Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT: Springtime in Islamberg.
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85033 is a reply to message #85032] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 03:05   |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Now you've done it.
S
"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i50853t6lnvnucdqr6t27eodbi8oss2a59@4ax.com...
> those who see fighting a gorilla war with conventional means as smart
> and those who don't.
> those who see giving up rights for "safety sakes" as necessary
> and those who don't.
> ...something like that...damn, i meant to stay out of this...
>
>
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 01:05:31 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Uh oh . . . damn . . . ya caught me stealing answers from the Liberal
>>Talking Point Encyclopedia. Well, surely you don't expect someone who's
>>still liberal at my age to be able to think for herself . . . (knocking on
>>skull) . . . hear that echo? Nuthin' . . .
>>
>>S
>>
>>PS: Explain the two kinds of people for me sometime when you have a few
>>minutes . . .
>>
>>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4653cdb5$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I would say that's nonsense . . . the only thing we've lost the stomach
>>> for
>>>>is going to war under false pretenses and killing the wrong people. And
>>> the
>>>>only thing the press lost the stomach for was challenging administration
>>>
>>>>policy for fear of appearing "unpatriotic" in the aftermath of 9/11.
>>>
>>> Answer #32 (with subtext of number 17).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Osama bin Laden is not stupid. He goads us into war hoping we'll get
>>>>mired
>>>
>>>>down until we collapse. He saw what happened to the Soviet Union in
>>>>Afghanistan and probably figures he knows how to bring down a giant with
>>> a
>>>>slingshot. If bin Laden is capable of happiness, I'm sure George Bush
>>>>has
>>>
>>>>brought him some.
>>>
>>> Answer #19 with answer 7 implied, but not meant as an insult...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Unfortunately for our soldiers and the innocent citizens of Iraq, our
>>>>leadership IS stupid. Stupid and dishonest. Those would be really
>>>>radical
>>>
>>>>statements if experienced military leaders and intelligence veterans
>>>>weren't
>>>
>>>>saying the same thing in more polite ways.
>>>>
>>>>It's really hard to admit that we've wasted billions of dollars and
>>>>thousands of lives, but continuing to make the same mistake hoping for a
>>>
>>>>different result is generally considered to be insane.
>>>
>>> Answer number 22 with a repitition of 17 above, but of course, you are
>>> not like that!!
>>>
>>>
>>>>How 'bout we use those dollars and manpower to secure our borders and
>>>>secure
>>>
>>>>our ports and use the international intelligence network to find and
>>>>kill
>>>
>>>>terrorists? And how 'bout we stop listening to "leaders" with vested
>>>>interests in oil and defense contracts? Hmmm?
>>>
>>> Agreement limited to answer #9 only, with reservations expressed in
>>> number 49...
>>>
>>>
>>>>If that's lefty lunacy, sign me up.
>>>>
>>>>S
>>>
>>> Oh-tay
>>>
>>> You know, I am starting to see your face when I read your post.
>>> I don't want to debate much tonight.
>>>
>>> We need all kinds to make a good world. Your kind as well as mine.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> DC
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85035 is a reply to message #85031] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 05:04 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
No, silly. I was referring to my earlier post saying we should just
list all the points and rebuttals on both sides and assign them numbers
so we could save ourselves some time. It was my answers that were
getting the numbers, not your points.
I do not think you work from anyone's talking points.
best,
DC
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>Uh oh . . . damn . . . ya caught me stealing answers from the Liberal
>Talking Point Encyclopedia. Well, surely you don't expect someone who's
>still liberal at my age to be able to think for herself . . . (knocking
on
>skull) . . . hear that echo? Nuthin' . . .
>
>S
>
>PS: Explain the two kinds of people for me sometime when you have a few
>minutes . . .
>
>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4653cdb5$1@linux...
>>
>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I would say that's nonsense . . . the only thing we've lost the stomach
>> for
>>>is going to war under false pretenses and killing the wrong people. And
>> the
>>>only thing the press lost the stomach for was challenging administration
>>
>>>policy for fear of appearing "unpatriotic" in the aftermath of 9/11.
>>
>> Answer #32 (with subtext of number 17).
>>
>>
>>
>>>Osama bin Laden is not stupid. He goads us into war hoping we'll get
>>>mired
>>
>>>down until we collapse. He saw what happened to the Soviet Union in
>>>Afghanistan and probably figures he knows how to bring down a giant with
>> a
>>>slingshot. If bin Laden is capable of happiness, I'm sure George Bush
has
>>
>>>brought him some.
>>
>> Answer #19 with answer 7 implied, but not meant as an insult...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Unfortunately for our soldiers and the innocent citizens of Iraq, our
>>>leadership IS stupid. Stupid and dishonest. Those would be really
>>>radical
>>
>>>statements if experienced military leaders and intelligence veterans
>>>weren't
>>
>>>saying the same thing in more polite ways.
>>>
>>>It's really hard to admit that we've wasted billions of dollars and
>>>thousands of lives, but continuing to make the same mistake hoping for
a
>>
>>>different result is generally considered to be insane.
>>
>> Answer number 22 with a repitition of 17 above, but of course, you are
>> not like that!!
>>
>>
>>>How 'bout we use those dollars and manpower to secure our borders and
>>>secure
>>
>>>our ports and use the international intelligence network to find and kill
>>
>>>terrorists? And how 'bout we stop listening to "leaders" with vested
>>>interests in oil and defense contracts? Hmmm?
>>
>> Agreement limited to answer #9 only, with reservations expressed in
>> number 49...
>>
>>
>>>If that's lefty lunacy, sign me up.
>>>
>>>S
>>
>> Oh-tay
>>
>> You know, I am starting to see your face when I read your post.
>> I don't want to debate much tonight.
>>
>> We need all kinds to make a good world. Your kind as well as mine.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> DC
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85036 is a reply to message #85026] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 05:08 |
Bill L
Messages: 766
Registered: August 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DC, I totally agree with you that there are times when desperate
measures are the only ones that work. For instance if someone needs
chemotherapy for lung cancer, of course they must get it. But the wise
person doesn't smoke themselves to sickness. What I am promoting is
forethought, wisdom and pan-determined (consideration for the good of
*all* concerned) action loooooong before the stage of armed conflict.
Even in desperate times one can find solutions that are least
destructive. However they require a far better understanding of the
minds of men than recent leaders have shown. We need leaders who can
truly unite with confidence and brilliant future-thinking leadership.
The great leaders who ttruly changed the world with enlightenment were
the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Ben Franklin, L Ron Hubbard.
These are the leaders we must seek out and theirs are the messages we
must follow.
For example, today there is a booklet of effective guiding precepts for
living, by Hubbard, called The Way To Happiness that is being
disseminated all over the world and creating a calming influence and
leading people to a happier life. http://www.twth.org/ People get false
data, and harmful concepts from many sources and they really do need a
counter-acting influence for the good.
Like I said, ideas create civilization. That is why Hubbard wrote that
artists are the most important people in a society, because they dream
and create the new civilization every day.
Bill
DC wrote:
> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>> In the end there are a few simple truths the wise leader uses for guidance:
>>
>> 1. Force begets force
>
> Bill, I respect your ideas. They are internally consistent and very
> hopeful at their heart. No one changes their mind because of these
> exchanges and I don't know why we do them sometimes.
>
> But,
>
> You know as well as I that sometimes force begets peace such as
> in our history with Japan and in the case of stopping a rapist.
>
>
>> 2. Ideas not bullets win in the long run (though dissemination requires
>
>> patient work)
>
> Sometimes the bullets have to come first.
>
>
>> 3. False data and corrupt ideas from the mouths of evil leaders can only
>
>> be defeated by truth. Truth is not introduced with force.
>
> Tell it to the folks at Auschwitz...
>
>
>> Ergo, war is the desperate act of a leader who has already lost his way
>
>> and his confidence and has no right to lead.
>
> And sometimes force is the only virtue available and it makes all the
> other virtues possible.
>
> But I doubt you agree.
>
> Have a nice night.
>
> DC
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85040 is a reply to message #85033] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 06:35 |
rick
Messages: 1976
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
i feel so ashamed of myself...must have chocolate now...
On Wed, 23 May 2007 03:05:30 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
wrote:
>Now you've done it.
>
>S
>
>
>"rick" <parnell68@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:i50853t6lnvnucdqr6t27eodbi8oss2a59@4ax.com...
>> those who see fighting a gorilla war with conventional means as smart
>> and those who don't.
>> those who see giving up rights for "safety sakes" as necessary
>> and those who don't.
>> ...something like that...damn, i meant to stay out of this...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 23 May 2007 01:05:31 -0700, "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Uh oh . . . damn . . . ya caught me stealing answers from the Liberal
>>>Talking Point Encyclopedia. Well, surely you don't expect someone who's
>>>still liberal at my age to be able to think for herself . . . (knocking on
>>>skull) . . . hear that echo? Nuthin' . . .
>>>
>>>S
>>>
>>>PS: Explain the two kinds of people for me sometime when you have a few
>>>minutes . . .
>>>
>>>"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4653cdb5$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I would say that's nonsense . . . the only thing we've lost the stomach
>>>> for
>>>>>is going to war under false pretenses and killing the wrong people. And
>>>> the
>>>>>only thing the press lost the stomach for was challenging administration
>>>>
>>>>>policy for fear of appearing "unpatriotic" in the aftermath of 9/11.
>>>>
>>>> Answer #32 (with subtext of number 17).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Osama bin Laden is not stupid. He goads us into war hoping we'll get
>>>>>mired
>>>>
>>>>>down until we collapse. He saw what happened to the Soviet Union in
>>>>>Afghanistan and probably figures he knows how to bring down a giant with
>>>> a
>>>>>slingshot. If bin Laden is capable of happiness, I'm sure George Bush
>>>>>has
>>>>
>>>>>brought him some.
>>>>
>>>> Answer #19 with answer 7 implied, but not meant as an insult...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately for our soldiers and the innocent citizens of Iraq, our
>>>>>leadership IS stupid. Stupid and dishonest. Those would be really
>>>>>radical
>>>>
>>>>>statements if experienced military leaders and intelligence veterans
>>>>>weren't
>>>>
>>>>>saying the same thing in more polite ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's really hard to admit that we've wasted billions of dollars and
>>>>>thousands of lives, but continuing to make the same mistake hoping for a
>>>>
>>>>>different result is generally considered to be insane.
>>>>
>>>> Answer number 22 with a repitition of 17 above, but of course, you are
>>>> not like that!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How 'bout we use those dollars and manpower to secure our borders and
>>>>>secure
>>>>
>>>>>our ports and use the international intelligence network to find and
>>>>>kill
>>>>
>>>>>terrorists? And how 'bout we stop listening to "leaders" with vested
>>>>>interests in oil and defense contracts? Hmmm?
>>>>
>>>> Agreement limited to answer #9 only, with reservations expressed in
>>>> number 49...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If that's lefty lunacy, sign me up.
>>>>>
>>>>>S
>>>>
>>>> Oh-tay
>>>>
>>>> You know, I am starting to see your face when I read your post.
>>>> I don't want to debate much tonight.
>>>>
>>>> We need all kinds to make a good world. Your kind as well as mine.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>>
>>>> DC
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85054 is a reply to message #85022] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 09:35 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
No Sarah. I don't think we should kill all Muslims. I think we are obviously
on different planets here. What part of my post led you to believe that I
think this?
Deej
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653b5af@linux...
> So . . . hang on a minute here . . . you're saying you think we SHOULD
> kill all Muslims, starting with the entire Middle East?
>
> S
>
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4653a4f0@linux...
>>
>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
>> news:46537917@linux...
>>> "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole
>>> Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero
>>> ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely
>>> entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an
>>> un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the
>>> world into even greater instability."
>>>
>>> - George H.W. Bush
>>
>> And you are referring to what coalition????...................the one
>> that Clinton failed to hold together the minute he was elected???
>>
>>>
>>> Baby Bush shoulda listened to Big Bush instead of to "the crazies" (how
>>> Bush I's administration referred to the "neocons").
>>
>> Bush I had achieved a scenario wherein if Sadaam violated sanctions,
>> there were remedies. No one was willing to explore those remedies in any
>> kind of serious way. this is Clintons major crime, IMO. He had a duty to
>> do this and he didn't. As the 90's wore on, a billionaire maniac who paid
>> blood money to the familes of terrorists to ensure that the could more
>> easlily walk into Israeli shipping malls and restaurants and murder
>> people while he flaunted UN authority was buiding his time until sham
>> sanctions were officially lifted while in Afghanistan, the weaselly rich
>> wannabee who felt dissed because the Saudi's didn't want him to defend
>> them from Sadaam and decided it should be us, collects the scum of the
>> earth and every other variety of homicidal miscreant, gets some lunatic
>> mullas to deify them in their own minds and sends these Aassholes around
>> the world to kill people.
>>
>> Sorry Sarah....some things are not complicated at all.
>>>
>>> If this crusade is truly a righteous one, and if six figure "collateral
>>> damage" is an acceptable loss for what we've gained (?) so far, then why
>>> screw around? Why not just kill everyone between India and the
>>> Mediterranean (except for Israel, of course)? It's the only way to be
>>> sure. We must have the technology. After that we should probably just
>>> eliminate all Muslims around the world, since apparently the Quran
>>> compels true believers to kill non-Muslims. Islamic extremists are a
>>> cancer on civilisation, and you have to get the surrounding tissue when
>>> you remove a cancer.
>>>
>>> It's only logical.
>>
>> Because if you listen to the majority of the international press, they
>> would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>> world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who would
>> like to be rid of them.
>>
>> In spite of the apparent lunacy that I see on the left side of the aisle,
>> I think that they have a huge part to play in the downfall of these
>> cretins.
>>
>> http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/misc/ris e-fall-islam.htm
>>
>> ...if the left doesn't screw the pooch beforehand and in so doing, take
>> those in this country that are still willing to fight for it with them.
>>
>> ;o)
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85066 is a reply to message #85003] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 12:07 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ wrote:
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46532f2d@linux...
>> DJ wrote:
>>> Jaimie,
>>>
>>> I don't think Bush has ever compared himself to Churchill. I'm doing this
>>> by just pointing out that he said pretty much the same thing before we
>>> fwent in to finish the ongoing war Clinton neglected in Iraq.
