LIBERAL ELITE'S CONTEMPT FOR AMERICAN VALUES! OUR COLLEGES ARE CESSPOOLS!!!!
an0...@hotmail.com
College campuses are home to elitists who are out of touch with and
have contempt for American values. Let's look at some of their
statements after the recent terrorist attacks. A list of those
statements have been compiled by Young America's Foundation
(www.yaf.org), Virginia Institute (www.virginiainstitute.org) and
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.org).
Hours after the terrorist attacks, University of New Mexico History
Professor Richard Berthold told his students in his Western
Civilization and Greek history classes, "Anyone who can blow up the
Pentagon has my vote." A University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,
teach-in featured William Blum, author of "Rogue State: A Guide to the
World's Only Superpower." Blum equated the United States with the
terrorists, saying, "There are few if any nations in the world that
have harbored more terrorists than the United States."
Nick Woomer, a student columnist at the University of Michigan,
thinking that the United States deserved to be attacked said that "the
action taken by the terrorists on Tuesday are not completely
unwarranted. We try to forget about the way this country behaves
internationally -- that we too often behave as terrorists."
California is home to most of America's leftists and the
blame-America-first crowd, and they made their thoughts clear.
Sixty-six Berkeley professors were joined by 100 other academics in
placing a New York Times ad calling the U.S. war on terrorism
"unacceptable." A Sacramento elementary school teacher burned an
American flag in front of his sixth-grade class. A California Chico
State College professor said that President Bush wants to "kill
innocent people," "colonize" the Arab world and capture "oil for the
Bush family."
University of Texas professor Robert Jensen said that the terrorist
attack "was no more despicable than the massive acts of terrorism ...
that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime." Adam
Goldstein, University of Wisconsin-Madison's former campus relations
committee chairman, said in a letter to the editor of the Badger
Herald that "before you preach at us about the evil terrorists, why
don't you try getting your facts straight and face up to the reality
that our leaders are war criminals just as much as people like Hitler,
Stalin and other monsters of the 20th century."
What were some campus responses to staff or student pro-American
sentiment? At Florida Gulf Coast University, Library Services Dean
Kathleen Hoeth ordered employees to remove stickers saying, "Proud to
be an American," from their workplaces. At the University of
Massachusetts, students against the military response to terrorism
were granted rally permits. Students in support of our military
response had their rally permit revoked. At Lehigh University, Vice
Provost John Smeaton ordered removal of the American flag from the
campus bus. After adverse publicity, the flag was replaced and Smeaton
apologized.
These actions and remarks shouldn't surprise us, for they represent
the prevailing attitude on far too many, perhaps most, American
campuses. These professors and administrators, formerly the hippies
and flower children of the 1960s and '70s, are people to whom we
entrust our impressionable 17- and 18-year-olds. As parents, we cough
up to $30,000 and sometimes more in tuition money to have our
youngsters taught that America is not only a racist, sexist and
homophobic nation, but a terrorist nation as well, and an
international monster creating world poverty and destroying the
planet. Among their preachments is that Western civilization is no
better than other civilizations. I'd like one of these professors to
stand up and make the case for the moral equivalency between the
Taliban and American treatment of women.
Americans as donors and taxpayers have been far too generous with the
higher education establishment. It's about time we stop paying for
campus anti-Americanism and academic dishonesty. Nothing opens the
closed minds of college administrators more than the sounds of
pocketbooks snapping shut.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/printww20011031.shtml
©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
an0...@hotmail.com
Rule Number One: Remember what's true.
-- FIFTY-THREE DAYS after September 11, and four weeks into the
bombing campaign, wisps of doubt and frustration felt by even the most
committed Americans are finally seeing the light of day. Should things
be moving faster? (That would be nice, but no.) Is al Qaeda on the
run? (No, but we're working on it. For world-class terrorists, they do
seem to have run through their playbook pretty fast.) Is our
government doing enough to protect us? (The anthrax response doesn't
inspire confidence, but there haven't been any more "spree" killings,
either.) Questions of status are not wrinkles in resolve, and asking
them is not only fair but also smart. Still, we are not likely to get
too many concrete answers in a war, so we have to find them in what we
already know. Here, then, are a few truths about the current
situation:
People in our government are doing their best.
Our leaders have a lot more inside information than we do. Sometimes
they tell us less than they know, but that's the price we have to pay
to protect our intelligence interests and to keep soldiers out of
harm's way. I am the last person to recommend trusting the government,
but today they have just as much at stake as we do. If there were ever
a time to trust our leaders, it's now.
Mercy isn't always what it seems.
A pause in the campaign for Ramadan is fast slipping in rank down our
list of options. Good. Give our enemies a breather and they will only
regroup, and the power they would pick up during that break would far
outweigh the diplomatic advantage we might gain. 1) We will not solve
this war with diplomacy, so who cares? 2) People who blow up civilians
in office buildings without a word of warning are unlikely to send us
thank-you notes for respecting their holidays. 3) We are damned if we
do and damned if we don't with our Middle Eastern enemies (and with
many of our Middle Eastern "allies," too), so let's stop trying to
please people who can't be pleased and give the edge to ourselves for
a change.
Politics, especially on the world stage, is about making the best of a
bad situation.
We are going to end up in bed with a devil or two in this, but that's
the way it goes. We can't start demanding that everyone who offers to
help us be a virgin in the morals department. We aren't perfect, and
neither is any other country, but there is a world of difference
between U.S. foreign policy over the past fifty years and flying
planes full of civilians into office towers, killing 5000 innocent
people, and celebrating it with a dance in the streets.
You can't negotiate with terrorists.
They don't want to negotiate, anyway. They want to change the way we
live; in particular, they want a stroll down the streets of New York
to be as uncertain as a walk in Beirut. But play out the results of
"negotiation" in your mind, just for fun. For us to reach agreement
with bin Laden means that after it's over, George Bush has to shake
hands over a "peace accord" with him, and accept him into our country
as the leader of a civilized and civil faction. Most important, such
acceptance must also legitimize the unspeakable means he chose to gain
a forum.
War entails the occasional vile act. Get used to it.
Afghan civilians are going to die.
That's a sad thing, and part of the awful nature of war. But what's
worse is to live in a world where purposefully targeted innocents are
killed without consequence. In that world, no one is safe anywhere,
anytime.
If you get downhearted, look at the unity around you.
On September 11, Americans learned that we have more in common with
each other than we remembered. Even if you're a gun-owning,
free-market conservative, you and Ted Kennedy are still on the same
side of this fight. And even if you're a handicapped gay atheist
liberal of color, you and Jesse Helms could now have dinner and find a
few points of agreement. We're all on the same team, friends. We
differ on social security, the wisdom of Alan Greenspan, and whether
or not that show "Friends" is rotting our national morality, but we
agree on one thing: we live in a country worth fighting for.
Some of your fellow Americans are going to loathe patriotism and
despise whatever this country does, whether it's bombing Taliban
armaments into scrap or administering vaccines to third-world infants.
I used to think you could reason with everybody.
Then I got a column.
Orion
"The first casualty in war is truth"
I think it was said by Napoleon or Neiche some such....
Orion
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be32f5b...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be308ab...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
> Elitist contempt for American values
>
> College campuses are home to elitists who are out of touch with and
> have contempt for American values. Let's look at some of their
> statements after the recent terrorist attacks. A list of those
> statements have been compiled by Young America's Foundation
> (www.yaf.org), Virginia Institute (www.virginiainstitute.org) and
> Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.org).
>
> Hours after the terrorist attacks, University of New Mexico History
> Professor Richard Berthold told his students in his Western
> Civilization and Greek history classes, "Anyone who can blow up the
> Pentagon has my vote." A University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,
> teach-in featured William Blum, author of "Rogue State: A Guide to the
> World's Only Superpower." Blum equated the United States with the
> terrorists, saying, "There are few if any nations in the world that
> have harbored more terrorists than the United States."
>
professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
please.
Yoss
Diamond Joe Quimby
"Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
> please.
No.
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
**********************************************
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
Diamond Joe Quimby
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>
> >In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
> >> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
> >> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
> >> please.
> >
> >No.
>
> wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
> organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
<yawn>
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
<shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>In article <3be62bd2...@news.spiritone.com>,
> bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> > "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
>> >> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
>> >> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
>> >> please.
>> >
>> >No.
>>
>> wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
>> organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
>
><yawn>
can't refute the point, huh dummy?
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
><an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3be308ab...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
>> Elitist contempt for American values
>>
>> College campuses are home to elitists who are out of touch with and
>> have contempt for American values. Let's look at some of their
>> statements after the recent terrorist attacks. A list of those
>> statements have been compiled by Young America's Foundation
>> (www.yaf.org), Virginia Institute (www.virginiainstitute.org) and
>> Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.org).
>>
>> Hours after the terrorist attacks, University of New Mexico History
>> Professor Richard Berthold told his students in his Western
>> Civilization and Greek history classes, "Anyone who can blow up the
>> Pentagon has my vote." A University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,
>> teach-in featured William Blum, author of "Rogue State: A Guide to the
>> World's Only Superpower." Blum equated the United States with the
>> terrorists, saying, "There are few if any nations in the world that
>> have harbored more terrorists than the United States."
>>
>I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
>professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
>Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
>please.
>
>
>Yoss
No, they're lies.
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
><shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>
>>In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
>>> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
>>> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
>>> please.
>>
>>No.
>
>wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
>organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
>
Really? Tell us how!
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 06:57:59 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
><shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>
>>In article <3be62bd2...@news.spiritone.com>,
>> bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>>> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>> > "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
>>> >> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
>>> >> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
>>> >> please.
>>> >
>>> >No.
>>>
>>> wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
>>> organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
>>
>><yawn>
>
>can't refute the point, huh dummy?
>
Have you made any points?
Didn't think so!
michael price
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 06:57:59 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>
> >In article <3be62bd2...@news.spiritone.com>,
> > bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
> >> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> >> > "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
> >> >> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
> >> >> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
> >> >> please.
> >> >
> >> >No.
> >>
> >> wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
> >> organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
> >
> ><yawn>
>
> can't refute the point, huh dummy?
How can he refute your evidence when you don't provide any?
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
sure did and its balanced on that point between yer shoulders. Just
waiting to crush you.
>
>Didn't think so!
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
wrote:
>bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote in message news:<3be6ddc3...@news.spiritone.com>...
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 06:57:59 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3be62bd2...@news.spiritone.com>,
>> > bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>> >> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> >> > "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
>> >> >> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
>> >> >> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
>> >> >> please.
>> >> >
>> >> >No.
>> >>
>> >> wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
>> >> organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
>> >
>> ><yawn>
>>
>> can't refute the point, huh dummy?
> He's not obliged to since you didn't provide any evidence for it.
>How can he refute your evidence when you don't provide any?
sure he is he made a wild assed claim and I destroyed it.
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, East Timor, Chile and any other country
that the CIA oveerthrew a reform minded government and isntalled a
fucking fascist regime.
tica
TICA
> >> ><yawn>
tica
and exactly WHEN did Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, East Timor or Chile blow up
an American building filled with innocent civilians on American soil happen?
Did it ever occur to you that the hatred directed at the United States from
third world countries is based as much on cultural differences as on
political differences? Are you willing to give up the freedoms that you
enjoy so as not to offend people in other countries who do not like seeing
'rich' Americans violating their cultural taboos?
If you went to their country, would you conform to their standard... out of
respect for their culture? Would you insist that the men in your group grow
beards? Would you insist that the women in your group wear a sheet over
their heads?
I like the idea that our government, using covert forces, is at least trying
to keep these medieval morons from imposing their cultural prejudices on the
USA. I would agree to abandoning THEM to their sand and oil and camels, if
that is what it takes to make them happy.
Americans can find an alternative to what it is that they are selling us.
TICA
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be70982...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
Okay then cite resources, and studies that prove these are lies. Prove that
the CIA is a humane organization, and that US foreign policy has been
beneficial to the third world. Make the arguement or go home.
Yoss
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 21:50:49 GMT, an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 06:04:45 GMT, bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>>><shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>>> "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
>>>>> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
>>>>> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
>>>>> please.
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
>>>organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
>>>
>>
>>Really? Tell us how!
>
>Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, East Timor, Chile and any other country
>that the CIA oveerthrew a reform minded government and isntalled a
>fucking fascist regime.
>
Really? Wow, your world must be a fascinating one! What color is the
sky in your world??
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 21:51:15 GMT, an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 18:43:35 GMT, bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 06:57:59 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>>><shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3be62bd2...@news.spiritone.com>,
>>>> bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>>>>> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>>>> > "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
>>>>> >> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
>>>>> >> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
>>>>> >> please.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >No.
>>>>>
>>>>> wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
>>>>> organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
>>>>
>>>><yawn>
>>>
>>>can't refute the point, huh dummy?
>>>
>>
>>Have you made any points?
>
>sure did and its balanced on that point between yer shoulders. Just
>waiting to crush you.
>
>>
Like I said, nothing intelligent to say, "bunker".
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote in message news:<3be6ddc3...@news.spiritone.com>...
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 06:57:59 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3be62bd2...@news.spiritone.com>,
>> > bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>> >> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>> >> > "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
>> >> >> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
>> >> >> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
>> >> >> please.
>> >> >
>> >> >No.
>> >>
>> >> wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
>> >> organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
>> >
>> ><yawn>
>>
>> can't refute the point, huh dummy?
> He's not obliged to since you didn't provide any evidence for it.
>How can he refute your evidence when you don't provide any?
Yes, ol' bunker is not too bright!
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On 5 Nov 2001 18:06:58 -0800, nini...@yahoo.com (michael price)
>wrote:
>
>>bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote in message news:<3be6ddc3...@news.spiritone.com>...
>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 06:57:59 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>>> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <3be62bd2...@news.spiritone.com>,
>>> > bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:02:10 GMT, Diamond Joe Quimby
>>> >> <shi...@mac.com.nospam> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article <9s4tqj$ohi$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>> >> > "Yossarian" <Yoss...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> I understand that you are reacting emotionally to the statements these
>>> >> >> professors have made. You say they have contempt for "American value".
>>> >> >> Question! Are what these people are saying true? Just answer that question
>>> >> >> please.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >No.
>>> >>
>>> >> wrong again stupid. THe CIA is the world's largest terrorist
>>> >> organization. Add to that the school of the americas.
>>> >
>>> ><yawn>
>>>
>>> can't refute the point, huh dummy?
>> He's not obliged to since you didn't provide any evidence for it.
>>How can he refute your evidence when you don't provide any?
>
>sure he is he made a wild assed claim and I destroyed it.
>
In your dreams, whelp.
You, to date, haven't made ANY points!
At least I can give credit to the other libdems who try to make a
point.
You are a useless waste of bandwidth.
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
>Neat......
>and exactly WHEN did Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, East Timor or Chile blow up
>an American building filled with innocent civilians on American soil happen?
>
>Did it ever occur to you that the hatred directed at the United States from
>third world countries is based as much on cultural differences as on
>political differences? Are you willing to give up the freedoms that you
>enjoy so as not to offend people in other countries who do not like seeing
>'rich' Americans violating their cultural taboos?
oh the poor widdle dummy. Hey fool just who the fuck trained and
equiped bin Laden in the 80s? Can you say the drooling idiot ronnie
raygun and his class of crazies in the CIA?
The CIA has been messing with and overthrowing mideast governments
since the 50s. In fact one of the first to be overthrown by the CIA
was Iran and the reason was because the government was reformed minded
and about to nationalized the british oil holdings and we installed a
fascist, the Shah.
>
>If you went to their country, would you conform to their standard... out of
>respect for their culture? Would you insist that the men in your group grow
>beards? Would you insist that the women in your group wear a sheet over
>their heads?
>
>I like the idea that our government, using covert forces, is at least trying
>to keep these medieval morons from imposing their cultural prejudices on the
>USA. I would agree to abandoning THEM to their sand and oil and camels, if
>that is what it takes to make them happy.
>
>Americans can find an alternative to what it is that they are selling us.
>TICA
>
>>
>> Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, East Timor, Chile and any other country
>> that the CIA oveerthrew a reform minded government and isntalled a
>> fucking fascist regime.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
**********************************************
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
OK. The US contributes *billions* in private and public assiatance to
the world, even places like N Korea. We supply humanitarian aid for
disasters overseas, we also come to the aid militarily of nations who
are being oppressed.
Now, YOU explain why you think these 'professor's claims below are
true and valid, or sit sown and shut up.
Cite instances of the US deliberately killing civilians to achieve a
political agenda.
Cite instances of human rights violations.
(sounds of crickets............)
Did you actually READ any of what's below??
Didn't think so............
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
wrote:
Why sure thing let me give it a shot
The religious right played a large role in Central America for the
Reagan administration. Following the coup in 1982 in Guatemala Pat
Robertson interviewed Rios
Montt and promised to send aid and missionaries. Weeks later a Gospel
Outreach pastor met with the Reagan administration. Shortly there
after the State
Department held a special briefing for leaders of the religious right
and endorsed Operation International Love Lift. By then thousands had
been massacred, the
targets were mostly the indigenous population. Some Gospel Outreach
members apparently took part in the torture and interrogation
operation. One Gospel
Outreach pastor went on to defend the killings as follows:
"The Army doesn’t massacre the Indians. It massacres demons, and
the Indians are demon possessed; they are communist. We hold Brother
Efrain
Rios Mott like the King of David of the Old Testament. He is the
king of the New Testament."101
ooopps looks like that was a backfired. Mind if I give it another
shot?
**********************************************
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 10:24:58 GMT, "tica" <mmcg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Neat......
>>and exactly WHEN did Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, East Timor or Chile blow up
>>an American building filled with innocent civilians on American soil happen?
>>
>>Did it ever occur to you that the hatred directed at the United States from
>>third world countries is based as much on cultural differences as on
>>political differences? Are you willing to give up the freedoms that you
>>enjoy so as not to offend people in other countries who do not like seeing
>>'rich' Americans violating their cultural taboos?
>
>oh the poor widdle dummy. Hey fool just who the fuck trained and
>equiped bin Laden in the 80s?
You're saying the US deliberately sought out and trained Bin Laden?
> Can you say the drooling idiot ronnie raygun and his class of crazies in the CIA?
So now it's Ronald Reagan who deliberately trained him?
> The CIA has been messing with and overthrowing mideast governments
>since the 50s.
Which mideast governments?
> In fact one of the first to be overthrown by the CIA
>was Iran
So the Ayatolah Komeini was a stooge of the US?
>and the reason was because the government was reformed minded
>and about to nationalized the british oil holdings and we installed a
>fascist, the Shah.
What does "about to nationalized the british oil holdings" mean?
And we did this because......? We're enemies of the British?
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Begin unsourced diatribe:
>The religious right played a large role in Central America for the
>Reagan administration.
Why? I'm a Jew that supports the Monroe Doctrine. What are you
talking about?
>Following the coup in 1982 in Guatemala
Was this a deliberate act of the Reagan administration? Why? How?
>Pat
>Robertson interviewed Rios
>Montt and promised to send aid and missionaries. Weeks later a Gospel
>Outreach pastor met with the Reagan administration. Shortly there
>after the State
>Department held a special briefing for leaders of the religious right
>and endorsed Operation International Love Lift. By then thousands had
>been massacred, the
>targets were mostly the indigenous population. Some Gospel Outreach
>members apparently took part in the torture and interrogation
>operation. One Gospel
>Outreach pastor went on to defend the killings as follows:
>
> "The Army doesn’t massacre the Indians. It massacres demons, and
>the Indians are demon possessed; they are communist. We hold Brother
>Efrain
> Rios Mott like the King of David of the Old Testament. He is the
>king of the New Testament."101
>
What a load of unsubstantiated offal.
>
ooopps looks like that was a backfired. Mind if you give it another
>shot?
I spent all my life
in uniform fighting
for the survival of
this country...
(there is)
no mercy for the weak,
no second opportunity
for those who cannot
defend themselves.
-EHUD BARAK
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
sure have and balanced them all on that point between yer shoulders.
>
>At least I can give credit to the other libdems who try to make a
>point.
>
>You are a useless waste of bandwidth.
>
>
>
**********************************************
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 19:25:29 GMT, bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 10:24:58 GMT, "tica" <mmcg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Neat......
>>>and exactly WHEN did Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, East Timor or Chile blow up
>>>an American building filled with innocent civilians on American soil happen?
