
> > >
> > > Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
> > > "Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
> > > as States.
> > > We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.
> >
> > Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
> > a "commonwealth".
> >
> > Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
> > Not a state. Not independent.
>
> If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states, what
are
> they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
> definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous
definitions
> to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.

George exhibiting reading comprehension problems again? He must have missed
the "in this context" bit...and yes George, in the case of those states
mentioned, they are indeed also "commonwealths"--but as the poster noted,
somewhat different context.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

Stephen Harding

February 7th 04, 06:12 PM

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Peter Stickney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >, "George Z. Bush"
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to
>
> 1898
>
>>>>>>>Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their
>
> independence
>
>>>>>from us
>>>>
>>>>>>>post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until
>
> we
>
>>>>>turned
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>them loose?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A protectorate.
>>>>>>As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
>>>>"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
>>>>as States.
>>>>We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.
>>>
>>>Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
>>>a "commonwealth".
>>>
>>>Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
>>>Not a state. Not independent.
>>
>>If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states, what are
>>they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
>>definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous definitions
>>to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.
>
> George exhibiting reading comprehension problems again? He must have missed
> the "in this context" bit...and yes George, in the case of those states
> mentioned, they are indeed also "commonwealths"--but as the poster noted,
> somewhat different context.

George is on a roll!

Probably not worth trying to rein him at this time.

Stephen "Still Not Embarrassed" Harding

Stephen Harding

February 7th 04, 06:23 PM

George Z. Bush wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
>>I'm not aware that the US has *really tried* to break the Islamic
>>Republic of Iran.
>
> You should be, unless you have some other reason for us to cozy up to that Iraqi
> thug, Sadaam Hussein, in his 8 year long war with Iran. You do realize that we
> furnished Sadaam with technical military support (on the most efficacious
> methods of using chemical weapons in tactical situations, for instance) as well
> as military intelligence of value to him that we had picked up in the course of
> our normal intelligence work.

I'd like a cite for your "US helped Saddam in the 'most efficacious' use
of his chem weapons claim.

US certainly helped the guy because we didn't like Iran. Part of an
"engagement" policy that failed, although I'd have thought liberal
minded folks would favor such an attempt to "get along". Of course
it failed.

> We didn't do those things with the expectation that they would have no effect on
> the Ayatollah's hold on the Iranian government and people. We were trying to
> help Sadaam win his war and bring down the Ayatollah and his government.

Having "an effect" on the Ayatollah isn't quite the same as breaking
his government. We've had "effects" on about every government of the
world. Sometimes positive and sometimes negative.

Did Saddam even expect to break the Iranian government? Think he was
primarily after control of the Shat al-Arab waterway and got more than
he bargained for.

US efforts were primarily to preserve Saddam as a counterbalance to
the Iranians; not a back door method of destroying the Islamic Republic.

SMH

George Z. Bush

February 7th 04, 10:03 PM

Stephen Harding wrote:
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Peter Stickney wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Keith Willshaw" > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >, "George Z. Bush"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to
>>
>> 1898
>>
>>>>>>>> Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their
>>
>> independence
>>
>>>>>> from us
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until
>>
>> we
>>
>>>>>> turned
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> them loose?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A protectorate.
>>>>>>> As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
>>>>> "Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
>>>>> as States.
>>>>> We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.
>>>>
>>>> Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
>>>> a "commonwealth".
>>>>
>>>> Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
>>>> Not a state. Not independent.
>>>
>>> If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states, what
>>> are they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
>>> definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous
>>> definitions to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.
>>
>> George exhibiting reading comprehension problems again? He must have missed
>> the "in this context" bit...and yes George, in the case of those states
>> mentioned, they are indeed also "commonwealths"--but as the poster noted,
>> somewhat different context.
>
> George is on a roll!
> Probably not worth trying to rein him at this time.

Probably not. I confess to suffering from a brain fart at the time which led me
astray. In any case, I did a bit more reading on the subject and learned that
the previous comment about incorporated and unincorporated areas was indeed
accurate. Apparently, those incorporated areas acquired by whatever means are
areas that are destined for eventual statehood, whereas the unincorporated areas
are merely territories that will never become states.

