Would You Die For Clinton?
Snowy
April 1 & 2, 1999
Jim French, USA and Brazil
Re: Would you die for Clinton?
Date: 2 April 1999
SIR - The war against Serbia is now lost for the Americans. The loss of one
plane, and the disappearance of three soldiers is all it took to bring about
the revolt and mutiny now surging within the minds and throughout the ranks
of common American soldiers who hate and despise Bill Clinton far more than
they do any leader in Serbia.
It doesn't matter how much discussion there is about "sending ground troops
into Serbia." There simply aren't any American "ground troops," either Army
or Marines, who are willinig to fight and die for Bill Clinton.
American soldiers recognize illegitimacy perhaps more quickly than any other
element of American society, and unlike the American Senate or the American
media, American ground forces are even now only too happy to say "up yours"
to the man who only a week ago was the world's biggest dirty joke.
American soldiers will tell Bill Clinton to "ram his orders up his ass" if
they are expcted to suffer any loss of life whatsoever on his behalf.
Robert Zapp
Re: Not in the national interest
Date: 1 April 1999
SIR - A conflict? A war? How do you do define this operation?
We can easily draw some parallels. The operation of Nato against the Serbs
is ill conceived, poorly planned, has no exit stategy and is managed from
Washington. Same situation as the US war in Vietnam.
If conscription is reinstated as result of a protracted conflict, I will
finance my son's escape to Canada or some other neutral territory. He will
not fight in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the US.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>Off of the pages of Free Republic. (www.FreeRepublic.com)
>
>April 1 & 2, 1999
>
>Jim French, USA and Brazil
>
>Re: Would you die for Clinton?
>
>Date: 2 April 1999
>
>SIR - The war against Serbia is now lost for the Americans. The loss of one
>plane, and the disappearance of three soldiers is all it took to bring about
>the revolt and mutiny now surging within the minds and throughout the ranks
>of common American soldiers who hate and despise Bill Clinton far more than
>they do any leader in Serbia.
How insulting to claim our soldiers are so pathetically simplistic,
unprofessional, and ignorant of our form of government.
Apologize now, you cur. On behalf of our armed forces, I demand it.
You probably don't even grasp how deeply you smear our fighting men
and women.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
David Annis
wrote:
>Off of the pages of Free Republic. (www.FreeRepublic.com)
>
>April 1 & 2, 1999
>
>Jim French, USA and Brazil
>
>Re: Would you die for Clinton?
>
>Date: 2 April 1999
>
>SIR - The war against Serbia is now lost for the Americans. The loss of one
>plane, and the disappearance of three soldiers is all it took to bring about
>the revolt and mutiny now surging within the minds and throughout the ranks
>of common American soldiers who hate and despise Bill Clinton far more than
>they do any leader in Serbia.
><snip>
With absolutely no regard to internal politics of the United States,
the minute the military shows any sign of violating its oath to uphold
the constitution or of slipping out of the absolute control of the
CIVILIAN executive branch of our government, it would be necessary to
disband it.
This is not a banana republic.
******************************************************
* Dave Annis | With age comes wisdom, if you *
* Sheboygan, WI | stay awake along the way! *
******************************************************
George P. Masologites
>American soldiers will tell Bill Clinton to "ram his orders up his ass" if
>they are expcted to suffer any loss of life whatsoever on his behalf.
That's called 'treason.' Even if some of the soldiers don't feel like
they should fight and die for Bill Clinton, I suspect they'd do so
before fighting and dying _against_ Bill Clinton.
--
George P. Masologites | gui...@mail.serve.com
Space | http://www.serve.com/guilds/astro/
Fanfiction | http://www.serve.com/guilds/ranma/
http://www.luf.org/~jwills/LufWiki/view.cgi/Main/GeorgeMasologites
LufWiki. You know you love it.
"Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur."
Tom Potter
<370551c7....@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>American soldiers will tell Bill Clinton to "ram his orders up his ass" if
>>they are expcted to suffer any loss of life whatsoever on his behalf.
>
>That's called 'treason.' Even if some of the soldiers don't feel like
>they should fight and die for Bill Clinton, I suspect they'd do so
>before fighting and dying _against_ Bill Clinton.
"I vas jus following orders." is not a valid excuse in any government.
It is the responsibility of all America military personnel to refuse orders
that violate the Constitution, and there is ample reason to believe
that Bill Clinton is the one who is violating the Constitution,
not to mention the United Nations and the NATO charters.
Read the Constitution some time.
Bill Clinton is conducting an offensive war,
and only Congress has the authority to declare war.
The only thing that is saving Bill Clinton ass from a treason charge,
is that the present members of Congress have no guts, and they don't
want to take a chance on irritating the public.
If the public opinion changes, and it well could if there is
a downturn in the economy, treason charges could be brought against
Bill Clinton and criminal charges could be brought against Bill Clinton
and any American military personnel who kill innocent folks while
"jus following the orders of Bill Clinton", by an international court,
just as charges were brought against many Germans after WWII.
Note that the international courts have been going after many
international criminals, including previous heads of governments.
If the political winds change, Bill Clinton and some American
military personnel could end up convicted in an international
court for crimes against mankind. And this may be what it will
take to keep Russia, China, India, the Arab nations, Iraq, Iran, etc.
from forming an alliance and engaging America in WWIII.
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
AA
>
> David Annis <dan...@execpc.com> wrote in article
> <7e3fbp$t...@newsops.execpc.com>...
> >
> > With absolutely no regard to internal politics of the United States,
> > the minute the military shows any sign of violating its oath to uphold
> > the constitution or of slipping out of the absolute control of the
> > CIVILIAN executive branch of our government, it would be necessary to
> > disband it.
> >
> > This is not a banana republic.
>
> "showing signs" of being fed up with the Psychopath-In-Chief for some time
> now- this is why officers were court-martialed for exercising their First
> Amendment Rights- oh, but I forget, do I not, that First Amendment Rights
> are posessed only by "progressive" persons....
>
> BTW: America has been a "Banana Republic" since Jan. 20, 1993.
>
> The Instructor
And these "signs" you speak of son are again what 1st amend rights?
Specific details are needed if you want to be an adult someday.Peace
BILL
--
wm...@worldnet.att.net
For discussion of Education, Political &Tax Reform
http://home.att.net/~wmech
k_man18 <ck_r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e3qku$fo1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> I do not think anyone who joins the military is doing it for the current
> president. Could it be for a love of country? Wanting to uphold and
protect
> the rights we enjoy as Americans? The situation is Kosovo is disgusting.
> There is an ethnic cleansing taking place, or in other words, a genocide.
I
> doubt that any troops involved with the stopping of the genocide are doing
it
> for Bill Clinton. I highly doubt that anyone there is thinking, "Hey. I
bet
> Bill will be glad I'm risking my life for HIM and not millions of
Albanians
> being killed because of their religion."
>
> I have a few questions: Why do the Republicans oppose our involvement in
> Kosovo so much? Is it because we have nothing to gain from it? Is it
because
> of the current president? If so, why? Don't say something typical like,
> "Because he's a draft dodger." That would be a bad answer, considering
most
> of you would take a bullet for Rush Limbaugh and he dodged the draft. So
did
> Quayle, Buchanan, George F. Will, etc., etc.
>
> I think anyone, and this is just my opinion, ... I think that anyone who
> opposes our involvement in Kosovo is a selfish, and possibly bigoted
person.
> How can anyone boldly assert that our troops are there at the whim of Bill
> Clinton! Can you think of any other country capable of stopping the
genocide.
> Considering our military is 33% larger than our biggest enemy, I'd say
that
> there is a slim chance of there being a country that can stop the genocide
> without our involvment. I wholeheartedly support our military -- even in
the
> probablility of loosing a few of our own to save the life of millions.
>
> Kramer
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Compaq User
news:7e3qku$fo1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> I do not think anyone who joins the military is doing it for the current
> president. Could it be for a love of country? Wanting to uphold and
protect
> the rights we enjoy as Americans? The situation is Kosovo is disgusting.
> There is an ethnic cleansing taking place, or in other words, a genocide.
I
> doubt that any troops involved with the stopping of the genocide are doing
it
> for Bill Clinton. I highly doubt that anyone there is thinking, "Hey. I
bet
> Bill will be glad I'm risking my life for HIM and not millions of
Albanians
> being killed because of their religion."
I agree with you about the attitude of the troops. They are generally
trusting of their civilian and military superiors.
> I have a few questions: Why do the Republicans oppose our involvement in
> Kosovo so much? Is it because we have nothing to gain from it? Is it
because
> of the current president? If so, why? Don't say something typical like,
> "Because he's a draft dodger." That would be a bad answer, considering
most
> of you would take a bullet for Rush Limbaugh and he dodged the draft. So
did
> Quayle, Buchanan, George F. Will, etc., etc.
Don't focus on Republicans, because there are people on both sides, in both
parties. IMO any opposition has more to do with (a) the wholly inadequate
way Clinton prepared the American people or (b) the fact that it's not
viewed in America's national interest.
