![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bush on JFKerry:
"The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important endorsements, He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's OK. Either way, I'm not too worried, because I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
D. Strang a écrit :
Bush on JFKerry: "The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important endorsements, He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's OK. Either way, I'm not too worried, because I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America." By sending troops abroad...is that a purely national matter? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Nemo l'ancien" wrote in message ... By sending troops abroad...is that a purely national matter? No, it isn't. Freedom-loving people all over the world benefit when America sends troops abroad. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Yeap, ask Irakis now... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Nemo l'ancien" wrote in message ... Yeap, ask Irakis now... Iraqis have been asked. They agree. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Nemo l'ancien" wrote
Yeap, ask Irakis now... or the real French who survived the German penal system. Ask my buried uncle in Forbach what he thought about the Americans and Freedom. He'll vote for armed support every time, rather than the collaborators (like your family). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
He'll vote for armed support every time, rather than the collaborators (like
your family). And we will burn every last drop of your oil and give you reruns of The Simpsons to ponder and be roll models for your Iraqi children. It isn't about your country or freedom, its about your oil. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Nemo l'ancien wrote: Yeap, ask Irakis now... It's been done several times in the past couple of weeks. Example from a recent poll commissioned by ABC News and the BBC by Oxford Research International: "Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days - very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad?" 71% - Very or quite good. 29% - Quite or very bad. You didn't happen to miss out on any oil monies, by any chance? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Nemo l'ancien" wrote in message ... Yeap, ask Irakis now... OK, here's Ali's take on it as he wrote it at http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ .... "Since we are now talking about your stance, let's take a look at why do you (the true pacifists) oppose this war. "I think that most agree that when we talk about the (true pacifists) then we are pointing to those living in the free world, as the 3rd world people are either disinterested and busy in trying to feed their children and find an appropriate shelter for their families, while they struggle to stay as far as possible away from the tyrannies that control their fate, which may force them to follow their governments attitude, or they are driven by religious fanaticism, and in the Arab world probably by Arab nationalism to stand against this war. "Peace is what those (true pacifists) are struggling for and there can be no nobler goal than this, but may I ask one questions here? "Where do you live!? A stupid and irrelevant question? I don't think so. "Which peace are you seeking? Yours or that of the world, and which order you are trying to maintain? That of your countries or of the whole world? Do you really think that it's such a wonderful and peaceful world that no one should be allowed to mess with? But what a stupid question is that on my part!! Of course it is! I mean some of you probably hadn't heard a gun shot in months or years, and some of you live in countries that haven't fought any war in more than a century. "Your lives certainly have not been that easy for sure, but did you ever fear that your children might starve to death? Or did you live your life with the horror of a kick that break your doors open, in the middle of the night, to take you or one of your family members to the unknown? And worse than that- which seems to you not a big deal- did you have to bend your heads and fix your eyes to the ground and never raise it fearing it may meet those of a security guard and get misinterpreted as a challenge!!? Oh my God! Here I go asking stupid questions again! As of course all of this is not a big deal, because if you felt it is such a huge injustice and a humiliation to the sacred soul inside each one of God's creatures, not to mention human beings, you wouldn't wait SO patiently for the sanctions to work and for the inspectors to finish their job. Of course it's not a big deal, and you know why? Simply because it didn't happen to YOU. It happened to the others who lived so far away that it made it less real for you and you simply could throw all these behind you when you come to discuss the war, and ONLY now, you are suddenly worried about how the Americans are treating us!!? I have one thing to answer that: the Americans don't 'treat' us; they help, protect, teach, love and make friends with us. Hard to swallow for you, I know, because it makes you look so bad to yourselves, but that's not as bad as it seems since we all make mistakes and HUGE ones and it's never too late to admit that we were wrong. Am I so stupid and naive to expect you to change your minds? No, because I still believe that you are good people and I'm relying on this when I say that I have hope in you and will never look to you as enemies. .... "I could talk for years, and there are MUCH more