 sj |
||
|
||
BS: There is no terrorist threat
|
|
|
Subject: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,MM Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:34 PM "There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told." M Moore speaking at the University of Michigan's Power Center Oct 12 2003 MM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:19 PM I would disagree with that statement. There IS a terrorist threat. It is clear and long-standing. And there will continue to be one as long as Bush is President. The terrorist threat has helped Bush and his agenda very much. I think that there will be an incident within the next week. I really hope I am wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:31 PM There is a terrorist threat toward this country, but I feel it has been badly exacerbated by the mismanagement of the nations approach to terror. We once had a President who addressed the nations fear with one, great, memorable line: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". This administration seems to have forgotten that, and keeps reminding us of things we should fear. Some folks refuse to be terrorized. I would like to believe I am among them. I know what fear is. But I don't want to be led around by it, not by OSama or Dubya or anyone else. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:17 PM Amos: Diligence and caution is what we need. not fear. Also we should not be over confident. You are the one that is saying the terrorist warnings cause fear. That is what is meant by the statement "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" If we are not fearful, which is exactly what the terrorists want, we can deal with the threat. If we waste time babbling against war we are lost. Let's get on with business and get those terrorists before they get us. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Rapparee Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:49 PM There is not one, but several terrorist threats. Not all of them are from abroad. I will not, however, worry about them. I learned a long, long time ago that nothing is guaranteed, that there is no security, that life was never promised to be risk-free. Nothing I can do will prevent me from being caught in a terrorist attack if I happen to be there when one happens. I can try to avoid obvious danger zones, of course. Having a concealed carry permit I could go armed, but as my brother, who works for the Illinois State Police once said, "If I'm in a place where I need a gun I probably shouldn't be there in the first place." Besides, even a .458 Casull is no protection against a car bomb, GB or VX, radiation, blast, chemicals, or a hundred other things. Why worry about it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Fishpicker Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:49 PM Yes, lets deal with the terrorists before they get us, good idea! We can start by voting them out of office and stopping their assault on the constitution now! FP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:51 PM It seems to me that the vague warnings -- terrorists may attack in some way at some place and time so raise the code another notch -- can do nothing to help stop them. They seem calculated to cause fear; there's no real information there. They certainly don't give you any basis for action. But there's a point to speaking against war. There have been useless wars started out of the fear of a non-existent imminent threat. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:21 PM Whining about the Patriot Act: "The American Civil Liberties Union is running an ad alleging that the USA Patriot Act allows authorities to search homes "without notifying us . . . treating us all like suspects." That's not exactly true. Actually, notice still has to be given to the subject of such a search, eventually. And far from treating us "all" like suspects, the Department of Justice reports seeking only 47 such "sneak-and-peek" warrants in the law's first 17 months. "Sneak-and-peek" searches are now easier to get, legal in all jurisdictions, and the law contains no practical limit on how long authorities can delay notifying the subject of a search. But contrary to the impression left by the ad, they aren't new: some federal courts allowed them prior to the USA Patriot Act." http://www.factcheck.org/article259.html They can sneak and peak all they want. I am willing to cooperate with a government agency that is here to protect me. I don't expect them to do a perfect job either. I just want them to do as good as they can and get the bad guys if they can. I saw a Muslim woman on TV whining because her husband had been arrested and had been held for 5 months. She said in bad english "this country give ne hard time. Her husband had an expired visa. Why would anybody find fault with this? Her husband was here illegaly and If this country too hard on her, why don't she leave? Evidently it is better than the country she came from. Either comply with our immigration laws or stay home. Brucie: I am glad you agree with me that There IS a terrorist threat. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:22 PM OG: The prosecution of the war has gone on a tangent, IMHO, which actually increases the threat of terrorist activity. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:20 PM "Actually, notice still has to be given to the subject of such a search, eventually." Eventually? What kind of notice is that? "And far from treating us "all" like suspects, the Department of Justice reports seeking only 47 such "sneak-and-peek" warrants in the law's first 17 months." Sneak-and-peek can be abused, and you can be sure that it will be. It's not that they HAVE treated us all like suspects, it's that they CAN; they possess the power, and somebody is bound to use it for his own ends. J. Edgar Hoover's spirit is alive and well and abroad in the land. "They can sneak and peak all they want. I am willing to cooperate with a government agency that is here to protect me. "I don't expect them to do a perfect job either. I just want them to do as good as they can and get the bad guys if they can." That is fear speaking. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:21 PM That last was me, of course clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Peace Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:54 PM OG: It may surprise you to find out that likely we agree on much more than just the terrorist thing. I am far left of center on many issues, and far to the right of many folks here on other issues. But, I do NOT trust your President. That makes much of the rest theoretical for me. IMO, he has a Neocon agenda, and IMO, that bodes NO good for this planet or the people on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Fishpicker Date: 19 Oct 04 - 11:59 PM First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller Just as timely today as it was then IMO. FP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM Clint: That is not fear speaking it is being a good citizen. The fact that you are afraid the patriot act may be used on you unfairly is fear speaking. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:03 AM And, IMO, Clint is right to worry about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Sorcha Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:09 AM Well, I live a very few miles from a major Air Force Base (Warren) and even fewer from a major missile site...and I refuse to be afraid or believe the crap coming out of Washington. If it happens, it happens. Where and when is not up to me. I could fall out of my granny rocking chair and break my neck too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:39 AM 1) Obviously there is a terrorist threat. It's also reasonable to aim to bring it down to the level of a nuisance, as Kerry was suggesting. Despite the patented Bushite smear tactics evident on this and many other threads, Kerry was not saying we can treat terrorism as a nuisance now---only that we should take steps so that it will eventually be just in the background, not an all-pervasive fear (as Bush is stoking right now, to ensure re-election.) The only question for any sensible person is how to get to that stage .In fact anybody with any sense will realize that as Bush himself said (then quickly retracted, lest he be accused of making sense), the war on terrorism will never be "won"----there will always be terrorism. That's why it was singularly stupid of him to declare "war on terrorism"---except that it does make it easier to dispense with trivia like freedom of speech----no criticism of the Commander in Chief in wartime---since the war on terror can never be "won" in the clear World War II sense, bye-bye to freedom of speech. How convenient for Bush. 2) I'd like to see the above quote about the "terroist" (sic) threat in context. Pardon my skepticism that some entity which signs itself GUEST MM is a reliable source. 3) If by some chance it is an accurate quote, I would like to point out that Kerry did not say it. Are you willing to ascribe all the drivel emanating from, say Rush Limbaugh, to Bush? Actually Bush provides an ample supply of drivel himself--he needs no assistance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,SueB Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:13 AM Here's a link to an article in the Guardian about a documentary to be aired in the UK starting Wednesday by Adam Curtis called The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear. Wish I could see it, but I'm on the wrong side of the pond. Here's an excerpt: "During the three years in which the "war on terror" has been waged, high-profile challenges to its assumptions have been rare. The sheer number of incidents and warnings connected or attributed to the war has left little room, it seems, for heretical thoughts. In this context, the central theme of The Power of Nightmares is riskily counter-intuitive and provocative. Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power." " And here's another excerpt: "The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence. Curtis' evidence for these assertions is not easily dismissed. He tells the story of Islamism, or the desire to establish Islam as an unbreakable political framework, as half a century of mostly failed, short-lived revolutions and spectacular but politically ineffective terrorism. Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation." Something to think about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: DougR Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:17 AM brucie, brucie, brucie: you are correct that there is a terrorist threat. You are incorrect when you assume that if George Bush is no longer president the threat will disappear. That's not the kind of logic you usually espouse. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,SueB Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:16 AM Anybody in the UK going to watch The Power of Nightmares tonight? Anybody at all? The guy who made this is apparently very reputable - here's another blurb from the Guardian article: "So controversial is the tone of his series, that trailers for it were not broadcast last weekend because of the killing of Kenneth Bigley. At the BBC, Curtis freely admits, there are "anxieties". But there is also enthusiasm for the programmes, in part thanks to his reputation. Over the past dozen years, via similarly ambitious documentary series such as Pandora's Box, The Mayfair Set and The Century of the Self, Curtis has established himself as perhaps the most acclaimed maker of serious television programmes in Britain. His trademarks are long research, the revelatory use of archive footage, telling interviews, and smooth, insistent voiceovers concerned with the unnoticed deeper currents of recent history, narrated by Curtis himself in tones that combine traditional BBC authority with something more modern and sceptical: "I want to try to make people look at things they think they know about in a new way." " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:45 AM Doug R: It is just possible that a LOT of our visions of the wide-spread and murderous terrorists are less substantive than Husseins weapons of mass destruction. Remember how solid those were before they vanished? I am not lessoning the importance of actual targets, and the Cole and similar attacks make it clear there is an Opfor out there, no mistake. But generalizing it and making it into a picture "everywhere" is just a disservice to rational minds and actually aids the enemy by promoting his power. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Les from Hull Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:47 AM I'll certainly watch it. It's on BBC2 at 9pm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,MM Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:56 AM If you want to see some proof of this quote, click here. MM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: sledge Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:13 PM Timothy McViegh showed that the terrorist dosn't need to be from overseas or of an islamic background to be a threat, where you have one McViegh isn't it possible to have another waiting in the wings. I think Moore goofed with this comment. Sledge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:07 PM Most sites I found seem to refer back to an article written here Where he was talking about the contents of his book "Dude Where's My Country". Here is an extract from a review of the book I found which may put his statement in context. Moore turns to essay style writing as he explains that "THERE... IS... NO... TERRORIST... THREAT!" Statistically there are so many other ways that we are likely to die, that well there is no threat and but believing there is one does help us citizens to let the government dismantle our civil liberties. That said, it does not mean there are no terrorists |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Wolfgang Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:25 PM Moore writes (and films) propaganda, that's his style. Statistically speaking, nearly each single way to die is extremely unlikely. The sentence is technically true but meaningless. His art is to use technically true sentences in the appropriate context to make people come to conclusions he wants them to make. THERE IS NO THREAT FROM POLLUTION THERE IS NO THREAT FROM BURIED CHEMICALS THERE IS NO THREAT FROM UNSAFE CARS There is a large number of Moore type sentences, technically true (in one partuicular understanding of the word 'threat') but inviting wrong conclusions. I hate Moore's way of arguing even if I (quite often) happen to agree with his conclusions. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:41 PM OG: "That is not fear speaking it is being a good citizen. " As were the Good Germans in Hitler's era. "The fact that you are afraid the patriot act may be used on you unfairly is fear speaking." Not exactly fear. Caution, I think. I'm not likely to get caught in it, statistically speaking, but somebody's going to. If you're really an Old Guy you'll remember some of J Edgar Hoover's little tricks accomplished without the P. Act. And the act would have certainly helped Nixon manage his enemies list. Etcetera. Terrorists certainly exist, and they need to be watched out for. Actually, though, my life is in more danger from one of my patriotic neighbors with a flag on his pickup. Nonetheless I wouldn't want my rights violated by feds tracking down road-rage prone drivers, even if they do as good as they can and get the bad guys if they can. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Stilly River Sage Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:55 PM Getting Bush out of the White House will let a lot of other nations rest easier. They can't wait to see him out of there. Kerry is a rational individual who seeks the counsel of wise people from various parties and persuasions. He doesn't surround himself with only like-thinkers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Metchosin Date: 20 Oct 04 - 02:06 PM but there is a decided threat of death at the hands of Morrocan taxi drivers. A friend recently returned from a month in Morocco where she was visiting her daughter, who works there. Initially, she was very apprehensive about her trip and their safety. Her conclusion was, despite the corruption and poverty, the scariest thing about the whole visit were the rides in taxis. At one point in their travels, her daughter offered a driver money to slow down and not pass on blind curves and the driver's response was to decline the money and hand her a kleenex. LOL She said the people, despite their poverty were incredibly kind and overwhelmingly hospitable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: DougR Date: 20 Oct 04 - 04:29 PM SRS: "Getting George Bush out of the White House will let a lot of other nations of the world rest easier." What's sad to me, is I think you really mean it. Is that to be the U. S. goal in world affairs if Kerry is elected? For the U. S. to be popular? To bring peace and serinity to other nations? The U. S. probably will never win any popularity contests. We shouldn't even try. That is not the business of government. Government is supposed to protect the people. If it is to do that it may, at times, have to make decisions that piss other people off. So be it, I say. Usually, if a country gets into trouble, who do they turn to for help? The Soviet Union? I don't think so. France? That's really funny. The U. S.? You betcha. We may not be well liked, but other countries don't hesitate to come to us for help in troubled times. DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM DougR: I agree that my remark is illogical. IMO, the biggest threat to the USA is its President and those who surround and advise him. Sorry, buddy, but I don't trust Bush. Of course, that's illogical too, because I don't trust anyone who would want to be President (or Prime Minister, etc). In Bush's case, he has messed up. His handling of darn near everything--foreign and domestic--has been poor. I am not assured that Kerry would be all that much better, but I do know this: Since few on Earth could be as inept as Dubya, logically I accept that Kerry will most likely be better. So, who to vote for would be obvious to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 20 Oct 04 - 05:42 PM DougR Bush and his followers do not seem to grasp the concept of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Have you ever thought that bullying the rest of the world might not be the best way to protect our people? Bullies are resented, and if they're too big to fight head on they often get ambushed or sabotaged. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 20 Oct 04 - 07:24 PM She said the people, despite their poverty were incredibly kind and overwhelmingly hospitable. I have always experienced them thus. Doug: I think you are altering the point to suit your own rhetoric. What SRS sais is that a change of regime here would let many other nations rest easier because he is a very dangerous loose cannon. He causes death in many ways. I guess we should just get used to being used as an instrument of his neurotic conduct, but, well, not in my name, pal. It is one thing to defend the world from genuine psychos when there is no other choice. It something else again to kill those who do not have to be killed because you enjoy playing with armies, even if incomeptently. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:33 PM DougR, as Clint said-that is exactly what is happening. Terrorism is their only way to fight back against a bully mentality. And it's been a bully mentality with Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: dianavan Date: 20 Oct 04 - 10:44 PM If I watched all of the 'news' on t.v. I would be living in a constant state of fear. You can be afraid of robbers, rapists, car accidents, disease, terrorism, etc. You choose. What are the odds? Bush has obviously used 911 as a way to induce fear in America. He used 911 as an excuse to invade Iraq. He used 911 to shut down the borders and he'll use 911 to impose martial law if he has to. I would be furious if I were a New Yorker. I, however, am not immune to all the hype. When I heard the Blackwatch were being called upon to do the dirty work for the U.S., I thought to myself, God help Britain. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM Was Saddam a Bully? Who ousted Saddam? What people have lost sight of is that the insurgents are fighting to keep a democracy from taking root in Iraq. Al Quaeda is anti-democracy. They want everybody to adhere to an extreme version of Islam. They think the freedoms that come with democracy are evil. They want to kill anybody they consider evil. If you consider Bush as being evil, you are agreeing with the terrorists. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 21 Oct 04 - 02:49 AM "If you consider Bush as being evil, you are agreeing with the terrorists." Nonsense. Bush and his buddies are no friends of freedom. Who was it that tried to get a favorable legal opinion of torture? The dam' Liberals? Who's been imprisoning people,including American citizens, without charges? That crap about disagreement with the President being the same as disloyalty to our country has nothing in common with American ideals but a good deal in common with the practices of Hitler and Stalin and I'm tired of it. If you preach unquestioning obedience to any national leader you are against freedom and democracy. You're wrapping your cheap totalitarian philosophy in my flag. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 21 Oct 04 - 03:16 AM Interesting program on BBC2 last night: In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams weren't true, neither are these nightmares.The Power Of Nightmares |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:10 AM If you consider Bush as being evil, you are agreeing with the terrorists. (Old Guy) Clint has already said 'Nonsense' to that but I want to say a bit more. I take that sentence as an example for the low level of argumentation in Mudcat recurring every four years before and also shortly after the US election. And I mean both sides here, I could have taken an example from the other side as well. Old Guy, do you post such a sentence without any real thinking or do you do it against better knowledge for the sake of the effect? You are making use of the fact that the word 'agree' in this context can have very different senses. (1) Al Qaeda is on the record for wanting higher oil prices, I agree<(b> with that aim and have posted so in Mudcat. (2) I agree with that aim for completely different reasons and because I think that the consequences of higher energy costs will be good for the West in the long run. In that sense, I do not agree with them (3) Agreement with one of their aims for different reasons does not at all imply that I agree with other aims of them. (4) Even if I would agree with them on more aims than just higher oil prices (I don't as far as I know their aims) that does not imply at all that I would agree with their methods. So, in a verbatim sense and with a narrow meaning of 'agree' I agree with the opinion that Bush is a very bad choice as a president (though I'd not use the word 'evil' and I'd not be sure that all the terrorists agree with that assessment). In that sense I would respond to your statement with 'Yes, but so what?" In a broader sense that you seem to imply on purpose, I do not agree ('not agree' is a very weak expression for my feeling towards them) at all either with the terrorists' political aims nor with their methods. In that sense, I'd respond to your statement 'Nonsense' as Clint has. Sorry for singling out one sentence of you here, there are other offenders as well on both sides of the debate, but I just had to write something about the level of the debate here in the last weeks and I took the first example that I saw when I decided to write a post about it. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:19 AM Was Saddam a Bully? Who ousted Saddam? What people have lost sight of is that the insurgents are fighting to keep a democracy from taking root in Iraq. Al Quaeda is anti-democracy. They want everybody to adhere to an extreme version of Islam. 1. Saddam was ousted by six billion dollars worth of mililtary, 1000 AMerican lives, 16,000 dead Iraqi mean women and children and a ruined infrastructure. 2. I don't know why you think we are not aware what the insurgents are fighting for. They are fighting to (a) get an occupying military force out of Iraq, where they live and (b) restore a power structure for the Baathists (some of them). I am pretty sure that if this country were occupied by a well equipped foreign military, you'd be in favor of getting thewm out no matter what nice ideas they had. 3. Are you identifying Al Qaeda with the insurgency in Iraq? When and how did they get involved? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 04 - 03:40 PM A think there was a particular person behind the ousting of Saddam. You are unaware that the average Iraqi Citizen is not an insurgent or there would be around 28 million insurgents. You are unaware that the a part of the insurgents are "pouring in from Syria" You are unaware that Al-Zaqarwi has stated he is part of Al Qaeda. America "occupied" Germany and Japan after WW2. Were the results OK with you? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,SueB Date: 21 Oct 04 - 04:14 PM Please, if you watched The Power of Nightmares last night, for the sake of those of us without access to BBC2, let us know your impressions. Plausible? Implausible? Dying to know... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Jon Date: 21 Oct 04 - 04:40 PM Sue, the first part seemed very plausible to me. That only took us up to the end of the Cold War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:12 PM Just a couple of things. "A think there was a particular person behind the ousting of Saddam." 1. Getting rid of Saddam was not the primary push for the invasion. We never heard that justification until they began to see that WMDs were unlikely to be found. And you'll remember Bush saying not long before the invasion that even if Saddam stepped down he'd still invade. 2. In any case, I think there was a particular group behind the Iraq invasion rather than a person. There's evidence of war with Iraq being pushed by several members of the administration before 9/11, and even before there was a Bush administration. And once again, I'm not talking about a conspiracy; I'm talking about a consensus among those now called Neocons.. Of course, one particular person said "Bring 'em on." "America "occupied" Germany and Japan after WW2. Were the results OK with you?" The results were ok. But, as you know, it was not really the same kind of occupation. And Germany and Japan were not the same kind of countries as Iraq. And the world political situation was not the same. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:15 PM I would be REALLY interested to know from Georgey Looney-boy Bush exactly when he conceived of the goal to invade Iraq, topple its government and invalidate all its existing oil-industry contracts in favor of new ones. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:22 PM Thanks, Wolfgang for answering the accusation "If you consider Bush as being evil, you are agreeing with the terrorists" better than I did. I lost my temper.That assertion really pushes my button for some reason Well, the reason's because it's ignorant, vicious and manipulative, but that should be reason to ignore it rather than letting myself be sucked in. I'll work on it. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,petr Date: 21 Oct 04 - 07:33 PM apparently Bush's approval ratings go up whenever they raise the threat level(an observation not lost on Karl ROve). Betcha theyll be raising it in the next week or so. a nyorker cartoon: Reporter at a state dept press conference. What do you say to the allegation that you are just trying to scare people. (the speaker behind the podium is holding a flashlight to his chin). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: jaze Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:25 PM There are 130,000 american soldiers there not to mention "the coalition". Why the fuck aren't they blocking the border to Syria if that's where the insurgents are coming from? The greatest military in the world and they can't block one border? Why not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:30 PM Jaze: The US cannot even control access to it's own borders- Why do you think we can control the borders of a country as large as Iraq? Let me see- if we withdraw from all the internal points, and put people along the border..... Nope- they would not even be able to see each other, much less the traffic in and out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is not terroist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:36 PM Clint: Yeah, the difference is there was no "get elected at any cost" Democratic candidate seeking power. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: dianavan Date: 21 Oct 04 - 11:43 PM Old Guy - Bush got elected at the expense of the people. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 22 Oct 04 - 01:00 AM "Yeah, the difference is there was no "get elected at any cost" Democratic candidate seeking power." I'm not sure what you're talking about. Is it the difference between the occupations of Germany and Japan and the occupation or Iraq? And if so are you saying that Kerry is responsible fo the present troubles in Iraq? Or am I missing it entirely? I don't understand your remark; could you explain what you're referring to? clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: DMcG Date: 22 Oct 04 - 03:58 AM More on the BBC programme 'The Power of Nightmares'. It was well worth watching and drew a number of parallels between, for example, the Team B approach to investigating how serious the threat from the USSR was. In the main, Team B opposed the conclusions of the established and professional bodies like the CIA, claiming they underestimated the threat. Here's a summary of the Team's creation from a website: In late 1975, a dramatic reshuffling of the Ford administration installed a new defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, a new chief of staff, Dick Cheney, and a new CIA chief, George H.W. Bush. It was Bush who approved the formation of "Team B," a group of 16 outside experts charged with challenging what some considered the CIA's sanguine estimates of Soviet military strength. Pipes, named the group's chairman, brought in a brilliant young weapons analyst, Paul Wolfowitz. "Richard Perle recommended him," Pipes says of Wolfowitz today. "I'd never heard of him." This team saw threats where - as later evidence has demonstrated - none existed. For example, they took the fact that certain weaponry could not be found as evidence that the USSR ability to hide weapons was much greater than previously thought. On the programme, someone from the CIA - I'm afraid I forget who - claimed that every single thing Team B claimed proved to be wrong when firm evidence came to light. Now, compare that to the role of the "Office of Special Projects", the missing WMD, the 45-minute claim ... I don't see this programme being shown in the US for quite some time. In fact, I am a little surprised it got an airing in the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Oct 04 - 10:25 AM There are any number of possible threats to life and limb out there...all the time. There always have been. The only one I know of that is being used presently as an excuse for invading other countries in order to steal their oil and achieve world domination is "terrorism". Ha. Ha. The real terrorists are the ones who announced and are prosecuting the War On Terrorism, and using it to build their dictatorship. Osama was just one of their hirelings, and so was Saddam. When a hireling is no longer useful, you "lay him off" (to put it delicately). Remember when Noriega got laid off? Same basic scenario, different time and place. When they feel that it is necessary to have another "terrorist" incident occur stateside in order to get continued public support, they will arrange it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,SueB Date: 22 Oct 04 - 11:07 AM Thanks, DMcG, and I'd very much appreciate more updates, if you continue to watch (assuming they don't take it off the air.) Little Hawk, that's frightening, coming from you. I'm afraid you're right, and I hope you're wrong. I am well acquainted with people who think that a conspiracy such as the one you suggest is responsible for many things, from the assassination of JFK to the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing and now 9/11. The implications are horrifying, the people who really get behind these ideas fairly easily dismissed as paranoid conspiracy theorists, and yet... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Donuel Date: 22 Oct 04 - 11:20 AM Allow me to illustrate the truth behind the brief, out of context Moore quote. http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/iraqmon.jpg Fear quotients are carefully managed. Yesterday they shut down Wisconsin Ave in Washington DC to stage the fear and horror show sponsored by our friends at Homeland Security. They dressed people up with open gaping wounds and fatal burns to inact attacks of WMD on DC. I call it it the Dick Cheney show but my 8 year old was truly horrified at the graphic pictures they replayed on our local news channels. PS no matter how I could portray this exercise in adjusting the local fear quotient...it was worse. You even see it in the nation's pastime The mentality of the no free speech zone has extended to no celebration zones. A beautiful young coed was shot in the eye and killed with plastic rounds. Riot police on the baseball field is now a common sight. This is another typical example of how how we are told we are all more secure and that freedom is "on the march" in this new Bush police state against "terrists" but we have merely lost freedom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Stilly River Sage Date: 22 Oct 04 - 11:53 AM From DougR Is that to be the U. S. goal in world affairs if Kerry is elected? For the U. S. to be popular? To bring peace and serinity to other nations? The behavior of the U.S. today is a magnet to angry individuals or governments to strike back. The Ugly American is alive and well in the world today. How to protect this nation? Stop invading other nations and behave in a civil manner toward them. From Old Guy Was Saddam a Bully? Who ousted Saddam? What people have lost sight of is that the insurgents are fighting to keep a democracy from taking root in Iraq. Al Quaeda is anti-democracy. . . .If you consider Bush as being evil, you are agreeing with the terrorists. Now here's a deep thinker [not]. Old Guy, I'll put this in simple, local terms you might have heard of. Are you familiar with the progam many communities run to deal with feral cats? They spay and neutar the stray animals in the district then put them back in their neighborhood to continue hunting or being fed by neighbors. This keeps new feral animals from moving into the region, and removes the population explosion problem. Bush senior saw Saddam for what he was and drew the lines in the sand and Clinton kept them enforced. There were people in Iraq under Saddham who were unhappy ,and who were starving, or at least not thriving, because Saddham was a despot who used the oil for food program to continue to enrich himself. But he wasn't doing anywhere near the damage that Bush has done in the region today, and Bush has invited in all sorts of other feral terrorists by removing Saddam. And how many times must you be told that Saddham was not involved with Al Qaeda? If someone in Iraq claims affiliation now, they acquired it based on the fine recommendations of the U.S. that this was a terrorist group that could really get the job done. Jaze asked Why the fuck aren't they blocking the border to Syria if that's where the insurgents are coming from? The greatest military in the world and they can't block one border? Why not? Good question, Jaze, and one that hasn't been answered because of the role of "political correctness" on the part of the Bush administration. Here in America we don't speak the languages of the middle east and we can't look at people from over there and tell them apart. It's an old gag line but it's true here. "They all look alike." We are used to the more usual European, African American or Indian and Spanish countenances in the U.S. and can't tell the different moslem people apart. We could put lots of people at the borders over there, but what good would it do? Our people can't tell them apart or even ask questions and understand the answers to begin to guess who's telling the truth and who's lying about why they want to cross that border. dianavan said Old Guy - Bush got elected at the expense of the people. Bush didn't get elected, he got appointed. Gore won the election, and Gore even won Florida. DMcG said This team saw threats where - as later evidence has demonstrated - none existed. . . .Now, compare that to the role of the "Office of Special Projects", the missing WMD, the 45-minute claim ... Excellent point made in that documentary. I wish more of those programs would play over here. Last week Frontline played a marvelous chronological comparison of what Bush and Kerry were doing at simultaneous points in time--Bush comes out looking like a real slacker and a pampered rich man's son. Little Hawk said The real terrorists are the ones who announced and are prosecuting the War On Terrorism, and using it to build their dictatorship. Osama was just one of their hirelings, and so was Saddam. When a hireling is no longer useful, you "lay him off" (to put it delicately). Remember when Noriega got laid off? Same basic scenario, different time and place. You got that right! What short memories so many have here in America. Donuel said Yesterday they shut down Wisconsin Ave in Washington DC to stage the fear and horror show sponsored by our friends at Homeland Security. They dressed people up with open gaping wounds and fatal burns to inact attacks of WMD on DC. Timing is everything, Donuel, and they'll do everything they can to scare people into voting for Bush. I'm still waiting for that October surprise Bush's pals are cooking up. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: dianavan Date: 22 Oct 04 - 08:53 PM Thanks for that SRS! Of course he wasn't elected. Maybe Donals remarks... "Yesterday they shut down Wisconsin Ave in Washington DC to stage the fear and horror show sponsored by our friends at Homeland Security" is the October surprize only we aren't at all surprized. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Oct 04 - 09:18 PM Why aren't they blocking the border to Syria? Easy. They want excuses to demonize Syria, so that they can eventually find a pretext to attack Syria. They seem to be presently a bit more interested in attacking Iran, though...if I were a betting man I would bet on Iran being the next target of convenience for "regime change", the next so-called "greatest thread to peace in the world". This will be said cynically by the people who are themselves the greatest threat to peace in the World that could possibly be imagined at this juncture in history...the people who own the mainstream media in America lock, stock and barrel and can easily manipulate a TV-lobotomized public in pretty well any way they desire, by selling FEAR and blaming it all on some poverty-stricken foreigners who have the very bad luck to be living on a strategically valuable piece of real estate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Peace Date: 22 Oct 04 - 09:26 PM I too am awaiting the October surprise--with dread. Good one, SRS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 22 Oct 04 - 11:08 PM LH---- Bush is certainly a bum, and deserves to be tossed in the ashcan of history where he belongs. But he is not omnipotent--he does not have "hirelings" like Osama or Saddam. That's an absurd statement, shows a conspiracy mentality ( which the Left is as famous for as the Right), and in fact would tend to get people on the fence NOT to vote against him----the reasoning being that since he's all-powerful there's no way to stop him--so why try? I'm sure Larry K, Doug R. et al. would be happy to spread this idea. So, besides being ridiculous, it's not exactly helpful at this point. Clint---- Please don't apologize. I, for one, think your answer to "Old Guy" was pithy and powerful.---"you're wrapping your cheap totalitarian philosophy in my flag"----that is magnificent ( no irony or sarcasm implied by me, for once) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 22 Oct 04 - 11:26 PM Clint: The results were ok. But, as you know, it was not really the same kind of occupation. And Germany and Japan were not the same kind of countries as Iraq. And the world political situation was not the same. The difference between the German/Jap occupation and the "occupation of iraq is there is no no "get elected at any cost" Democratic candidate seeking power. And yes, Kerry is making the situation in Iraq worse and costing American lives just like he did for Vietman. Did you know there is a museum in N Vietnam with a memorial to Kerry in it? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Peace Date: 22 Oct 04 - 11:28 PM "The difference between the German/Jap occupation" What can I say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Bobert Date: 22 Oct 04 - 11:42 PM Well, one of the overlooked recommendations of the 9/11 Comission was to look into why folks want to carry out terrorists acts against the US. Now how many Catters feel Bush cares one bit about why folks don't like us as long as, ahhhhh, they continue not liking us. Keeps his neo-cons in power while they continue to dismantle the New Deal... Yeah, Bush scares me 1000 times more than bin Laden. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 22 Oct 04 - 11:50 PM Brucie: You snipe at posts that others make with brilliant meaningless one liners and now you are completely out of thoughts? Don't know what to say? You want someone else to tell you what to say? I don't know what to tell you, You will have to figure it out by your self. Hint: read up. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: dianavan Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:01 AM Ron Davies - maybe Bush isn't all powerful, but when you understand who backs him it definitely makes you wonder if it wasn't Bush and his buddies who paid Osama to do the dirty work. He needed an excuse to go into Afghanistan and then Iraq didn't he? Osama is no religious leader - he's a hired gun. All that crap about his Islamic ideals are just crap. Osama goes to the highest bidder. The murderers coming through the Syrian border aren't necessarily Syrians, either. There are plenty of men for hire if your price is right. The idea is to create chaos so that you can continue to profit from war. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:05 AM Sorry, dianavan--I often agree with you, but this time you've gone off the deep end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:25 AM Old Guy-- Wonderful---another old Bushite canard (hope you don't have to look that up). Re: your 22 Oct 2004 11:26 post--museum in North Vietnam with memorial to Kerry in it---source please. This sounds suspiciously like the rumor exploded earlier by Ron Olesko. If you're actually interested in facts, rather than Bush regurgations, I refer you to Ron Olesko's post 25 Aug 2004 5:03 PM on the Open Letter to Nader Supporters thread. Your claim, as usual, is highly suspicious, to say the least---probably refers to the picture in Hanoi commemorating renewed diplomatic relations since the Vietnam War, which shows Kerry, as one of several negotiators. But, since you're a Bushite, I can't reasonably expect you to be interested in facts. If you have another source for your assertion, please tell us. In contrast to you, Kerry supporters are interested in the truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:27 AM Sorry "Old Guy"---that's "regurgitations"----I want to be as accurate as possible for you, since I know that's important to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:43 AM " Did you know there is a museum in N Vietnam with a memorial to Kerry in it?" No, and I don't think you do either. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:09 AM "The difference between the German/Jap occupation and the "occupation of iraq is there is no no "get elected at any cost" Democratic candidate seeking power." I finally get it. You're saying Kerry caused the insurgency in Iraq as well as preventing victory in Vietnam. What the hell have you been shooting in your veins? If he was that powerful and vicious he'd BE president already. For life. You're not discussing anything anymore; you're just spreading poison. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:11 AM http://hail.he.net/~danger/kerrylied/staticpages/index.php?page=20040711225111152 http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/08/16&ID=Ar00100 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14456 I could find some more but I am too tired. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:12 AM So, Old Guy, get some sleep, and find some more reliable sources than the NY Sun---- your credibility is shaky, to say the least. I'll tell you, your stupid rumor didn't make the Wall St, Journal, which by the way has excellent political coverage. Also, alphabetical gobbledegook doesn't cut it. We need some direct quotes, similar to what I referred you to. Good luck----such direct quotes don't exist, for the very good reason that the memorial to Kerry in that museum also doesn't exist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:30 PM OG. Looks like your "memorial" is indeed "the picture in Hanoi commemorating renewed diplomatic relations since the Vietnam War, which shows Kerry, as one of several negotiators" that Ron Davies mentioned. You haven't said what you meant, but it appears "get elected at any cost" means "disagrees with GWB on the Iraq war." Read my lips: Opposition to the government's policies is not support for terrorists, insurgents or Ho Chih Minh. All your arguments boil down boil down to equating dissent with treason, showing that you have no knowledge of how America is supposed to work -- although Hitler, Stalin and Saddam would agree with you. Or perhaps you do know better, but you want to get Bush elected at any cost. In either case, it seems useless to talk to you. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Stilly River Sage Date: 23 Oct 04 - 12:53 PM BUSH-ORWELL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:25 PM RD: You sound like one tough cookie but let me see if I can find what you are looking for. I can't find that Ron Olesko post. I thought If I could find mention of the photo on a Vietnamese website it might be unassailable proof. However I can't read Vietnamese. Can anybody translate this page? It has photos and several references to Kerry: http://www.nld.com.vn/tintuc/the-gioi/99236.asp Also: http://www.tuoitre.com.vn/Tianyon/Index.aspx?ArticleID=45736&ChannelID=2 http://www.nld.com.vn/tintuc/the-gioi/102071.asp http://www.nld.com.vn/tintuc/the-gioi/102393.asp http://news.ttvnol.com/ttvnnews/topic/417456 By using a weird dictionary at http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~duc/Dict/ I think I have translated the key words war remnants museum photograph kerry into this: chiến tranh còn lại danh từ Kerry. When I search for these words and add .vn to find vietnamese sites I come up with pages but they are gobbledegook to me. We need someone to translate these pages to see if the Vietnamese sites mention the photo of Kerry in the war remnants museum. Other background: http://www.traveltovietnam.com/Guide/HoChiMinh%20City/attractions/warremnantsmuseum/ http://www.vietnamtourism.com/e_pages/tourist/tourspot/museum/ttm_hcm_chientranh.htm http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738 Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,MM Date: 23 Oct 04 - 01:54 PM Has anybody notices that the spelling of the thread has been corrected? Originallly it was "There is not terroist threat". I am just too dumb, fat and lazy to learn how to spail. Does this mean that techs are watching and supportive of this thread? MM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Frank Date: 23 Oct 04 - 02:42 PM I agree with Micheal Moore in that the present Administration is using "terror" to retain their power base. It's a push-button word that has no real meaning. If you refer to Al Quaeda, that's one thing. But to use the word just to make people hysterical so that they will vote for you, that's reprehensible. Al Quaeda is a threat but if anyone was listening to them they would have heard that they banded together for the purpose of protesting American troops on Muslim soil. That's what it's really all about. If it were British troops instead of American, they would have gone after Big Ben. The deal is this. Many disgruntled Americans can't accept that fact that Vietnam was a debacle so they are angry they didn't win. The reason the Johnson and Nixon Adminstration lost the war in Vietnam is because they didn't understand that it was the people of that country who were defending it against an occupation. The same is true of Iraqis. The Iraqis are the insurgents and the puppet Allawi doesn't represent their interests. Bush is occupying that country and has already lost because there is no freedom, democracy or anything resembling a contained society there. Only misguided military and sanguinary politicians who control Washington now. In Afghanistan, they are growing plants to produce heroin. Who knows where bin Laden is now. There may be money available to finance furthur insurgencies thanks to Bush. "Terror" is another one of those words polliticians throw around to scare people into submission. The real "terror" is the fear that this Administration has created to make everyone hysterical and as a result impotent to do anything constructive. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 04 - 03:11 PM Frank: You are scaring me. I was afraid of AlQaeda but now I am afraid of the Bush adminstration. I hope the Bush admistration does not blow up the building I am in. Are you using scare tactics on me? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: dianavan Date: 23 Oct 04 - 04:08 PM Old Guy - If you are living in Iraq you should be afraid! d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 04 - 04:11 PM D: You are scaring me too. Stop it. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Oct 04 - 08:00 PM I'm not suggesting that Bush hired Osama or Saddam, Ron. I'm suggested that the same centralized multinational interests have found it expedient to hire or make use of Bush, Osama, AND Saddam, each in their own fashion. Those centralized interests control money, vast amounts of it, most of the money in the World. They control international banks and mega-corporations. They own the news media. They need "good guys" and "bad guys" to keep the public divided and conquered and they get rid of those good guys and bad guys once they have become of no further use. The president you vote for is a small barracuda, a puppet, a pet fish for much bigger sharks whom you don't get to vote for nor will you ever get a chance to. As long as they can keep you hating and fearing some other group of disenfranchised people fairly similar to yourself, preferably a group who live on top of a whole bunch of oil, the game goes on. The more afraid you are, and the more afraid those other people are of you, the better to play the game. I don't expect you to believe it, though, and it's quite okay with me if you don't. What you believe is your business, not mine. There is one vital thing to remember, though. We all essentially believe the same things. We believe in right and wrong. We believe in justice and honour. We believe in truth. We believe in love. We believe in defending our chosen way of life. Given these things that virtually all people share in common, it is foolish for us to be taken in by divide and conquer tactics and set upon each other. The party-driven political campaigns are also a divide and conquer tactic, and it is a shame that people are willing to vote for ANY of the parties that practice such tactics. A great shame. The trouble is, people don't feel they have any other realistic options. That isn't really so...but that's how it looks to most people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 23 Oct 04 - 08:59 PM Little Hawk: Yes, everything was fine until the Democrats divided us by claiming everything Bush does is wrong. The terrorist know this and are rubbing their hands with glee. The only way to solve this is to do away with the two party system. How to do it. That is the question. Your description of what is going on smacks a little of a conspiracy theory. I think it is more status quo, the way things are rather than big powerful people controling everything. We have the power of the vote. We have the power to change things but we will never do it divided. We will never get rid of the two party system divided. Old guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:32 PM Weep no more, OG; I have the answer "Yes, everything was fine until the Democrats divided us by claiming everything Bush does is wrong. "The terrorist know this and are rubbing their hands with glee." Damn straight. It's all caused by traitors questioning the acts of our Leader. "The only way to solve this is to do away with the two party system. "How to do it. That is the question." Simple enough. Follow your ideal; all you need is what (I believe) is technically called a "putsch" and you'll be rid of those miscreants who think for themselves. Then you'll have your Utopia: Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Oct 04 - 10:57 PM I don't think that's what he has in mind at all, Clint. I think he wants to get rid of parties, not elections. I also want to get rid of parties...ALL of them...and vote for individuals instead. Several independent individuals in each district. How is that less democratic than voting for a f**king Democrat or Republican? You tell me? It's a lot more democratic, because an individual is a free being, he's not beholden to a party machine! Parties corrupt a political system by their very nature. They seek power, and they seek to enlarge and perpetuate themselves. They suck up to whoever can bribe and control them with the biggest infusions of $money...and that's the banks and major corporations and the very rich. Thus you end up after awhile with not a democracy in truth but only in outer form...when really it's an oligarchy. If we voted for independent individuals, nominated on a local and regional basis on the merit of their IDEAS and REPUTATION...if they all received an EQUAL amount of campaign $ from a common pool of funds...if they were beholden to NO party or established power structure...THEN you would have something a lot more like a real democracy. Now you've got a corporate oligarchy that is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. The Democrats are its "left" arm and the Republicans are its "right" arm, but both arms come from the same body. And they divide and conquer the public by constantly attacking each other and stirring up hatred and prejudice along party lines. It's a sick system, guaranteed to divide its people against one another. I'm suggesting a government of elected equals of NO party affiliation, all of whom would be free to vote their conscience. I am suggesting a national government that is NOT artificially divided into 2 warring power blocks by the party $ystem, but can debate issues without partisan infighting influencing the process. Does that sound like a putsch to you? It is anything but. Old Guy - Well, let's say just for the sake of discussion that it wasn't a conspiracy. Let's say it was just a $y$tem where the biggest amount of money was the deciding factor in finalizing every decision. And it is that kind of a $y$tem. That, in practice, would eventually end up just naturally functioning pretty much the same way AS a conspiracy of the richest, most powerful, most heavily armed against the rest... So what difference does it make whether or not it's a deliberate conspiracy? It ends up the same way regardless. It's like the game of Monopoly. Eventually everyone goes bankrupt in that game except for the one player (or the one consortium) who takes over everything. That results in slavery, poverty, and dictatorship over the many...for the benefit of the very, very few. It might be planned. It might not. But that's where it leads. So it might just as well be a conspiracy, even if it's not! Would you want to be one of 10 people adrift in a lifeboat captained by a sharpie who has arranged the rules so that he gets 90% of the remaining food and water while the rest of you row and hope for the best? That's what we've got in this World today. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:32 PM LH When the Old G says "Yes, everything was fine until the Democrats divided us by claiming everything Bush does is wrong" it sounds very like he's saying "Bush ok, Dems not ok." And thus when he says "The only way to solve this is to do away with the two party system." it sounds very like "Let's just keep the one ok party." Ein Volk. You say, "I also want to get rid of parties...ALL of them...and vote for individuals instead. Several independent individuals in each district. How is that less democratic than voting for a f**king Democrat or Republican?" Well, I never said that would be less democratic. In fact I've often thought this would be ideal. And here of course comes the "but." But how do you keep people from forming alliances, teams, committees -- *parties*? When I was about ten years old we had elections in school. We voted on class officers, and on playground rules, and of course we had no parties. Then our teacher came serpentlike into our classroom and taught us something about politics. He had a group of us form what he called a "caucus," and we found that by working together we could swing the elections the way we wanted, though we were a minority. I suspect some of the adults in your district would discover the same thing, and before long you'd have parties and maybe machine politics. I do believe people are basically good, but I also believe they are self-seeking and competitive. At least until you change the culture. Some of them even then. For your system to work you'll have to transform us all into something like the Hopi indians. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: chris nightbird childs Date: 23 Oct 04 - 11:34 PM BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING... but they're not gonna do anything. They're too busy laughin' at us! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:10 AM Little hawk: By that reasoning, everything is a conspiracy right down to buying a twinkie or sending your kid to school. You would prefer the dark endless tunnel that you think we are in rather than a tunnel with some light at the end. Go ahead and think that way but don't drag others into your personal tunnel of doom. You remind me of the cartoon guy with a beard and robes holding a sign that says "the end is near". PS: there should be no public campaign money or you will have dozens of Sharptons trying to get it. And no personal money should be spent except for unavoidable things like traveling expenses. The Media should have to make an equal presentation of every candidate as a public service, just like they do the weather and local announcements. Commercial ads would have to pay for the air time. Clint: If the two party system is done away with, there will be no parties because there will be no gang warfare to support parties. Everybody will be independants. Did you hear the one about the lawyer that was starving until another lawyer moved into town? They both prospered after that. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 24 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM "If the two party system is done away with, there will be no parties because there will be no gang warfare to support parties. Everybody will be independants." Until, as in my grade school class, someone discovers "caucuses." clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:22 AM Clint: We will deal with that when it happens. Remember in one of those Schwarzenegger movies he said something about shooting all of the drug dealers, Someone asks him "wouldn't the Politicians object? Arnie says "Ve shoot them first". It is one of my favorites Old guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Frank Date: 24 Oct 04 - 02:38 PM Old Guy, there is nothing to be afraid of. Anyone calling themselves "terrorists" are not going to seek you out. But what you really might consider being afraid of is the fear that you have been made to believe is real. FDR said it which we all know. "There is nothing to fear but fear itself". I see Al Quaeda in the same light as any other group of organized criminals who use religion and politics as a pretext for their odious behavior. In the same way that we deal with organized crime in this country or others, they should be held accountable. The questions are still out on 9/11. It's frustrating because we really don't know quite why it happened. A lot of assumptions have been made but they reflect political bias rather than objective analysis. I have a question as to who knew what and when. The 9/11 Report raises those questions. The Bush Administration has tried to define the "enemy" for us but has been unconvincing for those who disagree with his Iraq policy. I really believe we don't understand who really hit us. Why were most of the hi-jackers from Saudi Arabia? I believe that we can elect to be afraid of criminals, gangsters and extremists who employ violence or we can take a positive pro-active way to deal with the problem. The first question that I believe has to be asked is why they are the way they are and what environment produces this kind of fanatic. We need not only to look to nations such as Iran, Syria, but also to North Korea, Pakistan, and yes, Israel. We have to examine what is being taught in Madrasas around the world and how that is being shaped as criticism of American values. We also have to redefine American values. Do we need a Holy Crusade by a dicatator in the White House or do we need to examine our basic principles of fairness, equality, civil rights, compassion for those less fortunate, civil liberties and democratic values which we prize, and the kind of altruism that makes us a moral country? Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: dianavan Date: 24 Oct 04 - 03:40 PM ...or at least an ethical country or a country with a conscience. A moral country implies that we all have the same morality. I know plenty of people that the 'moral majority' would consider immoral. Those 'immoral' people quite often conduct themselves ethically and actually have a conscience. Lets not refer to any American as 'moral' unless we want to remain ethno-centric. Morality seems to have a cultural basis whereas conscience does not. Everyone, if they take the time to reflect, really does know the difference between right and wrong. Its up to the American public to do what is right and show the world that you can turn the tide of fear and hostility into peace, prosperity and abundance. d |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:00 PM Old Guy-- Still waiting for the proof of that "photo of Kerry" NOT as one of several negotiators after the end of the Vietnam War. When will you realize that "photo" is yet another Bushite smear of a good man.? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:22 PM LH-- Hate to agree with "Old Guy"----but your world view seems perilously close to utter paranoia. We've heard these theories before. The all-powerful demon: take your choice: The Jews The Illuminati The Trilateral Commission The UN etc. It's just not helpful, particularly at this point in a white-hot political campaign |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:42 PM Ron: I found it all over the net but I know you will not accept anything that does not come from a pro Kerry site so I searched for a Vietnamese source thinking that might satisfy you. I came up with several possibilites but we need a translator. Are you denying the photo is there or what? If there were several Americans there at the time were they all memorialized or was Kerry singled out? If so why? You are not from southampton are you? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Oct 04 - 05:58 PM That's right Old Guy, we need a pro-Kerry site----e..g. the Wall St Journal, CNN etc. Sorry, the burden of proof is still on you. Several of us have told you Kerry was in a photo as one of several negotiators after the end of the Vietnam War. That was the photo. If you can prove differently, do it. We're coming to the "put up or shut up" stage. Not yet, but soon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:10 PM Ron: First of all anything negative you say about Bush must come from a pro Bush site. Ok you claim to know something so lets have some statements from you please. Maybe it would be easier if I made it multiple choice. Is there a war remnants museum in Vietnam? If so, is there a picture of Kerry in that museum? If so, why is there a picture of Kerry in that museum? Was it not part of a display to document atrocities committed my Americans? If it is, does not that associate Kerry with their calims of America atrocities? If it does, does that not bring dishonor on the Vets that did not commit atrocities? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM Actually, Old Guy, I'm fundamentally optimistic about the future, because I believe that most people are good in their basic nature. I do not see our situation in terms of gloom and doom. I just see the ruling $y$tem as being irresponsible and corrupt, but I believe humanity will survive that $y$tem and come up with something far better. You are correct that: "The Media should have to make an equal presentation of every candidate as a public service, just like they do the weather." Ron - And there I was, in fear and trepidation that I might drive you into agreeing with Old Guy... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Oct 04 - 07:46 PM Old Guy---- 1) We've told you why there is a picture of Kerry (as one of several negotiators). 2) My main source of information on my attacks on Bush is the Wall St. Journal, that well-known leftist rag. Have you ever read their editorials? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:02 PM Frank: Somewhere far away in another thread I said FDR was right when he said. "There is nothing to fear but fear itself". This means to me that we should not be terrorized by terrorists. That is their objective. We should be cautious, diligent and war like when dealing with them, not afraid of them. To put it bluntly "Get them before they get us." Don't depend on a bunch of lawyer controlled courts and gas bag has been corrupt institutions like the UN. They know how to use those against us. Just give them the same as they are giving us. It is not that complicated. Get pissed off at the terrorists, go into a rage. That is the only thing they understand. Make them know that if they fuck with us it will be like running into a hornets nest. If we sit in huddled masses like sheep waiting for the next hit we are doomed. No sense in sending out negotiators, send out troops. Now we are being told by people like Michael Moore that there is no terrorist threat. Is he in La La land or something? Send that guy over to France and let him lull them to sleep. Yes I am optimistic about the future but it will take another terrorist hit to bring people around again. I am Old Guy and I approve this message. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Oct 04 - 08:43 PM Old Guy-- 1) Still waiting for your proof on the Kerry photo-----I have an idea it'll be a long wait 2) Note, it's not Kerry who's saying there's no terrorist thread--how many times do we have to beat this extremely deceased horse? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:01 PM Ron: I am still waiting on some answers on my multiple choice post. Here is the source you were looking for: http://news.ttvnol.com/ttvnnews/topic/417456 Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM Keep in mind that the world you see is the world you already believe in. That's why people of differing viewpoints tend to misinterpret what the other one says most of the time. If both people can actually grasp (I mean fully grasp) the other's viewpoint, then they will find they have much in agreement after all. It isn't a question of scoring points, it's a question of finding a common understanding (except when I pounce on nasty people who unreasonably diss Bob Dylan, despite having precious little knowledge about him in the first place... heh!). Well, we all have our little indulgences. :-) America will survive both George Bush and John Kerry, but probably not without a certain amount of collateral damage. That's my prediction. I have faith in Americans as a people. If only they would just watch a little less machine TV...you know, it's the hypnotist that sits in your living room and robs you of sentient life on a daily basis. Read, people, read! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:05 PM Old Guy-- If you know that's your source, let's have a direct quote from it. I'm waiting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:57 PM Dear Ron: I can find any thing with a direct quote in it. I am sorrry I can't meet your standards. I did however find this interesting story along the way. Perhaps you would like to debunk it for us: "Judicial Watch, the nonpartisan public-interest group known recently for taking Vice President Dick Cheney and the Energy Task Force all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, filed serious charges against John Kerry with the Department of Defense and the U.S. Navy. Judicial Watch investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse. And it believes that Kerry's actions may be unlawful. "The crux of the case," said Chris Farrell, director of investigation and research at Judicial Watch, "focuses on Kerry's activities from January 1970 to July 1972." Kerry was still a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve in that period. Traveling to Paris, Kerry met with the official delegations from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (Viet Cong). According to the Judicial Watch complaint, the Vietnamese Communists eagerly met Kerry and benefited directly from the obvious propaganda victory. The Judicial Watch filing claims that these acts are clear violations of the legal prohibitions on individual citizens negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies in wartime (Article III, Section 3). "Additionally, (meeting with the communists) as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve," Farrell said, "Senator Kerry violated Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice." If that weren't bad enough, when Kerry returned from his private negotiations with the Vietnamese communists, he held a press conference in Washington, D.C., at which he advocated a Vietnamese Communist "peace proposal" calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and "payment of war damage reparations" to the Communist North Vietnamese government. Kerry advocated on behalf of a foreign power with which we were at war, while holding a commission as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve. Could these allegations lead to serious consequences? Well, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Section 3, states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who ... shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against (the United States) ... or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." And it doesn't help Kerry's cause that his picture was featured by the Vietnamese Communists in their War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City as a hero who helped them win the war against the U.S. This ominous roll of thunder is drowning out such questions as how one receives three Purple Hearts without spending a night in a hospital, or whether the rice implanted in your butt after your own grenade blast constitutes enemy fire. Voters are asking: Who is John Kerry? An antiwar, self-professed war criminal? A self-made war hero? Or an exposed wartime turncoat? As the skies open up, Kerry's campaign is paddling hard to save his presidential aspirations. But the mud is getting deeper, and one wonders if even his senatorial career may sink. Suddenly Kerry's 19-year Senate record of being anti-military, anti-intelligence and anti-national security seems like the least of his worries." http://www.sfexaminer.com/article/index.cfm/i/082704op_antrim Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Peace Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:03 PM Who is Tim Blair? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:47 PM I'd still like a description of the alleged photo depicting Kerry as a hero who helped win the war against the US. We Kerry supporters believe it was nothing of the kind, but rather the above-cited picture of negotiators. If this is so it calls into question the rest of your cited article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Oct 04 - 11:49 PM The Examiner sure ain't the Chronicle. Looks more like the NY Post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:28 AM This is what I found on the Judicial Watch site: ______ Basing its requests on a recently published book, Unfit for Command, by former Navy officer John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D, and on news media interviews of other officers and sailors who served with Kerry, Judicial Watch notes that unresolved allegations against Kerry include: false official reports and statements; dishonorable conduct; aiding the enemy; dereliction of duty; misuse and abuse of U.S. government equipment and property; war crimes; and multiple violations of U.S. Navy regulations and directives, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Code. Judicial Watch requested an investigation into Kerry's awards and conduct by the Defense Department and the Navy in letters dated August 18 and September 8, 2004. Admiral Route's letter only discusses the Navy IG's examination of process and procedure concerning Kerry's awards. The letter claims existing documentation regarding Kerry's medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed. No specific documentary examples were cited or offered as exhibits. The Navy IG stated that "Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over thirty years ago would not be productive." Admiral Route also declined to investigate Kerry's conduct as a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve, including his meeting with officials of the North Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong. _____ So all we know in the way of proof is that the Navy won't mess with it. This part sounds strange: "Basing its requests on a recently published book, Unfit for Command, by former Navy officer John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D…" Does anybody know anything about O'Neill? Or Judicial Watch, for that matter? They don't seem overtly politically biased, but are they sound? I'll look some more. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:45 AM Found this in Disinfopedia: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=John_E._O%27Neill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _____ O'Neill's enmity towards Kerry dates back to the Vietnam war days. A Houston Chronicle artcile reported that in 1971 Richard Nixon and top aide Charles W. Colson turned to O'Neill to discredit Kerry, the veteran turned leader of the leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In a key encounter, Kerry debated the U.S. role in Southeast Asia with O'Neill in a 90-minute televised forum on the Dick Cavett Show.[4] Earlier this year the Houston Chronicle cited a June 15, 1971 memo from Colson that stated "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." [5] The PBS program Frontline covered O'Neill's ongoing effort to discredit Kerry in an October 2004 report titled The Choice 2004. _____ Makes O'Neill look not so good. Nixon/Colson's hitman And there's a link to this: Brian Williams, "Nixon targeted Kerry for anti-war views. White House tapes reveal then-president's attempt to discredit Kerry during 1971 war protests, Senate testimony," NBC News/MSNBC, March 16, 2004. It looks like Nixon's boys would've found something at that time, if there was anything there. Maybe even if there wasn't. If Nixon couldn't find anything at the time why is Judicial Watch raking it up now? I'll look some more. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:00 AM http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250002 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ O'Neill lied about ties to Nixon White House After Chris Matthews said to O'Neill, "You go back to the Nixon era, when [former President Richard] Nixon was looking for someone. [Chuck] Colson and those guys were looking for somebody to debunk the Kerry record, because all the records show they were scared to death of this guy. And you played that role," O'Neill replied, "That's just not true." O'Neill was lying. Former Nixon special counsel Chuck Colson has said that Kerry was an "articulate" and "credible leader" of those veterans calling for an end to the Vietnam War and therefore "an immediate target of the Nixon administration." As such, the Nixon administration found it necessary to "create a counterfoil" to Kerry. Colson recounted, "We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group." Articles from the April 21 edition of the Houston Chronicle and the June 17, 2003, edition of The Boston Globe confirm close ties between O'Neill and the Nixon administration. Details: http://mediamatters.org/items/200405040004 and http://mediamatters.org/items/200408130010 Photo, from left to right: John O'Neill, Richard Nixon, and Charles Colson: ____ So it looks like O'Neill is discredited, but Judicial Watch doesn't seem to have an ax to grind; why'd they base their charges on O'Neill's book? Gotta go. Will check further tomorrow. Debunking this crap sure takes time away from real life. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:14 AM Ron: 1) Still waiting for your proof on the Kerry photo If you want to see the photo go to ttp://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/image003.jpg Kerry is in it plus some other people but no other Americans are in the photo. It is in the war protesters section of the museum. This thread is about something Michael Moore is saying at his speeches all around the country and the college kids cheer when he says it. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:19 AM clint, So, O'Neill is discredited because he has an axe to grind, but Michsel Moore is not? I sense a slight bit of bigotry, here. If you want to address the facts that are presented, that is fine- but it stinks of SRS closed-mindedness to attack the facts as invalid because of who is presenting them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:53 AM As for [Michael] Moore – the man damn well knows his slackers: check out his 2004 Slacker Oath: "Pick nose! Pick Butt! Pick Kerry!" http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E29079%257E2462599,00.html Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:18 PM Look, anyone who opposed that war and wanted to get the USA out of Vietnam ASAP ought to be given a medal. You Americans are living in a fantasyland entirely of your own creation. The USA was WRONG in that war, and had no business being there at all. All the USA did in Vietnam was take over as a colonial power from the French, prevent national unification and national elections after the French left, create a totally corrupt and phony puppet government in the South and kill a couple of million people uselessly while delaying the inevitable. The fact that Kerry opposed that war, as did Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, and various other Americans of above average intelligence is the best damn thing anyone can say about Kerry. Your political BS is really something sickening to watch from outside your hallowed borders of grand illusion. The very people you routinely damn and spit upon in your ludicrous war-mad propaganda are the best and freest thinkers among you. They are the ones who have the guts not to live like sheep and just follow orders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 25 Oct 04 - 12:39 PM Why did Jane Fonda apologize? The fight in Vietnam was against Communisim. Communisim is not gone but it has evolved into something different (except in Cuba and N Korea) due to the efforts of the US and it's allies. Now the fight is against terrorisim. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 25 Oct 04 - 01:39 PM Every sane person (which excludes Michael Moore) should fear terrorism. Terrorism will exist after the election no matter who wins the recount. It did not start with Bush, it will not end with Bush. During the Clinton administration we had: 1st world trade center bombing Kobar towers Sudan Embassy bombings in Africa US Cole Somalia (blawk hawk down) Maybe ever the TWA flight In the past two years we have had Russian terrorism and massacre Train bombings in Spain (The trains in Spain cause terrorists to gain) Al Queda has declared war on the US on three separate occations. The biggest difference between the parties: Democrats want to wait until were attacked and many killed before we respond Republicans want to respond first to prevent people in the US from being killed. History will decide who was right. History has decided that 70 years ago appeasement was the wrong choice. However, I would be happy to give the terrorists hollywood in a negotiation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Stilly River Sage Date: 25 Oct 04 - 02:56 PM Little Hawk is right. And it's pretty amazing the transformation that the legacy of Vietnam War has undergone in the last half-dozen years or so. My mother told my brother "you're going to Calgary to live with your Aunt if the war is still going when you turn 18." Lucky for him it ended before his 18th birthday. I have friends who were prepared to go to prison rather than go into the military, and have friends and cousins who were lucky to get those deferments. Going to college was one good way to avoid Vietnam, at least for a time. I also have friends who came back changed, wounded people from time in Vietnam. Now we're plunged into a war as equally divisive as Vietnam, and that was totally preventable (the U.N. was prepared to continue to monitor conditions in Iraq for many years to come). In a lot of ways, what Dubya did was what many young men wanted to do back then, find a way to serve without having to get emeshed in the immoral war that was in Vietnam. Others did their time and lived to tell about it. Bush wants his cake and wants to eat it to. In this new era of hyper patriotism and arcade game warrior mentality, Dubya wants to be a war hero, though he was always safe away from the fighting and his record of attendance is marginal at best, and bits of it are still missing. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Stilly River Sage Date: 25 Oct 04 - 03:23 PM Beardedbruce, find some other way to confront people you don't agree with than to use my name in your nasty attacks. I refuse to be your golem. Meanwhile, this "Kerry photo" site doesn't pass ANYONE's "stink test." It took some digging, but here is the guy who runs the site where a photo of Kerry speaking with Asian men is posted. The photo tells us nothing useful, there are Asian men everywhere in the world, and there is no context in this photo. The site where it is posted is highly partial. The site's owner, Scott Swett, is part of the Swift Boat Veterans to Slam Kerry crew. His bio is buried on the speakers page. Scott Swett is chairman of the Free Republic Network, an Internet-based non-profit that supports grassroots conservative activism. During the U.S. invasion of Iraq last spring, the FR Network helped coordinate "support the troops" rallies in hundreds of locations across the country. Mr. Swett represented this effort during an April 1, 2003 appearance on Fox & Friends, noting that an overwhelming majority of media coverage was given to anti-war protests -- which he termed "peace riots" -- while ignoring the 150,000 people who had attended pro-America rallies the previous weekend. Early this year, Mr. Swett began researching the "war crimes" propaganda campaign that successfully undermined public support for America's defense of South Vietnam. The result of this work is WinterSoldier.com, a web site designed as a central repository of information for writers and researchers investigating the actions of John Kerry, Vietnam Veterans Against the War and others during the Vietnam era. The site quickly attracted the interest of Vietnam veterans, hundreds of whom have written in to share their own experiences. Other researchers have now joined the effort, and continue to provide new material and opinion articles. Mr. Swett is also webmaster of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth web site at SwiftVets.com. The argument about this photo is not one I've paid much attention to, actually. I just went looking to see who posted it out of curiosity. I have my answer. The rest of you resume your discussion of this matter. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Oct 04 - 04:43 PM Jane Fonda apologized because she lives in a mind-controlled semi-dictatorship of a society, and she figured she couldn't get on with an effective professional career there without publicly kissing Uncle Sam's patriotic tush. (Anyway, I suspect what Jane was really apologizing for was some intemperate statements she made in moments of youthful idealism...we have all made such statements from time to time, but most of them are not on public record.) Joan Baez did not apologize, because she doesn't give a damn whether or not the big marketing system is interested in promoting her career. And I imagine Marlene Dietrich might just as well have been persuaded to apologize to Der Fuhrer if the Germans had won World War II. The Vietnam War was not essentially about Communism, it was about Vietnam casting off foreign colonial control (by France/Japan/France/USA-in that order) and achieving national sovereignty at the cost of countless lives and terrible suffering. The USA ought to pay Vietnam the biggest war reparations in history adn apologize to the whole World for what happened there. The USA doesn't care a hoot about anyone else's national sovereignty, so as far as the USA goes I can well believe that they thought the war was about Communism. What else would they think? Experience has shown that the USA sees everything in those black and white terms, quite regardless of local conditions and realities in a country. Communism in itself, like capitalism, is neither good nor evil...but it can be turned to evil purposes...just like money can. You can have a good or a bad administration under either system. A good administration is one that consciously serves the public. A bad administration is one that serves itself and a privileged elite at the expense of the public. Most societies are a compromise between those two extremes. It is fatuous to define either communism or capitalism as intrinsically evil...it is how they are put into practice and the intentions of those in power that determines their moral legitimacy. The Cold War was an unnecessary conflict between two power blocs that might just as well have decided to "live and let live" instead of engaging in a "winner takes all" philosophy. But that wouldn't sell arms, would it? And it wouldn't serve those who amass power by spreading fear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Frank Date: 25 Oct 04 - 05:11 PM Old Guy, Have you noticed that when Bush racks up his "terror" spiel, his poll numbers go up? He has learned how to politicize fear by language. It used to be "communist" and now it's "terrorist". The Domino Theory has been discredited and someday a similar theory will be discredited about the boogie man of "terror". The problem is that Bush doesn't know who he is calling his enemy. He doesn't even know who stole that explosive stockpile in Iraq. Can you feel safe with this guy at the helm? As to Kerry and the atrocities, Nixon and Colson couldn't find anything on Kerry. That's why they employed the stooge John O'Neil for their poltical purposes. He is a leader in the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Oct 04 - 09:59 PM Larry K--- 1) Good pun on the Rain in Spain 2) "Democrats want to wait...."---- Does the term "false dichotomy" ring a bell? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:20 PM Old Guy---- 1) The photo you mention appears to be on a blatantly anti-Kerry site. Or do you think SRS is lying too? 2) There is no caption or context--can't even tell who the Asian men are. 3) You have provided no direct quote. 4) "Judicial Watch" is also discredited---see Clint's postings 5) Bush's own Navy IG stated that "conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive". Admiral Route, the officer with jurisdiction, "also declined to investigate Kerry's conduct as a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve". Sounds as if Bush's own administration doesn't believe you have a case. You may resume tearing the last strands of your hair out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:49 PM SRS Yeah, the cowards that went to prison got treated better than the Vets after Kerry got through doing his heroic thing. Ron: Where are your pro-bush sources? Where are your direct quotes? You are hereby discredited. Here is a direct quote for you: In 1988 in an interview with Barbara Walters on 20/20, Jane Fonda talked about her Vietnam visit and issued what some feel was an apology but which her critics say was not enough. Fonda said, "I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of the things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm...very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families." http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1328&catcode=11 Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:56 PM Old Guy-- Not good enough-----we're talking about your case against Kerry, which now lies in ruins. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Oct 04 - 10:58 PM Old Guy--- Specifically, regarding the photo (remember the photo?) and (Non)Judicial Watch |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:22 PM bb: "So, O'Neill is discredited because he has an axe to grind, but Michsel Moore is not? I sense a slight bit of bigotry, here." I did not say "O'Neill is discredited because he has an axe to grind" You're putting words in my mouth. I said "So it looks like O'Neill is discredited, but Judicial Watch doesn't seem to have an ax to grind…" I meant "Why would Judicial Watch pay attention to the words of a discredited person when it seems they don't have an ax to grind?" It was something I wondered about. This is not about Moore, nor about my prejudices. Whether Moore is the AntiChrist or a bunny has nothing to do with O'Neill's reliability, and my opinion of Moore has nothing to do with O'Neill's reliability, and neither does your opinion of me or Moore or does your opinion of Britney Spears. Nixon and all his machine couldn't substantiate O'Neill's accusations when they were new and any evidence would be fresh and Nixon badly wanted to. Why tread over the ground now? And this seems to be essentially the Navy's position, and largely why I said O'Neill is discredited. One more time: This is NOT about Moore, NOR about my prejudices. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:40 PM Ron: I thought you wanted to see the photo. Do you want to see the site where a veteran was sent to the museum and held up a newspaper next to the photo and took a photo to prove the date the photo of the photo was taken? The vets name is there. You could call him up and tell him he is a liar, ask him where his pro Kerry sources and direct quotes are. Have you discredited the Jane Fonda apology yet? Have you submitted it to a global test? How about the phony lawsuit filed by the Democrats in Missouri? It's over in the Kerry concedes Mussouri thread. Have you discredited that yet? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:28 AM That Jane Fonda quote does not in any way discredit her anti-war stance, Old Guy...it just gives recognition to the emotional feelings of veterans who may have been upset by her stance. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for her to say. I have said similar things in regards to people I have upset with my outspoken views...not because I felt that I had spoken wrongly in substance, but that I had done it in a way that would seem hurtful to some people. "there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it" Well, yeah. We all are sometimes thoughtless and careless about how we say things when we become vehement over an issue. She was not repudiating her anti-war stance, simply apologizing for her insensitivity to some in how she expressed it. How does this equate to apologizing for being against the war? Answer: it doesn't. She was dead right to oppose that war. She was at times undiplomatic about how she expressed herself. George Bush is at times undiplomatic about how he expresses himself too. That's not what really worries me. What worries me is his actual policies, quite apart from his manner. The Vietnamese would naturally regard ANY American who protested against that war to have done something good and worthwhile from their point of view. How does that indicate that the American is a "traitor" (in, I assume, your view) when the war was WRONG for both America AND Vietnam? Such people are not traitors, they are patriots to a greater truth than mere nationalism. Would you consider an Englishman who had protested the actions of British troops in the North American colonies in 1777 to be brutal and wrongful...would you consider that Virginian a traitor? No, but the British Crown would have probably considered him to be one (because their interests were threatened by his use of free speech)! You are taking the same position on this matter as the British Crown would have then. It's nothing to be proud of. Free speech means: having the right to say things that are not necessarily sanctioned by "the powers that be" at any given time. Be glad you still have it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 26 Oct 04 - 12:52 AM Well said, LH clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Frank Date: 26 Oct 04 - 05:51 PM You know the sad thing about all of this? "Terror" as a propaganda tool to make people want to lean on a false sense of security, a sabre-rattling Bush. The real sad thing for Bush supporters who are not making money is that Bush doesn't care about you unless you are rich. In his view, there is something inferior and inadequate about not making enough money. I don't know how many of you who support Bush are rich, but if you have other values than just making money or acquiring power, these are not interesting to the Bush Dynasty. I am not afraid of a policy that will put our country back in world esteem, compassion for those not making the minimum wage and the working poor, the reclaiming of the middle class and the funding for all of the programs that we need. I feel badly that the poor folks who believe that Bush cares about them are so vehemently in defense of his anti-social policies. I am confident that if we are "nuanced' and not hot-headed in a knee-jerk reaction to Al Quaeda, we can defeat them. We certainly can't do it in Iraq. Bush has lost that war. But we can defeat Al Quaeda not by becoming like them but affirming our American ideals of civil liberty, justice through the voting booth, and generosity. BTW, the synonym for generous is Liberal. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:06 PM Old Guy--- You may as well give up---if the Bush administration doesn't think it's worth pursuing---and they don't---- you can kiss it goodbye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:08 PM So, Ron: Can I quote you, that the Bush Administration is correct in something? I wanted to check and make sure you did not want to change your last post to remain ideologically pure... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:36 PM That's right BB---the Bush admin is correct they have no case against Kerry, much to Old Guy's distress, and probably fatal to his last strands of hair. Thanks for bringing it up again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:47 PM New thread- RON SAYS BUSH CORRECT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Peace Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:54 PM Newer thread- BUSH SAYS RON CORRECT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Oct 04 - 11:57 PM That is unlikely... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Old Guy Date: 27 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM Ron: You are on the side that gives up. The side that wimps out on terrorisim. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 27 Oct 04 - 09:13 PM Sorry, Old Guy--you misphrased that. In fact, I, a Republican and veteran, am on the side that thinks----and has realized that Bush is creating far more terrorists than he is killing. You might try thinking some time---hope it isn't too much strain. Sorry you're not getting enough sleep. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Arnie Date: 28 Oct 04 - 09:16 PM ABC Airs Videotape of Man Making Al Qaeda Threat "After decades of American tyranny and oppression now it's your turn to die. Allah willing, the streets of America shall run red with blood matching drop for drop the blood of America's victims," Arnie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 28 Oct 04 - 09:27 PM Note, Old Guy, that I talked about the terrorists Bush was creating through "collateral damage" (his term) BEFORE the news of the 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed came out. Even if you don't care at all about 100,000 dead Iraqis (which, if true of you, is revolting,) you should care about the fact that, as I've said over and over, Bush's policies are creating a bottomless supply of terrorists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 29 Oct 04 - 02:24 AM Arnie-- I got an ad the other day for a "conservative" book club. On the outside of the flyer they had a quote from Ann Coulter with her picture. The quote was "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Speaking of Moslems, of course. I figure to a Moslem that sounds the same as "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Islam." sounds to you. People like her are recruiting for Al Qaeda. clint and five will get you ten Arnie & OG & that crowd don't understand that. Or won't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Burger Meister Date: 30 Oct 04 - 01:11 AM Ron Davies: "we need a pro-Kerry site----e..g. the Wall St Journal, CNN etc Wall St. Journal, that well-known leftist rag. Have you ever read their editorials? " "Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Amid the controversy over "Unfit for Command" and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, it's worth noting that John Kerry's surrogates continue to overstate their man's Vietnam record... " http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005516 BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Arnie Date: 30 Oct 04 - 01:15 AM "As indicated, Kerry's misplaced sympathy for the Vietnamese Communists has not been just a "youthful indiscretion", but has been a consistent posture throughout his political career, up to today, when he has blocked a human rights initiative for the Vietnamese and has been honored as a "people's hero" in the Vietnamese government's war museum." http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=20588 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:10 AM "Kerry… has been honored as a "people's hero" in the Vietnamese government's war museum." Haven't we waded through this horse hockey enough by now? clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:08 PM Why would anyone NOT feel sympathy for a Vietnamese national struggle to achieve indenpendence and self-governance under the heel of first the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally the U.S. of A....???? For this you object to Kerry? It makes not one damn bit of difference whether or not they were Communist. They had no friggin' choice about it, given the situation in the World at that time. When you fought for independence against the USA in the 50's and 60's you had better be Communist, because otherwise no one would help you, and where the hell would you get the weapons to fight them? To be Communist, for the Vietnamese, was the only game in town at that time. What they were fighting for was not Communism...they were fighting for their own national sovereignty. Do you note that the South Vietnamese administration needed 500,000 foreign soldiers on the ground and the biggest airforce in the World to prop it up and still couldn't win? The North Vietnamese won without 500,000 foreign troops helping them. That tells you just how legit that puppet regime in the South was. It was basically run by the Catholic minority in South Vietnam, who were the same people who had cooperated with the French colonial administration. The Vietnamese population was mostly Buddhist. That should tell you the whole story in a nutshell. The South Vietnamese government which the USA created after the French left was a puppet on strings, and it did not represent the will of the vast majority of the Vietnamese population. Accordingly, its army couldn't fight worth a damn and it folded up like an accordion after the USA pulled out. That fight was not about Communism, it was about foreign colonial control of a small Asian country. "Communism" is a word you hypnotize yourself with in order to avoid actually thinking about anything in real terms. Another such word is "Anti-semitism" and another is "liberal". It's knee-jerk BS that relieves you of the need to ever analyze or understand anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: beardedbruce Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:14 PM LH You forgot some of the other words... "neocon", "Republican", "Bushite", and so on- They are just as much used to let people avoid thinking about something in real terms... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Amos Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:35 PM LH: Be fair, now. The VC had plenty of help from t he Noath. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Oct 04 - 04:24 PM Burgermeister--- Do you ever read anything in the Wall St. Journal but the editorials? I'm very aware the editorial policy is Neanderthal (no offense to Neanderthals). So you can easily tell the Bushite line on an issue by reading it. That very fact establishes that it's not a left-leaning newspaper---ever heard of sarcasm? You may possibly run into it here---watch out! Since the Journal is not left of center, I can quote freely from it in attacking Bush----and if you were to read the rest of it, in detail, as I do, it undercuts Bush at every turn-----by the amazing device of telling the truth---imagine that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 30 Oct 04 - 04:39 PM Sorry LH--- I part company with you here----words do mean something intelligible. If we're not happy to be called "liberal" or "conservative", I suppose we could be called "middle of the road"--but what does that mean? If you mean they're loaded terms, them's the breaks, especially in politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Burger Meister Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:19 AM we need a pro-Kerry site----e..g. the Wall St Journal, CNN etc RD got what he wanted and still he is not satisfied. BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,MM Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:24 AM I am very happy to be an advisor to Osama. Michael Mooron |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST Date: 31 Oct 04 - 09:01 AM I watched the first two episodes of The Power of nightmares" and will certainly be watching the third. Might manage to post my impressions of it after it has finished. So far though, very insightful and thought provoking - the central premise is the almost identical philosphies behind both the neo conservatives and the islamic fundamentalists at the beginning of the movements and how they have changed from being allies to bitter enemies |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 31 Oct 04 - 10:49 AM Burgermeister-- Perhaps you can find someone to explain to you the difference between an editorial and a news article. You're slower than most. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Burgermeister Date: 31 Oct 04 - 11:51 AM "we need a pro-Kerry site----e..g. the Wall St Journal, CNN etc Wall St. Journal, that well-known leftist rag. Have you ever read their editorials? " BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Ron Davies Date: 31 Oct 04 - 11:06 PM So read some of the rest of the paper, for once. You might be surprised Also, beware of sarcasm---you might find it here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: pdq Date: 31 Oct 04 - 11:13 PM Actually, there is no Michael Moore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Ken Date: 03 Nov 04 - 05:30 PM Just seen the third episode of the 'The Power of Nightmares' programme here in the UK tonight (3 Nov); powerful stuff. What the programme underlined for me is the really frightening fact that we seem to have a strong need to believe in worldwide terrorist networks with 'evil' masterminds controlling them - too much James Bond perhaps? Bush's re-election suggests that we can be putty in the hands of clever politicians who will tell us any old fairy tale to keep us voting them into power. Pity they won't be around when the real threat caused by global warming hits us all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Nemesis Date: 03 Nov 04 - 05:46 PM Hear hear Ken, just watched it too .. (ditto Global warming) Actually, I quite liked John Lydon's (aka Johnny Rotten) remark (over on shark prog (Ch5 before the documentary) vis the worldwide slaughter of 100,000s of sharks: "791 people were killed world-wide in a year, due to faulty toasters and only 4 peope were killed by sharks ... I don't see a global campaign to eradicate faulty toasters!" Like Richard Perle(?) said: (paraphrased) "Until you drain the swamp of poverty, you'll never deal with the mosquitos of terrorism". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST Date: 05 Nov 04 - 06:33 AM Just watched the last episode of Power of Nightmares too. As a bit of a sceptic about the threat of terrorism and the war against it, I didn't think it would tell me much I didn't already know. I was very wrong. If anyone is ever brave enough to release it in the US, I recommend everyone watch it with an open mind. Remember when all the politicians were tellin g about the devastation that would be caused if terrorists got a hold of nuclear material and made a dirty bomb? Well did you know that if you were in the vicinity of a dirty bomb and weren't actually injured by the blast, then it would probably have no effect on your health, or maybe would raise your risk of getting cancer by 1%. You raise your risk more when you sit in a smoky pub. And remember all those arrests of people who were supposedly al-qaida terrorists in the UK and US. What percentage do you think were convicted of or even charged with planning terrorist attacks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: GUEST,Frank Date: 05 Nov 04 - 04:12 PM Did anyone read what bin Laden had to say? It was instructive. It wasn't about killing everybody because he was the devil. It was about specific things. Israel invading Lebanon and putting American troops in Muslim lands. I'm not defending him. He's a criminal and needs to be put away. But it's important to understand him better instead of just demonizing him indiscriminatly. He's another Al Capone, mafia Godfather, gangster, crook, etc. etc. But remember that it took more than one person to pull off 911. bin Laden is merely a figurehead. There are a lot of other criminals like him out there. It's about VALUES folks. Does that sound familiar? Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: There is no terrorist threat From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Nov 04 - 05:26 PM "The VC had the North to help them"??? You missed my point. Vietnam was always one country. It was one country before the French, it was one country under the French, it was one country under Japanese occupation in WWII, it was one country under the French again in the 50's, it was intended to be one country upon their departure. The USA interfered in that process and established a new administration (under their control, run by Vietnamese Catholics) in the southern half of that one country. They abrogated the nation-wide elections that were supposed to occur when the French pulled out! The USA denied Vietnam its national elections. The rise of the VC was the response to that situation. The assistance of the North was the assistance of one half of Vietnam against a puppet regime in the other half, supported by a foreign power which had violated and blocked the legal arrangement to hold country-wide elections. This doesn't got talked about in the USA, but it's real history. Look it up. You'll find that I am correct. The Vietnam war was a war of national liberation from foreign control by the majority population in BOTH halves of that country, and it ended with a victory scored BY Vietnamese soldiers without the assistance of 500,000 foreign troops and without the assistance of the World's biggest air force. The South Vietnamese government was a fraud, from day one. It was set up in direct violation of agreements made at the peace conference between France and the Viet Minh, shortly after the final French defeat at Dienbienphu. No foreign ground troops assisted the Vietnamese in the 60's and 70's, aside from a paltry number of Russian technical advisors, I believe, who helped them set up their SAM missile sites (purely defensive weapons). My point was that the puppet regime in the South needed gigantic foreign forces to protect it and fight for it in the field. Their opponents did not. They did it all by themselves, because they were fighting for their own country, not for somebody else's interests. |
