BS: Bush's Speech II

Subject: Bush's Speech II
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 10:38 AM

First Part HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: SharonA
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 04:16 PM

*refresh* Sorry; I posted to Part One instead of to this thread. Fifty lashes with a wet fish for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,CLETUS
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 04:38 PM

Donuel, I shur am happy az ta ya postin them freedoms an specially that one about wantin an all cauze me an paw an the Reg boyz ar awantin one of them salamis. Iffen ya cud seez yur way kleer ta send it weed be much oblijed.

CLETUS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Sep 01 - 04:56 PM

Cletus, a little education is a dangerous thing- shouldn't that be 'obleejed'? Since you and I come from the same country, I know you'll take the correction in the right spirit.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 01:04 AM

Take the salami -- I know just the thing to do with it!!

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 08:44 AM

Greg, I asked for your ideas. I have read what others on the Forum (and elsewhere) have had to say and I will use their input in altering and refining my own opinions.
No, I don't need you to think for me, but it is the height of arrogance and conceit for anyone to assume that only they (and others of like mind) have all the answers. I will utilize data from any source.
Even a fool may sometimes have a good idea.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 09:33 AM

Too true, Troll, and and even a broken clock is right twice a day. And a stitch in time saves nine. Got any more hackneyed platitudes to share with us?

I don't believe I've ever claimed to have "all the answers" and its the height of something a bit more obnoxious than arrogance or conceit to assert that I did. Actually, I might suggest you exemplify that "know-all" approach pretty frequently yourself.

Guess I'm with Spaw- "OK, Troll, eat me!"   ;>)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: 53
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 05:23 PM

I have read most of the comments in this thread -parts I & II. I was very pleased with Amos' comments on Bush's speech. and with some others. But there seems dissension amoung the comments.

Someone who voted for R. Nader and did not like Bush said that Bush 'spoke for him' in the speech. He has been personnally touched by the events because he lost loved ones. I do not think those of us who were spared a 'personal' touch, (just because our loved ones were not on those particular flights or in those buildings) need to feel any less personally touched. We need to remember it could just as easily have been OUR cousins, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, friend.... For WE are The United States of America. Let's stand united!!

I did vote for Bush. I was very impressed with the speech and saw that he spoke from his heart. I do not think that his decision was easy or rash. I think it was an informed decision and still is being studied and much work is going on in preparation for what MUST be done.

He made clear that his message was not only to Americans - but to the world. I was pleased to see Tony Blair there to back him. He has given his advise and offered his aid. I do think we should stand behind him, as Americans, and think carefully as citizens of whatever country you are in. All who don't want to be terrorized need to understand that this will NOT go away if we don't do something. We need to remember that the price of freedom is not cheap. It never has been.

Following the news closely after the events of 9/11, I have experienced a series of emotions. But my heart was truly broken when I saw anti-war marches in the news. These will do more to divide this great country than the terrorists' attacks did. For they seemed to bring a unity this country needs.

I say, let's support our president, with our prayers and in whatever way we can. Let's NOT let the terrorists take away the liberty our forefathers willingly paid for with great sacrifice and bloodshed!!

Glenda

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 05:35 PM

Glenda:

One of the liberties they died for is the right to go out in the street and protest the government's decisions. Protesting the decision to go to war -- if that's what is -- is an absolute essential right, and if we refused to tolerate we _would_ be letting the terrorists win.

We don't have to worry about dividing this great country. But we cannot shut it up, out of a fear that we might, or we will ruin the whole legacy of all the philosphers and fighters in the past.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: 53
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 06:55 PM

Amos, I understand, and I believe in each person having the right to speak his or her mind. That is why I decided, after several days, to make my own comments in this thread. I do not usually make my thoughts public - except thru poems and I have just written one that says some of what I felt. I suppose my poem says it far better than my post. But I am entering it in a contest and it must remain unpublished until I do so.

Glenda

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 07:36 PM

Sometimes the Atlantic seems like a stream, and sometimes like the gulf between planets.

I've watched a lot of Americans speaking this week. Mayor Giuliani, General Powell, all kinds of real people, and I've found what they've said moving and sometimes reassuring. There's been only one real exception to that...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 09:33 PM

Glenda. I don't know if you are new to the forum, or I just haven't seen your posts. If you're new, welcome!

Good posts, and good thoughts. When the competion is behind you, will you post your poem?

McGrath: don't keep us in suspense, man!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 11:31 PM

Argumentum ad Homienum. Discredit the man, and you discredit his argument.
The fact that I discent and that I state my position in a forthright and forceful manner doesn't mean that I think I'm always right, Greg. I am aware that there are gaps in my knowledge and blind spots in my world view, as Skeptic so often reminds me. I try to take this into account in my dealings with the world outside.
I said: "No, I don't need you to think for me, but it is the height of arrogance and conceit for anyone to assume that only they (and others of like mind) have all the answers. I will utilize data from any source."
What I meant of course, was that I know I don't have all the answers., and my second line; "I will utilize data from any source." reinforces this.
That you chose to interpret it as refering to you is unfortunate but thats your problem.
As to your final statement, that's the sort of thing one hears at lunch at a Middle School.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Peg
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:11 AM

Troll, do you ever have a desire to relate to other humans in a way that does not include condescension?

The middle school analogy is certainly accurate in your case...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:36 AM

Sub-title: Time to Give War a Chance

I am a registered Democrat who felt pretty low after the election, and I'm not totally at ease with the Prez we've now got, but he IS the Prez we've now got and he has a team that says all the right things. Now we'll find out if the American mind for tackling hard tasks has retained its ability to innovate.