> I think anyone, and this is just my opinion, ... I think that anyone who
> opposes our involvement in Kosovo is a selfish, and possibly bigoted
person.
Well, that's poppycock, and I suspect you know it.
> How can anyone boldly assert that our troops are there at the whim of Bill
> Clinton! Can you think of any other country capable of stopping the
genocide.
> Considering our military is 33% larger than our biggest enemy,
Say what? What "biggest enemy" are you talking about? Or, was this just
pulled out of the air?
> I'd say that
> there is a slim chance of there being a country that can stop the genocide
> without our involvment. I wholeheartedly support our military -- even in
the
> probablility of loosing a few of our own to save the life of millions.
How many is "a few"?
> Kramer
Michael J. Kiraly
> If the political winds change, Bill Clinton and some American
> military personnel could end up convicted in an international
> court for crimes against mankind.
Now remember, the guy saying this also says that radio
waves are visible.
AA
>
> In article <7e3nir$ncg$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net> "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >George P. Masologites wrote in message
> ><370551c7....@news.mindspring.com>...
> >>"Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>American soldiers will tell Bill Clinton to "ram his orders up his ass" if
> >>>they are expcted to suffer any loss of life whatsoever on his behalf.
> >>
> >>That's called 'treason.' Even if some of the soldiers don't feel like
> >>they should fight and die for Bill Clinton, I suspect they'd do so
> >>before fighting and dying _against_ Bill Clinton.
>
> >"I vas jus following orders." is not a valid excuse in any government.
>
> >It is the responsibility of all America military personnel to refuse orders
> >that violate the Constitution, and there is ample reason to believe
> >that Bill Clinton is the one who is violating the Constitution,
> >not to mention the United Nations and the NATO charters.
>
> >Read the Constitution some time.
> >Bill Clinton is conducting an offensive war,
> >and only Congress has the authority to declare war.
>
> >The only thing that is saving Bill Clinton ass from a treason charge,
> >is that the present members of Congress have no guts, and they don't
> >want to take a chance on irritating the public.
> Let's see, shall we hang Ronnie Reagan for the war in
> Grenada without Congressional approval, or Georgie Bush's little
> escapade in Panama without Congressional approval?
>
> Ferrel
Finally a beacon in the fog of miseducated and misinfomed people.
And an excellent point. Peace
Learning Center
k_man18
president. Could it be for a love of country? Wanting to uphold and protect
the rights we enjoy as Americans? The situation is Kosovo is disgusting.
There is an ethnic cleansing taking place, or in other words, a genocide. I
doubt that any troops involved with the stopping of the genocide are doing it
for Bill Clinton. I highly doubt that anyone there is thinking, "Hey. I bet
Bill will be glad I'm risking my life for HIM and not millions of Albanians
being killed because of their religion."
I have a few questions: Why do the Republicans oppose our involvement in
Kosovo so much? Is it because we have nothing to gain from it? Is it because
of the current president? If so, why? Don't say something typical like,
"Because he's a draft dodger." That would be a bad answer, considering most
of you would take a bullet for Rush Limbaugh and he dodged the draft. So did
Quayle, Buchanan, George F. Will, etc., etc.
I think anyone, and this is just my opinion, ... I think that anyone who
opposes our involvement in Kosovo is a selfish, and possibly bigoted person.
How can anyone boldly assert that our troops are there at the whim of Bill
Clinton! Can you think of any other country capable of stopping the genocide.
Considering our military is 33% larger than our biggest enemy, I'd say that
there is a slim chance of there being a country that can stop the genocide
without our involvment. I wholeheartedly support our military -- even in the
probablility of loosing a few of our own to save the life of millions.
Kramer
NathanH
wrote:
>I do not think anyone who joins the military is doing it for the current
>president. Could it be for a love of country? Wanting to uphold and protect
>the rights we enjoy as Americans? The situation is Kosovo is disgusting.
>There is an ethnic cleansing taking place, or in other words, a genocide. I
>doubt that any troops involved with the stopping of the genocide are doing it
>for Bill Clinton. I highly doubt that anyone there is thinking, "Hey. I bet
>Bill will be glad I'm risking my life for HIM and not millions of Albanians
>being killed because of their religion."
>
>I have a few questions: Why do the Republicans oppose our involvement in
>Kosovo so much? Is it because we have nothing to gain from it? Is it because
>of the current president? If so, why? Don't say something typical like,
>"Because he's a draft dodger." That would be a bad answer, considering most
>of you would take a bullet for Rush Limbaugh and he dodged the draft. So did
>Quayle, Buchanan, George F. Will, etc., etc.
I, personally, have ambivalent feelings with regard to our involvement
in Serbia (as a conservative that is). I fully support any deterrent
to any mass murder by any oppressive power. Even if our current
president were the foulest man on earth (and certainly believe that he
comes very close to that) I would support any action he takes to
thwart what Milosovic appears to be doing. I, likewise, don't want to
see our children dying in any conflict or military campaign. I have a
14 year old son, that if the worse were to happen, could possibly find
his post high-school years risking his life to dig out entrenched,
war-hardened soldiers in the hills of Kosovo.
The problem that I have with this goes to the motivation of
our current president's initiative. He has exhibited tendencies to
manipulate events in order to present himself in the best light
possible for the sake of his legacy, without regard for values,
principals, and misfortunes of others. He, without scruple,
pre-empted the Republican party by heralding thier party values as his
own, when he obviously had not cherished those values with such relish
previously (i.e. family values, now-defunct electronic town halls,
strengthened crime initiatives).
When a leader maneuvers in this way they become an inherent
threat to his citizenry, for a variety of reason. Many good things
may come from actions, and that is a wonderful thing. However, the
long term damage to the basic underpinnings of our society will be
pevasive and insidious.
>
>I think anyone, and this is just my opinion, ... I think that anyone who
>opposes our involvement in Kosovo is a selfish, and possibly bigoted person.
>How can anyone boldly assert that our troops are there at the whim of Bill
>Clinton!
How can you trust that they aren't? He is a proven liar...he has
cried wolf once to often!
>Can you think of any other country capable of stopping the genocide.
>Considering our military is 33% larger than our biggest enemy, I'd say that
>there is a slim chance of there being a country that can stop the genocide
>without our involvment. I wholeheartedly support our military -- even in the
>probablility of loosing a few of our own to save the life of millions.
>
Your passion is commendable...your view of Clinton is skewed!
Tom Abbott
wrote:
>I do not think anyone who joins the military is doing it for the current
>president. Could it be for a love of country? Wanting to uphold and protect
>the rights we enjoy as Americans?
The American military fights for the United States, not for any
particular person. The usual sentiment among warriors during a war is
they want their leaders to make the maximum effort so the war can be
ended and they can go home.
> The situation is Kosovo is disgusting.
>There is an ethnic cleansing taking place, or in other words, a genocide. I
>doubt that any troops involved with the stopping of the genocide are doing it
>for Bill Clinton. I highly doubt that anyone there is thinking, "Hey. I bet
>Bill will be glad I'm risking my life for HIM and not millions of Albanians
>being killed because of their religion."
They are not thinking about Clinton, they are thinking about their
families.
>
>I have a few questions: Why do the Republicans oppose our involvement in
>Kosovo so much?
Not all Republicans oppose involvement, just a certain segment, who
could properly be described as "isolationists." America has a long
history of isolationism, and this segment of the Republican party is
the embodiment of this line of thought.
I personally think the U.S. *must* be involved in any part of the
world which affects our national interests, and to me, this
necessarily calls for an activist foreign policy, such as we are
seeing in Kosovo now.
> Is it because we have nothing to gain from it?
This is one argument the isolationists use, but I can't see how
letting events spiral out of control can bring us anything but
problems. We should be in there troubleshooting before the problems
get out of hand.
> Is it because
>of the current president?
That no doubt has something to do with it for some in Congress.
> If so, why? Don't say something typical like,
>"Because he's a draft dodger." That would be a bad answer, considering most
>of you would take a bullet for Rush Limbaugh and he dodged the draft. So did
>Quayle, Buchanan, George F. Will, etc., etc.
I think the main problem with Bill Clinton is they don't think they
can trust him to do what he says, and I would agree, and I think it
makes them very nervous to think about Clinton prosecuting a war.
>
>I think anyone, and this is just my opinion, ... I think that anyone who
>opposes our involvement in Kosovo is a selfish, and possibly bigoted person.
Well, they could favor helping the refugees and still oppose
involvement if they thought Clinton's actions would not accomplish the
goal. And a good argument could be made that all Clinton's efforts
so far have not even slowed down Milosevic's depopulation of Kosovo.
>How can anyone boldly assert that our troops are there at the whim of Bill
>Clinton!
I haven't heard anyone say that.
> Can you think of any other country capable of stopping the genocide.
Several countries could stop it, but we are in the best position to
do so (with the unknown of competent leadership).