>>>
>>>Did it ever occur to you that the hatred directed at the United States from
>>>third world countries is based as much on cultural differences as on
>>>political differences? Are you willing to give up the freedoms that you
>>>enjoy so as not to offend people in other countries who do not like seeing
>>>'rich' Americans violating their cultural taboos?
>>
>>oh the poor widdle dummy. Hey fool just who the fuck trained and
>>equiped bin Laden in the 80s?
>
>You're saying the US deliberately sought out and trained Bin Laden?
>
thats right sweetie. Maybe you should read up on how tight the bin
Laden family is with the bushies.
Their connections go along ways back.
>
>> Can you say the drooling idiot ronnie raygun and his class of crazies in the CIA?
>
>So now it's Ronald Reagan who deliberately trained him?
>
>
>> The CIA has been messing with and overthrowing mideast governments
>>since the 50s.
>
>Which mideast governments?
>
>
>> In fact one of the first to be overthrown by the CIA
>>was Iran
>
>So the Ayatolah Komeini was a stooge of the US?
>
>
>>and the reason was because the government was reformed minded
>>and about to nationalized the british oil holdings and we installed a
>>fascist, the Shah.
>
>What does "about to nationalized the british oil holdings" mean?
>
>And we did this because......? We're enemies of the British?
>
>
>
**********************************************
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
are you trying to deny that the CIA overtrew the Allende government?
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
yup the drooling idiot ronnie liked to have innocent people murdered
to amke him look like a world "leader"
**********************************************
Yossarian
> I spent all my life
> in uniform fighting
> for the survival of
> this country...
> (there is)
> no mercy for the weak,
> no second opportunity
> for those who cannot
> defend themselves.
>
> -EHUD BARAK
>
>
Yep, he and Pee Pee Netanyahooooo! are two of a kind.
Yoss
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be868f...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
Shah Pavelevi was the client dictator of the United States. Komeini came
later in 79 to overthrow the Shah. Do you remember that?
Yoss
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be837fd...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
Please prove An00nie that Mayan Indian corpses buried in Guatemala could not
have been savaged by bullets and bayonets, which those peasants did not
possess. I remember seeing anthropologists, and coroner experts going
through those remains on public TV. I am sure you can make inquiries and get
the video tapes for that program. Anyway those experts determined that those
corpses were not more than 20 to 45 years old since being put to death, and
the bone chips indicated bullet holes, and bayonet and knife wounds. Also
you can get CIA documents that had been released on their Guatemalan
operations. So you have a connection between the Guatemaln military and the
CIA. Also if you are really motivated you can get some interviews of the
local inhabitants, but you would need to brush on your Spanish. Vaya con
dios.
Yoss
>
>
>
>
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be86a0...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? If you are
complaining about the previous post being unsourced then go to a GOOD
library, (not one of those surburban libraries run by church ladies in the
circulation department), and get some books by John Stockwell as well as
William Blum.
> >Following the coup in 1982 in Guatemala
>
> Was this a deliberate act of the Reagan administration? Why? How?
>
> >Pat
> >Robertson interviewed Rios
> >Montt and promised to send aid and missionaries. Weeks later a Gospel
> >Outreach pastor met with the Reagan administration. Shortly there
> >after the State
> >Department held a special briefing for leaders of the religious right
> >and endorsed Operation International Love Lift. By then thousands had
> >been massacred, the
> >targets were mostly the indigenous population. Some Gospel Outreach
> >members apparently took part in the torture and interrogation
> >operation. One Gospel
> >Outreach pastor went on to defend the killings as follows:
> >
> > "The Army doesn't massacre the Indians. It massacres demons, and
> >the Indians are demon possessed; they are communist. We hold Brother
> >Efrain
> > Rios Mott like the King of David of the Old Testament. He is the
> >king of the New Testament."101
> >
> What a load of unsubstantiated offal.
Dear bunkerlovingcoward, please give the source for your extract. I notice
there is footnote number attached to it.
Yoss
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be838f8...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
CIA? Also give please give examples of coming to the aid militarily of
oppressed nations excepting the example of the World Wars. Feel free to talk
about the Spanish American War or even the Mexican American War. I am eager
for you to give me specifics.
> Now, YOU explain why you think these 'professor's claims below are
> true and valid, or sit sown and shut up.
I'll do better than that. Please read William Blum's "Killing Hope".
>
> Cite instances of the US deliberately killing civilians to achieve a
> political agenda.
>
What do you think the School of Americas or WHISC is about?
> Cite instances of human rights violations.
>
Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" should suffice. BTW,
have you heard of Eugene V. Debs?
> (sounds of crickets............)
>
> Did you actually READ any of what's below??
>
Yes, I read it and I thought those professors brought up several valid
points.
Yoss
tica
Los indio en Guatemal no son Mayas sino son del tribu Mosquito. En mill
novecientos setenta y siete o ocho mas o menos, tuvo en Guatemal un
terremoto de tanta fureza que el pueblo Guatemaltequa fue tirada de sus
pozos y terrenos. La gente educada, los que viven en las ciudades, hablan
espanol. Pero espanol no es la unica lenguage del pueblo. Americanos, como
tu, solamente con grandes dificultades podran comunicar con el pueblo de
Guatemala.
Luegito
TICA
tica
King Herod the Great, of Judea and his son, also named Herod (how original).
TICA
You think racisms between American black and American whites is bad? It is
NOTHING like the venom between the 'pure Spanish and the campesino
Indians.... now THAT is venomous.
TICA
> > > Rios Mott like the King of David of the Old Testament. He is the
> > >king of the New Testament."101
>
Yossarian
"tica" <mmcg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6M7G7.33468$zK1.9...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> The only kings mentioned in the New Testaments are Tiberius, Cesar of
Rome,
> King Herod the Great, of Judea and his son, also named Herod (how
original).
> TICA
>
I don't know how this post about the New Testament relates to the previous
post. But then again the previous post of with Rios Mont and King David
relation seemed indecipherable to me.
> You think racisms between American black and American whites is bad? It
is
> NOTHING like the venom between the 'pure Spanish and the campesino
> Indians.... now THAT is venomous.
Could you relate to us this animosity between conquistadores and
campeseinos? Your personal experience would be valid to me.
Yossarian
> Querido Yoss,
> Los indio en Guatemal no son Mayas sino son del tribu Mosquito. En mill
> novecientos setenta y siete o ocho mas o menos, tuvo en Guatemal un
> terremoto de tanta fureza que el pueblo Guatemaltequa fue tirada de sus
> pozos y terrenos. La gente educada, los que viven en las ciudades, hablan
> espanol. Pero espanol no es la unica lenguage del pueblo. Americanos,
como
> tu, solamente con grandes dificultades podran comunicar con el pueblo de
> Guatemala.
> Luegito
> TICA
>
I cannot keep up of the pretense of fluency in Spanish, but I can order food
if necessary in Spanish. :)Granted there was an earthquake around 1978, but
that does not explain all the corpses with bullet holes in them, and so
forth. Earlier reports I had read said that the Indians were Mayan, but for
the sake of argument, Mosquito will do fine. Anyway, they were once alive,
and then they were killed most violently. It makes sense to me that these
people would not know Spanish; es verdad. ;) But the TV show I watched
showed the translations of the campesinos relating the persecutions they
were subjected to. There was not a one who contradicted another. And there
are the documents released by the CIA of its activities in Guatemala.
Yoss
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 22:53:09 GMT, an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 19:25:29 GMT, bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 10:24:58 GMT, "tica" <mmcg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Neat......
>>>>and exactly WHEN did Nicaragua, Iran, Guatemala, East Timor or Chile blow up
>>>>an American building filled with innocent civilians on American soil happen?
>>>>
>>>>Did it ever occur to you that the hatred directed at the United States from
>>>>third world countries is based as much on cultural differences as on
>>>>political differences? Are you willing to give up the freedoms that you
>>>>enjoy so as not to offend people in other countries who do not like seeing
>>>>'rich' Americans violating their cultural taboos?
>>>
>>>oh the poor widdle dummy. Hey fool just who the fuck trained and
>>>equiped bin Laden in the 80s?
>>
>>You're saying the US deliberately sought out and trained Bin Laden?
>>
>
>thats right sweetie. Maybe you should read up on how tight the bin
>Laden family is with the bushies.
LOL!! Is this more of your fantasy-world?
> Their connections go along ways back.
Your 'connections' are clearly shorted.
tica
thinking of myself as a Venezuelan with American Parents. When Venezuela
nationalized it's American holdings between 1965 and 1975 my family was
expelled from the country. For my parents, coming to the United States was
like coming home, while for me.... well, to be polite, I went through
culture shock.
I remember going to see a movie during the day inside of a large
air-conditioned building. I saw a glass case, lit from the inside and
filled with candy. I was so amazed at that, that I sat on the floor in
front of it and just LOOKED at it. I was so embarrassed when the girls who
took me to see the movie laughed at me.
When I lived in Venezuela, I always thought of Americans as 'Stupid
Americans'.
Tourists would come to Caracas, arguably one of the most elegant cities in
the western hemisphere, and complain about...... everything!!!!! They did
not like the heat, they did not like the rain, they did not like the fact
that few people spoke English. They were the quintessential arrogant ugly
Americans.
As anti-American sentiment grew in Venezuela, Americans were targeted for
racial slurs, ethnic insults and general abuse. I remember being chased
home by kids in the neighborhood that I thought were my friends. American
boys that I went to school with would get beat up periodically, until some
of them would not even go outside to play.
In 1967, Caracas suffered a devastating earthquake. I was sitting on a
heavy wooden chair in the living room when the earthquake started. This
large chair, with me in it, bounced across the room. My father and mother
ran downstairs with my baby sister and ordered us out into the street. We
stood there and watched houses around us crumble. The water tanks on top of
some of the houses cracked, flooding the floors and street below. This
earthquake happened just after sunset, and when it was over.... the world
was in total darkness... punctuated by the sound of frightened people crying
or cursing as the spirit moved them. Me, I had a broken arm. I cried too.
Before the sun came up the next morning, the American ambassador to
Venezuela had called our military base in Panama and ordered the fleet to
mount a rescue mission. The Park of the East in Caracas was within easy
walking distance of my home. This is an enormous park, covering dozens of
acres in the very middle of the city. American marines were dispatched from
the fleet at harbor in Micatia. They converted a large part of the park
into a military camp with food, clean water and medical facilities. Anyone
who needed help got it... no questions asked. I was so PROUD of the
Americans who came to help. A year later it was the American Navy who took
the bow when they gave a musical performance in the amphitheater in the Park
of the East.
You asked about the cultural bigotry in south America. I had two teachers
who were from Spain. One was from the province of Aragon and the other was
from the North of Spain. These were fair skinned people with blue eyes and
fair hair. They were NOT Venezuelan, and yet, they were treated with the
most profound respect. You would have thought that they were priests.
Campesinos, on the other hand, were frequently poor. They were often simply
beggars on the street who performed elaborate charades to gain coins and
pity. I rather liked them, because they were interesting..... and not as
demanding as my teachers.
Many campesinos learned Spanish as a second language. They spoke Spanish
with an obvious accent. They were ridiculed, not only to their face but
also on TV and in the common conversations of people on the street. As an
educated young woman, I was expected to speak Spanish with European
elegance. Incorporating 'Venesolanismos" into my vernacular was just too
un-lady like..... But... but... my friends did it, and you could not tell a
joke without mimicking the campesinos way of talking!!!
I was a child in Venezuela, so I did not have that much direct experience
with some of the more vulgar habits of their regional racism. I do know
that their lives were short, harsh and unlike mine.
e-mail me if you want to know more
TICA
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Never happened.
>**********************************************
>
>For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
>
>http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
>
>*********************************************
Yes, I did take a gander at your website. It explains so much about
you. I saw the name "Glen Yeadon".
'nuff said!
*flush*
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Osama killed thousands of Americans, just to see them die.
You support him.
What's that make YOU???
"If you don't understand weapons you don't understand fighting.
If you don't understand fighting you don't understand war.
If you don't understand war you don't understand history.
If you don't understand history you might as well live with
your head in a sack."
-Jeff Cooper
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Thank G-d for both of them. They will never roll over to the likes of
you.
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
He was? How so, exactly?
>Komeini came
>later in 79 to overthrow the Shah. Do you remember that?
Yes. Took 444 days before they let go of the American hostages.
Ronnie Reagan made sure they would come home.
Carter was inept, incompetent, and in a "malais".
He was the single worst president of the 20th century.
>>
>> >and the reason was because the government was reformed minded
>> >and about to nationalized the british oil holdings and we installed a
>> >fascist, the Shah.
>>
>> What does "about to nationalized the british oil holdings" mean?
>>
>> And we did this because......? We're enemies of the British?
>>
Whassamatter Yoss? Afraid to touch this one?
*flush*
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Please prove Yoss that America had anything to do with it.
> I remember seeing anthropologists, and coroner experts going
>through those remains on public TV. I am sure you can make inquiries and get
>the video tapes for that program. Anyway those experts determined that those
>corpses were not more than 20 to 45 years old since being put to death, and
>the bone chips indicated bullet holes, and bayonet and knife wounds.
Sounds like they were killed, perhaps by Socialists like yourself!
>Also you can get CIA documents that had been released on their Guatemalan
>operations.
Do you have them?
>So you have a connection between the Guatemaln military and the
>CIA.
Proves nothing, no proof of who allegedly killed these people. I say
you did it. Prove me wrong.
See how silly you sound?
> Also if you are really motivated you can get some interviews of the
>local inhabitants, but you would need to brush on your Spanish. Vaya con
>dios.
I am more concerned with the WTC and protecting Americans from further
attacks.
How about you??
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>"tica" <mmcg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:Gz7G7.33290$zK1.9...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>> Querido Yoss,
>> Los indio en Guatemal no son Mayas sino son del tribu Mosquito. En mill
>> novecientos setenta y siete o ocho mas o menos, tuvo en Guatemal un
>> terremoto de tanta fureza que el pueblo Guatemaltequa fue tirada de sus
>> pozos y terrenos. La gente educada, los que viven en las ciudades, hablan
>> espanol. Pero espanol no es la unica lenguage del pueblo. Americanos,
>como
>> tu, solamente con grandes dificultades podran comunicar con el pueblo de
>> Guatemala.
>> Luegito
>> TICA
>>
>Hello, Tica,
>
>I cannot keep up of the pretense of fluency in Spanish, but I can order food
>if necessary in Spanish. :)Granted there was an earthquake around 1978, but
>that does not explain all the corpses with bullet holes in them, and so
>forth.
For which you have posted NO cites. Until then, it's just another one
of your fairy-tale drug induced hallucinations.
> Earlier reports I had read said that the Indians were Mayan, but for
>the sake of argument, Mosquito will do fine. Anyway, they were once alive,
>and then they were killed most violently. It makes sense to me that these
>people would not know Spanish; es verdad. ;) But the TV show I watched
>showed the translations of the campesinos relating the persecutions they
>were subjected to. There was not a one who contradicted another. And there
>are the documents released by the CIA of its activities in Guatemala.
For which you have posted NO cites. Until then, it's just another one
of your fairy-tale drug induced hallucinations.
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Merely proving your claims of Right-Wing Christian fundamentalism are
just so much hooey.
> If you are
>complaining about the previous post being unsourced then go to a GOOD
>library, (not one of those surburban libraries run by church ladies in the
>circulation department), and get some books by John Stockwell as well as
>William Blum.
YOU made the claim, YOU cite.
BTW, you never DID read the Monroe Doctrine, did you?
Here's a CITE:
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
I demonstrated that the US foreign policy has been beneficial, as you
requested.
Last I checked, the CIA wasn't a charitable organization.
Read the Mission Statement of the CIA sometime, skippy.
>Also give please give examples of coming to the aid militarily of
>oppressed nations excepting the example of the World Wars.
Sheesh, you ARE ignorant!
Bosnia
Kuwait
Grenada
Panama
Haiti
Afghanistan
>Feel free to talk
>about the Spanish American War or even the Mexican American War. I am eager
>for you to give me specifics.
First, digest the above. Then come back for more education.
Glad to help!
>> Now, YOU explain why you think these 'professor's claims below are
>> true and valid, or sit sown and shut up.
>
>I'll do better than that. Please read William Blum's "Killing Hope".
>
I see you cannot. I figured as such.
>> Cite instances of the US deliberately killing civilians to achieve a
>> political agenda.
>>
>What do you think the School of Americas or WHISC is about?
You tell me!!
>> Did you actually READ any of what's below??
>>
>Yes, I read it and I thought those professors brought up several valid
>points.
None of which you mention.
My my my....you're a wealth of vapor-knowledge.
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
the CIA installed him in power dummy
>
>
>>Komeini came
>>later in 79 to overthrow the Shah. Do you remember that?
>
>Yes. Took 444 days before they let go of the American hostages.
>Ronnie Reagan made sure they would come home.
>
>Carter was inept, incompetent, and in a "malais".
>
>He was the single worst president of the 20th century.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>> >and the reason was because the government was reformed minded
>>> >and about to nationalized the british oil holdings and we installed a
>>> >fascist, the Shah.
>>>
>>> What does "about to nationalized the british oil holdings" mean?
>>>
>>> And we did this because......? We're enemies of the British?
>>>
>
>Whassamatter Yoss? Afraid to touch this one?
>
>
>*flush*
>
>
>
**********************************************
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
yes it did And all to prrotect 3 American corporations Pepsi, ITT and
Anoconda.
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
poor widdle annie since she can't refute my points she now accusses me
of supporting bin Laden. Sorry sweetie but yer wrong again.
>What's that make YOU???
>
>
>
>
>"If you don't understand weapons you don't understand fighting.
>If you don't understand fighting you don't understand war.
>If you don't understand war you don't understand history.
>If you don't understand history you might as well live with
>your head in a sack."
>-Jeff Cooper
>
**********************************************
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>>>
>>>are you trying to deny that the CIA overtrew the Allende government?
>>>
>>
>>Never happened.
>
>yes it did And all to prrotect 3 American corporations Pepsi, ITT and
>Anoconda.
>
Sure it did....now, come with us. It's time for your nap.
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
As previously stated, and as the rest of TPG already knows, you've
made ZERO points. Now, as for wild, unsubstantiated allegations, why
those you've made plenty!
an0...@hotmail.com
Lewis Cosper
<bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com> wrote in message
news:3be8acf6...@news.spiritone.com...
Curious has got me. Why do advertise to be a bunker loving Coward?
Lewis
an0...@hotmail.com
As the U.S. deploys more special forces in Afghanistan, other forces
have mobilized. Professional pacifists have resurrected the moldy
cliches and self-righteous pieties of the '60s.
All that's missing is Joan Baez singing "Blowin' in the Wind" and Dr.
Spock urging them on.
Last week, anti-war demonstrations were held in a dozen cities. From
Los Angeles to Minneapolis, the arguments advanced against national
self-defense were depressingly familiar.
Osama bin Laden should be brought to justice before the United
Nations, declared a speaker at a Denver rally. And will the Taliban,
which has resisted surrendering bin Laden after a month of heavy
bombing, hasten to honor an arrest warrant from the U.N. bureaucracy?
"We want to call attention to the humanitarian disaster that is taking
place in Afghanistan as a direct result of the campaign to bomb that
country. Seven million Afghans are on the verge of starvation,"
croaked Candice Larson of the Portland, Ore., Peaceful Response
Coalition.
News Flash -- Millions of Afghans have been starving in refugee camps
for years. They are victims of the Taliban's lunacy. If our air
offensive hastens the regime's demise, it will do more to end
starvation in Afghanistan than all of the aid packages we've dropped
to date.
A speaker in Los Angeles disclosed -- in the hushed tones of
revelation -- that the bombing will not solve "societal problems such
as police brutality and homelessness." Nor, for that matter, will it
end road rage or produce a cure for the common cold.
If, after Pearl Harbor, America had waited to solve its social
problems before fighting back, we would now be the westernmost
province of the empire of the rising sun.
Violence solves nothing, is the protestors' universal refrain.
Nonsense. Violence gave America its independence. Violence saved the
Union and freed the slaves. Violence kept Hitler from killing the rest
of Europe's Jews.
For the flower-power brigade, there's always an excuse to turn tail
and run.
Prior to World War II, isolationists told us Hitler was a nationalist
who had legitimate grievances against the West.
During the Vietnam War, campus protestors hailed the Viet Cong as
agrarian reformers. It wasn't our war, they wailed. But it was our
fight -- and millions of dead Cambodians and Vietnamese, who were
murdered by the victors, wish we'd won it.
And the Gulf War? "Blood for oil," anti-war activists chanted. Then
they drove away in their VW buses to well-heated homes, paid for with
jobs dependent on reliable energy supplies.
The current conflict has pacifists scrambling to find new slogans. The
old ones have such a hollow ring.
Are the Taliban thugs idealistic reformers? Is Osama bin Laden an
aggrieved nationalist? Does Afghanistan have oil we covet? If the
murder of 5,000 Americans on American soil doesn't make it our fight,
I'd like to know what does.
But logic is irrelevant to the protestors. Their pacifism isn't an
idea they've thought through, but a blindly adhered to belief system.
Pacifism isn't just wrong; it's immoral. Individuals have a moral
right to choose not to defend themselves when attacked. They have no
right to demand that others commit suicide by proxy.
Not to punish mass murder is to acquiesce to evil. Pacifism is a
betrayal of the innocent. It invites more aggression -- witness
Munich, witness the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, witness our muted
response to other acts of terrorism (the 1983 bombing of the Marine
compound in Beirut and the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania), which surely encouraged al Qaeda.
Is there anyone to the right of Ralph Nader who doesn't understand
that not to respond militarily would embolden the terrorists and lead
to more demolished skyscrapers?
Pacifism works well -- as long as pacifist pleading goes largely
unheeded and anti-war activists remain a distinct minority. Then they
can feel noble while others fight their battles and protect their
freedom.
Only the battlefield sacrifices of generations of our best and bravest
have given us a country where pacifists can bad-mouth America in
comfort and security.
--Don Feder
©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be97824...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
>
> Bosnia
Lez see, several sqaure miles polluted with depleted uranium.
> Kuwait
It's the same dictatorship it ever was. Also much of southern Iraq
irretrievably polluted by depleted uranium.
> Grenada
An island invaded just because Cuba built a civilian airstrip.
> Panama
4000 or 5000 Panamanian citizens killed by the US Army's ground assault.
Also many jounalists were killed, while filming the action.
> Haiti
Aritide is deposed by a CIA coup. A corrupt dictatorship takes over with
many old remnants of the Tan Tan Macout. Aristide barely makes it alive to
Washington, DC. Eventually the stench from Haiti becomes too overpowering.
Aristide is "passe le savon", given the reality of the situation in which he
currently finds himself, or told "You behave, boy". He is sent back with a
vastly scaled down agenda. Meanwhile the Marines are sent back to scrub out
some of the stable, and also to defend the Tan Tan Mouters from angry
protestors. Aritide is back in power, and Haiti's cream of society is
grateful to the US for restraining Aristide.
> Afghanistan
Zgibneff Brezinsky encourages Carter to support a Mujideen insurgency
against a moderate non- aligned, socialist government. Evetually the loony
religionists take over Kabul. The USSR freaks out at the thought of having
Moslem extremists in government 6 months later. Zgibneff is grinning from
ear to ear for he has given the Russians a Vietnam type quagmire. During
Reagan's term local zealots like bin Laden are given training and arms by
the CIA, etc. Eventually the Soviets give up. The United States withdraws.
During the Persian Gulf War, the US stations troops in Saudi Arabia. Bin
Laden gets pissed, when they don't leave. Laden starts the Jihad. Yada,
yada, yada.
Read the Le Nouvel Observateur from 1998. Zgibneff is interviewed in it.
And again Killing Hope.
>
> >Feel free to talk
> >about the Spanish American War or even the Mexican American War. I am
eager
> >for you to give me specifics.
>
> First, digest the above. Then come back for more education.
I would like to see the extent of your education. Most of everyone knows my
education. I have yet to see you cite one history book or article.
>
> Glad to help!
>
> >> Now, YOU explain why you think these 'professor's claims below are
> >> true and valid, or sit sown and shut up.
> >
> >I'll do better than that. Please read William Blum's "Killing Hope".
> >
> I see you cannot. I figured as such.
You really need to read up on it. I don't get paid to educate your ass. I
gave you some books to read.
>
> >> Cite instances of the US deliberately killing civilians to achieve a
> >> political agenda.
> >>
> >What do you think the School of Americas or WHISC is about?
>
> You tell me!!
I already know that. I don't need to waste my time edifying a monkey. I
would only get something back like "that's all lies." William Blum will tell
you about the SOA. There are numerous sites on the web about it. I would
like you to give a response on your own. But you would rather use jackbooted
sophistry to avoid the issue.
>
>
> >> Did you actually READ any of what's below??
> >>
> >Yes, I read it and I thought those professors brought up several valid
> >points.
>
> None of which you mention.
>
Why should I abuse my wrists to bring up what was already posted earlier by
the article you posted? All the points were given.
> My my my....you're a wealth of vapor-knowledge.
>
No, I have already pointed out to you where to go. It is not my problem if
you are intellectually lazy. And my main question still remains unanswered.
How are these points brought out by these professors invalid?
Yoss
>
>
>
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be976f5...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
Hush, behave. I gave you cites. Go to the library and use them.
> For which you have posted NO cites. Until then, it's just another one
> of your fairy-tale drug induced hallucinations.
>
> > Earlier reports I had read said that the Indians were Mayan, but for
> >the sake of argument, Mosquito will do fine. Anyway, they were once
alive,
> >and then they were killed most violently. It makes sense to me that these
> >people would not know Spanish; es verdad. ;) But the TV show I watched
> >showed the translations of the campesinos relating the persecutions they
> >were subjected to. There was not a one who contradicted another. And
there
> >are the documents released by the CIA of its activities in Guatemala.
>
> For which you have posted NO cites. Until then, it's just another one
> of your fairy-tale drug induced hallucinations.
>
Killing Hope by William Blum. Now stop acting stupid.
Yoss
>
>
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be9753...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
vicious at turns. Let it be said that there are many Jews, who have
compassion for the West Bank Arabs. Ah...hem Barf and Pee Pee Yahoo are
definitely two of a kind.
Yoss
Yossarian
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be9760b...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
Please go here:
http://www.foia.ucia.gov/scripts/popdoc.asp?docType=guat
Yoss
<SNIP>
Sherwood
American values, lets examine the sickening contempt that some of your
right-wing friends have for our American values, to wit:
"My alienation from 'America', my own 'internal emigration' is a long-
established fact. I have accepted that 'America' no longer exists, and
that most of what is claimed in its name is indeed, now, nothing more
than a cheap lie. I have no intention of voting, not so much out of
conviction but out of disgust, an unwillingness to walk into the
polling place and see the flag, symbol of hope destroyed, tacked
up on a wall above lines of people who neither understand nor want
what it once stood for. It's too painful a sight." -- John Sabotta
John Sabotta, far right extremist, aka., The Patriot, John D., Julian
D., John Q. Public, and numerous other beard names.
And William J. "Billy" Beck III, another far right extremist closely
associated with Sabotta, brags all of the time about his not paying
taxes and his share of the bill all the rest of us have to share in
paying, yet he is more than willing to rake in the advantages and the
profits of being an American, while the rest of us have to pay the
bill for Beck, and others like him.
Now I ask you, what type of true blue American patriots are these
jerks?
Once again annie no guns, you seem to have your P's & Q's mixed up,
and your
loyalties placed in the wrong arena, because the arena you and your
right-wing friends loyalties are in, are sure not in the good old
American arena.
And you right-wing extremists call yourselves patriots, what a laugh
that one is.
Joseph Crowe
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
One small point upfront. If you did not write this you might want to
flag the fact upfront. Not just for copyright reasons, but to indicate
that though you might agree with the article, you did not actually write
it yourself. Another possible approach would be to post a link if you
can't come up with your own text.
> Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
Non sequitor. Argument by assertion.
>
> As the U.S. deploys more special forces in Afghanistan, other forces
> have mobilized. Professional pacifists have resurrected the moldy
> cliches and self-righteous pieties of the '60s.
Let's see, in the Viet Nam situation, a bunch of power hungry
politicians and businessmen took the Eisenhower/Kennedy involvement and
blew it up into a conflagration that lost the lives of >50,000 U.S.
citizens over a backwards SE Asian culture that had nothing at all to do
with U.S. interests and in the process wasted vast resources on an
involvement that had nothing to do with defense of the U.S. Free
citizens in the U.S. objected...some naively and some violently.
Overall, which side would you assert held the ethical high ground?
> Last week, anti-war demonstrations were held in a dozen cities. From
> Los Angeles to Minneapolis, the arguments advanced against national
> self-defense were depressingly familiar.
Ah, but the problem here relates again to whether anything the
government has done in reaction to the 9/11 events contributes to
defense of the citizens of the U.S. Many people have good reasons to
suspect that actions of the U.S. government will have the opposite
effect and that citizens will lose a significant part of the few
protections of civil liberties that remain to us.
> News Flash -- Millions of Afghans have been starving in refugee camps
> for years. They are victims of the Taliban's lunacy. If our air
> offensive hastens the regime's demise, it will do more to end
> starvation in Afghanistan than all of the aid packages we've dropped
> to date.
OTOH, if the U.S. government would simply butt out of the internal
affairs of other nations around the globe, these people would likely
solve their own problems, AND the U.S. would not suffer from universal
hatred abroad as imperialists.....and, sad to say, that's exactly the
position that the U.S. government has taken in the last fifty years.
Ever since Lincoln, through Wilson and both Roosevelts, the federales
have felt compelled to entangle us in the ungainly affairs of others.
Now you may feel that's right. If you do, feel free to
volunteer..otherwise quit advocating picking my pocket to finance your
dreams of world conquest. I have much more effective, local scale and
voluntary positive projects to use MY money on.
> A speaker in Los Angeles disclosed -- in the hushed tones of
> revelation -- that the bombing will not solve "societal problems such
> as police brutality and homelessness." Nor, for that matter, will it
> end road rage or produce a cure for the common cold.
True enough, but totally irrelevent.
>
> If, after Pearl Harbor, America had waited to solve its social
> problems before fighting back, we would now be the westernmost
> province of the empire of the rising sun.
Not bloody likely. Japan does not have the resources to pull that
off. Look at the history of WWII....Japan was desperate for oil to fuel
ITS war effort and had to be manipulated by FDR into bombing Pearl
Harbor in order to get the U.S. into that unholy conflagration.
>
> Violence solves nothing, is the protestors' universal refrain.
> Nonsense. Violence gave America its independence. Violence saved the
> Union and freed the slaves. Violence kept Hitler from killing the rest
> of Europe's Jews.
Self-defense through violent reaction to a violent act, directly,
makes sense in some contexts. Indiscriminate violence against others
for no reason seldom accomplishes much.
> For the flower-power brigade, there's always an excuse to turn tail
> and run.
Tell you what, if you advocate defending this country, I'm all for
it. If you advocate going somewhere and just bombing the hell out of a
primitive country because it makes you feel less powerless, well, would
you do that on your own nickle?
> Prior to World War II, isolationists told us Hitler was a nationalist
> who had legitimate grievances against the West.
Citation please. A lot of evidence points to the results of WWI
leading to the rise of Hitler. Had the U.S. taken the advice of
Washington to never become embroiled in European political affairs, a
significant possibility exists that Hitler would never have come to
power......sheesh, read a little history or condemn yourself to repeat
the same mistakes ad infinitum.
> During the Vietnam War, campus protestors hailed the Viet Cong as
> agrarian reformers. It wasn't our war, they wailed. But it was our
> fight -- and millions of dead Cambodians and Vietnamese, who were
> murdered by the victors, wish we'd won it.
Do you intend to assert that all the people who protested the U.S.
involvement in Viet Nam held this view? How naive. Viet Nam was a tar
baby for the Brits the French and then the U.S. Afghanistan was the
same for Russia. For a set of people to become free, they must
undertake self-determination. External forces never have a positive
effect whether the imperialist forces come from England, China, Russia
or the U.S. However, such an opposition to government involvement in
the internal affairs of foreign states in no way precludes individuals
from putting their own cajones on the line.....hence, feel free to go
over to Afghanistan and "send the infidels to Allah".
> And the Gulf War? "Blood for oil," anti-war activists chanted. Then
> they drove away in their VW buses to well-heated homes, paid for with
> jobs dependent on reliable energy supplies.
Even the war mongers believe that was a net loss.
>
> The current conflict has pacifists scrambling to find new slogans. The
> old ones have such a hollow ring.
Seems like the people who oppose a bunch of old white guys sending
the youth off to die in some forsaken wilderness have gotten your blood
pressure up a bit.
> Are the Taliban thugs idealistic reformers?
I doubt it, but how would we know. Our media certainly has cranked
out a raft of propaganda, but the government attitude seems to be "trust
us", we know what we're doing and we're here to help. When it comes to
showing evidence that bin Laden was the man behind the events of 9/11,
we get a deafening silence. Show us the money. However, not trusting
its own citizenry with such evidence, they were happy to show this
alleged evidence to the government of Pakistan, installed by military
coup and the only government in the world to share diplomatic relations
with the Taliban.
> Is Osama bin Laden an
> aggrieved nationalist? Does Afghanistan have oil we covet? If the
> murder of 5,000 Americans on American soil doesn't make it our fight,
> I'd like to know what does.
Ah, I know that it's a great emotional relief to pin your
frustrations on some foreign devil. So, for our government to paint bin
Laden as the great satan without supporting evidence that will be shared
with your and my fellow citizens differs from the propaganda of al Qaeda
exactly how?
> But logic is irrelevant to the protestors. Their pacifism isn't an
> idea they've thought through, but a blindly adhered to belief system.
The problem here, is that in condemning the protestors as illogical,
you have not argued with anything other than emotion.
> Pacifism isn't just wrong; it's immoral. Individuals have a moral
> right to choose not to defend themselves when attacked. They have no
> right to demand that others commit suicide by proxy.
And yet you assert that you have a right to demand that others go off
and die for a cause you believe in......hmmm, quite revealing.
>
> Not to punish mass murder is to acquiesce to evil. Pacifism is a
> betrayal of the innocent. It invites more aggression -- witness
> Munich, witness the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, witness our muted
> response to other acts of terrorism (the 1983 bombing of the Marine
> compound in Beirut and the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya
> and Tanzania), which surely encouraged al Qaeda.
Maybe, but consider that what you advocate will never eliminate
terrorism, given that it cannot be defeated by military might, unless
you are willing to follow a global scorched policy, which none of us
would survive, nor would we want to. (sorry for the runon sentence).
Seriously, though, I believe that the U.S. was a grand experiment in
freedom, even with all its warts and imperfections. Before politicians
began to get involved in foreign wars, this was a land of opportunity
with almost no enemies. To eliminate backward countries like
Afghanistan as enemies, its citizens need a reason to have hope of
freedom and prosperity. The best way to accomplish that is for
governments to eliminate the desire to meddle with internal affairs of
other countries and to eliminate barriers to free trade between
individuals.
> Is there anyone to the right of Ralph Nader who doesn't understand
> that not to respond militarily would embolden the terrorists and lead
> to more demolished skyscrapers?
I'm pretty certain that the more our government flexes its military
muscle in the mideast, the more of a problem terrorism will become. Go
have a quick read of 1984 and get back to me. Also, remember that
Orwell was a conservative, in the real, classical sense of the word.
OTOH, how about if we just try for five years withdrawing our military
presence from around the world, especially from Saudi
Arabia...(obviously a rhetorical question, but one worthy of
consideration). Think about it from this perspective. Suppose Russia
were to send 20,000 troops to live in the U.S. to protect us from
Canada. Can you imagine that some people here might find that a bit
chafing?
> Pacifism works well -- as long as pacifist pleading goes largely
> unheeded and anti-war activists remain a distinct minority. Then they
> can feel noble while others fight their battles and protect their
> freedom.
Another assertion without merit. The way wars work, it ends up never
being about protecting the freedom of the citizens back home. The only
person who can protect my freedom is me. The biggest danger to my
individual liberties, historically, has been ever larger, ever more
powerful central government. Note, I will protect my freedoms....and I
will fight in common with my friends, neighbors and family to protect
theirs. Unfortunately, the original author of this column probably
would dismiss my freedoms as irrelevent if I don't agree to go to war in
the interest of phony patriotism.
> Only the battlefield sacrifices of generations of our best and bravest
> have given us a country where pacifists can bad-mouth America in
> comfort and security.
> --Don Feder
>
Oh, I should have realized. Don Feder has the least ability of
logical discourse of all the columnists at worldnetdaily.com. (and a lot
of them are pretty lame, to go along with some of the more thought
provoking ones).
> > ©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
--
Joseph Crowe
http://www.io.com/~jcrowe
email jcr...@io.com
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
yer really dumb aren't you. Maybe you should try reading some history
books before you continue to make a fool out of yerself.
But please feel free to continue to act like an idiot.
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
too bad you can't rewrite history. The facts still stand the CIA
overthrew the reform minded government of Allende and replaced him a
the fascist Pinochet to protect the interest of ITT, Pepsi and
Anoconda.
pappy bush was the CIA Director that allowed the fascist regime of
Pinochet to assasinate a supporter of Allende on the streets of
Washington DC after the coop.
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
we supported the right wing death squads.
The religious right played a large role in Central America for the
Reagan administration. Following the coup in 1982 in Guatemala Pat
Robertson interviewed Rios
Montt and promised to send aid and missionaries. Weeks later a Gospel
Outreach pastor met with the Reagan administration. Shortly there
after the State
Department held a special briefing for leaders of the religious right
and endorsed Operation International Love Lift. By then thousands had
been massacred, the
targets were mostly the indigenous population. Some Gospel Outreach
members apparently took part in the torture and interrogation
operation. One Gospel
Outreach pastor went on to defend the killings as follows:
"The Army doesn’t massacre the Indians. It massacres demons, and
the Indians are demon possessed; they are communist. We hold Brother
Efrain
Rios Mott like the King of David of the Old Testament. He is the
king of the New Testament."101
why look at that annie the drooling idiot raygun was using
missionaries to murder the Indians. Looks like good sound proof to me.
>
>> I remember seeing anthropologists, and coroner experts going
>>through those remains on public TV. I am sure you can make inquiries and get
>>the video tapes for that program. Anyway those experts determined that those
>>corpses were not more than 20 to 45 years old since being put to death, and
>>the bone chips indicated bullet holes, and bayonet and knife wounds.
>
>Sounds like they were killed, perhaps by Socialists like yourself!
>
>
>>Also you can get CIA documents that had been released on their Guatemalan
>>operations.
>
>Do you have them?
>
>>So you have a connection between the Guatemaln military and the
>>CIA.
>
>Proves nothing, no proof of who allegedly killed these people. I say
>you did it. Prove me wrong.
>
>See how silly you sound?
>
>> Also if you are really motivated you can get some interviews of the
>>local inhabitants, but you would need to brush on your Spanish. Vaya con
>>dios.
>
>I am more concerned with the WTC and protecting Americans from further
>attacks.
>
>How about you??
>
>
>
**********************************************
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
no I made several points and you can't refute. And thats what has yer
panties all bunched up.
bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com
gee who ran off an hit under a Nebraska cornfield on 9/11?
>
>Lewis
pyotr filipivich
talk.politics.guns , an0...@hotmail.com was inspired to scribe:
>Rules for Wartime
>Rule Number One: Remember what's true.
>Mercy isn't always what it seems.
>A pause in the campaign for Ramadan is fast slipping in rank down our
>list of options. Good.
Oh I don't know. All Ramadan requires is that one fast during the day. So
it would seem reasonable to me for the US to "lay off" the bombings during the
day light hours during Ramadan, we can resume business after sunset.
tschus
pyotr
pyotr filipivich
"What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why then, the war would come to you."
Bertolt Brecht 1898-1956
Lewis Cosper
<bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com> wrote in message
news:3be9d80d...@news.spiritone.com...
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 11:46:17 -0700, "Lewis Cosper"
> <cos...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><bunkerlov...@whitehouse.com> wrote in message
> >news:3be8acf6...@news.spiritone.com...
> >
> >Curious has got me. Why do advertise to be a bunker loving Coward?
>
> gee who ran off an hit under a Nebraska cornfield on 9/11?
Gee did you really do that? Why advertise it in public? Are you punishing
yourself by using the name bunker loving Coward?
Lewis
an0...@hotmail.com
>Hi Folks,
>
>On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> One small point upfront. If you did not write this you might want to
>flag the fact upfront. Not just for copyright reasons, but to indicate
>that though you might agree with the article, you did not actually write
>it yourself. Another possible approach would be to post a link if you
>can't come up with your own text.
>
>
>> Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
>
> Non sequitor. Argument by assertion.
So, you disagree? It's a fact. Grow up.
>> As the U.S. deploys more special forces in Afghanistan, other forces
>> have mobilized. Professional pacifists have resurrected the moldy
>> cliches and self-righteous pieties of the '60s.
>
> Let's see, in the Viet Nam situation, a bunch of power hungry
>politicians and businessmen took the Eisenhower/Kennedy involvement and
>blew it up into a conflagration that lost the lives of >50,000 U.S.
>citizens over a backwards SE Asian culture that had nothing at all to do
>with U.S. interests and in the process wasted vast resources on an
>involvement that had nothing to do with defense of the U.S. Free
>citizens in the U.S. objected...some naively and some violently.
Can you say "run on sentence?
Make your point, and I will respond. Really, if you're going to pass
yourself off as some sort of intellectual, you really should learn
basic grammar.
>Overall, which side would you assert held the ethical high ground?
The single biggest reason not to be in Vietnam was China.
>> Last week, anti-war demonstrations were held in a dozen cities. From
>> Los Angeles to Minneapolis, the arguments advanced against national
>> self-defense were depressingly familiar.
>
> Ah, but the problem here relates again to whether anything the
>government has done in reaction to the 9/11 events contributes to
>defense of the citizens of the U.S.
The best defense is a good offense. Those who would do us harm must
be chased down and eleiminated. What would YOU do? Forget about a
surprise attack on innocent civilians that cost thousands of lives and
billions of dollars? This is a WAR. With all that goes with it.
>Many people have good reasons to
>suspect that actions of the U.S. government will have the opposite
>effect and that citizens will lose a significant part of the few
>protections of civil liberties that remain to us.
No, I don't believe that. YOU may think so, but an 87% approval
rating confirms your folly. Too, consider the unabashed demonstration
of unity of cause that the US hasn't felt since 1941.
Most Americans are clever enough to understand that the enemy does NOT
share your (so-called) values and mores. The enemy wants you to
conform to his ideals or die.
>> News Flash -- Millions of Afghans have been starving in refugee camps
>> for years. They are victims of the Taliban's lunacy. If our air
>> offensive hastens the regime's demise, it will do more to end
>> starvation in Afghanistan than all of the aid packages we've dropped
>> to date.
>
> OTOH, if the U.S. government would simply butt out of the internal
>affairs of other nations around the globe, these people would likely
>solve their own problems,
So, we should stop all our humanitarian aid? Kick out the UN? Quit
NATO? We should've allowed Slobo to "cleanse" the Baltic? Allowed
Saddam to keep Kuwait? Continue to allow the Taliban to subjugate
women and attack us?
I also note your OBVIOUS lack of concern for the Afghan people, as
demonstrated by YOUR response to the paragraph above.
>AND the U.S. would not suffer from universal
>hatred abroad as imperialists.....
My my my....is that what they've been teaching you? Tsk tsk.....ever
ask yourself why so many people from other lands are falling over
themselves trying to get here, and become citizens? Ever wonder why
not too many Americans opt to emmigrate?
I didn't think so.
>and, sad to say, that's exactly the
>position that the U.S. government has taken in the last fifty years.
*yawn* Are you an American? You sure sound like someone who's
unhappy here. Perhaps you should leave? Go to Afghanistan, and tell
them how much you sympathize with them. They're looking for people to
help them.
>Ever since Lincoln, through Wilson and both Roosevelts, the federales
>have felt compelled to entangle us in the ungainly affairs of others.
It's called "moral obligation". We may not always succeed, but we
try.
>Now you may feel that's right.
I absolutely do.
>f you do, feel free to volunteer..otherwise quit advocating picking my pocket to finance your
>dreams of world conquest.
First, I am not trying to pick your pocket. You're on public
assistance, aren't you? Student loans perhaps? Food stamps? SSI??
Second, the US is NOTABLY the FIRST nation to be numero uno and NOT
sought world domination. Ask your "professors" if they can name ANY
OTHER NATION in history that has acted as beneficent as the US.
>I have much more effective, local scale and
>voluntary positive projects to use MY money on.
Hey, loser. Pay your taxes and quit complaining. You live in the
BEST country in the world. Highest standard of living, self
sufficient and best of everything.
>> A speaker in Los Angeles disclosed -- in the hushed tones of
>> revelation -- that the bombing will not solve "societal problems such
>> as police brutality and homelessness." Nor, for that matter, will it
>> end road rage or produce a cure for the common cold.
>
> True enough, but totally irrelevent.
No, it makes a point. A pity you cannot grasp it.
>> If, after Pearl Harbor, America had waited to solve its social
>> problems before fighting back, we would now be the westernmost
>> province of the empire of the rising sun.
>
> Not bloody likely. Japan does not have the resources to pull that
>off.
They certainly did, if we took YOUR course of action.
>Look at the history of WWII....Japan was desperate for oil to fuel
>ITS war effort and had to be manipulated by FDR into bombing Pearl
>Harbor in order to get the U.S. into that unholy conflagration.
LOL!! That about sums it all up nicely. So, let's try an easy one on
you:
Is it OK for the Japanese to conquer the Asian continent? Why?
>> Violence solves nothing, is the protestors' universal refrain.
>> Nonsense. Violence gave America its independence. Violence saved the
>> Union and freed the slaves. Violence kept Hitler from killing the rest
>> of Europe's Jews.
>
> Self-defense through violent reaction to a violent act, directly,
>makes sense in some contexts.
In EVERY context, you moron. Overwhelming, unabashed and immediate
violent response is the ONLY was to stop violence.
>Indiscriminate violence against others
>for no reason seldom accomplishes much.
Yes, I agree. If a criminal breaks into my home, it would be foolish
to shoot the next door neighbor, or the mailman.
>> For the flower-power brigade, there's always an excuse to turn tail
>> and run.
>
>Tell you what, if you advocate defending this country, I'm all for
>it.
As long as you can sit it all out, right? I figured......
So, what would it take to get you to defend what you have? 5000 dead
not enough? What's the magic number?
>If you advocate going somewhere and just bombing the hell out of a
>primitive country because it makes you feel less powerless, well, would
>you do that on your own nickle?
Sigh it's "nickel".
Now, do you state that you believe that we're just indiscriminately
bombing Afghanistan?
>> Prior to World War II, isolationists told us Hitler was a nationalist
>> who had legitimate grievances against the West.
>
> Citation please.
A PLEASURE!!
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/time8.html
http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_wwiijan01lead.htm
http://www.acusd.edu/~clawson/page2.html
> A lot of evidence points to the results of WWI leading to the rise of Hitler.
No kidding.
>Had the U.S. taken the advice of Washington to never become embroiled in
>European political affairs, a significant possibility exists that Hitler would never have come to
>power......
You're serious? You think the US entry into WWI was the cause of
shitler's rise to power?
Whew.................
>sheesh, read a little history or condemn yourself to repeat
>the same mistakes ad infinitum.
Yes, like the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain.
>> During the Vietnam War, campus protestors hailed the Viet Cong as
>> agrarian reformers. It wasn't our war, they wailed. But it was our
>> fight -- and millions of dead Cambodians and Vietnamese, who were
>> murdered by the victors, wish we'd won it.
>
> Do you intend to assert that all the people who protested the U.S.
>involvement in Viet Nam held this view?
Yes. I am old enough to remember.
>How naive. Viet Nam was a tar baby for the Brits the French
>and then the U.S.
We should've never gone to Vietnam without acknowledging that the onlt
way to win was eventual conflict with the PRC.
>Afghanistan was the same for Russia.
The US was aiding the Afghans, the USSR didn't commit it's full weight
either. The US is willing to do whatever it takes to stop terrorism.
Watch and see.
Vietnam is NOT Afghanistan. The PRC and the USSR were BOTH aiding the
N. Vietnamese. We knew we could not prosecute the war beyond the DMZ.
Afghanistan has no "Ho Chi Minh trail".
>For a set of people to become free, they must undertake self-determination.
1. How profound.
2. Are you asserting that the Taliban was allowing this?
>External forces never have a positive effect whether the imperialist forces come from England, China, Russia
>or the U.S.
India is better off for having had the benefit of British occupation.
>However, such an opposition to government involvement in
>the internal affairs of foreign states in no way precludes individuals
>from putting their own cajones on the line.....hence, feel free to go
>over to Afghanistan and "send the infidels to Allah".
I will, as soon as you leave to defend the Afghani people. Actually,
I cannot. I am now too old. I have a USN Hornorable Discharge, which
puts me one up on you.
I would go if they would let me! Even if it meant allowing you to
stay back here and whine.....
>
>> And the Gulf War? "Blood for oil," anti-war activists chanted. Then
>> they drove away in their VW buses to well-heated homes, paid for with
>> jobs dependent on reliable energy supplies.
>
> Even the war mongers believe that was a net loss.
Only because we allowed the sheeple like you to stop us from going all
the way to Baghdad.
Yet, the yuppied drive their Expeditions and Navigators....
>> The current conflict has pacifists scrambling to find new slogans. The
>> old ones have such a hollow ring.
>
> Seems like the people who oppose a bunch of old white guys sending
>the youth off to die in some forsaken wilderness have gotten your blood
>pressure up a bit.
Not me, sonny. I am proud of all our military is doing, while you
wait for them to return so you can scream "baby-killers" at them.
The souls of 5,000 dead in WTC and the Pentagon are ashamed of you.
>> Are the Taliban thugs idealistic reformers?
>
>I doubt it, but how would we know.
You haven't figured out the Taliban yet? Boy, you ARE dumb!!
>Our media certainly has cranked out a raft of propaganda,
FLASH: The media is leftist.
>but the government attitude seems to be "trust
>us", we know what we're doing and we're here to help. When it comes to
>showing evidence that bin Laden was the man behind the events of 9/11,
>we get a deafening silence.
Yes, YOU do, because you're not worth revealing secrets to. The
Russians, Chinese and everyone else, including Pakistan agree that the
Al Qaida is responsible.
Hmmmmm......who to believe? YOU??? LOL!!!
>Show us the money. However, not trusting
>its own citizenry with such evidence, they were happy to show this
>alleged evidence to the government of Pakistan, installed by military
>coup and the only government in the world to share diplomatic relations
>with the Taliban.
You have demonstrated all too well that you "can't handle the truth".
>
>> Is Osama bin Laden an
>> aggrieved nationalist? Does Afghanistan have oil we covet? If the
>> murder of 5,000 Americans on American soil doesn't make it our fight,
>> I'd like to know what does.
>
> Ah, I know that it's a great emotional relief to pin your
>frustrations on some foreign devil.
What? You don't think those people died? You don't think it was
deliberate?
You are hopelessly MYOPIC.
>So, for our government to paint bin
>Laden as the great satan without supporting evidence that will be shared
>with your and my fellow citizens differs from the propaganda of al Qaeda
>exactly how?
Not just Bin Laden. International terrorism. Haven't you been paying
attention?
>> But logic is irrelevant to the protestors. Their pacifism isn't an
>> idea they've thought through, but a blindly adhered to belief system.
>
> The problem here, is that in condemning the protestors as illogical,
>you have not argued with anything other than emotion.
Hardly. Emotion is the domain of liberals and pacifists like
yourself.
You have ranted for a while now, with no substantiated facts, no
actual information and all kinds of touchy-feely nonsense.
The REALITY is, we're in a fight. Like it or not, that's what it is.
And the terrorists will keep hitting us and hitting us until either we
go down, or they do.
>> Pacifism isn't just wrong; it's immoral. Individuals have a moral
>> right to choose not to defend themselves when attacked. They have no
>> right to demand that others commit suicide by proxy.
>
> And yet you assert that you have a right to demand that others go off
>and die for a cause you believe in......hmmm, quite revealing.
You sound afraid to fight for your country. Have you signed up for
selective service? I bet not.
So, if 5000 killed isn't worth fighting for, what is??
>> Not to punish mass murder is to acquiesce to evil. Pacifism is a
>> betrayal of the innocent. It invites more aggression -- witness
>> Munich, witness the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, witness our muted
>> response to other acts of terrorism (the 1983 bombing of the Marine
>> compound in Beirut and the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya
>> and Tanzania), which surely encouraged al Qaeda.
>
> Maybe, but consider that what you advocate will never eliminate
>terrorism
You don't know what I advocate.
> given that it cannot be defeated by military might, unless
>you are willing to follow a global scorched policy,
Says who? Talk about emotional rhetoric! LOL!!
>which none of us would survive, nor would we want to.
Says who? Talk about emotional rhetoric! LOL!!
>(sorry for the runon sentence).
(Yeah, like it's your first!! LOL!!)
>Seriously, though, I believe that the U.S. was a grand experiment in
>freedom, even with all its warts and imperfections.
What's better?
>Before politicians began to get involved in foreign wars, this was a land of opportunity
>with almost no enemies.
Is NYC a foreign land? DC???
>To eliminate backward countries like Afghanistan as enemies,
Who says we're doing that?
More emotional rhetoric!
>its citizens need a reason to have hope of freedom and prosperity.
That's the plan.
>The best way to accomplish that is for governments to eliminate the desire to meddle with internal affairs of
>other countries and to eliminate barriers to free trade between
>individuals.
No, you're quite wrong. People in power sometimes oppress their
citizenry, or their neighbors.
We're gonna try to stop that.
>> Is there anyone to the right of Ralph Nader who doesn't understand
>> that not to respond militarily would embolden the terrorists and lead
>> to more demolished skyscrapers?
>
> I'm pretty certain that the more our government flexes its military
>muscle in the mideast, the more of a problem terrorism will become.
We'll see, won't we? You're obviously too young to remember Libya.
>Go have a quick read of 1984 and get back to me.
Why?
>Also, remember that Orwell was a conservative, in the real, classical sense of the word.
Liberals are the ones who seek to make the government omniscient and
omnipotent.
>OTOH, how about if we just try for five years withdrawing our military
>presence from around the world, especially from Saudi
>Arabia...(obviously a rhetorical question, but one worthy of
>consideration).
Also S. Korea? Negev desert? Balkans?
Maybe we should simply dissolve the military?
>Think about it from this perspective. Suppose Russia
>were to send 20,000 troops to live in the U.S. to protect us from
>Canada.
Why would they do that? We can take care of ourselves.
>Can you imagine that some people here might find that a bit
>chafing?
Try to imagine you're a S. Korean. Would you want the US leaving,
with PyongYang just waiting for us to leave, so they can have the
whole peninsula starving??
Try to imagine you're from Taiwan or Israel. Want the US to abandon
you?
>> Pacifism works well -- as long as pacifist pleading goes largely
>> unheeded and anti-war activists remain a distinct minority. Then they
>> can feel noble while others fight their battles and protect their
>> freedom.
>
>Another assertion without merit.
A very factual and succinct statement.
A pity you cannot grasp the concept.
>The way wars work,
What the good gravy do YOU know about war?
>it ends up never being about protecting the freedom of the citizens back home.
Like the US?
>The only person who can protect my freedom is me.
YOu then believe the the right to keep and bear arms? Good!!
>The biggest danger to my individual liberties, historically, has been ever larger, ever more
>powerful central government.
Me too!
>Note, I will protect my freedoms....and I
>will fight in common with my friends, neighbors and family to protect
>theirs. Unfortunately, the original author of this column probably
>would dismiss my freedoms as irrelevent if I don't agree to go to war in
>the interest of phony patriotism.
You are a phony.
an0...@hotmail.com
>Hi Folks,
>
>On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> One small point upfront. If you did not write this you might want to
>flag the fact upfront. Not just for copyright reasons, but to indicate
>that though you might agree with the article, you did not actually write
>it yourself. Another possible approach would be to post a link if you
>can't come up with your own text.
>
>
>> Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
>
> Non sequitor. Argument by assertion.
So, you disagree? It's a fact. Grow up.
>> As the U.S. deploys more special forces in Afghanistan, other forces
>> have mobilized. Professional pacifists have resurrected the moldy
>> cliches and self-righteous pieties of the '60s.
>
> Let's see, in the Viet Nam situation, a bunch of power hungry
>politicians and businessmen took the Eisenhower/Kennedy involvement and
>blew it up into a conflagration that lost the lives of >50,000 U.S.
>citizens over a backwards SE Asian culture that had nothing at all to do
>with U.S. interests and in the process wasted vast resources on an
>involvement that had nothing to do with defense of the U.S. Free
>citizens in the U.S. objected...some naively and some violently.
Can you say "run on sentence?
Make your point, and I will respond. Really, if you're going to pass
yourself off as some sort of intellectual, you really should learn
basic grammar.
>Overall, which side would you assert held the ethical high ground?
The single biggest reason not to be in Vietnam was China.
>> Last week, anti-war demonstrations were held in a dozen cities. From
>> Los Angeles to Minneapolis, the arguments advanced against national
>> self-defense were depressingly familiar.
>
> Ah, but the problem here relates again to whether anything the
>government has done in reaction to the 9/11 events contributes to
>defense of the citizens of the U.S.
The best defense is a good offense. Those who would do us harm must
be chased down and eleiminated. What would YOU do? Forget about a
surprise attack on innocent civilians that cost thousands of lives and
billions of dollars? This is a WAR. With all that goes with it.
>Many people have good reasons to
>suspect that actions of the U.S. government will have the opposite
>effect and that citizens will lose a significant part of the few
>protections of civil liberties that remain to us.
No, I don't believe that. YOU may think so, but an 87% approval
rating confirms your folly. Too, consider the unabashed demonstration
of unity of cause that the US hasn't felt since 1941.
Most Americans are clever enough to understand that the enemy does NOT
share your (so-called) values and mores. The enemy wants you to
conform to his ideals or die.
>> News Flash -- Millions of Afghans have been starving in refugee camps
>> for years. They are victims of the Taliban's lunacy. If our air
>> offensive hastens the regime's demise, it will do more to end
>> starvation in Afghanistan than all of the aid packages we've dropped
>> to date.
>
> OTOH, if the U.S. government would simply butt out of the internal
>affairs of other nations around the globe, these people would likely
>solve their own problems,
So, we should stop all our humanitarian aid? Kick out the UN? Quit
NATO? We should've allowed Slobo to "cleanse" the Baltic? Allowed
Saddam to keep Kuwait? Continue to allow the Taliban to subjugate
women and attack us?
I also note your OBVIOUS lack of concern for the Afghan people, as
demonstrated by YOUR response to the paragraph above.
>AND the U.S. would not suffer from universal
>hatred abroad as imperialists.....
My my my....is that what they've been teaching you? Tsk tsk.....ever
ask yourself why so many people from other lands are falling over
themselves trying to get here, and become citizens? Ever wonder why
not too many Americans opt to emmigrate?
I didn't think so.
>and, sad to say, that's exactly the
>position that the U.S. government has taken in the last fifty years.
*yawn* Are you an American? You sure sound like someone who's
unhappy here. Perhaps you should leave? Go to Afghanistan, and tell
them how much you sympathize with them. They're looking for people to
help them.
>Ever since Lincoln, through Wilson and both Roosevelts, the federales
>have felt compelled to entangle us in the ungainly affairs of others.
It's called "moral obligation". We may not always succeed, but we
try.
>Now you may feel that's right.
I absolutely do.
>f you do, feel free to volunteer..otherwise quit advocating picking my pocket to finance your
>dreams of world conquest.
First, I am not trying to pick your pocket. You're on public
assistance, aren't you? Student loans perhaps? Food stamps? SSI??
Second, the US is NOTABLY the FIRST nation to be numero uno and NOT
sought world domination. Ask your "professors" if they can name ANY
OTHER NATION in history that has acted as beneficent as the US.
>I have much more effective, local scale and
>voluntary positive projects to use MY money on.
Hey, loser. Pay your taxes and quit complaining. You live in the
BEST country in the world. Highest standard of living, self
sufficient and best of everything.
>> A speaker in Los Angeles disclosed -- in the hushed tones of
>> revelation -- that the bombing will not solve "societal problems such
>> as police brutality and homelessness." Nor, for that matter, will it
>> end road rage or produce a cure for the common cold.
>
> True enough, but totally irrelevent.
No, it makes a point. A pity you cannot grasp it.
>> If, after Pearl Harbor, America had waited to solve its social
>> problems before fighting back, we would now be the westernmost
>> province of the empire of the rising sun.
>
> Not bloody likely. Japan does not have the resources to pull that
>off.
They certainly did, if we took YOUR course of action.
>Look at the history of WWII....Japan was desperate for oil to fuel
>ITS war effort and had to be manipulated by FDR into bombing Pearl
>Harbor in order to get the U.S. into that unholy conflagration.
LOL!! That about sums it all up nicely. So, let's try an easy one on
you:
Is it OK for the Japanese to conquer the Asian continent? Why?
>> Violence solves nothing, is the protestors' universal refrain.
>> Nonsense. Violence gave America its independence. Violence saved the
>> Union and freed the slaves. Violence kept Hitler from killing the rest
>> of Europe's Jews.
>
> Self-defense through violent reaction to a violent act, directly,
>makes sense in some contexts.
In EVERY context, you moron. Overwhelming, unabashed and immediate
violent response is the ONLY was to stop violence.
>Indiscriminate violence against others
>for no reason seldom accomplishes much.
Yes, I agree. If a criminal breaks into my home, it would be foolish
to shoot the next door neighbor, or the mailman.
>> For the flower-power brigade, there's always an excuse to turn tail
>> and run.
>
>Tell you what, if you advocate defending this country, I'm all for
>it.
As long as you can sit it all out, right? I figured......
So, what would it take to get you to defend what you have? 5000 dead
not enough? What's the magic number?
>If you advocate going somewhere and just bombing the hell out of a
>primitive country because it makes you feel less powerless, well, would
>you do that on your own nickle?
Sigh it's "nickel".
Now, do you state that you believe that we're just indiscriminately
bombing Afghanistan?
>> Prior to World War II, isolationists told us Hitler was a nationalist
>> who had legitimate grievances against the West.
>
> Citation please.
A PLEASURE!!
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/time8.html
http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_wwiijan01lead.htm
http://www.acusd.edu/~clawson/page2.html
> A lot of evidence points to the results of WWI leading to the rise of Hitler.
No kidding.
>Had the U.S. taken the advice of Washington to never become embroiled in
>European political affairs, a significant possibility exists that Hitler would never have come to
>power......
You're serious? You think the US entry into WWI was the cause of
shitler's rise to power?
Whew.................
>sheesh, read a little history or condemn yourself to repeat
>the same mistakes ad infinitum.
Yes, like the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain.
>> During the Vietnam War, campus protestors hailed the Viet Cong as
>> agrarian reformers. It wasn't our war, they wailed. But it was our
>> fight -- and millions of dead Cambodians and Vietnamese, who were
>> murdered by the victors, wish we'd won it.
>
> Do you intend to assert that all the people who protested the U.S.
>involvement in Viet Nam held this view?
Yes. I am old enough to remember.
>How naive. Viet Nam was a tar baby for the Brits the French
>and then the U.S.
We should've never gone to Vietnam without acknowledging that the onlt
way to win was eventual conflict with the PRC.
>Afghanistan was the same for Russia.
The US was aiding the Afghans, the USSR didn't commit it's full weight
either. The US is willing to do whatever it takes to stop terrorism.
Watch and see.
Vietnam is NOT Afghanistan. The PRC and the USSR were BOTH aiding the
N. Vietnamese. We knew we could not prosecute the war beyond the DMZ.
Afghanistan has no "Ho Chi Minh trail".
>For a set of people to become free, they must undertake self-determination.
1. How profound.
2. Are you asserting that the Taliban was allowing this?
>External forces never have a positive effect whether the imperialist forces come from England, China, Russia
>or the U.S.
India is better off for having had the benefit of British occupation.
>However, such an opposition to government involvement in
>the internal affairs of foreign states in no way precludes individuals
>from putting their own cajones on the line.....hence, feel free to go
>over to Afghanistan and "send the infidels to Allah".
I will, as soon as you leave to defend the Afghani people. Actually,
I cannot. I am now too old. I have a USN Hornorable Discharge, which
puts me one up on you.
I would go if they would let me! Even if it meant allowing you to
stay back here and whine.....
>
>> And the Gulf War? "Blood for oil," anti-war activists chanted. Then
>> they drove away in their VW buses to well-heated homes, paid for with
>> jobs dependent on reliable energy supplies.
>
> Even the war mongers believe that was a net loss.
Only because we allowed the sheeple like you to stop us from going all
the way to Baghdad.
Yet, the yuppied drive their Expeditions and Navigators....
>> The current conflict has pacifists scrambling to find new slogans. The
>> old ones have such a hollow ring.
>
> Seems like the people who oppose a bunch of old white guys sending
>the youth off to die in some forsaken wilderness have gotten your blood
>pressure up a bit.
Not me, sonny. I am proud of all our military is doing, while you
wait for them to return so you can scream "baby-killers" at them.
The souls of 5,000 dead in WTC and the Pentagon are ashamed of you.
>> Are the Taliban thugs idealistic reformers?
>
>I doubt it, but how would we know.
You haven't figured out the Taliban yet? Boy, you ARE dumb!!
>Our media certainly has cranked out a raft of propaganda,
FLASH: The media is leftist.
>but the government attitude seems to be "trust
>us", we know what we're doing and we're here to help. When it comes to
>showing evidence that bin Laden was the man behind the events of 9/11,
>we get a deafening silence.
Yes, YOU do, because you're not worth revealing secrets to. The
Russians, Chinese and everyone else, including Pakistan agree that the
Al Qaida is responsible.
Hmmmmm......who to believe? YOU??? LOL!!!
>Show us the money. However, not trusting
>its own citizenry with such evidence, they were happy to show this
>alleged evidence to the government of Pakistan, installed by military
>coup and the only government in the world to share diplomatic relations
>with the Taliban.
You have demonstrated all too well that you "can't handle the truth".
>
>> Is Osama bin Laden an
>> aggrieved nationalist? Does Afghanistan have oil we covet? If the
>> murder of 5,000 Americans on American soil doesn't make it our fight,
>> I'd like to know what does.
>
> Ah, I know that it's a great emotional relief to pin your
>frustrations on some foreign devil.
What? You don't think those people died? You don't think it was
deliberate?
You are hopelessly MYOPIC.
>So, for our government to paint bin
>Laden as the great satan without supporting evidence that will be shared
>with your and my fellow citizens differs from the propaganda of al Qaeda
>exactly how?
Not just Bin Laden. International terrorism. Haven't you been paying
attention?
>> But logic is irrelevant to the protestors. Their pacifism isn't an
>> idea they've thought through, but a blindly adhered to belief system.
>
> The problem here, is that in condemning the protestors as illogical,
>you have not argued with anything other than emotion.
Hardly. Emotion is the domain of liberals and pacifists like
yourself.
You have ranted for a while now, with no substantiated facts, no
actual information and all kinds of touchy-feely nonsense.
The REALITY is, we're in a fight. Like it or not, that's what it is.
And the terrorists will keep hitting us and hitting us until either we
go down, or they do.
>> Pacifism isn't just wrong; it's immoral. Individuals have a moral
>> right to choose not to defend themselves when attacked. They have no
>> right to demand that others commit suicide by proxy.
>
> And yet you assert that you have a right to demand that others go off
>and die for a cause you believe in......hmmm, quite revealing.
You sound afraid to fight for your country. Have you signed up for
selective service? I bet not.
So, if 5000 killed isn't worth fighting for, what is??
>> Not to punish mass murder is to acquiesce to evil. Pacifism is a
>> betrayal of the innocent. It invites more aggression -- witness
>> Munich, witness the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, witness our muted
>> response to other acts of terrorism (the 1983 bombing of the Marine
>> compound in Beirut and the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya
>> and Tanzania), which surely encouraged al Qaeda.
>
> Maybe, but consider that what you advocate will never eliminate
>terrorism
You don't know what I advocate.
> given that it cannot be defeated by military might, unless
>you are willing to follow a global scorched policy,
Says who? Talk about emotional rhetoric! LOL!!
>which none of us would survive, nor would we want to.
Says who? Talk about emotional rhetoric! LOL!!
>(sorry for the runon sentence).
(Yeah, like it's your first!! LOL!!)
>Seriously, though, I believe that the U.S. was a grand experiment in
>freedom, even with all its warts and imperfections.
What's better?
>Before politicians began to get involved in foreign wars, this was a land of opportunity
>with almost no enemies.
Is NYC a foreign land? DC???
>To eliminate backward countries like Afghanistan as enemies,
Who says we're doing that?
More emotional rhetoric!
>its citizens need a reason to have hope of freedom and prosperity.
That's the plan.
>The best way to accomplish that is for governments to eliminate the desire to meddle with internal affairs of
>other countries and to eliminate barriers to free trade between
>individuals.
No, you're quite wrong. People in power sometimes oppress their
citizenry, or their neighbors.
We're gonna try to stop that.
>> Is there anyone to the right of Ralph Nader who doesn't understand
>> that not to respond militarily would embolden the terrorists and lead
>> to more demolished skyscrapers?
>
> I'm pretty certain that the more our government flexes its military
>muscle in the mideast, the more of a problem terrorism will become.
We'll see, won't we? You're obviously too young to remember Libya.
>Go have a quick read of 1984 and get back to me.
Why?
>Also, remember that Orwell was a conservative, in the real, classical sense of the word.
Liberals are the ones who seek to make the government omniscient and
omnipotent.
>OTOH, how about if we just try for five years withdrawing our military
>presence from around the world, especially from Saudi
>Arabia...(obviously a rhetorical question, but one worthy of
>consideration).
Also S. Korea? Negev desert? Balkans?
Maybe we should simply dissolve the military?
>Think about it from this perspective. Suppose Russia
>were to send 20,000 troops to live in the U.S. to protect us from
>Canada.
Why would they do that? We can take care of ourselves.
>Can you imagine that some people here might find that a bit
>chafing?
Try to imagine you're a S. Korean. Would you want the US leaving,
with PyongYang just waiting for us to leave, so they can have the
whole peninsula starving??
Try to imagine you're from Taiwan or Israel. Want the US to abandon
you?
>> Pacifism works well -- as long as pacifist pleading goes largely
>> unheeded and anti-war activists remain a distinct minority. Then they
>> can feel noble while others fight their battles and protect their
>> freedom.
>
>Another assertion without merit.
A very factual and succinct statement.
A pity you cannot grasp the concept.
>The way wars work,
What the good gravy do YOU know about war?
>it ends up never being about protecting the freedom of the citizens back home.
Like the US?
>The only person who can protect my freedom is me.
YOu then believe the the right to keep and bear arms? Good!!
>The biggest danger to my individual liberties, historically, has been ever larger, ever more
>powerful central government.
Me too!
>Note, I will protect my freedoms....and I
>will fight in common with my friends, neighbors and family to protect
>theirs. Unfortunately, the original author of this column probably
>would dismiss my freedoms as irrelevent if I don't agree to go to war in
>the interest of phony patriotism.
You are a phony.
satguru schism
> Hi Folks,
>
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> One small point upfront. If you did not write this you might want to
> flag the fact upfront. Not just for copyright reasons, but to indicate
> that though you might agree with the article, you did not actually write
> it yourself. Another possible approach would be to post a link if you
> can't come up with your own text.
>
>
> > Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
>
> Non sequitor. Argument by assertion.
> >
> > As the U.S. deploys more special forces in Afghanistan, other forces
> > have mobilized. Professional pacifists have resurrected the moldy
> > cliches and self-righteous pieties of the '60s.
>
> Let's see, in the Viet Nam situation, a bunch of power hungry
> politicians and businessmen took the Eisenhower/Kennedy involvement and
> blew it up into a conflagration that lost the lives of >50,000 U.S.
> citizens over a backwards SE Asian culture that had nothing at all to do
> with U.S. interests and in the process wasted vast resources on an
> involvement that had nothing to do with defense of the U.S. Free
> citizens in the U.S. objected...some naively and some violently.
> Overall, which side would you assert held the ethical high ground?
Overall, the bloodbath that followed on the heels of the withdrawal of
U.S. forces and the denial of military aid by Congress to the
government of South Vietnam beggars the number of killed and wounded
on both sides of the earlier conflict. The moment the communists
overran the South they began a purge that ended in the deaths of
hundreds of thousands. Now, what was that you were saying about the
ethical high ground? Sorry to confuse you with facts...
<snip for brevity>
No regards for the willfully ignorant,
Jack Brooks
Joseph Crowe
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 00:13:56 GMT, Joseph Crowe <jcr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Folks,
> >
> >On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > One small point upfront. If you did not write this you might want to
> >flag the fact upfront. Not just for copyright reasons, but to indicate
> >that though you might agree with the article, you did not actually write
> >it yourself. Another possible approach would be to post a link if you
> >can't come up with your own text.
> >
> >
> >> Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
> >
> > Non sequitor. Argument by assertion.
>
> So, you disagree? It's a fact. Grow up.
What's a fact? That pacifism is immoral? Nothing either you or Don
Fedor have written lends any support to that assertion. Oh, by the way,
I have grown up. If the best you can do in response to an argument
amounts to ad hominum, your arguments must have little support in logic.
> > Let's see, in the Viet Nam situation, a bunch of power hungry
> >politicians and businessmen took the Eisenhower/Kennedy involvement and
> >blew it up into a conflagration that lost the lives of >50,000 U.S.
> >citizens over a backwards SE Asian culture that had nothing at all to do
> >with U.S. interests and in the process wasted vast resources on an
> >involvement that had nothing to do with defense of the U.S. Free
> >citizens in the U.S. objected...some naively and some violently.
>
> Can you say "run on sentence?
Oh, a grammar flame.....I'm wounded.
>
> Make your point, and I will respond. Really, if you're going to pass
> yourself off as some sort of intellectual, you really should learn
> basic grammar.
I know basic grammar. The point was that a lot of U.S. citizens
opposed the involvement in Viet Nam for many reasons. Some of those
reasons turned out to have a lot more validity than any of the excuses
LBJ et. al. gave for expanding the involvement. Notice, that I in no
way intended insult of people who served in Viet Nam. It cost this
country a lot in both lost resources and in loss of life. Significantly
it created a serious gulf between people with differing views. I
remember when staunch "liberals" like Hubert Humphrey strongly supported
gun ownership.
>
>
> >Overall, which side would you assert held the ethical high ground?
>
> The single biggest reason not to be in Vietnam was China.
Well, that totally avoided the question but it makes no sense either.
>
> > Ah, but the problem here relates again to whether anything the
> >government has done in reaction to the 9/11 events contributes to
> >defense of the citizens of the U.S.
>
>
> The best defense is a good offense. Those who would do us harm must
> be chased down and eleiminated. What would YOU do? Forget about a
> surprise attack on innocent civilians that cost thousands of lives and
> billions of dollars? This is a WAR. With all that goes with it.
No I have not forgotten. If the best defense is a good offense, how
do you know that you are offending the right people? The federales
certainly have not made a very clear case that they know what the hell
they are doing. You ask what would I do. First of all, I would not
force a nation of >280 million to support MY personal power lust. If I
had any say, though, I'd pull U.S. military back to U.S. borders to
operate as a defense. Otherwise failing that, I'd propose renaming the
Department of Defense more appropriately as the Department of War. The
parallels to 1984 in this respect seem pretty obvious.
> >
> >Many people have good reasons to
> >suspect that actions of the U.S. government will have the opposite
> >effect and that citizens will lose a significant part of the few
> >protections of civil liberties that remain to us.
>
> No, I don't believe that. YOU may think so, but an 87% approval
> rating confirms your folly. Too, consider the unabashed demonstration
> of unity of cause that the US hasn't felt since 1941.
My folly, confirmed by 87% approval rating? So, your assertion seems
to be that if the majority of a given population supports an action,
then that makes it right? Let's revisit this issue in a year when if
you are right, terrorism will have been wiped out, we will have our
civil liberties returned to normal and peace will reign worldwide.
>
> Most Americans are clever enough to understand that the enemy does NOT
> share your (so-called) values and mores. The enemy wants you to
> conform to his ideals or die.
Ah, more ad hominum. So tell me, do you think that in a year,
regardless of what you believe my values to encompass, we will see an
end to terrorist acts by committing all these resources to bombing
Afghanistan and probably getting significant numbers of U.S. natives
killed in the process?
> >
> >> News Flash -- Millions of Afghans have been starving in refugee camps
> >> for years. They are victims of the Taliban's lunacy. If our air
> >> offensive hastens the regime's demise, it will do more to end
> >> starvation in Afghanistan than all of the aid packages we've dropped
> >> to date.
> >
> > OTOH, if the U.S. government would simply butt out of the internal
> >affairs of other nations around the globe, these people would likely
> >solve their own problems,
>
> So, we should stop all our humanitarian aid? Kick out the UN? Quit
> NATO? We should've allowed Slobo to "cleanse" the Baltic? Allowed
> Saddam to keep Kuwait? Continue to allow the Taliban to subjugate
> women and attack us?
What's this we stuff paleface? Humanitarian aid through government
decree almost always leads to inefficiencies. I have signifcant reason
to believe that people in this country have always been generous to a
fault. The outpouring of money in response to every disaster in my
memory, including the WTC and Pentagon attacks, supports this belief.
Humanitarian aid to people in other countries should, in my opinion,
always amount to a voluntary action on the part of individuals.
Understand, much of the foreign aid dealt by the federales has little to
do with the plight of victims of tyrannical regimes like the Taliban.
The federales even gave the Taliban millions of dollars in aid to get
rid of the opium crop in the last year. Yes, I believe that handing the
U.N. power over U.S. citizens constitutes a really large mistake. As a
person who nominally demonstrates concerns about infringement on the
RKBA, it would seem like you too might have concerns. Yep, I believe
the U.S. government should get out of NATO and get out of the mode of
"solving" the internal affairs of other nations. As an individual,
however, I would not stand in the way of you either sending money to or
volunteering to fight for whatever cause you felt your set of "morals"
led you to finance or fight for.
>
> I also note your OBVIOUS lack of concern for the Afghan people, as
> demonstrated by YOUR response to the paragraph above.
I note that you have considered collateral damage from U.S. bombing
strikes as an acceptable risk. It would seem to me that you have jumped
to conclusions where you don't have your own house in order.
>
>
> >AND the U.S. would not suffer from universal
> >hatred abroad as imperialists.....
>
> My my my....is that what they've been teaching you? Tsk tsk.....ever
> ask yourself why so many people from other lands are falling over
> themselves trying to get here, and become citizens? Ever wonder why
> not too many Americans opt to emmigrate?
Ah, one more step to love it or leave it...."they" have not taught me
what I believe. I came to my conclusions on my own, regardless of what
the majority might think, or given lack of critical thinking skills and
discipline taught in public schools these days, what said majority
emotes.
> I didn't think so.
I have had the opportunity to travel and live abroad. People abroad
largely admire the positive things about the U.S. in my experience.
They admire the creativity, innovative technology, freedom and so forth.
Many people, where I have travelled, don't like some of the things that
the U.S. is trending towards. We have taken over from the English as
the country that tends to empire, though we don't call it that.
>
> >and, sad to say, that's exactly the
> >position that the U.S. government has taken in the last fifty years.
>
> *yawn* Are you an American? You sure sound like someone who's
> unhappy here. Perhaps you should leave?
Ah, I knew it had to appear sooner or later.
> Go to Afghanistan, and tell
> them how much you sympathize with them. They're looking for people to
> help them.
So you see...here you show an inconsistency. On the one hand you
feign concern for Afghan women and victims of the Taliban but now you
imply that I should go over there and sympathize with them because I'm
not supportive of government tactics......the swings are a little swift
to track....
> >
> >Ever since Lincoln, through Wilson and both Roosevelts, the federales
> >have felt compelled to entangle us in the ungainly affairs of others.
>
> It's called "moral obligation". We may not always succeed, but we
> try.
So let me get this straight. We have a moral obligation, through
our government, the minority of which was elected by the majority of a
minority, to go around the world and force people to see things our way.
>
> >Now you may feel that's right.
>
>
> I absolutely do.
But can you support a reason why you should compell me to feel the
same?
>
> >f you do, feel free to volunteer..otherwise quit advocating picking my pocket to finance your
> >dreams of world conquest.
>
> First, I am not trying to pick your pocket. You're on public
> assistance, aren't you? Student loans perhaps? Food stamps? SSI??
Nope.......none of those, although I do get the federal finger in my
paycheck to the tune of several tens of thousands of dollars a year.
>
> Second, the US is NOTABLY the FIRST nation to be numero uno and NOT
> sought world domination. Ask your "professors" if they can name ANY
> OTHER NATION in history that has acted as beneficent as the US.
Many of my professors have died....I have not been at university in a
quarter century. Seems like one of your assumptions just fell flat.
>
>
>
> >I have much more effective, local scale and
> >voluntary positive projects to use MY money on.
>
> Hey, loser. Pay your taxes and quit complaining. You live in the
> BEST country in the world. Highest standard of living, self
> sufficient and best of everything.
Ah, more ad hominum. You know, the more people like you start making
statements like pay up and don't complain, the more you start looking
like socialists. I love my country, but I fear the government. That
you seem to want more control over other individuals indicates that you
fear freedom. Only supporting the RKBA does not make you logically
consistent.
> >
> >> A speaker in Los Angeles disclosed -- in the hushed tones of
> >> revelation -- that the bombing will not solve "societal problems such
> >> as police brutality and homelessness." Nor, for that matter, will it
> >> end road rage or produce a cure for the common cold.
> >
> > True enough, but totally irrelevent.
>
> No, it makes a point. A pity you cannot grasp it.
So, tell me, oh enlightened one, what relevent point was made in the
quote above?
>
> >> If, after Pearl Harbor, America had waited to solve its social
> >> problems before fighting back, we would now be the westernmost
> >> province of the empire of the rising sun.
> >
> > Not bloody likely. Japan does not have the resources to pull that
> >off.
>
> They certainly did, if we took YOUR course of action.
OK, support your thesis. Argument by assertion will not work.
>
>
> >Look at the history of WWII....Japan was desperate for oil to fuel
> >ITS war effort and had to be manipulated by FDR into bombing Pearl
> >Harbor in order to get the U.S. into that unholy conflagration.
>
> LOL!! That about sums it all up nicely. So, let's try an easy one on
> you:
>
> Is it OK for the Japanese to conquer the Asian continent? Why?
Non-sequitor. As you know, if you have a shred of integrity, I
cannot answer that question. The Japanese did horrible things to other
people in China and SE Asia. The extent of Japanese brutality was
incredible. A significant number of people have never even known about
that part of the history of the region. Likewise, Joseph Stalin was
responsible for more deaths than Hitler. Yet, Stalin was our ally, courtesy
of FDR. Now the problem with political solutions to the problems of repressed
people around the world is that politics is a power game. In such
situations, the lines between enemies and allies can blur in the "moral"
sphere. U.S. policy since WWII has been that our government acts as the
arbiter of what constitutes "moral" right. This has led to a situation
where the federal government has manipulated power struggles in various
areas of the world, supporting first one party and then another. In the
case of the Taliban, which evolved from the struggle against the
Soviets, the support has turned around and bit back. The same goes for
the situation in Iran and Iraq and even Saudi Arabia.
> >
> >> Violence solves nothing, is the protestors' universal refrain.
> >> Nonsense. Violence gave America its independence. Violence saved the
> >> Union and freed the slaves. Violence kept Hitler from killing the rest
> >> of Europe's Jews.
> >
> > Self-defense through violent reaction to a violent act, directly,
> >makes sense in some contexts.
>
> In EVERY context, you moron. Overwhelming, unabashed and immediate
> violent response is the ONLY was to stop violence.
Ah so you agree with The Satanic Bible then?
>
> >Indiscriminate violence against others
> >for no reason seldom accomplishes much.
>
> Yes, I agree. If a criminal breaks into my home, it would be foolish
> to shoot the next door neighbor, or the mailman.
Ah, at last agreement.
>
> >> For the flower-power brigade, there's always an excuse to turn tail
> >> and run.
> >
> >Tell you what, if you advocate defending this country, I'm all for
> >it.
>
> As long as you can sit it all out, right? I figured......
Ah, more unfounded ad hominum.
>
> So, what would it take to get you to defend what you have? 5000 dead
> not enough? What's the magic number?
No magic number. Had I been on one of those flights I would have
fought. Now, how does one fight against fanatic terrorists? I really
am seeking what you believe to constitute an effective defense against
this kind of "war". In a way, this has analogies to the American
Revolution. The Brits expected the Colonials to "fight fair", which to
the Brits meant lining up across a field and mowing each other down
until only one side had men left standing. Now, the we are expecting
the terrorists to fight us on our terms. It will not turn out that
way. It's naive to believe that it will. Listen, I'm not afraid to die
for my principles, but I'm not going to offer my life up for naught just
because somebody else wants to ram their "moral imperative" down my
throat. As an aside, I heard on the radio that Muslims constitute one
billion people out of the world's population. Now, statistically
perhaps one in a thousand of those will become radicalized to the point
of taking action, but tell me, how do you think we defend against a
million terrorists that will not conveniently die from conventional or
even technologically advanced weapons and who think nothing of using the
most vile of weapons of mass destruction?
>
>
> >If you advocate going somewhere and just bombing the hell out of a
> >primitive country because it makes you feel less powerless, well, would
> >you do that on your own nickle?
>
>
> Sigh it's "nickel".
>
Ah, a typing flame....you've done some of those yourself.
> Now, do you state that you believe that we're just indiscriminately
> bombing Afghanistan?
Even the DoD has admitted to mistargetting multiple
times...civilians have been killed. Since you believe we have the moral
high ground, and since you profess concern for Afghan women, how do you
align those logical conflicts?
> >
> >> Prior to World War II, isolationists told us Hitler was a nationalist
> >> who had legitimate grievances against the West.
> >
> > Citation please.
>
> A PLEASURE!!
>
> http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/time8.html
>
> http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_wwiijan01lead.htm
> http://www.acusd.edu/~clawson/page2.html
Thanks for the citations...I'll have a look tonight.
>
>
>
> > A lot of evidence points to the results of WWI leading to the rise of Hitler.
>
> No kidding.
Yeah.....
>
>
> >Had the U.S. taken the advice of Washington to never become embroiled in
> >European political affairs, a significant possibility exists that Hitler
> >would never have come to power......
>
> You're serious? You think the US entry into WWI was the cause of
> shitler's rise to power?
Nah, not exactly. However, here's my thinking on that. Feel free to
comment. Ad hominum, however, does not constitute discussion. At the
end of WWI, in which many felt the entry of the U.S. tipped the balance
of power, the Treaty of Versailles was approved. The players in the ToV
were Clenemceau of France, George of England, Wilson of the U.S. and
Orlando of Italy. The treaty was approved without representation from
Germany and laid out onerous, to Germans, conditions. That the Germans
felt unfairly scapegoated contributed to a lot of unrest in the years
from 1919 to 1922. A number of extremist groups formed in Germany
during this time and one of them, the German Workers' Party was taken
over by Hitler in 1921. Hitler based his support on hatred by many
Germans of the ToV. In Italy, the ToV was unpopular as well. Italy had
lost 460,000 men in WWI, but in the ToV, Orlando was almost totally
ignored and Italy was massively in debt to the U.S. Italy had been
promised land concessions in the Secret Treaty of London, which was
ignored. The increasing unemployment and unrest in Italy gave rise to
support for Mussolini.
>
> Whew.................
>
>
> >sheesh, read a little history or condemn yourself to repeat
> >the same mistakes ad infinitum.
>
> Yes, like the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain.
Not to mention the mistakes of Winston Churchill....
>
>
>
> >> During the Vietnam War, campus protestors hailed the Viet Cong as
> >> agrarian reformers. It wasn't our war, they wailed. But it was our
> >> fight -- and millions of dead Cambodians and Vietnamese, who were
> >> murdered by the victors, wish we'd won it.
> >
> > Do you intend to assert that all the people who protested the U.S.
> >involvement in Viet Nam held this view?
>
> Yes. I am old enough to remember.
Yep, so am I......your memory has failed you or else you were blind
and deaf to anybody who protested on ethical grounds.
>
> >How naive. Viet Nam was a tar baby for the Brits the French
> >and then the U.S.
>
> We should've never gone to Vietnam without acknowledging that the onlt
> way to win was eventual conflict with the PRC.
I'd assert that we should never have become involved.....the reasons
we did were all the wrong ones.
>
>
> >Afghanistan was the same for Russia.
>
> The US was aiding the Afghans, the USSR didn't commit it's full weight
> either. The US is willing to do whatever it takes to stop terrorism.
I don't doubt the commitment, but I highly doubt the effectiveness.
>
> Watch and see.
Hey, if it works, I'll cheer. However, I'm not as sanguine about the
outcome as you are.
>
> Vietnam is NOT Afghanistan. The PRC and the USSR were BOTH aiding the
> N. Vietnamese. We knew we could not prosecute the war beyond the DMZ.
Well, talk about a statement of the obvious. However, the
similarities exist in some ways. In a few years, one of us will get to
say "I told you so".
>
> Afghanistan has no "Ho Chi Minh trail".
I'm not sure anybody understands exactly what Afghanistan does have.
Do you?
>
>
> >For a set of people to become free, they must undertake self-determination.
>
> 1. How profound.
>
> 2. Are you asserting that the Taliban was allowing this?
Nope. Neither were the Brits in the late 18th century. Like TJ said
(paraphrased) The tree of freedom must be watered with the blood of
patriots and tyrants from time to time.
>
> >External forces never have a positive effect whether the imperialist forces come from England, China, Russia
> >or the U.S.
>
> India is better off for having had the benefit of British occupation.
Oh?
>
>
> >However, such an opposition to government involvement in
> >the internal affairs of foreign states in no way precludes individuals
> >from putting their own cajones on the line.....hence, feel free to go
> >over to Afghanistan and "send the infidels to Allah".
>
> I will, as soon as you leave to defend the Afghani people. Actually,
> I cannot. I am now too old. I have a USN Hornorable Discharge, which
> puts me one up on you.
Hey, as long as you can walk and hold a gun, you're not too old.
Note, I'm not the one advocating going over to Afghanistan on either
side. And, FWIW, I doubt you are any older than me.
>
> I would go if they would let me! Even if it meant allowing you to
> stay back here and whine.....
Nobody's stopping you. Nobody may pay you but then, hey, since you
hold the high moral ground, that should not matter, right?
> >
> >> And the Gulf War? "Blood for oil," anti-war activists chanted. Then
> >> they drove away in their VW buses to well-heated homes, paid for with
> >> jobs dependent on reliable energy supplies.
> >
> > Even the war mongers believe that was a net loss.
>
> Only because we allowed the sheeple like you to stop us from going all
> the way to Baghdad.
Nope, the one who stopped was Colin Powell.
>
> Yet, the yuppied drive their Expeditions and Navigators....
That must really get your bile going, eh?
>
> >> The current conflict has pacifists scrambling to find new slogans. The
> >> old ones have such a hollow ring.
> >
> > Seems like the people who oppose a bunch of old white guys sending
> >the youth off to die in some forsaken wilderness have gotten your blood
> >pressure up a bit.
>
>
> Not me, sonny. I am proud of all our military is doing, while you
> wait for them to return so you can scream "baby-killers" at them.
Nope, I did not do that in the sixties nor would I do it now. I have
no problem with members of the military, it's the choices of the people
who send them off to die in useless battles that I have to wonder about.
> > The souls of 5,000 dead in WTC and the Pentagon are ashamed of you.
I doubt that.....even if they exist, they probably have better things
to do than worry about debate between you and me.
>
> >> Are the Taliban thugs idealistic reformers?
> >
> >I doubt it, but how would we know.
>
> You haven't figured out the Taliban yet? Boy, you ARE dumb!!
Ah, in absence of a reasoned response, ad hominum. It reminds me of
the line from The Meaning of Life....."It's not much of a philosophy but
Fuck You!".
>
>
> >Our media certainly has cranked out a raft of propaganda,
>
> FLASH: The media is leftist.
Yes, much of it is. And most of it cranks out propaganda in the
place of reporting. The left bias of NPR, for instance, irritates the
hell out of me.
>
> >but the government attitude seems to be "trust
> >us", we know what we're doing and we're here to help. When it comes to
> >showing evidence that bin Laden was the man behind the events of 9/11,
> >we get a deafening silence.
>
> Yes, YOU do, because you're not worth revealing secrets to. The
> Russians, Chinese and everyone else, including Pakistan agree that the
> Al Qaida is responsible.
My point exactly. Your government believes that it's more important
to show evidence to the Pakistanis that to its own citizens. That's
pretty arrogant....assuming that 100% of the population are such sheep
as to give carte blanche to them.
> Hmmmmm......who to believe? YOU??? LOL!!!
I have made no assertion about who did it. You, OTOH, are willing to
blame bin Laden, without evidence just because the federales tell you
it's so. Further, even if bin Laden directed the attack and al Qaida
was involved, has the government action in Afghanistan effected them?
>
> >Show us the money. However, not trusting
> >its own citizenry with such evidence, they were happy to show this
> >alleged evidence to the government of Pakistan, installed by military
> >coup and the only government in the world to share diplomatic relations
> >with the Taliban.
>
> You have demonstrated all too well that you "can't handle the truth".
How?
> What? You don't think those people died? You don't think it was
> deliberate?
Yes, of course I know that innocent people died and I know it was
deliberate. Do you know how to prevent such attacks in the future?
>
> You are hopelessly MYOPIC.
What does my astigmatism have to do with anything?
>
> >So, for our government to paint bin
> >Laden as the great satan without supporting evidence that will be shared
> >with your and my fellow citizens differs from the propaganda of al Qaeda
> >exactly how?
>
> Not just Bin Laden. International terrorism. Haven't you been paying
> attention.
Yep.
>
> > The problem here, is that in condemning the protestors as illogical,
> >you have not argued with anything other than emotion.
>
> Hardly. Emotion is the domain of liberals and pacifists like
> yourself.
That's pretty funny. I have not been called a "liberal" by someone
so ignorant of my viewpoints in years.
>
> You have ranted for a while now, with no substantiated facts, no
> actual information and all kinds of touchy-feely nonsense.
Have a look in the mirror, compadre...
>
> The REALITY is, we're in a fight. Like it or not, that's what it is.
> And the terrorists will keep hitting us and hitting us until either we
> go down, or they do.
You might not be real comfortable with the results....but you still
seem unwilling to even consider any other alternatives.
>
> > And yet you assert that you have a right to demand that others go off
> >and die for a cause you believe in......hmmm, quite revealing.
>
> You sound afraid to fight for your country. Have you signed up for
> selective service? I bet not.
Yeah, I'm a little old for that. I'm not afraid to fight for the
principles this country was founded on. You've made all these
assertions based on the assumption that I'm afraid to fight. That would
constitute a mistake on your part. That I make a distinction between
where fighting constitutes an ethical decision seems to confuse you. I
will not give my life up for an unprincipled cause, and yet if you
convince me a cause is just, you will find no better person to fight by
your side.
> So, if 5000 killed isn't worth fighting for, what is??
>
> >> Not to punish mass murder is to acquiesce to evil. Pacifism is a
> >> betrayal of the innocent. It invites more aggression -- witness
> >> Munich, witness the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, witness our muted
> >> response to other acts of terrorism (the 1983 bombing of the Marine
> >> compound in Beirut and the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya
> >> and Tanzania), which surely encouraged al Qaeda.
> >
> > Maybe, but consider that what you advocate will never eliminate
> >terrorism
>
> You don't know what I advocate.
So, when you have supported the military operations in Afghanistan,
you did not advocate it, or have you applied a different definition to
the word?
>
> > given that it cannot be defeated by military might, unless
> >you are willing to follow a global scorched policy,
>
> Says who? Talk about emotional rhetoric! LOL!!
We will certainly get to see.
>
> >which none of us would survive, nor would we want to.
>
> Says who? Talk about emotional rhetoric! LOL!!
I take it back...I made a mistake. I only speak for myself. Same as
you.
>
> >(sorry for the runon sentence).
>
> (Yeah, like it's your first!! LOL!!)
Another grammar flame....you must be desperate.
>
> >Seriously, though, I believe that the U.S. was a grand experiment in
> >freedom, even with all its warts and imperfections.
>
> What's better?
Going back the the original intent.....respect for individual liberty
and individuals taking responsibility for their actions.
>
>
>
> >Before politicians began to get involved in foreign wars, this was a land of opportunity
> >with almost no enemies.
>
> Is NYC a foreign land? DC???
Hmm...logical disconnect....I can't imagine what kind of contorted
mental process led to that response.
>
> >To eliminate backward countries like Afghanistan as enemies,
>
> Who says we're doing that?
>
> More emotional rhetoric!
You know, for somebody who virtually accuses somebody of cowardice
because that person disagrees on what constitutes patriotism, you
certainly seem hypocritical for accusing me of emotional rhetoric.
>
> >its citizens need a reason to have hope of freedom and prosperity.
>
> That's the plan.
>
> >The best way to accomplish that is for governments to eliminate the desire to meddle with internal affairs of
> >other countries and to eliminate barriers to free trade between
> >individuals.
>
> No, you're quite wrong. People in power sometimes oppress their
> citizenry, or their neighbors.
Yep......
>
> We're gonna try to stop that.
We? Do you have an invisible friend?
>
> We'll see, won't we? You're obviously too young to remember Libya.
Not at all.....I seem to remember losing a few people to Libya.
>
> >Go have a quick read of 1984 and get back to me.
>
> Why?
To round out your experience with literature you could read that and
other books.
>
>
> >Also, remember that Orwell was a conservative, in the real, classical sense of the word.
>
> Liberals are the ones who seek to make the government omniscient and
> omnipotent.
That depends on what you call a liberal, or even a conservative for
that matter. What you assert might have been true in 1964, but the
people posing as conservatives and the people posing as liberals these
days seem quite similar to me.
>
> >OTOH, how about if we just try for five years withdrawing our military
> >presence from around the world, especially from Saudi
> >Arabia...(obviously a rhetorical question, but one worthy of
> >consideration).
>
> Also S. Korea? Negev desert? Balkans?
Yes, definitely.
>
> Maybe we should simply dissolve the military?
Scale it back to the degree necessary to protect the U.S.
mainland...yep?
>
>
> >Think about it from this perspective. Suppose Russia
> >were to send 20,000 troops to live in the U.S. to protect us from
> >Canada.
>
> Why would they do that? We can take care of ourselves.
You miss the point.
>
> >Can you imagine that some people here might find that a bit
> >chafing?
>
> Try to imagine you're a S. Korean. Would you want the US leaving,
> with PyongYang just waiting for us to leave, so they can have the
> whole peninsula starving??
So, you assert that South Korea cannot take care of its interests
without the U.S. military presence?
>
> Try to imagine you're from Taiwan or Israel. Want the US to abandon
> you?
If I'm from Taiwan, I'm wondering what the hell good U.S. support is
these days anyway. The nation of Israel will survive regardless. They
have enough support from individuals in this country that hardware is no
problem and as far as military competence, those guys can take care of
themselves.
>
> >> Pacifism works well -- as long as pacifist pleading goes largely
> >> unheeded and anti-war activists remain a distinct minority. Then they
> >> can feel noble while others fight their battles and protect their
> >> freedom.
> >
> >Another assertion without merit.
>
> A very factual and succinct statement.
So, what facts do you see and how do you support them....remember, no
emotionalism..only reason. As long as you believe that, leave me out of
the people whose freedom you supposedly protect and whose battles you
supposedly fight. I can take care of myself.
>
> A pity you cannot grasp the concept.
So, you keep making these assertions like you have the answer from on
high...you're typing a lot but you're not saying anything.
>
>
> >The way wars work,
>
> What the good gravy do YOU know about war?
What do you know about war? I've seen our government involved in so
many wars that used up so many people since 1950 that I just don't
understand the appeal. I believe wars of defense are necessary. Has it
ever occurred to you that if war does not accomplish your objective as
effectively as another approach that it should exist as a last resort?
I don't mean appeasement of dictators here, but certainly after the last
fifty years the politicos must have learned something about unintended
consequences. If you know about war from personal experience, then
perhaps you have an emotional reaction to such a statement. But you
seem to revel in to concept of fighting it out. Of course, I could be
wrong.