I think the Afghani people have been enslaved and brutalized by these Taliban thug-mullahs and we have been empowered to tackle the bastards. Maybe we could enlist the Vietnamese as advisers, after all they liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge and fought off the Chinese, pretty impressive accomplishment. Realistically, we have to entrain enough locals on our side to get this done. The how of it will be quite interesting. The fact that Afghanistan has been a graveyard of British and Russian military pretensions in the past is a factor to consider, but this is now, and history does not have to repeat itself unless you are ignorant of it.

I don't understand how people can be marching for peace at a time like this. We did not start this thing but we will finish it, and THEN we'll talk peace, hopefully shape it. We did a decent job with Japan in the 40's but it didn't happen overnight.

Bush delivered a good speech and delivered it well. We'll soon see if there is reality behind the rhetoric. (I think he's learned to avoid the word 'crusade' by now).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 01:00 AM

Oh,children, settle down. Or there will be no recess!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 09:33 AM

Peg, Greg is condescending to me and I am condescending to him so it balances out. We never use profanity and we try to avoid being vulgar or outlandishly rude to each other. We disagree on a great many things and tend to be rather vocal (in a manner of speaking) when responding to each other.
To answer your question, I am only condescending to those who are condescending to me or who make what I consider to be totally fatuous statements. Especially those who are old enough to know better. With the young, the inexperienced or the ignorant, I do not.
The condescending teacher is highly ineffective.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 09:57 AM

Robomatic, I'm afraid we DID start it. Those bastards just upped the ante.

I see the prez just announced that he is freezing the assets of anyone doing business with the terrorists. I hope it works this time. One of the things FDR did was to freeze the assets of Japan, they responded by bombing Pearl Harbor.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Peg
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 09:59 AM

Troll, I am afraid referring to yourself as a "teacher" in this context is in itself condescending...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 10:02 AM

I don't understand how people can be marching for peace at a time like this. We did not start this thing but we will finish it, and THEN we'll talk peace, hopefully shape it. We did a decent job with Japan in the 40's but it didn't happen overnight.

Awful things happen, and they don't come much more awful than what happening on September the 11th. People have to try and prevent them happening again. Nobody is disagreeing about that. The thing is, there are some thing people can do that help, and some thing they can do that don't help and make things worse.

And that's what peace vigils and marches are about. Trying to avoid the mistakes that will make it worse. There is a lot of room for disagreement, and discussion about what need to be done, and we've had the Mudcat full of it for days now. It's no different in the outside world. It's important for people to listen to the points of view of people they disagree with because it's terribly easy to make mistakes that can't ever be set right.

Preventing terrorism is one thing. Justice is one thing. Vengeance is something else, and though it's a natural enough response to feel vengeful, it is never right to direct our actions by that desire. Never.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 10:19 AM

Peg, I didn't intend for it to be condescending but you apparently found it so.
Why?
Did anyone else on the Forum find my statement to be condescending?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 11:14 AM

NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 11:32 AM

kendall:

I don't agree that we started it, anymore than we started Pearl Harbor. We had and have policies that not everyone agrees with, but there are other means of response, such as ceasing rather nasty agressions which they (The Taliban, the PLO, Hamas) are taking on their own people and their neighbors. Going back to Pearl Harbor, Japan was invading its neighbors and angling for a 'Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere'. Now its a surge of the same thing with a conceived base in Islamic Middle East. If you want to play tit-for-tat, then let's just agree that Life's been a Bitch since Cain and Abel.

The day after, I feel that my comments stand.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 11:53 AM

Ahh... good point Kendall. Freezing thier assets may make them do something horrible, possibly costing thousands of lives. Oh... wait... they have already. Funny, I don't see how those people that died started anything. Oh... that's right... they live here. And of course anyone who lives in America is guilty. Hmmmm... sounds pretty much like you agree with Bin Ladin...

just disgusted, this has nothing to do with political actions, this has nothing to do with sanctions. Bin Ladin has stated his hatred for our country, he needed no reason to do what he has done to this country. But if it makes you feel better that we deserved it... I suppose that is how you deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:03 PM

Bush tried to make up for the Canadian ommission today by appearing with the prime minister of Canada and blames politics for twisting his words (or lack of them).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:45 PM

Bush tried? Who, Donuel, determines whether or not he succeeded, Donuel?? You? I do think not mentioning Canada in his speech was a goof, but I don't think Canadians favor starting WW3 over it.

Troll: No. My experience (which has been considerable over the years) with Greg F. is he is not the easiest person in the world to discuss things with...unless you agree with him. However, one also has the right to be disagreeable, I suppose, just as one has a right to say anything they want on a particular subject.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 01:39 PM

Condescending?

Interesting word that. My dictionary gives three meanings:

1)To behave with humility, by consenting to perform offices, or accept positions, of a more lowly character than those to which one is entitled by one's merits, attainments, etc.

2) To stoop to unworthy actions, to lower oneself, demean oneself by undignified or low conduct.

3) To behave with affability in one's social or intellectual relations with inferiors, although retaining and to some extent expressing in manner, a full consciousness of superiority.

I wouldn't say that's Troll in any of those senses. A degree of irritation maybe, but that's not the same thing at all.

(And my "exception" wasn't anybody posting on the Mudcat. Someone a lot less articulate than that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:03 PM

I SAY AGAIN...I HATE WHAT THEY DID, I DONT APPRECIATE BEING ACCUSED OF AGREEING WITH THOSE NUTS. WHY ARE YOU UNABLE TO HEAR ANYTHING BUT THE BLOOD POUNDING IN YOUR EARS?? DO YOU REALLY THINK THIS WHACKO GOT UP ONE DAY AND DECIDED TO ATTACK US FOR NO GOOD REASON? USING YOUR LACK OF REASON HERE, IT'S THE OLD STORY OF, iT ALL STARTED WHEN HE HIT ME BACK!

