> > Are you threatening us? If so, we will kill you also,
> Waiting to be threatened? That's so unamerican.
FUNNY!
"The home of the brave"
Indeed.
> > Are you threatening us? If so, we will kill you also,
> Waiting to be threatened? That's so unamerican.
FUNNY!
"The home of the brave"
Indeed.
I'd prefer them to leave, but GWB obviously wants them there, so our sucka
of a Prime Minister obeys like the lap dog he is.
Cool. War on terror working then?
If being a coward is not wanting to see incocents slaughtered for the sake
of a bunch of fat cats, then I'm the biggest yellow belly there is!
Yeehah! Look at my big old yeller gut!!!!!
When does your tour over there start, hard man?
The Kennedys run Massachusets. you will just have to accept that as
fact. I live 2500 miles away from there and it's just one of those things
everybody knows. Kerry's entire political career has been as the Junior
Senator from Mass. So pecking order alone puts Kerry under the thumb of
Ted Kennedy. Then add to that, when the Kerry DEMOCRATIC campaign was in
trouble last December, Teddy's Cheif of Staff, Mary Beth Cahill, was
brought on board to run the campaign. Suplanting several long time Kerry
staffers. Finally, the Campaign chairman was a longtime Kennedy employee,
one who has had plenty of sucess in the NE part of the country but several
big losses when running nation-wide campaigns..(sorry his name escapes me
right now)
The Republican and Democratic parties are made up of several regional
clans. Powerful folks in their own region often have little clout
nationwide, and vice-versa. So it's not some clandestine connection, just
the rule that everyone follows...little fish swim in the wake of big fish.
this goes for both parties.
dave henrie
Ahhh heck Elrikk...we didn't have to go halfway around the world for
that. hehehe Not with our neighbors to north so close. lol!
My home is near an old B-52 Bomber base. The Bees have long been moved
elswhere but the base still supports military aircraft. last summer a B2
Stealth Bomber wing, about 4 B-52's and several fighter flights came here
for far north manuvers. I figured with those dozen or so aircraft we
must be planning to conquer Canada. :)
I've spent many a fine day up across the border. Fine folk in these
Western parts...which I assume goes for most of the country and, despite
my recent chest-thumping, probably applies to a good portion of the
world.
A fellow I've never met, and one I probably would not agree with him
on many policital issues, is Goy Larson...But I can't think of a more
enjoyable evening than tossing back some sort of Beverage and just
chatting with him. He's as personalble as anyone I've come into contact
with on the net. And from what I have been told, he lives somewheres
across a big piece of water. :) At least I can drive to Canada.
dh..
> > The world's #1 terrorist is George Bush. He's a liar, a brainwashed
> > ***en Bible thumper, a criminal, an idiot, and a worldwide
> > embarrassment. Everyone on the planet outside of the 50 million "m***
> > values" saviors and flag wavers who voted for him sees that. Hopefully
> > the supporters, friends and loved ones of the 100,000 innocent men,
> > women, and children he's slaughtered in Iraq will get equal revenge on
> > him and his terrorist organization.
> > Whatever happens now, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of
> > Bush and his supporters.
> > 100,000 (and tens of thousands more mutilated and injured) and
> > counting, and for nothing but his lies about non-existent WMD, and yet
> > some Americans still have the nerve to label others terrorists. If I
> > could pluck those fools by the collar and instantly drop them in Iraq
> > next to those dead, mangled bodies of women and children, they'd shit
> > themselves.
> > David G Fisher
> Again David. I ask you a simple question.
> Where was your m***outrage when President Clinton was bombing
> indiscriminently over the skies of South Eastern Europe? His fear of US
> Casulties kept the Air Force artificially high with their bombing runs
> and certainly resulted in a much higher scale of civilian deaths than if
> he'd have prosecuted the nearly 3 month bombing campaign with lower,
> higher precision targeting.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/%20ambitions.htm
This explains why Bush and co. are lying ***ers, and why I hope they
suffer the same
fate as those they've slaughtered.
--
David G Fisher
OK, I said I wasn't going to get sucked into this thread but that one
sentence sums up what I don't understand. I've yet to hear an
explanation that doesn't decend into rhetoric after 2 sentences and I
doubt I will this time either but here goes:
The opinion that Americans feel GWB was more able to protect them from
terrorists was a major factor in his re-election; I don't get WHY they
feel that way, but please follow my thinking before popping a vein.
The US was attacked by an independent group of terrorists which was
loosely based out of Afghanistan with the full support of the
fundamentalist government there and the tacit support of the Saudi
royal family and no apparent support from the government of Iraq
(forged passports does not a conspirisy make). So the invasion of
Afghanistan was an understandable response.
Osama and Sadam were known to be at odds before 9/11 because of
Sadam's secular dictatorship and his war against fundamentalist Iran.
