Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:37:07 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.

Really? I'm not the one cutting and pasting biased political tripe and
passing it off as fact.

Your
simple-minded, right-wing pronouncements from "on the mount"
are the epitome of silliness.

Only because you are so rigid in your thinking that you refuse to
consider the other side. The difference is that I can cite logical,
economical, and psychological reasoning to support my side.

In your mind, perhaps. The posts of yours you tout are bizarre.

http://maddox.xmission.com/dip****.html

John H

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

John H wrote:

http://maddox.xmission.com/dip****.html

John H

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


It seems appropriate that Herring, our newsgroup defender of military
screw-ups, should be in charge of the "dip****" webpage.

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:16:15 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


Well, we have people here opposed to overt military action. The
alternative is covert military action.

Those are the only two alternatives? How about dealing with third world
countries as we deal with first world countries?


When you have a society which does not allow the right to own arms or some
other means to defend itself, it can easily be taken over by an ambitious
person with charisma, and the inside track to the military. Many people
can also be swayed to support someone by the promises of a better life.
Once that person seizes power, they are free to oppress the people,
establish a police state and rule by fear and intimidation

Gun ownership in many of the countries we are talking about, especially
Arab countries, is pervasive. It hasn't helped them prevent tyrants.

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

Like who?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...dictators.html

As you didn't like my link, I'll just name a few. Somoza, Pinochet,
Trujillo, Diem, the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos,
Batista, Francois & Jean Claude Duvalier, Francisco Franco, George
Papadopoulas, Pol Pot, . . .



This site features the writing of someone who is so obviously left biased
that their objectivity is highly questionable. The author borders on
paranoid schizophrenia, as he tried to paint the picture of the U.S.
government looking for imaginary communists under every stone in every
country.

Please, Blum could be a looney tune. It wouldn't change a factual list of
CIA interventions.


Communism WAS a legitimate threat. The human rights and economic freedoms
of the people under those rules were significantl;y less than under our
system of freedom and an open economy.

Many of our interventions, predate communism.

http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resourc...rventions.html


The democratic free market
model is far superior to a socialist one, no matter what Mr. Blum seems to
think.

I see part of your problem. You are confusing a political system with an
economic system. Very easy to do, hell the CIA does it all the time.
What do you think? Was Chile better off under a democratically elected
Allende or a US imposed tyrant Pinochet?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lorma.../soa/chile.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...8/nsaebb8i.htm

thunder wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:16:15 -0400, Dave Hall wrote:


Well, we have people here opposed to overt military action. The
alternative is covert military action.

Those are the only two alternatives? How about dealing with third world
countries as we deal with first world countries?


Don't confuse Dave; he is unaware there are possibilities beyond black
or white.

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


Dave



It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on September
11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs.

If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by
invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to address
the problem?

As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not (currently)
attacking.

Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein and the
9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant
response to the terrorist attacks on America. ???
We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run free
while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?


Dave



It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on
September
11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs.

If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by
invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to
address
the problem?

As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not
(currently)
attacking.

Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein
and the
9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant
response to the terrorist attacks on America. ???
We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run
free
while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah.

Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in the
mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big
picture.

In the interest of never under estimating or minimizing the capabilities of
your opponents...This is very bad thinking. They are not criminal thugs.
They are members of a relegious group that believes in what they do. They
believe that God will reward them for this belief and for the actions they
take in forwarding this goal.

The requirement on us is to change their believes or annihilate them.
Really is not much middle ground.

I would think that seizing the oil fields and holy sites in Saudia Arabia
would be a start. Perhaps combined with the de-nuclearization of Pakistan
and Iran. I don't suggest we invade - simply annihilate if an acceptable
accomodation is not found. We continue to play with adversaries who would
in good faith remove an American City or two to prove their point. I
suggest that removing all Islamic nuclear capability is simply good sense.
Along the way remove the nuclear capability of North Korea and consider
whether or not we should do the same to India. I see no reason why we allow
nuclear capability in potentially unfriendly hands. No I do not want to go
after the Chinese or the Russians...then again their relegious beliefs are
not likely to lead to attacks on America.

It hurts me to turn into a warmonger...but I can see no other path that is
not littered with the remains of dead American Cities.

Jim

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
How does this solution work any better than what we've done so far?


Dave



It addresses the reality that we were not attacked by a country on
September
11th, but by a gang of criminal thugs.