That leaves unexplained the existence of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, not to mention Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands.
In each of those cases, their population is so small compared that that of the
smallest state, that granting statehood would involve giving those entities
overrepresentation in our Congress, and it's not likely to happen any time soon.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may be destined for statehood, what with its
population exceeding that of more than half of the 50 states and it being larger
in area than Rhode Island and Delaware.

Anyway, getting away from the trees and getting back to the forest that we
seemed to have lost sight of, the subject under discussion was someone's claim
that we never kept land we acquired by right of military conquest, which is
patently false even without going back to our formative years when we helped
ourselves to substantial portions of Mexico that we've never returned. Of the
lands we acquired from our victory in the Spanish-American War at the end of the
19th century, I believe the only land we subsequently surrendered were Cuba and,
a half century later, the Philippine Islands.

Never is a long long time. One shouldn't make that kind of claim unless one is
certain that it's true. In this case, it obviously isn't.

George Z.

George Z. Bush

February 7th 04, 10:53 PM

Stephen Harding wrote:
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>>
>>> I'm not aware that the US has *really tried* to break the Islamic
>>> Republic of Iran.
>>
>> You should be, unless you have some other reason for us to cozy up to that
>> Iraqi thug, Sadaam Hussein, in his 8 year long war with Iran. You do
>> realize that we furnished Sadaam with technical military support (on the
>> most efficacious methods of using chemical weapons in tactical situations,
>> for instance) as well as military intelligence of value to him that we had
>> picked up in the course of our normal intelligence work.
>
> I'd like a cite for your "US helped Saddam in the 'most efficacious' use
> of his chem weapons claim.

Just go to Google and punch in what you're looking for and you'll find it, just
as I did.
>
> US certainly helped the guy because we didn't like Iran. Part of an
> "engagement" policy that failed, although I'd have thought liberal
> minded folks would favor such an attempt to "get along". Of course
> it failed.
>
>> We didn't do those things with the expectation that they would have no
>> effect on the Ayatollah's hold on the Iranian government and people. We
>> were trying to help Sadaam win his war and bring down the Ayatollah and his
>> government.
>
> Having "an effect" on the Ayatollah isn't quite the same as breaking
> his government.

Apparently you are having a problem with understanding what I said. I'll put it
another way.....we didn't help Sadaam because we loved him or his government, we
helped him because he was fighting people we despised and we hoped he would
grind them into the dust. No altruism...merely self-interest.

> .....We've had "effects" on about every government of the
> world. Sometimes positive and sometimes negative.

Talk about belaboring the obvious.
>
> Did Saddam even expect to break the Iranian government? Think he was
> primarily after control of the Shat al-Arab waterway and got more than
> he bargained for.

How the hell am I supposed to know what Sadaam expected or wanted? And what
does it matter anyway? He became "the enemy of my enemy" and, in that way,
earned our support.
>
> US efforts were primarily to preserve Saddam as a counterbalance to
> the Iranians; not a back door method of destroying the Islamic Republic.

That was the Middle Eastern version of the Texas Two Step, and nowhere near the
truth of the matter.

I said that I believed that we supported SH because we wanted to see the
Ayatollah brought down. Let's not play word games with what I said.....we
wanted the Ayatollah's government replaced by a secular one with whom we could
do business. Why? Because we owed the old goat for what they did to our
Embassy and its people, and we didn't mind who dished out the pay back.

George Z.