If you need to believe that we are lilly white and they are diry black, go ahead. Live in your dream world. ONCE MORE THEY FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE ARE THE ENEMY. bIN lADAN IS LYING TO HIS SUPPORTERS BY TELLING THEM THAT WE ARE OUT TO DESTROY iSLAM. bUSH IS LYING TO US BY TELLING US THAT THEY HATE FREEDOM. iT'S A CLASSIC CASE OF "STIRING UP THE TROOPS."

I remember during WW2 seeing a film that showed Japanese soldiers raping white missionaries. Nothing but propaganda. I dont believe anything my government tells me anymore. I am glad to see that Bush is using Powells head in this. My fear was that he would bomb Afghanistan. Sure, we could make a radioactive parking lot out of that whole area. What would that do besides make many more people hate us?

Someone should tell Bush that Afghanistan doesn't have any ports, being landlocked and all, so, it would be hard to blockade them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:11 PM

Guest nobody, I meant to add, We must deal with things as they are, not as we wish they were. Where they stand, they have good reason to attack us. The fact that you dont think they did is irrelevent. Disagree all you want, No amount of belief can create a fact. And the fact is, They DID attack us, and the fact is they had good reason to.(in their minds) That's what we must deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:22 AM

Kendall, my friend, have you heard of the "Rape of Nanking?" I think your example of the Japanese troops raping white missionaries might not be a good example.

If it please you liberal folks to believe that Powell is "running things," okay by me. So long as we get the job done.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Skeptic
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 01:18 AM

troll,

Condescending? I think not. Presumptuous, deluded, irritating? Undoubtedly.

(before you go getting all excited about me admitting you are irritating: a minor itch is also irritating. I put you in that class. I will leave it to others to figure out where the itch is.)

But fun all the same.

kendall,

I think what bin Laden has been doing is somewhat more profound and deep seated than what Bush is doing.

But I agree. In their mind, the attack was completely justified and ordained by Allah and if we try to Americanize their motives, we are probably headed for disaster. "Winning the minds and hearts of the Vietnamese" comes to mind as a failed example from our past. On the other hand, much of what MacArthur did in Japan after WWII may serve as a partial model. Before we can begin to affect change we need to know what we have to work with.

It may be comforting for some to mis-characterize bin Laden as a psychopathic criminal. Psychopathic he may be, but his actions (or his followers anyway) are motived by absolute religious conviction. Believing anything else would seem to be a prescription for failure.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 09:13 AM

"Presumptuous, deluded, irritating"?
Moi?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 09:17 AM

Maybe because I went to grade school in Denver while they had weekly nuclear air raid drills, maybe because my parents were well versed in the horror of war but I had this actual dream when I was 11 that remains vivid to this day.

"there was a brief simple warning on TV that a nuclear attack had been reported and there was less than 5 minures to prepare. Looking out my door I could see the neighbors doing the same. At first there was a silent disbelief but was followed in seconds by cries of outrage and blame. Neighbor blaming neihbor for an enemy unseen about to kill us all. The voices overlapped each other ,heated and wild, as to whom to blame while many scurried for cover until there was again only silence and a sudden bright light."

Having thought of that dream for many years the overall feeling I recall of the penultimate moment when all were arguing and blaming, is that we were all to blame in some way beyond our understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: robomatic
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 11:47 AM

Philip K. Dick wrote some great psychological science fiction stories and books in the 60's. One of the better short stories I recall was a society so paranoid that they attacked in every direction, and were quite successful at it. They didn't have many friends, but then they didn't have many neighbors, either. His point was that it was possible to have a condition we currently regard as mentally unbalanced to be also a survival indicator.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,Glenda (53 at work)
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 11:54 AM

DougR,

I am not really new to Mudcat, just don't share my opinions a lot, but I enjoy reading others. Yes, I will share my poem when I have turned it in and am free to pass it along. Or perhaps poetry.com will have it online then, with my others, under my full name - Glenda Atwater.

Thanks for the welcome tho'.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:05 PM

Not that I could do much better but I have noticed anytime Bush lose's his train of thought we hear him say,"...and I,..er , Make no mistake about it.. we ..ah er..."

I suppose its better than saying "where was I?" Kennedy used to make fun of the times he would lose his place much to the delight of the audience.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,CLETUS
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:12 PM

Donuel, I wuzza wundrin iffen ya had enny newz on az ta wen we mite be gittin the salami?

CLETUS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:15 PM

Cletus , Clinton stopped by and spotted the salami. HE asked if anyone wanted to play hide the salami , whatever that means . I haven't seen the salami since but will let you know if it turns up.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:48 PM

Hmmm. I doubt Cletus will be interested in it once he learns what Clinton probably used it for.

I wouldn't want to presume to speak for Cletus, though, after all, second guessing isn't something one usually finds on the Mudcat, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 12:52 PM

Doug, I didn't mean to imply that they were the same. No. The PURPOSE is the same. Gather the troops, convince them that its kill or be killed. Works everytime.(Except in the case of those guys who moved to Canada rather than fight in Viet Nam. Surely you must see that Bush is lying when he says "They" hate freedom? and that Bin Ladan is lying when he says "America is out to destroy Islam"?

Fishing season is all over, and you didn't get to Maine. Too bad, maybe next year.?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Deda
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 01:13 PM

One of the better short stories I recall was a society so paranoid that they attacked in every direction, and were quite successful at it. They didn't have many friends, but then they didn't have many neighbors, either.

Julius Caesar, in his account of the Gallic Wars, describes one of the many different tribes in Greater Gaul (France, Germany, Belgium, parts of Spain and Switzerland) as believing that it was a sign of strength to have no neighbors, to have wide areas of relative emptiness all around them -- it meant they had driven all their neighbors away. If I remember right (which I often don't--but I have taught this material), this tribe looked down on any kind of farming, and also on private property, and they moved around constantly. They thought that it would make them weak and effeminate if they became attached to land or to houses, or if they got too used to being warm in the winter, too comfortable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 01:59 PM

Sound a bit like Hell's Angels.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 02:07 PM

The trouble with trying to eliminate terrorism is that you are only ever able to kill the current generation of terrorists, and in so doing you guarantee the next.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 04:38 PM

Nope, no fishing in Maine this season, McGrath. Maybe next year.