>Considering our military is 33% larger than our biggest enemy,
There are several countries on Earth that have a larger military
than the U.S.: China, North Korea, and maybe Russia.
> I'd say that
>there is a slim chance of there being a country that can stop the genocide
>without our involvment. I wholeheartedly support our military -- even in the
>probablility of loosing a few of our own to save the life of millions.
>
>Kramer
>
Let's hope Clinton has the will to do what it takes to bring this to
a successful conclusion.
TA
redrum
t...@earthlink.net says...
>
>George P. Masologites wrote in message
><370551c7....@news.mindspring.com>...
>>"Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>American soldiers will tell Bill Clinton to "ram his orders up his
ass" if
>>>they are expcted to suffer any loss of life whatsoever on his behalf.
>>
>>That's called 'treason.' Even if some of the soldiers don't feel like
>>they should fight and die for Bill Clinton, I suspect they'd do so
>>before fighting and dying _against_ Bill Clinton.
>
>"I vas jus following orders." is not a valid excuse in any government.
It is if the alternative is execution.
>
>It is the responsibility of all America military personnel to refuse
orders
>that violate the Constitution, and there is ample reason to believe
>that Bill Clinton is the one who is violating the Constitution,
>not to mention the United Nations and the NATO charters.
This is true, since the military has a duty to uphold the Constitution,
unlike some other countries where the military has a duty to do the
dictator's bidding.
>
>Read the Constitution some time.
>Bill Clinton is conducting an offensive war,
>and only Congress has the authority to declare war.
>
>The only thing that is saving Bill Clinton ass from a treason charge,
>is that the present members of Congress have no guts, and they don't
>want to take a chance on irritating the public.
>
>If the public opinion changes, and it well could if there is
>a downturn in the economy, treason charges could be brought against
>Bill Clinton and criminal charges could be brought against Bill Clinton
>and any American military personnel who kill innocent folks while
>"jus following the orders of Bill Clinton", by an international court,
>just as charges were brought against many Germans after WWII.
Just following orders IS a legitimate defense if you have no choice but
to follow orders. If you have a choice, then it is not. Essentially what
I am saying is that if you literally have a gun to your head you must do
what the person holding the gun tells you to do or die.
>
>Note that the international courts have been going after many
>international criminals, including previous heads of governments.
>
>If the political winds change, Bill Clinton and some American
>military personnel could end up convicted in an international
>court for crimes against mankind. And this may be what it will
>take to keep Russia, China, India, the Arab nations, Iraq, Iran, etc.
>from forming an alliance and engaging America in WWIII.
I would love to see America defeated in WW3. It's about time we were
shown up for the dictatorial state we really are. North America must be
totally irradiated by nuclear missiles and bombs to prevent another
superpower from someday taking root here. Only if America's resources
are forever off limits will that happen.
D. Ferrel Atkins
><370551c7....@news.mindspring.com>...
>>"Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>American soldiers will tell Bill Clinton to "ram his orders up his ass" if
>>>they are expcted to suffer any loss of life whatsoever on his behalf.
>>
>>That's called 'treason.' Even if some of the soldiers don't feel like
>>they should fight and die for Bill Clinton, I suspect they'd do so
>>before fighting and dying _against_ Bill Clinton.
>"I vas jus following orders." is not a valid excuse in any government.
>It is the responsibility of all America military personnel to refuse orders
>that violate the Constitution, and there is ample reason to believe
>that Bill Clinton is the one who is violating the Constitution,
>not to mention the United Nations and the NATO charters.
>Read the Constitution some time.
>Bill Clinton is conducting an offensive war,
>and only Congress has the authority to declare war.
>The only thing that is saving Bill Clinton ass from a treason charge,
>is that the present members of Congress have no guts, and they don't
>want to take a chance on irritating the public.
Let's see, shall we hang Ronnie Reagan for the war in
HOOVER
possibility of salvation. You liberals: Answer the question!!
Ted Holden
wrote:
>No - But I might die from him!
Ever travel around New York or D.C.? Ever drink any of the tap water
when you do?? That would be one prime candidate (there are others)
for a way to die for Slick during the next couple of years. You see,
this illegal assault on a Christian nation which has given us zero
cause for offense legally entitles them to wage any sort of warlike
activities they are capable of against us, and that could easily come
to include major kinds of terrorist activities, like poisoning the
water supplies in DC or NY, like poison gas attacks in the subway
systems around major cities, like a suitcase nuclear device being lit
off 200 yards from the capitol...
I believe Slick's activities have just about guaranteed that we're
going to start seeing things like that within the next year.
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
George P. Masologites
>Ever travel around New York or D.C.? Ever drink any of the tap water
>when you do?? That would be one prime candidate (there are others)
>for a way to die for Slick during the next couple of years. You see,
>this illegal assault on a Christian nation which has given us zero
We're a Christian nation?
I suddenly feel disenfranchised.
deepshooter
dan...@execpc.com (David Annis) wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:44:47 -0500, "Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Off of the pages of Free Republic. (www.FreeRepublic.com)
> >
> >April 1 & 2, 1999
> >
> >Jim French, USA and Brazil
> >
> >Re: Would you die for Clinton?
> >
> >Date: 2 April 1999
> >
> >SIR - The war against Serbia is now lost for the Americans. The loss of one
> >plane, and the disappearance of three soldiers is all it took to bring about
> >the revolt and mutiny now surging within the minds and throughout the ranks
> >of common American soldiers who hate and despise Bill Clinton far more than
> >they do any leader in Serbia.
> ><snip>
> the minute the military shows any sign of violating its oath to uphold
> the constitution or of slipping out of the absolute control of the
> CIVILIAN executive branch of our government, it would be necessary to
> disband it.
>
> This is not a banana republic.
One of the principles established at Nuremberg is that military personnel
have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. Any soldier, not just those in
authority, must consider whether what he is ordered to do constitutes an
inhuman act and violates the conscience to the extent that he knew or should
have known he was committing a war crime. As this is being written, U.S.
military personnel are launching high explosive missiles aimed at civilian
targets inside Belgrade, the capital of a country that has in no way
threatened the U.S. or any of its allies. The military might of the U.S. has
been assigned to support a rebel force which has for years tried to overthrow
the legitimate government of a sovereign nation. Not too long ago, the KLA
was correctly classified as a terrorist organization. The U.S. military must
now be similarly classified.
deepshooter
k_man18 <ck_r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I do not think anyone who joins the military is doing it for the current
> president. Could it be for a love of country? Wanting to uphold and protect
> There is an ethnic cleansing taking place, or in other words, a genocide.
Don't believe all the propaganda fed you by the media. The only genocide
in the Balkans is being perpetrated by NATO.
I
> doubt that any troops involved with the stopping of the genocide are doing it
> for Bill Clinton. I highly doubt that anyone there is thinking, "Hey. I bet
> Bill will be glad I'm risking my life for HIM and not millions of Albanians
> being killed because of their religion."
>
So now the number of Albanians killed is in the millions, is it? How many
million? Six? The propaganda barrage is warping everyone's perception of
what's happening. You don't hear about them very much, but there are between
30,000 and 50,000 well armed and organized guerillas fighting against the
Serbs inside Kosovo, and they are all Albanians. Try to remember that they
are rebels and traitors, and they are trying to kill Serbs and overthrow the
legitimate government in order to get control of Kosovo. Of course,
according to the media and NATO spokesmen, everytime one of the rebels is
killed, it is termed an atrocity, and since they are all Albanian, it is
called "ethnic cleansing."
> I have a few questions: Why do the Republicans oppose our involvement in
> Kosovo so much?
Because it's wrong. Because it's plain murder. Because the people we are
killing haven't done anything wrong. Because the U.S. has no national
interest there. Because it's dangerous. Because it's incredibly expensive
for no good cause.
SuperVice
redrum wrote in message <92310751...@news.remarQ.com>...
>><370551c7....@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>"Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>American soldiers will tell Bill Clinton to "ram his orders up his
>ass" if
>>>>they are expcted to suffer any loss of life whatsoever on his behalf.
>>>
>>>That's called 'treason.' Even if some of the soldiers don't feel like
>>>they should fight and die for Bill Clinton, I suspect they'd do so
>>>before fighting and dying _against_ Bill Clinton.
>>
>>"I vas jus following orders." is not a valid excuse in any government.
>
>>
>orders
>>that violate the Constitution, and there is ample reason to believe
>>that Bill Clinton is the one who is violating the Constitution,
>>not to mention the United Nations and the NATO charters.
>
>unlike some other countries where the military has a duty to do the
>dictator's bidding.
>>
>>Bill Clinton is conducting an offensive war,
>>and only Congress has the authority to declare war.
>>
>>The only thing that is saving Bill Clinton ass from a treason charge,
>>is that the present members of Congress have no guts, and they don't
>>want to take a chance on irritating the public.
>>
>>a downturn in the economy, treason charges could be brought against
>>Bill Clinton and criminal charges could be brought against Bill Clinton
>>and any American military personnel who kill innocent folks while
>>"jus following the orders of Bill Clinton", by an international court,
>>just as charges were brought against many Germans after WWII.
>
>Just following orders IS a legitimate defense if you have no choice but
>to follow orders. If you have a choice, then it is not. Essentially what
>I am saying is that if you literally have a gun to your head you must do
>what the person holding the gun tells you to do or die.
>>
>>Note that the international courts have been going after many
>>international criminals, including previous heads of governments.
>>
>>If the political winds change, Bill Clinton and some American
>>military personnel could end up convicted in an international
>>court for crimes against mankind. And this may be what it will
>>take to keep Russia, China, India, the Arab nations, Iraq, Iran, etc.
>>from forming an alliance and engaging America in WWIII.
>
>I would love to see America defeated in WW3. It's about time we were
>shown up for the dictatorial state we really are. North America must be
>totally irradiated by nuclear missiles and bombs to prevent another
>superpower from someday taking root here. Only if America's resources
>are forever off limits will that happen.
You are a piece of shit.
Tom Potter
>D. Ferrel Atkins wrote:
>>
>> In article <7e3nir$ncg$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net> "Tom Potter"
<t...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> ><370551c7....@news.mindspring.com>...
>> >>"Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>American soldiers will tell Bill Clinton to "ram his orders up his
ass" if
>> >>>they are expcted to suffer any loss of life whatsoever on his behalf.
>> >>
>> >>That's called 'treason.' Even if some of the soldiers don't feel like
>> >>they should fight and die for Bill Clinton, I suspect they'd do so
>> >>before fighting and dying _against_ Bill Clinton.
>>
>> >"I vas jus following orders." is not a valid excuse in any government.
>>
orders
>> >that violate the Constitution, and there is ample reason to believe
>> >that Bill Clinton is the one who is violating the Constitution,
>> >not to mention the United Nations and the NATO charters.
>>
>> >Bill Clinton is conducting an offensive war,
>> >and only Congress has the authority to declare war.
>>
>> >The only thing that is saving Bill Clinton ass from a treason charge,
>> >is that the present members of Congress have no guts, and they don't
>> >want to take a chance on irritating the public.
>
>
>> Grenada without Congressional approval, or Georgie Bush's little
>> escapade in Panama without Congressional approval?
>>
>> Ferrel
>
>
>
>And an excellent point. Peace
The poster makes a good point!
Reagan sent in a small ground force
who took out the Communists in Grenada in one day.
Bush sent in a small ground force
to capture a major player in the drug cartel,
and take back a critical link in world transportation ( The Panama Canal ),
that Billy Carter had foolishly given to a corrupt government in Panama.
Both of these actions were quick, cheap and involved
critical American interests.
It does not take a brain surgeon to understand that
Bill Clinton's interference in this civil war violates
the Constitution, the charters of NATO and the United Nations,
and serves NO American interest.
His interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation
is like saving that it was okay for the South to secede from the union,
and for any ethnic, religious or regional group in America
to engage in domestic terrorism to secede from the union
in this country.
Let's face it.
Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy, power-mad demagogue
and is a serious threat to America and the world.
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
AA
Young republican. Listen. The genocide that is occuring now is not
the way the world should work. Milosevic has been at this since 1991
who else has the power and money to put him back in line? Bulgaria? :)
drak sel
> Excellent question- anyone who answers "yes" to this is far beyond any
> possibility of salvation. You liberals: Answer the question!!
The question points to how Republicans like Bob Barr have undermined the
Executive Office and thus the United States, making the successful
execution of U.S. foreign policy difficult. All of the work of
Republicans in the House and Senate boils down to: undermining Clinton.
That is ALL Republicans have done. As the fruit of their efforts, they
have reduced American prestige and moral authority abroad. The
Republicans' fanaticism has exacted a price that we are still paying and
will continue to pay into the future.
-drak
http://www.truthtree.com
Where the Truth evolves!
D. Ferrel Atkins
One Day? I believe it took more than one day, in
part because -- remember -- the communication system between
the Army and Navy was so screwed up that one office made a
call on a pay phone with his personal phonecard.
That is small consolation to the mothers who lost
sons -- how many were killed? -- as I recall about 20?? // Ferrel
>Bush sent in a small ground force
>to capture a major player in the drug cartel,
I don't know that it was a SMALL ground force; I remember
that they spent a lot of time playing rock music at Noriega's "palace".
>and take back a critical link in world transportation ( The Panama Canal ),
>that Billy Carter had foolishly given to a corrupt government in Panama.
I believe at the time JIMMY Carter was President; Billy was
the one who had a beer named after him.
>Both of these actions were quick, cheap and involved
>critical American interests.
>His interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation
>is like saving that it was okay for the South to secede from the union,
>and for any ethnic, religious or regional group in America
>to engage in domestic terrorism to secede from the union
>in this country.
I was under the impression that Panama was a sovereign
nation. If they want to deal in drugs, do we have the authority to
shoot them up? If we can shoot up a country because it deals in
drugs (of which we disapprove), why can't we shoot up a country]
which deals in murder (of which we disapprove).// Ferrel
>Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Ted Holden
wrote:
>Read the Constitution some time.
>Bill Clinton is conducting an offensive war,
>and only Congress has the authority to declare war.
>
>The only thing that is saving Bill Clinton ass from a treason charge,
>is that the present members of Congress have no guts, and they don't
>want to take a chance on irritating the public.
>
>If the public opinion changes, and it well could if there is
>a downturn in the economy, treason charges could be brought...
Actually, there are a couple of other things which could change public
opinion of Slick as well; a thermonuclear war resulting from Slick's
dog-wagging habits, for instance...
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
Ted Holden
wrote:
>I, personally, have ambivalent feelings with regard to our involvement
>in Serbia (as a conservative that is). I fully support any deterrent
>to any mass murder by any oppressive power. Even if our current
>president were the foulest man on earth (and certainly believe that he
>comes very close to that) I would support any action he takes to
>thwart what Milosovic appears to be doing.
What Slobo is doing is fighting a civil war, much as Abraham Lincoln
did, and fighting to protect the historic old part of Serbia with all
the 1000-year-old slavic churches and monasteries, which Slick and the
Kosovars want to simply hand over to Albania along with the $7
trillion in mineral wealth located there. Slick and his pals are
justifying this on the basis of the "rights" of the Albanian Kosovars
to self-determination despite most of them being illegal immigrants
from Albania and the major political organization representing them
being a terrorist organizartion largely financed by drug money.
Now, just what part of that is supposed to be difficult to understand
or comprehend, or is supposed to give us any sort of a right to bomb a
Christian nation which has given us zero cause for offense? Just what
part of that is supposed to cause us to want to follow this
dog-wagging rapist son of a bitch Slick Clinton into a world war?
The Serbs are being asked to view moslims as happy-go-lucky
euro-yuppies and mosli-yuppies despite the first 500 years or so of
Serbian experience with moslims having amounted to being kidnapped,
raped, burnt alive, skinned alive, and impaled by Mongols, Crimean
Tartars, and Turks. They obviously don't buy it. They plan to put
the 700,000 Serbian refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina in Kosovo
where they figure they belong, and let the Albanian former illegal
aliens find places to live in the Moslim world where THEY belong.
That in fact sounds like a pretty good plan to me at least, or at
least a hell of a lot better plan that Slick the mad-bombing,
dog-wagging, teenage-intern-porking rapist has shown any signs of
having. In fact if we were to put a tiny fraction of the money and
effort we've been wasting into helping the Albanian refugees from
Serbia find homes in the moslim world or as a last resort on one of
our island possessions, we'd be making friends in the world instead of
enemies.
The fact that our media refuses to talk about the 700,000 Serbian
refugees is an indication of how far we have strayed. Jesus himself
spoke of this basic characteristic of bullies and rednecks (i.e. that
they cry bitterly over every perceived injustice to themselves while
viewing their own misconduct as totally normal) thusly:
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out
of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"
Something to think about, while considering the possibility of sending
American soldiers into a meat-grinder such as the world has not seen
since Okinawa and/or turning the word "American" into a synonym for
"barbarian" by continuing to bomb Serbia out of spite after the ball
game is basically over.
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
" Too many folks have disconnected. Few seem aware
that America's acting like ancient Rome, locking us into
life-and-death military commitments in dozens of places
that have nothing to do with our national security. Many
citizens also don't seem to be concerned that the sword
that was designed to protect them is being blunted in
operations that have nothing to do with their defense or,
for that matter, our Founding Father's position on
foreign entanglements. "
Col David Hackworth
LQuest
Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:44:47 -0500, "Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Off of the pages of Free Republic. (www.FreeRepublic.com)
>>
>>April 1 & 2, 1999
>>
>>Jim French, USA and Brazil
>>
>>Re: Would you die for Clinton?