>
>
> >it ends up never being about protecting the freedom of the citizens back home.
>
> Like the US?
Yep, now tell me how the Homeland Security bureaucracy relates to
protecting freedom again.
>
>
> >The only person who can protect my freedom is me.
>
> YOu then believe the the right to keep and bear arms? Good!!
Of course I do......always have. And, during CCW training, I came to
understand that drawing and using a weapon, even in self-defense, was
the last resort.
>
>
> >The biggest danger to my individual liberties, historically, has been
> > larger, ever powerful central government.
>
> Me too!
What, are you an AOL user?
>
> >Note, I will protect my freedoms....and I
> >will fight in common with my friends, neighbors and family to protect
> >theirs. Unfortunately, the original author of this column probably
> >would dismiss my freedoms as irrelevent if I don't agree to go to war in
> >the interest of phony patriotism.
>
> You are a phony.
How would you know?
Joseph Crowe
{snippage}
I wonder, why did you post this under the original thread and then
repost the entire thing under a new subject? Seems like the only
spanking you're doing is your monkey....
George Spelvin
an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
Jingoism isn't patriotism . . . it is immoral.
--
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition
dies . . . the soul of America dies with it."--Edward R. Murrow
George Spelvin
Joseph Crowe wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> One small point upfront. If you did not write this you might want to
> flag the fact upfront. Not just for copyright reasons, but to indicate
> that though you might agree with the article, you did not actually write
> it yourself. Another possible approach would be to post a link if you
> can't come up with your own text.
Plagiarism isn't legal, it is immoral!
> > Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
>
> Non sequitor. Argument by assertion.
Don't ever expect annie to understand logic.
Panhead
>
> an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
>
> Jingoism isn't patriotism . . . it is immoral.
Try again
Jingoism \Jin"go*ism\, n. The policy of the Jingoes, so called.
See Jingo, 2. [Cant, Eng.]
Jingoism n 1: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions
[syn: flag waving] 2: fanatical patriotism [syn: chauvinism
^^^^^^^^^^
And who the fuck are YOU to lay claim to what is "immoral" or
not?
"By Jingo, Spelvin believes you had best believe in the
Pentagon's press releases or else!"
an0...@hotmail.com
>On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>{snippage}
>
> I wonder, why did you post this under the original thread and then
>repost the entire thing under a new subject? Seems like the only
>spanking you're doing is your monkey....
>
>--
Yet, you read both threads, and have no rebuttal.
I accept your concession.
Next!!!
an0...@hotmail.com
wrote:
So, we were right in trying to defend S Vietnam?
an0...@hotmail.com
Yes, proof of you ignorance and idiocy.
>> Make your point, and I will respond. Really, if you're going to pass
>> yourself off as some sort of intellectual, you really should learn
>> basic grammar.
>
> I know basic grammar. The point was that a lot of U.S. citizens
>opposed the involvement in Viet Nam for many reasons. Some of those
>reasons turned out to have a lot more validity than any of the excuses
>LBJ et. al. gave for expanding the involvement. Notice, that I in no
>way intended insult of people who served in Viet Nam. It cost this
>country a lot in both lost resources and in loss of life. Significantly
>it created a serious gulf between people with differing views. I
>remember when staunch "liberals" like Hubert Humphrey strongly supported
>gun ownership.
As I stated, and as I remind you......Vietnam was not a good place to
make a stand against communism. Not in the PRC 's backyard.
And Vietnam has NOTHING in common with Afghanistan, despite your
pathetic braying.
>> The single biggest reason not to be in Vietnam was China.
>
> Well, that totally avoided the question but it makes no sense either.
You don't understand the significance of China's role in the conflict?
Take a glance at a map sometime. Ask your daddy to help you interpret
it.
>> > Ah, but the problem here relates again to whether anything the
>> >government has done in reaction to the 9/11 events contributes to
>> >defense of the citizens of the U.S.
>>
>>
>> The best defense is a good offense. Those who would do us harm must
>> be chased down and eleiminated. What would YOU do? Forget about a
>> surprise attack on innocent civilians that cost thousands of lives and
>> billions of dollars? This is a WAR. With all that goes with it.
>
> No I have not forgotten. If the best defense is a good offense, how
>do you know that you are offending the right people?
The governments of the world, even Iran agree that the Taliban and
Club Osama are "fanatics".
We don't care what you "believe".
>The federales
>certainly have not made a very clear case that they know what the hell
>they are doing. You ask what would I do. First of all, I would not
>force a nation of >280 million to support MY personal power lust.
Is that what you think we're doing? Explain what in our methods are
supporting this silly assertion.
>If I
>had any say, though, I'd pull U.S. military back to U.S. borders to
>operate as a defense.
Defense against terrorist cells? Thank G-d you're NOT in charge!
You have to attack them. Keep them too busy worrying about survival
to take any offensive acts.
The Taliban were only encouraged by the lack of response at the attack
of USS Cole.
>Otherwise failing that, I'd propose renaming the
>Department of Defense more appropriately as the Department of War.
OOohhhhh!! Wow, that will change everything! LOL!!
Get real, willya????
>The
>parallels to 1984 in this respect seem pretty obvious.
Really? Only in yer clouded, poliotically-correct, emotionally
challenged mind.
>> >Many people have good reasons to
>> >suspect that actions of the U.S. government will have the opposite
>> >effect and that citizens will lose a significant part of the few
>> >protections of civil liberties that remain to us.
>>
>> No, I don't believe that. YOU may think so, but an 87% approval
>> rating confirms your folly. Too, consider the unabashed demonstration
>> of unity of cause that the US hasn't felt since 1941.
>
> My folly, confirmed by 87% approval rating? So, your assertion seems
>to be that if the majority of a given population supports an action,
>then that makes it right?
Ensuring that all steps are taken to defeat those who would wantonly
kill innocent people is what makes it right.
That the vast majority agrees is a measure of common sense.
> Let's revisit this issue in a year when if
>you are right, terrorism will have been wiped out, we will have our
>civil liberties returned to normal and peace will reign worldwide.
It will take more that a year, and more than one campaign to disrupt
and eradicate terrorism.
What rights have YOU lost? Specifically???
>> Most Americans are clever enough to understand that the enemy does NOT
>> share your (so-called) values and mores. The enemy wants you to
>> conform to his ideals or die.
>
> Ah, more ad hominum. So tell me, do you think that in a year,
No time limits.
>regardless of what you believe my values to encompass, we will see an
>end to terrorist acts by committing all these resources to bombing
>Afghanistan and probably getting significant numbers of U.S. natives
>killed in the process?
Exactly how will this manifest itself? What is a "significant"
number?
Why should you expect no US casualties? This is WAR, stupid.
You are a FOOL not to expect casualties.
>> >> News Flash -- Millions of Afghans have been starving in refugee camps
>> >> for years. They are victims of the Taliban's lunacy. If our air
>> >> offensive hastens the regime's demise, it will do more to end
>> >> starvation in Afghanistan than all of the aid packages we've dropped
>> >> to date.
>> >
>> > OTOH, if the U.S. government would simply butt out of the internal
>> >affairs of other nations around the globe, these people would likely
>> >solve their own problems,
>>
>> So, we should stop all our humanitarian aid? Kick out the UN? Quit
>> NATO? We should've allowed Slobo to "cleanse" the Baltic? Allowed
>> Saddam to keep Kuwait? Continue to allow the Taliban to subjugate
>> women and attack us?
>
> What's this we stuff paleface?
S'matter? Boxed in again?? LOL!!
>Humanitarian aid through government decree almost always leads to inefficiencies.
It's a positive step, taken by a benificent Gov't.
More than most others even attempt.
Don't KNOCK IT until you come up with something PROVEN BETTER.
>I have signifcant reason
>to believe that people in this country have always been generous to a
>fault.
I don't give a rat's ass what you "believe". Facts speak for
themselves. Can you name ANY other nation that gives more?????
>The outpouring of money in response to every disaster in my
>memory, including the WTC and Pentagon attacks, supports this belief.
>Humanitarian aid to people in other countries should, in my opinion,
>always amount to a voluntary action on the part of individuals.
*yawn*
Shoulda, woulda coulda. Are you humming "kumbaya while youre
typing??
>Understand, much of the foreign aid dealt by the federales has little to
>do with the plight of victims of tyrannical regimes like the Taliban.
It has to do with helping human suffering. Are we perfect? No. Do we
TRY??? YES!!!!!!!!!!!
>The federales even gave the Taliban millions of dollars in aid to get
>rid of the opium crop in the last year. Yes, I believe that handing the
>U.N. power over U.S. citizens constitutes a really large mistake.
The UN wasn't attacked, the US was.
>As a
>person who nominally demonstrates concerns about infringement on the
>RKBA, it would seem like you too might have concerns. Yep, I believe
>the U.S. government should get out of NATO and get out of the mode of
>"solving" the internal affairs of other nations. As an individual,
>however, I would not stand in the way of you either sending money to or
>volunteering to fight for whatever cause you felt your set of "morals"
>led you to finance or fight for.
How generous of you.
>>
>> I also note your OBVIOUS lack of concern for the Afghan people, as
>> demonstrated by YOUR response to the paragraph above.
>
> I note that you have considered collateral damage from U.S. bombing
>strikes as an acceptable risk.
Absolutely. It is the Afghan gov't that is responsible.
>It would seem to me that you have jumped
>to conclusions where you don't have your own house in order.
It would seem to me that you're an apologist for terrorism and
murderers.
>> >AND the U.S. would not suffer from universal
>> >hatred abroad as imperialists.....
>>
>> My my my....is that what they've been teaching you? Tsk tsk.....ever
>> ask yourself why so many people from other lands are falling over
>> themselves trying to get here, and become citizens? Ever wonder why
>> not too many Americans opt to emmigrate?
>
> Ah, one more step to love it or leave it...."they" have not taught me
>what I believe. I came to my conclusions on my own, regardless of what
>the majority might think, or given lack of critical thinking skills and
>discipline taught in public schools these days, what said majority
>emotes.
You can bluster, but why can't you answer the question??
>
I didn't think so.
>
> I have had the opportunity to travel and live abroad. People abroad
>largely admire the positive things about the U.S. in my experience.
>They admire the creativity, innovative technology, freedom and so forth.
>Many people, where I have travelled, don't like some of the things that
>the U.S. is trending towards. We have taken over from the English as
>the country that tends to empire, though we don't call it that.
And we have colonized where???
Answer specifically please.
>> >and, sad to say, that's exactly the
>> >position that the U.S. government has taken in the last fifty years.
>>
>> *yawn* Are you an American? You sure sound like someone who's
>> unhappy here. Perhaps you should leave?
>
> Ah, I knew it had to appear sooner or later.
Well, why don't you? You're obviously unhappy with what we are doing,
what we respresent, and our policies towards other places.
No one is forcing you to stay, with the "other 87%" of us.
You do lots of averting, and that's about all you do....except for
criticizing without offering viable alternatives.
Why is that??
>> Go to Afghanistan, and tell
>> them how much you sympathize with them. They're looking for people to
>> help them.
>
> So you see...here you show an inconsistency. On the one hand you
>feign concern for Afghan women and victims of the Taliban but now you
>imply that I should go over there and sympathize with them because I'm
>not supportive of government tactics......the swings are a little swift
>to track....
I am simply boxing you in, whenever you get a little too
sanctimonious.
>> >Ever since Lincoln, through Wilson and both Roosevelts, the federales
>> >have felt compelled to entangle us in the ungainly affairs of others.
>>
>> It's called "moral obligation". We may not always succeed, but we
>> try.
>
> So let me get this straight. We have a moral obligation, through
>our government, the minority of which was elected by the majority of a
>minority, to go around the world and force people to see things our way.
Is that what we do? Is that how it works?
>> >Now you may feel that's right.
>>
>>
>> I absolutely do.
>
> But can you support a reason why you should compell me to feel the
>same?
No, you don't have to do anything. BUT, either lead, follow or get
out of the way. We are going to take steps; real ones, to ensure we
do whatever is necessary to eradicate world terrorism.
Whether YOU like it or not.
>> >f you do, feel free to volunteer..otherwise quit advocating picking my pocket to finance your
>> >dreams of world conquest.
>>
>> First, I am not trying to pick your pocket. You're on public
>> assistance, aren't you? Student loans perhaps? Food stamps? SSI??
>
> Nope.......none of those, although I do get the federal finger in my
>paycheck to the tune of several tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Join the club. That's the price of admission.
>> Second, the US is NOTABLY the FIRST nation to be numero uno and NOT
>> sought world domination. Ask your "professors" if they can name ANY
>> OTHER NATION in history that has acted as beneficent as the US.
>
> Many of my professors have died....I have not been at university in a
>quarter century. Seems like one of your assumptions just fell flat.
Seems like yet ANOTHER question you cannot answer, even to your own
satisfaction.
It's getting a little boring............
>> Hey, loser. Pay your taxes and quit complaining. You live in the
>> BEST country in the world. Highest standard of living, self
>> sufficient and best of everything.
>
> Ah, more ad hominum. You know, the more people like you start making
>statements like pay up and don't complain, the more you start looking
>like socialists. I love my country, but I fear the government.
I fear a government that no longer represents life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
>That you seem to want more control over other individuals indicates that you
>fear freedom.
I want my fellow citizens to come first.
> Only supporting the RKBA does not make you logically
>consistent.
Your convoluted judgement is no matter to me.
>> >> A speaker in Los Angeles disclosed -- in the hushed tones of
>> >> revelation -- that the bombing will not solve "societal problems such
>> >> as police brutality and homelessness." Nor, for that matter, will it
>> >> end road rage or produce a cure for the common cold.
>> >
>> > True enough, but totally irrelevent.
>>
>> No, it makes a point. A pity you cannot grasp it.
>
> So, tell me, oh enlightened one, what relevent point was made in the
>quote above?
It points out that we are not trying to solve the societal problems of
Afghanistan (not yet, anyway) We're going after terrorists, and those
who abet them.
>> >> If, after Pearl Harbor, America had waited to solve its social
>> >> problems before fighting back, we would now be the westernmost
>> >> province of the empire of the rising sun.
>> >
>> > Not bloody likely. Japan does not have the resources to pull that
>> >off.
>>
>> They certainly did, if we took YOUR course of action.
>
> OK, support your thesis. Argument by assertion will not work.
Simple. We could've just surrendered to Japan, without fighting back.
>> >Look at the history of WWII....Japan was desperate for oil to fuel
>> >ITS war effort and had to be manipulated by FDR into bombing Pearl
>> >Harbor in order to get the U.S. into that unholy conflagration.
>>
>> LOL!! That about sums it all up nicely. So, let's try an easy one on
>> you:
>>
>> Is it OK for the Japanese to conquer the Asian continent? Why?
>
> Non-sequitor. As you know, if you have a shred of integrity, I
>cannot answer that question. The Japanese did horrible things to other
>people in China and SE Asia. The extent of Japanese brutality was
>incredible. A significant number of people have never even known about
>that part of the history of the region. Likewise, Joseph Stalin was
>responsible for more deaths than Hitler. Yet, Stalin was our ally, courtesy
>of FDR.
Courtesy of necessity. There was NEVER any real alliance or trust.
>Now the problem with political solutions to the problems of repressed
>people around the world is that politics is a power game. In such
>situations, the lines between enemies and allies can blur in the "moral"
>sphere. U.S. policy since WWII has been that our government acts as the
>arbiter of what constitutes "moral" right. This has led to a situation
>where the federal government has manipulated power struggles in various
>areas of the world, supporting first one party and then another. In the
>case of the Taliban, which evolved from the struggle against the
>Soviets, the support has turned around and bit back. The same goes for
>the situation in Iran and Iraq and even Saudi Arabia.
>
> > >
>> >> Violence solves nothing, is the protestors' universal refrain.
>> >> Nonsense. Violence gave America its independence. Violence saved the
>> >> Union and freed the slaves. Violence kept Hitler from killing the rest
>> >> of Europe's Jews.
>> >
>> > Self-defense through violent reaction to a violent act, directly,
>> >makes sense in some contexts.
>>
>> In EVERY context, you moron. Overwhelming, unabashed and immediate
>> violent response is the ONLY was to stop violence.
>
> Ah so you agree with The Satanic Bible then?
I stand by my statement.
>> >Indiscriminate violence against others
>> >for no reason seldom accomplishes much.
>>
>> Yes, I agree. If a criminal breaks into my home, it would be foolish
>> to shoot the next door neighbor, or the mailman.
>
> Ah, at last agreement.
>> >> For the flower-power brigade, there's always an excuse to turn tail
>> >> and run.
>> >
>> >Tell you what, if you advocate defending this country, I'm all for
>> >it.
>>
>> As long as you can sit it all out, right? I figured......
>
> Ah, more unfounded ad hominum.
Ah, more deflection and evasion.
>> So, what would it take to get you to defend what you have? 5000 dead
>> not enough? What's the magic number?
>
> No magic number. Had I been on one of those flights I would have
>fought. Now, how does one fight against fanatic terrorists? I really
>am seeking what you believe to constitute an effective defense against
>this kind of "war".
Simple: Kill terrorists.
>In a way, this has analogies to the American
>Revolution. The Brits expected the Colonials to "fight fair", which to
>the Brits meant lining up across a field and mowing each other down
>until only one side had men left standing. Now, the we are expecting
>the terrorists to fight us on our terms. It will not turn out that
>way. It's naive to believe that it will. Listen, I'm not afraid to die
>for my principles, but I'm not going to offer my life up for naught just
>because somebody else wants to ram their "moral imperative" down my
>throat.
Are you talking about Bin Laden?
>As an aside, I heard on the radio that Muslims constitute one
>billion people out of the world's population. Now, statistically
>perhaps one in a thousand of those will become radicalized to the point
>of taking action, but tell me, how do you think we defend against a
>million terrorists that will not conveniently die from conventional or
>even technologically advanced weapons and who think nothing of using the
>most vile of weapons of mass destruction?
We root them out and kill them. Tell ME, do you think that these
kooks can be any threat without state sponsorship, shelter and lots of
$$$??
>> >If you advocate going somewhere and just bombing the hell out of a
>> >primitive country because it makes you feel less powerless, well, would
>> >you do that on your own nickle?
>>
>>
>> Sigh it's "nickel".
>>
> Ah, a typing flame....you've done some of those yourself.
>
>> Now, do you state that you believe that we're just indiscriminately
>> bombing Afghanistan?
>
> Even the DoD has admitted to mistargetting multiple
>times...civilians have been killed.
"Mis-targeting". Does that sound deliberate to you? Nothing is
perfect, especially in a world of supersonic speeds and high
explosives.
And whom did the common Germans blame? They blames the countries
exacting a punitive monetary price in the form of horrific
reparations; they blamed the German gov't for "betraying" the army.
They blamed France, and England primarily. Remember, the US wanted to
stay out of WWI too.
>> Whew.................
>>
>>
>> >sheesh, read a little history or condemn yourself to repeat
>> >the same mistakes ad infinitum.
>>
>> Yes, like the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain.
>
> Not to mention the mistakes of Winston Churchill....
Which ones would those be?
>> >> During the Vietnam War, campus protestors hailed the Viet Cong as
>> >> agrarian reformers. It wasn't our war, they wailed. But it was our
>> >> fight -- and millions of dead Cambodians and Vietnamese, who were
>> >> murdered by the victors, wish we'd won it.
>> >
>> > Do you intend to assert that all the people who protested the U.S.
>> >involvement in Viet Nam held this view?
>>
>> Yes. I am old enough to remember.
>
> Yep, so am I......your memory has failed you or else you were blind
>and deaf to anybody who protested on ethical grounds.
>
>>
>> >How naive. Viet Nam was a tar baby for the Brits the French
>> >and then the U.S.
>>
>> We should've never gone to Vietnam without acknowledging that the onlt
>> way to win was eventual conflict with the PRC.
>
> I'd assert that we should never have become involved.....the reasons
>we did were all the wrong ones.
>>
>>
>> >Afghanistan was the same for Russia.
>>
>> The US was aiding the Afghans, the USSR didn't commit it's full weight
>> either. The US is willing to do whatever it takes to stop terrorism.
>
> I don't doubt the commitment, but I highly doubt the effectiveness.
Watch and see.
>
> Hey, if it works, I'll cheer. However, I'm not as sanguine about the
>outcome as you are.