Kevin Brooks

February 7th 04, 11:07 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> Peter Stickney wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> "Keith Willshaw" > writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article >, "George Z. Bush"
> >>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to
> >>
> >> 1898
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their
> >>
> >> independence
> >>
> >>>>>> from us
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and
until
> >>
> >> we
> >>
> >>>>>> turned
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> them loose?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A protectorate.
> >>>>>>> As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
> >>>>> "Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their
status
> >>>>> as States.
> >>>>> We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
> >>>> a "commonwealth".
> >>>>
> >>>> Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
> >>>> Not a state. Not independent.
> >>>
> >>> If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states,
what
> >>> are they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
> >>> definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous
> >>> definitions to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.
> >>
> >> George exhibiting reading comprehension problems again? He must have
missed
> >> the "in this context" bit...and yes George, in the case of those states
> >> mentioned, they are indeed also "commonwealths"--but as the poster
noted,
> >> somewhat different context.
> >
> > George is on a roll!
> > Probably not worth trying to rein him at this time.
>
> Probably not. I confess to suffering from a brain fart at the time which
led me
> astray. In any case, I did a bit more reading on the subject and learned
that
> the previous comment about incorporated and unincorporated areas was
indeed
> accurate. Apparently, those incorporated areas acquired by whatever means
are
> areas that are destined for eventual statehood, whereas the unincorporated
areas
> are merely territories that will never become states.
>
> That leaves unexplained the existence of the Commonwealth of the Northern
> Mariana Islands, not to mention Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin
Islands.
> In each of those cases, their population is so small compared that that of
the
> smallest state, that granting statehood would involve giving those
entities
> overrepresentation in our Congress, and it's not likely to happen any time
soon.
> The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may be destined for statehood, what with
its
> population exceeding that of more than half of the 50 states and it being
larger
> in area than Rhode Island and Delaware.

You continue to miss the "big picture". Which is the very opposite of some
kind of imperialist US policy restraining these protectorates in their
current status. They actually *want* to continue under the current status
quo--they get lots of advantages, and few of the attendant responsibilities.
Puerto Rico enjoys significant self-government, while still taking advantage
of most federal programs--without its inhabitants having to pay federal
income tax while they reside in Puerto Rico. Hence they have had no less
than *three* plebiscites regarding the choice of independence, statehood, or
continuing under the status quo (two were held in the 1990's)...and each and
every time they have chosen the latter option.

>
> Anyway, getting away from the trees and getting back to the forest that we
> seemed to have lost sight of, the subject under discussion was someone's
claim
> that we never kept land we acquired by right of military conquest, which
is
> patently false even without going back to our formative years when we
helped
> ourselves to substantial portions of Mexico that we've never returned. Of
the
> lands we acquired from our victory in the Spanish-American War at the end
of the
> 19th century, I believe the only land we subsequently surrendered were
Cuba and,
> a half century later, the Philippine Islands.

Guam has been trying to negotiate a similar commonwealth status with the USG
since the late 1980's. They don't *want* independence. We gave the RMI
(Republic of the Marshall Islands) independence when we approved the Compact
of Free Association with that government in 1986, though the RMI had been
self-governing since 1979. I don't believe *any* of the possessions gained
during the Spanish American War have been prevented from exercising their
right to independence if they so desired it.

>
> Never is a long long time. One shouldn't make that kind of claim unless
one is
> certain that it's true. In this case, it obviously isn't.

And it is a long way from being any form of permanent territorial gain
without the express permission of those terrotories' citizens. Big
difference from imperialist expansion.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

Matthew G. Saroff

February 10th 04, 04:24 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>Kerry came home from Vietnam a hero and then called those he left behind,
>"murderers".

Ummm...No.

He quoted what other veterans had testified to before
congress.
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcement officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana,
cocaine, CIA, plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, DEA, NSA, PGP, hacker,
assassinate, Osama, Al Queida, Palestinian, Daisy Cutter, 911, suicide
bomber, Taliban, George Bush is a Twinkie, Anthrax, Uranium, Thorium.

Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
. (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

Kevin Brooks

February 10th 04, 05:00 AM

"Matthew G. Saroff" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Kerry came home from Vietnam a hero and then called those he left behind,
> >"murderers".
>
> Ummm...No.
>
> He quoted what other veterans had testified to before
> congress.

