Let Cindy Sheehan meet the President
Calypso
Let her meet with the President.
That's right. I've finally changed my tune.
Let her meet with the President who thwarted the United Nations
Security Council and made the case for war.
Let her meet with the President who hindered the progress of United
Nations weapons inspectors.
Let her meet with the President who lied about Iraq having weapons of
mass destruction that they'd use on Americans.
Let her meet with the President who killed thousands of innocent Iraqi
civilians.
Let her meet with the President who came to office in a rigged
election, and maintained his grip on power through rigged voting and
militaristic patriotism.
Let her meet with the President who turned his country's media into a
mouthpiece for his fascist and discriminatory policies.
Let her meet with the President who transformed his country into a
single-party dictatorship, sowing fear and resentment against any who
dared to oppose his iron-fisted rule.
Let her meet with the President who proved himself a coward by fleeing
when his country was attacked.
Let her meet with the President who should be brought up on war crimes
charges for his dastardly misdeeds.
Let her meet with the President who spent billions of dollars on
weapons while social welfare programs went unfunded and the poor
continue to suffer for it to this day.
Let her meet with the President who has a track record of invading
Arab Muslim countries for oil.
Let her meet with the President who knew full well about the
bloodthirsty torture and murderous horrors at Abu Ghraib.
That's right. Let her meet with Saddam Hussein.
*Harry Hope
She already has met the President.
"Calypso" <Cal...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dea3h...@news3.newsguy.com...
Mark Fox
> I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
>
> Let her meet with the President.
I heard that she changed her mind and has left Crawford and Texas.
This is so typical of a liberal flip flopper. You liberals change your
mind every day.
>
> That's right. I've finally changed my tune.
See! More liberal flip flopping. What "tune" are you playing today??
No matter, tomorrow it will be different. You liberals can't be counted
on and you can't be trusted.
>
> Let her meet with the President who thwarted the United Nations
> Security Council and made the case for war.
I see that you are diving right into the deep end of the liberal pool
of bald faced lies. The UN Security Council authorized member states
to use "whatever means necessary" to return peace and security to the
middle east:
Here is the declaration of war against Iraq passed by the United States
Congress.
Declaration of war against Iraq (Public law 107-243)
http://www.broadbandc-span.org/downloads/hjres114.pdf
And here is The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) which
was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf
also take a look at the House resolution 104 expressing support of the
President and the troops:
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2003/Oct/09-542589.html
The vote was 392 for supporting the war and the troops and only 11
against.
Here are two of many UN security council resolutions explaining and
authorizing the use of force against Iraq:
UN Security Council resolution 678 authorizing member states to use
"all necessary means" against Iraq to restore peace and security:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm
UN Security Council resolution 1441 declaring Iraq in violation of its
obligatons under previous UNSC resolutions and also a threat to peace
and security:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
These documents cover all the reasons for going to war with Iraq. If
you can't understand these documents then you must
not know how to read.
I also notice that you like to ignore issues like this:
WotTheHell
Mark Fox wrote:
> I heard that she changed her mind and has left Crawford and Texas.
> This is so typical of a liberal flip flopper. You liberals change your
> mind every day.
You damned asshead -- and IGNORAMUS, who does not read the news.
SHE DID NOT CHANGE HER MIND.
Her mother had a stroke, she felt compelled to return home,
but will be back in Texas as soon as possible.
Your asshead conservatives will tell any LIE, and make any
unfavorable comparison in the hope that some other ignoramus
will think you are telling the truth.
In this respect, you are of course following the example
of your GLORIOUS Bike-Riding Leader.
Calypso
old hoodoo
Hey liberal and conservative radical idiots. Why not stop cross posting
on newsgroups where your drivel has no relevance. You have no business
on sci military naval.
>
W. D. Allen Sr.
Cindy" a second time. Every other Bush basher will then expect meetings
with
him on demand any time at their insistence!
"Cynical Cindy" should get lost!
WDA
end
"Calypso" <Cal...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dea3h...@news3.newsguy.com...
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 201 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
Daniel
> I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
>
> Let her meet with the President.
She already did.
Sid9
Bush,Jr should not meet her.
If he did she would immediately become non-newsworthty.
Those of us that oppose the Iraqi war would lose an important voice
Bush,Jr should not meet her.
Daniel
Sid9 wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> > Calypso wrote:
> >> I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
> >>
> >> Let her meet with the President.
> >
> >
> > She already did.
>
> Bush,Jr should not meet her.
He already has.
>
> If he did she would immediately become non-newsworthty.
You mean like she is now?
>
> Those of us that oppose the Iraqi war would lose an important voice
To say that is hilarious. If you want to call one crackpot mom
"important", it shows your idiocy.
>
> Bush,Jr should not meet her.
One more time, he already has.
Calypso
wrote:
Go back and read the whole post...to the end!
Mark Fox
> Read the *entire* post to the end!
>
Are you referring to this part?
> >
> >I also notice that you like to ignore issues like this:
> >
> >http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/wtcjumpers.html
America was attacked on 9/11. What you idiots are not able to
understand is that Bush is not only responsible for killing the people
who did this to america but also making sure that Iraq, Iran and North
Korea don't do something similar. You idiots seem to think that
Americas are somehow not allowed to defend themselves until after they
get killed. That's not how war works. You win a war by making the
other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
Calypso
Go back and read the whole post to the end.
ray o'hara
"Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124639187.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Calypso wrote:
> > I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
> >
> > Let her meet with the President.