>>
>>Date: 2 April 1999
>>
>>SIR - The war against Serbia is now lost for the Americans. The loss of one
>>plane, and the disappearance of three soldiers is all it took to bring about
>>the revolt and mutiny now surging within the minds and throughout the ranks
>>of common American soldiers who hate and despise Bill Clinton far more than
>>they do any leader in Serbia.
>
>How insulting to claim our soldiers are so pathetically simplistic,
>unprofessional, and ignorant of our form of government.
>
>Apologize now, you cur. On behalf of our armed forces, I demand it.
>
>You probably don't even grasp how deeply you smear our fighting men
>and women.
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Frankly dear Georgie, if they (the military) DON'T react as described, they
would be revealing a total lack of character or intellectual honesty. You
apparently have so little respect for our military that you believe they
function like the typical German soldier in WWII -- an automaton -- devoid of
any judgement, personal virtue or character -- just a mindless pawn of
perfidious politicians. You are dead wrong. I recommend you pray to whatever
heathen idol you worship that you ARE wrong about them. The OFFICE of the
Presidency deserves respect. The HOLDER of such office stands or falls on his
own merit and virtue (or lack thereof).
"Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to
efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we
have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how
brilliant his capacity." --Theodore Roosevelt
--Mike
Bruce
wrote:
> The question points to how Republicans like Bob Barr have undermined the
>Executive Office and thus the United States, making the successful
>execution of U.S. foreign policy difficult. All of the work of
>Republicans in the House and Senate boils down to: undermining Clinton.
>That is ALL Republicans have done. As the fruit of their efforts, they
>have reduced American prestige and moral authority abroad. The
>Republicans' fanaticism has exacted a price that we are still paying and
>will continue to pay into the future.
>
You're right. They should have done just what the Dems did when the
opposition is in the Oval Office or controlling Congress: lay aside
their differences and support him in whatever power-grabbing agenda he
wants. Oh, wait a minute. That's not how it goes. The Democrashes
fight tooth and nail to stop the opposition at every turn, and when
they see they aren't winning the game, they seek to change the rules!
The very same rules they worked out to start with, at that.
Funny how clearly you can see when you don't wrap the banner of either
party around your self so tightly that you constrict the bloodflow to
your brain.
Bruce
George P. Masologites
>>If the public opinion changes, and it well could if there is
>>a downturn in the economy, treason charges could be brought...
>
>Actually, there are a couple of other things which could change public
>opinion of Slick as well; a thermonuclear war resulting from Slick's
>dog-wagging habits, for instance...
If there's a thermonuclear war resulting from this mess, Slick will
probably be tried and executed for crimes against mankind.
Unfortunately, Slick will also then be the _least_ of our worries.
NathanH
On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:25:46 GMT, med...@ix.deniz.com (Ted Holden)
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 02:03:42 GMT, jpj...@psbnewton.com (NathanH)
>wrote:
>
>>I, personally, have ambivalent feelings with regard to our involvement
>>in Serbia (as a conservative that is). I fully support any deterrent
>>to any mass murder by any oppressive power. Even if our current
>>president were the foulest man on earth (and certainly believe that he
>>comes very close to that) I would support any action he takes to
>>thwart what Milosovic appears to be doing.
>
>What Slobo is doing is fighting a civil war, much as Abraham Lincoln
>did, and fighting to protect the historic old part of Serbia with all
>the 1000-year-old slavic churches and monasteries, which Slick and the
>Kosovars want to simply hand over to Albania along with the $7
>trillion in mineral wealth located there. Slick and his pals are
>justifying this on the basis of the "rights" of the Albanian Kosovars
>to self-determination despite most of them being illegal immigrants
>from Albania and the major political organization representing them
>being a terrorist organizartion largely financed by drug money.
>
I thought I was fairly lucid in an underlying implication that I am
not fully informed as to what the geopolitcal situation is over in
that area of the world. I can't readily say 'OK, lets go and nuke the
low-lifes!' as I can't readily say that we have no business over
there. I just don't know enough about the situation to make a
credible and valid determination.
What I was elucidating was that in any case of ethnic
cleansing (wholesale murder) the U.S. has a moral imperative to
intervene by some means, whether militarily or polically. If I gave
you the impression that I was steadfastly in favor of sending troops,
I do apologize. If you believe that the U.S. acting as a deterrent to
genocide is wrongful behavior, then you and I have something to
debate.
JET
>
>
> > Let's see, shall we hang Ronnie Reagan for the war in
> > Grenada without Congressional approval, or Georgie Bush's little
> > escapade in Panama without Congressional approval?
> >
> > Ferrel
>
>
>
> Finally a beacon in the fog of miseducated and misinfomed people.
> And an excellent point. Peace
I don't agree with using force when there is the possibility of a
diplomatic solution. I am not sure that there was in either of the
situations that Ferrel cited....
I suggest both of you look up somthing called the Monroe Doctrine...
There were many Dems/Repugs that supported these campaings and felt they
were vital to American interests....
Even JFK told the Soviets to get their missles the hell out of Cuba or else....
Nobody wants another Cuba in this hemisphere.....
Peace?
k_man18
point. My view of the President is not skewed. Unfortunately I know exactly
what kind of man he is. Trust me, I am not defending him, but I doubt our
involvement is Kosovo is to make him "look good". Albeit, he has impecable
timming. Hehehe.
Kramer
k_man18
>
> > The situation is Kosovo is disgusting.
> >There is an ethnic cleansing taking place, or in other words, a genocide. I
> >doubt that any troops involved with the stopping of the genocide are doing it
> >for Bill Clinton. I highly doubt that anyone there is thinking, "Hey. I bet
> >Bill will be glad I'm risking my life for HIM and not millions of Albanians
> >being killed because of their religion."
>
> They are not thinking about Clinton, they are thinking about their
> families.
You missed my point. I was trying to say that the troops aren't thinking of
Clinton. Perhaps I made that unclear, I am sorry.
I thank you for your reply.
David Annis
<snip>
There you go again. You have a deep-seated, all-encompasing,
non-negotiable hatred of Bill Clinton. Fine. That's your priviledge.
It's even understandable.
Where your trolley has completely jumped the tracks is when you demand
that all the rest of us join you, and you denounce those who do not
agree with you as having "a total lack of character or intellectual
honesty". Have you been ladling out the same slop during the last year
at the 60+% of US citizens who don't want Clinton booted out of
office? Now, are you actually comparing our military to Nazi's, and
calling on them to commit treason and mutiny?
You seem to have an odd definition of intellectual honesty. I was
always under the impression that it included an acceptance of the
possiblity of error and a mind open enough to tolerate an opposing
point of view. You appear incapable of that.
******************************************************
* Dave Annis | With age comes wisdom, if you *
* Sheboygan, WI | stay awake along the way! *
******************************************************
Rich Egan
a half ago and while there I met some US marines. They were nice young
boys who were interesting to talk too. But what I found disturbing was
the attitudes of these young men regarding our Country. For one thing it
seems that much barracks talk was about how many troops it would require
to take and hold Washington DC. It'd very disturbing to hear the men who
are there to protect the nation discussing how to take it. Naturally ,
the reasons that they gave for these discussions were the current
administration and their mishandling of America and it's people.
Another point, A soldier could refuse to fight in the NATO war of
aggression
and not be violating his oath since not even Clinton pretends that this
attack on the Serbs has anything to do with upholding the Constitution.
An American soldier swears to uphold the American Constitution , Not the
UN charter or the NATO "Rules of engagement".
Rich
RHA
>Excellent question- anyone who answers "yes" to this is far beyond any
>possibility of salvation. You liberals: Answer the question!!
Are you saying the Marines in Beirut "died" for Reagan, the
soldiers who died in Panama "died" for Bush as did those in
the Gulf War. The men who died in Vietnam died for Johnson
and/or Nixon; in Korea, for Truman or Eisenhower; in WWII, for
FDR?
You are a fool.
--
rha
LQuest
I notice you have changed the subject of this post. Interesting. What do you
fear about it? But so what? I'll gladly address YOUR particular spin on this
thread:
I do NOT hate BC. I hate and yes rationally FEAR everything his values (or
lack thereof) represent. Human accomplishments at the individual as well as
the national and global level are the result of VALUES. Values based on
morally and pragmatically fraudulent, irrational ideas are a serious threat to
human security and prosperity. The inverse is also true.
>Where your trolley has completely jumped the tracks is when you demand
>that all the rest of us join you,
I demand no such thing. I merely observe that failure to do so will result in
horrendously negative consequences. Humanity is perfectly free to march in
"kun biah" hand-holding lock step straight into oblivion.
>and you denounce those who do not
>agree with you as having "a total lack of character or intellectual
>honesty".
That, sir, depends entirely on HOW they agree or disagree and why they do so.
Most people who post here, like sniveling little brats, simply want what they
want when they want it and to hell with the consequences. I have nothing but
contempt for those kind of people because they're an anti-life force.
>Have you been ladling out the same slop during the last year
>at the 60+% of US citizens who don't want Clinton booted out of
>office?