Not true. John Kerry in a 1971 newspaper interview:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other
soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire
zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre
machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only
weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the
burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of
this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a
matter of written established policy by the government of the United States
from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men
who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed
off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law,
the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/ sixties-l/3221.htm

So yes, he did label "thousands" as being "war criminals"--by his own
admission.

Brooks

> --
> Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for

Fred the Red Shirt

February 10th 04, 08:34 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
>
>
> Not true. John Kerry in a 1971 newspaper interview:

Which newspaper and what date?

>
> ...
> lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/ sixties-l/3221.htm

I think something is mising in that reference.

>
> So yes, he did label "thousands" as being "war criminals"--by his own
> admission.

Including himself. Fair enough.

--

FF

Tarver Engineering

February 11th 04, 04:38 AM

"Matthew G. Saroff" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Kerry came home from Vietnam a hero and then called those he left behind,
> >"murderers".
>
> Ummm...No.

John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
*******s.

> He quoted what other veterans had testified to before
> congress.

Ummm, no, it turned out many of the Vets that testified before Congress with
John Kerry were fakes. The pictures of Kerry with Hanoi Jane are now
available on line.

Fred the Red Shirt

February 11th 04, 05:58 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
>
>
> John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
> *******s.

I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.

>
> Ummm, no, it turned out many of the Vets that testified before Congress with
> John Kerry were fakes. The pictures of Kerry with Hanoi Jane are now
> available on line.

If this is the photo I saw and it is genuine it proves that Kerry, or
at least someone who looked like him, once sat in an audience a row
or two behind her and a few seatrs to her right with no indication
that he ever was any closer to her, or spoke with her, or for that
matter, what they both were attending at the time. They might have
been watching a movie or the inaguration of Richard M Nixon for all
we can tell from the photo.

(OK, Presidential inagurations take place in the winter so it probable
wasn't that.)

If that is the dirtiest mudd you have to sling, "Bring it on!"

--

FF

Tarver Engineering

February 11th 04, 06:43 PM

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >
> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
> > *******s.
>
> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.

All five of my children are entitled to inherit.

> > Ummm, no, it turned out many of the Vets that testified before Congress
with
> > John Kerry were fakes. The pictures of Kerry with Hanoi Jane are now
> > available on line.
>
> If this is the photo I saw and it is genuine it proves that Kerry, or
> at least someone who looked like him, once sat in an audience a row
> or two behind her and a few seatrs to her right with no indication
> that he ever was any closer to her, or spoke with her, or for that
> matter, what they both were attending at the time. They might have
> been watching a movie or the inaguration of Richard M Nixon for all
> we can tell from the photo.

John Kerry's anti-war group was Hanoi Jane's main activity that year. Also,
considering John Kerry's four months in Vetnam were far more time than his
fake peers.

> (OK, Presidential inagurations take place in the winter so it probable
> wasn't that.)

> If that is the dirtiest mudd you have to sling, "Bring it on!"

It is only some red smoke.

George Z. Bush

February 11th 04, 06:56 PM

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
>>
>>
>> John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
>> *******s.
>
> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
>
>>
>> Ummm, no, it turned out many of the Vets that testified before Congress with
>> John Kerry were fakes. The pictures of Kerry with Hanoi Jane are now
>> available on line.
>
> If this is the photo I saw and it is genuine it proves that Kerry, or
> at least someone who looked like him, once sat in an audience a row
> or two behind her and a few seatrs to her right with no indication
> that he ever was any closer to her, or spoke with her, or for that
> matter, what they both were attending at the time. They might have
> been watching a movie or the inaguration of Richard M Nixon for all
> we can tell from the photo.
>
> (OK, Presidential inagurations take place in the winter so it probable
> wasn't that.)
>
> If that is the dirtiest mudd you have to sling, "Bring it on!"

Oh, I doubt that that's the dirtiest. There'll undoubtedly be more that'll be
far dirtier and smellier that what we've seen so far. They're just warming up
to get ready for what they do best.

George Z.