>
> I heard that she changed her mind and has left Crawford and Texas.
> This is so typical of a liberal flip flopper. You liberals change your
> mind every day.
her mother had a stroke last week and she had to go to her. but you
repugnuts never let facts get in the way of your screaming.
it was funny seeing the spokeswoman for a "grassroots" anti-cindy sheehan
group{most likely formed by soon to be convicted felon karl rove} cry that
the press went home when cindy sheen left and now they can't get any air
time.
the press has ceased listening to bushrove's lies. so keep screaming its
all thats left.
ray o'hara
"Mark Fox" > America was attacked on 9/11. What you idiots are not able to
> understand is that Bush is not only responsible for killing the people
> who did this to america but also making sure that Iraq, Iran and North
> Korea don't do something similar. You idiots seem to think that
> Americas are somehow not allowed to defend themselves until after they
> get killed. That's not how war works. You win a war by making the
> other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
>
except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
William Hughes
<mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Fox, did you even bother to read what Calypso wrote?
> Calypso wrote:
> > I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
> >
> > Let her meet with the President.
>
> I heard that she changed her mind and has left Crawford and Texas.
> This is so typical of a liberal flip flopper. You liberals change your
> mind every day.
First, she didn't change her mind; her mother had a stroke and Sheehan went to
her bedside.
Second, Calypso ended his post with
> That's right. Let her meet with Saddam Hussein.
It's called "satire", Fox. Calypso was blowing holes in what passes for liberal
argument these days.
Calypso
wrote:
>
>"Mark Fox" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1124639187.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Calypso wrote:
>> > I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
>> >
>> > Let her meet with the President.
>>
>> I heard that she changed her mind and has left Crawford and Texas.
>> This is so typical of a liberal flip flopper. You liberals change your
>> mind every day.
>
>her mother had a stroke last week and she had to go to her. but you
>repugnuts never let facts get in the way of your screaming.
Maybe the stress of Cindy's nutbar public behavior caused her
elderly's mother's blood pressure to get so high she had a stroke.
Cindy doesn't seem to care much for her family
Calypso
>Calypso wrote:
>> Read the *entire* post to the end!
>>
>
>Are you referring to this part?
>
Geez are you humor impaired? Go back and reread my original post. All
the way to the end.
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>
>"Mark Fox" > America was attacked on 9/11. What you idiots are not able to
>> understand is that Bush is not only responsible for killing the people
>> who did this to america but also making sure that Iraq, Iran and North
>> Korea don't do something similar. You idiots seem to think that
>> Americas are somehow not allowed to defend themselves until after they
>> get killed. That's not how war works. You win a war by making the
>> other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
>>
>
>
>
> except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
>arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
Invading Iraq is part of the solution.
"The commander in the field is always right and the
rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise."
General Colin Powell
RJ
a life with the Taliban where she would be very happy with all the other
anti-American assholes.
"Calypso" <Cal...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:deakg...@news1.newsguy.com...
William Black
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
message
> >
> > except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
> >arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
>
> Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
And the US didn't attack North Africa. The isn't a country called 'North
Africa'.
They attacked German soldiers who had invaded North Africa..
Germany had declared war on the USA.
Now several people have already pointed this out to you.
It is possible that you have a problem with your computer.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
D. Patterson
ray o'hara wrote:
> "Mark Fox" > America was attacked on 9/11. What you idiots are not able to
>
>>understand is that Bush is not only responsible for killing the people
>>who did this to america but also making sure that Iraq, Iran and North
>>Korea don't do something similar. You idiots seem to think that
>>Americas are somehow not allowed to defend themselves until after they
>>get killed. That's not how war works. You win a war by making the
>>other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
> arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
>
A U.S. District Court decision has ruled the burden of proof has been
met to establish that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime did assist the 9/11
attackers and was liable for damages for doing so. Another such court
case is pending which also may find that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime
played a role in the 9/11 attacks.
Even if Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime had not participated directly in
the 9/11 attacks, it remains a fact that common enemies engaged in an
ongoing belligerancy against the United States may always find reason to
cooperate in an attack upon their common foe, the United States in the
present or near future. Since Iraq was already engaged in hostilities
against the United States and its Coalition allies, the United States
and the Coalition allies were entirely justified to compel an end to the
Iraqi belligerancy before Iraq could supply any other co-belligerants
with any further aid and cooperation against the united States and
Coalition allies.
> I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's
> not that important. It's not our priority."
> - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
> "I am truly not that concerned about him."
> - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
> 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Al Qaeda and its affiliates will continue to operate no matter whether
Osama bin laden lives or dies in freedom or captivity. Consequently, the
priority is and must be the disruption and destruction of the Al Qaeda
organization and affiliate organizations, and the fate of their leaders
such as Osama bin Laden must remain important yet very much subsidiary
in priority to the crippling and destruction of their organizations and
operations.
Osama bin Laden selected Saudi citizens to conduct the attack for the
purpose of destroying U.S. support for the government of Saudi Arabia.