I've never said I want him out of office. In fact I WANT him to stay out his
term. He is simply the finest possible evidence of the morally fraudulent
ideology of the whining sycophants who support him as decent people could
possibly hope for.
>Now, are you actually comparing our military to Nazi's, and
>calling on them to commit treason and mutiny?
Treason is something Bill Clinton has already beaten them to. When the white
hot flash of Chicom N-bombs finally burst over American cities (and they will)
they will do so in part, due to Bill Clinton's treachery and greed. We will,
at that point get exactly what we deserve for having acquiesced and/or
capitulated to the despicable, amoral, anti-American security values so
promiscuously ejaculated by BJ boy and his army of hellish minions in the
liberal left.
In any case, just like it is morally impossible to cheat a thief, it is also
morally (as opposed to "legally") impossible to commit a crime by telling a
viciously corrupt civilian administration to take their politically motivated
war and just SHOVE IT -- by telling them to call back for military assistance
when there is a real, demonstrable threat to American security interests.
Clinton has deliberately and maliciously eviscerated the U.S. Military over
the last 6 years. He is literally on record that he loathes the military any
way. The fact that he has used them as pawns of his political ambitions by
telling them to bomb more countries than any president since WWII, while
simultaneously vetoing most funding needed for producing re-supply parts and
training, is obviously part of his ultimate revenge against the country and
the military he loathes. When the next president takes over he/she will be
forced to rebuild the military at enormous cost. At that time the sniveling
snot-for-brains left will call him a hawk, a war monger who WANTS kids and old
folks to just eat shit and die. All the while they'll be gloating in the
background at the fact they collaborated with BJ boy to create just such a
scenario so they could use it against the next prez -- should he/she be of
more conservative persuasion.
>You seem to have an odd definition of intellectual honesty. I was
>always under the impression that it included an acceptance of the
>possiblity of error and a mind open enough to tolerate an opposing
>point of view. You appear incapable of that.
Only on issues about which there is credible, demonstrable doubt. Do you have
some of that?
BlueDog
Abortion is a domestic issue. Worldwide atrocities of greater magnitude
than Kosovo have occurred without US intervention ... and are occurring
without US intervention as we speak. The US is not the world's
policeman.
As a policy matter, we have no business being involved in incidences
that do not impact our national interest. As a practical matter, we
could not possibly involve ourselves in every incident that illicits
strong emotions in Americans.
> Right to life? Republicans? Kosovo?
>
> Simon - http://www.tefbbs.com/spacetime/index.html
Dennis '68
But I would die for my country.
You conservatives would ONLY DIE for the myth of the god you call
Reagan.
===
Just remember: when you go to court, you are trusting your fate to
twelve people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!
Dennis
Dennis '68
<370631f5....@news.mindspring.com>, gui...@mail.serve.com stated:
>We're a Christian nation?
>
>I suddenly feel disenfranchised.
No. We are not a Christian Nation. And when the radical right wing
realizes this, America will be a better place.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Not liking the President, fairly elected, obviously is not grounds for
disobeying orders.
You seem not to know that all Presidents have those who think them
curs.
You seem to forget all those who previously blamed all sins on Reagan
and Bush. My mother argued, in all seriousness, that George Bush was
worse than Adolph Hitler.
Look - here is the meta-error you are making. Our freedom is based on
the processes we adopt. It is not based on whether our leaders are
good or bad. This is apparently hard for many people to grasp. We have
the rule of law. Not the rule of men.
If we were to follow the law only when we agreed with the men
administering it, we would soon have tyranny.
That was the wisdom of our founding fathers, in large part. They know
that men many view as good can turn into tyrants.
So the military, in its wisdom, knows to obey civilian orders. They
know, as you do not, the implications of taking the law into their own
hands.
>
>"Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to
>efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we
>have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how
>brilliant his capacity." --Theodore Roosevelt
I guess you're consistent. Wrong, but consistent.
All Presidents are thought dishonest by tens of millions. Should they
disobey the laws he signs?
>
>--Mike
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Don Linsenbach
Victor Smith <vics...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:370baeca...@news.chi.ameritech.net...
> On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:01:33 -0500, BlueDog <pt...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
> >National interest? World's policeman?
> >
> >Abortion is a domestic issue.
>
>
Yea, the parents of 'foreign' babies don't pay US taxes.
> > Worldwide atrocities of greater magnitude
> >than Kosovo have occurred without US intervention ... and are occurring
> >without US intervention as we speak. The US is not the world's
> >policeman.
> >
> NATO is the policeman of Europe. We are a member of NATO.
'Policeman'???
You are mistaken.
Policeman are policeman.
Soldiers are soldiers.
There IS a difference, you know.
>
> >As a policy matter, we have no business being involved in incidences
> >that do not impact our national interest.
>
> If we sit idly by while genocide takes place, we degrade ourselves as
> a people. Our degradation is against the national interest.
Why? Because YOU say so?
Arrogant asshole, aren't you?
>
> > As a practical matter, we
> >could not possibly involve ourselves in every incident that illicits
> >strong emotions in Americans.
> >
> When those emotions dictate that we act, the only 'practical' action
> is to act.
Then ACT !
And stop thinking other people should ACT for you.
Go on, get your gun and get your sorry ass over there, so you can stop the
degradation.
Or are you just blowin' smoke out of your ass again?
>
> --Vic, whose head isn't in the sand, it's in his ass.
>
>
Michael J. Kiraly
>
> Let's face it.
> Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy, power-mad demagogue
> and is a serious threat to America and the world.
>
Let's face it. The guy who said this also believes that he
can see radio waves, and thinks that Billy Carter was once
President of the United States.
Joel Argo
RHA wrote in message <7e6766$9pu$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>...
I though he was asking if you would die for BJ Clinton. Not America.
Cheers,
JArgo.
Uriel And Ezrael
I have but one life, and I sure as hell don't want to waste it on any
Alabanians, or to help bolster our venereal Cummander-in-cheat. I would
give my life (if I had any choice about it) for American children, but they
are not threatened (in any way I can concieve of) by Milosevek and the
Serbs. Clinton's war, on the other hand, if it's not stopped, could one day
swallow them all up. But I'm sure they will be gratefull that it was all
done for them. HAH!
Why don't you lousy Liberals shut about about "the children"? It's quite
clear that you don't give a flying fuck about any of them.
--
Alien Zoology http://home.att.net/~zazel/alienz.htm
M.Simon
M.Simon
Drop it.
I refuse to be ruled by fear.
Simon
===================================================
Victor Smith
>or comprehend, or is supposed to give us any sort of a right to bomb a
>Christian nation which has given us zero cause for offense?
Guess you haven't heard about 'ethnic cleansing', or mass executions,
or hundreds of thousands of innocent children living in cold mud due
to the actions of this 'Chistian nation'.
Hey Holden, all the bullshit you and the other Clinton-hating
peaceniks can dish out won't counteract the horror of human suffering
wrought by your 'Chistian nation' upon the children of Kosovo.
Pictures of that horror will continue to be broadcast each hour of the
day, giving the lie to your words, and ensuring that ground troops
will retake the ground of the Kosovar refugees, so those children will
have their homes again.
Milosevic, the Christian, has sealed his own fate. Hope he goes to
confession.
--Vic, with a different view of Holden's 'Christian nation'.
Victor Smith
wrote:
>National interest? World's policeman?
>
>Abortion is a domestic issue.
How so? Are 'domestic babies' different than 'foreign babies'?
> Worldwide atrocities of greater magnitude
>than Kosovo have occurred without US intervention ... and are occurring
>without US intervention as we speak. The US is not the world's
>policeman.
>
NATO is the policeman of Europe. We are a member of NATO.
>As a policy matter, we have no business being involved in incidences
>that do not impact our national interest.
If we sit idly by while genocide takes place, we degrade ourselves as
a people. Our degradation is against the national interest.
> As a practical matter, we
>could not possibly involve ourselves in every incident that illicits
>strong emotions in Americans.
>
When those emotions dictate that we act, the only 'practical' action
is to act.
--Vic, whose head isn't in the sand.
LQuest
Tyrebiter, Jr.) wrote:
Has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with liking him or hating him. It has
everything to do with his/her competent and, AND whether or not he is truly
loyal to AMERICAN security interests. I have not yet seen ANY evidence the
either is true of BJ boy.
The PROCESSES as you so naively put it, upon which our system is based, are
the product of a host of assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the
President is not a traitor and that he is competent.
>You seem not to know that all Presidents have those who think them
>curs.
>You seem to forget all those who previously blamed all sins on Reagan
>and Bush. My mother argued, in all seriousness, that George Bush was
>worse than Adolph Hitler.
>
>Look - here is the meta-error you are making. Our freedom is based on
>the processes we adopt. It is not based on whether our leaders are
>good or bad.
Au contraire dear fellow. A bad man is a threat to ANY system regardless the
brilliance of its design. A really CLEVER bad man is the ultimate threat.
>This is apparently hard for many people to grasp. We have
>the rule of law. Not the rule of men.