Tarver Engineering

February 11th 04, 07:33 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >>
> >>
> >> John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
> >> *******s.
> >
> > I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
> >
> >>
> >> Ummm, no, it turned out many of the Vets that testified before Congress
with
> >> John Kerry were fakes. The pictures of Kerry with Hanoi Jane are now
> >> available on line.
> >
> > If this is the photo I saw and it is genuine it proves that Kerry, or
> > at least someone who looked like him, once sat in an audience a row
> > or two behind her and a few seatrs to her right with no indication
> > that he ever was any closer to her, or spoke with her, or for that
> > matter, what they both were attending at the time. They might have
> > been watching a movie or the inaguration of Richard M Nixon for all
> > we can tell from the photo.
> >
> > (OK, Presidential inagurations take place in the winter so it probable
> > wasn't that.)
> >
> > If that is the dirtiest mudd you have to sling, "Bring it on!"
>
> Oh, I doubt that that's the dirtiest. There'll undoubtedly be more
that'll be
> far dirtier and smellier that what we've seen so far. They're just
warming up
> to get ready for what they do best.

McAuliffe has torpedoed the Democratic Party again.

B2431

February 12th 04, 12:40 AM

>From: "George Z. Bush"

<snip>

>> If that is the dirtiest mudd you have to sling, "Bring it on!"
>
>Oh, I doubt that that's the dirtiest. There'll undoubtedly be more that'll
>be
>far dirtier and smellier that what we've seen so far. They're just warming
>up
>to get ready for what they do best.
>
>George Z.
>
George, based on you many anti Bush posts I can safely infer the "they" you
refer to are the Republicans. True, Republicans fight dirty, but so do
Democrats and the rest. Glass houses, George.

Dan, U.S. Air Forces, retired

B2431

February 12th 04, 12:42 AM

>From: "Tarver Engineering"

>> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
>> > *******s.
>>
>> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
>
>All five of my children are entitled to inherit.
>

Egad, it has reproduced !!!!

Dan

Tarver Engineering

February 12th 04, 03:57 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Tarver Engineering"
>
>
> >> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
> >> > *******s.
> >>
> >> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
> >
> >All five of my children are entitled to inherit.
> >
>
> Egad, it has reproduced !!!!

And a granddaughter.

Phil Miller

February 14th 04, 11:01 AM

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
>> >
>> >
>> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
>> > *******s.
>>
>> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
>
>All five of my children are entitled to inherit.

....six crates of empty Thunderbird liquor bottles and some of the worlds
wackiest aeroplane parts and theories.

Phil
--
Great Tarverisms #1

> The Air Speed Indicator (ASI) shows

You made that up, didn't you?

The IAS indicator says IAS, not ASI.

Why do you come here pretending to know something
when you don't even know the words?

John

Fred the Red Shirt

February 14th 04, 03:04 PM

xray > wrote in message >...
> Must be talking about Bush, lying and cheating. We are the laughing
> stock of the world, going to war under false pretences. What a smear on
> the honor and credibility of the U.S.
> Like father like son, one term presidents. It's all over. He is getting
> deaned. The people of the United States are starting to get the picture.
> 53 to 47 percent.
> And what is this story that Bush went awol? (does that stand for away
> without leave?)
>

During his service in the guard in TX Bush moved to AL for half a year
or so and he may not have done much guard duty there, the records
and people's memories are spotty. Then he came back, made up for
the lost time and got an early dishcharge to attend school. Nothing
unusual about a guardsman taking a hiatus or being discharged early
after earning enough points.

The evidence he was AWOL is all pretty much based on malicious mis-
construction of the available documents. While in AL he was removed
from flying status because he didn't take his annual physical.
BFD, he didn't have any planes to fly in AL, the probably didn't
have a flight surgeon on base there to give hima physical. His
transfer from TX to AL was officially denied. BFD, that doesn't
preclude training with the AL guard. Etc etc.

--

FF

Tarver Engineering

February 14th 04, 05:23 PM

"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
> >> > *******s.
> >>
> >> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
> >
> >All five of my children are entitled to inherit.
>
> ...six crates of empty Thunderbird liquor bottles and some of the worlds
> wackiest aeroplane parts and theories.

Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever post to
usenet.

I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.

B2431

February 14th 04, 06:54 PM

>From: "Tarver Engineering"
>Date: 2/14/2004 11:23 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Phil Miller" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
>> >> > *******s.
>> >>
>> >> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
>> >
>> >All five of my children are entitled to inherit.
>>
>> ...six crates of empty Thunderbird liquor bottles and some of the worlds
>> wackiest aeroplane parts and theories.
>
>Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever post to
>usenet.
>
>I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.
>
And Barbra Streisand earns much more than that and no one has ever accused her
of being intelligent.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Brett

February 14th 04, 07:04 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> "Phil Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own
children
> > >> > *******s.
> > >>
> > >> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
> > >
> > >All five of my children are entitled to inherit.
> >
> > ...six crates of empty Thunderbird liquor bottles and some of the worlds
> > wackiest aeroplane parts and theories.
>
> Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever post to
> usenet.
>
> I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.

You really need to ask someone for a raise if that is all you are making
with 5 kids to feed.

Tarver Engineering

February 14th 04, 08:55 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...

> And Barbra Streisand earns much more than that and no one has ever accused
her
> of being intelligent.

You should see a doctor about your inferiority complex, Dan.

running with scissors

February 14th 04, 09:33 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > >
> > > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
> > > *******s.
> >
> > I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
>
> All five of my children are entitled to inherit.

......the Tarver hereditary mental problems, despite changing their
names and denying splaps boy as a relation.

running with scissors

February 14th 04, 11:40 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Phil Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
> > >> > *******s.
> > >>
> > >> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
> > >
> > >All five of my children are entitled to inherit.
> >
> > ...six crates of empty Thunderbird liquor bottles and some of the worlds
> > wackiest aeroplane parts and theories.
>
> Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever post to
> usenet.
>
> I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.

yes of course you are little man. in rupees maybe.

Rich Ahrens

February 15th 04, 12:43 AM

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> "Phil Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>>>
>>>>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>>>
>...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own children
>>>>>*******s.
>>>>
>>>>I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
>>>
>>>All five of my children are entitled to inherit.
>>
>>...six crates of empty Thunderbird liquor bottles and some of the worlds
>>wackiest aeroplane parts and theories.
>
>
> Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever post to
> usenet.
>
> I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.

Must be a *big* shopping cart he's pushing around as he collects those
bottles and cans...

S. Sampson

February 15th 04, 01:14 AM

Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.

How much you give to charity is what counts in the eyes of Allah?

As-salaam alaykum

running with scissors

February 15th 04, 05:17 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > And Barbra Streisand earns much more than that and no one has ever accused
> her
> > of being intelligent.
>
> You should see a doctor about your inferiority complex, Dan.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHAHHHHAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHHA HHAHAHHAH

look in the mirror little man.

Ralph Nesbitt

February 15th 04, 05:56 AM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Phil Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own
children
> > >> > *******s.
> > >>
> > >> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
> > >
> > >All five of my children are entitled to inherit.
> >
> > ...six crates of empty Thunderbird liquor bottles and some of the worlds
> > wackiest aeroplane parts and theories.
>
> Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever post to
> usenet.
>
> I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.
>
About par for a mid level EE.
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

John Mazor

February 15th 04, 02:53 PM

"running with scissors" > wrote in
message m...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Phil Miller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:43:25 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > John Kerry had his first marriage annulled and made his own
children
> > > >> > *******s.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm quite sure that you, OTOH, are a self-made man.
> > > >
> > > >All five of my children are entitled to inherit.
> > >
> > > ...six crates of empty Thunderbird liquor bottles and some of the
worlds
> > > wackiest aeroplane parts and theories.
> >
> > Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever post to
> > usenet.
> >
> > I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.
>
> yes of course you are little man. in rupees maybe.

Nah, the royalty check for calendar year 2003 came in last month.