No evidence before or after the invasion has surfaced to say that
Sadam played any part in 9/11 (I think Iraq was one of a dozen or so
countries they transited through). If anything, Sadam could have been
seen as an ally of convenience against Osama (a weak one I'm sure),
you know the enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thing.
The WMD argument always had the air of convenience to it even before
the invasion and now it's very hard for an objective observer to
think the evidence wouldn't have looked even thinner from inside CIA
headquarters, even then he was certainly much more then a regional
threat as then a global one (ie he'd sooner have bombed Tel Aviv then
LA).
But real or not, justified or not, surely to the room full of generals
with PHD's in military history in the pentagon who advise the white
house on such things, it would be clear that a military invasion of
Iraq, especially after using the word "crusade" in the state of the
union speeches, (a word which MUST have a special meaning to Muslims)
would take the dozens of unfocused, unfunded, disorganized cells out in
the deserts and give them an intense focal point for their anger
against the west. Not to mention spawn untold generations of new
terrorists from the families of civilian casualties.
OK, no question Sadam's a bad guy, and I'm not talking about the
m***reasons for taking him down or not, but tactically how was this a
sound plan to make people of the US safe? Surely a few well placed
tomahawks could have made him "not a threat" without inciting the
backlash.
When pressed on these issues GWB and Rumsfeld's response as
consistantly boiled down to "because I say so", which understandibly is
find for their supporters and does nothing to sway their detractors...
Why do you now feel safer?
> >>> <snip>
> > So a diploma from Harvard is proof of moron-hood eh? I guess my
> > little ol Washington State University 4year degree then must equal
> > something below that, below moron.
> > Sub-Moron...I like that..
> See also Uwe's reply. President Bush simply doesn't project the image of a
> university graduate.
> Even sub-morons like you come up with more thoughtfull stuff than he does
at
> times. <vbg>
> >>> <snip>
> > No I don't care what the rest of the world thinks. Why should I?
> You might want to travel abroad and feel welcome some day ?
> >>> <snip>
> > Methinks Neville Chamberlin is alive and well. Let me get this
> > straight, BEFORE President Bush was elected, the people of the USA
> > were loved and endeared by all the world right? So WHY whould our
> > embassies be bombed when we were so loved? Why would our men
> > stationed in Europe get attack via nightclub bombing? Why would our
> > ships be attacked? Why would our civilians be ***ed? <snip>
> You got that wrong. The OP meant that apart from a few moslim terrorists
> (and moslim rednecks in a few selected countries) nobody had a particular
> beef with the Americam people themselves. That has changed.
> >>> <snip>
> > If we get hit again, it will mean we face a determined foe who is
> > hiding behind the myth of religion to justify the killing of anyone
> > they choose. Tell me Zarkowie is a zealot, he's nothing more than a
> > ***er, somebody who delights in others pain...well, let me tell ya
> > folks..the world is full of those types...we have plenty right here
> > in the good ol US of A. Our economy DID suffer from the 2nd and 3rd
> > attacks on the world trade towers, but we have pulled ourselves up
> > and out. How is the French Economy doing these days? Near Double
> > Digit unemployment last I heard. The Germans? I'm sure those in the
> > Eastern provinces are basking the glow of a healthy economy.
> We have our problems, sure, but we don't try to offload them on the rest
of
> the world by making our currency cheaper, for example. We also didn't make
> it harder on ourselves by starting a war in the Middle East thus hiking up
> the oil price.
> > Again, blather all you want about somebody whom you appear not to
> > have much knowledge. But your blind comments about President Bush
> > and HIS polices seem to have not been carefully thought out. We are
> > America. We are bigfatdumblazy but if not for us, how many peoples
> > of the world would still live under oppression? How many languages
> > would Europe have?(just one Herr Knowitall)
> Yeah, and it took us nearly 50 years to get back to a situation where a
> single currency was universally accepted. Thanks a bunch! <g>
> > Who feeds the world?
> > Who commits more money than the rest of the planet to fight aids,
> > hunger, devastation?
> Per capita it's the Norwegians, I think.
> BTW, who hasn't signed the Kioto agreement?
> > Who put our children's lives in harm's way to
> > defend Europe after World War II?
> We had nukes pointing at us too, dude.
> > Who stood up in Europe and said ENOUGH when the
> > Serbs were cleansing Yugoslavia?
> <cough> Bosnia-Herzegovina <cough>
> A UN-approved military intervention led by US armed forces, correct, but,
to
> borrow your reasoning with regard to the humanitarian aid, we Belgians,
> e.g., sent *HALF* our airforce there.
> > <snip>
> > You may not like us, too bad, I've met many good folks here. I
> > suppose your vision of America is that all near 300million are the
> > same.
> Of course not, it's just that even if you look beyond the surface you come
> away shaking your head in disbelief.