>
>> Are you saying Bush essentially stole from Churchill's speeches?
>
> I didn't hear Bush use these words or anything close really. I think he is
> confronted by a similar situation and tried to express the same things to a
> nation, half of whom, doesn't believe that we are at war.
We never declared war. Maybe that would be a start.
Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
was a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made that
tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
during time of war.
A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an
addicted gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a
desperate attempt to come out even in the end.
On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and compare
it to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up by
juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very different.
>
> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone in and
>> racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to "fix" Bush I's
>> unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was stupid to agree with
>> Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>
> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal times in the
> history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and he's
> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am I),
and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes you
are right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck,
sometimes Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those
are, and to not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer
certainty in a complex world.
BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around as
a species. :^)
>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>
> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
> yin/yang'esque
There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason we
can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
optimally and adapts appropriately.
>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions? :^)
>
> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>
> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
I look forward to it!
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> ;o)
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85067 is a reply to message #85066] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 12:30 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>DJ wrote:
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46532f2d@linux...
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>> Jaimie,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think Bush has ever compared himself to Churchill. I'm doing
this
>>>> by just pointing out that he said pretty much the same thing before
we
>>>> fwent in to finish the ongoing war Clinton neglected in Iraq.
>>
>>> Are you saying Bush essentially stole from Churchill's speeches?
>>
>> I didn't hear Bush use these words or anything close really. I think he
is
>> confronted by a similar situation and tried to express the same things
to a
>> nation, half of whom, doesn't believe that we are at war.
>
>We never declared war. Maybe that would be a start.
While this is true, and a good point, it's the fault of Congress not the
executive. Despite their cost in blood and treasure our military hijinks
in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kuwait etc. and so forth
were never declared wars. Were Congress to reclaim that power would be a
good part, but you can't blame the executives for not getting what the Constitution
demands if the people expressly charged to declare war won't defend that
right.
TCB
>Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
>was a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
>sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
>country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made that
>tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
>Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
>during time of war.
>
>A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an
>addicted gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a
>desperate attempt to come out even in the end.
>
>On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and compare
>it to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
>context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up by
>juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>
>
>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very different.
>>
>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>
>I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>
>
>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone in
and
>>> racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to "fix" Bush
I's
>>> unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was stupid to agree
with
>>> Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>
>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal times
in the
>> history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and he's
>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>
>I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am I),
>and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes you
>are right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck,
>sometimes Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those
>are, and to not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer
>certainty in a complex world.
>
>BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
>times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around as
>a species. :^)
>
>
>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>
>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>> yin/yang'esque
>
>There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
>considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason we
>can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
>optimally and adapts appropriately.
>
>
>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions? :^)
>>
>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>
>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>
>I look forward to it!
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>> ;o)
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85069 is a reply to message #84865] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 12:56 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
That argument begs a lot of questions. In fact, many people (not just
the "far left") think this administration may be making the world more
dangerous, not less.
Yet some people see no need to question, and even rationalize that
questioning is somehow a bad thing.
Go figure.
I think it's entirely possible to criticize repression wherever it
exists, religious or secular. And as we look to respond to it, it's our
responsibility to hold our government to high standards, support
responsible action and question irresponsible action, as best we can.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Rich Lamanna wrote:
> Good point! As you say, go figure.
>
> Rich
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com <http://www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com>>
> wrote in message news:464ddbf0@linux...
> The thing that has always intrigued me is how the folks on the far
> left in this country slag the only administration that is willing to
> fight for their right to slag the administration. The
> leftleaning/outspoken first amendment loving folks will be the first
> to be slaughtered by those that they are tacitly assisting in
> defeating the policies of this administration.
>
> go figure.
>
> ;o}
>
> "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net
> <mailto:richard.lamanna@verizon.net>> wrote in message
> news:464dc9f4@linux...
> Deej, Interesting article by Fred Halliday, well written. It
> astounds me at how the left continues to justify and make
> excuses for Islamic extremist violence and fascism while at the
> same time condemn those democratic and freedom loving people,
> who reserve the right to defend themselves against such attacks.
>
> Rich
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com
> <http://www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com>> wrote in message
> news:464dc442@linux...
>
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com
> <mailto:sarahjane@sarahtonin.com>> wrote in message
> news:464da14d@linux...
> > Surely this doesn't surprise you . . . ? Perhaps if we'd
> been treating
> > terrorism as the international criminal problem that it's
> always been
> > instead of as a pretense for war,
>
> .........now if they would just build an asprin factory
> there, we could attack it with a cruise missle. Looks like
> most of the people there are black so this would be PC.
>
> flourishing nests of fanatical morons like
> > this would be nipped in the bud. Hey, fight the fire,
> I'm with you, but I
> > hope you don't think what we've been doing in Iraq for
> the last four years
> > has done anything but fan the flames.
> >
> there are lots of flourishing nests of fanatical morons Sarah.
> http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/135069_comment.p hp
>
>
> > Some alternative quotations:
> >
> > "And now the whole nation--pulpit and all-- will take up
> the war-cry, and
> > shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures
> to open his mouth;
> > and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the
> statesmen will invent
> > cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is
> attacked, and every
> > man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities,
> and will diligently
> > study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of
> them; and thus he will
> > by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will
> thank God for the
> > better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque
> self-deception." -
> > Mark Twain, from The Mysterious Stranger
>
> Mark Twain also said "Get your facts first, and then you can
> distort them as much as you please".
>
> >
> > "In the councils of government, we must guard against the
> acquisition of
> > unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
> > military-industrial complex. The potential for the
> disastrous rise of
> > misplaced power exists and will persist.
>
> Mark Twain also said "I have been throught some terrible
> things in my life, some of which actually happened"
>
> >
> > We must never let the weight of this combination endanger
> our liberties or
> > democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
> Only an alert and
> > knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of
> the huge industrial
> > and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
> methods and goals, so
> > that security and liberty may prosper together." - Dwight
> D. Eisenhower,
> > 1961
>
> Deej also said "An alert and knowledgable citizenry depends
> upon an alert and knowldegable CIA"
>
> > "...it makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are
> great numbers of
> > our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien
> invasion or are those
> > illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't
> do? One thing is
> > certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should
> be allowed if it
> > results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of
> harvesters." - Ronald
> > Reagan
>
> I agree with this. I also think I should not have to produce
> any identification, pay taxes and the ER here should be my
> own personal health insurance, which I don't have to pay.
> Paying vehicle insurance is such a pain in the ass, I
> shouldn't have to do hqat either. I also liked living in
> Mexico quite a bit. Problem is, I can't got there and live.
> If I go down there without any papers, they will throw me in
> jail. If I have a wreck down there without insurance, they
> will throw me in jail. I know these things for a fact.
> Pisses me off.
>
> >
> > "You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a
> Frenchman; you can go
> > to live in Germany, you cannot become a German- or a
> Turk, or a Greek, or
> > whatever. But anyone, from any corner of the world, can
> come to live in
> > America and become an American." - more Ronald Reagan
>
> I think it's sooooo cool when people who are liberal quote
> Reagan. Are you a Reagan fan Sarah? Did you enjoy the Contra
> Show? How about the way we paid for it by selling cocaine in
> the inner cities? Ollie North one of your heroes?
>
> >
> > "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final
> right to the manger
> > even though he may have lain there for a very long time.
> I do not admit that
> > right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong
> has been done to the
> > Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia.
> I do not admit that
> > a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a
> stronger race, a
> > higher-grade race has come in and taken their place." -
> Winston Churchill
> > (who apparently never said that thing about
> liberal/conservative heart/brain
> >
> http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 12 )
>
> I'll bet if we just got a few lawyers involved, they could
> find a way to challenge the title to this land, then we
> could pass a law that handed Islamberg over to the Senecas
> and they would kick their asses out of there in a heartbeat
> and set up a casino.
>
> > "Religion poisons everything." - Christopher Hitchens
>
> "I read in the newspapers they are going to have 30 minutes
> of intellectual stuff on television every Monday from 7.30
> to 8.00 to educate America. They couldn't educate America if
> they started at 6:30".-Groucho Marx
> >>Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" - Samuel
> Johnson
>
> “When we have lost everything, including hope, life becomes
> a disgrace, and death a duty."-W.C. Fields
> >
> > "Oh, my God! Space aliens! Don't eat me! I have a wife
> and kids. Eat
> > them!" - Homer Simpson
>
>
> >
> > "Get Eurass Back to Eurasia" - anti-immigrant protest
> sign from Simpsons
> > episode
>
> "We don't have a permit. Run! "-Edward D. Wood, Jr.
>
> >
> > Courage,
> > Sarah ( . . . if I only had a brain . . . )
>
> "I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge
> me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and
> lead him to a quiet place and kill him"-Mark Twain.
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 12
> > "Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net
> <mailto:richard.lamanna@verizon.net>> wrote in message
> > news:464ce932@linux...
> >> You can thank me for lighting the fire, you can all fan
> the flames. Why
> >> the
> >> heck not welcome some more illegals.
> >>
> >> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm
> >>
> >> "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell
> Phillips
> >>
> >> "No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless
> he be vigilant in
> >> its
> >> preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur
> >>
> >> "FREEDOM IS NOT FOR THE TIMID." -- posted as an
> announcement outside a
> >> Unitarian Church in Texas on Sept. 17, 2001
> >>
> >> "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce
> man, and brave, and
> >> hated
> >> and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join
> him, for then it
> >> costs
> >> nothing
> >> to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain
> >>
> >> "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to
> the weak or the
> >> timid."
> >> -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Inaugural Address, Jan.
> 20, 1953
> >>
> >> "The future doesn't belong to the faint-hearted. It
> belongs to the
> >> brave."
> >> -- Ronald Reagan
> >>
> >> "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to
> the vigilant, the
> >> active,
> >> the brave." -- Patrick Henry
> >>
> >> "The land of the free will cease to be when it's no
> longer the home of
> >> the brave."-- Rick Gaber
> >>
> >> "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart,
> >> and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't
> have a brain." --
> >> Winston Churchill
> >>
> >> Guidance,
> >> Rich
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85071 is a reply to message #85067] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 13:00 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
TCB wrote:
> While this is true, and a good point, it's the fault of Congress not the
> executive. Despite their cost in blood and treasure our military hijinks
> in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kuwait etc. and so forth
> were never declared wars. Were Congress to reclaim that power would be a
> good part, but you can't blame the executives for not getting what the Constitution
> demands if the people expressly charged to declare war won't defend that
> right.
Good points. Deej was looking for reasons that "half the people don't
believe we're at war." Part of it is the not declaring part. Go ahead
and blame that on Congress, but also on the executive for not asking for
a declaration for whatever reason when one party essentially controlled
both of these government branches at the time and exercised that control
from the whitehouse primarily. Another other element is the move by the
executive branch to sanitize the conflict here, by lowering taxes while
accelerating spending; trying to control reporting (show no caskets,
things are fine, mission accomplished); and generally painting a less
than accurate picture of the complete situation.
You're quite right that we've done a lot of fighting without declaring
war since WWII.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> TCB
>
>
>> Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
>> was a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
>> sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
>> country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made that
>> tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
>> Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
>> during time of war.
>>
>> A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an
>> addicted gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a
>> desperate attempt to come out even in the end.
>>
>> On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and compare
>
>> it to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
>
>> context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up by
>
>> juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>>
>>
>>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very different.
>>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>> I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>>
>>
>>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone in
> and
>>>> racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to "fix" Bush
> I's
>>>> unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was stupid to agree
> with
>>>> Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>>
>>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal times
> in the
>>> history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and he's
>
>>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am I),
>
>> and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes you
>> are right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck,
>> sometimes Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those
>> are, and to not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer
>
>> certainty in a complex world.
>>
>> BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
>> times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around as
>
>> a species. :^)
>>
>>
>>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
>
>>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>>> yin/yang'esque
>> There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
>> considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason we
>
>> can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
>> optimally and adapts appropriately.
>>
>>
>>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions? :^)
>>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>> I look forward to it!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>> ;o)
>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85074 is a reply to message #85066] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 13:37 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right
I just wish I was half the man my dogs think I am.
;o)
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46549242@linux...
> DJ wrote:
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46532f2d@linux...
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>> Jaimie,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think Bush has ever compared himself to Churchill. I'm doing
>>>> this by just pointing out that he said pretty much the same thing
>>>> before we fwent in to finish the ongoing war Clinton neglected in Iraq.
>>
>>> Are you saying Bush essentially stole from Churchill's speeches?
>>
>> I didn't hear Bush use these words or anything close really. I think he
>> is confronted by a similar situation and tried to express the same things
>> to a nation, half of whom, doesn't believe that we are at war.
>
> We never declared war. Maybe that would be a start.
>
> Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His was
> a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
> sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
> country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made that
> tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
> Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
> during time of war.
>
> A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an addicted
> gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a desperate
> attempt to come out even in the end.
>
> On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and compare it
> to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
> context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up by
> juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>
>
>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very different.
>>
>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>
> I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>
>
>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone in
>>> and racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to "fix"
>>> Bush I's unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was stupid to
>>> agree with Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>
>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal times in
>> the history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and he's
>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>
> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am I),
> and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes you are
> right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck, sometimes
> Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those are, and to
> not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer certainty in a
> complex world.
>
> BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
> times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around as a
> species. :^)
>
>
>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>
>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>> yin/yang'esque
>
> There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
> considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason we
> can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
> optimally and adapts appropriately.
>
>
>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions? :^)
>>
>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>
>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>
> I look forward to it!
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>> ;o)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85075 is a reply to message #85071] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 13:55 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Well, Jamie, I'm a pragmatist, a capitalist, and half a libertarian. So I
don't expect people to act other than in what they perceive as their self
interest. So to me the people to blame for the press being lapdogs are the
lapdog press. It's their job to sell newspapers and television commercials,
but it's also their job to tell the truth to power. Every executive since
the time of Homer has tried to spin the reporting on their behalf, I bet
Achilles had his reputation buffed a bit as the story was fleshed out. Our
current executive thinks its in their self interest to do the things you
say (hide the costs, both human and financial, of the war), but what I can't
understand is why Congress and the press don't think of it as in their interest
to push back. I guess the representatives of We the People are too busy finding
new ways to get defense contracts and military bases back in their districts.