painful stories but my heart cannot take it to remember all this pain. I hope you have a stronger heart as you explain to those people that you stood against their salvation and allowed their misery to continue because you think your politicians lied to you about the reasons for this war. Try to tell them that this was the doing of America not Saddam and that's why you stood against her when she tried to remove him and give them freedom AND peace, the peace of mind and heart!! Again my stupid question: where do you live? As we, who support this war against dictatorship and terrorism, live in this world, this ugly world we are trying to change as persistently as you try to keep it as it is with the same strength and persistence. So. where do you live?" |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "D. Strang" wrote in message news:XW67c.2445$Gg.2318@okepread03... Bush on JFKerry: "The other day, here in Florida, he claimed some important endorsements, He won't tell us the name of the foreign admirers. That's OK. Either way, I'm not too worried, because I'm going to keep my campaign right here in America." Mr Bush had better start soon; he has quite a plateful of overseas issues to explain away, and possibly as many tough internal issues as well. Overseas: IRAQ and WMD, continued existence of Al Quaida, Korea, alienation of European friends and Allies, migration of thousands of formerly US jobs offshore. Climbing US KIA and WIA totals. At home: Purposefully Deceptive Governing. He's got a lot of backing and filling to do over his last November's somewhat tainted Medicare prescription drug plan, at the time called a "centerpiece" of his re-election campaign. At a time when the deficit was already soaring, Mr Bush claimed that its cost would be, oh, some $400 billion over a period of ten years, although government analysts had--some five months earlier--predicted that the actual cost would be closer to $550 billion. Alas, correction proved necessary, and one Republican congressman accused his own party's leadership of attempted bribery on the floor of the House (reportedly now under FBI investigation) as a part of the vigorous arm-twisting which took place. The actuaries who generated the "true" figure say that Bush admin appointees violated ethical standards by ordering the actuaries to conceal their findings from both Congress (congressmen who specifically inquired about the cost estimates were told that none existed) as well as the public at large, on pain of losing their jobs. Two months after the critical vote, Mr Bush claimed that he was "shocked" to discover that the actual cost had increased to $534 billion; one wonders whether the bill would have passed had the true numbers been known. Furthermore, Almost a month before convincing Congress to vote to commit the US to warfare with Iraq in 2002, the Bush administration has admitted, it learned the N Korea had resumed its nuclear program, a fact which did not bode well for the US' strategic situation. That is, the possibility of armed conflict in Korea had risen sharply; one wonders how the Congress might have voted had it known of this renewed threat in timely fashion. Would it have been willing to authorize commitment of US troops there? Congress and the public were kept ignorant of this important fact until after the Iraq vote was history. Additionally, During the run-up to the Iraq war vote, Mr Bush's adminstration told Congress it had no idea of the costs to be sustained in carrying out this war. A member of the White House's National Economic Counsel, however, admitted that the war was expected to cost some $100 billion to $200 billion, (considerably higher than unoffcial Pentagon estimates) it led to his dismissal. How much will occupying Iraq cost the US in 2005? So far, that figure is not to be found in the budget submitted to Congress, which is no more than a ruse to keep the projected deficit for 2005 artificially low. Budget is to take effect in October of this year, yet Mr Bush won't release his request for additional funds to coveroccupation costs until January, well after the election. At home: "It's the ECONOMY, Stupid". One of my acquaintances lost his job during the last year when a nationally-positioned ISP exported his position (as well as those of quite a few others) to India as a cost-cutting measure. Unemployment and job-creation here are still troublesome, ironically because Americans are simply too darned hard-working and productive to allow for new hiring (oh, and we cost too much, besides) during these times. And simultaneously, Mr Bush's policies, oddly, encourage the hiring of large numbers of less-well-paid workers offshore, whose productivity does not match that of our own, while offering, as a remedy for the lost jobs, as much as $25 million for job-retraining for the dismissed US workers (a teardrop in a bucket). On March 22, a decision of some sort is expected over the F-22. Indications are that the current review by the Office of Management and Budget is slightly canted, as a negative decision has been predicted. Alas. If the US intends to continue with its much-reduced military manpower levels, and still give military substance to its declared internatinal positions, it will need every possible force-multiplier it can lay its hands on, and not only in terms of aircraft. Maybe it might even be wise to dust off that incredible artillery system with its massive, sustained firepower, get it ito production and get it online? .. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 3 | June 23rd 04 04:05 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |