Discussion:
# War Is Peace, says Dubya
(too old to reply)
Peacenik
2004-07-21 01:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"

By Adam Entous

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars, President Bush
(news - web sites) said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and
took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.

With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) in
decline, Bush cast himself as a reluctant warrior and assured Americans they
were "safer" as he campaigned in the battleground states of Iowa and
Missouri against Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) and his running
mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards (news - web sites).

"The enemy declared war on us," Bush told a re-election rally in Cedar
Rapids. "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace
president... The next four years will be peaceful years." Bush used the
words "peace" or "peaceful" a total of 20 times.

...


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040721/ts_nm/campaign_bush_dc_5

=========

"I'm a war president." - Dubya, 8 Feb 2004
"I want to be the peace president." - Dubya, 20 Jul 2004

And they say KERRY flip-flops??

Remember when his Daddy said he wanted to be known as both "the Education
President" and "the Environmental President"? And, of course, as a
Republican, he was the opposite?

Republicans have truly mastered the art of Orwellian doublespeak. Clear
Skies, Peacekeeper Missiles, Healthy Forests, the Patriot Act, the House
Un-American Activities Committee, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength...
--
Peacenik
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 05:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Peacenik
2004-07-21 05:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
--
Peacenik
Foxtrot
2004-07-21 06:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!

You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
Peacenik
2004-07-21 06:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
I said ALL war. If ALL war were aboilished, our would-be enemies would not
be able to wage war.
--
Peacenik
Foxtrot
2004-07-21 06:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
I said ALL war. If ALL war were aboilished, our would-be enemies would not
be able to wage war.
Simply declaring all war to be abolished will magically
pacify all of the world's aggressors and bring world
peace?!? How's the weather there in fantasyland?
Scott Erb
2004-07-21 10:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
I said ALL war. If ALL war were aboilished, our would-be enemies would not
be able to wage war.
Simply declaring all war to be abolished will magically
pacify all of the world's aggressors and bring world
peace?!? How's the weather there in fantasyland?
Well, the Kellogg Briand pact tried to abolish war in the twenties, but
every state that signed it had exceptions. Only three states, I believe,
signed without condition, and those were Germany, Italy, and Japan.

So you have a point, we can't magically abolish it. But it's not
inevitable, it's not a force of nature, it's a human choice. I suspect that
we can make war very rare and ultimately down the road, a thing of the past.
Foxtrot
2004-07-22 06:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Simply declaring all war to be abolished will magically
pacify all of the world's aggressors and bring world
peace?!? How's the weather there in fantasyland?
Well, the Kellogg Briand pact tried to abolish war in the twenties, but
every state that signed it had exceptions. Only three states, I believe,
signed without condition, and those were Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Too funny. The three countries that claimed to be the most
vehement about peace were the biggest threats to it.
Post by Scott Erb
So you have a point, we can't magically abolish it. But it's not
inevitable, it's not a force of nature, it's a human choice. I suspect that
we can make war very rare and ultimately down the road, a thing of the past.
Yes I agree that with considerable effort, it's possible that
war can be made somewhat less likely. But it's folly to
think it will ever be completely abolished. Your blind
idealism surprises me.
Scott Erb
2004-07-22 15:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Simply declaring all war to be abolished will magically
pacify all of the world's aggressors and bring world
peace?!? How's the weather there in fantasyland?
Well, the Kellogg Briand pact tried to abolish war in the twenties, but
every state that signed it had exceptions. Only three states, I believe,
signed without condition, and those were Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Too funny. The three countries that claimed to be the most
vehement about peace were the biggest threats to it.
Post by Scott Erb
So you have a point, we can't magically abolish it. But it's not
inevitable, it's not a force of nature, it's a human choice. I suspect that
we can make war very rare and ultimately down the road, a thing of the past.
Yes I agree that with considerable effort, it's possible that
war can be made somewhat less likely. But it's folly to
think it will ever be completely abolished. Your blind
idealism surprises me.
I suspect that in 5000 years or so, maybe longer, people will look back at
this era with its wars and violence as the dark pre-history of human kind, a
barbaric period where initial discoveries of crude technology led to mass
destruction and violence.

Slavery does still exist, but is rare, and one can imagine erradicating it.
But at times in the past it was so common that anyone thinking it would be
gotten rid of would have been called a blind idealist. Humans are
responsible for the world we construct. We're individually responsible for
our choices and life paths, collectively we create the social world we live
in. I think humans are capable of creating a world where war is if not
eliminated, extremely rare.
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-22 16:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Simply declaring all war to be abolished will magically
pacify all of the world's aggressors and bring world
peace?!? How's the weather there in fantasyland?
Well, the Kellogg Briand pact tried to abolish war in the twenties, but
every state that signed it had exceptions. Only three states, I believe,
signed without condition, and those were Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Too funny. The three countries that claimed to be the most
vehement about peace were the biggest threats to it.
Post by Scott Erb
So you have a point, we can't magically abolish it. But it's not
inevitable, it's not a force of nature, it's a human choice. I suspect
that
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Scott Erb
we can make war very rare and ultimately down the road, a thing of the
past.
Post by Foxtrot
Yes I agree that with considerable effort, it's possible that
war can be made somewhat less likely. But it's folly to
think it will ever be completely abolished. Your blind
idealism surprises me.
I suspect that in 5000 years or so, maybe longer, people will look back at
this era with its wars and violence as the dark pre-history of human kind, a
barbaric period where initial discoveries of crude technology led to mass
destruction and violence.
Why particularly this period of time?
Post by Scott Erb
Slavery does still exist, but is rare, and one can imagine erradicating it.
But at times in the past it was so common that anyone thinking it would be
gotten rid of would have been called a blind idealist. Humans are
responsible for the world we construct. We're individually responsible for
our choices and life paths, collectively we create the social world we live
in. I think humans are capable of creating a world where war is if not
eliminated, extremely rare.
Sure. Of course it would mean what I keep saying, democracies all over
the world actually representing the welfare of their people, and well
defined borders.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Martin McPhillips
2004-07-22 17:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
I suspect that in 5000 years or so, maybe longer, people will look back at
this era with its wars and violence as the dark pre-history of human kind, a
barbaric period where initial discoveries of crude technology led to mass
destruction and violence.
Scott's a "big picture" man now.

When Scott doesn't mind war, he likes to talk
about how few people in the world are involved
in war at any one time. That's usually accompanied
by wonderful little lines like the one about the big
deal made about "knocking down a couple of
tall buildings," or some such, with reference to
the 9/11 attacks.

When Scott disapproves of war, he worries
incessantly about the "innocent lives" that will
be lost, as if such factors are never factored into
the deliberative decisions of American leaders.

For instance, Ho Chi Minh's slaughter of the
Vietnamese was wholesome, according to Scott.
Ho was a moral and just man. Likewise Castro,
who 40-plus years after imposing a totalitarian
Stalinist regime on Cuba is still described by
Scott as "better than that thug Batista."

So today Scott is a "big picture" man, having
a vision 5,000 years into the future of mankind
and looking back at our current barbarity and
crude technology. I'll assume that he is just picking
out the good parts from his favorite Star Trek
episodes.
unknown
2004-07-22 18:22:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:56:41 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
I suspect that in 5000 years or so, maybe longer, people will look
back at
Post by Scott Erb
this era with its wars and violence as the dark pre-history of human
kind, a
Post by Scott Erb
barbaric period where initial discoveries of crude technology led to
mass
Post by Scott Erb
destruction and violence.
Scott's a "big picture" man now.
When Scott doesn't mind war, he likes to talk
about how few people in the world are involved
in war at any one time. That's usually accompanied
by wonderful little lines like the one about the big
deal made about "knocking down a couple of
tall buildings," or some such, with reference to
the 9/11 attacks.
When Scott disapproves of war, he worries
incessantly about the "innocent lives" that will
be lost, as if such factors are never factored into
the deliberative decisions of American leaders.
For instance, Ho Chi Minh's slaughter of the
Vietnamese was wholesome, according to Scott.
Ho was a moral and just man. Likewise Castro,
who 40-plus years after imposing a totalitarian
Stalinist regime on Cuba is still described by
Scott as "better than that thug Batista."
So today Scott is a "big picture" man, having
a vision 5,000 years into the future of mankind
and looking back at our current barbarity and
crude technology. I'll assume that he is just picking
out the good parts from his favorite Star Trek
episodes.
Martin is a "lurker" man with nothing to say.

mr_antone
Scott Erb
2004-07-22 22:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:56:41 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
I suspect that in 5000 years or so, maybe longer, people will look
back at
Post by Scott Erb
this era with its wars and violence as the dark pre-history of human
kind, a
Post by Scott Erb
barbaric period where initial discoveries of crude technology led to
mass
Post by Scott Erb
destruction and violence.
Scott's a "big picture" man now.
When Scott doesn't mind war, he likes to talk
about how few people in the world are involved
in war at any one time. That's usually accompanied
by wonderful little lines like the one about the big
deal made about "knocking down a couple of
tall buildings," or some such, with reference to
the 9/11 attacks.
When Scott disapproves of war, he worries
incessantly about the "innocent lives" that will
be lost, as if such factors are never factored into
the deliberative decisions of American leaders.
For instance, Ho Chi Minh's slaughter of the
Vietnamese was wholesome, according to Scott.
Ho was a moral and just man. Likewise Castro,
who 40-plus years after imposing a totalitarian
Stalinist regime on Cuba is still described by
Scott as "better than that thug Batista."
So today Scott is a "big picture" man, having
a vision 5,000 years into the future of mankind
and looking back at our current barbarity and
crude technology. I'll assume that he is just picking
out the good parts from his favorite Star Trek
episodes.
Martin is a "lurker" man with nothing to say.
mr_antone
Actually, he's rather amusing, and not a half bad writer.
Martin McPhillips
2004-07-22 22:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:56:41 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
I suspect that in 5000 years or so, maybe longer, people will look
back at
Post by Scott Erb
this era with its wars and violence as the dark pre-history of human
kind, a
Post by Scott Erb
barbaric period where initial discoveries of crude technology led to
mass
Post by Scott Erb
destruction and violence.
Scott's a "big picture" man now.
When Scott doesn't mind war, he likes to talk
about how few people in the world are involved
in war at any one time. That's usually accompanied
by wonderful little lines like the one about the big
deal made about "knocking down a couple of
tall buildings," or some such, with reference to
the 9/11 attacks.
When Scott disapproves of war, he worries
incessantly about the "innocent lives" that will
be lost, as if such factors are never factored into
the deliberative decisions of American leaders.
For instance, Ho Chi Minh's slaughter of the
Vietnamese was wholesome, according to Scott.
Ho was a moral and just man. Likewise Castro,
who 40-plus years after imposing a totalitarian
Stalinist regime on Cuba is still described by
Scott as "better than that thug Batista."
So today Scott is a "big picture" man, having
a vision 5,000 years into the future of mankind
and looking back at our current barbarity and
crude technology. I'll assume that he is just picking
out the good parts from his favorite Star Trek
episodes.
Martin is a "lurker" man with nothing to say.
mr_antone
Actually, he's rather amusing, and not a half bad writer.
Scott's in his "everyone was born yesterday, including
me," mode. Tomorrow, or the next day, he'll be back
to shaking his McCarthy or Goebbels voodoo doll.
unknown
2004-07-23 12:05:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:29:44 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:56:41 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
I suspect that in 5000 years or so, maybe longer, people will look
back at
Post by Scott Erb
this era with its wars and violence as the dark pre-history of human
kind, a
Post by Scott Erb
barbaric period where initial discoveries of crude technology led to
mass
Post by Scott Erb
destruction and violence.
Scott's a "big picture" man now.
When Scott doesn't mind war, he likes to talk
about how few people in the world are involved
in war at any one time. That's usually accompanied
by wonderful little lines like the one about the big
deal made about "knocking down a couple of
tall buildings," or some such, with reference to
the 9/11 attacks.
When Scott disapproves of war, he worries
incessantly about the "innocent lives" that will
be lost, as if such factors are never factored into
the deliberative decisions of American leaders.
For instance, Ho Chi Minh's slaughter of the
Vietnamese was wholesome, according to Scott.
Ho was a moral and just man. Likewise Castro,
who 40-plus years after imposing a totalitarian
Stalinist regime on Cuba is still described by
Scott as "better than that thug Batista."
So today Scott is a "big picture" man, having
a vision 5,000 years into the future of mankind
and looking back at our current barbarity and
crude technology. I'll assume that he is just picking
out the good parts from his favorite Star Trek
episodes.
Martin is a "lurker" man with nothing to say.
mr_antone
Actually, he's rather amusing, and not a half bad writer.
I know but it would be nice if he would change his tune once in a
while.

mr_antone
Scott Erb
2004-07-23 13:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:29:44 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:56:41 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
I suspect that in 5000 years or so, maybe longer, people will look
back at
Post by Scott Erb
this era with its wars and violence as the dark pre-history of human
kind, a
Post by Scott Erb
barbaric period where initial discoveries of crude technology led to
mass
Post by Scott Erb
destruction and violence.
Scott's a "big picture" man now.
When Scott doesn't mind war, he likes to talk
about how few people in the world are involved
in war at any one time. That's usually accompanied
by wonderful little lines like the one about the big
deal made about "knocking down a couple of
tall buildings," or some such, with reference to
the 9/11 attacks.
When Scott disapproves of war, he worries
incessantly about the "innocent lives" that will
be lost, as if such factors are never factored into
the deliberative decisions of American leaders.
For instance, Ho Chi Minh's slaughter of the
Vietnamese was wholesome, according to Scott.
Ho was a moral and just man. Likewise Castro,
who 40-plus years after imposing a totalitarian
Stalinist regime on Cuba is still described by
Scott as "better than that thug Batista."
So today Scott is a "big picture" man, having
a vision 5,000 years into the future of mankind
and looking back at our current barbarity and
crude technology. I'll assume that he is just picking
out the good parts from his favorite Star Trek
episodes.
Martin is a "lurker" man with nothing to say.
mr_antone
Actually, he's rather amusing, and not a half bad writer.
I know but it would be nice if he would change his tune once in a
while.
Yeah, I stopped reading his diatribes, he's obviously trying to craft
effective insults, but he always hits the same themes, and is so over the
top as to assure they aren't taken seriously.

One can only hope that he has perspective enough not to take himself too
seriously.
Peacenik
2004-07-21 14:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
I said ALL war. If ALL war were aboilished, our would-be enemies would not
be able to wage war.
Simply declaring all war to be abolished will magically
pacify all of the world's aggressors and bring world
peace?!? How's the weather there in fantasyland?
Who said anything about "simply delcaring all war to be abolished"?

Abolishing war requires a LOT of work.
--
Peacenik
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 16:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Foxtrot
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
I said ALL war. If ALL war were aboilished, our would-be enemies would
not
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
be able to wage war.
Simply declaring all war to be abolished will magically
pacify all of the world's aggressors and bring world
peace?!? How's the weather there in fantasyland?
Who said anything about "simply delcaring all war to be abolished"?
Abolishing war requires a LOT of work.
1) get rid of dictators such as Saddam

2) improve economies all over the third world by free trade and the
institution of property rights

3) solve border disputes permanently defining exactly where they are.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 16:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
I said ALL war. If ALL war were aboilished, our would-be enemies would not
be able to wage war.
You can't understand what that means though, can you?
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Adam Albright
2004-07-21 19:55:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:32:04 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
I said ALL war. If ALL war were aboilished, our would-be enemies would not
be able to wage war.
You can't understand what that means though, can you?
We understand what YOU are all about.

You're un-American. You put political party ahead of country. Because
of it you are a worthless cunt, a damn fool and a despicable little
worm that is and should be hated because you are nothing more that a
hack and shill for some political party. You don't give a rat's ass
how many brave young American's lives get wasted or how made get
injured because all that matters to disgusting belly crawling lying
your ass off creeps like you is your politcal party. FUCK YOU Billy
good for shit and every other asshole like you. You're scum. You
always were scum and you'll never be anything but scum.
Scott Erb
2004-07-21 09:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
What do you expect from a conservative?