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>TCB wrote:
>> While this is true, and a good point, it's the fault of Congress not the
>> executive. Despite their cost in blood and treasure our military hijinks
>> in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Kuwait etc. and so
forth
>> were never declared wars. Were Congress to reclaim that power would be
a
>> good part, but you can't blame the executives for not getting what the
Constitution
>> demands if the people expressly charged to declare war won't defend that
>> right.
>
>Good points. Deej was looking for reasons that "half the people don't
>believe we're at war." Part of it is the not declaring part. Go ahead
>and blame that on Congress, but also on the executive for not asking for
>a declaration for whatever reason when one party essentially controlled
>both of these government branches at the time and exercised that control
>from the whitehouse primarily. Another other element is the move by the
>executive branch to sanitize the conflict here, by lowering taxes while
>accelerating spending; trying to control reporting (show no caskets,
>things are fine, mission accomplished); and generally painting a less
>than accurate picture of the complete situation.
>
>You're quite right that we've done a lot of fighting without declaring
>war since WWII.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>> TCB
>>
>>
>>> Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
>>> was a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
>>> sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
>>> country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made that
>>> tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
>>> Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
>>> during time of war.
>>>
>>> A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an
>>> addicted gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a
>>> desperate attempt to come out even in the end.
>>>
>>> On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and compare
>>
>>> it to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
>>
>>> context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up
by
>>
>>> juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very different.
>>>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>>> I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone
in
>> and
>>>>> racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to "fix" Bush
>> I's
>>>>> unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was stupid to agree
>> with
>>>>> Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>>>
>>>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal times
>> in the
>>>> history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>>>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and
he's
>>
>>>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am I),
>>
>>> and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes you
>>> are right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck,
>>> sometimes Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those
>>> are, and to not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer
>>
>>> certainty in a complex world.
>>>
>>> BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
>>> times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around
as
>>
>>> a species. :^)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing
of
>>
>>>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>>>> yin/yang'esque
>>> There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
>>> considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason
we
>>
>>> can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
>>> optimally and adapts appropriately.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions?
:^)
>>>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>>> I look forward to it!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>> ;o)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85079 is a reply to message #85074] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 14:22 |
wireline[3]
Messages: 1
Registered: May 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
News flash - he ain't always wrong either...and in this instance, he is correct
"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right
>
>I just wish I was half the man my dogs think I am.
>
>;o)
>
>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46549242@linux...
>> DJ wrote:
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46532f2d@linux...
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> Jaimie,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think Bush has ever compared himself to Churchill. I'm doing
>>>>> this by just pointing out that he said pretty much the same thing
>>>>> before we fwent in to finish the ongoing war Clinton neglected in Iraq.
>>>
>>>> Are you saying Bush essentially stole from Churchill's speeches?
>>>
>>> I didn't hear Bush use these words or anything close really. I think
he
>>> is confronted by a similar situation and tried to express the same things
>>> to a nation, half of whom, doesn't believe that we are at war.
>>
>> We never declared war. Maybe that would be a start.
>>
>> Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
was
>> a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
>> sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
>> country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made that
>> tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
>> Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
>> during time of war.
>>
>> A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an addicted
>> gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a desperate
>> attempt to come out even in the end.
>>
>> On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and compare
it
>> to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
>> context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up by
>> juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>>
>>
>>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very different.
>>>
>>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>>
>> I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>>
>>
>>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone in
>>>> and racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to "fix"
>>>> Bush I's unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was stupid
to
>>>> agree with Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>>
>>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal times
in
>>> the history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and he's
>>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>>
>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am I),
>> and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes you
are
>> right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck, sometimes
>> Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those are, and to
>> not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer certainty
in a
>> complex world.
>>
>> BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
>> times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around
as a
>> species. :^)
>>
>>
>>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing
of
>>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>>
>>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>>> yin/yang'esque
>>
>> There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
>> considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason
we
>> can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
>> optimally and adapts appropriately.
>>
>>
>>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions? :^)
>>>
>>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>>
>>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>>
>> I look forward to it!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>> ;o)
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85085 is a reply to message #84977] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 17:26 |
Rich Lamanna
Messages: 316
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C79D70.4A9DC4E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jamie, picky, picky, picky :-) Well, all it says on that site is, "there =
is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this", possibly he didn't =
say it, possibly he did. Somebody obviously attributed it to him. Wonder =
who that was? The liberals of yesteryear are today's conservatives =
anyway.
Thanks for the edification,
Rich
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4652677b@linux...
>=20
> > 'Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart,
> > and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.' =
-
> > Winston Churchill
>=20
> Fact check:
>=20
> http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3 D112
>=20
> Quotes Falsely Attributed:
> These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has falsely=20
> attributed them to Churchill.
>=20
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> >> To react to that, to conduct a "War Against Terrorism" is
> >> about as desperate and pathetic IMHO.
> >=20
> > Bill, it's not a war against terrorism, this is a misnomer. It is a =
war
> > against "Radical Islamic Extremism" and their desire to impose an =
Islamic
> > theocratic caliphate on the free world.
> >=20
> >> And it's so uncreative and historically repetitive as to be a big =
dumb
> >> bore.
> >=20
> > We defeated Japan and Germany and they're not the worst allies. Come =
to
> > think of it, we bailed out the French in WW2 and what the hell did =
we get in
> > return, Chirac? Maybe now, however, with Nicolas Sarkozy we'll be =
better
> > thought of.
> >=20
> > Rich
> >=20
>=20
> >=20
> > "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message =
news:464e6433@linux...
> >> It was too early when I wrote that.
> >>
> >> Look, it's a thorny issue. The point I was trying to make is I =
support
> >> the freedom of those religions that grant others the same freedom. =
I
> >> don't support freedom of a religion that is trying to curtail =
freedom,
> >> you dig?
> >>
> >> We have to take responsibility for mis-guided people just the way =
one
> >> does for a child. With a small child, you don't get angry and =
punish him
> >> or her for making a bad choice. You exert calm, confident control =
and
> >> direct it towards the right choice. We have to be bigger than them, =
and
> >> not react angrily to their desperate attempts to cause an effect on =
us.
> >> Think how pathetically desperate a group must be if the only way =
they
> >> can dream up to communicate is through terrorism. That is quite
> >> pathetic.>
> > Just think how much more effective and creative it would have been
> >> to spend a few billion dollars to simply buy access to the =
terrorists
> >> and then put them away. Very little collateral damage. The people =
who
> >> stand up for freedom by denouncing the terrorists get rich as they
> >> deserve for their bravery and everybody else lives happier, free-er =
lives.
> >>
> >> I know some will say it would never work like that, but did anyone =
ever
> > try?
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> >>> Bill, I have no problem with freedom, you infidel :-) I am a
> >>> constitutionalist and believe strongly in the 1st amendment.
> > Unfortunately
> >>> the radical Islamic doesn't cherish those same freedoms you and I =
hold
> >>> dearly. They are willing to die to impose their fascism and =
intolerant
> >>> theocratic rubbish upon us.
> >>>
> >>> Remember Waco. The ATF, under the administration of Clinton and =
Janet
> >>> Sterno, stormed the Branch Davidian home, in Rambo fashion, to =
serve a
> >>> search warrant issued on the suspicion that the group was =
stockpiling
> >>> automatic weapons, massacring almost 100 hundred men, women, and
> > children.
> >>> But I doubt that the FBI or ATF would ever raid these holy men, oh =
God
> > no,
> >>> despite the fact that they are irrefutably armed to the teeth and
> > practicing
> >>> for violent Jihad.
> >>>
> >>> Did you read the article dude? Did you read the part about the =
violent
> >>> incidents involving Jamaat Ul Fuora in the US?
> >>> "By 2004 federal investigators uncovered evidence that linked both =
the
> > DC
> >>> "sniper killer" John Allen Muhammed and "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid =
to
> > the
> >>> group and reports surfaced that Wall Street Journal reporter =
Daniel
> > Pearl
> >>> was captured and beheaded in the process of attempting to obtain =
an
> >>> interview with Sheikh Gilani in Pakistan."
> >>>
> >>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/paul-williams-map-larg e.jpg
> >>>
> >>> What were Koresh and the Davidians guilty of? Maybe of being =
Christians.
> >>> Nothing compared to this group. Wake up man, this is not about =
freedom
> > of
> >>> religion this is about a Jihad threatening our existence and the =
choice
> > to
> >>> exercise any freedoms let alone freedom of religion. We had better =
keep
> > an
> >>> eye on these guys.
> >>>
> >>> Rich
> >>>
> >>> From my cold dead hands - Charlton Heston
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote in message
> > news:464d8d4f@linux...
> >>>> I strongly support freedom, especially freedom of religion. Part =
of
> >>>> religious freedom is the freedom of religious choice.
> >>>>
> >>>> A religion worthy of freedom would increase individual freedom.
> >>>>
> >>>> With freedom comes increased responsibility; with increased
> >>>> responsibility comes increased freedom. By increasing freedoms =
for all
> >>>> one's own freedoms are increased.
> >>>>
> >>>> =93Constant and continual alertness is the price of freedom.
> >>>> Constant willingness to fight back is the price of freedom.
> >>>> There is no other price actually.=94
> >>>> =97 L. RON HUBBARD
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> >>>>> You can thank me for lighting the fire, you can all fan the =
flames.
> > Why
> >>> the
> >>>>> heck not welcome some more illegals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be =
vigilant
> > in
> >>> its
> >>>>> preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "FREEDOM IS NOT FOR THE TIMID." -- posted as an announcement =
outside a
> >>>>> Unitarian Church in Texas on Sept. 17, 2001
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and =
brave,
> >>> and
> >>>>> hated
> >>>>> and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for =
then it
> >>> costs
> >>>>> nothing
> >>>>> to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak =
or the
> >>>>> timid."
> >>>>> -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1953
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The future doesn't belong to the faint-hearted. It belongs to =
the
> >>> brave."
> >>>>> -- Ronald Reagan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the =
vigilant,
> > the
> >>>>> active,
> >>>>> the brave." -- Patrick Henry
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "The land of the free will cease to be when it's no longer the =
home of
> >>>>> the brave."-- Rick Gaber
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart,
> >>>>> and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a =
brain." --=20
> >>>>> Winston Churchill
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Guidance,
> >>>>> Rich
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >=20
> >
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C79D70.4A9DC4E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1252">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1555" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Jamie, picky, picky, picky :-) Well, all it says on =
that site=20
is, "there is no record of anyone <EM><STRONG>hearing</STRONG></EM> =
Churchill=20
say this", possibly he didn't say it, possibly he did. Somebody =
obviously=20
attributed it to him. Wonder who that was? The liberals of =
yesteryear=20
are today's conservatives anyway.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thanks for the edification,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>"Jamie K" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:Meta@Dimensional.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>Meta@Dimensional.com</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>> wrote in =
message=20
</FONT><A href=3D"news:4652677b@linux"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:4652677b@linux</FONT></A><FONT =
size=3D2>...</FONT></DIV><FONT=20
size=3D2>> <BR>> > 'Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal =
doesn't=20
have a heart,<BR>> > and any 40 year-old who isn't a =
conservative=20
doesn't have a brain.' -<BR>> > Winston Churchill<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
Fact check:<BR>> <BR>> </FONT><A=20
href=3D" http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3 D112"=
><FONT=20
size=3D2> http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3 D112=
</FONT></A><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>> <BR>> Quotes Falsely Attributed:<BR>> These quotes =
make for=20
good story-telling but popular myth has falsely <BR>> attributed them =
to=20
Churchill.<BR>> <BR>> Cheers,<BR>> -Jamie<BR>> =
</FONT><A href=3D"http://www.JamieKrutz.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>www.JamieKrutz.com</FONT></A><BR><FONT size=3D2>> <BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> Rich Lamanna wrote:<BR>> >> To react to that, to =
conduct a=20
"War Against Terrorism" is<BR>> >> about as desperate and =
pathetic=20
IMHO.<BR>> > <BR>> > Bill, it's not a war against terrorism, =
this is=20
a misnomer. It is a war<BR>> > against "Radical Islamic Extremism" =
and=20
their desire to impose an Islamic<BR>> > theocratic caliphate on =
the free=20
world.<BR>> > <BR>> >> And it's so uncreative and =
historically=20
repetitive as to be a big dumb<BR>> >> bore.<BR>> > =
<BR>> >=20
We defeated Japan and Germany and they're not the worst allies. Come =
to<BR>>=20
> think of it, we bailed out the French in WW2 and what the hell did =
we get=20
in<BR>> > return, Chirac? Maybe now, however, with Nicolas Sarkozy =
we'll=20
be better<BR>> > thought of.<BR>> > <BR>> > =
Rich<BR>> >=20
<BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> > "Bill L" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:bill@billlorentzen.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>bill@billlorentzen.com</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>> wrote in =
message=20
</FONT><A href=3D"news:464e6433@linux"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:464e6433@linux</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>...<BR>> =
>> It was=20
too early when I wrote that.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Look, =
it's a=20
thorny issue. The point I was trying to make is I support<BR>> =
>> the=20
freedom of those religions that grant others the same freedom. I<BR>> =
>> don't support freedom of a religion that is trying to curtail=20
freedom,<BR>> >> you dig?<BR>> >><BR>> >> We =
have to=20
take responsibility for mis-guided people just the way one<BR>> =
>> does=20
for a child. With a small child, you don't get angry and punish =
him<BR>>=20
>> or her for making a bad choice. You exert calm, confident =
control=20
and<BR>> >> direct it towards the right choice. We have to be =
bigger=20
than them, and<BR>> >> not react angrily to their desperate =
attempts to=20
cause an effect on us.<BR>> >> Think how pathetically desperate =
a group=20
must be if the only way they<BR>> >> can dream up to =
communicate is=20
through terrorism. That is quite<BR>> >> pathetic.><BR>> =
>=20
Just think how much more effective and creative it would have =
been<BR>>=20
>> to spend a few billion dollars to simply buy access to the=20
terrorists<BR>> >> and then put them away. Very little =
collateral=20
damage. The people who<BR>> >> stand up for freedom by =
denouncing the=20
terrorists get rich as they<BR>> >> deserve for their bravery =
and=20
everybody else lives happier, free-er lives.<BR>> >><BR>> =
>> I=20
know some will say it would never work like that, but did anyone =
ever<BR>>=20
> try?<BR>> >> Bill<BR>> >><BR>> =
>><BR>>=20
>> Rich Lamanna wrote:<BR>> >>> Bill, I have no =
problem with=20
freedom, you infidel :-) I am a<BR>> >>> constitutionalist =
and=20
believe strongly in the 1st amendment.<BR>> > =
Unfortunately<BR>>=20
>>> the radical Islamic doesn't cherish those same freedoms you =
and I=20
hold<BR>> >>> dearly. They are willing to die to impose =
their=20
fascism and intolerant<BR>> >>> theocratic rubbish upon =
us.<BR>>=20
>>><BR>> >>> Remember Waco. The ATF, under the=20
administration of Clinton and Janet<BR>> >>> Sterno, stormed =
the=20
Branch Davidian home, in Rambo fashion, to serve a<BR>> >>> =
search=20
warrant issued on the suspicion that the group was stockpiling<BR>>=20
>>> automatic weapons, massacring almost 100 hundred men, =
women,=20
and<BR>> > children.<BR>> >>> But I doubt that the FBI =
or ATF=20
would ever raid these holy men, oh God<BR>> > no,<BR>> =
>>>=20
despite the fact that they are irrefutably armed to the teeth =
and<BR>> >=20
practicing<BR>> >>> for violent Jihad.<BR>> =
>>><BR>>=20
>>> Did you read the article dude? Did you read the part about =
the=20
violent<BR>> >>> incidents involving Jamaat Ul Fuora in the=20
US?<BR>> >>> "By 2004 federal investigators uncovered =
evidence that=20
linked both the<BR>> > DC<BR>> >>> "sniper killer" =
John Allen=20
Muhammed and "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid to<BR>> > the<BR>> =
>>>=20
group and reports surfaced that Wall Street Journal reporter =
Daniel<BR>> >=20
Pearl<BR>> >>> was captured and beheaded in the process of=20
attempting to obtain an<BR>> >>> interview with Sheikh =
Gilani in=20
Pakistan."<BR>> >>><BR>> >>> </FONT><A=20
href=3D" http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/paul-williams-map-larg e.jpg=
"><FONT=20
size=3D2> http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/paul-williams-map-larg e.jp=
g</FONT></A><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>> >>><BR>> >>> What were Koresh and the =
Davidians=20
guilty of? Maybe of being Christians.<BR>> >>> Nothing =
compared to=20
this group. Wake up man, this is not about freedom<BR>> > =
of<BR>>=20
>>> religion this is about a Jihad threatening our existence =
and the=20
choice<BR>> > to<BR>> >>> exercise any freedoms let =
alone=20
freedom of religion. We had better keep<BR>> > an<BR>> =
>>> eye=20
on these guys.<BR>> >>><BR>> >>> Rich<BR>>=20
>>><BR>> >>> From my cold dead hands - Charlton=20
Heston<BR>> >>><BR>> >>><BR>> >>> =
"Bill L"=20
<</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:bill@billlorentzen.com"><FONT=20
size=3D2>bill@billlorentzen.com</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>> wrote in=20
message<BR>> > </FONT><A href=3D"news:464d8d4f@linux"><FONT=20
size=3D2>news:464d8d4f@linux</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2>...<BR>> =
>>>> I=20
strongly support freedom, especially freedom of religion. Part =
of<BR>>=20
>>>> religious freedom is the freedom of religious =
choice.<BR>>=20
>>>><BR>> >>>> A religion worthy of freedom =
would=20
increase individual freedom.<BR>> >>>><BR>> =
>>>>=20
With freedom comes increased responsibility; with increased<BR>>=20
>>>> responsibility comes increased freedom. By increasing =
freedoms=20
for all<BR>> >>>> one's own freedoms are =
increased.<BR>>=20
>>>><BR>> >>>> =93Constant and continual =
alertness is=20
the price of freedom.<BR>> >>>> Constant willingness to =
fight=20
back is the price of freedom.<BR>> >>>> There is no other =
price=20
actually.=94<BR>> >>>> =97 L. RON HUBBARD<BR>>=20
>>>><BR>> >>>><BR>> =
>>>><BR>>=20
>>>><BR>> >>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:<BR>>=20
>>>>> You can thank me for lighting the fire, you can all =
fan the=20
flames.<BR>> > Why<BR>> >>> the<BR>> =
>>>>>=20
heck not welcome some more illegals.<BR>> =
>>>>><BR>>=20
>>>>> </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm"><FON=
T=20
size=3D2>http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm</FON=
T></A><BR><FONT=20
size=3D2>> >>>>><BR>> >>>>> "Eternal =
vigilance=20
is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips<BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>> "No man is entitled to =
the=20
blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant<BR>> > in<BR>> =
>>>=20
its<BR>> >>>>> preservation." -- General Douglas=20
MacArthur<BR>> >>>>><BR>> >>>>> =
"FREEDOM IS=20
NOT FOR THE TIMID." -- posted as an announcement outside a<BR>>=20
>>>>> Unitarian Church in Texas on Sept. 17, 2001<BR>> =
>>>>><BR>> >>>>> "In the beginning of a =
change=20
the patriot is a scarce man, and brave,<BR>> >>> and<BR>> =
>>>>> hated<BR>> >>>>> and scorned. =
When his=20
cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it<BR>> >>>=20
costs<BR>> >>>>> nothing<BR>> >>>>> =
to be a=20
patriot." -- Mark Twain<BR>> >>>>><BR>>=20
>>>>> "History does not long entrust the care of =
freedom to=20
the weak or the<BR>> >>>>> timid."<BR>>=20
>>>>> -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Inaugural Address, =
Jan. 20,=20
1953<BR>> >>>>><BR>> >>>>> "The =
future=20
doesn't belong to the faint-hearted. It belongs to the<BR>>=20
>>> brave."<BR>> >>>>> -- Ronald =
Reagan<BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>> "The battle, sir, is =
not to=20
the strong alone; it is to the vigilant,<BR>> > the<BR>>=20
>>>>> active,<BR>> >>>>> the brave." -- =
Patrick=20
Henry<BR>> >>>>><BR>> >>>>> "The =
land of the=20
free will cease to be when it's no longer the home of<BR>>=20
>>>>> the brave."-- Rick Gaber<BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>> "Any 20 year-old who =
isn't a=20
liberal doesn't have a heart,<BR>> >>>>> and any 40 =
year-old=20
who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." -- <BR>> =
>>>>>=20
Winston Churchill<BR>> >>>>><BR>> =
>>>>>=20
Guidance,<BR>> >>>>> Rich<BR>> =
>>>>><BR>>=20
>>>>><BR>> >>>>><BR>> =
>>><BR>>=20
> <BR>> ></FONT></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C79D70.4A9DC4E0--
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85087 is a reply to message #85022] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 18:02 |
Rich Lamanna
Messages: 316
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press, they
> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who would
> > like to be rid of them.
Sarah, I think what Deej is saying here is that there are many, many more,
non fundamentalist Muslims around the world who are reasonable, not
radicalized and want to live under democracy rather than theocracy. What the
press would have you believe is just the opposite, that the crazy ones are
the majority. You don't see the press covering dissenting views by more
moderate Islamics. I agree with Deej. This can be supported if you look at
the contemptuous reaction by the younger and educated in Iran against the
mullahs and Amadinejad. There is much dissent in Iran, which you only read
about in rare publications. There is also much repression in Iran against
the voice of democracy. We need to be the light and hope for the world and
for democratic freedoms. The alternative is frightening, isn't it!
http://www.nowpublic.com/silencing_dissent_in_iran_four_hang ed_0
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653b5af@linux...
> So . . . hang on a minute here . . . you're saying you think we SHOULD
kill
> all Muslims, starting with the entire Middle East?
>
> S
>
>
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4653a4f0@linux...
> >
> > "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
news:46537917@linux...
> >> "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the
whole
> >> Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero
....
> >> assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched
> >> dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable
> >> urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into
even
> >> greater instability."
> >>
> >> - George H.W. Bush
> >
> > And you are referring to what coalition????...................the one
that
> > Clinton failed to hold together the minute he was elected???
> >
> >>
> >> Baby Bush shoulda listened to Big Bush instead of to "the crazies" (how
> >> Bush I's administration referred to the "neocons").
> >
> > Bush I had achieved a scenario wherein if Sadaam violated sanctions,
there
> > were remedies. No one was willing to explore those remedies in any kind
of
> > serious way. this is Clintons major crime, IMO. He had a duty to do this
> > and he didn't. As the 90's wore on, a billionaire maniac who paid blood
> > money to the familes of terrorists to ensure that the could more easlily
> > walk into Israeli shipping malls and restaurants and murder people while
> > he flaunted UN authority was buiding his time until sham sanctions were
> > officially lifted while in Afghanistan, the weaselly rich wannabee who
> > felt dissed because the Saudi's didn't want him to defend them from
Sadaam
> > and decided it should be us, collects the scum of the earth and every
> > other variety of homicidal miscreant, gets some lunatic mullas to deify
> > them in their own minds and sends these Aassholes around the world to
kill
> > people.
> >
> > Sorry Sarah....some things are not complicated at all.
> >>
> >> If this crusade is truly a righteous one, and if six figure "collateral
> >> damage" is an acceptable loss for what we've gained (?) so far, then
why
> >> screw around? Why not just kill everyone between India and the
> >> Mediterranean (except for Israel, of course)? It's the only way to be
> >> sure. We must have the technology. After that we should probably just
> >> eliminate all Muslims around the world, since apparently the Quran
> >> compels true believers to kill non-Muslims. Islamic extremists are a
> >> cancer on civilisation, and you have to get the surrounding tissue when
> >> you remove a cancer.
> >>
> >> It's only logical.
> >
> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press, they
> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who would
> > like to be rid of them.
> >
> > In spite of the apparent lunacy that I see on the left side of the
aisle,
> > I think that they have a huge part to play in the downfall of these
> > cretins.
> >
> >
http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/misc/ris e-fall-islam.htm
> >
> > ...if the left doesn't screw the pooch beforehand and in so doing, take
> > those in this country that are still willing to fight for it with them.
> >
> > ;o)
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85089 is a reply to message #85023] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 18:36 |
Rich Lamanna
Messages: 316
Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> I would say that's nonsense . . . the only thing we've lost the stomach
for
> is going to war under false pretenses and killing the wrong people.
Sarah, wait a minute, we are killing the right people, Al Qaeda! They are
killing the wrong people and fulminating much of the sectarian violence. I
believe the majority of Iraqi's are on our side and want us there to finish
the job. I think what we have less of a stomach for is what would ensue
should we leave. This may be the next 100 years war. Ask me whether it was
smart 1,000 years from now, when either democracy or tyranny is the
governing engine of the world.
Rich
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653beb5@linux...
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote in message news:4653944b$1@linux...
> >
> >
> > How would you answer someone who said that we no longer
> > have the guts to actually win a war; that the people at home
> > and the press no longer have the stomach to fight for freedom?
>
> I would say that's nonsense . . . the only thing we've lost the stomach
for
> is going to war under false pretenses and killing the wrong people. And
the
> only thing the press lost the stomach for was challenging administration
> policy for fear of appearing "unpatriotic" in the aftermath of 9/11.
>
> Osama bin Laden is not stupid. He goads us into war hoping we'll get
mired
> down until we collapse. He saw what happened to the Soviet Union in
> Afghanistan and probably figures he knows how to bring down a giant with a
> slingshot. If bin Laden is capable of happiness, I'm sure George Bush has
> brought him some.
>
> Unfortunately for our soldiers and the innocent citizens of Iraq, our
> leadership IS stupid. Stupid and dishonest. Those would be really
radical
> statements if experienced military leaders and intelligence veterans
weren't
> saying the same thing in more polite ways.
>
> It's really hard to admit that we've wasted billions of dollars and
> thousands of lives, but continuing to make the same mistake hoping for a
> different result is generally considered to be insane.
>
> How 'bout we use those dollars and manpower to secure our borders and
secure
> our ports and use the international intelligence network to find and kill
> terrorists? And how 'bout we stop listening to "leaders" with vested
> interests in oil and defense contracts? Hmmm?
>
> If that's lefty lunacy, sign me up.
>
> S
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85092 is a reply to message #85079] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 18:05 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
wireline wrote:
> News flash - he ain't always wrong either...and in this instance, he is correct
Wow, really? Well now, who could possibly question a bravely anonymous
authority like yourself? I'm certainly convinced then, your finely honed
argument has made all the difference! :^)
Seriously, unless you can clearly state what you think Deej is right
about and why you think so, you've added this much to the discussion:
Zip.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
PS. BTW, I never claimed Deej was always wrong. Better check those
eyeglasses.
> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right
>> I just wish I was half the man my dogs think I am.
>>
>> ;o)
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46549242@linux...
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46532f2d@linux...
>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> Jaimie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think Bush has ever compared himself to Churchill. I'm doing
>
>>>>>> this by just pointing out that he said pretty much the same thing
>>>>>> before we fwent in to finish the ongoing war Clinton neglected in Iraq.
>>>>> Are you saying Bush essentially stole from Churchill's speeches?
>>>> I didn't hear Bush use these words or anything close really. I think
> he
>>>> is confronted by a similar situation and tried to express the same things
>
>>>> to a nation, half of whom, doesn't believe that we are at war.
>>> We never declared war. Maybe that would be a start.
>>>
>>> Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
> was
>>> a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
>>> sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
>>> country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made that
>
>>> tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
>>> Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
>
>>> during time of war.
>>>
>>> A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an addicted
>
>>> gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a desperate
>>> attempt to come out even in the end.
>>>
>>> On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and compare
> it
>>> to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
>
>>> context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up by
>
>>> juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very different.
>>>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>>> I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone in
>
>>>>> and racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to "fix"
>
>>>>> Bush I's unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was stupid
> to
>>>>> agree with Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>>>
>>>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal times
> in
>>>> the history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>
>>>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and he's
>
>>>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am I),
>
>>> and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes you
> are
>>> right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck, sometimes
>
>>> Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those are, and to
>
>>> not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer certainty
> in a
>>> complex world.