You are trying to help Osama bin Laden achieve his goal of destroying
the government of Saudi Arabia by disseminating false propaganda which
deceitfully neglects to disclose and recognize the difference between
the Saudi supporters of Al Qaeda versus the Saudi government and Saudi
opponents of Al Qaeda. In other words, you are lying to support Al
Qaeda's objectives because you blindly engage in hate speech against the
Bush Administration.
Kevin Brooks
"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:deappq$rnn$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
> in
> message
>> >
>> > except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
>> >arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
>>
>> Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
>
> And the US didn't attack North Africa. The isn't a country called 'North
> Africa'.
>
> They attacked German soldiers who had invaded North Africa..
And that was all, huh? I seem to recall some French military personnel would
have disagreed with your characterization of who/what we attacked.
>
> Germany had declared war on the USA.
And Vichy France?
>
> Now several people have already pointed this out to you.
>
> It is possible that you have a problem with your computer.
No, more likely you have a problem with your history.
Brooks
D. Patterson
Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:deappq$rnn$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
>>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
>>in
>>message
>>
>>>>except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
>>>>arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
>>>>
>>>Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
>>>
>>And the US didn't attack North Africa. The isn't a country called 'North
>>Africa'.
>>
>>They attacked German soldiers who had invaded North Africa..
>>
>
> And that was all, huh? I seem to recall some French military personnel would
> have disagreed with your characterization of who/what we attacked.
>
>
>>Germany had declared war on the USA.
>>
>
> And Vichy France?
>
>
Vichy France was a participant in the hostilities in North Africa and in
violation of its agreements and representations to the the Allies with
regard to neutral conduct and strict compliance with the terms of the
1940 armistice. In consequence and reply, the Allies began to treat
Vichy France as a belligerant engaged in ongoing hostilities against the
Allies.
Calypso
Let her meet with the President.
That's right. I've finally changed my tune.
That's right. Let her meet with Saddam Hussein.
Colin Campbell
<ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
>message
>> >
>> > except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
>> >arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
>>
>> Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
>
>And the US didn't attack North Africa. The isn't a country called 'North
>Africa'.
There is a geographical area known as 'N Africa.'
BTW, the French in N. Africa never declared war on us.
My point is that we did not attack North Africa because we had been
attacked from there. We attacked it because that was part of our
overall strategy for winning the war.
D. Patterson
Colin Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:58:33 +0100, "William Black"
> <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote in
>>message
>>
>>>>except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
>>>>arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
>>>>
>>>Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
>>>
>>And the US didn't attack North Africa. The isn't a country called 'North
>>Africa'.
>>
>
> There is a geographical area known as 'N Africa.'
>
> BTW, the French in N. Africa never declared war on us.
>
> My point is that we did not attack North Africa because we had been
> attacked from there. We attacked it because that was part of our
> overall strategy for winning the war.
That is a slightly erroneous and misleading statement. In fact, the
Allies were attacked from French possessions in North Africa. Following
the British naval attack on the French fleet in North Africa, the Vichy
French air forces attacked British Gibralter from French Morrocco. Vichy
French controlled Tunisia, the Vichy French merchant fleet, and Vichy
French neurality were used to protect German shipments of war supplies
to the combatant Axis forces in Libya and Egypt against Allied air and
naval attacks. Beyond the French possessions in North Africa, Vichy
France also participated in the hostilities by granting German and other
Axis combat forces the use of Vichy French territories.
Kevin Brooks
"D. Patterson" <n...@fidalgo.net> wrote in message
news:4309442A...@fidalgo.net...
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
>> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:deappq$rnn$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>>>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
>>>in
>>>message
>>>
>>>>>except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
>>>>>arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
>>>>>
>>>>Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
>>>>
>>>And the US didn't attack North Africa. The isn't a country called 'North
>>>Africa'.
>>>
>>>They attacked German soldiers who had invaded North Africa..
>>>
>>
>> And that was all, huh? I seem to recall some French military personnel
>> would have disagreed with your characterization of who/what we attacked.
>>
>>
>>>Germany had declared war on the USA.
>>>
>>
>> And Vichy France?
>>
>>
>
>
> Vichy France was a participant in the hostilities in North Africa
That was exactly my point.
Brooks
William Black
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vpudnRtaA7q...@adelphia.com...
>
> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:deappq$rnn$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> > "Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
> > in
> > message
> >> >
> >> > except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
> >> >arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
> >>
> >> Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
> >
> > And the US didn't attack North Africa. The isn't a country called
'North
> > Africa'.
> >
> > They attacked German soldiers who had invaded North Africa..
>
> And that was all, huh? I seem to recall some French military personnel
would
> have disagreed with your characterization of who/what we attacked.
>
> >
> > Germany had declared war on the USA.
>
> And Vichy France?
Was a legal fiction.
Its head of state was executed after the war for treason.
> > Now several people have already pointed this out to you.
> >
> > It is possible that you have a problem with your computer.
>
> No, more likely you have a problem with your history.
The idea that WWII is comparable with the current small disturbance is
laughable.
Trying to justify US military actions in this way makes you look a fool.