War is possible, not inevitable. Better policies in the twenties could have
prevented what happened in the thirties.
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 16:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
What do you expect from a conservative?
War is possible, not inevitable. Better policies in the twenties could have
prevented what happened in the thirties.
The US sought those better policies. The French, as usual, demanded the
policies that exacerbated the problems.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Scott Erb
2004-07-21 19:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
What do you expect from a conservative?
War is possible, not inevitable. Better policies in the twenties could have
prevented what happened in the thirties.
The US sought those better policies. The French, as usual, demanded the
policies that exacerbated the problems.
I think Briand and Stresemann started to come to some mutual understandings
in the late twenties, but they couldn't get their governments to go along.
In this case I would put blame on the French and British for simply pushing
Wilson aside (though Wilson's arrogant preachiness didn't help his cause --
that's what happens when you let a political scientist become President of
the United States!). And despite my snide comment about Chamberlain as a
conservative, appeasement was British recognition that Germany had been
treated in a manner that made things worse after WWI, and in essence they
tried to do too late what Wilson wanted to do from the start. (Appeasement
meant to appease legitimate German demands for equality in the system, it
didn't mean give Hitler whatever he wanted). But while it may have worked
in 1919, Hitler was set on war, and that policy was counter productive by
the late thirties.

A lot of war, though, only became inevitable after many opportunities for
peaceful solutions were put aside. In the current war with Iraq, though, I
don't think it had to go to war, and I think the choice actually has hurt
our interests and helped the terrorists tremendously. It also has hurt
efforts of moderates to reform in Iran, and win the hearts and minds of the
Mideast population, as now the US is seen by most in that region as an
imperialist thug. In this case, war was a clear choice, and I'm convinced
one that has made us less secure, and less likely to succeed in the Mideast.
In this case, unlike after WWI, I think the French had the right position.
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 23:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
What do you expect from a conservative?
War is possible, not inevitable. Better policies in the twenties could
have
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
prevented what happened in the thirties.
The US sought those better policies. The French, as usual, demanded the
policies that exacerbated the problems.
I think Briand and Stresemann started to come to some mutual understandings
in the late twenties, but they couldn't get their governments to go along.
In this case I would put blame on the French and British for simply pushing
Wilson aside
So the Americans had it right and the French didn't. As usual.
Post by Scott Erb
(though Wilson's arrogant preachiness didn't help his cause --
that's what happens when you let a political scientist become President of
the United States!). And despite my snide comment about Chamberlain as a
conservative, appeasement was British recognition that Germany had been
treated in a manner that made things worse after WWI, and in essence they
tried to do too late what Wilson wanted to do from the start. (Appeasement
meant to appease legitimate German demands for equality in the system, it
didn't mean give Hitler whatever he wanted).
I don't think that what Germany needed was the right to rearm beyond
what France or anyone else could handle.
Post by Scott Erb
But while it may have worked
in 1919, Hitler was set on war, and that policy was counter productive by
the late thirties.
Had Germany had a constitution that was closer to the one in the US,
Hitler wouldn't have ever got into power.
Post by Scott Erb
A lot of war, though, only became inevitable after many opportunities for
peaceful solutions were put aside. In the current war with Iraq, though, I
don't think it had to go to war, and I think the choice actually has hurt
our interests and helped the terrorists tremendously.
We disagree. I think that we could've only avoided war by continuing the
endless status quo policies that Clinton embraced. I've said this before
but one side, your side, seems to think that peace in the Middle East
goes through Jerusalem; the other side, the new side that hadn't been
tried before, thinks that it might have to go through Baghdad first.
Post by Scott Erb
It also has hurt
efforts of moderates to reform in Iran, and win the hearts and minds of the
Mideast population,
We've discussed this before and I've pointed out that even though we
were trying the old ideas, we still got 9/11 thrust upon us. It's plain
that those policies failed us. Something else had to be tried. A
proactive policy at least has the effect of shaking things up and that
can be a good thing when the status quo is violent hate America
stagnation.
Post by Scott Erb
as now the US is seen by most in that region as an
imperialist thug.
How is spending all these lives and money on freeing the people of Iraq
from the real thug, Saddam, being 'imperialist'? What is really
happening is that people are lying to Arabs and telling them that
America isn't there to help but there to steal and they have been lied
to for so long, they believe it.
Post by Scott Erb
In this case, war was a clear choice, and I'm convinced
one that has made us less secure, and less likely to succeed in the Mideast.
In this case, unlike after WWI, I think the French had the right position.
Time will tell who is correct. Of course remember that the French
position was to have us sit on our hands. That means that even after
9/11, we would be basically doing nothing with our military in the
Middle East, the place where the Islamo fascist terrorists actually come
from.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Martin McPhillips
2004-07-21 23:20:54 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )"
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
(though Wilson's arrogant preachiness didn't help his cause --
that's what happens when you let a political scientist become President of
the United States!). And despite my snide comment about
Chamberlain as a
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
conservative, appeasement was British recognition that Germany had been
treated in a manner that made things worse after WWI, and in
essence they
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
tried to do too late what Wilson wanted to do from the start.
(Appeasement
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
meant to appease legitimate German demands for equality in the system, it
didn't mean give Hitler whatever he wanted).
I don't think that what Germany needed was the right to rearm beyond
what France or anyone else could handle.
Correct. Scott doesn't know what he's talking about,
which is doubly odd since this is supposed to be his
area of expertise. It's also a change of his explanation
justifying appeasement.

Allowing Hitler to take control of Czechoslovakia was
hardly "meant to appease legitimate German demands
for equality in the system," whatever that is supposed to
mean.

But Scott's previous explanation justifying appeasement
was that the British and French were not yet ready
to fight Hitler, and Chamberlain was just buying
time at Munich. That's another non-starter since just a few
years earlier they could have nipped Hitler in the bud
for re-militarizing the Rhineland and beginning to
rebuild his war machine before he had gotten
strong enough to fight them off.

No, the European problem was, in addition
to a variety of other miscalculations, that it simply had
no will to resist Hitler's plan before it was too
late. Churchill was a lone voice in the wilderness,
shunned and made fun of, by morons not unlike
Scott himself.

Hitler's bizarre genius was that he understood
exactly how many Erbs there were in Europe
and exactly how easily they could be had. But
even Hitler was surprised at how much he did
get, which of course made him only expect to
get more.

If he had solved the Russia problem short of
invasion, assuaging his fear that Russia would
join the Allies to defeat him in Europe, Europe
would be a Nazi parade ground today.
Scott Erb
2004-07-22 01:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
I think Briand and Stresemann started to come to some mutual
understandings
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
in the late twenties, but they couldn't get their governments to go along.
In this case I would put blame on the French and British for simply pushing
Wilson aside
So the Americans had it right and the French didn't. As usual.
Nor did the British, obviously. But to try to claim some kind of
ethnic/national stereotype in the francophobic manner is beneath you.

The French had the last war right and we didn't, so I guess we're even.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
(though Wilson's arrogant preachiness didn't help his cause --
that's what happens when you let a political scientist become President of
the United States!). And despite my snide comment about Chamberlain as a
conservative, appeasement was British recognition that Germany had been
treated in a manner that made things worse after WWI, and in essence they
tried to do too late what Wilson wanted to do from the start.
(Appeasement
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
meant to appease legitimate German demands for equality in the system, it
didn't mean give Hitler whatever he wanted).
I don't think that what Germany needed was the right to rearm beyond
what France or anyone else could handle.
Chamberlain believed war with Germany likely, and thought Britain wouldn't
be ready until around 1943. He was in part trying to buy time, as Britain
started preparations for a possible war. His own conservative party,
however, thought a strong Germany was a bulwark against Bolshevism, as the
real threat, they believed, was communism. By March 1939 Chamberlain knew
that war was inevitable, and shifted away from the appeasement policy
(which, to give him credit, followed a lot of what Wilson wanted after
WWI -- it treated Germany as an equal, believing that would cause them to
back off in their efforts to alter the system). Still, he thought war could
be put off, though events in August 1939 told him and everyone that war
would be sooner rather than later. Chamberlain's policy is caricatured and
misunderstood; it was the wrong policy for Hitler, but it had a logic that
could have worked if done earlier (once fascists and hypernationalists come
to power, little can quench their thirst for ultimate security and ultimate
national power).
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
But while it may have worked
in 1919, Hitler was set on war, and that policy was counter productive by
the late thirties.
Had Germany had a constitution that was closer to the one in the US,
Hitler wouldn't have ever got into power.
It's dubious to think the constitution would have made much of a difference.
Constitutions work only when they are backed by a will to follow the
constitution, and a political culture that is in line with the constitution.
I don't think the far right or the far left in Germany would have allowed
any constitution to work in the political context of the twenties. The
Weimar constitution is considered to be a pretty good constitution by most
legal scholars, even if Article 48 became widely abused after 1928. But
that said less about the constitution than the power of extremist groups in
German society. And if the depression hadn't come, Weimar may have
withstood the fascist challenge, though creating a stable democracy would
have still been difficult. Democracies are not natural, nor do they flow
from a constitution. They are a tough product of a political culture and
political will -- most times countries fail in their first attempt (or
attempts) at democracy.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
A lot of war, though, only became inevitable after many opportunities for
peaceful solutions were put aside. In the current war with Iraq, though, I
don't think it had to go to war, and I think the choice actually has hurt
our interests and helped the terrorists tremendously.
We disagree. I think that we could've only avoided war by continuing the
endless status quo policies that Clinton embraced. I've said this before
but one side, your side, seems to think that peace in the Middle East
goes through Jerusalem; the other side, the new side that hadn't been
tried before, thinks that it might have to go through Baghdad first.
The idea peace in the mideast goes through Baghdad is preposterous. That
can't even be a serious proposition. The Bush policy is an utter failure,
the US military is stretched thin, former diplomats I talk with are aghast
at the way the White House made policy based on grandiose theories and
fantasies about re-making the Mideast -- an ideological foreign policy in
denial of reality and the analysis by experts in the region, a foreign
policy which has failed miserably. The US military is stretched thin,
budget deficits are rising fast, anti-American is more rabid than ever
before, our allies are disgusted by our arrogant militarism, and in the
Mideast we are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the people
through our actions. And democracy can only be founded there if we win that
battle. We have set the cause of democracy in that region back perhaps a
generation. Iraq would have had a better chance if we had waited for Saddam
to fall on his own, keeping containment as a solid policy option.

I'm utterly disgusted by the incompetence and fantasy-driven policies of
this administration. They have put America at more risk than ever before.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We've discussed this before and I've pointed out that even though we
were trying the old ideas, we still got 9/11 thrust upon us.
You're over-reacting to 9-11. That's one incident by a group of terrorists.
The key is to stop terrorists and work with countries, winning the people
over so terrorists can't recruit as well. We were succeeding at that before
9-11, but our militarist and arrogant reaction has played into the hands of
the terrorists and has given them the upper hand. The policies of this
administration have given aid and comfort to the enemy, even if
unintentionally, and made our security more precarious than before.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
It's plain
that those policies failed us. Something else had to be tried. A
Bull**** By that logic, if one group of terrorists can plot a lucky
strike, then all old policies have to be disgarded as failures.

If another terrorist strike comes, I'll remind you of that -- your logic
will show that it is proof that Bush's policies failed and something new
needs to be tried.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
proactive policy at least has the effect of shaking things up and that
can be a good thing when the status quo is violent hate America
stagnation.
The status quo was that populations were going more in our favor. Now we've
turned it around. This has been the most disastrous and dangerous policy in
American history. Everything that experts were expecting has happened, the
Bush administration has been trying to bounce back. I remember people
predicting this would make Bush unstoppable, that Blair would be the
dominant actor in Europe, that Chirac and Schroeder would have to eat crow,
and the Mideast would be reshaped by raw and awesome American power. That
was an idiotic fantasy, based on delusions of power. Reality bites.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
as now the US is seen by most in that region as an
imperialist thug.
How is spending all these lives and money on freeing the people of Iraq
from the real thug, Saddam, being 'imperialist'?
We killed massive numbers of people, tortured, sodomized children, turned
even the enemies of Saddam against us.

Sorry, that flowery rhetoric may work on talk radio, but there's a reason
most Iraqis do not see us as liberators, and more studies show people are
worse off there now than they were before the war. Again, the reality is
much different than the ideological wishful thinking.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
What is really
happening is that people are lying to Arabs and telling them that
America isn't there to help but there to steal and they have been lied
to for so long, they believe it.
Perhaps, but that was predictable. Anyone surprised by what has been going
on really didn't understand the region.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
In this case, war was a clear choice, and I'm convinced
one that has made us less secure, and less likely to succeed in the Mideast.
In this case, unlike after WWI, I think the French had the right position.
Time will tell who is correct. Of course remember that the French
position was to have us sit on our hands. That means that even after
9/11, we would be basically doing nothing with our military in the
Middle East, the place where the Islamo fascist terrorists actually come
from.
No, the French and all of NATO were ready to join us in Afghanistan, and a
bit dismayed that they weren't asked to do more. They believe in fighting
terrorism, they wanted an active policy. They just saw attacking Iraq as
dangerous folly, and you know -- they were right.
Jim
2004-07-22 17:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Nor did the British, obviously. But to try to claim some kind of
ethnic/national stereotype in the francophobic manner is beneath you.
The French had the last war right and we didn't, so I guess we're even.
The French opposed the gulf war because:

1. Oil for Food kickbacks would end.
2. Contracts with Saddam would be null.

Jim
Scott Erb
2004-07-22 22:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim
Post by Scott Erb
Nor did the British, obviously. But to try to claim some kind of
ethnic/national stereotype in the francophobic manner is beneath you.
The French had the last war right and we didn't, so I guess we're even.
1. Oil for Food kickbacks would end.
2. Contracts with Saddam would be null.
Absurd! First, contracts with a foreign state outlast a leader. Second,
there was no way the French could get any money while Saddam was in power;
the US prevented that by blocking changes in UN motions.

The French could have made out like bandits if they had supported the US,
the US would have repaid that support by allowing the contracts to continue.

I don't know where you got your information for your accusation, but you are
totally wrong.
Martin McPhillips
2004-07-22 23:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Jim
Post by Scott Erb
Nor did the British, obviously. But to try to claim some kind of
ethnic/national stereotype in the francophobic manner is beneath you.
The French had the last war right and we didn't, so I guess we're even.
1. Oil for Food kickbacks would end.
2. Contracts with Saddam would be null.
Absurd! First, contracts with a foreign state outlast a leader.
Second,
Post by Scott Erb
there was no way the French could get any money while Saddam was in power;
the US prevented that by blocking changes in UN motions.
Scott's missed so much of the news -- he admits that he
really doesn't pay attention.

The oil for food kickbacks have indeed ended.

Iraq has received massive debt relief, at the behest of the
U.S.
Post by Scott Erb
The French could have made out like bandits if they had supported the US,
the US would have repaid that support by allowing the contracts to continue.
Scott is apparently unaware of the French cultivation of the
Arab world beginning at the end of the 1960s, which is
the reason it is so chary of opposing and so willing to
support the Hussein regime.
Post by Scott Erb
I don't know where you got your information for your accusation, but you are
totally wrong.
Oh? Are you saying you "teach this stuff," Scott?
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-23 00:10:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Jim
Post by Scott Erb
Nor did the British, obviously. But to try to claim some kind of
ethnic/national stereotype in the francophobic manner is beneath you.
The French had the last war right and we didn't, so I guess we're even.
1. Oil for Food kickbacks would end.
2. Contracts with Saddam would be null.
Absurd! First, contracts with a foreign state outlast a leader. Second,
there was no way the French could get any money while Saddam was in power;
the US prevented that by blocking changes in UN motions.
Before Bush became president, the sanctions were getting more than a bit
thin. It was heading towards the United States having to veto to keep
them in place.
Post by Scott Erb
The French could have made out like bandits if they had supported the US,
the US would have repaid that support by allowing the contracts to continue.
We know that people at the highest levels in the French government were
close with people who were looting the Oil for Food programme.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Scott Erb
2004-07-23 01:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Jim
1. Oil for Food kickbacks would end.
2. Contracts with Saddam would be null.
Absurd! First, contracts with a foreign state outlast a leader.
Second,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
there was no way the French could get any money while Saddam was in power;
the US prevented that by blocking changes in UN motions.
Before Bush became president, the sanctions were getting more than a bit
thin. It was heading towards the United States having to veto to keep
them in place.
But it was clear that the US would...especially after 9-11! And Chirac knew
that if he played ball with Bush on Iraq, he could easily demand French
contracts be honored and France given a solid economic role in the new Iraq
(honoring contracts would be in line with international law -- changes in
government don't alter commitments). So the French, IF they thought Bush's
policy would succeed, had every reason out of economic self-interest to
support Bush and participate in the war with Iraq.