Why don't you make a singing tour out this way? Jed has cleared the way for Mudcatters by making two such tours, one with Emmons Kitchen! I'll show you Barry Goldwater's house! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 04:42 PM

So we kill off the current crop. Another one comes along, same thing.
IF a terrorist groups goals are politically based, there may be some area of mutual understanding upon which to base negotiations. But when the goal is the complete annihilation of the American people and it's allies wherever possible, I can see very little room for talk.
Yes, we could pull out of the Middle East, adopt solar power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, etc. And bin Laden might call off his Fatwa.
And we would have to live with the fact that we had abandoned Israel to his tender mercies. He would kill them all; man, woman, and child. They would put up one hell of a fight but in the end, the terrorists would win.
And then they might decide to come after us after all.
Better to destroy them now, if we can.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,CLETUS
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 05:03 PM

Dangit Donuel, me an Paw wuzza reely gittin our mouths set up fer thet salami. Iffen enny of yall ar tockin ta Bill Clinton, cudcha tell him thet weel take thet salami no matter whair itz been cuz it mite tayst even better or leestwize it cudent hurt it all too much. Paw sez lite on the Hilary an mebbee a dash of Chelsea mite be nice.

CLETUS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 05:12 PM

We are on a tight rope. The balance between being able to rid every vestige of terrorism and having the cure turn out to be worse than the disease. Medical analogies work well in this new war scenario that we will be fighting from within and without.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 06:28 PM

Troll, do you really think Israel would sink without us? What do we supply them with except weapons? Seems to me, they did pretty well against those terrorists at Entebbi, and that nuclear facility in Iraq without our help. How about we just turn them loose?

Doug, believe it or not, I respected Barry for being a man with strong convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 10:55 PM

Kendall, the world believes that if it ever got really bad for Israel in a war, the US would come in on her side. Remove that threat and the situation would be much different.
Israel has a superb defense force but without the massive aid sent by the US it could not be maintained for long. Modern equipment takes a LOT of maintainance. That requires time money and a safe place in which to do it.
Israel is small and modern artillery has pretty good range. An enemy could sit outside the borders and hit almost any place it wanted to. If Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq all attacked at once, coupled with an uprising by the Palastinian Arabs to disrupt things inside the country, I believe that Israel would fall.
For one thing, where would they get fuel if we were not around to insure that suppliers honored their contracts?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 10:55 PM

Kendall: surely you jest. (not about Barry Goldwater) If the United States abandoned Israel there would not be a Jew left in the Middle East. Saddam, with the help of Iran, Syria, Pakastan, Afghanstan and other Arab countries would wipe out Israel without a fare-thee-well.

I think that, however, has less to do with the current situation than the fact (if you believe what bid Laden has written) that the goal of the terriorists is to kill every man, woman, and child in the United States. I for one do not want them to succeed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 11:50 PM

Doug, don't underestimate the importance of Jerusalem to the Muslim world. The Dome of the Rock is the third holiest spot in the world after Mecca and Medina and it is now under the control of Israel who -as bin Laden sees it- holds it with our help. That makes us "enemies of Islam" and fair game for any good Muslim.
The sad thing is, Jerusalem is also the holiest spot in the world to the Jews, being the site of Solomans Temple (I've said all this before) and now that they have it, they aren't about to give it up.
What's the answer?
Making Jerusalem an international city under UN governance MIGHT work but I can't see any side in the conflict agreeing to it. And it wouldn't stop the likes of bin Laden. He'd just add the UN to his list of enemies of Islam.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 12:12 AM

The drivel espoused by a cultist like Bin Laden is useless if the underlying culture stops providing a breeding ground.

The culture provides a breeding ground when there is no path to success, or recognition, or admiration, except by learning to be an extraordinarily ruthless business man who passes the hurdles of entrance by ingratiating himself with power players OR laying himself down for Allah.

The decision to seek _some_ sort of fulfillment for oneself, while living in a culture that teaches you every day that the individual is nothing, is the breeding ground of desperate men who will buy _any_ line of metaphysics that will give them some personal hope of success. That's how cults work, and Bin Laden's cult is no different.

It doesn't _matter_ what the religous invective used is -- because that is the rationalization of opportunity; the underlying decision that natters is to Be Something in a culture that requires you to Be Nothing.

If an economic shift were to occur which would enable the youth to succeed in moving forward and getting somewhere, for example, as entrepreneurs, building an infrastructure, selling plumbing, starting generating stations or whatever the nation would support as a prosperous business, and the theme of "You can become a success!" were tied to secular winsd instead of "..by jumping off to Allah!" you would see the cults of terrorism shrink away.

But that would require the iron fist of radical religous-based government be proed open a little first.

The Taliban has demonstrated on their way up they are more than willing to kill to acquire and preserve power, and they do not much care if the people they send to Allah are husbands, daughters, wives or mothers.

Given that sort of obsessive fanatic control AND a very low-grade economic environment, I'd join a gang, if I were a youth. I'd hope and pray to be tapped for a meaningful mission. Because how else would my life ever acquire any meaning?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 12:33 AM

There doesn't seem to be a peaceful answer to the Palestine-Jewish problem does there troll? As I recall, the Clinton Administration tried to get approval from both sides for sharing control of Jeruselem, but it wasn't acceptable to either of them.