Correction -- we have the APPEARANCE of rule of law with little of the
substance. The OJ trial, the systematic evisceration of the jury system, and
the recent "Monica's willing blabber mouth" debacle demonstrated that on a
grand scale. But this is far more effectively demonstrated in the hundreds of
perfidious laws we have today that did not exist just 30 years ago -- laws
that literally eviscerate the spirit, letter and intent of the rule of law
created by our founders. The RICO act is just one. Anti-financial privacy
laws, drug laws, anti-medical privacy laws, individual movement tracking
mechanisms, like abuse of drivers licensing and widespread abuse of SSNs to
name just a few. I could go on and on with this. What we have in America
today is a comically preposterous cartoon of the kind of society that made
America the most spectacular event in human history for the first 150 years of
its existence. We are now just cruising on the momentum created by our
generational betters of days gone by.
>If we were to follow the law only when we agreed with the men
>administering it, we would soon have tyranny.
We have it now dood. Most Americans are too stupid to realize it -- by
design. In the last 50 years American society has been deliberately and
maliciously dumbed down or silenced by the growth of dependency creating
"something for nothing" welfare programs in combination with a "legs spread
wide" kind of immigration whoring based not upon the individual value of a
given immigrant but upon how well their political pimps could manipulate the
immigration rules. This is NOT a racist attitude. It is a QUALITY of LIFE
for all who deserve to be here based on merit" attitude.
>
>That was the wisdom of our founding fathers, in large part. They know
>that men many view as good can turn into tyrants.
>
>So the military, in its wisdom, knows to obey civilian orders. They
>know, as you do not, the implications of taking the law into their own
>hands.
They are NOT obligated to obey clearly illegal or morally reprehensible
orders. Nor are they obligated to obey orders that are clearly not in the
interest of American security. If they do they are cowards and war criminals.
>>"Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to
>>efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we
>>have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how
>>brilliant his capacity." --Theodore Roosevelt
>
>I guess you're consistent. Wrong, but consistent.
Oh that's revealing -- honesty in our leaders is wrong?
>All Presidents are thought dishonest by tens of millions. Should they
>disobey the laws he signs?
There is a huge difference between being THOUGHT dishonest and being PROVEN so
by evidence and your own admission. The fact that you must have such a
difference pointed out to you is evidence of the very cultural decay I
described earlier in this post.
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government
officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that
are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence
of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the
law scrupulously."
--Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting,
Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Oh if we only believed this!
--Mike
LQuest
>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:01:33 -0500, BlueDog <pt...@geocities.com>
>wrote:
>
>>National interest? World's policeman?
>>
>>Abortion is a domestic issue.
>
>How so? Are 'domestic babies' different than 'foreign babies'?
>
>> Worldwide atrocities of greater magnitude
>>than Kosovo have occurred without US intervention ... and are occurring
>>without US intervention as we speak. The US is not the world's
>>policeman.
>>
>NATO is the policeman of Europe. We are a member of NATO.
Wow! You really ARE naive aren't you. Why is there no parity in participation
(IOW -- it's really just an American adventure with NATO as the excuse and
political justification). What percentage of the TOTAL cost of the operation
is being born by non-American members? If China decides to invade America
will Greece or Macedonia, or Italy send troops to defend US -- a NATO "member"
-- hmmm?
Why is it, dear fellow, that all those lovely little socialist european
countries who inhabit NATO (to sustain the "multi-national pretense of NATO)
are unable to mount an effective military response to Milosevich on their own
-- hmmm? And where is THEIR moral outrage? After all, this 600 year old
civil war is happening in their own back yard. Why should they not be leading
the charge instead of BJ boy puppeteer manipulating hapless American youth in
uniform he so arrogantly loathes and has so thoroughly de-funded, disparaged
and demoralized?
Did you know that in order to skirt the funding requirements for the legally
mandated minimum number of standing army divisions, our eminently and
diabolically clever premier politician, "cum in the nearest young mouth"
Clinton, has simply re-defined the traditional number of troops that define a
standard army division? He reduced it by about 20% so he could brag to the
witless American public that he had reduced the cost of the military without
reducing the number of standing divisions. All this was, of course, ignored
by the lap dog mainstream media.
>>As a policy matter, we have no business being involved in incidences
>>that do not impact our national interest.
>
>If we sit idly by while genocide takes place, we degrade ourselves as
>a people. Our degradation is against the national interest.
Oh really? How does that happen -- by magic? Please sir, describe the
logically bulletproof rationale for this preposterous assertion. Do you
libnuts just make this stuff up as you go?
>> As a practical matter, we
>>could not possibly involve ourselves in every incident that illicits
>>strong emotions in Americans.
>>
>When those emotions dictate that we act, the only 'practical' action
>is to act.
Oh that's rich! Emotions are a valid basis for committing under trained,
under equipped, under funded, demoralized troops to multiple little tyrant hot
spots all over the globe where there is no demonstrable American security
interest (like there was in the Gulf), to fling million dollar missiles at
aspirin factories based on flawed intelligence derived from an equally
eviscerated intelligence community. It's OK to do it for "EMOTIONAL" reasons
but it's not OK to do so if there is some kind of (gag) "self-interest" for
America in it. Tell ya what dood -- let's put YOU out on point when our
troops invade Kosovo. Let's see you put YOUR sorry ass where your mouth is.
>--Vic, whose head isn't in the sand.
...because it's too far up his STD infected liberal ass!
--Mike
LQuest
>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:44:47 -0500, "Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Off of the pages of Free Republic. (www.FreeRepublic.com)
>>
>>April 1 & 2, 1999
>>
>>Jim French, USA and Brazil
>>
>>Re: Would you die for Clinton?
>>
>>Date: 2 April 1999
>>
>>SIR - The war against Serbia is now lost for the Americans. The loss of one
>>plane, and the disappearance of three soldiers is all it took to bring about
>>the revolt and mutiny now surging within the minds and throughout the ranks
>>of common American soldiers who hate and despise Bill Clinton far more than
>>they do any leader in Serbia.
>><snip>
>With absolutely no regard to internal politics of the United States,
>the minute the military shows any sign of violating its oath to uphold
>the constitution or of slipping out of the absolute control of the
>CIVILIAN executive branch of our government, it would be necessary to
>disband it.
>
>This is not a banana republic.
Partially correct. It is the most sophisticated, cleverly camouflaged "banana
republic" ever created. Such sophistication -- the trappings of "rule of law"
with little of the substance, allows the witless, carefully dis-informed,
undereducated American pop-culture to be satisfied with the pathetic pretense
of a "nation under law" by the cynical, self aggrandizing power brokers who
infest the Logic Free Zone.
--Mike
NathanH
On 3 Apr 1999 15:26:32 -0800, Dennis '68 <gamm...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 15:21:47 GMT, in article
><370631f5....@news.mindspring.com>, gui...@mail.serve.com stated:
>
>>We're a Christian nation?
>>
>>I suddenly feel disenfranchised.
>
>No. We are not a Christian Nation. And when the radical right wing
>realizes this, America will be a better place.
>
Yes, we are a christian nation! Our basic moral strictures, legal
structure are based on Judeo-Christian principals. Our coinage
reflects the deference that our founding fathers had for God. The
mention of God in much of our early documents reflects this reverence
for God. The separation of church and state was a precept developed
as an umbrella of protection for the church from the 'state' in a
non-reciprocating relationship. This developed from the abuse of
Henry VII in England relative to the Anglican church and the Roman
Catholic church. If you're interested in the history of this, let me
know, I'd be more than happy to post it.
Mary E Knadler
writes:
>I wouldn't die for Clinton {like I wouldn't die for Bush}
>
>But I would die for my country.
>
>You conservatives would ONLY DIE for the myth of the god you call
>Reagan.
>
>Just remember: when you go to court, you are trusting your fate to
> twelve people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!
>
>Dennis
>
When are you enlisting. Clinton needs you right now.
He thought he was too smart to fight & die in Vietnam.
He was too smart to be wasted on a war in Vietnam.
At least that is one of his reasons for dodging the
draft.
So I guess you're dumber than he is so go die in
Serbia or Kosovo. No Right Winger is stopping you,
are they??????
Mary E Knadler
(George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.) writes:
>
>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:07:44 GMT, lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net
>(LQuest) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 20:51:23 GMT, tyre...@workOMITmail.com (George
Leroy
>>
>>>On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:44:47 -0500, "Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Off of the pages of Free Republic. (www.FreeRepublic.com)
>>>>
>>>>April 1 & 2, 1999
>>>>
>>>>Jim French, USA and Brazil
>>>>
>>>>Re: Would you die for Clinton?
>>>>
>>>>Date: 2 April 1999
>>>>
>>>>SIR - The war against Serbia is now lost for the Americans. The
loss of one
>>>>plane, and the disappearance of three soldiers is all it took to
bring about
>>>>the revolt and mutiny now surging within the minds and throughout
the ranks
>>>>of common American soldiers who hate and despise Bill Clinton far
more than
>>>>they do any leader in Serbia.