They did not think the US policy would work, and feared it would have
disastrous consequences. The arguments against it on those lines (similar
in tone to my arguments against you -- though we do reflect two rather
opposite perspectives on this, both of which are popular, making the
discussion intriguing) were all over the press and pundits in France and
elsewhere in Europe. To argue that it was economic self-interest on the
part of the French is not only factually wrong, but also seems a kind of
attempt to avoid their substantive arguments and attempt to just dismiss
them by attacking their motives. But the French view was similar to the
view of most European countries, and public opinion in just about every
European state, even those whose governments calculated they could get more
by supporting the US.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
The French could have made out like bandits if they had supported the US,
the US would have repaid that support by allowing the contracts to continue.
We know that people at the highest levels in the French government were
close with people who were looting the Oil for Food programme.
And Cheney is close to people in Halliburton making out like bandits in
Iraq. No, that kind of attack isn't enough to dismiss the French arguments
and position, something shared by many across Europe. I am convinced that
when the history of this conflict is written, Chirac will come out looking
wise and Bush wreckless. (But hey -- you've criticized both Chirac and
Chamberlain today, and they're both conservatives, so at least you don't
just attack liberals!)
Fresno Farms
2004-07-21 11:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until
after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
1984, George Orwell
Post by Foxtrot
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
" It was a place impossible to enter except on official business,
and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire
entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the
streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced
guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons.

"Winston turned round abruptly. He had set his features into the
expression of quiet optimism which it was advisable to wear when
facing the telescreen. He crossed the room into the tiny kitchen."
----Excerpt: 1984

* "The people can always be brought to the bidding of
* the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
* them they are being attacked, and denounce the
* peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
* country to danger. It works the same in any country."
* - Herman Goering (second in command to Adolf Hitler)
* at the Nuremberg Trials

Another very great communicator once said:
* "the genius of a great political leader to make
* adversaries far removed from one another seem
* to belong to a single category to the weak and
* uncertain people,...a multiplicity of different
* adversaries must always be combined so that
* in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle
* is directed against *only one enemy*."
* -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


* Of course he doesn't want arms inspectors in Iraq.
* Just like he didn't want bin Laden when the Taliban
* offered to turn him over. Bush needs his 'boogie men',
* without then he's nothing more then the ignorant
* little shit stain so many of us see.
* -- Harrison X. Numbugger 09 Sep 2002
Re: Will Duhbya MILK 9-11 -- to push his IRAQ ATTAQ ??


"All that was required of them was a .---. .------------
primitive patriotism which could be / \ __ / ------
appealed to whenever it was necessary / / \( )/ -----
to make them accept longer working ////// ' \/ ` ---
hours or less wealth. And even //// / // : : ---
when they became discontented, // / / /` '--
as they sometimes did, their // //..\\
discontent led nowhere, =====/===========UU====UU=============
because, being with only Company ideas, '//||\\`
they could only focus it on Company ''``
scapegoats. The rebellious ones only fought Company enemies.
The source of these evils invariably escaped their notice."
[Apologies to George Orwell]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The most potent weapon of the oppressor is
the mind of the oppressed. --Steven Biko
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[Numeric tables & ASCII art need a fixed font.]
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 23:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fresno Farms
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until
after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
1984, George Orwell
So what does that actually mean?
Post by Fresno Farms
Post by Foxtrot
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
" It was a place impossible to enter except on official business,
and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire
entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the
streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced
guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons.
"Winston turned round abruptly. He had set his features into the
expression of quiet optimism which it was advisable to wear when
facing the telescreen. He crossed the room into the tiny kitchen."
----Excerpt: 1984
* "The people can always be brought to the bidding of
* the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
* them they are being attacked, and denounce the
* peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
* country to danger. It works the same in any country."
* - Herman Goering (second in command to Adolf Hitler)
* at the Nuremberg Trials
* "the genius of a great political leader to make
* adversaries far removed from one another seem
* to belong to a single category to the weak and
* uncertain people,...a multiplicity of different
* adversaries must always be combined so that
* in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle
* is directed against *only one enemy*."
* -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Not that Hitler meant anything most of the time, but can you explain
what that quote means?
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Fresno Farms
2004-07-25 21:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Fresno Farms
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until
after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
1984, George Orwell
So what does that actually mean?
I'm guessing it was an oppressor like O'Brian in 1984
smuggly bragging about the totality of his rule.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Fresno Farms
Post by Foxtrot
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
" It was a place impossible to enter except on official business,
and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire
entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the
streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced
guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons.
"Winston turned round abruptly. He had set his features into the
expression of quiet optimism which it was advisable to wear when
facing the telescreen. He crossed the room into the tiny kitchen."
----Excerpt: 1984
* "The people can always be brought to the bidding of
* the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
* them they are being attacked, and denounce the
* peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
* country to danger. It works the same in any country."
* - Herman Goering (second in command to Adolf Hitler)
* at the Nuremberg Trials
* "the genius of a great political leader to make
* adversaries far removed from one another seem
* to belong to a single category to the weak and
* uncertain people,...a multiplicity of different
* adversaries must always be combined so that
* in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle
* is directed against *only one enemy*."
* -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Not that Hitler meant anything most of the time,
Mein Kampf. He meant it. You make the same mistake the German
people made. He spelled it all out before he took power.

Bush election 2000. He meant it. You make the same mistake
the American people and press made. He spelled it all out
before he took power.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
but can you explain
what that quote means?
??? It's a lesson in propaganda 101.
How to rule the little people.
"the weak and uncertain people"
meaning the ignorant. Tune in Limbaugh
for more details. Swap "liberals" for "Jews"
and what do you have?
oops
2004-07-23 16:05:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fresno Farms
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until
after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
1984, George Orwell
Pain is a great motivator for consciousness, exploitation, fascism,
these create pain, therefore these create consciousness. The
consciousness will then try to figure out how to avoid this pain. It
can be as simple as bending lower when going down a stairs to avoid
hitting the head, or as complicated as trying to convince people that
certain policies or electoral choices could lead to unnecessary pain.
Post by Fresno Farms
Post by Foxtrot
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
" It was a place impossible to enter except on official business,
and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire
entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the
streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced
guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons.
"Winston turned round abruptly. He had set his features into the
expression of quiet optimism which it was advisable to wear when
facing the telescreen. He crossed the room into the tiny kitchen."
----Excerpt: 1984
* "The people can always be brought to the bidding of
* the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
* them they are being attacked, and denounce the
* peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
* country to danger. It works the same in any country."
* - Herman Goering (second in command to Adolf Hitler)
* at the Nuremberg Trials
* "the genius of a great political leader to make
* adversaries far removed from one another seem
* to belong to a single category to the weak and
* uncertain people,...a multiplicity of different
* adversaries must always be combined so that
* in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle
* is directed against *only one enemy*."
* -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
* Of course he doesn't want arms inspectors in Iraq.
* Just like he didn't want bin Laden when the Taliban
* offered to turn him over. Bush needs his 'boogie men',
* without then he's nothing more then the ignorant
* little shit stain so many of us see.
* -- Harrison X. Numbugger 09 Sep 2002
Re: Will Duhbya MILK 9-11 -- to push his IRAQ ATTAQ ??
"All that was required of them was a .---. .------------
primitive patriotism which could be / \ __ / ------
appealed to whenever it was necessary / / \( )/ -----
to make them accept longer working ////// ' \/ ` ---
hours or less wealth. And even //// / // : : ---
when they became discontented, // / / /` '--
as they sometimes did, their // //..\\
discontent led nowhere, =====/===========UU====UU=============
because, being with only Company ideas, '//||\\`
they could only focus it on Company ''``
scapegoats. The rebellious ones only fought Company enemies.
The source of these evils invariably escaped their notice."
[Apologies to George Orwell]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The most potent weapon of the oppressor is
the mind of the oppressed. --Steven Biko
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Numeric tables & ASCII art need a fixed font.]
Roses have thorns.

Learning is inherent in all life, even plants eventually learn.
Why does a rose have thorns ? Because it learned to defend itself.
Why do snakes carry poison ? Because they learned they needed more to
overcome their prey. Why do humans have more brains then most (all)
animals ? Because learning enhances survival. Our worst enemies
today are other humans, they're not a separate species, they do
not have evolutionary advantages over us that could take millions
of years to equalize and overcome. The bad are destructive, it is
the very definition of being bad. The more the bad people destroy,
the more we learn about how they do it, the more motivation we will
develop to stop them before they can do it again. Their destruction
is our pain. The more we will get used to their tactics, the more we
will be able to spot them and prevent them. In the end, the bad can
be used for good, because they exploit flaws in our psyche, that we
can then repair. Without pain, we wouldn't even know anything was
wrong, and actually nothing would be wrong.

The people do (I think) not pay enough attention to history and the
way the world opperates. I think this is a serious mistake because
it leads to fascism that exploits this mistake. Fascism is the pain
that fixes the problem because people will become more attentive
because they will whish to avoid the pain fascism causes.

It takes time for humanity to develop resistance against new diseases.
Fascism/feudalism/exploitation, these could be called social diseases.
It takes time to develop proper immunity, and every instance of
abuse/exploitation/fascism is more ammunition against it.

That which is destructive will eventually self-destruct, or be destroyed.

Since the bad guys don't have evolutionary advantages, they can be
defeated using the much more quickly evolving complex of culture.

The more evil, the more hope it will be defeated soon.

We (the good guys, who want peace and power to all) can only win. It
is a law of nature. Can take a couple of millenia though, or a few
hundred thousand years, perhaps a couple of million at most I guess.
It is a long wait, but it will be worth it.

Roses have thorns. Humans will have thorns too if they need them.

Funny to see that even Hitler and Goering tell us their tactics, as
if they whish us to build up immunity against them. Apparently, even
the bad guys feel they have an interest in humanity.

Oh well, I thought I'd sound an uplifting sound between all the doomsday
scenario's from 1984. :-) Can't live without hope, can we.
--
Fresno Farms
2004-07-25 22:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by oops
Post by Fresno Farms
Post by Foxtrot
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah right Chrissy, that's sure to work! Just as Neville
Chamberlain promised "peace in our time"!
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until
after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious."
1984, George Orwell
Pain is a great motivator for consciousness, exploitation, fascism,
these create pain, therefore these create consciousness. The
consciousness will then try to figure out how to avoid this pain. It
can be as simple as bending lower when going down a stairs to avoid
hitting the head, or as complicated as trying to convince people that
certain policies or electoral choices could lead to unnecessary pain.
You seem to be under the common American misconception
that facism is painful.

"Fascism, like all forms of government, rests finally
upon the sincere consent of a large part of the
population."
(World Book encyclopedia, 1958, p. 2494)

It is because it feels so damn good that it is
such a danger. Like a lynch mob, the ultimate high,
causes people aligned to a higher good than even
law and morality to act contrary to basic human values.
Once the evil act is done, the "higher good" can never
be questioned by self. The dirtier the better.

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's
work." --- Adolf Hitler, speech, Reichstag, 1938

3) "Cultivation of ignorance.
"Fascism, like all forms of government, rests finally
upon the sincere consent of a large part of the
population. To maintain this consent, the Fascist
leadership must cut off the people from any information
which cause them to doubt the complete rightness of...."
"...and all other means of communication are carefully
censored so the public will only get those facts which
the leaders want known." ...(World Book, 1958, p. 2494)

For example the Right has caused "the weak and uncertain
people" to avoid Moore's movie like evil blasphemy.
And they do avoid it. Self censorship is the most
effective of all.
Post by oops
Post by Fresno Farms
Post by Foxtrot
You just provided a good example of why lib appeasers
can't be trusted with national defense.
" It was a place impossible to enter except on official business,
and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire
entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the
streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced
guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons.
"Winston turned round abruptly. He had set his features into the
expression of quiet optimism which it was advisable to wear when
facing the telescreen. He crossed the room into the tiny kitchen."
----Excerpt: 1984
* "The people can always be brought to the bidding of
* the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
* them they are being attacked, and denounce the
* peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
* country to danger. It works the same in any country."
* - Herman Goering (second in command to Adolf Hitler)
* at the Nuremberg Trials
* "the genius of a great political leader to make
* adversaries far removed from one another seem
* to belong to a single category to the weak and
* uncertain people,...a multiplicity of different
* adversaries must always be combined so that
* in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle
* is directed against *only one enemy*."
* -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
* Of course he doesn't want arms inspectors in Iraq.
* Just like he didn't want bin Laden when the Taliban
* offered to turn him over. Bush needs his 'boogie men',
* without then he's nothing more then the ignorant
* little shit stain so many of us see.
* -- Harrison X. Numbugger 09 Sep 2002
Re: Will Duhbya MILK 9-11 -- to push his IRAQ ATTAQ ??
"All that was required of them was a .---. .------------
primitive patriotism which could be / \ __ / ------
appealed to whenever it was necessary / / \( )/ -----
to make them accept longer working ////// ' \/ ` ---
hours or less wealth. And even //// / // : : ---
when they became discontented, // / / /` '--
as they sometimes did, their // //..\\
discontent led nowhere, =====/===========UU====UU=============
because, being with only Company ideas, '//||\\`
they could only focus it on Company ''``
scapegoats. The rebellious ones only fought Company enemies.
The source of these evils invariably escaped their notice."
[Apologies to George Orwell]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The most potent weapon of the oppressor is
the mind of the oppressed. --Steven Biko
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[Numeric tables & ASCII art need a fixed font.]
Roses have thorns.
And poison ivy has none.
Post by oops
Learning is inherent in all life, even plants eventually learn.
Why does a rose have thorns ? Because it learned to defend itself.
Why do snakes carry poison ? Because they learned they needed more to
overcome their prey. Why do humans have more brains then most (all)
animals ? Because learning enhances survival.
The fossil record is strewn with overdeveloped defense or
attack organ experiments. Sabre tooth tigers, Irish elk,
T rex. H sapiens are only 100, 000 years old. Average
species is 2 million years old. Some sharks are little changed
after 400 million years.
Post by oops
Our worst enemies today
Americans have no viable enemies.
They buzz, We swat, they die.
Bush is a fear monger. That's how he rules the frightened
little people.
Post by oops
are other humans, they're not a separate species, they do
not have evolutionary advantages over us that could take millions
of years to equalize and overcome. The bad are destructive, it is
the very definition of being bad. The more the bad people destroy,
the more we learn about how they do it, the more motivation we will
develop to stop them before they can do it again. Their destruction
is our pain. The more we will get used to their tactics, the more we
will be able to spot them and prevent them. In the end, the bad can
be used for good, because they exploit flaws in our psyche, that we
can then repair. Without pain, we wouldn't even know anything was
wrong, and actually nothing would be wrong.
Your premise seems to be - we have viable enemies.

Terrorism is only a symptom.

Most of our enemies are our enemies because we act like
assholes. (This idea really pisses off the self-righteous
who see America like Mother Teresa.) The big TABOO is
that we consider how to prevent terrorism by preventing
the causes of the underlying hatred.
Post by oops
The people do (I think) not pay enough attention to history and the
way the world opperates. I think this is a serious mistake because
it leads to fascism that exploits this mistake. Fascism is the pain
that fixes the problem because people will become more attentive
because they will whish to avoid the pain fascism causes.
You forget how much Germans loved Hitler. You are
immagining a scenario.
Post by oops
It takes time for humanity to develop resistance against new diseases.
Fascism/feudalism/exploitation, these could be called social diseases.
It takes time to develop proper immunity, and every instance of
abuse/exploitation/fascism is more ammunition against it.
History suggests feudalism/exploitation is the natural way.
It's varients lasted 20,000+ years? Or at least since
agriculture was invented.
Post by oops
That which is destructive will eventually self-destruct, or be destroyed.
Since the bad guys don't have evolutionary advantages, they can be
defeated using the much more quickly evolving complex of culture.
The more evil, the more hope it will be defeated soon.
You are dreaming. There is no such force.
The UN acts against genocide when it feels threatened.
Or perhaps when it gets utterly outragous, and some famous person
makes it his cause.
Other than that, there is nothing.

Law and order reigns the world for it's obvious advantages.
As does military machine making skills.
Do not confuse the mechanisms of cultural dominance
with good and evil.

