On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:10:11 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:28:43 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Uh, when your policies are wrong, and you keep on promulgating them, and
they keep on delivering death and destruction, and you keep on
promulgating them, then perhaps it is time to come up with some new
policies.


Who are you to declare that these policies are "wrong" By what
objective criteria do you make this judgement call?

Dave


You've been living in a cave the last year?

That didn't answer the question. What factual, OBJECTIVE criteria can
you cite that proves that the president's policies were "wrong"?

After 9/11, enhanced security policies were enacted. A new department
of homeland security was created. To date, there have been no further
attacks on U.S. soil. To call this policy a failure, there would have
to be another attack in spite of the new policies.

The war in Iraq was won in a matter of weeks. Saddam was deposed, and
eventually captured, his son's killed. Most of Saddam's underlings
were also captured. The Iraqi people were freed from tyrannical
oppression. While it's true that keeping the peace has been somewhat
tumultuous, that is to be expected when the desperation of the
terrorists are hightailed as the date for the transition of power
looms ahead. How is this a failure? It would be a failure if we pulled
out now and let the insurgents win.

Sure there was a cost. Both monetarily and in human lives. But any war
has these costs, and they have never historically been a major
consideration when the greater good is factored into the big picture.

Dave

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:08:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?


Some other choice, perhaps?

I'm all ears. Tell me what that choice is.


By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent
civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim
any higher moral ground.

We don't need to. We only need to win.


If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill
lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference
between us and those we go after.

The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. We didn't fly
airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. If the
terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva
convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of
the people that they willingly place in harm's way. We still have the
right to pursue the enemy.

What signal does that send to the enemy if we cease pursuing them if
they hide in civilian areas?



It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?


I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to
know".

Dave

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary?


John H

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


No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts
virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you.


As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every
line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed
you?


That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of
significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with
the true liberals in my party.

Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's
political party.

As for the emotionally driven "writer
hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are
rudimentary.

I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts,
not my opinion of what my interpretation of those facts are. Most of
those articles, that you faithfully cut and paste, are little more
than op-ed pieces, with little factual basis. Sort of like Michael
Moore's "propagandamentary" film.


Harry, the real joke is that you are nothing more than the flip side
of the same coin. If there is such a thing as a "neo-conservative"
(other than the webster definition), then you are a shining example of
a "neo-liberal".

I'm more of a Clinton Democrat on fiscal issues, but very liberal on
social issues. I suspect my truly liberal friends would make you quake
in your boots.

I'm more of a Reagan conservative, but that's not the point.

Once I cut your liberal friends to shreds with solid reasoning and
practical logic, they would be the one's quaking. I wonder how many of
them truly understand the concepts of a free market economy and
freedom, and the benefits and consequences of each.


Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:42:10 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 11:41:56 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Am I a neocon because I looked in a M-W dictionary?


John H

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


No, you are a neocon because you are a rigid, mindless fool who accepts
virtually every line of bull**** the neocons feed you.


As opposed to you, a rigid mindless fool who accepts virtually every
line of bull**** the liberals and emotionally driven writer hacks feed
you?


That's simply not true, Dave. I have different opinions on a number of
significant issues with the presumed Democratic standard=bearer and with
the true liberals in my party.

Anyone can say that. No one is 100% in lock step with anyone's
political party.

As for the emotionally driven "writer
hacks," I suspect you are just jealous, as your writing skills are
rudimentary.

I am hardly "jealous". I at least have the integrity to report facts,


Dave, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass. Your
simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount"
are the epitome of silliness. You're like a junkyard dog whose been
tossed a tired out old bone, and you're going to worry that meatless
bone down to what you hope is marrow. Except the bone is so old and
chewed out, there isn't any.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Another ignorant post from the village idiot.

HEY! WAIT A MINUTE!!!

Last week you said I could be the Village Idiot! No fair! No fair!

The whole S.R.W.C.J. is.

On 24 Jun 2004 14:04:12 -0700, (Alex Horvath)
wrote:

We can never win this war on terrorism by killing people. Even Tenet
says that to call the war on terrorism a war is incorrect, it is no
more a war than the war on crime or the war on drugs neither of which
will ever have an endpoint.

