Big Kahunas

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

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

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


Forget who said it...

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


R. Hubbell



mike regish

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

Jeff...

Dan Luke wrote:
"C J Campbell" wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess there's just something about seeing a guy with the responsibility of
the world upon his shoulders that gives one pause.

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


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


R. Hubbell

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

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


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

Thus, by that definition, we are winning.

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

And so it shall go... :-(

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

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


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


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


R. Hubbell


Don


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

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

In article ,
ospam (Rosspilot) writes:


just no war in which the US prevails.

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

When there are no more suicidal zealots?


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


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



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

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

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


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



R. Hubbell

* quote from Dad Bush





Don

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

In article , Martin Hotze
writes:


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


Try reading a newspaper.

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

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

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

Don

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

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

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


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


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



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

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

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


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


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



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

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

Don

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

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

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

An opposition party candidate should never undermine foreign policy in a time
of war by promising a better deal.

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

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

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


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


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


#m

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

Wdtabor wrote:

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

snip

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


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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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


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

Don


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

--
Frank....H