>>>
>>> BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
>
>>> times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around
> as a
>>> species. :^)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing
> of
>>>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>>>> yin/yang'esque
>>> There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
>>> considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason
> we
>>> can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
>
>>> optimally and adapts appropriately.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions? :^)
>>>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>>> I look forward to it!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>> ;o)
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85094 is a reply to message #85085] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 18:33 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You're welcome, Rich. It's another example of something we all need to
be aware of - our human tendency to hear what we want to hear, and
accept without question those statements that fit our preconceived
notions even if those statements are incorrect.
It's the sort of tendency that makes us susceptible to propaganda.
The Churchill site is pretty clear why Winston would not have uttered
that quote.
Any other such theory about "liberal" to "conservative" or
"conservative" to "liberal" switching over time is AFAIK,
unsubstantiated conjecture.
BTW, I put those terms in quotes because I find the so-called
"liberal/conservative" dichotomy to be highly manipulated, poorly
defined in actual argument, divisive and sometimes almost irrelevant to
real solutions.
It's a limited two-dimensional approach that fails to encompass all the
space, perspectives and choices available. And, as often manipulated, it
encourages demonization and foolish self righteousness from both of its
narrowly allowed "sides" instead of thoughtful listening, mutual respect
and constructive collaboration.
We're all on the same team - differences in perspectives and insights
potentially make us stronger.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Rich Lamanna wrote:
> Jamie, picky, picky, picky :-) Well, all it says on that site is, "there
> is no record of anyone /*hearing*/ Churchill say this", possibly he
> didn't say it, possibly he did. Somebody obviously attributed it to him.
> Wonder who that was? The liberals of yesteryear are today's
> conservatives anyway.
>
> Thanks for the edification,
> Rich
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com <mailto:Meta@Dimensional.com>> wrote in
> message news:4652677b@linux...
> >
> > > 'Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart,
> > > and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain.' -
> > > Winston Churchill
> >
> > Fact check:
> >
> > http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1 12
> >
> > Quotes Falsely Attributed:
> > These quotes make for good story-telling but popular myth has falsely
> > attributed them to Churchill.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Jamie
> > www.JamieKrutz.com <http://www.JamieKrutz.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > Rich Lamanna wrote:
> > >> To react to that, to conduct a "War Against Terrorism" is
> > >> about as desperate and pathetic IMHO.
> > >
> > > Bill, it's not a war against terrorism, this is a misnomer. It is a war
> > > against "Radical Islamic Extremism" and their desire to impose an
> Islamic
> > > theocratic caliphate on the free world.
> > >
> > >> And it's so uncreative and historically repetitive as to be a big dumb
> > >> bore.
> > >
> > > We defeated Japan and Germany and they're not the worst allies. Come to
> > > think of it, we bailed out the French in WW2 and what the hell did
> we get in
> > > return, Chirac? Maybe now, however, with Nicolas Sarkozy we'll be
> better
> > > thought of.
> > >
> > > Rich
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com <mailto:bill@billlorentzen.com>>
> wrote in message news:464e6433@linux...
> > >> It was too early when I wrote that.
> > >>
> > >> Look, it's a thorny issue. The point I was trying to make is I support
> > >> the freedom of those religions that grant others the same freedom. I
> > >> don't support freedom of a religion that is trying to curtail freedom,
> > >> you dig?
> > >>
> > >> We have to take responsibility for mis-guided people just the way one
> > >> does for a child. With a small child, you don't get angry and
> punish him
> > >> or her for making a bad choice. You exert calm, confident control and
> > >> direct it towards the right choice. We have to be bigger than
> them, and
> > >> not react angrily to their desperate attempts to cause an effect
> on us.
> > >> Think how pathetically desperate a group must be if the only way they
> > >> can dream up to communicate is through terrorism. That is quite
> > >> pathetic.>
> > > Just think how much more effective and creative it would have been
> > >> to spend a few billion dollars to simply buy access to the terrorists
> > >> and then put them away. Very little collateral damage. The people who
> > >> stand up for freedom by denouncing the terrorists get rich as they
> > >> deserve for their bravery and everybody else lives happier,
> free-er lives.
> > >>
> > >> I know some will say it would never work like that, but did anyone
> ever
> > > try?
> > >> Bill
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> > >>> Bill, I have no problem with freedom, you infidel :-) I am a
> > >>> constitutionalist and believe strongly in the 1st amendment.
> > > Unfortunately
> > >>> the radical Islamic doesn't cherish those same freedoms you and I
> hold
> > >>> dearly. They are willing to die to impose their fascism and
> intolerant
> > >>> theocratic rubbish upon us.
> > >>>
> > >>> Remember Waco. The ATF, under the administration of Clinton and Janet
> > >>> Sterno, stormed the Branch Davidian home, in Rambo fashion, to
> serve a
> > >>> search warrant issued on the suspicion that the group was stockpiling
> > >>> automatic weapons, massacring almost 100 hundred men, women, and
> > > children.
> > >>> But I doubt that the FBI or ATF would ever raid these holy men,
> oh God
> > > no,
> > >>> despite the fact that they are irrefutably armed to the teeth and
> > > practicing
> > >>> for violent Jihad.
> > >>>
> > >>> Did you read the article dude? Did you read the part about the
> violent
> > >>> incidents involving Jamaat Ul Fuora in the US?
> > >>> "By 2004 federal investigators uncovered evidence that linked
> both the
> > > DC
> > >>> "sniper killer" John Allen Muhammed and "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid to
> > > the
> > >>> group and reports surfaced that Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel
> > > Pearl
> > >>> was captured and beheaded in the process of attempting to obtain an
> > >>> interview with Sheikh Gilani in Pakistan."
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/paul-williams-map-larg e.jpg
> > >>>
> > >>> What were Koresh and the Davidians guilty of? Maybe of being
> Christians.
> > >>> Nothing compared to this group. Wake up man, this is not about
> freedom
> > > of
> > >>> religion this is about a Jihad threatening our existence and the
> choice
> > > to
> > >>> exercise any freedoms let alone freedom of religion. We had
> better keep
> > > an
> > >>> eye on these guys.
> > >>>
> > >>> Rich
> > >>>
> > >>> From my cold dead hands - Charlton Heston
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> "Bill L" <bill@billlorentzen.com <mailto:bill@billlorentzen.com>>
> wrote in message
> > > news:464d8d4f@linux...
> > >>>> I strongly support freedom, especially freedom of religion. Part of
> > >>>> religious freedom is the freedom of religious choice.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A religion worthy of freedom would increase individual freedom.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> With freedom comes increased responsibility; with increased
> > >>>> responsibility comes increased freedom. By increasing freedoms
> for all
> > >>>> one's own freedoms are increased.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “Constant and continual alertness is the price of freedom.
> > >>>> Constant willingness to fight back is the price of freedom.
> > >>>> There is no other price actually.”
> > >>>> — L. RON HUBBARD
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Rich Lamanna wrote:
> > >>>>> You can thank me for lighting the fire, you can all fan the flames.
> > > Why
> > >>> the
> > >>>>> heck not welcome some more illegals.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/paul-williams051107.htm
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be
> vigilant
> > > in
> > >>> its
> > >>>>> preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "FREEDOM IS NOT FOR THE TIMID." -- posted as an announcement
> outside a
> > >>>>> Unitarian Church in Texas on Sept. 17, 2001
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and
> brave,
> > >>> and
> > >>>>> hated
> > >>>>> and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for
> then it
> > >>> costs
> > >>>>> nothing
> > >>>>> to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak
> or the
> > >>>>> timid."
> > >>>>> -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1953
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "The future doesn't belong to the faint-hearted. It belongs to the
> > >>> brave."
> > >>>>> -- Ronald Reagan
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the
> vigilant,
> > > the
> > >>>>> active,
> > >>>>> the brave." -- Patrick Henry
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "The land of the free will cease to be when it's no longer the
> home of
> > >>>>> the brave."-- Rick Gaber
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart,
> > >>>>> and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a
> brain." --
> > >>>>> Winston Churchill
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Guidance,
> > >>>>> Rich
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85109 is a reply to message #85092] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 20:38 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jaimie,
Wireline is a friend of mine who I invited here a while back.. I will admit
that he and I sometimes see eye to eye on things, but not always. However,
in this case, I'm pretty sure he is right about me being right..
;oD
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4654e630@linux...
> wireline wrote:
>> News flash - he ain't always wrong either...and in this instance, he is
>> correct
>
> Wow, really? Well now, who could possibly question a bravely anonymous
> authority like yourself? I'm certainly convinced then, your finely honed
> argument has made all the difference! :^)
>
> Seriously, unless you can clearly state what you think Deej is right about
> and why you think so, you've added this much to the discussion:
>
> Zip.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> PS. BTW, I never claimed Deej was always wrong. Better check those
> eyeglasses.
>
>
>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right
>>> I just wish I was half the man my dogs think I am.
>>>
>>> ;o)
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46549242@linux...
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46532f2d@linux...
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> Jaimie,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think Bush has ever compared himself to Churchill. I'm doing
>>
>>>>>>> this by just pointing out that he said pretty much the same thing
>>>>>>> before we fwent in to finish the ongoing war Clinton neglected in
>>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>> Are you saying Bush essentially stole from Churchill's speeches?
>>>>> I didn't hear Bush use these words or anything close really. I think
>> he
>>>>> is confronted by a similar situation and tried to express the same
>>>>> things
>>
>>>>> to a nation, half of whom, doesn't believe that we are at war.
>>>> We never declared war. Maybe that would be a start.
>>>>
>>>> Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
>> was
>>>> a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
>>>> sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
>>>> country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made that
>>
>>>> tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
>>>> Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
>>
>>>> during time of war.
>>>>
>>>> A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an
>>>> addicted
>>
>>>> gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a desperate
>>>> attempt to come out even in the end.
>>>>
>>>> On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and compare
>> it
>>>> to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
>>
>>>> context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up by
>>
>>>> juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very
>>>>>> different.
>>>>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>>>> I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone in
>>
>>>>>> and racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to "fix"
>>
>>>>>> Bush I's unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was stupid
>> to
>>>>>> agree with Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal times
>> in
>>>>> the history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>>
>>>>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and
>>>>> he's
>>
>>>>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am I),
>>
>>>> and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes you
>> are
>>>> right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck,
>>>> sometimes
>>
>>>> Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those are, and to
>>
>>>> not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer certainty
>> in a
>>>> complex world.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
>>
>>>> times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around
>> as a
>>>> species. :^)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing
>> of
>>>>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>>>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>>>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>>>>> yin/yang'esque
>>>> There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
>>>> considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason
>> we
>>>> can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
>>
>>>> optimally and adapts appropriately.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions?
>>>>>> :^)
>>>>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>>>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>>>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>>>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>>>> I look forward to it!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ;o)
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85113 is a reply to message #84842] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 20:51 |
BT
Messages: 19
Registered: February 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
given day.
It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for instance,
Guatemala or New Zealand.
Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so of
the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications for
others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this issue.
I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out over some
boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
Regards,
Brian T
Regards,
Brian T
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85115 is a reply to message #85107] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 21:17 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The God I know is not a metaphor and does not get quotes around
his name.
So there you have it.
best wishes,
Don
Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>Something I realized about "god" a while back is: god is relative. The
>way George Benson plays guitar makes him a god to me. I think any of us
>can be gods when we do something truly spectacular.
>
>I would judge a being's godliness by the beneficial effect they create.
>If it is so amazingly wonderful that billions of people's lives are
>improved by it, then they are gods. Buddha's message would probably have
>to stand above all others in the "quantity of good influence" category.
>Probably Jesus next. The thing they had in common was they gave people
>hope of a better world to come.
>
>There are billions of viewpoints out there and more coming every day.
>They all see something that's real to them. It's a trip learning what
>other beings perceive and it makes one wiser and more able to help.
>
>Bill L
>
>
>DC wrote:
>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The great leaders who ttruly changed the world with enlightenment were
>>> the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Ben Franklin, L Ron Hubbard.
>>> These are the leaders we must seek out and theirs are the messages we
>>> must follow.
>>
>>
>> And all of them were just people, with one exception.
>>
>> He was, and is, God. So I think we have some differences in basic worldview.
>>
>> take care
>>
>> DC
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85117 is a reply to message #85113] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 21:24 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hi BT!
Nice to hear from you. How have you been?
DC
BT <gbtank@comcast.net> wrote:
>We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
>given day.
>
>It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
>else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for instance,
>Guatemala or New Zealand.
>
>Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
>aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
>based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so of
>the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
>
>When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications for
>others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this issue.
>I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out over some
>boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
>
>
>Regards,
>Brian T
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85119 is a reply to message #85107] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 21:34 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
When Moses went up in to the mountain, the people got bored and built themselves
a golden calf to worship. Like they say, when you don't believe in god,
you'll believe in any thing.
Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>Something I realized about "god" a while back is: god is relative. The
>way George Benson plays guitar makes him a god to me. I think any of us
>can be gods when we do something truly spectacular.
>
>I would judge a being's godliness by the beneficial effect they create.
>If it is so amazingly wonderful that billions of people's lives are
>improved by it, then they are gods. Buddha's message would probably have
>to stand above all others in the "quantity of good influence" category.
>Probably Jesus next. The thing they had in common was they gave people
>hope of a better world to come.
>
>There are billions of viewpoints out there and more coming every day.
>They all see something that's real to them. It's a trip learning what
>other beings perceive and it makes one wiser and more able to help.
>
>Bill L
>
>
>DC wrote:
>> Bill L <bill@billlorentzen.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The great leaders who ttruly changed the world with enlightenment were
>>> the likes of Buddha, Jesus, Confucius, Ben Franklin, L Ron Hubbard.
>>> These are the leaders we must seek out and theirs are the messages we
>>> must follow.
>>
>>
>> And all of them were just people, with one exception.
>>
>> He was, and is, God. So I think we have some differences in basic worldview.
>>
>> take care
>>
>> DC
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85120 is a reply to message #85109] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 21:46 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Welcome "Wireline"! Is there a reason you don't want to use your real name?
If Deej invited you, you are no doubt cool. Please feel free to expound
on how right Deej is, in your opinion, and why. As you know, Deej
doesn't need anyone to step out in front of him, he does just fine. But
substantive input is always welcome for discussion.