Kevin Brooks
>
>
> Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:58:33 +0100, "William Black"
>> <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote
>>>in
>>>message
>>>
>>>>>except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and saudi
>>>>>arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
>>>>>
>>>>Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
>>>>
>>>And the US didn't attack North Africa. The isn't a country called 'North
>>>Africa'.
>>>
>>
>> There is a geographical area known as 'N Africa.'
>>
>> BTW, the French in N. Africa never declared war on us.
>>
>> My point is that we did not attack North Africa because we had been
>> attacked from there. We attacked it because that was part of our
>> overall strategy for winning the war.
>
>
> That is a slightly erroneous and misleading statement.
Really? Where then is your example of anyone in North Africa attacking the
US prior to Torch?
In fact, the
> Allies were attacked from French possessions in North Africa. Following
> the British naval attack on the French fleet in North Africa, the Vichy
> French air forces attacked British Gibralter from French Morrocco. Vichy
> French controlled Tunisia, the Vichy French merchant fleet, and Vichy
> French neurality were used to protect German shipments of war supplies to
> the combatant Axis forces in Libya and Egypt against Allied air and naval
> attacks. Beyond the French possessions in North Africa, Vichy France also
> participated in the hostilities by granting German and other Axis combat
> forces the use of Vichy French territories.
You need to go back and read the statements preceeding this to understand
the context within which the poster was speaking--it was in regards to the
US attacking other parties (albeit out of necessity) prior to being directly
attacked. The Vichy French had not attacked US units or US territory prior
to the Torch landings.
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
>
> "Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vpudnRtaA7q...@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:deappq$rnn$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>> >
>> > "Colin Campbell" <activa...@earthlink.net (remove underscore)>
>> > wrote
>> > in
>> > message
>> >> >
>> >> > except SADDAM DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA on 911, osama bin laden and
>> >> > saudi
>> >> >arabia did. stop listening to rush "the junkie" limbaugh.
>> >>
>> >> Neither did North Africa attack America in WWII.
>> >
>> > And the US didn't attack North Africa. The isn't a country called
> 'North
>> > Africa'.
>> >
>> > They attacked German soldiers who had invaded North Africa..
>>
>> And that was all, huh? I seem to recall some French military personnel
> would
>> have disagreed with your characterization of who/what we attacked.
>>
>> >
>> > Germany had declared war on the USA.
>>
>> And Vichy France?
>
> Was a legal fiction.
Ohhh...have you informed the families of those personnel who died as a
result of wounds received from said "fictional" forces that their loved ones
are not dead afterall? Not to mention those unfortunate Vichy troops who
died themselves...
>
> Its head of state was executed after the war for treason.
So what? You said we only attacked "German soldiers who had invaded North
Africa" (oddly enough, you used that "North Africa" term after your panties
got twisted when the first poster used the same term...LOL!). Now maybe all
of the history texts I have read are all wrong, but as I recall we also
targeted various Vichy French elements during the Torch invasion, but maybe
I have had it all wrong, as you now have informed me that Vichy France never
existed in the first place. Gosh, it is fascinating what one can learn on
Usenet when conversing with folks of your intellectual caliber! Tell me, can
you correct any other gross historical distortions for me, like maybe the
Cold War was a figment of my imagination and the USSR never really existed,
too?
>
>> > Now several people have already pointed this out to you.
>> >
>> > It is possible that you have a problem with your computer.
>>
>> No, more likely you have a problem with your history.
>
> The idea that WWII is comparable with the current small disturbance is
> laughable.
Uhmmm...nice dodge, Billy. You misspoke when you tied to sharpshoot the
guy...come on and admit it. Or are you still gonna cling to that farsificial
concept that Vichy France did not really exist?
>
> Trying to justify US military actions in this way makes you look a fool.
I have not tried to justify anything either way--I merely noted that your
reposte to the original poster's assertion that the US attacked North Africa
without having been attacked by North Africa first was factually incorrect
when you tried to claim that we ONLY attacked "German soldiers" who had
invaded North Africa. I could really care less what you think of preemption
as a policy against modern threats, nor do I care to try and disabuse you of
your opinions in that regard. But you need to more completely think through
your statements before you make more false assertions (and then feel forced
to fall back on ridiculous crap like claiming that Vichy France never really
existed anyway...God, that one is *rich*! LOL!).
Brooks
>
> --
> William Black
>
BJ
> I have a simpler answer - she DID meet with the president in
> June. But I don't think he will be meeting again with that
> far-leftist, terrorist-supporting bitch so he can hear her stupid
> unfair insults. She can spew her rants while standing on the
> casket of her dead son all she wants.
No sure which part is the "unfair insult?" You mean the fact that
Bush fabricated the WMD to start a war that killed 100,000 people and
in the mean time diverted the army from Afganistan so that the REAL
criminal of 9/11 Bin Laden can go free?
This part? If not, which part?
BJ
>enough. She needs to get a life with the Taliban
>where she would be very happy with all the other
>anti-American assholes.
You mean now Cindy needs to go to Afganistan to capture Bin Laden
herself? What's Bush's job then? Vacation?