I don't think the answer lies in our abandoning Israel though.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 04:43 PM

Don't underestimate the power of lies to motivate the Islamic world to continue a campaign of hatred no matter what consessions are made.

Today I had to cringe four times as Bush stumbled on his new word "misunderestimateded" not once, but four times.

I have decided to post again despite the PM insisting that I better not post here again. (would administration send such a churlish message? I don't think so)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: BH
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:30 PM

So much of the semantics used in any description of any person or event becomes loaded. Above was the comment"...Arab-Jewish problem". That denotes a religious aspect to something that should be considered political and perhaps a nationalistic issue. Arabs are not all Moslem--some are Christian. Many live in Israel and were asked to stay during the 1948 war that their brethren started to destroy the state that was mandated by the U.N and world opinion. I would add here that most of the land(then Palestine) was purchased legally from the inhabitants over many years. Many chose to leave at the urging of the aggressor nations with the promise of return. Some remained and are now citizens of Israel. Those who left ---the Palestinans as we now know them --were not then welcomed by the very parties who urged them to leave. Hence the tent camps, etc; And now the fruits of political war(s) are bearing their bitter fruit.

So, it cannot be put in religious terms. As to the terible events in NYC & DC---that has more to do with fanatical religious zealots who hate our way of life and our involvement in the Middle East--specfically Saudi Arabia.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:37 PM

That was the point I was going to make, the modern state of Israel was created by the United Nations. Why do we carry 90% of the load to protect them? And dont you dare accuse me of being anti-semite!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:03 PM

Who did, Kendall? Donuel: no, I agree with you. I don't think "administration" would do that. And no one else has the right to!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:40 PM

Donuel: I'm with Doug and I will defend your right to be publicly wrong! (BG) Kendall, we have a very large and politically active Jewish population, hence massive support for Israel. And who said you were anti-semitic?
Don't they know that Liberals can't be anti-semitic? It says so right inthe handbook.
Page 32.
Doug, re: Jerusalem, I wasn't thinking of asking both sides if it would be ok with them. Just DO IT! Fait Accompli. Here it is and these are the new rules. Cause trouble and you are out of here and you can't come back.
You want to worship here, fine. But the first hint of trouble...

troll ***How are they to accomplish this? How the hell should Iknow.***

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:15 PM

Not for the 1st time, Amos, I find myself in agreement with everything you have said

Regarding Israel, I think the British were instrumental in setting it up...though possibly only because we had 'governance' of much of that part of the World at the time.

It has to be said that I think the perception of the US's involvement with Israel in the present/recent past, at least in the UK, is that its due to the understandably very important Jewish Vote in the States?

(& I hope thats not seen as any kind of a criticism, or offensive to anyone..its just my own personal assessment of how those understandably close ties seem to be viewed by a lot of people over here in Britain)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:24 PM

Paul, you are quite correct. The Jewish population of the US is very active politicaly, especially where Israel is concerned. Various groups and congregations raise millions of dollars for Israel each year and they exert a lot of pressure on our Govt. to keep support for Israel at a high level.
It's a lot like people who send money to Ireland (NOT for the IRA) to "help out" , or Turks in Germany who send money home to Turkey.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:32 PM

Thats OK troll I know you have decided your mind is made up without the bothersome ritual of actually reading a post. There seems to be no reconcilliation since I disagreed with you once. Just go ahead and post some more 'The best of Loony Bin Laden' tracts or some draconian final solution of your own. ;-)

But seriously with all due respect and without sarcasm, Could you explain to a poor ol country boy like myself how your policy of peace in the mid east/Jerusalem works ?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:57 PM

The threads of the Israel-Palestine situation go a lot deeper than just the US being bad because they support Israel and Israel took all that land awqay.

For one thing, a great deal of the land from which Israel was initially built was sold by Palestinians, in deals negotiated by the British using funds provided by the Rothschild banking family in an effort to solve the eternal problem of homelessness for a whole people.

Second of all, another great deal of the land that has been occupied by Israel since then has been won in war. That is not a nice thing, but it is historically recognized.

Third of all the land acquired to build Israel on was largely barren, fruitless, and unirrrigated and un-arable. The sweat and industry and engineering needed to make it arable, or build infrastructure, was undertaken by the new tenants who took occupancy under a lawful agreement. So demanding it back without offering fair compensation for the improvements is a bit off,. too.

At least that's how I remember the story. I am open to correction if my facts are wrong. I recognize that the situation of Palestinians caught up in the games of nations ha sbeen awful, unthinkable, and harsh, and I think it should be rectified by peaceful and productive means. But I think we should stick to whatever facts we can find in evaluating the Middle East's bizarre dynamics.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 10:12 PM

Aye, troll, there's the rub.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 10:13 PM

Didn't Arafat recently say that Israel has the right to exist? Also, many Arabs live on barren land. The Bedoins of North Africa for instance. Here again, they dont think like we do!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 11:30 PM

Don, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. The bit about being wrong in public was meant as humor and was followed by a "G" in parentheses which is Forum shorthand for "grin". If you took it otherwise, I apologize. I don't feel that any reconciliation is needed since I disagree with just about everybody at one time or another. By and Large, I don't take it personally.In fact I seem to remember posting a congratulatory message to you and CarolC at one point.
If bin Laden publishes more, and no one else posts it, I most certainly will.
As for draconian final solutions, I don't see anything that I have suggested as draconian
Nuke 'em all and let God sort 'em out; THATS draconian.
The major reason that men like bin Laden have it in for Israel -and us, due to our support of them- revolves around the control of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. They fear that they will not be allowed to go there freely to worship and that the site will be damaged, defiled, or even destroyed.
In fact since the Dome of the Rock is situated on the site where Solomans Temple stood, the restoration of the temple is necessary before the Messiah will come, and there are groups in Israel who have already tried to lay a cornerstone, the fear of destruction is not unfounded.
Declaring Jerusalem an international city under UN governance would neatly solve a host of problems.
Since no side would agree to such a thing, the best way to accomplish the deed, in my mind, is to seize the day and do it.
This, coupled with a pull-out from Saudi Arabia would remove bin Ladens main recruiting and fund raising tool.
I really don't see how that's draconian, but not everyone sees things the same way.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 09:48 AM

Thanks , and apologies. I did not even know what *G* meant. Your suggestion could work but maight be as difficult as a one world religioan "HELAMIAN" *G*

I received many derogatory posts as of late. The normal rules of civility are a kindness that is appreciated by all. There has been a little voice in the background noise that says "be careful what you say in these heated times". It pracitally feels like a threat to free speech from within.