Until, that is, someone gets tired of the politics and reality issues
and complains that this used to be a useful PARIS group! :^)
Deej, I'm glad you have many friends, you deserve it. One or two should
nod their heads the other way now and then, just to make sure you're
still paying attention. Sometimes it looks from here like you have
incredible insights that cut to the core of an issue. Other times it
looks from here like you're fishing out on the deep end of unsupportable
hyperbole. Either way, I'm glad to know you.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
> Jaimie,
>
> Wireline is a friend of mine who I invited here a while back.. I will admit
> that he and I sometimes see eye to eye on things, but not always. However,
> in this case, I'm pretty sure he is right about me being right..
>
> ;oD
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4654e630@linux...
>> wireline wrote:
>>> News flash - he ain't always wrong either...and in this instance, he is
>>> correct
>> Wow, really? Well now, who could possibly question a bravely anonymous
>> authority like yourself? I'm certainly convinced then, your finely honed
>> argument has made all the difference! :^)
>>
>> Seriously, unless you can clearly state what you think Deej is right about
>> and why you think so, you've added this much to the discussion:
>>
>> Zip.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>> PS. BTW, I never claimed Deej was always wrong. Better check those
>> eyeglasses.
>>
>>
>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right
>>>> I just wish I was half the man my dogs think I am.
>>>>
>>>> ;o)
>>>>
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:46549242@linux...
>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:46532f2d@linux...
>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think Bush has ever compared himself to Churchill. I'm doing
>>>>>>>> this by just pointing out that he said pretty much the same thing
>>>>>>>> before we fwent in to finish the ongoing war Clinton neglected in
>>>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>>> Are you saying Bush essentially stole from Churchill's speeches?
>>>>>> I didn't hear Bush use these words or anything close really. I think
>>> he
>>>>>> is confronted by a similar situation and tried to express the same
>>>>>> things
>>>>>> to a nation, half of whom, doesn't believe that we are at war.
>>>>> We never declared war. Maybe that would be a start.
>>>>>
>>>>> Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
>>> was
>>>>> a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
>>>>> sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
>>>>> country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made that
>>>>> tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
>>>>> Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
>>>>> during time of war.
>>>>>
>>>>> A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an
>>>>> addicted
>>>>> gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a desperate
>>>>> attempt to come out even in the end.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and compare
>>> it
>>>>> to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
>>>>> context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up by
>>>>> juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very
>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>>>>> I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone in
>>>>>>> and racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to "fix"
>>>>>>> Bush I's unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was stupid
>>> to
>>>>>>> agree with Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal times
>>> in
>>>>>> the history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>>>>>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and
>>>>>> he's
>>>>>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>>>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am I),
>>>>> and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes you
>>> are
>>>>> right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck,
>>>>> sometimes
>>>>> Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those are, and to
>>>>> not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer certainty
>>> in a
>>>>> complex world.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
>>>>> times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around
>>> as a
>>>>> species. :^)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>>>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing
>>> of
>>>>>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>>>>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>>>>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>>>>>> yin/yang'esque
>>>>> There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
>>>>> considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason
>>> we
>>>>> can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
>>>>> optimally and adapts appropriately.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions?
>>>>>>> :^)
>>>>>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>>>>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>>>>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>>>>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>>>>> I look forward to it!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ;o)
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85121 is a reply to message #85120] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 21:50 |
Deej [4]
Messages: 1292
Registered: January 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Other times it
> looks from here like you're fishing out on the deep end of unsupportable
> hyperbole. Either way, I'm glad to know you.
What fun would life be without unsupportable hyperbole??? Bring it on, I
say!!! Mission accomplished!!!
(ducking for cover)
Glad to know you too amigo.
;o)
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:465519e8@linux...
>
> Welcome "Wireline"! Is there a reason you don't want to use your real
> name?
>
> If Deej invited you, you are no doubt cool. Please feel free to expound on
> how right Deej is, in your opinion, and why. As you know, Deej doesn't
> need anyone to step out in front of him, he does just fine. But
> substantive input is always welcome for discussion.
>
> Until, that is, someone gets tired of the politics and reality issues and
> complains that this used to be a useful PARIS group! :^)
>
> Deej, I'm glad you have many friends, you deserve it. One or two should
> nod their heads the other way now and then, just to make sure you're still
> paying attention. Sometimes it looks from here like you have incredible
> insights that cut to the core of an issue. Other times it looks from here
> like you're fishing out on the deep end of unsupportable hyperbole. Either
> way, I'm glad to know you.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
>> Jaimie,
>>
>> Wireline is a friend of mine who I invited here a while back.. I will
>> admit that he and I sometimes see eye to eye on things, but not always.
>> However, in this case, I'm pretty sure he is right about me being right..
>>
>> ;oD
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4654e630@linux...
>>> wireline wrote:
>>>> News flash - he ain't always wrong either...and in this instance, he is
>>>> correct
>>> Wow, really? Well now, who could possibly question a bravely anonymous
>>> authority like yourself? I'm certainly convinced then, your finely honed
>>> argument has made all the difference! :^)
>>>
>>> Seriously, unless you can clearly state what you think Deej is right
>>> about and why you think so, you've added this much to the discussion:
>>>
>>> Zip.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>> PS. BTW, I never claimed Deej was always wrong. Better check those
>>> eyeglasses.
>>>
>>>
>>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right
>>>>> I just wish I was half the man my dogs think I am.
>>>>>
>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:46549242@linux...
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:46532f2d@linux...
>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think Bush has ever compared himself to Churchill. I'm
>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>> this by just pointing out that he said pretty much the same thing
>>>>>>>>> before we fwent in to finish the ongoing war Clinton neglected in
>>>>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>>>> Are you saying Bush essentially stole from Churchill's speeches?
>>>>>>> I didn't hear Bush use these words or anything close really. I think
>>>> he
>>>>>>> is confronted by a similar situation and tried to express the same
>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>> to a nation, half of whom, doesn't believe that we are at war.
>>>>>> We never declared war. Maybe that would be a start.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
>>>> was
>>>>>> a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
>>>>>> sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
>>>>>> country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
>>>>>> Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
>>>>>> during time of war.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an
>>>>>> addicted
>>>>>> gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a desperate
>>>>>> attempt to come out even in the end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and
>>>>>> compare
>>>> it
>>>>>> to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
>>>>>> context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very
>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>>>>>> I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> and racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to
>>>>>>>> "fix"
>>>>>>>> Bush I's unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was
>>>>>>>> stupid
>>>> to
>>>>>>>> agree with Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal
>>>>>>> times
>>>> in
>>>>>>> the history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>>>>>>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and
>>>>>>> he's
>>>>>>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>>>>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am
>>>>>> I),
>>>>>> and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes
>>>>>> you
>>>> are
>>>>>> right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck,
>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>> Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those are, and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer certainty
>>>> in a
>>>>>> complex world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
>>>>>> times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around
>>>> as a
>>>>>> species. :^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>>>>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing
>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>>>>>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>>>>>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>>>>>>> yin/yang'esque
>>>>>> There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
>>>>>> considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason
>>>> we
>>>>>> can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
>>>>>> optimally and adapts appropriately.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions?
>>>>>>>> :^)
>>>>>>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>>>>>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>>>>>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>>>>>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>>>>>> I look forward to it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ;o)
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85122 is a reply to message #85113] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 21:50 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Brian, welcome back! What's shakin'?
You still using PARIS? Or does Nuendo have you covered these days?
BTW, good points.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
BT wrote:
> We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
> given day.
>
> It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
> else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for instance,
> Guatemala or New Zealand.
>
> Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
> aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
> based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so of
> the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
>
> When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications for
> others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this issue.
> I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out over some
> boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
>
>
> Regards,
> Brian T
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85123 is a reply to message #85121] |
Wed, 23 May 2007 21:51 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ wrote:
> Other times it
>> looks from here like you're fishing out on the deep end of unsupportable
>> hyperbole. Either way, I'm glad to know you.
>
> What fun would life be without unsupportable hyperbole??? Bring it on, I
> say!!! Mission accomplished!!!
>
> (ducking for cover)
LOL!
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> Glad to know you too amigo.
>
> ;o)
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:465519e8@linux...
>> Welcome "Wireline"! Is there a reason you don't want to use your real
>> name?
>>
>> If Deej invited you, you are no doubt cool. Please feel free to expound on
>> how right Deej is, in your opinion, and why. As you know, Deej doesn't
>> need anyone to step out in front of him, he does just fine. But
>> substantive input is always welcome for discussion.
>>
>> Until, that is, someone gets tired of the politics and reality issues and
>> complains that this used to be a useful PARIS group! :^)
>>
>> Deej, I'm glad you have many friends, you deserve it. One or two should
>> nod their heads the other way now and then, just to make sure you're still
>> paying attention. Sometimes it looks from here like you have incredible
>> insights that cut to the core of an issue. Other times it looks from here
>> like you're fishing out on the deep end of unsupportable hyperbole. Either
>> way, I'm glad to know you.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> Jaimie,
>>>
>>> Wireline is a friend of mine who I invited here a while back.. I will
>>> admit that he and I sometimes see eye to eye on things, but not always.
>>> However, in this case, I'm pretty sure he is right about me being right..
>>>
>>> ;oD
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4654e630@linux...
>>>> wireline wrote:
>>>>> News flash - he ain't always wrong either...and in this instance, he is
>>>>> correct
>>>> Wow, really? Well now, who could possibly question a bravely anonymous
>>>> authority like yourself? I'm certainly convinced then, your finely honed
>>>> argument has made all the difference! :^)
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, unless you can clearly state what you think Deej is right
>>>> about and why you think so, you've added this much to the discussion:
>>>>
>>>> Zip.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>> PS. BTW, I never claimed Deej was always wrong. Better check those
>>>> eyeglasses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right
>>>>>> I just wish I was half the man my dogs think I am.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;o)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:46549242@linux...
>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:46532f2d@linux...
>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Jaimie,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think Bush has ever compared himself to Churchill. I'm
>>>>>>>>>> doing
>>>>>>>>>> this by just pointing out that he said pretty much the same thing
>>>>>>>>>> before we fwent in to finish the ongoing war Clinton neglected in
>>>>>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying Bush essentially stole from Churchill's speeches?
>>>>>>>> I didn't hear Bush use these words or anything close really. I think
>>>>> he
>>>>>>>> is confronted by a similar situation and tried to express the same
>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>> to a nation, half of whom, doesn't believe that we are at war.
>>>>>>> We never declared war. Maybe that would be a start.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Churchill didn't really express the same overall message as Bush. His
>>>>> was
>>>>>>> a country under direct attack by another country and he asked for
>>>>>>> sacrifice and commitment from his countrymen. Bush is not fighting a
>>>>>>> country but a tactic, and his preemptive actions so far have made
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> tactic measurably more prevalent and our country measurably weaker.
>>>>>>> Meanwhile he has asked for the opposite of sacrifice by cutting taxes
>>>>>>> during time of war.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A friend of mine has this administration pegged as acting like an
>>>>>>> addicted
>>>>>>> gambler on a losing streak, betting ever more heavily in a desperate
>>>>>>> attempt to come out even in the end.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the Churchill comparison, you could take any call to war and
>>>>>>> compare
>>>>> it
>>>>>>> to any other and there will be similar elements. But Bush's different
>>>>>>> context and course doesn't especially lend itself to being shined up
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> juxtaposition to Churchill's oratory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The style of leadership and the situations/context are very
>>>>>>>>> different.
>>>>>>>> You noticed??? ;o)....well.....even Churchill had Gallipoli.
>>>>>>> I thought the attempted comparison was to WWII.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Extra points for Clinton bashing, though. If only Clinton had gone
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> and racked up a 300 billion+ dollar war with no end, to try to
>>>>>>>>> "fix"
>>>>>>>>> Bush I's unfinished business. Is it your theory that Bill was
>>>>>>>>> stupid
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> agree with Bush I that that was a dumb idea?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think clinton was elected president at one of the most pvotal
>>>>>>>> times
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the history of the human race and utterly failed to realize what his
>>>>>>>> responsibilities really were. Hell man, even I recognized this, and
>>>>>>>> he's
>>>>>>>> supposed to be the Rhodes scholar genius.
>>>>>>> I hate to break it to you Deej, but you're not always right (nor am
>>>>>>> I),
>>>>>>> and your favorite whipping boy hasn't always been wrong. Sometimes
>>>>>>> you
>>>>> are
>>>>>>> right, though, and sometimes Mr. Rhodes scholar is right. Heck,
>>>>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>> Bush II is right. The trick is to discern which times those are, and
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> not be taken in by the siren call of simplistic easy-answer certainty
>>>>> in a
>>>>>>> complex world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, EVERY time period could be claimed to be one of the most pivotal
>>>>>>> times in the history of the human race, as long as we're still around
>>>>> as a
>>>>>>> species. :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> :"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
>>>>>>>>>> blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> misery".-Winston Churchill
>>>>>>>>> Neither sounds ideal the way he puts it in that soundbite.
>>>>>>>> I think each creates the need for the other, actually. They are
>>>>>>>> yin/yang'esque
>>>>>>> There does seem to be a relationship. Elements of each are worth
>>>>>>> considering. Elements of each are worth discarding. There's no reason
>>>>> we
>>>>>>> can't pick and choose from every option to create a system that works
>>>>>>> optimally and adapts appropriately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW, is this now the thread of random Churchill quote digressions?
>>>>>>>>> :^)
>>>>>>>> I sorta' liked Sarah's sojurn into the mind of Samuel Clemens ;o)
>>>>>>>>> "Crashbasket is the best damn dog name ever!"
>>>>>>>>> -Winston Churchill, (interviewed from the grave)
>>>>>>>> Crash truly rocks. You're gonna have to meet "th'basket" sometime.
>>>>>>> I look forward to it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ;o)
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85139 is a reply to message #85087] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 06:46 |
Sarah
Messages: 608
Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other sane
person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.
And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking about
the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran you
refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders. "Bomb
bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds of
laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.
Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after a
decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).
Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.
Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and should
be dealt with as such.
Sarah
"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4654d702$1@linux...
>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press, they
>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>> > would
>> > like to be rid of them.