(Thus, facsism has an advantage.)
Post by oops
We (the good guys, who want peace and power to all) can only win.
Good guys by definition, do not shoot first.
That's why Bush is toast.
Post by oops
It
is a law of nature. Can take a couple of millenia though, or a few
hundred thousand years, perhaps a couple of million at most I guess.
It is a long wait, but it will be worth it.
Roses have thorns. Humans will have thorns too if they need them.
Funny to see that even Hitler and Goering tell us their tactics, as
if they whish us to build up immunity against them. Apparently, even
the bad guys feel they have an interest in humanity.
Not quite. If I have the tools and a winning strategy, I am in
no danger of bragging about it. Most a winning strategies
are not dependent on secrecy.

Perhaps you missed what every "Lefty" did not in those
Hitler and Goering quotes: their effective use today against
Americans. IE Iraq. It's dirt-obvious.
Post by oops
Oh well, I thought I'd sound an uplifting sound between all the doomsday
scenario's from 1984. :-) Can't live without hope, can we.
Actually, I think, at least I hope, you have a good point.
Much of the world is not ruled by a Stalin or Pol Pot.
My point is that thorns can also kill the rose, and the
snake's bite; himself. All of my Hitler and Goering
quotes are intended as dire warnings.

Take away the goose stepping, the concentration camps,
Hitler, and the swastikas...now define fascism.
99% of Americans can not.


"... nothing is more unjust than equality, for man is
in nature quite unequal. Man is not equal in fulfilling
his duty, therefore he cannot be equal in his rights."

-- Nazi Poster Circa 1930

Fascism watch
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Fascism.html

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational twist their world view to fit the facts.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 16:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Don't you figure yourself just a bit on the dense side? Without the
option of war against him, what would a leader like Saddam do?
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Adam Albright
2004-07-21 19:50:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:30:35 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Don't you figure yourself just a bit on the dense side? Without the
option of war against him, what would a leader like Saddam do?
Speaking of dense, take a look in a mirror at your cement block head.

Repeat until it sinks in. There was no reason to go to war with Iraq.
That conclusion reached long ago by nearly every world leader,
including major countries like China, Russia, Germany and France.
Ditto for nearly the entire UN and now confirmed as factual by a
bipartian U. S. Senate committee on Intelligence.

The war was a giant mistake. Now 900 American servicemen are dead
because of it... and assholes like you Billy still support the Texas
moron that started it. Just sit back and watch the American voters to
do asshole presidents that start unnecessary wars on 11/2.
Jim
2004-07-22 17:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Or we could abolish all war.
Yeah, that oughta do it. We'll make war illegal. And along those
lines, we'll abolish child molestation by making it illegal too! Oh,
wait. Nevermind.

Jim
Finger a Bush!
2004-07-21 05:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
We have go through Bush to get to a real President.
Scott Erb
2004-07-21 09:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader would
surely bring more war than peace.

One can have peace without war.
Martin McPhillips
2004-07-21 13:06:04 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )"
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader would
surely bring more war than peace.
One can have peace without war.
Is that your retrospective advice to Winston Churchill
and Franklin Roosevelt, Scott?

The facts of appeasement are well documented. If
you want war, do absolutely everything you can
to pursue peace, including ignore 20 years of terrorist
attacks on your interests. Then you'll get war delivered
right to your doorstep, a la 9/11.
oops
2004-07-23 16:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
One can have peace without war.
Is that your retrospective advice to Winston Churchill
and Franklin Roosevelt, Scott?
The facts of appeasement are well documented. If
you want war, do absolutely everything you can
to pursue peace, including ignore 20 years of terrorist
attacks on your interests. Then you'll get war delivered
right to your doorstep, a la 9/11.
The US has a long history of meddling with other people's internal
affairs, and not out of human rights concerns. These people faced
years of American aggression, war from America. Don't you think
it is their natural right to defend themselves a la 9/11 (if that's
all they got) ? Not to appease America ?

Germany was crushed in the treaty following WW1, if there hadn't been
such crushing perhaps (probably) the economy in Germany would have
been better (less unemployment), and perhaps not enough people would
have supported the nazi's, and we would not have had WW2 in Europe. If
the Germans were crushed using treaty, isn't it their natural right to
"end appeasement" and start whatever to liberate themselves ?

Appeasement works both ways, and so does ending appeasement, I think
you might have overlooked that. The fact that American troops were
aiding the Saudi dictatorship is an act of war on these people,
who in general do not support this dictatorship, should they appease
America and hope they will go away out of their own goodness of heart ?

History is a long road by now, it is impossible to tell by now who has
fired the first shot. All you can do is try to limit the causes for war
as much as possible. America has not done so, quite the opposite. It is
unlikely America would be appeased forever. According to your logic,
we shouldn't accept anything from America, no more appeasement,
perhaps we should go to war with America tomorrow, according to your
logic we should. Why wait until we ourselves are attacked. No more
appeasement for America.

Hasn't it been argued in America that Germany and France are now
"US strategic enemies" ? Isn't America waging pre-emptive offensive
war on other people's resources now ? What more threatening do we
need. Launch now ! Protect democracy and freedom, liberate the US !
--
Martin McPhillips
2004-07-23 16:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
One can have peace without war.
Is that your retrospective advice to Winston Churchill
and Franklin Roosevelt, Scott?
The facts of appeasement are well documented. If
you want war, do absolutely everything you can
to pursue peace, including ignore 20 years of terrorist
attacks on your interests. Then you'll get war delivered
right to your doorstep, a la 9/11.
The US has a long history of meddling with other people's internal
affairs, and not out of human rights concerns. These people faced
years of American aggression, war from America. Don't you think
it is their natural right to defend themselves a la 9/11 (if that's
all they got) ? Not to appease America ?
Actually, none of that is true. American "aggression" in the
Islamic world involved freeing Kuwait from Iraq's
intervention, providing Saudi Arabia with a military
guarantee against Iraq, preventing Husseins regime
from continued attacks on the Shiite south and Kurd
north, helping Afghanis defeat Russian occupation,
maintaining a fairly close relationship with Pakistan (in
spite of India's conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir),
and finally removal of the Taliban regime from Afghanistan
and the Hussein regime from Iraq. Both of those countries
are sovereign and on their way toward elections in the
near future.

So, your attempt to justify 9/11 is stupidity itself.
oops
2004-07-23 20:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
One can have peace without war.
Is that your retrospective advice to Winston Churchill
and Franklin Roosevelt, Scott?
The facts of appeasement are well documented. If
you want war, do absolutely everything you can
to pursue peace, including ignore 20 years of terrorist
attacks on your interests. Then you'll get war delivered
right to your doorstep, a la 9/11.
The US has a long history of meddling with other people's internal
affairs, and not out of human rights concerns. These people faced
years of American aggression, war from America. Don't you think
it is their natural right to defend themselves a la 9/11 (if that's
all they got) ? Not to appease America ?
Actually, none of that is true. American "aggression" in the
Islamic world involved freeing Kuwait from Iraq's
intervention,
Putting Saddam in power ...
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
And that isn't the only source for that. I even heard the same from
a guy I know who is from Lebanon and who worked in Iraq shortly before
Saddam gained power.
Post by Martin McPhillips
providing Saudi Arabia with a military
guarantee against Iraq,
Aiding the Saudi dictatorship and securing US oil interests ...
Post by Martin McPhillips
preventing Husseins regime
from continued attacks on the Shiite south and Kurd
north,
Supplying Saddam with gas to commit mass murder, shacking hands
with Saddam and providing him diplomatic cover for his murders ...
Post by Martin McPhillips
helping Afghanis defeat Russian occupation,
Creating the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden ...
Post by Martin McPhillips
maintaining a fairly close relationship with Pakistan (in
spite of India's conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir),
Yet more places outside the US, were you elected there ? ...
Post by Martin McPhillips
and finally removal of the Taliban regime from Afghanistan
Another instance of removing the power you put in place ...
and giving the country up to war lords and the drugs maffia ...
Post by Martin McPhillips
and the Hussein regime from Iraq.
Installing another strong-men, robbing the country of its order,
infrastructure, and oil ... killing 500,000 innocent children
trying to give Saddam a reprimand, which a US official called
"worth it" ...
Post by Martin McPhillips
Both of those countries
are sovereign and on their way toward elections in the
near future.
You should have kept your hands off Iraq. This culture doesn't seem
to desire your style of democracy. What would you think if the Middle
East were to liberate the US from "the corrupt politicians who continue
to waste money in wastive elections and propaganda tours for their own
sake, and aren't able to keep security high" ? And then install their
own strong-men and pretend it is the will of the US population ?
Post by Martin McPhillips
So, your attempt to justify 9/11 is stupidity itself.
The US put (and is putting) its fingers where they don't belong.
Don't be surprised when someone cuts them off.

Dictatorship, even brutal, isn't necessarily wrong. It depends on
what it replaces. If it replaces even more brutal rule by war lords
and street gangs, it is excellent. And the Americans (and others) are
also forgetting the bigger picture. If a region is in total chaos,
then even if a dictatorship is brutal, it would install order. Over
many generations this order will seep into the population, and
eventually they'll be able to talk about differences without killing
each other. They won't kill each other because 1) those that did got
killed themselves (possibly after being tortured, which is absolutely
horrible) 2) they have learned absolute obedience to the dictator,
and are now aused to give respect.

How do you think we got "civilized," from being barbarian tribes to
being open democracies ? God waved his magic wand ? No, we have a very
long dictatorial history behind us. It taught us order, it taught us
peace, at gun point. But at least it was OUR gun point, that were our
sons and daughters, the king was one of us. That was our world, the
world we needed. We do not need that anymore, but others still might.

The American population is largely from Europe, they share our
dictatorial history and therefore our sense of order. I don't say
that to detriment to people from Africa, I think such a culture
simply affects all that are in it, white and black alike, without
differentiation. The blacks were used as slaves, so they did have
their own period of strict order too.

And to undercut other racist arguments: no we are not more advanced
then people in the Middle East. Our kings were possibly more brutal
on average (with much more war) then the Middle Eastern despots. Our
own brutality ensured that we had a quick learning cycle under
strict order.

There is more to the world then "the holy US & its allies - versus -
the axis of evil." Stuff the American don't seem to understand or
respect themselves. Respect is apparently what America lacks, and
therefore the tendency of Bush to become a dictator is perfect.

The whole cycle is natural, from total chaos to dictatorship (the
strongest gang gains ultimate power), to more open forms of government
when people start rebelling and succesfully create forms better suited
to their newfound skills.
--
IMHO
Martin McPhillips
2004-07-23 20:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
One can have peace without war.
Is that your retrospective advice to Winston Churchill
and Franklin Roosevelt, Scott?
The facts of appeasement are well documented. If
you want war, do absolutely everything you can
to pursue peace, including ignore 20 years of terrorist
attacks on your interests. Then you'll get war delivered
right to your doorstep, a la 9/11.
The US has a long history of meddling with other people's
internal
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
affairs, and not out of human rights concerns. These people faced
years of American aggression, war from America. Don't you think
it is their natural right to defend themselves a la 9/11 (if that's
all they got) ? Not to appease America ?
Actually, none of that is true. American "aggression" in the
Islamic world involved freeing Kuwait from Iraq's
intervention,
Putting Saddam in power ...
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
And that isn't the only source for that. I even heard the same from
a guy I know who is from Lebanon and who worked in Iraq shortly before
Saddam gained power.
The CIA did not put Saddam into power. He put himself
into power.
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
providing Saudi Arabia with a military
guarantee against Iraq,
Aiding the Saudi dictatorship and securing US oil interests ...
You mean drilling for oil and paying the Saudis
for it? That's called doing business, you moron.

What are the Saudis supposed to do with oil, spill
it into the sand?
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
preventing Husseins regime
from continued attacks on the Shiite south and Kurd
north,
Supplying Saddam with gas to commit mass murder,
Never happened.
Post by oops
sha[]king hands
with Saddam
Oh, no, did someone shake hands with Saddam?

What are we going to do with all those smiling
photographs of FDR sitting around with Stalin?
Post by oops
and providing him diplomatic cover for his murders ...
Nonsense.
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
helping Afghanis defeat Russian occupation,
Creating the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden ...
Never happened.
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
maintaining a fairly close relationship with Pakistan (in
spite of India's conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir),
Yet more places outside the US, were you elected there ? ...
So, you've never heard of foreign relations, either.
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
and finally removal of the Taliban regime from Afghanistan
Another instance of removing the power you put in place ...
Didn't put the Taliban in power.
Post by oops
and giving the country up to war lords and the drugs maffia ...
Didn't give up Afghanistan to war lords or drug maffia.
But did help create a national government that could
help create a modern society if it survives.
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
and the Hussein regime from Iraq.
Installing another strong-men, robbing the country of its order,
infrastructure, and oil ... killing 500,000 innocent children
trying to give Saddam a reprimand, which a US official called
"worth it" ...
You're drunk on stupidity.

Or someone drove a railroad spike through
your brain.
oops
2004-07-25 08:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by Scott Erb
One can have peace without war.
Is that your retrospective advice to Winston Churchill
and Franklin Roosevelt, Scott?
The facts of appeasement are well documented. If
you want war, do absolutely everything you can
to pursue peace, including ignore 20 years of terrorist
attacks on your interests. Then you'll get war delivered
right to your doorstep, a la 9/11.
The US has a long history of meddling with other people's internal
affairs, and not out of human rights concerns. These people faced
years of American aggression, war from America. Don't you think
it is their natural right to defend themselves a la 9/11 (if that's
all they got) ? Not to appease America ?
Actually, none of that is true. American "aggression" in the
Islamic world involved freeing Kuwait from Iraq's
intervention,
Putting Saddam in power ...
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
And that isn't the only source for that. I even heard the same from
a guy I know who is from Lebanon and who worked in Iraq shortly before
Saddam gained power.
The CIA did not put Saddam into power. He put himself
into power.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
providing Saudi Arabia with a military
guarantee against Iraq,
Aiding the Saudi dictatorship and securing US oil interests ...
You mean drilling for oil and paying the Saudis
for it? That's called doing business, you moron.
What are the Saudis supposed to do with oil, spill
it into the sand?
The Americans had troops in Saudi Arabia, is that just part of
your normal business as well ?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
preventing Husseins regime
from continued attacks on the Shiite south and Kurd
north,
Supplying Saddam with gas to commit mass murder,
Never happened.
The west has armed Saddam.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
sha[]king hands
with Saddam
Oh, no, did someone shake hands with Saddam?
When he was gassing people.
Post by Martin McPhillips
What are we going to do with all those smiling
photographs of FDR sitting around with Stalin?
These people are ultimately in the same league. They want power,
in their respective regions, and they can use eachother as fake
opponents to secure this power. Now China and the US are going
to increase tensions about Taiwan. To the surface, it appears
both governments are enemies, but in reality they are close
friends. They are both using Taiwan in the same way, and they
need eachother for that game to work. This isn't a game of one
people against another people, it is a game of the (certain)
leaders against all people.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
and finally removal of the Taliban regime from Afghanistan
Another instance of removing the power you put in place ...
Didn't put the Taliban in power.
You funded them and trained them against Russia, you made them what
they became. You are therefore responsible for the Taliban, for
better and for worse.
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
and giving the country up to war lords and the drugs maffia ...
Didn't give up Afghanistan to war lords or drug maffia.
But did help create a national government that could
help create a modern society if it survives.
What is "modern", you mean "like the US" ?
Post by Martin McPhillips
Post by oops
Post by Martin McPhillips
and the Hussein regime from Iraq.
Installing another strong-men, robbing the country of its order,
infrastructure, and oil ... killing 500,000 innocent children
trying to give Saddam a reprimand, which a US official called
"worth it" ...
You're drunk on stupidity.
Or someone drove a railroad spike through
your brain.
Your post was 16% insults.
--
zepp
2004-07-21 14:27:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:59:10 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader would
surely bring more war than peace.
One can have peace without war.
It was only a matter of time before Bonde started assuring us that war
is peace.
-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"

-- CNN, 4/30/2001.


Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 16:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by zepp
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:59:10 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader would
surely bring more war than peace.
One can have peace without war.
It was only a matter of time before Bonde started assuring us that war
is peace.
I didn't say that. I said that we have to go through the war to get to
the peace.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Scott Erb
2004-07-21 19:11:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader would
surely bring more war than peace.
One can have peace without war.
It was only a matter of time before Bonde started assuring us that war
is peace.
I didn't say that. I said that we have to go through the war to get to
the peace.
Well, at this point we do since war has already happened, but I think the
war has made the chances for peace in the near to middle range future less
likely than before.
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 20:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader would
surely bring more war than peace.
One can have peace without war.
It was only a matter of time before Bonde started assuring us that war
is peace.
I didn't say that. I said that we have to go through the war to get to
the peace.
Well, at this point we do since war has already happened, but I think the
war has made the chances for peace in the near to middle range future less
likely than before.
The war? You probably mean Iraq, which is odd since it's but a small
part of the war that must be gone through before peace can really become
secure.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Scott Erb
2004-07-21 23:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
"Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )"
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader would
surely bring more war than peace.
One can have peace without war.
It was only a matter of time before Bonde started assuring us that war
is peace.
I didn't say that. I said that we have to go through the war to get to
the peace.
Well, at this point we do since war has already happened, but I think the
war has made the chances for peace in the near to middle range future less
likely than before.
The war? You probably mean Iraq, which is odd since it's but a small
part of the war that must be gone through before peace can really become
secure.
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I guarantee,
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short, in
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.

Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go that
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out there.
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-22 03:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
"Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )"
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader
would
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
Post by Scott Erb
surely bring more war than peace.
One can have peace without war.
It was only a matter of time before Bonde started assuring us that
war
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
is peace.
I didn't say that. I said that we have to go through the war to get to
the peace.
Well, at this point we do since war has already happened, but I think
the
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
war has made the chances for peace in the near to middle range future
less
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
likely than before.
The war? You probably mean Iraq, which is odd since it's but a small
part of the war that must be gone through before peace can really become
secure.
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I guarantee,
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short, in
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go that
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out there.
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Adam Albright
2004-07-22 05:14:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:59:12 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
"Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )"
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader
would
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
Post by Scott Erb
surely bring more war than peace.
One can have peace without war.
It was only a matter of time before Bonde started assuring us that
war
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
is peace.
I didn't say that. I said that we have to go through the war to get to
the peace.
Well, at this point we do since war has already happened, but I think
the
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
war has made the chances for peace in the near to middle range future
less
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
likely than before.
The war? You probably mean Iraq, which is odd since it's but a small
part of the war that must be gone through before peace can really become
secure.
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I guarantee,
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short, in
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
You do nothing but talk out of your stupid ass every day. You clueless
idiot. When we kill one terrorist, ten more pop up to take their
place. Your solution is to invade on Middle Eastern country after the
other. If we do, we'll blow a few trillion dollars, end up with tens
of thousands of dead Americans and have more terroists then ever and
turn the entire world into one giant hellhole with hostages being
taken and beheaded on a grand scale in a neighboors near you.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go that
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out there.
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time.
You're full of shit. Its assholes like Bush and chickenhawk warmongers
like you that explains why the world is in the sad shape its in. Clue
the dumb fuck.

You can't "win" a nuclear war and you can't "win" a war on terror
either.
Dana
2004-07-22 05:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time.
You're full of shit. Its assholes like Bush and chickenhawk warmongers
like you that explains why the world is in the sad shape its in. Clue
the dumb fuck.
As adam shows how out of touch with reality he really is.
Post by Adam Albright
You can't "win" a nuclear war and you can't "win" a war on terror
either.
Jorge W. Arbusto
2004-07-22 06:47:15 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Blondie ( ``There's a maggot in my skull)"
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Yeah, so why don't we just kill 'em all, Archie? That oughta show 'em.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go that
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out there.
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
So, uh, we're havin' a World War, but we forgot to tell the rest of the
world's nations?

Frankly, you're fulla shit, as usual, Blondie.
Scott Erb
2004-07-22 15:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I guarantee,
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short, in
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go that
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out there.
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
unknown
2004-07-22 16:12:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.


mr_antone
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-22 16:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is taking
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in Iraq.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
unknown
2004-07-22 17:05:57 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is taking
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in Iraq.
Post any evidence I ever made such a claim, liar bondo.

So you're hearing in Iraq it's taking too long?
You don't make any sense.

My statement stands.



mr_antone
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-22 17:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is taking
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in Iraq.
Post any evidence I ever made such a claim, liar bondo.
Attend those ESL classes. This is what *I* said: "...if we have people
like you complaining...."
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
unknown
2004-07-22 18:36:36 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:25:49 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is taking
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in Iraq.
Post any evidence I ever made such a claim, liar bondo.
Attend those ESL classes. This is what *I* said: "...if we have people
like you complaining...."
So you don't know really know who is complaining . Just blowing smoke.

Typical bondo.



mr_antone
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-22 19:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:25:49 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is taking
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in Iraq.
Post any evidence I ever made such a claim, liar bondo.
Attend those ESL classes. This is what *I* said: "...if we have people
like you complaining...."
So you don't know really know who is complaining . Just blowing smoke.
Are you claiming that it is difficult to find people like you around
here complaining?
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
unknown
2004-07-22 20:25:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:18:04 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:25:49 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is taking
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in Iraq.
Post any evidence I ever made such a claim, liar bondo.
Attend those ESL classes. This is what *I* said: "...if we have people
like you complaining...."
So you don't know really know who is complaining . Just blowing smoke.
Are you claiming that it is difficult to find people like you around
here complaining?
Around where, bondo ?

mr_antone
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-22 23:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:18:04 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:25:49 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is taking
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in Iraq.
Post any evidence I ever made such a claim, liar bondo.
Attend those ESL classes. This is what *I* said: "...if we have people
like you complaining...."
So you don't know really know who is complaining . Just blowing smoke.
Are you claiming that it is difficult to find people like you around
here complaining?
Around where, bondo ?
In these newsgroups, of course.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
unknown
2004-07-23 12:08:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:57:31 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:18:04 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:25:49 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is taking
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in Iraq.
Post any evidence I ever made such a claim, liar bondo.
Attend those ESL classes. This is what *I* said: "...if we have people
like you complaining...."
So you don't know really know who is complaining . Just blowing smoke.
Are you claiming that it is difficult to find people like you around
here complaining?
Around where, bondo ?
In these newsgroups, of course.
"as we are hearing in Iraq.", of course.


mr_antone
Scott Erb
2004-07-23 13:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:57:31 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:18:04 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:25:49 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more. It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy, but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and manpower.
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is taking
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in Iraq.
Post any evidence I ever made such a claim, liar bondo.
Attend those ESL classes. This is what *I* said: "...if we have people
like you complaining...."
So you don't know really know who is complaining . Just blowing smoke.
Are you claiming that it is difficult to find people like you around
here complaining?
Around where, bondo ?
In these newsgroups, of course.
"as we are hearing in Iraq.", of course.
Back to the subject: the reason we cannot win a "war on terror" (by the
way, it appears the 9-11 commission agrees that such wording was
inappropriate) is that terrorism is not something that can be defeated
through military means alone. In fact, using the military beyond specific
appropriate strikes aimed directly at terrorist locations, is inherently
ineffective, as it only stokes emotions and helps the terrorists recruit and
motivate.

So far, the war in Iraq has been a gift to al qaeda and terrorist
organizations, helping them compensate for their loses as a result of
international cooperation in counter terrorism efforts.

Now, it's absurd to think that people complaining on the usenet will alter
the fundamentals of any kind of war. If enough people disagree in a
democracy, then the policy should be changed -- that's how democracies work.
And democracies only work if you have what Walter Lippmann called "the
essential opposition" -- an opposing view that questions what the government
is doing. Democracy is a path to truth, according to Lippmann, only
effective if there is true debate and opposition.

Now, maybe we're right, and maybe (though I doubt this very much) Bill's
right about this conflict. Silencing either side only makes it less likely
that we as a country will consider the facts and make a wise choice. After
all, we were attacked by terrorists, but we were not attacked by Iraq. We
started the war with Iraq, and it is questionable if it makes sense to
launch a war of aggression -- countries that do so usually end up failing,
and if this becomes some kind of "world war IV," it'll probably mean the end
to American dominance on the world stage. I'm convinced an effort to do
that will create supreme risk and danger to the country, and make us less
rather than more secure.
unknown
2004-07-23 15:39:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:53:57 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by unknown
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:57:31 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?'' ''What
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:18:04 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:25:49 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?''
''What
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:47:16 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ''Lobotomy?''
''What
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:57:11 GMT, "Scott Erb"
"Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )"
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs.
Islam, I
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist
attacks. In short,
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier
for America to
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult
to get at
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and
internationally
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well
defined army with
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
a territorial base. Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in
modern
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to
"kill the
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit
more. It's a
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this
new kind of
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are
winning because
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their
claims believable
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made
alliances in
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've
played into their
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
hands the last couple years.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration
wants to go
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any
external enemy out
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has
been a world war
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously,
the sooner we
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that
can be dealt
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to
the West and
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American
policy, but it's not
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war
may be
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the
emotions...but it's
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut
that kind of
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
'war effort.'
The war on terrorism is a war of attrition. Both in cost and
manpower.
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
The USA can not win such a war.
We can't win if we have people like you complaining that it is
taking
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
too long after little more than a year, as we are hearing in
Iraq.
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post any evidence I ever made such a claim, liar bondo.
Attend those ESL classes. This is what *I* said: "...if we have
people
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
like you complaining...."
So you don't know really know who is complaining . Just blowing
smoke.
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by unknown
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Are you claiming that it is difficult to find people like you around
here complaining?
Around where, bondo ?
In these newsgroups, of course.
"as we are hearing in Iraq.", of course.
Back to the subject: the reason we cannot win a "war on terror" (by the
way, it appears the 9-11 commission agrees that such wording was
inappropriate) is that terrorism is not something that can be defeated
through military means alone. In fact, using the military beyond specific
appropriate strikes aimed directly at terrorist locations, is inherently
ineffective, as it only stokes emotions and helps the terrorists recruit and
motivate.
So far, the war in Iraq has been a gift to al qaeda and terrorist
organizations, helping them compensate for their loses as a result of
international cooperation in counter terrorism efforts.
Agree.
Post by unknown
Now, it's absurd to think that people complaining on the usenet will alter
the fundamentals of any kind of war. If enough people disagree in a
democracy, then the policy should be changed -- that's how democracies work.
And democracies only work if you have what Walter Lippmann called "the
essential opposition" -- an opposing view that questions what the government
is doing. Democracy is a path to truth, according to Lippmann, only
effective if there is true debate and opposition.
Reminds me of the claim the cold war was prolonged because opposed the
huge arms buildup.
Post by unknown
Now, maybe we're right, and maybe (though I doubt this very much) Bill's
right about this conflict. Silencing either side only makes it less likely
that we as a country will consider the facts and make a wise choice. After
all, we were attacked by terrorists, but we were not attacked by Iraq. We
started the war with Iraq, and it is questionable if it makes sense to
launch a war of aggression -- countries that do so usually end up failing,
and if this becomes some kind of "world war IV," it'll probably mean the end
to American dominance on the world stage. I'm convinced an effort to do
that will create supreme risk and danger to the country, and make us less
rather than more secure.
Yes, framing our efforts to fight terrorism as some type of 'world
war' will be costly and probably fail.

I think we're at a similar point when the world experienced those
airline hijackings in the late 60's. There was confusion, some wanted
to attack a few countries for supporting or aiding the hijackers and
there seemed to be no solution in site. A real problem.
It was through diplomatic efforts, understanding the facts, working
with our allies and keeping cool heads that solved the problem.
I hope we do the same here.

mr_antone
Scott Erb
2004-07-23 16:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:53:57 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Back to the subject: the reason we cannot win a "war on terror" (by the
way, it appears the 9-11 commission agrees that such wording was
inappropriate) is that terrorism is not something that can be defeated
through military means alone. In fact, using the military beyond specific
appropriate strikes aimed directly at terrorist locations, is inherently
ineffective, as it only stokes emotions and helps the terrorists recruit and
motivate.
So far, the war in Iraq has been a gift to al qaeda and terrorist
organizations, helping them compensate for their loses as a result of
international cooperation in counter terrorism efforts.
Agree.
Post by Scott Erb
Now, it's absurd to think that people complaining on the usenet will alter
the fundamentals of any kind of war. If enough people disagree in a
democracy, then the policy should be changed -- that's how democracies work.
And democracies only work if you have what Walter Lippmann called "the
essential opposition" -- an opposing view that questions what the government
is doing. Democracy is a path to truth, according to Lippmann, only
effective if there is true debate and opposition.
Reminds me of the claim the cold war was prolonged because opposed the
huge arms buildup.
There still is a strong argument that if the US had gone a different route
(more the Kennan approach than the Nitze approach) in the early fifties
after Stalin's death, a lot of the excesses of the Cold War could have been
avoided, and Russia could have reformed in a manner that would have switched
earlier and more successfully to market economics, and would not have
entailed imperial control over Eastern Europe. We'll never know, of course,
but perhaps the Cold War was prolonged precisely because of the arms
buildups.
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
Now, maybe we're right, and maybe (though I doubt this very much) Bill's
right about this conflict. Silencing either side only makes it less likely
that we as a country will consider the facts and make a wise choice.
After
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
all, we were attacked by terrorists, but we were not attacked by Iraq.
We
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
started the war with Iraq, and it is questionable if it makes sense to
launch a war of aggression -- countries that do so usually end up failing,
and if this becomes some kind of "world war IV," it'll probably mean the end
to American dominance on the world stage. I'm convinced an effort to do
that will create supreme risk and danger to the country, and make us less
rather than more secure.
Yes, framing our efforts to fight terrorism as some type of 'world
war' will be costly and probably fail.
I think we're at a similar point when the world experienced those
airline hijackings in the late 60's. There was confusion, some wanted
to attack a few countries for supporting or aiding the hijackers and
there seemed to be no solution in site. A real problem.
It was through diplomatic efforts, understanding the facts, working
with our allies and keeping cool heads that solved the problem.
I hope we do the same here.
The world is different, and I don't think the administration gets it. Due
to globalization, traditional military power is much less important than in
the past, and terrorist strategies can confound even massive military
preparedness. Terrorism is the ultimate strategy for "military NGOs." They
can hurt states, use high tech to cross borders, avoid laws, and essentially
operate in a manner that cannot be defeated by war.

The only way to defeat terrorism (or at least limit the success of that
strategy) is through a multilateral effort with two goals: a) coordinate
international activity to locate and defeat terrorist networks; and b)
create incentives to prevent people from choosing to support terrorism.
Bush's policy, which seems a grandiose "democratize the Mideast, secure
Israel, and then everything will get better" scheme, actually has hurt
coordination to combat terrorism, and for "b" created the opposite, an
incentive for people to support terrorism as anti-Americanism rises
dramatically in especially the Mideast.