The little voice I was referring to is the one that only just recently warns that words of peace and understanding will be ferociously attacked. You have seen it everywhere lately. Responses to words of peace recently beget words like; wussies, cowardly pacifists, misguided, unpatriotic and thinly veiled death threats.

If I may resort to hyperbole , When you are questioning if it is safe to speak , freedom of speech is dying within you. If you feel powerless to engage in action , freedom is dying all around you.

Although I have never advocated a do nothing policy, in fact quite the opposite, some have reacted with unrestrained hostility to the very concept of reason. Case in point; I posted the very words * "we must seek a peaceful resolution lest we spiral into an ever deeper spiral of hate and war". These words were met by a barrage of hate and anger. * By a quirk of fate the Pope uttered these very words the next day.

Kahlil Gibran wrote "of what can I speak that does not already move in your own heart?" If peace and understanding are moving in the hearts of some people's hearts today, it is withered and suffering an infection of hate. You see my words are not directed solely at ourselves (the perceived victims) but the aggressors (the perceived killers) as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 10:10 AM

The Washington Post is making more of an effort to return to normalcy. The paper includes this quotation from Bush:

"The folks who conducted to act on our country on September 11th made a big mistake....They underestimated America. They underestimated our resolve, our determination, our love for freedom. They misunderestimated the fact that we love a neighbor in need. They misunderestimated the compassion of our country. I think they misunderestimated the will and determination of the commander in chief, too."

But not his literacy level, eh? No misunderestimationmabobbing on that score.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 12:59 PM

This is the first time I've been back to visit the Mudcat since before the September 11th attack. So I hope nobody minds if I respond to the original topic of this thread, and ignore much of the discussion that has followed.

I voted for Gore in the last election, and was disappointed when Bush won (the way he won didn't help). I consoled myself by remembering that some of our greatest Presidents -- including Lincoln and FDR -- were not highly regarded when they took office. But I did not have high hopes for this one.

However, in the last two weeks I believe that the President's performance, including his speech before Congress last week, has been exemplary. He has articulated what happened, why it happened, and what we can and should do about it, with great clarity and vision. No, he has not spelled out every detail of our response to this act, nor should he do so; in warfare, particularly modern warfare, it is unwise to reveal too much about your strategy and tactics to your opponent. But he has said that we will respond with every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic initiatives, financial mechanisms, and military force. He has also made it clear that our response will not consist of, or be limited to, a quick military assault designed to satisfy a momentary hunger for vengeance; rather, it will be a carefully coordinated effort by ourselves and our allies to destroy both the leadership and the foundations of terrorist organizations. While the goal of eliminating terrorism entirely is probably not achievable, we will strive to weaken, disrupt, and destroy as much of the terrorist apparatus as we can. I think this is a worthy objective, and that there is much we can do to make the world a safer and saner place.

Anyone who imagines that we can do this without any engagement of our military forces is naive. American planes dropping loaves of bread on starving Afghanistan is a fine and poetic image, and if that's part of what we do, I certainly don't object; in fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that providing substantial additional aid to South Asia will be a big part of our plan. Understanding the roots of people's frustrations and anger at the USA is also important, and I believe we must be prepared to reexamine the effects our foreign policy has on other peoples; this reexamination is underway, and I believe that our government understands very well the dangers of focusing on military might while ignoring all of the complexities of the world in which we live. But sympathy and understanding will not be enough to deter terrorists or prevent future tragedies like this one. The United States has been viciously attacked, and thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in the blink of an eye by people who won't even admit or explain their actions. The war has been brought to us, and we must respond vigorously.

I don't fault the President for surrounding himself with capable people; I commend him for it. The alternative would be to stoke his ego and/or enhance his public image by surrounding himself with lesser lights, in the hopes that he would shine brighter by comparison. Similarly, I believe that, whether or not he wrote the speech he delivered to Congress last week, it was his message, and it was clear to me that he was speaking from the heart. In my opinion this was one of the greatest political speeches of our times; the situation called for it, and he rose to the occasion.

Whether we like it or not, the United States is the most powerful nation on earth. We cannot and should not insist that the rest of the world make itself over in our image, and we have erred in the past when we have tried to do just that. But we can and must accept the challenge that has been presented to us, and try to lead our own country and the rest of the world out of the dark place that we now find ourselves in. I pray that we are up to the task, and I am grateful for the intelligent, compassionate, and determined way that our President has tried to show us all how to take the first steps.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 01:58 PM

If you MISunderestimate something, does that mean you OVERestimate it? Need a little help here...

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 04:18 PM

Greg:

You need the secret decoder mantra: being in Bush's hands is worth two times more than being given the bird...