Ako...@aol.com
the current conflict looks like the impending collapse of Western
Civilization due to a demographic influx of barbarians, similar to the
collapse of Rome. The UK is in one of the most well protected locations
geographically, since you have no land borders where the barbarians can
just walk over the line and enter your territory (except thru the
Chunnel perhaps :-) so the threat probably seems a very long way off
there, if it exists at all. Plus people in UK seem to get a lot of
their worldview from BBC, which presents a very polished and insightful
picture, but sometimes from an astonishingly delusional perspective,
like a champion racehorse that is wearing blinders and only sees a
small part of the picture. So you guys in UK have probably the most
accurate perception of part of the puzzle, but there is a whole other
region that you can't know about, never having even seen it. No doubt I
am the same way about a lot of things I have not seen, just trying to
point out that the news picture you get is not even close to the
reality of what is going on in some areas, like USA for example. It is
just psychological projection again, filling in the gaps in one's
perception where one has little information by projecting on to it
images from the areas where one has a lot of information. But each
country is so different that if you project images from UK onto USA it
looks absurd to someone who has seen the real thing. Not that I
understand USA very well myself, each day something new catches me by
surprise. The political corruption in the period 1900-1950 is one thing
that fascinates me, the people who were there know a lot about it, but
since it was all kept as secret as possible by the participants, it is
very difficult now to piece together what was happening. For example,
apparently it was normal to buy judgeships in certain areas for a
year's salary. I remember as a kid in a restaurant seeing the owner
hand over to a policeman a bag full of money, and there used to be a
lot of whorehouses and gambling joints in the Bay Area during WW2, I
spent some time waiting for a train once talking to a guy who had been
there. But how can you fill in the gaps and get an accurate picture of
what happened based on present day experiences?
Kevin Brooks
"Ken [NY]" <em...@BelowThe.Text> wrote in message
news:c3okg1duhuh7p8kd6...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:36:41 -0400, Calypso <Cal...@Gmail.com>
> claims:
>
>>I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
>>
>>Let her meet with the President.
>
Geeze. Another guy who obviously did not read the entire post. Read the last
lines of that post before you cram your other foot in your mouth.
Brooks
> June. But I don't think he will be meeting again with that
> far-leftist, terrorist-supporting bitch so he can hear her stupid
> unfair insults. She can spew her rants while standing on the casket of
> her dead son all she wants.
>
> Cordially,
> Ken (NY)
>
> email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
>
> What we are responding to:
> http://www.pentagonattack911.com/wtc.htm
>
> Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which
> lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
>
>
> spammers can send mail to u...@ftc.gov
Howard C. Berkowitz
"BJ" <bjt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Let us say it is the most fair insult in the world. What effect do you
think Cindy Sheehan saying it to him, assuming she is not backed by
cameras, will have? There's a line I've always liked from _The
Manchurian Candidate_. Paraphrasing, it will have the effect of rubbing
a 79-cent jar of drugstore vanishing cream into an aircraft carrier and
expecting the carrier to disappear.
Sounds like much wasted effort.
NRen2k5
>Calypso wrote:
>> I have a very simple solution to the entire Cindy Sheehan affair.
>>
>> Let her meet with the President.
Good, it should be settled, then.
SHE HAS ALREADY MET THE PRESIDENT, DIMFUCK.
- NRen2k5
Mark Test
news:r3vPe.5398$vR3.2...@wagner.videotron.net...
I love them "ditch people", they're funny!
Mark Test
news:mog1h1hm80f1qe2bs...@4ax.com...
> idiotic and unsupported statement "soldiers died for a noble cause."
>
> She realized with that idiocy she need to ask him to come up with
> specifics.
Was that before or after she said her son died for Israel?
Was that before or after her son re-enlisted?
Apparently Casey, God rest his soul, believed it was a noble
cause....doesn't that matter more than what his mother thinks?
Mark
Arved Sandstrom
news:CvbQe.2869$9i4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Having been a serving combat arms soldier for roughly ten years, in both the
CF and the USMC, it doesn't matter what Ma or Pa think. *I* made my own
decisions - presumably the dead lad made his. My entire immediate family and
most of my relatives were so distressed by some of my expeditions that my
mother went into depression, my older sister dropped out of university for a
semester, my friends were scared (I think my Dad was too) - but point being,
you tend to get killed on the sharp end.
AHS
Sid9
"Arved Sandstrom" <asand...@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
news:rLsQe.216476$tt5.62825@edtnps90...
There is a problem with this war.
Bush,Jr attacked the wrong enemy.
Every soldier we lose was wasted by Bush,Jr
The real enemies are untouched while Bush,Jr has us in his quagmire.
D. Patterson
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
[....]
> Having been a serving combat arms soldier for roughly ten years, in both the
> CF and the USMC, it doesn't matter what Ma or Pa think. *I* made my own
> decisions - presumably the dead lad made his. My entire immediate family and
> most of my relatives were so distressed by some of my expeditions that my
> mother went into depression, my older sister dropped out of university for a
> semester, my friends were scared (I think my Dad was too) - but point being,
> you tend to get killed on the sharp end.
>
> AHS
Experience is not the determining factor, however, in attitudes towards
the use of military force or the U.S. War on Terror. This fact is
exemplified by a number of combat veterans I know, among whom are two
men who started their combat experiences as crew members aboard the same
B-17 Flying Fortress with the 15th Air Force during the Second World War.