You make a good point here. We probably should re-evauate our tactics.
Tanks and bombs probably aren't the answer. But some form of force is.
Before we can do that though, we have to loosen up on the idea that
covert operations are "sneaky" or "underhanded".


We have probably increased the number of terrorists 10 fold by
invading Iraq. There are millions upon millions of potential recruits
throughout the world.

Once Iraq becomes stable and the people taste what it's like to be
self governing, I can't see why they would prefer to be oppressed by a
fanatical fundamentalist religious fanatic. The terrorists are running
scared. They know as well as we do, that once their people taste
freedom, there will be no turning back, and their power base will
evaporate.



The solution to the terrorism problem has been staring us in the face
for 40 years but I'm afraid we are just too blind to see it. We
unconditionally support Israel as they commit what basically amounts
to genocide.

Woah! back up Jack. Who is it that continually sends homicide bombers
into which country to blow up innocent civilians? Is Israel to blame
for fighting back? Does Israel not have a right to peaceful
sovereignty?

We support a cadre of ruthless dictators as long as they
share our interests.

Like who?

At the same time we talk about democracy and free
elections. The hypocracy is so shameful as to render our proclamations
of freedom utter nonsense.

We would prefer that all dictatorships go away and be replaced by
democratic governments. Unfortunately we don't have the right to force
this on people unless (as in the case in Iraq) that government poses a
potential threat to world stability and our safety. If the oppressive
dictatorship is relatively benign (They aren't researching WMD,
killing thousands of it's own citizens, or invading a neighboring
country)

Dave

On 24 Jun 2004 22:44:36 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Very good Chuck! That sounds like the perfect plan. Now all we need to
do is call the Starship Enterprise and have them scan the plant for
the DNA signatures of all the terrorists so that we can beam them all
into a detention cell on some outer world controlled by the Klingons.

Or, failing that, we can occupy every country where there ever was, is, or
might someday be a terrorist. To make sure we get them all, we need to kill off
anybody we even suspect, in the least, might have terrorist tendencies.
Probably no more practical than the Starship Enterprise.

Binary thinking Chuck. No one has suggested we occupy every country.
But we can be a force for change in the region. Once one country
enjoys the benefits of democracy, it becomes easier to "nudge" the
others. When democracy takes a firm foothold, there will be less and
less need for terrorists.


Wake up! We haven't yet found OBL, his top henchmen, or the Iraqi
insurgents. The terrorists hide in countries that will not allow us in
to search for them (Pakistan). How do you resolve this? If there are
countries who support the terrorists either overtly or covertly, then
how do we apprehend them?

Bush: Hello, General XYPHAHUANG?

General X: Yes, Mr President! My closest friend and honored ally! How are Laura
and the twin Bushes?

Bush: Fine, general. Seems we have a small problem, however. A group of
criminal terrorists thugs blew up a bunch of
stuff here in the US and killed a helluva lot of innocent folks. Turns out
these criminals are hiding in your country.

General X: Pajukistan does not support terrorism!

Bush: Of course not, and I'm glad to hear you say that. This is a courtesy call
to let you know that we will be sending a few thousand Army Rangers and Navy
Seals into your country by the end of this week.

General X: You mean you are going to invade us? What about the treaty?

Bush: Invade, shamde. This is a law enforcement action. We don't want to
acquire any territory, we don't want to topple your government, we want to
avoid civilian causalties. This is your opportunity to *invite* us to search
for these *******s.

General X: And if I don't choose to invite you?

Bush: Well, in that case we're coming anyway and this is a courtesy call to let
you know to expect us.

General X: This will pizz off my people! I'll be lucky to remain in power! You
can't do this! Don't forget, we've got a nuclear bomb!

Bush: Yes, we can. And we will. There's no doubt that you do not want to start
a nuclear war with the United States. The good news is, you won't need to. You
do have an alternative to our presence, of course. Deliver Osama bin Ladin or
his verifiable corpse to your border within 96 hours. If you can find him, do
so. If you can't we're coming to "help" you.