If we don't turn this policy around, we'll find our situation and security
much worse in the near future.
Martin McPhillips
2004-07-23 16:27:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
There still is a strong argument that if the US had gone a different route
(more the Kennan approach than the Nitze approach) in the early fifties
after Stalin's death, a lot of the excesses of the Cold War could have been
avoided, and Russia could have reformed in a manner that would have switched
earlier and more successfully to market economics, and would not have
entailed imperial control over Eastern Europe. We'll never know, of course,
but perhaps the Cold War was prolonged precisely because of the arms
buildups.
Rot.
unknown
2004-07-23 19:40:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:26:08 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by unknown
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:53:57 GMT, "Scott Erb"
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Scott Erb
Back to the subject: the reason we cannot win a "war on terror" (by
the
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
way, it appears the 9-11 commission agrees that such wording was
inappropriate) is that terrorism is not something that can be defeated
through military means alone. In fact, using the military beyond
specific
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
appropriate strikes aimed directly at terrorist locations, is inherently
ineffective, as it only stokes emotions and helps the terrorists recruit
and
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
motivate.
So far, the war in Iraq has been a gift to al qaeda and terrorist
organizations, helping them compensate for their loses as a result of
international cooperation in counter terrorism efforts.
Agree.
Post by Scott Erb
Now, it's absurd to think that people complaining on the usenet will
alter
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
the fundamentals of any kind of war. If enough people disagree in a
democracy, then the policy should be changed -- that's how democracies
work.
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
And democracies only work if you have what Walter Lippmann called "the
essential opposition" -- an opposing view that questions what the
government
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
is doing. Democracy is a path to truth, according to Lippmann, only
effective if there is true debate and opposition.
Reminds me of the claim the cold war was prolonged because opposed the
huge arms buildup.
There still is a strong argument that if the US had gone a different route
(more the Kennan approach than the Nitze approach) in the early fifties
after Stalin's death, a lot of the excesses of the Cold War could have been
avoided, and Russia could have reformed in a manner that would have switched
earlier and more successfully to market economics, and would not have
entailed imperial control over Eastern Europe. We'll never know, of course,
but perhaps the Cold War was prolonged precisely because of the arms
buildups.
Certainly the defense corporations wanted the cold war to continue.
From Kennedy on each President pushed the red menace button with
little or no proof Russia was winning the arms race.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
Now, maybe we're right, and maybe (though I doubt this very much) Bill's
right about this conflict. Silencing either side only makes it less
likely
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
that we as a country will consider the facts and make a wise choice.
After
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
all, we were attacked by terrorists, but we were not attacked by Iraq.
We
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
started the war with Iraq, and it is questionable if it makes sense to
launch a war of aggression -- countries that do so usually end up
failing,
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
and if this becomes some kind of "world war IV," it'll probably mean the
end
Post by unknown
Post by Scott Erb
to American dominance on the world stage. I'm convinced an effort to do
that will create supreme risk and danger to the country, and make us less
rather than more secure.
Yes, framing our efforts to fight terrorism as some type of 'world
war' will be costly and probably fail.
I think we're at a similar point when the world experienced those
airline hijackings in the late 60's. There was confusion, some wanted
to attack a few countries for supporting or aiding the hijackers and
there seemed to be no solution in site. A real problem.
It was through diplomatic efforts, understanding the facts, working
with our allies and keeping cool heads that solved the problem.
I hope we do the same here.
The world is different, and I don't think the administration gets it. Due
to globalization, traditional military power is much less important than in
the past, and terrorist strategies can confound even massive military
preparedness. Terrorism is the ultimate strategy for "military NGOs." They
can hurt states, use high tech to cross borders, avoid laws, and essentially
operate in a manner that cannot be defeated by war.
The only way to defeat terrorism (or at least limit the success of that
strategy) is through a multilateral effort with two goals: a) coordinate
international activity to locate and defeat terrorist networks; and b)
create incentives to prevent people from choosing to support terrorism.
Bush's policy, which seems a grandiose "democratize the Mideast, secure
Israel, and then everything will get better" scheme, actually has hurt
coordination to combat terrorism, and for "b" created the opposite, an
incentive for people to support terrorism as anti-Americanism rises
dramatically in especially the Mideast.
My concern is some of our allies will take the position the war on
terrorism is an American problem making "a" even more remote.
Post by Scott Erb
If we don't turn this policy around, we'll find our situation and security
much worse in the near future.
We may have already past the point of no return.

mr_antone
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-24 00:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Back to the subject: the reason we cannot win a "war on terror" (by the
way, it appears the 9-11 commission agrees that such wording was
inappropriate) is that terrorism is not something that can be defeated
through military means alone.
The Bush administration *never* claimed that terrorism could be defeated
through military means alone. You are playing the Liberal game of create
a strawman and knock it down. The Bush administration said that we
needed to actually use our military if we were to win the war against
terrorism. The difference isn't subtle.
Post by Scott Erb
In fact, using the military beyond specific
appropriate strikes aimed directly at terrorist locations, is inherently
ineffective, as it only stokes emotions and helps the terrorists recruit and
motivate.
That means basically that you are saying we shouldn't use the military
against nation states that support terrorism. That puts us back at pre
9/11 Clinton era policy and Afghanistan run by the Taliban with the US
unable to even go there to search for bin Laden and terrorists.
Post by Scott Erb
So far, the war in Iraq has been a gift to al qaeda and terrorist
organizations, helping them compensate for their loses as a result of
international cooperation in counter terrorism efforts.
The war in Iraq has exposed the ugly puss retching soar that is Islamo
fascist terror in the Middle East.
Post by Scott Erb
Now, it's absurd to think that people complaining on the usenet will alter
the fundamentals of any kind of war. If enough people disagree in a
democracy, then the policy should be changed -- that's how democracies work.
And democracies only work if you have what Walter Lippmann called "the
essential opposition" -- an opposing view that questions what the government
is doing. Democracy is a path to truth, according to Lippmann, only
effective if there is true debate and opposition.
Of course here it goes again. Any time the United States tries to
sustain an effort to stop evil, it happened in the Cold War too, the
Liberals come out in opposition with their ridiculous complaints and
utter lack of solutions.
Post by Scott Erb
Now, maybe we're right, and maybe (though I doubt this very much) Bill's
right about this conflict. Silencing either side only makes it less likely
that we as a country will consider the facts and make a wise choice. After
all, we were attacked by terrorists, but we were not attacked by Iraq.
We were attacked by terrorists. Anyone who supports terrorists is a
target. That is what we said after 9/11 and some of us meant it.
Post by Scott Erb
We
started the war with Iraq, and it is questionable if it makes sense to
launch a war of aggression -- countries that do so usually end up failing,
What is a 'war of aggression' and what does 'failure' in a war mean?
I've tried to discuss what winning, for example, a nuclear war might
mean and most people seem utterly unable to comprehend the idea.
Post by Scott Erb
and if this becomes some kind of "world war IV," it'll probably mean the end
to American dominance on the world stage. I'm convinced an effort to do
that will create supreme risk and danger to the country, and make us less
rather than more secure.
I don't understand how you can tell us to decide whether or not to make
this a "world war" when we didn't start it and in fact ignored it for
years.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Scott Erb
2004-07-24 01:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Back to the subject: the reason we cannot win a "war on terror" (by the
way, it appears the 9-11 commission agrees that such wording was
inappropriate) is that terrorism is not something that can be defeated
through military means alone.
The Bush administration *never* claimed that terrorism could be defeated
through military means alone. You are playing the Liberal game of create
a strawman and knock it down. The Bush administration said that we
needed to actually use our military if we were to win the war against
terrorism. The difference isn't subtle.
The point stands: as the 9-11 commission noted in saying that the idea of a
'war on terrorism' was ill conceived due to how vague it is, we cannot win a
"war" against terrorism. It's simply impossible, and it's the wrong way to
look at it. Military action like what we've seen in Iraq hurts our
situation.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
In fact, using the military beyond specific
appropriate strikes aimed directly at terrorist locations, is inherently
ineffective, as it only stokes emotions and helps the terrorists recruit and
motivate.
That means basically that you are saying we shouldn't use the military
against nation states that support terrorism.
In most cases states that have a vague 'support of terrorism' are numerous,
and no, we can't go invade and conquer them. That won't work. Afghanistan
may have been a case where an invasion was called for due to the extreme
link between the Taliban and al qaeda. But otherwise, that kind of approach
will fail.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
That puts us back at pre
9/11 Clinton era policy and Afghanistan run by the Taliban with the US
unable to even go there to search for bin Laden and terrorists.
No, it only says that the policy of invading and attacking states is not the
best way to deal with terrorism. It says nothing about resorting to an
earlier policy. I'd choose neither the Clinton nor the Bush policies.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
So far, the war in Iraq has been a gift to al qaeda and terrorist
organizations, helping them compensate for their loses as a result of
international cooperation in counter terrorism efforts.
The war in Iraq has exposed the ugly puss retching soar that is Islamo
fascist terror in the Middle East.
You're being silly, I guess you don't know how to respond. The US has
strengthened Islamic extremists, a group that had been getting much support
until the US helped their efforts to win the hearts and minds of the masses
through our blatant militarism, abuse of prisoners, torture, and arrogance.
We've helped extremists become more popular and more of a threat due to the
attack against Iraq.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Now, it's absurd to think that people complaining on the usenet will alter
the fundamentals of any kind of war. If enough people disagree in a
democracy, then the policy should be changed -- that's how democracies work.
And democracies only work if you have what Walter Lippmann called "the
essential opposition" -- an opposing view that questions what the government
is doing. Democracy is a path to truth, according to Lippmann, only
effective if there is true debate and opposition.
Of course here it goes again. Any time the United States tries to
sustain an effort to stop evil, it happened in the Cold War too, the
Liberals come out in opposition with their ridiculous complaints and
utter lack of solutions.
If we commit vile and evil acts in the name of stopping evil, we are no
better than the evil we wish to confront.

And since I think we can combat evil more effectively with other means, your
response is totally off base. No one says we shouldn't overcome evil --
it's just a question of how to do it. You're more the Malcolm X sort, I'm
more the Martin Luther King Jr. type.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Now, maybe we're right, and maybe (though I doubt this very much) Bill's
right about this conflict. Silencing either side only makes it less likely
that we as a country will consider the facts and make a wise choice.
After
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
all, we were attacked by terrorists, but we were not attacked by Iraq.
We were attacked by terrorists. Anyone who supports terrorists is a
target. That is what we said after 9/11 and some of us meant it.
Too vague. There are domestic terrorists, anarchists, the IRA, the basques,
Jewish terrorists, Arab terrorist, Hindu terrorists...

And the point is that by acting like militarist thugs with no more morality
than the terrorists (and that's how we appear to much of the world), we only
help them, since we are unable to defeat them with military power. You have
chosen a strategy that cannot succeed.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
We
started the war with Iraq, and it is questionable if it makes sense to
launch a war of aggression -- countries that do so usually end up failing,
What is a 'war of aggression' and what does 'failure' in a war mean?
I've tried to discuss what winning, for example, a nuclear war might
mean and most people seem utterly unable to comprehend the idea.
A war of aggression is to attack another state that has not attacked you.
Failure means that interests and security are not achieved, but rather made
worse through the actions taken.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
and if this becomes some kind of "world war IV," it'll probably mean the end
to American dominance on the world stage. I'm convinced an effort to do
that will create supreme risk and danger to the country, and make us less
rather than more secure.
I don't understand how you can tell us to decide whether or not to make
this a "world war" when we didn't start it and in fact ignored it for
years.
You're simply speaking non-sense there. There is no "world war," only a
terrorist problem in a region where modernization is difficult for a variety
of reasons. We are aiding those who want a major conflict by stoking
emotions and igniting hatred against us. But since we cannot win
militarily, the path you want only assures more deadly terrorist attacks
against the US in the future, likely a collapse of the economy, and in
general a collapse in America's standard of living and ability to protect
its citizens. I'm serious -- the path you want will lead to a downfall that
will be dramatic. Don't go that route.
Adam Albright
2004-07-24 01:48:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:44:26 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Back to the subject: the reason we cannot win a "war on terror" (by the
way, it appears the 9-11 commission agrees that such wording was
inappropriate) is that terrorism is not something that can be defeated
through military means alone.
The Bush administration *never* claimed that terrorism could be defeated
through military means alone. You are playing the Liberal game of create
a strawman and knock it down. The Bush administration said that we
needed to actually use our military if we were to win the war against
terrorism. The difference isn't subtle.
What? Well then doofus, what do you think the Texas Greenhorn meant by
bring it on? Maybe little Georgie just wants to play a game of poker
with bin Laden. Winner take all. Just between them. Hey, I'm all for
it. Lets have a world-wide pay per view death match between Bush and
bin Laden. Winner gets to behead the other... live. We're have to put
them in a cage first...little Georgie would try to run away or at
least phone daddy to get out if he lost.

Maybe a better game for Georgie would be old maid. Bush is too stupid
to understand Poker. I bet Bush don't even know how to shuffle a deck
of cards. I bet he don't know how many cards are in a deck. He's dumb
enough that if someone mentioned the king of spades, he would think it
was some black dude in Africa.
Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)
2004-07-24 03:10:47 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Back to the subject: the reason we cannot win a "war on terror" (by the
way, it appears the 9-11 commission agrees that such wording was
inappropriate) is that terrorism is not something that can be defeated
through military means alone.
The Bush administration *never* claimed that terrorism could be defeated
through military means alone.
Bullshit..

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/27/bush.france.memorial/

"PARIS (CNN) -- U.S. President George W. Bush has linked the D-Day
landings that ultimately led to the defeat of the Nazis in World
War II to the war against terrorism during a visit to Normandy. "

Yeah, right, "mission accomplished"..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
You are playing the Liberal game of create a strawman a[..]
Typical of republicans, more often, especially GOP quislings like
yourself..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
The Bush administration said that we needed to actually use our military
if we were to win the war against terrorism. The difference isn't subtle.
*>LOL!<* The irony of your contradictions is lost upon you again..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Back to the subject: the reason we cannot win a "war on terror" (by the
way, it appears the 9-11 commission agrees that such wording was
inappropriate) is that terrorism is not something that can be defeated
through military means alone. In fact, using the military beyond specific
appropriate strikes aimed directly at terrorist locations, is inherently
ineffective, as it only stokes emotions and helps the terrorists recruit and
motivate.
That means basically that you are saying [..]
You're again dishonestly trying to rephrase what Dr. Erb wrote to suit
your "straw-man" pseudo-argument, Bonehead..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
So far, the war in Iraq has been a gift to al qaeda and terrorist
organizations, helping them compensate for their loses as a result of
international cooperation in counter terrorism efforts.
The war in Iraq has exposed the ugly puss retching soar[..]
That is called "American Imperialism" abroad, you stupid 'bot..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Now, it's absurd to think that people complaining on the usenet will alter
the fundamentals of any kind of war. If enough people disagree in a
democracy, then the policy should be changed -- that's how democracies work.
And democracies only work if you have what Walter Lippmann called "the
essential opposition" -- an opposing view that questions what the government
is doing. Democracy is a path to truth, according to Lippmann, only
effective if there is true debate and opposition.
Of course here it goes again.
Bullshit.. You're pulling this out of your ass, as regards what used
to be the "loyal opposition", and now a bitter partisan game of
polemics..

Example follows..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Any time the United States tries to sustain an effort to stop evil,
it happened in the Cold War too, the Liberals come out in opposition
with their ridiculous complaints and utter lack of solutions.
I don't see anything remotely resembling a workable solution, much
less a rational counter-argument, issuing from your side, Bonehead..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Now, maybe we're right, and maybe (though I doubt this very much) Bill's
right about this conflict. Silencing either side only makes it less likely
that we as a country will consider the facts and make a wise choice. After
all, we were attacked by terrorists, but we were not attacked by Iraq.
We were attacked by terrorists.
But, you don't have the slightest care as to why, do you, Bonehead..

It's all a fallacious "us versus them" attitude, on your lame behalf,
that's part and parcel as to why America has been 'targetted'..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Anyone who supports terrorists is a target.
You support W. Bush..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Now, maybe we're right, and maybe (though I doubt this very much) Bill's
right about this conflict. Silencing either side only makes it less likely
that we as a country will consider the facts and make a wise choice. After
all, we were attacked by terrorists, but we were not attacked by Iraq. We
started the war with Iraq, and it is questionable if it makes sense to
launch a war of aggression -- countries that do so usually end up failing,
What is a 'war of aggression'[..]
If you have to ask, you're already lost in space, Bonehead..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
I've tried to discuss what winning, for example, a nuclear war might
mean [..]
You've misrepresented what little *YOU* understand about such, but
cannot seem to present the numbers in such a scenario, ever..
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Now, maybe we're right, and maybe (though I doubt this very much) Bill's
right about this conflict. Silencing either side only makes it less likely
that we as a country will consider the facts and make a wise choice. After
all, we were attacked by terrorists, but we were not attacked by Iraq. We
started the war with Iraq, and it is questionable if it makes sense to
launch a war of aggression -- countries that do so usually end up failing,
and if this becomes some kind of "world war IV," it'll probably mean the end
to American dominance on the world stage. I'm convinced an effort to do
that will create supreme risk and danger to the country, and make us less
rather than more secure.
I don't understand [..]
Clearly, you don't, and are doomed to repeat history..