The first man was recalled to active duty with the U.S. Army ground
Forces in Germany during the Korean War and subsequently became a
religious minister in later years. He has always been a member of the
Democratic Party and served in various capacities which included such
leadership roles as the precinct chairman. He is also a dedicated
pacifist, remains critical of the U.S. Army Air Forces strategic
bombardment campaigns, and opposed virtually all U.S. military
operations and campaigns, including the Second World War in which he
served on a full tour of combat sorties aboard a B-17 Flying Fortress.
The second man remained on active duty after the Second World War,
served with the U.S. Air Force in the Berlin Airlift, Korean War, Berlin
Crisis, and Vietnam. He started out as a member of the Democratic Party
going into the Second World War, started as an admiring supporter of
President Kennedy and began to have serious doubts by the time of the
assasination, was increasingly disillusioned by President Johnson, and
finally fled the Democratic Party during the 1968 election because of
the Democratic Party's nomination of Humphrey and support for McGovern.
He was strongly supportive of President Reagan's confrontation of the
Soviets and the confrontations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Muslim
terrorists.
Despite having the same combat sorties and experiences in the Second
World War, the two men came out of that war and their later experiences
with opposing viewpoints about U.S. use of military force. Likewise
among many other combat veterans, their combat experiences are filtered
through their existing beliefs and prejudices. Consequently, combat
experience is not the determining factor in how combat veterans make
decisions about the policies for using military force.
TOliver
"D. Patterson" <n...@fidalgo.net> wrote...
>
>
>
> Experience is not the determining factor, however, in attitudes towards
> the use of military force or the U.S. War on Terror. This fact is
(snippagio, good stuff)
I'm going to agree with Dallas, but add and amplify from my own
perspective.....
My father's lengthy WWII service in China including medical support for Ho's
small group (support apparently OSS-based in its origin, until we at the
urging of the proKMT wing in the US military, the State Dept., the UK -
loudest - who felt to fail to support the French would guarantee the success
of "local movements" throughout SEA - much of it in their ballpark) and a
trip to the Indochinese Border from Kunming (to resupply and evacuate
casualties of French Foreign Legion column which had determined that its
potential fate at the hands of the Japanese on the bitter edge of defeat
made flight wise) had made him adamantly anti-KMT. My teenage years had led
me to a perspective generally favorable to nationalist movements, especially
those whose virulent hatred of their neighbors - in this case the Vietnam
antipathy toward the Chinese, no matter the politics.
My last two years in college with a professor with whom I had at least one
course per semester plus having adopted him as an advisor altered that view.
He was a veteran of the CIA, an ethnic German East European, and preached a
gospel based on what seemed quite incredible in 1960/61, that the USSR was
at best a hollow shell, and while the potential for revolt of its captive
East Europeans was high, even more dangerous were all those ethnic groups
who professed Islam. He also predicting an era of dissolution/reformulation
in a variety of emerging Middle Eastern states with the emergence of
Fundamentalist Islam as a greater threat than Communism.
Then it was off to the navy, three years in Operations and Weapons of an old
CVA with 24 months of the time in the Med, part of the "trip wire", with
views predicated upon an active and aggressive Soviet which had walled off
Berlin, was sending more units to sea and actively challenging a US
perspective within which the Med was Mare Nostrum. I could still view the
USSR as potentially threatened from within, but no less threatening in its
regional posture and perceived threat level (over-inflated by the INTEL
perspective of the times).
Afterwards came a brief stopover in Viet Nam, a short, short delivery tour
with only a few moments - Well, less than that actually - of anything really
classifiable as combat. It didn't take a grand strategist to observe that
for all the good of our intentions and the quality of the folks involved, we
were seemingly out of tune and out of touch with what was happening in much
of the place. As much as anything in question (in my eyes) was what seemed
an inability to separate the constructive from the destructive, the
successful from the loudly demonstrative, and to comprehend the nature,
commitment and extent of influence of the forces aligned against us - no,
not their logistics support from China or the USSR which our later failure
to better attempt to curtail seems even now incalculably dim-witted, failing
(with intensity and constancy) to bomb the rail line North and to mine and
blockade NVN's only port. A handful of those Hmung mercenaries we had on
the payroll could have stopped the meager flow on supplies through
Sihanoukville with a few days of a terror campaign waged against ships in
port or alongside the piers.
Did RReagan's efforts destroy the USSR? Of course not, but no single man
nor series of actions did so much to speed it to its inevitable but
long-delayable fate. If nothing else, Reagan did far more to convince the
East Europeans of their capacity than anyone else other than that Polish
clergyman of note. After the Czechs in '68 (if not the Hungarians in '56)
our failure to become more aggressively hostile and proactive toward Soviet
hegemony in Europe cost us much in time and national treasure. Captives of
Western European Liberal/Leftist perspectives and traditions of
"coexistence", we failed to challenge the Soviets over situations in which
they would not or could not have "confronted" the US or the West.