Once you use that as the decryption key, the rest becomes magically clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 04:58 PM

Hiya gang... This was such a long thread, and I have to get ready for a rehersal, so if this has been said, forgive me, but it seems rather obvious. We seem to be adopting the Israli modle of hit back harder than you were hit, and well, I suppose that is a good idea if you want NYC to be as safe as Hebron. Let's face it all the internal security and military responce does not seem to have stoped terror in Israel. Maybe, being the clever nation we are, we can think of a better way. And, as we tell the world that we are the only nation with good govenment and liberty, don't you think we are intelligent enough to come up with a solution, like getting rid of anonimous banking. Bush says uncover Ben Ladin's bucks, I say, get rid of the banking practices that make criminals able to hide their money, of course with the Bush brothers unique banking and investment history, that idea may not be worth the loss of well... six thousand lives?
Cheers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: InOBU
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 04:59 PM

I gotta run, but I can already hear the flames being kindled for the Flaming of Larry! Salude!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 06:42 PM

Ahhh...I see, Amos.
"win this war against freedom".
No joke. I couldn't make this up.

Dispairingly, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 06:47 PM

OK, gang- I don't know WHAT happened with that last post.Supposed to read as follows:

Ahhh...I see, Amos. It IS easy once you know the secret.

Actually, Dubya clarified things himself in today's speech in Chicago. I just saw and heard him on the TV news asking the other countries of the world to help the United States "win this war against freedom".

No joke. I couldn't make this up.

Despairingly, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 27 Sep 01 - 10:40 PM

Presumably he meant"help the United States win this war,which the terrorists are waging against freedom.
But I see what you mean. It's about as bad as the Newspaper whose headline read -at the death of a prominent socialite- GONE TO HER LAST ROASTING PLACE. Regardless of what he MEANT this is what he said.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 28 Sep 01 - 04:33 AM

I knew that performance was too good to last....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Skeptic
Date: 28 Sep 01 - 09:08 PM

Interesting take on the speech from the 9/26 Jersusalem Post

Jerusalem Post - Wednesday September 26, 2001

What Bush got right - and wrong By Daniel Pipes

(September 26) - In his speech defining American policy on September 20, President George W. Bush explained what he meant by declaring "war on terror" and told the American people what it will mean to them. Overall, it was a strong presentation, with some parts exactly right, but it also contains errors that urgently require fixing.

Let's start with five good points:

* The enemy's goal: It's "not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life."

That involves "remaking the world - and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere." The president shows no illusions that al-Qaida's problem is American freedoms or United States policy in the Middle East, but something far more ambitious - the very existence of the US in its present form. As he put it, "In Afghanistan, we see al-Qaida's vision for the world," one which applies no less to New York than to Kabul.

* The enemy's nature: It is the heir "of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century... they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism." (What happened to Communism, though? Omitted so as not to offend China?)

* The enemy's method: Individuals from more than 60 countries are recruited, taken mainly to Afghanistan, trained, then sent to "hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction."

* The enemy's brutality: Its leadership "commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children."

* Defining the problem: The airline hijackings on September 11 constituted an "act of war." They were not crimes, but part of a concerted military effort by al-Qaida, "a radical network of terrorists," and the governments supporting it.

But the president also got five matters wrong:

* The enemy's identity: He avoids calling America's opponent by its name - militant Islam - preferring euphemisms such as "terrorist group[s] of global reach." Two problems here: Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy; and not explicitly defining the enemy leads to confusion and dissension.

* The enemy's location: The address dealt only with foreign threats ("drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest," "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism"), ignoring the more delicate but equally vital US domestic angle.

The new "Office of Homeland Security" has not just to protect Americans from foreign attack but extirpate the enemy within US borders.

* The enemy's appeal: The president dismissed al-Qaida's version of Islam as a repudiated "fringe form of Islamic extremism."

Hardly. Muslims on the streets of many places - Pakistan and Gaza, in particular - are fervently rallying to the defense of al-Qaida's vision of Islam. Likewise, the president's calling the terrorists "traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam" implies that other Muslims see them as apostates, which is simply wrong.

Al-Qaida enjoys wide popularity; the very best the US government can hope for is a measure of Muslim neutrality and apathy.

* US goals: These are inconsistent. "Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaida who hide in your land" implies that were the Afghan authorities to hand over a few individuals, the war effort would end, with no further concern about militant Islam. Contrarily, saying that the war effort will continue until "every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" implies an ambitious effort against the forces of militant Islam. This contradiction contains the seeds of future problems. Bush needs to clarify that the latter is his real goal.

* US foreign policy: "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This unrealistic bifurcation will not work in the real world of messy and competing interests. Preventing terrorism may seem like the only priority this week but it's not likely to maintain such total paramountcy for long, and making policy on this basis will lead to problems.

In short, while the president showed an excellent understanding of militant Islam - calling it totalitarian was especially important - he shied away from specifying it as the enemy and made unrealistic statements about the nature of the struggle ahead. These mistakes need urgently to be fixed, before they do damage.

(The writer, director of the Middle East Forum and former professor of strategy at the US Naval War College, can be reached via www.DanielPipes.org.)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 28 Sep 01 - 09:42 PM

Does anyone remember how Barry Goldwater used to keep sticking his foot into his mouth? He was always explaining what he meant. Thats maybe why they had those billboards that said IN YOUR HEART YOU KNOW HE'S NUTS.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 28 Sep 01 - 10:41 PM

How about the one on Jimmy Carter: "In his heart he knows your wife."

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 12:24 AM

Geeze, Kendall, those billboards must have been paid for the by the Democratic party. I did't see any out west! And YOU were a Barry Goldwater supporter? The billboards must not have meant much to you THEN.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 12:58 AM

Actually Kendall, that was a rip of his campaign slogan which was then "tailed" with the second.....To be correct here as I know you want to be:

"In your heart you know he's right,
But in your guts, you know he's nuts."

I also liked, "In your heart you know he's right....Far Right!"