If every time we get attacked by a gang of cirminal thugs we respond by
invading and occupying yet another country, how does that even begin to
address
the problem?

As you said, the thugs will just go somewhere else that we're not
(currently)
attacking.

Even Bush has said "We cannot prove a connection between Saddam Hussein
and the
9-11 attacks", yet our invasion of Iraq is supposed to be this brilliant
response to the terrorist attacks on America. ???
We're defending America against future attacks by letting the culprits run
free
while we dink around with a politically motivated side show? Nah.

Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in the
mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big
picture.

Jesse James and company rode out of Missouri.

If every time they held up a bank, the government declared martial law in first
Kansas, then Nebraska, then Oklahoma,
etc etc etc......how would that be any different than what we're doing/
planning to do now? Certainly would have never caught the James/Younger Gang
(many of whom learned you don't screw around with a Minnesota farmer's money)

Foreign governments may not be our friends, but neither is any foreign
government the enemy that brazenly and criminally attacked us. We need to put
down the dog proven to be rabid first.....and then if we need to look at other
dogs that could possibly be infected too, we should.


I'm all for getting those criminal *******s.
Absolutely. Work within or outside the confines of international law to get it
done.
Any country worth a dinkle would help us out or at least stand back and let us
bring these *******s to death or trial. No **** ant country would dare protest
us
going in to extract bin Ladin, and our allies would either help or keep silent.
Who would want to side with Osama bin Ladin?

Don't forget that 90% of the country was rootin' for GWB when he said he was
out to get OBL, "dead or alive". Too bad we lost focus.

If our current foreign policy is an effective response to 9-11, the majority of
people cannot see just how. (Bush can't say "There is no connection" one month,
and then say "We're avenging the 9-11 massacre" the next). If our current
foreing policy is not a direct respoinse to 9-11, we have every right in the
world to ask why it isn't.

Solving terorism in general is no higher than item "B", if that's what the
justification for Iraq etc is. Item "A" should be bringing down the *******
that is already attacking us *now*.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Chuck, you need to use logic and foresight to see what is happening in
the
mid-east. Your view is to small which limits your ability to see the big
picture.

Jesse James and company rode out of Missouri.

If every time they held up a bank, the government declared martial law in
first
Kansas, then Nebraska, then Oklahoma,
etc etc etc......how would that be any different than what we're doing/
planning to do now? Certainly would have never caught the James/Younger
Gang
(many of whom learned you don't screw around with a Minnesota farmer's
money)

Foreign governments may not be our friends, but neither is any foreign
government the enemy that brazenly and criminally attacked us. We need to
put
down the dog proven to be rabid first.....and then if we need to look at
other
dogs that could possibly be infected too, we should.

All foriegn governments are our enemy. At times we treat them like friends.

I'm all for getting those criminal *******s.
Absolutely. Work within or outside the confines of international law to
get it
done.
Any country worth a dinkle would help us out or at least stand back and
let us
bring these *******s to death or trial. No **** ant country would dare
protest
us
going in to extract bin Ladin, and our allies would either help or keep
silent.
Who would want to side with Osama bin Ladin?

Crime is a term used in a civil socitety to describe unwanted behavior. In
uncivilized societies there is no crime there is only survival.

Don't forget that 90% of the country was rootin' for GWB when he said he
was
out to get OBL, "dead or alive". Too bad we lost focus.

Lost focus? We changed our plans to fit the mission. What purpose would it
serve to kill OBL now?

If our current foreign policy is an effective response to 9-11, the
majority of
people cannot see just how. (Bush can't say "There is no connection" one
month,
and then say "We're avenging the 9-11 massacre" the next). If our current
foreing policy is not a direct respoinse to 9-11, we have every right in
the
world to ask why it isn't.

We are fighting the terrorist's, enemies of the US, on their soil rather
than on our own soil. How would you like a homicide bomber to walk into your
local pizza parlor and blow the place up?

Solving terorism in general is no higher than item "B", if that's what the
justification for Iraq etc is. Item "A" should be bringing down the
*******
that is already attacking us *now*.

All in good time. As I said before, take off the blinders and try to see the
big picture. Look ten, twenty or even fifty years into the future and
visualize what you want the world to look like and then start making it
happen. I want a world where my children and grandchildren are safe from
harm. Letting the terrorists take over won't provide a safe future.