While I can charge Bush and his advisers with picking the wrong villain,
WMD, when the right one would have been simpler and easier, the continued
failure of Iraq to meet the conditions of the Gulf War cease fire agreements
(May God forgive us for what was an abysmal failure of national will
then....), and for not comprehending that both the Baathists (out of power
and terminally threatened) and the Jihadists (having spent since about 1918
getting ready to hate us, being prepared for hating us, paid for hating us,
and vocally exercising hatred) remained a threat beyond the capacity of any
pieced-together semi-invented local government to fight or control much less
defeat, the attack on Iraq was certainly and imminently justifiable and of
good intention and potential good result. As in Viet Nam, we spent too much
time imaging that the enemy viewed the world through glasses colored much as
our own. Of course, we'll always deny the Israeli card, be it US politics
or guilt, plays or played any part. One of these days, the Israelis may
again embarrass the US beyond immediate forgiveness, but if that country
will pursue some sort of constructive approach to a "settlement", we are
obligated to pursue policies which contribute to Israeli security.
Attacking Iraq was certainly to some extent predicated on such a policy
(even if we don't care to 'fess up to it).
While it would not be "better" to give the Kurds a semi-autonomous state and
to provide the same for the Shia in the South )leading only to the murders
of all the Shia in Central Iraq, all the Sunni in the South, any Kurds seen
out side of "Kurdistan" and a level of violence comparable to Tutsi-Hutu
relations, it may end up as our only way out of the morass, given that the
Sunni (propped up by Baathist imagination of a return to power) are given to
great intransigence in compromising on a workable system of government.
The US is not very good at "outlasting", and the only "good" solution under
current conditions is simply that approach, to outlast the two septs of the
insurgencies. Having grievously miscalculated Sunni paranoia, it may be too
late to treat or cure that disease. As for the Jihadists, smaller in number
and potentially controllable by an mutually trusting tripartite regime,
their threat is a continued worry down the road. As for a separate Shia
state in the South, I suspect that in a few years and with lots of oil money
to spend, they'll begin to look and talk like Omanis while still supporting
fiery clerics bent on halting any sort of social progress. I'm not much
for stoning, cutting off hands or mistreating the ladies, but I respect the
right of the Iraqi Shia to internalize their views.
Individual views are formulated by a combination of perspective and
experience. While not as "Conservative" as Dallas, I'd characterize my
views as "Harshly Pragmatic". In all honesty, I view the Cindy Sheehans of
the world as gullible naifs. As for the folks sending the money to keep
the pot berling out on Prairie Chapel Road, I drove by to see and hear both
sides. The Sheehanits certainly are more loudly insulting, more
unattractive to view and from further out of town, none of which add to
their credibility. Had the loyal Repubs had any sense, they would have
been careful to spend no money visibly or invisibly, to encourage only local
demonstrators, and to welcome the fervid extremists rather than attempting
to insincerely disavow them. After all, they are colorful, and the couple
calling down damnation, fire and brimstone upon the Sheehanites are better
than some cable channel evangelists.
An aside....
As a friend of mine said: "Pat Robertson wasn't very smart calling for the
US to assassinate Chavez. On the other hand, if some Venezuelan pulls it
off, I'll help him get a book deal, a movie spin-off and a rewarding lecture
tour."
TMO
William Black
"TOliver" <tolive...@Hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rEIQe.2587$Nx....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> While it would not be "better" to give the Kurds a semi-autonomous state
and
> to provide the same for the Shia in the South )leading only to the murders
> of all the Shia in Central Iraq, all the Sunni in the South, any Kurds
seen
> out side of "Kurdistan" and a level of violence comparable to Tutsi-Hutu
> relations, it may end up as our only way out of the morass, given that the
> Sunni (propped up by Baathist imagination of a return to power) are given
to
> great intransigence in compromising on a workable system of government.
Well the 'ethnic cleansing' of the Shia in Central Iraq has already started.
And the Turks are going to be seriously pissed if the Kurds get real
autonomy rather than a client state because any 'Kurdistan' will be seen by
them as a direct threat to their control of the 'Mountain Turks' or 'Turkish
Kurds' (the name depends on where you live)
Turkey is the regional Muslim superpower, a full NATO member and an
aspirant to EC membership, and anyone messing with their control of Turkish
Kurdistan is going to have to take some serious heat, especially when you
remember they control 'de facto' access to the Black Sea.
One thing the USA doesn't need is Turkey and Russia working together against
her.
That's before we even start talking about The Ukraine, a pet EC project...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Mark Test
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:03:02 -0400, Janos Kaldy
> >>
> >Since her first meeting with the president, she has called him a
> >"lying bastard," "filth spewer," "evil maniac," "fuehrer" and the
> >world's "biggest terrorist"
> who is committing "blatant genocide" and
> >"waging a nuclear war" in Iraq. Even leaving aside her not entirely
> >persuasive contention that someone else concocted the obviously
> >anti-Israel and inferentially anti-Semitic elements of one of her
> >recent e-mails --
>
> I've read just about every one of her interviews - both written and
> oral. you have completely mischaracterized all of her statements. but
> that's ok, it's expected form the smear Cindy rovian tactics.
>
May I suggest you read her April 2005 transcript of her addressing
a San Francisco college crowd?
> it is convenient to delete whole potions of Cindy's statement to
> insert only the ones which is out of context to suit their smear
> campaigns and lie about what she said or her meaning.