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 09:15 AM

All true. I'm sure the Democrat party did that billboard thing. There used to be a lot of that, remember the one the Republicans came up with? Hubert Humphrey grinning like a dog eating bumble bees with an atomic explosion in the background?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Troll
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 09:47 AM

Remember the one put up by the John Birch Society?
"Save Our Republic! Impeach Earl Warren!"
Whatever happened to the Birchers anyhow?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Skeptic
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 10:21 AM

Whatever happened to the Birchers anyhow?

troll

They are alive and well and here: The John Birch Society

if I did the blicky thing right

You can even join but after looking around a little I think you'd find them a mite liberal. ;-)

Hope the gig goes well. (I know its out of character but this is my "one nice thing a week" I promised momma I'd do.)

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 10:39 AM

In your guts you know he's nuts: but he sure was colorful. HE was the only politician to make a concerted effort to clarify the UFO question as well. After that he lost all trustworthiness of the secret branches of the government. After all, if he told the truth of how unknowledgable we really are what else would he blab.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 10:40 AM

Whether popular or not, the al Quaida form of Islam is essentially a cult, in the worst sense of the word, using the forms and selected beliefs of Mohammed to support anti-social, non-cooperative attitudes. The vast majority of the Islam world seek survival and a modicum of brotherhood in the world. This fundamentalist minority seeks the transformation of the world into its own image by force.

And the funny thing is that if the divested the secular obsessions from the religous and metaphysical principles, they could stand a much better chance of converting the world. An anti-humanitarian religion founded on the heavyhanded constraint of human accomplishment and individuality starts the footrace out by shooting itself in the foot.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: SharonA
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 01:27 PM

I haven't gotten the impression that the al Quaida is interested in converting the world, but just in eliminating everything they don't believe in and everyone who doesn't believe what they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 01:46 PM

Part of bin Laden's Fatwa is the mission to replace Western governments with Muslim governments.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 01:55 PM

Meanwhile, pink tuutuus to the right, yellow chiffon tuutuus to the left, and bunny-lovers muster amidships!! Sheesh.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 02:23 PM

Pardon, Kendall, but I think you may be a bit confused (no offense).

That ad depicted a sweet little girl picking daisies in a field and suddenly in the back ground there was an illustration of an atomic bomb explosion.

That was an ad Lyndon Johnson's folks ran on TV warning Americans that Barry Goldwater would use the Atomic bomb if elected.

That was one of the dirtiest, but most effecitve TV political ads in television history.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 09:07 PM

So, you dont remember the "happy warrior" one? I'm not surprised!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 01 - 09:10 PM

How about the "Canuk" letter? One of the boys in Nixons' dirty tricks dept. sent a letter around with Muskies' logo saying things not nice about "Canucks"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 06:04 PM

Here is a different point of view on Bush's speech. A real crackup.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 06:26 PM

Hilarous, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 07:07 PM

kendall - I find that hard to believe! Who would say nasty things about Canucks??? Who would stoop so low!!! The only thing wrong with us Canucks, who are an inoffensive people by nature, is that we keep forgetting to sweep out the entrances to our igloos. Oh, and our mounted police sing dreadful operatic pop songs to girls named Nell when they should be patrolling the border for Muslim terrorists...

And we've got mostly free medical care. (Buncha damn commies, if you ask me!) :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 09:46 PM

Politicians will stoop to anything to get their man elected.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: DougR
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 09:53 PM

Some of 'em might even bend over, eh, Kendall? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: flattop
Date: 01 Oct 01 - 11:33 PM

Are those Canadians whining again?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 08:22 AM

Now Doug! Do you know why politicians never use bookmarks?

They prefer to have their pages bent over.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 11:04 AM

This thread seems to have reached terminal degradation with prejudice.

So I am not starting a Part III!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 11:13 AM

GOOD

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,Greenspan
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 12:58 PM

I wouldn't be to hasty to call Canadian health care free considering how badly you get reamed with taxes to pay for said health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: kendall
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 01:02 PM

I've heard a few Canadians complail about the health care, but, try and take it away! Is it really that expensive when compared to the cost here?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 09:38 PM

This thread points the necessity of preserving the secular aspect of the Constitution...the separation of church and state. We see the need for this now when the Taliban represents the religious fervor in the extreme.

Religion must be separated from the religious experience as Jung has pointed out. We have an inalienable right to a religious experience but no right to cram our religious beliefs down another's throat. This is what wars are made of and the truth that the Taliban forces us to see.

Fortunately we are not just a Christian, or a Jewish, or a Hindu or Muslim nation....regardless of what some would have us believe. Those who believe otherwise are as the Taliban, theocrats who alienate all others who do not believe their way.

Yet we are entitled to our worship as Americans as long as we keep separate our government from any theocracy. Thomas Jefferson recognized this. That's why he was a Unitarian. They believe in separation of church and state.

The Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, extremist Shi'ites, Sunnis or those who advocate violence in the name of God as well as our own theocrats are antithetical to every American ideal.

This is a conflict over religion. The basis of almost every war. In Germany, Nazism was a kind of religion. It employed violence directed at a different religious group. The Irish "troubles" are about religion. Communisim as practiced under Stalin assumed a guise of religion and employed violence toward religous groups as they do today in China.

Mr. Bush should be very careful about trying to theocratize the government by too many "Christian" references.

In short, God bless the separation of church and state. Amen.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Speech II
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 11:58 PM

He's be better advised to start a world wide whispering campaign to promote the notion that separating church from state could save Islam from the capitalist influences of the West!!

Then they could get busy cleaning up their infrastructure and economy and have enough opportunity that terrorism would no longer appear attractive.

For all the religous overlays, these fights are, as always, about money, acclaim, admiration, peer approval, power, and getting laid.

The religous overlays just act as a sort of lubricant or justification. The commodity exchange is "We'll give you all the rationalizations and pre-packaged thoughts you need, so you won't have to think for yourself. That way you can never be wrong! In exchange, you give us total power over your lives. Deal????"

A