>
> Sarah, I think what Deej is saying here is that there are many, many more,
> non fundamentalist Muslims around the world who are reasonable, not
> radicalized and want to live under democracy rather than theocracy. What
> the
> press would have you believe is just the opposite, that the crazy ones are
> the majority. You don't see the press covering dissenting views by more
> moderate Islamics. I agree with Deej. This can be supported if you look at
> the contemptuous reaction by the younger and educated in Iran against the
> mullahs and Amadinejad. There is much dissent in Iran, which you only read
> about in rare publications. There is also much repression in Iran against
> the voice of democracy. We need to be the light and hope for the world and
> for democratic freedoms. The alternative is frightening, isn't it!
>
> http://www.nowpublic.com/silencing_dissent_in_iran_four_hang ed_0
>
> http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm
>
> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653b5af@linux...
>> So . . . hang on a minute here . . . you're saying you think we SHOULD
> kill
>> all Muslims, starting with the entire Middle East?
>>
>> S
>>
>>
>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4653a4f0@linux...
>> >
>> > "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
> news:46537917@linux...
>> >> "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the
> whole
>> >> Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero
> ...
>> >> assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched
>> >> dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable
>> >> urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into
> even
>> >> greater instability."
>> >>
>> >> - George H.W. Bush
>> >
>> > And you are referring to what coalition????...................the one
> that
>> > Clinton failed to hold together the minute he was elected???
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Baby Bush shoulda listened to Big Bush instead of to "the crazies"
>> >> (how
>> >> Bush I's administration referred to the "neocons").
>> >
>> > Bush I had achieved a scenario wherein if Sadaam violated sanctions,
> there
>> > were remedies. No one was willing to explore those remedies in any kind
> of
>> > serious way. this is Clintons major crime, IMO. He had a duty to do
>> > this
>> > and he didn't. As the 90's wore on, a billionaire maniac who paid blood
>> > money to the familes of terrorists to ensure that the could more
>> > easlily
>> > walk into Israeli shipping malls and restaurants and murder people
>> > while
>> > he flaunted UN authority was buiding his time until sham sanctions were
>> > officially lifted while in Afghanistan, the weaselly rich wannabee who
>> > felt dissed because the Saudi's didn't want him to defend them from
> Sadaam
>> > and decided it should be us, collects the scum of the earth and every
>> > other variety of homicidal miscreant, gets some lunatic mullas to deify
>> > them in their own minds and sends these Aassholes around the world to
> kill
>> > people.
>> >
>> > Sorry Sarah....some things are not complicated at all.
>> >>
>> >> If this crusade is truly a righteous one, and if six figure
>> >> "collateral
>> >> damage" is an acceptable loss for what we've gained (?) so far, then
> why
>> >> screw around? Why not just kill everyone between India and the
>> >> Mediterranean (except for Israel, of course)? It's the only way to be
>> >> sure. We must have the technology. After that we should probably just
>> >> eliminate all Muslims around the world, since apparently the Quran
>> >> compels true believers to kill non-Muslims. Islamic extremists are a
>> >> cancer on civilisation, and you have to get the surrounding tissue
>> >> when
>> >> you remove a cancer.
>> >>
>> >> It's only logical.
>> >
>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press, they
>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>> > would
>> > like to be rid of them.
>> >
>> > In spite of the apparent lunacy that I see on the left side of the
> aisle,
>> > I think that they have a huge part to play in the downfall of these
>> > cretins.
>> >
>> >
> http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/misc/ris e-fall-islam.htm
>> >
>> > ...if the left doesn't screw the pooch beforehand and in so doing, take
>> > those in this country that are still willing to fight for it with them.
>> >
>> > ;o)
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85141 is a reply to message #85113] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 07:24 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This stat distorts things a bit, because after WW II the US Navy decided that
the aircraft carrier was the primary weapon to have in the closet. The Russians
then, and the Chinese now, have decided that the submarine is the crucial
link, and the US has nowhere near 90% of the subs in the world. This makes
sense because the sub navies meet a largely defensive/deterrent goal while
carrier navies are about projecting power overseas. Since the US has zero
fear of anyone sailing over here and invading the continental US, we built
a navy that can be used to attack, or at least threaten, other countries.
All of which is to say that 80/90/100 percent of carriers does not equal
a similar percentage of naval power. Oh, one more thing. In war games the
subs almost always sink the carriers, so the carrier navy is really only
useful against countries without powerful sub navies. So if Iran were smart
they'd be buying subs instead of trying to acquire a nuke.
Second, your argument is correct, to an extent. However, if the War Minister
of Lichtenstein does something stupid, say, manipulates his country into
war with known faulty intelligence, it doesn't matter. When the US does that
a few hundred thousand people, almost all of them civilians, wind up dead.
The dead people are no less dead because we possess roughly average wisdom.
Which means we need to wise up.
TCB
BT <gbtank@comcast.net> wrote:
>We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
>given day.
>
>It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
>else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for instance,
>Guatemala or New Zealand.
>
>Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
>aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
>based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so of
>the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
>
>When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications for
>others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this issue.
>I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out over some
>boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
>
>
>Regards,
>Brian T
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85147 is a reply to message #85143] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 11:35 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> On 24 May 2007 14:34:22 +1000, "James McCloskey"
> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Like they say, when you don't believe in god,
>> you'll believe in any thing.
Like "they" say. :^)
"They" could be anyone. Which is the interesting thing about "they."
So from the perspective of a single religious creed, that particular
"they" could say that if you don't believe in that creed's particular
god, and by extension, their way of life, "you'll believe in anything."
This leads to a lot of disrespect among people with different beliefs
and assumptions who each think the other "will believe in anything."
Such a basic lack of respect works wonders for fear-mongering by any
leaders who assume a religious mantle and don't mind exploiting it.
Such leaders can simply raise the specter of a threat from "them" -
those others who believe in a different god and so aren't grounded in
the one "right" way.
It's an easy way to whip up a frenzied following, enforce conformity and
consolidate power. When different leaders use that technique to raise
fear of the other leader's supporters, they can actually both gain power
within their respective insular bases.
It's been this way throughout history. The gods have been many, the
believers fervent, and the amassed power impressive. When conflicts
arise, they can be very bloody indeed because both sides are firmly
convinced they are fighting for the one rightness, with the blessing of
the only true god(s), who are actively aiding them to triumph against
the evil "non-people."
THIS PATTERN is evident whether or not you believe in any of the gods or
religions in question.
But whether we believe in a particular god or not, we have a
responsibility to recognize this pattern from the more informed
perspective of our times, so that we do not get caught up in abject fear
of other people and act out any part in yet another blind, manipulated
religious conflict.
Nor should we exploit religious differences to control foreign territory
or infrastructure.
It should be said that this fear of "others" is not restricted to
religious foundations. It can also involve exploiting ethnic differences
and secular belief system differences.
It should also be said that recognizing this repeating pattern does not
negate anyone's religious beliefs. But it shows the responsibility we
all have in recognizing the rights of others to follow their beliefs, as
we have that right to follow ours, individually.
Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Important
enlightened concepts in our age. Hard won and not to be foolishly
discarded for the convenience of any insular group or wannabe leader on
a power trip.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Paul Artola wrote:
> And conversely (inversely? contrapositively?), when you believe in
> god, you'll believe anything.
>
> - Paul Artola
> Ellicott City, Maryland
>
>
> On 24 May 2007 14:34:22 +1000, "James McCloskey"
> <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When Moses went up in to the mountain, the people got bored and built themselves
>> a golden calf to worship. Like they say, when you don't believe in god,
>> you'll believe in any thing.
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85154 is a reply to message #85139] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 13:45 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other sane
person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.<<
There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on collateral
damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There is
no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we have
removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out invading?
We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
about
the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran you
refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders. "Bomb
bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
of
laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.<<
It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the people
Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is a
weasel.
>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
a
decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).<<
Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We are
not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business being
in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop fighting
and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries. What
do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there. They
keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around Al Qaeda
aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always wrong.
If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal media!
>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.<<
Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That is
so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to you
stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at will
and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that is
wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of rotten,
stinking, bullshit!!!!!
Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make sure
the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you with
an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river, that's
why not!
It's you that doesn't get it!
>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and should
be dealt with as such.
Sarah<<
Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other sane
>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.
>
>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking about
>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
you
>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders. "Bomb
>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
of
>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.
>
>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
a
>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).
>
>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.
>
>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and should
>be dealt with as such.
>
>Sarah
>
>"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:4654d702$1@linux...
>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press, they
>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>>> > would
>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>
>> Sarah, I think what Deej is saying here is that there are many, many more,
>> non fundamentalist Muslims around the world who are reasonable, not
>> radicalized and want to live under democracy rather than theocracy. What
>> the
>> press would have you believe is just the opposite, that the crazy ones
are
>> the majority. You don't see the press covering dissenting views by more
>> moderate Islamics. I agree with Deej. This can be supported if you look
at
>> the contemptuous reaction by the younger and educated in Iran against
the
>> mullahs and Amadinejad. There is much dissent in Iran, which you only
read
>> about in rare publications. There is also much repression in Iran against
>> the voice of democracy. We need to be the light and hope for the world
and
>> for democratic freedoms. The alternative is frightening, isn't it!
>>
>> http://www.nowpublic.com/silencing_dissent_in_iran_four_hang ed_0
>>
>> http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm
>>
>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653b5af@linux...
>>> So . . . hang on a minute here . . . you're saying you think we SHOULD
>> kill
>>> all Muslims, starting with the entire Middle East?
>>>
>>> S
>>>
>>>
>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4653a4f0@linux...
>>> >
>>> > "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
>> news:46537917@linux...
>>> >> "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the
>> whole
>>> >> Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero
>> ...
>>> >> assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched
>>> >> dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable
>>> >> urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into
>> even
>>> >> greater instability."
>>> >>
>>> >> - George H.W. Bush
>>> >
>>> > And you are referring to what coalition????...................the one
>> that
>>> > Clinton failed to hold together the minute he was elected???
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Baby Bush shoulda listened to Big Bush instead of to "the crazies"
>>> >> (how
>>> >> Bush I's administration referred to the "neocons").
>>> >
>>> > Bush I had achieved a scenario wherein if Sadaam violated sanctions,
>> there
>>> > were remedies. No one was willing to explore those remedies in any
kind
>> of
>>> > serious way. this is Clintons major crime, IMO. He had a duty to do
>>> > this
>>> > and he didn't. As the 90's wore on, a billionaire maniac who paid blood
>>> > money to the familes of terrorists to ensure that the could more
>>> > easlily
>>> > walk into Israeli shipping malls and restaurants and murder people
>>> > while
>>> > he flaunted UN authority was buiding his time until sham sanctions
were
>>> > officially lifted while in Afghanistan, the weaselly rich wannabee
who
>>> > felt dissed because the Saudi's didn't want him to defend them from
>> Sadaam
>>> > and decided it should be us, collects the scum of the earth and every
>>> > other variety of homicidal miscreant, gets some lunatic mullas to deify
>>> > them in their own minds and sends these Aassholes around the world
to
>> kill
>>> > people.
>>> >
>>> > Sorry Sarah....some things are not complicated at all.
>>> >>
>>> >> If this crusade is truly a righteous one, and if six figure
>>> >> "collateral
>>> >> damage" is an acceptable loss for what we've gained (?) so far, then
>> why
>>> >> screw around? Why not just kill everyone between India and the
>>> >> Mediterranean (except for Israel, of course)? It's the only way to
be
>>> >> sure. We must have the technology. After that we should probably
just
>>> >> eliminate all Muslims around the world, since apparently the Quran
>>> >> compels true believers to kill non-Muslims. Islamic extremists are
a
>>> >> cancer on civilisation, and you have to get the surrounding tissue
>>> >> when
>>> >> you remove a cancer.
>>> >>
>>> >> It's only logical.
>>> >
>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press, they
>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>>> > would
>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>> >
>>> > In spite of the apparent lunacy that I see on the left side of the
>> aisle,
>>> > I think that they have a huge part to play in the downfall of these
>>> > cretins.
>>> >
>>> >
>> http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/misc/ris e-fall-islam.htm
>>> >
>>> > ...if the left doesn't screw the pooch beforehand and in so doing,
take
>>> > those in this country that are still willing to fight for it with them.
>>> >
>>> > ;o)
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85157 is a reply to message #85154] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 14:28 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You certainly blow to bits that stereotype of Apple users as Birkenstock wearing,
muesli chewing, wheatgrass swilling hippies.
TCB
P.S. Al-Queda is in Iraq NOW, but wasn't before the US invaded and destroyed
the state of Iraq. An admittedly brutal dictatorship of a state, but a state
nonetheless. The final 'break' bin Laden had with the moneyed Gulf potentates
(esp. the Saudi royal family) was when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden wanted
to take his jihadis and roll Saddam back, while the Saudis wanted to invite
in the Americans. In other words, Saddam and bin Laden were sworn enemies,
and I doubt Saddam tolerated a lot of his sworn enemies lolling about in
Baghdad.
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
sane
>
>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>
>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
>
>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>
>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>
>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.<<
>
>There is always collateral damage in war. You can't put a price on collateral
>damage when it comes to war. This isn't patty cakes, it's war. There is
>no way to make it clean, convenient, or palatable! So how could we have
>removed Sadam, his sons and the whole Baath party from power with out invading?
> We couldn't have. Your thinking is hindsight and vary convenient.
>
>>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
>about
>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
>
>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>
>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>
>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
you
>
>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders. "Bomb
>
>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>of
>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.<<
>
>It was Muslims that declared war on the US in 1996! It was Muslims that
>attacked us first. It's muslims that want a holy war. What about the
people
> Sadam killed, possibly millions? Oh yeah, all those poor innocent people
>in Guantanamo. I love that hey terrorist should have rights too thinking.
> They're damned lucky I'm not in charge. As far as McCain goes he is a
>weasel.
>
>>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>
>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>
>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>
>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>
>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>a
>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).<<
>
>Of course they are decent people, and I guess we are not, right? We are
>not making war. They started war in our country! They had no business
being
>in our country. As far as their countries, we say that if they stop fighting
>and get along, we'll pull out and get the hell out of their countries.
What
>do they do? They keep fighting to keep us there. They want us there.