> > <snip>
> > Until China fully modernizes and becomes a consumer
> > nation, you need us much more than we need you.
> Try us.
> > If you like to turn your back, feel free. But put your hands in your
> > pockets...the world has too long benefitted from the generosity of the
> > United States of America with little real payback.
> LOL...
> > Finally again, since this has been a long retort...just what single
> > policy implemented by President George W Bush forced Osama Bin Laden
> > to attack civilians in New York City?
> Regardless of what reasons Osama cares to hide behind, those acts are
> inexcusable and were condemned throughout the world. It's just that the US
> felt it had to hit someone, anyone in reply which goes against the grain
> here. Nobody would have protested if you'd gotten Bin Laden and blew him
up
> on live television, but he's still out there (and plotting against you as
we
> speak... no amount of invading and reshaping of political landscapes in
> moslim countries is going to stop him).
> Terrorism happens here too, but we focus our efforts on destroying their
> networks, not taking it out on Luxemburg.
> Jan./European intelligentia snob. ;-)
> =--
Email here too, eh ?
> > Oh, you mean like Kerry has with the Kennedys and the Heinz fortune ?
> In all likelyhood, yes. Would it surprise you?
> Cheers,
> uwe
> --
> mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
> Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
> Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
> GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
It's common knowledge. Kennedy ($ and influence) got him in the Senate to
begin with too.
Personally, I'm always amused when people whine about politician X and his
connections to y and/or z.
It's how the game works, (nothing new either, but people act like it is).
Always has, always well.
> > Now with the attack and bombardment of Fallujah, too many (by my
> > standards) innocent Iraqi's will suffer (and have suffered) ; and I
> > think that the real reason this is happening is judt to give a
> > demonstration of U.S. power to anyone interested. The Iraqi's are
> > just a convenient subject for the demonstration.
> Ahhh heck Elrikk...we didn't have to go halfway around the world for
> that. hehehe Not with our neighbors to north so close. lol!
Never met him either but "Go, Aussie v8's" ;o)
Elrikk
PS I'm in Monrteal so I guess you can consider me one of those
"Northeastern Liberals" ;o)
Was it PGWB's fault that 18 sailors were killed on the USS Cole? The
274 Marines in Lebanon? The dozen or so soldiers killed in Mogadishu?
The off duty Military bombed in Germany? The civilians shot and ***ed
on cruise ship hijackings, airplane hijackings etc? I find it all so odd
that we can be attacked again and again and again from the 80's on and it
all boils down to President George W Bush's fault. I'm sure the families
of people blown up in the parking garage of the first World Trade Tower
attack will find ample evidence that the then Govenor of Texas was at
fault. The current war was authorized in full by the United Nations
thru multiple UN resolutions. The current war was further legitimized by
the violation of ceasefire aggreements signed by representatives of the
Iraqi goverment. The current war is NOT the sole response to world wide
terrorism. The current war IS but a small part of that effort.
One line stood out from David's web site. I'll respond by paraphrasing
Rush Limbaugh: The statement is:
That there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda.
There are and were Al Queda in Afganistahn, there were and are Al Queda
in Pakistan. There were and are Al Queda in Egypt, in Saudi Arabia, in
Kuwait, in Syria, in Iran, in the Sudan, in Eithiopia, in Canada, Mexico,
the United States. There are Al Queda in the Phillipines and even New
Guinea. In France, in Spain and more. Why then, when it appears that Al
Queda has connections around the entire globe, that we believe there was
absolutely NO connection between Al Queda and a goverment that openly
supported terrorists, terrorist goals, and terrorist's families. Are we
to believe that Al Queda is EVERYWHERE but in Iraq? Are we to beleive
that the non Iraqis in Fallujah are freedom fighters? Are we to beleive
the non Chechans that joined the attack of the Russian School Kids were
just passing by? And by the logic shown thru many posts here, all that
was President George W. Bush's fault.
I bow in my ignorance.
dave henrie
Not that I usually agree with DGF, but I don't think he said anything about
Clinton at all - positive or negative (mighta missed it). GWB *is* the
current prez, is he not? Surely, then, he is the legitimate target of ire.
Clinton is past, Bush is present.
Just because Clinton may have wiped out a gazillion bajillion innocents
doesn't make Bush any less of a git.
The streak continues...
Indeed it does not affect the reputation of President Bush in any way,
good or bad. But to insult and demonize the President while ignoring the
same from past Presidents shows not a horror of war but a horror of
Republican war. That is, to me at least, a shallow pool. So I give DGF
free reign to besmirch the sitting President, just so long as he can
justify his scorn by showing proof of equal emotion against left leaning
administrations. Otherwise his invective is just polictical scat.
(wow, THAT just popped into my head...I like it...hehehehe)
dave henrie