The outcome is a good one, if we follow through.
>> Vietnam is NOT Afghanistan. The PRC and the USSR were BOTH aiding the
>> N. Vietnamese. We knew we could not prosecute the war beyond the DMZ.
>
> Well, talk about a statement of the obvious. However, the
>similarities exist in some ways. In a few years, one of us will get to
>say "I told you so".
Yup.
>> Afghanistan has no "Ho Chi Minh trail".
>
> I'm not sure anybody understands exactly what Afghanistan does have.
>Do you?
They certainly do not have a major world power at their borders
assisting them with logistics, money and men.
Incorrect. The coalition had set an agenda.
>> Yet, the yuppied drive their Expeditions and Navigators....
>
> That must really get your bile going, eh?
I find it irksome that these people can be so hypocritical.
>> >> The current conflict has pacifists scrambling to find new slogans. The
>> >> old ones have such a hollow ring.
>> >
>> > Seems like the people who oppose a bunch of old white guys sending
>> >the youth off to die in some forsaken wilderness have gotten your blood
>> >pressure up a bit.
>>
>>
>> Not me, sonny. I am proud of all our military is doing, while you
>> wait for them to return so you can scream "baby-killers" at them.
>
> Nope, I did not do that in the sixties nor would I do it now. I have
>no problem with members of the military, it's the choices of the people
>who send them off to die in useless battles that I have to wonder about.
>
>> > The souls of 5,000 dead in WTC and the Pentagon are ashamed of you.
>
> I doubt that.....even if they exist, they probably have better things
>to do than worry about debate between you and me.
Nice dodge, though transparent.
an0...@hotmail.com
<Spe...@everywhere.edu> wrote:
>
>Don't ever expect annie to understand logic.
>
Don't ever expect Georgie to understand reality or human nature.
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
www.spearhead-uk.com
<an0...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3be9a565...@news.clt.bellsouth.net...
> Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
>
> As the U.S. deploys more special forces in Afghanistan, other forces
> have mobilized. Professional pacifists have resurrected the moldy
> cliches and self-righteous pieties of the '60s.
>
It is bad to be a pacifist but not as bad as being a bootlicker of the
Jews. Are you a Jew by the way?
"The ultimate cause of this terrorism stems from our involvement in and
support of the criminal behavior of Israel.
TERROR IN RESPONSE TO TERROR
The Palestinians and many of their Arab allies have been the target of a
half century of unrelenting Israeli terrorism.
In the late 1940s the Zionists took over Palestine and drove out over
600,000 people from their homes through widespread acts of terrorism. Among
those events was the sadistic massacre of 254 Palestinian mostly old men,
women and children at Deir Yassin. After the bloodletting, the Jews then
purposely publicized the event so as to make the people flee in panic from
their homes and businesses from which they still haven't been allowed to
return.
Former Israel Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, boasted of the importance of
the massacre of Deir Yassin in his book The Revolt: The Story of the Irgun.
He wrote that there would not have been a State of Israel without the
"victory" of Deir Yassin. "The Haganah carried out victorious attacks on
other fronts... In a state of terror, the Arabs fled, crying, 'Deir Yassin."
(1)
Nor did the massacres cease after the establishment of the Jewish State;
they continued in times of both peace and war. Following are the names of
some of them: Sharafat Massacre, Kibya Massacre, Kafr Qasem Massacre,
Al-Sammou' Massacre, the Sabra And Shatila Massacre, Oyon Qara Massacre,
Al-Aqsa Mosque Massacre, the Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre, the Jabalia Massacre.
(2)
In a policy of ethnic cleansing, Israel continues to keep residents of
Palestine who were born there and whose families lived there for countless
generations, from returning home. At the same time, it gives generous
incentives for genetic Jews who never lived in Palestine to immigrate from
the far corners of the world.
The British also suffered greatly from Israeli terror, such as the
horrendous bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
Israeli terror has not stopped since. Israel has more prisoners per capita
than any other nation of the world, more than Stalinist Russia or Red China
during its worst periods. It routinely tortures its Palestinian prisoners,
and is in fact the only nation in the modern world that legally sanctions
torture. In fact, a Jewish human rights group in Israel confirmed in a
60-page report that 85% of Palestinian detainees undergo torture while in
custody.(3) Even a major New York Times article by the Jewish Joel
Greenburg, stated matter-of-factly that Israel tortures 500 to 600
Palestinians every month.(4)
Israel has targeted and assassinated thousands of Palestinian leaders, and
this includes scholars, clerics, businessmen, philosophers and poets, anyone
who inspires the Palestinian people to patriotism. These assassinations have
occurred all over the world, even in the United States. In the process they
have killed many thousands of women and children. They have even repeatedly
bombed Palestinian refugee camps packed with women and children.
Not only did they establish their Israeli state over Palestinian land, (in
1948 Palestinians personally owned over 90 percent of it) the Jews took
almost all of the Palestinian personal property: the land, farms, homes and
businesses. After they drove out the Palestinian refugees and refused their
return, they then passed an "abandoned property" law that confiscated
Palestinian property and gave to the Jews. The law even has the chutzpah to
forbid ever selling any of their stolen land to Palestinians. (5)
In 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon. During their invasion and 18 year occupation
an estimated 40,000 civilians died. Israel relentlessly bombed and attacked
cities and villages and also many hospitals and orphanages (as documented by
the Norwegian Red Cross) and devastated the ancient and once beautiful city
of Beirut.
The current Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, doesn't dare even step
foot in Belgium or the Netherlands, fearing an indictment of the World Court
for war crimes. Sharon is responsible for the murder of two thousand of
refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon.
Israel shot down a Libyan passenger airliner over the Sinai Peninsula
killing 111 people.
And it is has not just been the Palestinians who have suffered from Israeli
terror.
ZIONIST TERROR AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
Americans have also suffered from Zionist terror. In fact, Israel has
committed a number of acts of war against the United States.
Israel has a long record of terrorism against the United States going all
the way back to 1954. In that year, the Israel government plotted to blow up
American installations in Cairo and Alexandria and blame it on Egyptian
nationals. By chance the plot failed and was uncovered. It was named the
Lavon Affair after the man who supposedly set up the terrorism, Pinhas
Lavon, the Israeli Defense Chief. He resigned in 1955 over the incident. (6)
In 1967, Israel purposefully attacked with unmarked jet fighters and torpedo
boats, the U.S.S. Liberty, an American Navy vessel of the Sinai Peninsula,
even machine gunning the deployed life rafts of the ship. The attack killed
31 American servicemen and wounded over 170.(7) They sought to sink the
ship, kill all the Americans and blame it on the Egyptians so they could
have American support to conquer larger areas of the Arab world.
The attack on the Liberty was nothing short of a vicious act of war against
the United States by Israel. In spite of the fact that U.S. Secretary of
State Dean Rusk and navy chief Admiral Moorer said that the attack on the
USS Liberty by Israel was deliberate. The all-powerful Zionist Lobby
prevented a formal Congressional investigation. If the Lobby can even cover
up horrendous Israeli crimes against America, it's no wonder they can cover
up Israel's endless crimes against the Palestinians. Yet, after the Liberty
attack America didn't even reduce our billions of dollars of aid, in fact
the story quickly vanished from the news after a few short days.
In 1986 Israel actually caused us to wrongly go to war and militarily attack
another nation. The Mossad planted a transmitter in Tripoli, Libya and then
broadcast terrorist messages in Libyan code indicating Libyan responsibility
for killing two Americans in the bombing of the La Belle discothèque in
Germany.(8) (It was later proven that Libya had nothing to do with the
bombing) By use of this fraud, Israel induced the American bombing of Libya.
American bombs wrecked havoc there. One of those killed was the infant
daughter of the Libyan President. It is certainly a dastardly act of war
against a nation to induce it into wrongly attacking another nation. Only a
truly evil enemy of America would do such a thing.
Every Palestinian and Arab is aware that Israel's half century of terror
could never have occurred without the active financial, military, and
diplomatic support of the United States. They know that the Jewish Lobby has
control of American Mideast Policy and the Zionists can get whatever they
want from Congress on issues important to them.
It was American support of Israel's brutal invasion and occupation of
Lebanon in the 1980s that led directly to the bombing of the U.S. Marine
contingent, killing 300 American young men.
THE INVOLVEMENT OF AMERICAN IN ISRAELI CRIMES
Arabs know that almost every bomb that kills their people comes from
America, Every bullet, every tank, and every fighter plane, is manufactured
or paid for by American dollars. It is America's billions of dollars of
support that have enabled the Jewish state to terrorize the Arab people for
half a century.
Even though Israel invaded Lebanon and killed thousands of civilians,
America never threatened to bomb Tel Aviv (as it did Iraq) if Israel refused
to obey UN resolutions to withdraw. A comparison of America's reaction to
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to that of Israel's invasion of Lebanon is
instructive.
America's one-sided policy foreign policy can be illustrated by the
different treatment afforded Israel and Iraq:
1. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Israel invaded Lebanon.
2. Perhaps 3000 Kuwait civilians died in the initial war with Iraq. 40,000
Lebanese
died from the time of the invasion through the occupation.
3. Iraq disobeyed UN resolutions to leave Kuwait. Israel disobeyed UN
resolutions to
leave Lebanon. (for 18 years)
4. Iraq broke international conventions on chemical, biological and nuclear
weapons.
Yet Israel is a far greater offender, having one of the greatest stores
of chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons in the world
5. Iraq refused UN inspections. Israel has always refused UN inspection.
6. For these violations we bombed Iraq. In response to Israel's crimes,
America just
continued to send more billions of dollars.
American foreign policy was and continues to be Israeli policy. Israel was
not threatened with even a cutoff of U.S. aid as thousands of Lebanese
civilians died from the Israeli actions. Iraq was once a friend of America
with whom we bought oil and did much business. America actually supported
Saddam Hussein and Iraq's war with Iran. Iraq did nothing against the United
States, but it made the mistake of becoming a strong enemy of Israel. So the
Jewish and the Jewish-controlled gentile bureaucrats, and Jewish-dominated
media quickly made our former friend, Saddam Hussein, into our archenemy.
We dropped more explosives on Iraq country in a few weeks than we had in the
whole of the Second World War. We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
including tens of thousands of civilians. Then we engaged in a blockade and
embargo of Iraq that even the anti-Iraq United Nations says led to the
deaths of at least 1,200,000 children and hundreds of thousands of elderly.
Let those Americans who don't understand the why of this terrorism
concentrate on this shocking fact. One million, two hundred thousand
children have died as a direct result of our policy toward Iraq.
The Jewish Lobby and the Jewish-dominated media are very careful not to let
the American people fully understand the real reason for the Iraqi war or
the true issues in the Palestinian question. They really don't want
Americans to know why so many millions in the Arab world hate us and why the
number grows larger every day.
They don't want us to know the real reasons why Americans are so hated --
because it is the Jewish bosses of American foreign policy who are the one's
responsible for this growing hatred of America. Imagine the anger and
feelings of despair that would drive men to sacrifice their own lives to get
at us.
The Zionist bosses know that by America's supporting the criminal policies
of Israel spawns hatred against America. They are certainly aware that
bombing and going to war against nations solely for Israel's benefit creates
dedicated and fanatical enemies against America, enemies who will seek
revenge in American blood.
Of course, they never put America's interests first; their own Jewish
interests are always paramount. In actuality, they are fully aware that the
brutal and stupid acts of terror that recently happened in New York and
Washington only help the Zionist cause by engendering enormous American
anger at Israeli enemies, and make Americans more easily manipulated to do
the bidding of Israel.
Think about who really gained from this terror. Have the Palestinians
benefited? This terrorist act destroyed all the progress the Palestinians
have recently made with world opinion. It has blinded the world to Israeli
terrorism. Israel is the only winner in this tragedy. They will now have a
green light to do anything they want against the Palestinians. They can kill
any of their foes whether they are violent or non-violent. They will get all
the money they want from the American people, and no one will be thinking
about their on-going suppression, murder and human rights violations against
the Palestinian people.
No, the Zionists are the only benefactors of the horrendous day of terror on
September 11, 2001. Ironic isn't it, that although Zionist criminal actions
led to this terror, only the Zionists will benefit from it. Of course, they
reason they benefit because the American mass media is completely in their
hands and it will never ask the proper questions of why these horrendous
events are happening. Unfortunately, too few people will ever hear voices
such as mine who dare to challenge the Zionist lies.
That's why we are in this mess, because a foreign power has become the most
powerful lobby in the American government and controls the direction of the
mass communication media in America.
Let me repeat that one more time. The primary reason we are suffering from
terrorism in the United States today is because our government policy is
completely subordinated to a foreign power: Israel and the efforts of
world-wide Jewish Supremacism.
American Flags are flying everywhere in America in the aftermath of the
attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is good, for we need
to be more patriotic. If we were more patriotic for the real interests of
America rather than for Israel, we would not now suffer from terrorism.
And truly, what could be more patriotic than wanting our own country to be
led by our own people in the service of America; not a foreign power or a
powerful minority.
Yes, we must fight tooth and nail against any terrorists who attack our
country. But, we must understand why this terror is occurring, and how it
has been spawned. It has occurred because of long-standing treason against
the United States and her people.
WHAT HAS ZIONISM COST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?
The Jewish Lobby and media power has cost the United States about 6 billion
dollars a year in foreign aid and weapons, almost one third of America's
entire foreign aid budget during the last half century and as much money
spent in America's drug war.
It has poisoned our relations with the oil-rich Mideast nations. In response
to our policies, the Arabs came together and developed their "oil weapon"
which has cost Americans at least ten at least ten trillion dollars in
higher oil costs.
It has alienated the entire Arab world, leading to destruction or
confiscation of billions of dollars of American property in those countries,
kidnapping of American citizens, and generated enormous hatred for the
American people.
How has Israel has paid us back for our support? They have continually
spied on us on us (the Jonathan Pollard Case), sold our highest secrets
(such as to the biggest nucleur threat to us currently in the world: the
Communist Chinese) and stolen our enriched uranium for their illegal
nucleur weapons.
They have launched terrorist attacks against the United States such as the
Lavon Affair and the Attack on the USS Liberty. Both these acts were nothing
short of vicious acts of war against the United States. Providing false
information for America to wrongly go to war against another country is also
nothing less than an Israeli act of war against the United States. Yet, in
response to these despicable actions against America, our Zionist controlled
leaders did not even reduce our billions of dollars of financial and
military aid to Israel. We give Israel about 6 billion dollars in aid each
year, that is more than all the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean
and South America.
What is the latest cost of our subservience to the criminal actions of
Zionism? The latest price we have paid is the horrendous acts of terrorism
on September 11, 2001.
The powerful agents of Israel in American media and government are
ultimately responsible for this terror against the United States just as
surely as if they themselves had piloted those planes into the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.
And now they cynically plan to use the terror that they themselves created
to increase the cycle of violence against Israel's enemies. You can be sure
that the Zionist powers plan to do far more than simply punish the
perpetrators of these events. America will once again be used to strike
against whomever Israel wants.
An indiscriminate or intemperate response from America would ultimately
produce even more hatred against America, and bring more terroristic acts
upon the heads of American people. The increasing cycle of hatred is
exactly want the Zionists want, for their aim that we will fight Israel's
enemies for them, spilling our blood instead of theirs. They are only ones
who truly benefit from America's pain. Rather than Israel, we will pay the
ultimate price.
Unless we heal the wounds and give America a better course, every new
missile and bomb we send will come back to us again. Every life we take in
foreign lands will result in more American lives lost here and abroad.
America will sink more and more into uncertainty and fear.
We must have cool heads now and break this cycle of violence.
Many traitors in our government have supported Zionism's criminal activities
rather than the true interests of the American people. They have spawned the
hatred that drove these terrible acts. Unless their power is broken
Americans will be haunted by an increasing specter of terrorism.
Let us pray for the American victims of these events and for their suffering
families. Let us swiftly and harshly punish the perpetrators of these
dastardly acts.
But, even more importantly, let us understand why these events occurred and
how we can heal the hatred against our nation.
Once we understand the reason why, then we will all agree on the sure way to
prevent such terroristic acts in the future.
The solution to this huge problem is extremely obvious and it is very
simple.
America must heed the farewell address of the Father of our Country and
"avoid foreign entanglements."
And we must always put America and the American People first."
David Duke
September 15, 2001
www.Davidduke.com
FOOTNOTES
1. Begin, M. (1964). The Revolt: The Story Of The Irgun. Tel-Aviv: Hadar
Pub. p.162.
2. Erlich, G. (1992). Not Only Deir Yassin. Hebrew Daily Ha'ir. May 6.
3. Sami Sockol, Moshe Reinfeld (1998) May 20. the Israeli daily,
Ha'aretz
4. Joel Greenberg (1993) Israel Rethinks Interrogation of Arabs Aug. 14
New York Times
5. Badi, J. (1960). Fundamental Laws Of The State Of Israel. New York.
p.156.
6. Bar-Joseph, Uri (1995)Intelligence Intervention in the Politics of
Democratic States: The United States, Israel, and Britain. University Park,
PA: Penn State Press,
7. Ennes, J. (1979). Assault On The Liberty. New York: Random House.
8. Ostrovsky, Victor. (1995) The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent
Exposes the Mossad's
Secret Agenda. New York: Harper
9. See the chapter on media control in my book, My Awakening. Also
available at Davidduke.com
10. Bill Gertz (1993) Washington Times and Michael R. Gordon, New York
Times Oct.13
11. A & L Cockburn (1991) Dangerous Liaison
Alex Vange
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2001 19:07:01 GMT, Joseph Crowe <jcr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> The governments of the world, even Iran agree that the Taliban and
> Club Osama are "fanatics".
>
> We don't care what you "believe".
>
States are fanatics. They want to impose their liberal democracy on the rest
of the world. Actually it is a jewocracy. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Thus another weapon beside that of freemasonry would have to be secured.
This was the Press. The Jew exercised all his skill and tenacity in getting
hold of it. By means of the Press he began gradually to control public life
in its entirety."
George Spelvin
Panhead wrote:
>
> George Spelvin wrote:
> >
> > an0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Pacifism isn't just wrong, it's immoral
> >
> > Jingoism isn't patriotism . . . it is immoral.
>
> Try again
>
> Jingoism \Jin"go*ism\, n. The policy of the Jingoes, so called.
> See Jingo, 2. [Cant, Eng.]
> Jingoism n 1: an appeal intended to arouse patriotic emotions
> [syn: flag waving] 2: fanatical patriotism [syn: chauvinism
> ^^^^^^^^^^
I know what it means, moron. That's why I used the word!
> And who the fuck are YOU to lay claim to what is "immoral" or
> not?
Who the fuck are you to defend the asshole who wrote that pacifism is
immoral? Oh, yeah . . . you are a hypocrite.
satguru schism
We were right, in principal, in trying to stop the spread of a form of
government (socialism, communism, whatever you want to call it) that
has been shown to result in deaths of millions in the past century.
Whether we went about it in the right way in S. Vietnam is clear.
Given the results, our approach was a disaster. The principal,
however, that we cannot allow evil to go unopposed without sacrificing
our own ideals still holds true today.
Just look at Clinton's years in power and the damage that the Left has
been able to do through him.
Regards,
Jack Brooks
Panhead
Not at all, hypocrite.
Pacifists should ...no wait, they usually do die.
Allan Lindsay-O'Neal
Sad little Alex Vange <va...@i1.net> wrote
> The leftist governments of the world and especially of the United
> States are fanatics. They want to impose their liberal democracy on the
rest
> of the world. Actually it is a jewocracy. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf
<CUT>
Main Kampf? You're quoting from Mein Kampf? Alex, little buddy, you have
just *got* to get a life. Put away the nazi shit, get a $10 haircut and a
girlfriend ... things will start to look lots better. Trust me.
George Spelvin
Everyone dies, moron. Hypocrite.
--
"You know, if you find a person that you've never seen before getting in
a crop-duster that doesn't belong to you, report it...." -- GW Bush,
Press Conference, 10/11/01
"I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters
and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport." -- GW Bush,
Washington Post, Oct. 3, 2001
Joseph Crowe
Not bloody likely.
>
> Next!!!
Do you think that if you yell long and loud enough, somebody will
concede out of sheer fatigue? Heh, heh.....you remain a legend in your
own mind.