--BUt, that's why you're known as a LYING republican quisling..
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-22 16:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
That's insanity. If you want some kind of "WWIII" vs. Islam, I
guarantee,
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
we'll end up in decline, suffering major terrorist attacks. In short,
in
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
that kind of war, it'll be the fall of America.
If we knew who we had to kill, this would be a lot easier for America to
win. As it is, we don't and that's making it very difficult to get at
the bad guys and to sustain anything domestically and internationally
with the western democracies.
Terrorism isn't like war with a state, there isn't a well defined army with
a territorial base.
That's true although international terrorists with the support of
sovereign nation states are more capable by far than international
terrorists without such support. We need to end support from nation
states for terrorism and insist that failed states control all the area
that is part of their claimed sovereignty.
Post by Scott Erb
Terrorism is the strategy of the weak in modern
warfare. The thing about our policy now is that by trying to "kill the
terrorists" we actually aid them by helping them recruit more.
Our policy isn't just kill terrorists. If you think it is, you aren't
paying any attention. Our policy is to change the situations that breed
terrorists. In Iraq that is the dictator Saddam and his misuse of oil
wealth as well as the openings that the failed state gives to terrorists
for their operations.
Post by Scott Erb
It's a
self-defeating path, based on a lack of understanding of this new kind of
political-military strategy. So far, the terrorists are winning because
they've goaded the US into actions that seem to make their claims believable
to much of the Mideast and Islamic world, and which has made alliances in
the industrialized west harder to maintain. Sadly, we've played into their
hands the last couple years.
You keep repeating yourself. I know you oppose using force to get the
terrorists. I wonder what you actually support. Keep in mind that Saddam
wasn't going to go away or become a nice guy without applying force.
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go
that
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out
there.
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
That's absurd. Totally absurd. Terrorism is a problem that can be dealt
with, and the Islamic world for the most part was friendly to the West and
modernizing -- that's changing now because of American policy,
So they aren't modernizing? What is 'modernizing'? Saudi Arabia has been
building roads for decades, spending money on what have you. The problem
is that Islam needs to modernize.
Post by Scott Erb
but it's not
too late to turn that around. To fantasize about a world war may be
dramatic, give you a sense of purpose, and stoke the emotions...but it's
fantasy. In any event, I'll do everything I can to undercut that kind of
'war effort.'
I don't see how you can deny that this is a world war. The Cold War was
a world war in scope as well. It happened to remain mostly cold,
thankfully. I doubt that the terrorists will stop lighting the fuse.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Gary DeWaay
2004-07-24 00:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Don't go there, it's not worth it. If the administration wants to go that
direction, they are more dangerous to us than any external enemy out there.
Whether you like it or not, this is a world war and has been a world war
for some time. The sooner your side takes that seriously, the sooner we
can go about seriously trying to win.
You take it seriously by cowering behind a computer?

Enlist now Bonde.

The world is at war, and "our side" doesn't want to think you are just
another warpig chickenhawk.


Gary
--
FDR: "Nothing to fear but fear itself"
Shrub: "Nothing will get me reelected except fear itself"
(Ok, I made that one up)
Tim Crowley
2004-07-22 04:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by zepp
Post by Scott Erb
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
I would not want a leader who believes that, since such a leader would
surely bring more war than peace.
One can have peace without war.
It was only a matter of time before Bonde started assuring us that war
is peace.
I didn't say that. I said that we have to go through the war to get to
the peace.
Well, at this point we do since war has already happened, but I think the
war has made the chances for peace in the near to middle range future less
likely than before.
The war? You probably mean Iraq, which is odd since it's but a small
part of the war that must be gone through before peace can really become
secure.
Yoluo must realize that Bonde believes in and supports war without
end. It's a major part of his platform.
Adam Albright
2004-07-21 14:54:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:09:02 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Yea right. Of course a fuckwit like you would think so. Here's a news
flash for my favorite asshole, Billy Dope. Before we invaded Iraq in a
unnecessary war we WERE at peace with Iraq, you clueless moron and
they presented ZERO threat to the United States, now confimed by the
Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission.

There were also about 900 American servicemen alive that are now dead.
There were at least 20,000 Iraqi now dead that were alive.
We were $170 billion less in debt.

What's changed?

Before After

America respected America hated
president respected president hated
less terrorist attacks more terrorist attacks
Middle East more stable Middle East less stable
Gas prices lower Gas prices higher
More Americans working Less Americans working
Americans relatively safe to travel Unsave for Americans to travel
No beheadings Multiple beheadings
Fewer terrorists in world More terrorists in world
Overall threat level: low Overall threat level: High
A peace president A war president

Face the facts asswipe. Bush has fucked-up everything he's touched.
Gary_Roselles:_A_Loony
2004-07-21 18:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:09:02 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Yea right. Of course a fuckwit like you would think so. Here's a news
flash for my favorite asshole, Billy Dope. Before we invaded Iraq in a
unnecessary war we WERE at peace with Iraq, you clueless moron and
they presented ZERO threat to the United States, now confimed by the
Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission.
There were also about 900 American servicemen alive that are now dead.
There were at least 20,000 Iraqi now dead that were alive.
We were $170 billion less in debt.
What's changed?
Before After
America respected America hated
president respected president hated
less terrorist attacks more terrorist attacks
Middle East more stable Middle East less stable
Gas prices lower Gas prices higher
More Americans working Less Americans working
Americans relatively safe to travel Unsave for Americans to travel
No beheadings Multiple beheadings
Fewer terrorists in world More terrorists in world
Overall threat level: low Overall threat level: High
A peace president A war president
Face the facts asswipe. Bush has fucked-up everything he's touched.
What REALLY explains the silly chart above:

Before After

A President I LOVED in office A President I HATE in office
Fuck Democrats
2004-07-23 14:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:09:02 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
Yea right. Of course a fuckwit like you would think so. Here's a news
flash for my favorite asshole, Billy Dope. Before we invaded Iraq in a
unnecessary war we WERE at peace with Iraq, you clueless moron and
they presented ZERO threat to the United States, now confimed by the
Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission.
There were also about 900 American servicemen alive that are now dead.
There were at least 20,000 Iraqi now dead that were alive.
We were $170 billion less in debt.
What's changed?
Before After
America respected America hated
president respected president hated
less terrorist attacks more terrorist attacks
Hey fuckbitch! All I see is ragheads blowing up mostly ragheads. How many
were there here in America?
Post by Adam Albright
Middle East more stable Middle East less stable
Gas prices lower Gas prices higher
But I thought we went to war so the big Texas oil companies could steal
all that Iraqi oil, fuckbitch!
Post by Adam Albright
More Americans working Less Americans working
You stupid fuckbitch. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there
were 131,279,000 people age 20 and over working in February of 2003. In
June of 2004, there were 133,199,000 people age 20 and over working.

The unemployment rate was 5.3 percent in February of 2003. In June of
2004, the unemployment rate was 5.0 percent.
Post by Adam Albright
Americans relatively safe to travel Unsave for Americans to travel
No beheadings Multiple beheadings
You stupid fuckbitch. Followers of the Religion of Peace have been
beheading people for CENTURIES, most recently in Indonesia, the
Philippines and Nigeria.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=13371

"Recent jihad-inspired decapitations of infidels by Muslims have occurred
across the globe- Christians in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Nigeria;
Hindu priests and "unveiled" Hindu women in Kashmir; Wall Street Journal
reporter, and Jew, Daniel Pearl. We should not be surprised that these
contemporary paroxysms of jihad violence are accompanied by ritualized
beheadings. Such gruesome acts are in fact sanctioned by core Islamic
sacred texts, and classical Muslim jurisprudence. Empty claims that jihad
decapitations are somehow "alien to true Islam," however well-intentioned,
undermine serious efforts to reform and desacralize Islamic doctrine. This
process will only begin with frank discussion, both between non-Muslims
and Muslims, and within the Muslim community."
Post by Adam Albright
Fewer terrorists in world More terrorists in world
Overall threat level: low Overall threat level: High
A peace president A war president
Face the facts asswipe. Bush has fucked-up everything he's touched.
Somebody needs to kill you.
Harry
2004-07-21 20:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
See, that's what I love about dittoheads! We are really dealing with
the bottom of the Darwinian selection here, folks!

Bill, I know you failed to notice, but you just paraphrased Orwell
yourself. War is peace. And secondly, why do we have to go through
THIS war to get to peace? We started this war, on the basis of four
years of lies. And excuse me, but I'm a little doubtful about what
YOU mean by "peace". That may be the result of four years of
President Cheney of course.

As Brecht wrote, "When the leaders speak of "Peace! Peace!" the
mobilization orders are already written."
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 23:15:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
See, that's what I love about dittoheads! We are really dealing with
the bottom of the Darwinian selection here, folks!
Bill, I know you failed to notice, but you just paraphrased Orwell
yourself. War is peace.
Going through the war to get to the peace isn't "War is peace". I
suspect you need to attend a few more ESL classes, porc chop.
Post by Harry
And secondly, why do we have to go through
THIS war to get to peace?
Because this war is about making changes in the Middle East that might
allow a lasting peace there. It would be a good idea to get rid of the
thug Arab dictators there before the oil revenues run out and the people
realize that they've missed out on a window of economic opportunity that
isn't afforded most people in poor countries of the world.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Harry
2004-07-22 17:42:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Harry
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
See, that's what I love about dittoheads! We are really dealing with
the bottom of the Darwinian selection here, folks!
Bill, I know you failed to notice, but you just paraphrased Orwell
yourself. War is peace.
Going through the war to get to the peace isn't "War is peace". I
suspect you need to attend a few more ESL classes, porc chop.
Post by Harry
And secondly, why do we have to go through
THIS war to get to peace?
Because this war is about making changes in the Middle East that might
allow a lasting peace there.
And of course, assisting the Palestinians achieve a settlement with
the Israelies certainly wouldn't improve the chances for peace? Most
knowledgeable folks (which includes me) believe this to be one of the
two major points of contention in the area.

How about making policy to end the addiction of the US to petroleum?
That's the other side of the problem, but as you know, President
Cheney and VP Kenny Boy Lay created a policy document that is 180
degrees off from that goal. And which guarantees twenty more years of
war in the Middle East.

So I don't see any changes in the middle east that might encourage
peace there, quite the contrary, I see a continuation of policies
which REDUCE the possibilities for peace.




It would be a good idea to get rid of the
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
thug Arab dictators there before the oil revenues run out and the people
realize that they've missed out on a window of economic opportunity that
isn't afforded most people in poor countries of the world.
And your friends in Halliburton and the other European and US oil
companies get to decide who those new leaders will be? And of course,
the European and US oil companies, and the governments they control
(like the US government) are primarily interested in the well being of
indiginous people?

Perhaps you can point out one other example in the history of the
world in which these concerns were expressed and implemented by these
folks anywhere, ever? And you view being governed by Exxon through
President Cheney as being superior to sovereignty? And you're
prepared to send troops to die for this? And this is supposed to
encourage local peace?

You really ARE a moron.
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-23 00:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Harry
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
We have to go through the war to get the peace.
See, that's what I love about dittoheads! We are really dealing with
the bottom of the Darwinian selection here, folks!
Bill, I know you failed to notice, but you just paraphrased Orwell
yourself. War is peace.
Going through the war to get to the peace isn't "War is peace". I
suspect you need to attend a few more ESL classes, porc chop.
Post by Harry
And secondly, why do we have to go through
THIS war to get to peace?
Because this war is about making changes in the Middle East that might
allow a lasting peace there.
And of course, assisting the Palestinians achieve a settlement with
the Israelies certainly wouldn't improve the chances for peace?
If it were possible. We've been trying to get them to get along for a
long time now. Perhaps we could solve a few of the other huge problems
in the Arab world while we wait for the Palis to decide maybe blowing up
their children to murder Jew women and children isn't a good use for
them.
Post by Harry
Most
knowledgeable folks (which includes me) believe this to be one of the
two major points of contention in the area.
It doesn't take much knowledge of the Middle East to know that there are
points of contention between Israel and the Palestinians.
Post by Harry
How about making policy to end the addiction of the US to petroleum?
That wouldn't solve any of the points of contention and would probably
make some of them worse. In any case, nuclear power has been available
for years to end the US petro addiction. Who opposes that? The very
people who complain the loudest about the use of imported oil.
Post by Harry
That's the other side of the problem, but as you know, President
Cheney and VP Kenny Boy Lay created a policy document that is 180
degrees off from that goal. And which guarantees twenty more years of
war in the Middle East.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. Can you provide some actual
examples of whatever it is you are talking about? I know that Cheney
supports drilling in Alaska which is part of the United States, not part
of the Middle East.
Post by Harry
So I don't see any changes in the middle east that might encourage
peace there, quite the contrary, I see a continuation of policies
which REDUCE the possibilities for peace.
Specifically what are you referring to? Can you elucidate a bit?
Post by Harry
It would be a good idea to get rid of the
Post by Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
thug Arab dictators there before the oil revenues run out and the people
realize that they've missed out on a window of economic opportunity that
isn't afforded most people in poor countries of the world.
And your friends in Halliburton and the other European and US oil
companies get to decide who those new leaders will be?
Huh? Do you reply back based on what I actually say or do you have a
preconceived notion you riff off of?
Post by Harry
And of course,
the European and US oil companies, and the governments they control
(like the US government) are primarily interested in the well being of
indiginous people?
Finding ways for the average Arab to be a success economically and
politically is in the interest of the United States.
Post by Harry
Perhaps you can point out one other example in the history of the
world in which these concerns were expressed and implemented by these
folks anywhere, ever? And you view being governed by Exxon through
President Cheney as being superior to sovereignty? And you're
prepared to send troops to die for this? And this is supposed to
encourage local peace?
I'm prepared to do what I said I was prepared to do. Of course I'm not
president so my policies aren't going to be implemented, at least not
directly by me.
Post by Harry
You really ARE a moron.
I see you've nothing to say.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Fresno Farms
2004-07-21 12:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Google Web Results about 26,300 for "war is peace"

www.bartleby.com The Columbia World of Quotations
QUOTATION: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
ATTRIBUTION: George Orwell (1903–1950), British author. Nineteen
Eighty-Four, pt. 1, ch. 1 (1949).
Ingsoc party slogan.

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On Wed, 21 Jul '04 Peacenik wrote about:
# War Is Peace, says Dubya
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
By Adam Entous
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars,
President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday
he wanted to be a "peace president"
With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq
(news - web sites) in decline, Bush cast himself as a reluctant
warrior and assured Americans they were "safer"
......snip
Post by Peacenik
Bush told a re-election rally in Cedar Rapids. "Nobody
wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president...
The next four years will be peaceful years." Bush used the
words "peace" or "peaceful" a total of 20 times.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040721/ts_nm/campaign_bush_dc_5
=========
"I'm a war president." - Dubya, 8 Feb 2004
"I want to be the peace president." - Dubya, 20 Jul 2004
And they say KERRY flip-flops??
Republicans have truly mastered the art of
Orwellian doublespeak. Clear Skies, Peacekeeper Missiles,
Healthy Forests, the Patriot Act, the House Un-American
Activities Committee, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength...
Wow. I could never figure out how to say it.
How does one unscramble Humpty Dumpty logic?
I've heard of Orwellian Linguistics.
Thanks!

Google Web Results about 26,300 for "war is peace"



from 1984 by George Orwell (1949): Chapter 1
www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/1/ - 42k -



LONDON
..... And the bombed sites where the plaster dust swirled in the
air and the willow-herb straggled over the heaps of rubble; and the
places where the bombs had cleared a larger patch and there had sprung
up sordid colonies of wooden dwellings like chicken-houses? But it
was no use, he could not remember: nothing remained of his childhood
except a series of bright-lit tableaux occurring against no background
and mostly unintelligible.

The Ministry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly
different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous
pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace
after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it
was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant
lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

The Ministry of Truth contained, it was said, three thousand rooms
above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below. Scattered
about London there were just three other buildings of similar
appearance and size. So completely did they dwarf the surrounding
architecture that from the roof of Victory Mansions you could see all
four of them simultaneously. They were the homes of the four
Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was
divided.
The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news,
entertainment, education, and the fine arts.
The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war.
The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order.
And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic
affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and
Miniplenty.

The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one. There were no
windows in it at all. Winston had never been inside the Ministry of
Love, nor within half a kilometre of it. It was a place impossible to
enter except on official business, and then only by penetrating
through a maze of barbed-wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden
machine-gun nests. Even the streets leading up to its outer barriers
were roamed by gorilla-faced guards in black uniforms, armed with
jointed truncheons.

Winston turned round abruptly. He had set his features into the
expression of quiet optimism which it was advisable to wear when
facing the telescreen. He crossed the room into the tiny kitchen. By
leaving the Ministry at this time of day he had sacrificed his lunch
in the canteen, and he was aware that there was no food in the kitchen
except a hunk of dark-coloured bread which had got to be saved for
tomorrow's breakfast. He took down from the shelf a bottle of
colourless liquid with a plain white label marked VICTORY GIN. It
gave off a sickly, oily smell, as of Chinese ricespirit. Winston
poured out nearly a teacupful, nerved himself for a shock, and gulped
it down like a dose of medicine.