The people who now do his job are paid in rupees. They're having a little
trouble translating splap and 8-track into Urdu, though.

Tarver Engineering

February 15th 04, 03:52 PM

"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
.com...

> >
> > Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever post to
> > usenet.
> >
> > I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.
> >
> About par for a mid level EE.

About twice what is paid around here.

Mike Marron

February 15th 04, 03:58 PM

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>"Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote:

>>About par for a mid level EE.

>About twice what is paid around here.

Guess ya' have to have a head full of bad wiring in order to become
an EE, huh Tarv?

John Mazor

February 15th 04, 04:55 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> .com...
>
> > > Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever post
to usenet.
> > >
> > > I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.
> > >
> > About par for a mid level EE.
>
> About twice what is paid around here.

Even taking your claim at face value, my 1040 still beats your Schedule C.

Not counting your returns on wine bottle deposits, of course.

Tarver Engineering

February 15th 04, 05:20 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > .com...
> >
> > > > Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever
post
> to usenet.
> > > >
> > > > I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.
> > > >
> > > About par for a mid level EE.
> >
> > About twice what is paid around here.
>
> Even taking your claim at face value, my 1040 still beats your Schedule C.

Good, then you should have no problem paying th $100,000 you own me, Mazor.

Besides that, a schedule C always beats a 1040.

John Mazor

February 15th 04, 06:03 PM

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > .com...
> > >
> > > > > Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever
> post
> > to usenet.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.
> > > > >
> > > > About par for a mid level EE.
> > >
> > > About twice what is paid around here.
> >
> > Even taking your claim at face value, my 1040 still beats your Schedule
C.
>
> Good, then you should have no problem paying th $100,000 you own me,
Mazor.

We settled that long ago, you were full of gerbil dung, then and now.

> Besides that, a schedule C always beats a 1040.

Nope. Since a Schedule C is a mere subset of a 1040, Line 40 doesn't give a
damn where it came from.

Granting, of course, that only a Schedule C filer can claim depreciation on
inventories of returnable wine bottles.

Tarver Engineering

February 15th 04, 06:17 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ralph Nesbitt" > wrote in message
> > > > .com...
> > > >
> > > > > > Either that Miller, or you are one of the biggest idiotd to ever
> > post
> > > to usenet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll give you a hint: I am making ten grand a month.
> > > > > >
> > > > > About par for a mid level EE.
> > > >
> > > > About twice what is paid around here.
> > >
> > > Even taking your claim at face value, my 1040 still beats your
Schedule
> C.
> >
> > Good, then you should have no problem paying th $100,000 you own me,
> Mazor.
>
> We settled that long ago, you were full of gerbil dung, then and now.

You mean you failed to pay off on a bet, Mazor.

There is no "we" to it.

Evan Brennan

February 16th 04, 12:24 AM

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> Regardless of the objective, the fact is that the US has NEVER after a war
> expressed any form of imperialism.

What about the Spanish-American war? We took over the Philippines and
later granted their independence. Since 1898, US tax dollars have
frequently crushed guerrilla uprisings in the Philippines.

> We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
> rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
> them as the become economic giants.

That is essentially true, but since we expect a return on investments,
it is more accurate to say the United States has used a more subtle
form of imperialism -- by focusing on economic controls and
preferential trade agreements where possible -- with little or no
emphasis on colonization or direct rule. This is unlike British and
French imperialism which was more all-encompassing; they too wanted
economic control but usually accomplished it through a more direct
style of rule.

Other times Uncle Sam acts against a specific country because we are
more interested in regional stability, such as the current situation
in Iraq. If you are implying that Iraqi oil itelf was not a
significant motive for our invasion, then I agree.

> It simply doesn't track that we would suddenly revert to some sort of
> oppressive colonial policy.

But military action in the interest of regional stability is just
another way of preserving US financial interests, which by extention
also means preserving our internal security. We have a right to do
just that, and we will exercise that right, whether WMD is involved or
not. If George Z. Bush and Art Kramer disagree, they can always move
to France.