>
It's not convenient to know that Cindy is anti-American, cozying up to the
likes of the
PLO and Code Pink (headed by a card carrying communist) then?
>
>
> elements of a sort nowadays often found woven into
> >ferocious left-wing rhetoric -- it is difficult to imagine how the
> >dialogue would get going.
>
> reading your statements above you've just exploded the irony meter.
>
> If bush came out and met with her that very day instead of paying GOPs
> operatives and staging fake counter news shows this whole thing would
> be over.
>
> it's that simple.
>
No it's not and you know that. Besides the President already told her
he would not give in to her "demands", actually she is even starting
to sound like a terrorist herself....Therefore, no "negotiation" with
terrorist, policy you know.
>
> "What really hurts me the most is when people say that I am
> dishonoring Casey by my protest in Crawford. By wanting our troops to
> come home alive and well, that I am somehow not supporting them. . . .
> [T]onight, I got up and I talked about Casey. About the sweet boy who
> grew up to be a remarkable young man. Casey was not always a brave,
> big soldier man. He was my sweet, sweet baby once. I told the people
> at the Camp named after him, that when he was about 2 years old, he
> would come up behind me and throw his arms around my legs, kiss me on
> the butt and say: "I wuv you mama." I also talked about the loving big
> brother and wonderful, nearly perfect son."
>
> People of decency can disagree with Sheehan on everything. But people
> of decency can not say what they say about her while considering that
> her son is dead. I think many people, including some good decent
> people, have acted indecently in this matter. They need to consider
> what they have done and what they are doing.
>
Her son died defending this country, doing what HE wanted to do.
Isn't that worth knowing and HEARING about. Enough with the
grieving mother act, she's knowlingly being used and enjoying personal
gain and fame, while exploiting her OWN son. Doesn't that rub you
the wrong way at all?
> It is certainly fair to disagree forcefully with Cindy Sheehan's views
> on the war, and whether her son's death was for a necessary and/or
> worthy cause. I can't imagine anyone could have a problem with that.
> But unforgivable things have been written and said. And that stain
> will not wash away unless good folks on the Right admit that the
> attacks on Cindy Sheehan's character were horribly wrong.
>
Not attacking her, just pointing out the obvious and wondering
why the media is doing this....Sorry if the truth hurts your "cause".
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/25/12043/3445
>
> BTW, why is it ok for bush to lie about his war and create new reasons
> when it's exposed he lied about it? That IS the point. His war and his
> lies about it and his lies to her. So what is the noble reason for
> this war? c'mon you can answer, can't you???
>
Been answered too many times. Besides the left wants, no demands
ONE reason, there is no one reason, but many reasons that do warrant
miltary action in the mid-east.
enialle
wrote:
>"enialle" <eni...@windowless.punkass.com> wrote in message
>news:6v14h159nslblvsas...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:03:02 -0400, Janos Kaldy
>> >>
>> >Since her first meeting with the president, she has called him a
>> >"lying bastard," "filth spewer," "evil maniac," "fuehrer" and the
>> >world's "biggest terrorist"
>> who is committing "blatant genocide" and
>> >"waging a nuclear war" in Iraq. Even leaving aside her not entirely
>> >persuasive contention that someone else concocted the obviously
>> >anti-Israel and inferentially anti-Semitic elements of one of her
>> >recent e-mails --
>>
>> I've read just about every one of her interviews - both written and
>> oral. you have completely mischaracterized all of her statements. but
>> that's ok, it's expected form the smear Cindy rovian tactics.
>>
>May I suggest you read her April 2005 transcript of her addressing
>a San Francisco college crowd?
what specially do you dislike in speech? give me the exact quote and
why.
>
>> it is convenient to delete whole potions of Cindy's statement to
>> insert only the ones which is out of context to suit their smear
>> campaigns and lie about what she said or her meaning.
>>
>It's not convenient to know that Cindy is anti-American, cozying up to the
>likes of the
>PLO and Code Pink (headed by a card carrying communist) then?
she's only "anti American" because you dislike her message. The war is
based on fraud and deceit.
>>
>>
>> elements of a sort nowadays often found woven into
>> >ferocious left-wing rhetoric -- it is difficult to imagine how the
>> >dialogue would get going.
>>
>> reading your statements above you've just exploded the irony meter.
>>
>> If bush came out and met with her that very day instead of paying GOPs
>> operatives and staging fake counter news shows this whole thing would
>> be over.
>>
>> it's that simple.
>>
>No it's not and you know that.
umm you're wrong.
>Besides the President already told her
>he would not give in to her "demands",
when did he "tell" her. I think the fact her son died would be a good
time to explain what noble cause he died. And beside, he met with
another mother twice so it's not like he setting a precedence, now is
it?
Bush has made a lot of idiotic speeches and used GOP sponsored anti
Cindy counter rallies, and paraded around another mother with kids in
the military (none who died) in pro bush rallies (all loyalists to his
cause as per usual)and yet he can't grow some balls and explain what
noble cause he son died for.
actually she is even starting
>to sound like a terrorist herself....Therefore, no "negotiation" with
>terrorist, policy you know.
wow, you sound just like your typical right wing loony toon. Can't
deal with someone who dislikes the war and wants their kids home call
them terrorists. Explains a lot why you voted for Bush.