Instantly his face turned scarlet and the water ran out of his eyes.
The stuff was like nitric acid, and moreover, in swallowing it one had
the sensation of being hit on the back of the head with a rubber club.
The next moment, however, the burning in his belly died down and the
world began to look more cheerful....
www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/1/


=====================
Google Web Results about 26,300 for "war is peace"
Jul 19, 2004 -


Swans Commentary: War Is Peace, by George Orwell - xxx083
Swans. War Is Peace. by George Orwell. Excerpt of his novel,
"1984". [... The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of
previous ...
www.swans.com/library/art8/xxx083.html - 6k -

DVM-Memorial Day: Quotes on War and Peace
See what others had to say about war and peace: Saint Augustine
(354-430) The purpose of all war is peace. Menachem Begin (1913-) ...
virtual-markets.net/vme/memorial/dvmquote.html - 5k -

War Is Peace The world doesn
ani5.gif (3455 bytes) War Is Peace The world doesn't have to choose
between the Taliban and the US government. ... Pigs are horses.
Girls are boys. War is Peace. ...
www.zmag.org/roywarpeace.htm - 28k -

Uncle Sam: War is Peace...
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The
terms of political discourse typically have two meanings. One is the
www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-3-3.html - 9k -

Salon.com News | War is peace!
War is peace! How the Bush administration's propaganda machine
-- with the help of Roger Ailes' Fox News -- distorts the truth in the
Middle East and at home. ...
www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/09/30/deception/ - 35k -

War is Peace, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Fateful Triangle)
War is Peace. Noam Chomsky. Excerpted from Fateful Triangle, 1999.
On June 6, 1982, a massive Israeli expeditionary force began the ...
www.chomsky.info/books/fateful01.htm - 98k -

5.1 Extermination of the Two-Legged Beasts
www.chomsky.info/books/fateful01.htm
The first target was the Palestinian camp of Rashidiyeh south
of Tyre, much of which, by the second day of the invasion, "had become
a field of rubble." There was ineffectual resistance, but as an
officer of the UN peace-keeping force swept aside in the Israeli
invasion later remarked:

"It was like shooting sparrdws with cannon." The 9000 residents of the
camp-which had been regularly bombed and shelled for years from land,
sea and air-either fled, or were herded to the beach where they could
watch the destruction of much of what remained by the Israeli forces.
All teen-age and adult males were blindfolded and bound, and taken to
camps, where little has been heard about them since.(95)

This is typical of what happened throughout southern Lebanon.
The Palestinian camps were demolished, largely bulldozed to the ground
if not destroyed by bombardment; and the population was dispersed or
(in the case of the male population) imprisoned. Reporters were
generally not allowed in the Palestinian camps, where the destruction
was worst, to keep them from witnessing what had happened and was
being done. There were occasional reports. David Shipler described how
after the camps were captured the army proceeded to destroy what was
left. An army officer, "when asked why bulldozers were knocking down
houses in which women and children were living," responded by saying:
"they are all terrorists."96 His statement accurately summarizes
Israel's strategy and the assumptions that underlie it, over many
years.

There was little criticism here of Israel's destruction of the "nests
of terrorists," or of the wholesale transfer of the male population to
prison camps in Lebanon and Israel-or to their treatment, discussed
below. Again, one imagines that if such treatment had been meted out
to Jews after, say, a Syrian conquest of Northern Israel, the reaction
would have been different, and few would have hesitated to recall the
Nazi monsters. In fact, we need not merely imagine. When a.........

SOS: Students for an Orwellian Society
... How could they do otherwise? Our successes can be shown
to fit into the three major ideals of Ingsoc as expressed by
Orwell: War Is Peace. ...
www.studentsfororwell.org/ - 22k -

[PDF] America is at war with Iraq.
Page 1. WAR IS PEACE America is at war with Iraq.
America has always been at war with Iraq. Support your
Department of Defense! Students ...
www.studentsfororwell.org/sos2.pdf - Similar pages

Guardian Unlimited | Archive Search
... So now we know. Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace.

Speaking at the FBI headquarters a few days later, President Bush
said: "This is our calling. ...
www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/ Article/0,4273,4283081,00.html - 40k -
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
2004-07-21 19:38:27 UTC
Permalink
"Fresno Farms" <***@u.com> wrote in message news:***@corp.supernews.com...

<snip>
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
By Adam Entous
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars,
ONE war (the War On Terrorist) two battle fronts !

<HUGE SNIP>
unknown
2004-07-21 20:47:05 UTC
Permalink
...the War On Terrorist [sic] ...
It's profiteering, and it involves the rapes of children, and
you must really hate Jesus to support such a fraud.

You don't stop violence with violence.

Only a real moron doesn't understand even that much.
Liberals HATE-America-
2004-07-21 20:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
...the War On Terrorist [sic] ...
It's profiteering, and it involves the rapes of children, and
you must really hate Jesus to support such a fraud.
You don't stop violence with violence.
Right. If only we would have offered Hitler flowers and compassion.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being.
They are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.

Liberals HATE America!

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
unknown
2004-07-21 22:04:10 UTC
Permalink
... If only we would have offered Hitler flowers and compassion.
The Bush family offered Hitler all the help they possibly could.

They're still displaying theiir allegiance to Nazism.
Liberals HATE-America-
2004-07-22 00:02:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 20:56:14 GMT, "Liberals HATE-America-"
... If only we would have offered Hitler flowers and compassion.
The Bush family offered Hitler all the help they possibly could.
They're still displaying theiir allegiance to Nazism.
Tinfoil hats on Isle 5!!
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being.
They are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.

Liberals HATE America!

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com
unknown
2004-07-22 01:55:50 UTC
Permalink
... If only we would have offered Hitler flowers and compassion.
The Bush family offered Hitler all the help they possibly could.

They're still displaying theiir allegiance to Nazism.

Anyone who knows who Akselis Mangulis was knows that
George W. Bush will protect Nazis rather than Americans.
Fresno Farms
2004-07-24 04:02:58 UTC
Permalink
..............
Post by Liberals HATE-America-
Post by unknown
... If only we would have offered Hitler flowers and compassion.
The Bush family offered Hitler all the help they possibly could.
They're still displaying theiir allegiance to Nazism.
Tinfoil hats on Isle 5!!
Bush is no Nazi, Flash movies produced
by Blah3.com and Symbolman
www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html - 9k -

How The Bush Family Made Its Fortune From The Nazis The Dutch ...
... Similarly, the Bush family invested the disguised Nazi profits in
... When the Nazis invaded Holland in May 1940, they investigated the
Bank voor Handel en ...
www.rense.com/general26/dutch.htm - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Bush book: Chapter -2-
... announced that it was seizing only the Nazi interests, leaving the
Nazis' US partners to ... President Bush's family had already played a
central role in ...
www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm - 55k - Cached - Similar pages

Bush book: Chapter -3-
... had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he ... German Steel
Trust), incorporating the Thyssen family interests under ... clients
led the buildup of the Nazi war industry ...
www.tarpley.net/bush3.htm - 52k - Cached -

Bush Family Values Photo Album
... Bones society has long been important to the Bush Family. ...
Prescott Bush had a bit of trouble back in ... Act because they were
fronts for Nazi Industrialist Fritz ...
www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

Nazis and Bush family history: Government investigated Bush ...
... family history: Government investigated Bush family's financing of
... regarding George HW Bush's father, Prescott ... cynical
collaboration with Nazi criminals has not ...
www.rememberjohn.com/Nazis.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

heraldtribune.com: Southwest Florida's Information Leader
Search Tuesday, July 20, 2004. ...
www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/PASTE%20LINKHERE - 8k - Cached -
Similar pages

New Hampshire Gazette I National News I “Bush - Nazi Dealings ...
... Bush's invasion of Iraq and Hitler's occupation of ... including
former Justice Department Nazi war crimes ... investigation into the
Bush family's Nazi past and its ...
www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.
cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2 - 33k - Cached -


* The Third Reich and the Bush family (Prescott Bush - a ...
... US nazism and GW Bush. The Bush family and nazism. Nazi and The
Bush family. The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich
(Nazis). Bush Financed Hitler. ...
www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/bush_nazi.html - 20k - Cached -


Rise of the Fourth Reich: Bush Family Oligarchy
... of the same wealthy sponsors of Nazism and the ... the free corps,
from which so many Nazi leaders had ... be confronted with facts about
the Bush family that render ...
watch.pair.com/reich.html - 88k - Cached - Similar pages
Post by Liberals HATE-America-
Tinfoil hats on Isle 5!!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational twist their world view to fit the facts.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
unknown
2004-07-24 16:03:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 04:02:58 GMT, ***@u.com (Fresno Farms) wrote:
[...]
Post by Fresno Farms
Bush is no Nazi, Flash movies produced
by Blah3.com and Symbolman
www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html - 9k -
How The Bush Family Made Its Fortune From The Nazis The Dutch ...
... Similarly, the Bush family invested the disguised Nazi profits in
... When the Nazis invaded Holland in May 1940, they investigated the
Bank voor Handel en ...
www.rense.com/general26/dutch.htm - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
Bush book: Chapter -2-
... announced that it was seizing only the Nazi interests, leaving the
Nazis' US partners to ... President Bush's family had already played a
central role in ...
www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm - 55k - Cached - Similar pages
Bush book: Chapter -3-
... had joined the Bush team in 1927, when he ... German Steel
Trust), incorporating the Thyssen family interests under ... clients
led the buildup of the Nazi war industry ...
www.tarpley.net/bush3.htm - 52k - Cached -
Bush Family Values Photo Album
... Bones society has long been important to the Bush Family. ...
Prescott Bush had a bit of trouble back in ... Act because they were
fronts for Nazi Industrialist Fritz ...
www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Nazis and Bush family history: Government investigated Bush ...
... family history: Government investigated Bush family's financing of
... regarding George HW Bush's father, Prescott ... cynical
collaboration with Nazi criminals has not ...
www.rememberjohn.com/Nazis.html - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
heraldtribune.com: Southwest Florida's Information Leader
Search Tuesday, July 20, 2004. ...
www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/PASTE%20LINKHERE - 8k - Cached -
Similar pages
New Hampshire Gazette I National News I “Bush - Nazi Dealings ...
... Bush's invasion of Iraq and Hitler's occupation of ... including
former Justice Department Nazi war crimes ... investigation into the
Bush family's Nazi past and its ...
www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.
cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2 - 33k - Cached -
* The Third Reich and the Bush family (Prescott Bush - a ...
... US nazism and GW Bush. The Bush family and nazism. Nazi and The
Bush family. The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich
(Nazis). Bush Financed Hitler. ...
www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/bush_nazi.html - 20k - Cached -
Rise of the Fourth Reich: Bush Family Oligarchy
... of the same wealthy sponsors of Nazism and the ... the free corps,
from which so many Nazi leaders had ... be confronted with facts about
the Bush family that render ...
watch.pair.com/reich.html - 88k - Cached - Similar pages
Good work.

The USA must defend itself from the Bush fascists.
Post by Fresno Farms
Tinfoil hats on Isle [sic] 5!!
Well we know what aisle the one who hates the USA haunts,
even though he doesn't really know the word.
Post by Fresno Farms
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational twist their world view to fit the facts.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Exactly.
Marie Antoinette
2004-07-22 03:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
...the War On Terrorist [sic] ...
It's profiteering, and it involves the rapes of children, and
you must really hate Jesus to support such a fraud.
You don't stop violence with violence.
Only a real moron doesn't understand even that much.
Then what do you stop it with, sir? Should we now equip our cops with
lollipops to quiet rioters? Maybe furnish them with gasoline to hand
out to them to make burning down the city a bit easier? What about our
armies? Maybe furnish them with rubber bullets while the other guys
are blowing their heads off with real lead? You're the freakin' moron,
you brain dead imbecile.

Violence solves everything when you bring greater violence to bear on
someone ready to kill you, your family and burn down your fucking
house. It also solved a little problem we had with Hitler and the
Japs, otherwise you might not now even be here to spout this nonsense.

Marie Antoinette
unknown
2004-07-22 14:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
...the War On Terrorist [sic] ...
It's profiteering, and it involves the rapes of children, and
you must really hate Jesus to support such a fraud.
You don't stop violence with violence.
Only a real moron doesn't understand even that much.
Then what do you stop it with, sir? [buskultie idiocy deleted]
You really ought to stop attacking, torturing, murdering, and
stealing from innocents, no matter how much it gets you off.

There are consequences to your crimes, even when you
manage to escape the conventional criminal justice system.
...someone ready to kill you ...
No one in Iraq was any threat to you.

Your extreme fearfulness and paranoia don't constitute mental health.
... a little problem we had with Hitler ...
The Bush family supported him then and supports Nazism now, for
the fun and profit.

When you support Bush, you support the "Heir of the Holocaust".
Fresno Farms
2004-07-24 04:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marie Antoinette
Post by unknown
...the War On Terrorist [sic] ...
It's profiteering, and it involves the rapes of children, and
you must really hate Jesus to support such a fraud.
You don't stop violence with violence.
Only a real moron doesn't understand even that much.
Then what do you stop it with, sir? Should we now equip our cops with
lollipops to quiet rioters? Maybe furnish them with gasoline to hand
out to them to make burning down the city a bit easier? What about our
armies? Maybe furnish them with rubber bullets while the other guys
are blowing their heads off with real lead? You're the freakin' moron,
you brain dead imbecile.
Good points. Now tell us what youare referring to.

Do you have any idea why bin Laden attcked?

Here's a clue:
http://enviro.topcities.com/Chomsky03_CLIP-A-Hard-Choice.mp3

It's a sound clip 100K long. 1999
Post by Marie Antoinette
Violence solves everything when you bring greater violence to bear on
someone ready to kill you, your family and burn down your fucking
house.
WOLF! WOLF! EEEK RUN and hide!
KILL the spider!, she shrieked hysterically.
Post by Marie Antoinette
It also solved a little problem we had with Hitler and the
Japs, otherwise you might not now even be here to spout this nonsense.
Marie Antoinette
Again, good words, wrong tune.
That was self defense.

Good guys don't shoot first.
Only cowards shoot first.
Bill Bonde ( ``There's sunshine in my stomach'' )
2004-07-21 23:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fresno Farms
Google Web Results about 26,300 for "war is peace"
www.bartleby.com The Columbia World of Quotations
QUOTATION: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
It's very possible that he was making fun of Basic English with his
Newspeak language simplifications.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Fresno Farms
2004-07-21 11:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Google Web Results about 26,300 for "war is peace"

www.bartleby.com The Columbia World of Quotations
QUOTATION: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
ATTRIBUTION: George Orwell (1903–1950), British author. Nineteen
Eighty-Four, pt. 1, ch. 1 (1949).
Ingsoc party slogan.

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
On Wed, 21 Jul '04 Peacenik wrote about:
# War Is Peace, says Dubya
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
By Adam Entous
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars,
President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday
he wanted to be a "peace president"
With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq
(news - web sites) in decline, Bush cast himself as a reluctant
warrior and assured Americans they were "safer"
......snip
Post by Peacenik
Bush told a re-election rally in Cedar Rapids. "Nobody
wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president...
The next four years will be peaceful years." Bush used the
words "peace" or "peaceful" a total of 20 times.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040721/ts_nm/campaign_bush_dc_5
=========
"I'm a war president." - Dubya, 8 Feb 2004
"I want to be the peace president." - Dubya, 20 Jul 2004
And they say KERRY flip-flops??
Republicans have truly mastered the art of
Orwellian doublespeak. Clear Skies, Peacekeeper Missiles,
Healthy Forests, the Patriot Act, the House Un-American
Activities Committee, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery,
Ignorance is Strength...
Wow. I could never figure out how to say it.
How does one unscramble Humpty Dumpty logic?
I've heard of Orwellian Linguistics.
Thanks! Inspiring.

So I just posted this:
EXCERPT: 1984 by George ORWELL -Mind Boggling. NEWspeak




Google Web Results about 26,300 for "war is peace"
z
2004-07-22 00:47:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peacenik
Bush, of all people, says "I Want to Be the Peace President"
By Adam Entous
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars, President Bush
(news - web sites) said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and
took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.
With polls showing public support for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) in
decline, Bush cast himself as a reluctant warrior and assured Americans they
were "safer" as he campaigned in the battleground states of Iowa and
Missouri against Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) and his running
mate, former trial lawyer John Edwards (news - web sites).
"The enemy declared war on us," Bush told a re-election rally in Cedar
Rapids. "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace
president... The next four years will be peaceful years." Bush used the
words "peace" or "peaceful" a total of 20 times.
...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040721/ts_nm/campaign_bush_dc_5
=========
"I'm a war president." - Dubya, 8 Feb 2004
"I want to be the peace president." - Dubya, 20 Jul 2004
War president?
All this time I thought he was saying he was a 'Warped president'.
That would at least make sense.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...