So, if I take this seriously, you are advocating that we ignore the
sanctity of a sovereign nation by committing, what amounts to, an act
of war? How is that any different than what we did in Iraq? Even
though our goal would not be to overthrow the government, they will be
compelled (if for no other reason than to save face) to respond. Do
you not think this would also be interpreted as a battle call for the
unification of our enemies?

Personally I like the idea to some extend, and it is one of my
favorite alternative solutions. But it is not without its own set of
consequences, and will make just as much of a stir in the world
community and we will inevitably be cast as aggressors even though we
are simply pursuing criminals.

Then again, once OBL is alerted that we're coming in after him, he
will bolt across yet another border, and the whole process has to be
repeated.

I actually prefer a more "covert" type of operation where we send in a
crack team of army specialists to "get in, get it on, and get out",
under the cover of darkness. But for some reason, liberals tend to
look with disapproval toward covert operations (That whole "big
brother" thing). This would also require a huge improvement in our
intelligence gathering capabilities, and we all know how democrats
historically rate funding for these agencies.


So, that's how. In my opinion. Beats hell out of calling the Starship
Enterprise or killing every Muslim on the face of the earth, anyway.


How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?


Dave

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:06:59 GMT, "Stanley Barthfarkle"
wrote:

This is a boat newsgroup. Plonk.


Mr. Barthfarkle, it is not necessary to notify the group, thus adding to the OT
stuff, every time you "plonk" someone.

John H

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

On 24 Jun 2004 15:55:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine
which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

Most people will, indeed, search just long enough to find one source or another
that supports their position and hang on for dear life against all evidence or
opposition.

Those more interested in seeking truth will
consider multiple perspectives, drawing comparisons between what others have
observed and personal, contemporary observations. The mentally adept often seek
out contradictory opinions and examine them carefully for any elements of
greater or lesser truth they may contain.
The self righteous and intellectually insecure fearfully eschew dissenting
ideas.

Much depends on motivation. Some want to appear "right" (or righteous) at any
cost. Others want to get closer to the unvarnished truth, even if it ultimately
requires changing a long-held prinicple or considering a new idea.

No single source is an authority on everything. Even dictionaries are compiled
and edited by committees that often make arbitrary or underinformed decisions.
That is one of the reasons for consulting multiple sources, as the odds of
several editorial boards making identical arbitrary or underinformed decisions
are rather low.


My gosh, do I sense some heresy here? Do you really mean your statement about
"...no single source is an authority on everything"? Does Harry know you feel
this way? Or b'asskisser?

FWIW, I continue striving hard to maintain the mediocre standards I've set for
myself.

(I can't believe you put all that effort into a response to that ridiculous post
of mine!)

John H

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

John H wrote:

On 24 Jun 2004 15:55:59 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

But the M-W is definitely wrong in this case, true? How does one determine
which
is the right source? Do you just search until you find a source that supports
your position?

Most people will, indeed, search just long enough to find one source or another
that supports their position and hang on for dear life against all evidence or
opposition.

Those more interested in seeking truth will
consider multiple perspectives, drawing comparisons between what others have
observed and personal, contemporary observations. The mentally adept often seek
out contradictory opinions and examine them carefully for any elements of
greater or lesser truth they may contain.
The self righteous and intellectually insecure fearfully eschew dissenting
ideas.

Much depends on motivation. Some want to appear "right" (or righteous) at any
cost. Others want to get closer to the unvarnished truth, even if it ultimately
requires changing a long-held prinicple or considering a new idea.

No single source is an authority on everything. Even dictionaries are compiled
and edited by committees that often make arbitrary or underinformed decisions.
That is one of the reasons for consulting multiple sources, as the odds of
several editorial boards making identical arbitrary or underinformed decisions
are rather low.


My gosh, do I sense some heresy here? Do you really mean your statement about
"...no single source is an authority on everything"? Does Harry know you feel
this way? Or b'asskisser?

FWIW, I continue striving hard to maintain the mediocre standards I've set for
myself.

(I can't believe you put all that effort into a response to that ridiculous post
of mine!)

John H


Yeah, sure, Herring. Nice try at a retreat.