"Sir Rodney Smithers" wrote
I do agree that all politicos are crooks, but there is a world of
difference between Bush and Kerry.

Boy is there ever. Even the most whacked-out Nader
enthusiast could not pretend that there was no difference
between Bush & Kerry, although some of the Baradnick people
tried... or at least, they said they believed it....


... I for one would prefer a moderate
Republican or Democrat over the two extremes we had to chose from in the
last election.


If you tink Kerry is "extreme" then you are guilty of
believing the Bush-Cheney spinmeisters instead of your own
two eyes... maybe because your eyes were shut tight...


Doug Kanter wrote:
Kerry doesn't enter into this issue at the moment.

Of course he does. All the Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders have to
offer is a continual chorus of "Clinton was worse! Kerry
would have been worse! Sqwaa-aark! Polly wanna cracker!"


.....The Middle East is what it is,
and no amount of force can change that.

That's not true. The Middle East *will* change if we apply
enough force at the right places. Say for example we nuke
the place. That would certainly bring about a very large
change.

A slightly less extreme alternative would be to kill 30% of
the male population of one or two given countries... that
would render it far more difficult... maybe impossible...
for them to wage any kind of war. And it would certainly
alter the politics of the region quite drastically.



In Iraq, we are in effect taking a can of peas, slapping a label on it that
says "chicken soup", and wondering why the can still contains peas.

I like that analogy. Mind if I use it too?

Thanks
DSK