On 27 Dec 2003 19:36:34 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff.

NOYB has read it, and has stated that he agrees with the general principles.

I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a lot of
people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to
obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq, Iran,
Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally
justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit that
they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for more
than a single opinion.

Could you please show me, in the Statement of Principles, where
obliteration of governments is stated?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
-
And as for the new conservatives, the mindless, goose-stepping masses of
them?

They can go **** themselves.

It's much more satisfying to **** with you.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...

I suspect that if you see Harry say this, he's being exquisitely
sarcastic.
NOYB, however, isn't kidding at all. Of course, that'll change the
moment
one of his kids is old enough to join the military.

Actually it was the other way. Harry was not being sarcastic. NOYB
probably was.

Steve

Watch carefully. NOYB repeats this idea a few times a week in various
discussions. Either he's just monkeying with the assembled masses, or he
actually believes his spew. My theory: 10% of the time, it's the former,
and
90% the latter.

More like 1% and 99%. The governments of Syria and Iran openly support
Hezbollah and Hamas...two every evil terrorist organizations that purposely
target civilians. They both *should* be annihilated.

On 27 Dec 2003 07:38:11 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 24 Dec 2003 08:25:50 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Although this has a happy ending, as you can see, war is not just the
capturing of someone who may or may not have been a threat to us. We
have, because of our war mongering, put this little boy through
nothing short of pure hell. If this story doesn't sadden you, then you
are no better than Saddam himself:

Snipped

Bass, where did any Conservative say that war is grand? Did someone
honestly say that, or was that comment simply to attract attention?
You could attract attention with a current story just as easily. My
son-in-law lost one of his best friends on Christmas eve in Baghdad.
Do you think that makes me feel 'war is grand'?

Hope you had a good Christmas. I hope your search for the worst you
could find didn't affect your day.


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

That's quite easy to to answer. You conservatives don't mind starting
a war, with no real premise, right? Well, I guess except for the
cardboard drones!! You think Bush is correct for the pre-emptive
strike of a poor nation that we had no reason to be in, right? You
righties are talking about which country we need to go blow the hell
out of next, right? It would seem to me that if you thought war was
bad, then you'd not want is in one....or more, especially when there
has been no real evidence that we needed to go there.

Again, could you please show me where a conservative said that war was
grand?

No, none of your statements above is 'right'.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff.

NOYB has read it, and has stated that he agrees with the general
principles.

I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a
lot of
people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to
obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq,
Iran,
Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally
justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit
that
they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for
more
than a single opinion.

Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support PNAC's
agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too long.

NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff.

NOYB has read it, and has stated that he agrees with the general
principles.

I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a
lot of
people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to
obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq,
Iran,
Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally
justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit
that
they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for
more
than a single opinion.

Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support PNAC's
agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too long.



Well, of course you support it. You're a neoCon chickenhawk.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The JohnHs and NOYBs don't want to read that stuff.

NOYB has read it, and has stated that he agrees with the general
principles.

I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than
a
lot of
people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to
obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq,
Iran,
Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally
justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to
admit
that
they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world
for
more
than a single opinion.

Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support
PNAC's
agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too
long.



Well, of course you support it. You're a neoCon chickenhawk.

Sticks and stones, Harry...

With what part of the Statement of Principles of the New American
Century do you disagree? I've asked Chuck this question, but he's not,
to the best of my knowledge, answered.

John H

Your knowledge is incomplete.

Could you please show me, in the Statement of Principles, where
obliteration of governments is stated?

John H

Dig into the PNAC website a bit, John.

The devil is in the specifically outlined details- not the platitudes and
general principles.

Could you please show me, in the Statement of Principles, where
obliteration of governments is stated?

John H

How about the following quote from NOYB, an adherent of the PNAC, agreeing with
my analysis of the New American Century's agenda? You're unlikely to accept
the opinon of a goddam liberal- but NOYB is certainly one of the conservatives
best schooled on the PNAC agenda. You might find him more credible:

I wrote:

I don't have a problem with NOYB's opinion. He's less hypocritial than a
lot of
people. I disagree that the road to maximum American prosperity is to
obliterate the governments of selected nations around the world (Iraq,
Iran,
Syria, and N. Korea) or that pursuing such a course is morally
justifiable......but you have to respect people courageous enough to admit
that
they actually endorse the strategy. There is enough room in the world for
more
than a single opinion.

NOYB wrote:

Chuck is right, and Doug is wrong on this one. I *do* openly support PNAC's
agenda. Read it. It makes sense. We've been kicked around for too long.