"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel, and
Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

In other words? Actually, that's a conclusion only a moron could make.

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


I am not "obtuse" at all, however I do not see public disagreement with
BushCo as "treason." Obviously, you do. I thought GW Bush was President,
not Fuhrer.


Not fuhrer, either. Try "deity".

In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

Perhaps he'll write a comic book on the subject, of course it'll be
ghost written by Paul Wolfowitz and edited by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
You can publically disagree with Bush all you want.

I can, but you apparently cannot

.... However, when you're a
US Senator, and you start sending emails to the intelligence communities
of
enemy nations...emails that have the intent of undermining the authority
of
the incumbent President...then you're a traitor.

Possibly so, did anybody do that?

The Kerry email that you quoted was 1- sent to news agencies 2- did not
have any intent of "undermining the authority of the incumbent President."

Sure it did.

These are precisely the type of ones you use to undermine a leader:

'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of
important international initiatives"

"actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the past
three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both
parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships at
risk."

"restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world"

" repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so
damaged in the past few years"

"overcome tensions with others"

As a senator, he has no right to screw with our country's foreign policy.
If he wants to voice his concerns on the Senate floor, then that's his
right...and his responsibility. But to do it through an email to a foreign
news agency is traitorous.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


These are precisely the type of ones you use to undermine a leader:

Some policies NEED to be undermined.


'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of
important international initiatives"

"actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the
past
three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both
parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships
at
risk."

"restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world"

" repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so
damaged in the past few years"

"overcome tensions with others"

These are all positive goals. Why do you have a problem with them?


As a senator, he has no right to screw with our country's foreign policy.
If he wants to voice his concerns on the Senate floor, then that's his
right...and his responsibility. But to do it through an email to a
foreign
news agency is traitorous.

It's about time.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:44:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

is traitorous.

Now we've finally gotten to the bottom of this. He's charged as being
a traitor. Interesting the staunchest Bush supporters have put the
traitor label on all who didn't support the administrations policies
and methods. It certainly can't be any big surprise your crowd is
trying to pin the label on Kerry, now that he looks like the likely
democratic candidate. Anyone who dared run against Bush would have
quickly been labeled a traitor.

bb

Lebanon?


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


It's sounds like an olive branch to me...and the Iranians will read it
as
appeasement. In other words, should Kerry become President, he will
undo
what Bush has done, and remove the pressure on Iran. Why *wouldn't* the
Iranians view that as an open invitation to continue stirring up unrest
in
Iraq? It's in their best interest to have Kerry as US
President...rather
than Bush.

It's a blessing to have a guy like you to learn from. Here's your chance:
What country are Lebanese people from?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible.

We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.




In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel, and
Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

In other words? Actually, that's a conclusion only a moron could make.

The only reason bin Laden hasn't successfully usurped power in the Middle
East is because of our presence over there. Kerry would remove the
cat...and once again, the mice would play.

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

You mean like the American Revolution? Or the Cival War? Or WWII? Or the
Spanish-American War? Or the War of 1812?

Our country has an history of winning peace through war.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


These are precisely the type of ones you use to undermine a leader:

Some policies NEED to be undermined.


'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of
important international initiatives"

"actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the
past
three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both
parties over many decades and put many of our international
relationships
at
risk."

"restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world"

" repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so
damaged in the past few years"

"overcome tensions with others"

These are all positive goals. Why do you have a problem with them?


Because I feel as though our "damaged" credibility, damaged alliances, and
heightened tension is with countries that we shouldn't be reaching out to in
the first place. For instance, our supposed allies...France, Russia and
China...were secretly skirting the Iraqi arms embargo, and were making
under-the-table oil deals with Saddam should sanctions be removed. We don't
owe them an apology.

Meanwhile, Syria was sponsoring terrorist acts against Israel, laundering
money for Saddam, sending weapons to Iraq, and likely concealing Saddam's
WMD program. They are very likely next on our list after Iraq.

Iran also sponsors terrorist acts against our ally, Israel. They have also
been pursuing nuclear weapons, and have been inciting unrest in Iraq to
damage US resolve. They should and will be dealt with once Bush is
reelected.





As a senator, he has no right to screw with our country's foreign
policy.
If he wants to voice his concerns on the Senate floor, then that's his
right...and his responsibility. But to do it through an email to a
foreign
news agency is traitorous.

It's about time.


The only reason Kerry felt it was "time" is because it's an election year.
He's a blatant hypocrite who fully supported the removal of Saddam from
power...until it became politically convenient to oppose it.