They
>keep us there. How can you be so sure that the people killed around Al
Qaeda
>aren't giving aid and support to them. Yes our intelligence is always wrong.
> If we bomb a target of insurgents, it's going to turn out to be a wedding
>party full of kids. That is so convenient for the left wing liberal media!
>
>
>>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>
>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>
>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.<<
>
>
>Who is killing the innocent in Iraq? You'd like to blame the US. That
is
>so convenient for you. Why don't Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents
>count? What, is it inconvenient? Is it because it doesn't fit in to you
>stupid liberal thinking? What about Al Qaeda? They kill their own at will
>and it's Ok. And it's the US that is wrong. It's the US thinking that
is
>wrong. It the US that asked for this by our policies. What a pile of rotten,
>stinking, bullshit!!!!!
>
>Since we are doing it all wrong, why don't you go over there and make sure
>the right people get killed? They would catch you, rape you, beat you with
>an inch of your life, then they'd cut your silly head off on video tape,
>and send your headless rotting corpse floating down the Tigress river, that's
>why not!
>
>It's you that doesn't get it!
>
>>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and
should
>
>be dealt with as such.
>
>Sarah<<
>
>Al Qaeda is in Iraq!!! Where should it be dealt with?
>
>
>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>>Sorry, guys . . . of course I didn't seriously think Deej or any other
sane
>
>>person would advocate killing all Muslims. I was just trying in my typical
>
>>clumsy sarcastic way to make a point, that point being that I find it
>>incomprehensible that people who support this invasion and occupation seem
>
>>to believe that the stunning "collateral damage" is a fair price for what
>
>>little we've gained in return. Saddam is gone. Great. He could've been
>
>>gone without declaring war on Iraq . . . without the collateral damage.
>>
>>And when I use the euphemism "collateral damage," I'm not just talking
about
>
>>the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dead civilians. I'm talking about
>
>>the survivors, too, who we've given reason to hate us where perhaps there
>
>>wasn't reason before. And that includes innocent people rotting in places
>
>>like Guantanamo. And it includes the freedom-loving dissenters in Iran
>you
>>refer to who now fear George Bush more than their own insane leaders.
"Bomb
>
>>bomb bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran" - John McCain doing Beach Boys, to rounds
>of
>>laughter and applause. Yeah, that's funny.
>>
>>Of course the decent, sane Muslims in the middle East are in the majority,
>
>>which is exactly why we shouldn't be in their countries making war! We're
>
>>killing a lot more of them than we are Al Caeda, and that's not acceptable.
>
>>What percentage of the people we've killed in Iraq were actually Al Qaeda?
>
>>I bet you anything it's a single digit, maybe even a couple digits after
>a
>>decimal point. (Sunni and Shia civil warring insurgents don't count).
>>
>>Overall, we are NOT killing the right people. We're like an exterminator
>
>>who shows up at your house to get cockroaches with a shotgun. We're trying
>
>>to eliminate head lice with a hammer. Ow.
>>
>>Al Qaeda is an international network of criminals, not a country, and should
>
>>be dealt with as such.
>>
>>Sarah
>>
>>"Rich Lamanna" <richard.lamanna@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>news:4654d702$1@linux...
>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
they
>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>
>>>> > would
>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>
>>> Sarah, I think what Deej is saying here is that there are many, many
more,
>>> non fundamentalist Muslims around the world who are reasonable, not
>>> radicalized and want to live under democracy rather than theocracy. What
>
>>> the
>>> press would have you believe is just the opposite, that the crazy ones
>are
>>> the majority. You don't see the press covering dissenting views by more
>>> moderate Islamics. I agree with Deej. This can be supported if you look
>at
>>> the contemptuous reaction by the younger and educated in Iran against
>the
>>> mullahs and Amadinejad. There is much dissent in Iran, which you only
>read
>>> about in rare publications. There is also much repression in Iran against
>>> the voice of democracy. We need to be the light and hope for the world
>and
>>> for democratic freedoms. The alternative is frightening, isn't it!
>>>
>>> http://www.nowpublic.com/silencing_dissent_in_iran_four_hang ed_0
>>>
>>> http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/07/iran8774.htm
>>>
>>> "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message news:4653b5af@linux...
>>>> So . . . hang on a minute here . . . you're saying you think we SHOULD
>>> kill
>>>> all Muslims, starting with the entire Middle East?
>>>>
>>>> S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4653a4f0@linux...
>>>> >
>>>> > "Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46537917@linux...
>>>> >> "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the
>>> whole
>>>> >> Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day
hero
>>> ...
>>>> >> assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched
>>>> >> dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable
>>>> >> urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into
>>> even
>>>> >> greater instability."
>>>> >>
>>>> >> - George H.W. Bush
>>>> >
>>>> > And you are referring to what coalition????...................the
one
>>> that
>>>> > Clinton failed to hold together the minute he was elected???
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Baby Bush shoulda listened to Big Bush instead of to "the crazies"
>
>>>> >> (how
>>>> >> Bush I's administration referred to the "neocons").
>>>> >
>>>> > Bush I had achieved a scenario wherein if Sadaam violated sanctions,
>>> there
>>>> > were remedies. No one was willing to explore those remedies in any
>kind
>>> of
>>>> > serious way. this is Clintons major crime, IMO. He had a duty to do
>
>>>> > this
>>>> > and he didn't. As the 90's wore on, a billionaire maniac who paid
blood
>>>> > money to the familes of terrorists to ensure that the could more
>>>> > easlily
>>>> > walk into Israeli shipping malls and restaurants and murder people
>
>>>> > while
>>>> > he flaunted UN authority was buiding his time until sham sanctions
>were
>>>> > officially lifted while in Afghanistan, the weaselly rich wannabee
>who
>>>> > felt dissed because the Saudi's didn't want him to defend them from
>>> Sadaam
>>>> > and decided it should be us, collects the scum of the earth and every
>>>> > other variety of homicidal miscreant, gets some lunatic mullas to
deify
>>>> > them in their own minds and sends these Aassholes around the world
>to
>>> kill
>>>> > people.
>>>> >
>>>> > Sorry Sarah....some things are not complicated at all.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If this crusade is truly a righteous one, and if six figure
>>>> >> "collateral
>>>> >> damage" is an acceptable loss for what we've gained (?) so far, then
>>> why
>>>> >> screw around? Why not just kill everyone between India and the
>>>> >> Mediterranean (except for Israel, of course)? It's the only way to
>be
>>>> >> sure. We must have the technology. After that we should probably
>just
>>>> >> eliminate all Muslims around the world, since apparently the Quran
>>>> >> compels true believers to kill non-Muslims. Islamic extremists are
>a
>>>> >> cancer on civilisation, and you have to get the surrounding tissue
>
>>>> >> when
>>>> >> you remove a cancer.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's only logical.
>>>> >
>>>> > Because if you listen to the majority of the international press,
they
>>>> > would have you believe that there are a lot more crazy people in this
>>>> > world like the assholes we are fighting than reasonable people who
>
>>>> > would
>>>> > like to be rid of them.
>>>> >
>>>> > In spite of the apparent lunacy that I see on the left side of the
>>> aisle,
>>>> > I think that they have a huge part to play in the downfall of these
>>>> > cretins.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>> http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/2001/misc/ris e-fall-islam.htm
>>>> >
>>>> > ...if the left doesn't screw the pooch beforehand and in so doing,
>take
>>>> > those in this country that are still willing to fight for it with
them.
>>>> >
>>>> > ;o)
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85159 is a reply to message #85141] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 15:11 |
BT
Messages: 19
Registered: February 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
The US submarine contingent may not be 90% of the world, but it's still
well over 50% of the world's total combat capability. Chinese subs are
largely ineffective, at least currently, by comparison. And the Russian
submarine force is now a far cry from it's former USSR glory. Look here
for comparisons, and there are other sites as well:
http://www.hazegray.org/worldnav/
I'd say our submarine dominance is undisputed.
Subs are most useful in a full-on "official" war between belligerent
nations. OTOH, carriers project power that can be employed in many
different ways and scenarios, in peacetime/almost-wartime/wartime....
that transient state the world exists in now.
Carriers also pack far more psychological impact. A show of force rarely
involves submarines....not much to see. It usually involves parading a
couple of carriers back and forth with dozens and dozens of high
performance attack planes flying about as they please. Carriers make for
far more impressive dog 'n pony shows and can sometimes forestall the
need to actually use force.
Also keep in mind, the subs that sink the carriers in the war games are
*our* subs. I don't think their subs are going to fare as well, overall.
Back to the main point. America's mistakes, and their are plenty of
them, are highly amplified in both their impact and their scrutinization
by the inordinately broad influence our country wields. I wish we
made better and more benevolent use of that power.
We should blow up less and build more.
Regards,
Brian T
TCB wrote:
> This stat distorts things a bit, because after WW II the US Navy decided that
> the aircraft carrier was the primary weapon to have in the closet. The Russians
> then, and the Chinese now, have decided that the submarine is the crucial
> link, and the US has nowhere near 90% of the subs in the world. This makes
> sense because the sub navies meet a largely defensive/deterrent goal while
> carrier navies are about projecting power overseas. Since the US has zero
> fear of anyone sailing over here and invading the continental US, we built
> a navy that can be used to attack, or at least threaten, other countries.
> All of which is to say that 80/90/100 percent of carriers does not equal
> a similar percentage of naval power. Oh, one more thing. In war games the
> subs almost always sink the carriers, so the carrier navy is really only
> useful against countries without powerful sub navies. So if Iran were smart
> they'd be buying subs instead of trying to acquire a nuke.
>
> Second, your argument is correct, to an extent. However, if the War Minister
> of Lichtenstein does something stupid, say, manipulates his country into
> war with known faulty intelligence, it doesn't matter. When the US does that
> a few hundred thousand people, almost all of them civilians, wind up dead.
> The dead people are no less dead because we possess roughly average wisdom.
> Which means we need to wise up.
>
> TCB
>
> BT <gbtank@comcast.net> wrote:
>> We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
>> given day.
>>
>> It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
>> else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for instance,
>
>> Guatemala or New Zealand.
>>
>> Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
>> aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
>> based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so of
>
>> the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
>>
>> When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications for
>
>> others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this issue.
>
>> I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out over some
>> boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brian T
>
Regards,
Brian T
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85160 is a reply to message #85117] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 15:13 |
BT
Messages: 19
Registered: February 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Doing well, thanks. And you?
BT
DC wrote:
> Hi BT!
>
> Nice to hear from you. How have you been?
>
> DC
>
>
> BT <gbtank@comcast.net> wrote:
>> We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
>> given day.
>>
>> It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
>> else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for instance,
>
>> Guatemala or New Zealand.
>>
>> Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
>> aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
>> based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so of
>
>> the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
>>
>> When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications for
>
>> others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this issue.
>
>> I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out over some
>> boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brian T
>
Regards,
Brian T
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85163 is a reply to message #85122] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 15:15 |
BT
Messages: 19
Registered: February 2007
|
Junior Member |
|
|
I'll cut and paster from a different thread, as answer.
***************************************
Howdy Ya'll........... from Texas.
Well, well, it appears that Brian T is still alive and still uses Paris
on a regular basis, despite what you may have heard to the contrary. I
still drop in here now and again in lurker mode to see what's up, and
this is still the coolest collection of people on any newsgroup I've
ever seen.
Dimitrios has taken up the torch in the true spirit of bleeding edge
just-because-we-can-ism. I love it.
I currently have 8 EDS cards and 5 MECs running a total of 9 ADAT cards.
2x ADAT on MECs B, C, D and E and a single ADAT on the "A" MEC. I never
have a problem, other than it takes a while to boot Paris because of the
way the Paris app parses the hardware attached to the EDS1000s so
slowly. That's something Chris T tried to improve when we were fine
tuning the XP drivers at my studio, but when we sped it up on the XP
drivers, Paris would lock up while booting. Still don't know why.
The only consistent thing I can think of is that in all cases, my ADAT
cards are farthest from the MEC power supply. Other than that, it's just
turn it on and go.
I've been told that electrons seem to like me especially well, for some
reason or other. I suppose this could also be a factor. Say, you guys DO
talk nice to your gear, don't you?
Regards,
Brian T
********************************************************
Jamie K wrote:
>
> Hey Brian, welcome back! What's shakin'?
>
> You still using PARIS? Or does Nuendo have you covered these days?
>
> BTW, good points.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> BT wrote:
>> We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
>> given day.
>>
>> It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
>> else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for
>> instance, Guatemala or New Zealand.
>>
>> Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
>> aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
>> based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so
>> of the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
>>
>> When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications
>> for others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this
>> issue. I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out
>> over some boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brian T
Regards,
Brian T
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT: Springtime in Islamberg. [message #85164 is a reply to message #85160] |
Thu, 24 May 2007 15:26 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
A very strange thing has happened here...
All these really different people, who see eye to eye on
next to nothing, have actually mostly learned to get along
even when discussing the most sensitive of issues...
It is amazing, and exists almost no where else on the web.
Yes, there are exceptions, but in general it's a pretty good
place to hang out.
I am still designing and installing live sound and studios. We have
2 big Catholic churches going now, and in another 2 weeks, no
one will see me for a month...
You can have time or you can have money...
Pick one..
DC
BT <gbtank@comcast.net> wrote:
>Doing well, thanks. And you?
>
>BT
>
>DC wrote:
>> Hi BT!
>>
>> Nice to hear from you. How have you been?
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>> BT <gbtank@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> We're not much wiser or more foolish than most other countries, on a
>>> given day.
>>>
>>> It's just that the USA leaves so much larger a footprint than anybody
>>> else, our mistakes are greatly amplified when compared to, for instance,
>>
>>> Guatemala or New Zealand.
>>>
>>> Has anybody noticed that the US possesses over 80% of the world's
>>> aircraft carrier deck space, and more like 90% of the world's carrier
>>> based warplanes? So that's 5% of the world's populace with 90% or so
of
>>
>>> the world's naval power. Kind of disproportionate.
>>>
>>> When we screw up, it's a big deal, usually has sizable implications for
>>
>>> others, and everybody notices. That really is a big part of this issue.
>>
>>> I mean, when is the last time the whole world was bummed out over some
>>> boneheaded move by Lichtenstein's Secretary of War?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Brian T
>>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 09 12:48:53 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05441 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