>>>
>curs.
>
>You seem to forget all those who previously blamed all sins on Reagan
>and Bush. My mother argued, in all seriousness, that George Bush was
>worse than Adolph Hitler.
>
>Look - here is the meta-error you are making. Our freedom is based on
>the processes we adopt. It is not based on whether our leaders are
>the rule of law. Not the rule of men.
>
>administering it, we would soon have tyranny.
>
>that men many view as good can turn into tyrants.
>
>So the military, in its wisdom, knows to obey civilian orders. They
>know, as you do not, the implications of taking the law into their own
>hands.
>>
>>efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we
>>have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how
>>brilliant his capacity." --Theodore Roosevelt
>
>I guess you're consistent. Wrong, but consistent.
>
>disobey the laws he signs?
>
>
>>
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>
Well, Clinton thinks he's above the law & dodged the draft
& lied about it to boot.
So why we should respect him now. This is an insane military
incursion. Our guys will do as they are ordered but
they really shouldn't have to carry out what this bunch
of incompetants of NATO are doing.
It is immoral & does not even make sense. They are
causing more suffering than they say they want to
stop.
NATO should not even be attacking any soverign country!
I think it has outlived it's purpose & maybe it's time
to scrap it. The "evil empire" it was designed to
protect us from has collapsed.
Now they are attacking small soverign countries that
will not except their occupation troops.
This should have been taken to the UN where more
competant folks might be able to devise a better plan
to help these people realign themselves into more
livable areas.
This has been a fisaco to be laid at the feet of
the "Wicked Witch of the West" Albright.
She is more of an European than an American in
her views of foreign policy. They should "dump"
her, the woman is way out of her league.
yasmin2
Treb 'or
These right-wing TRAITORS sure hand me a laugh! Flooding the
newsgroups with their pathetic propaganda sheets on behalf of the
serbs. About how Hitler took about two weeks to mow them down
(probably took him about that long to stop laughing) How they revere
some spectacular defeat they suffered over five hundred years ago.
Face it - serbs are LOSERS.......a punk country of about seven million
backwater retards and a GNP less than half the size of Kansas.
Can you say looooooooos uh herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Here's the skinny on these so-called Serbs: They're nothing but a
dinky little two-bit nation with delusions of grandeur - a tribe of
Ultra- nationalistic troublemakers who just can't mind their own
business. It's either the Serbs fighting with the Croatians, or the
Serbs fighting with the Bosnians, or the Serbs fighting with the
Albanians - now they're even starting to make trouble for the
Montenegrans. They're the schoolyard bully who just won't leave the
other kids alone. And when NATO finally brings them into the
principal's office to give them their come-uppance, they put on that
hurt and innocent act and complain how we're being unfair. Bull!
The Serbs sorely need to be taken down a peg, and we're just the ones
to do it. And hey, look at it this way - they'll have something to
celebrate for the next five hundred years.
cheers,
Trebor
Michael Zarlenga
: > Let's face it.
: > Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy, power-mad demagogue
: > and is a serious threat to America and the world.
: Let's face it. The guy who said this also believes that he
: can see radio waves
Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Unless
you're blind, you too can see "radio waves."
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
"The problem back then, you'll remember, is that documents were
destroyed and missing. The White House was not cooperating. I
think the contrast is so dramatic."
Hillary Clinton during an NPR interview, inadvertently pointing
out the similarities with the corrupt Nixon administration.
Little Lulu
Mary E Knadler, says...
>So I guess you're dumber than he is so go die in
>Serbia or Kosovo. No Right Winger is stopping you,
>are they??????
>
Right-wingers are stopping openly gay men and women from going! Republicans
always seem to be in front, cheering on the school yard bullies, racists,
gay-bashers, Serbs, etc.!
M.Simon
These Men all believe stupid Willy got us into a mess, but it is up to
the American people to redeem the situation.
John McCain
Bob Dole
Alexander Haig
William Kristol
Henry Kissinger
Donald Rumsfield
Lawrence Eagleburger
Ed Rollins
Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
M.Simon
"Its about humanity and what great nations are about."
M.Simon
We have the opportunity. We have the means.
Do we have the will?
My bet is America's backbone is stiffening.
Is yours?
Victor Smith
<crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
>
>Victor Smith <vics...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:370baeca...@news.chi.ameritech.net...
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:01:33 -0500, BlueDog <pt...@geocities.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >National interest? World's policeman?
>> >
>> >Abortion is a domestic issue.
>>
>> How so? Are 'domestic babies' different than 'foreign babies'?
>>
>
>Yea, the parents of 'foreign' babies don't pay US taxes.
>
Fuck you, Don. Hey, while you're fucking yourself, give yourself
another medal for paying up on a bet.
>> > Worldwide atrocities of greater magnitude
>> >than Kosovo have occurred without US intervention ... and are occurring
>> >without US intervention as we speak. The US is not the world's
>> >policeman.
>> >
>> NATO is the policeman of Europe. We are a member of NATO.
>
>'Policeman'???
>You are mistaken.
>Policeman are policeman.
>Soldiers are soldiers.
>There IS a difference, you know.
>
No shit Sherlock.
>
>>
>> >As a policy matter, we have no business being involved in incidences
>> >that do not impact our national interest.
>>
>> If we sit idly by while genocide takes place, we degrade ourselves as
>> a people. Our degradation is against the national interest.
>
>Why? Because YOU say so?
>Arrogant asshole, aren't you?
>
Fuck you, Don. Go count your money while others die to protect it.
I don't give a shit what you do. You're already out of the loop. I
might suggest you write another post, but since I've already told you
to go fuck yourself, that would be redundant.
>>
>> > As a practical matter, we
>> >could not possibly involve ourselves in every incident that illicits
>> >strong emotions in Americans.
>> >
>> When those emotions dictate that we act, the only 'practical' action
>> is to act.
>
>Then ACT !
>And stop thinking other people should ACT for you.
>Go on, get your gun and get your sorry ass over there, so you can stop the
>degradation.
>Or are you just blowin' smoke out of your ass again?
>
Well Don, before I say fuck you again, let me say that U.S.
military men *are* acting, as you count your money and wail about
income taxes. If called, my kids will serve. If called, I will
serve. I won't need your support, so you can quit paying your taxes.
Now, fuck you.
>
--Vic, clearing up any misunderstanding between me and Don.
Victor Smith
(LQuest) wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 00:26:35 GMT, vics...@ameritech.net (Victor Smith) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:01:33 -0500, BlueDog <pt...@geocities.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>National interest? World's policeman?
>>>
>>>Abortion is a domestic issue.
>>
>>How so? Are 'domestic babies' different than 'foreign babies'?
>>
>>> Worldwide atrocities of greater magnitude
>>>than Kosovo have occurred without US intervention ... and are occurring
>>>without US intervention as we speak. The US is not the world's
>>>policeman.
>>>
>>NATO is the policeman of Europe. We are a member of NATO.
>
>Wow! You really ARE naive aren't you. Why is there no parity in participation
>(IOW -- it's really just an American adventure with NATO as the excuse and
>political justification). What percentage of the TOTAL cost of the operation
>is being born by non-American members? If China decides to invade America
>will Greece or Macedonia, or Italy send troops to defend US -- a NATO "member"
>-- hmmm?
>
Quit humming. You remind me of Monica Lewinsky.
I'll answer that question when you tell me the difference between
'foreign' and 'domestic' babies.
>Why is it, dear fellow, that all those lovely little socialist european
>countries who inhabit NATO (to sustain the "multi-national pretense of NATO)
>are unable to mount an effective military response to Milosevich on their own
>-- hmmm? And where is THEIR moral outrage?
Guess you don't get out much. It appears that NATO's 'little
socialist european countries' will provide 85% of the ground troops
that will soon march into Yugoslavia.
> After all, this 600 year old
>civil war is happening in their own back yard. Why should they not be leading
>the charge instead of BJ boy puppeteer manipulating hapless American youth in
>uniform he so arrogantly loathes and has so thoroughly de-funded, disparaged
>and demoralized?
>
It's real handy having BJ Clinton around to excuse your moral
decrepitude, eh wot, dear chap? Ollie North, former man, also
attempts to use this ploy. But as a matter of fact, U.S. air power
leads the charge because it is the best tool for the job.
As to manipulation of our military, Clinton hasn't a chance in hell.
And your depiction of our military men as 'puppets' and 'demoralized'
will have the same chance of convincing anyone but a fool that
Milosevic needn't be destroyed.
>Did you know that in order to skirt the funding requirements for the legally
>mandated minimum number of standing army divisions, our eminently and
>diabolically clever premier politician, "cum in the nearest young mouth"
>Clinton, has simply re-defined the traditional number of troops that define a
>standard army division? He reduced it by about 20% so he could brag to the
>witless American public that he had reduced the cost of the military without
>reducing the number of standing divisions. All this was, of course, ignored
>by the lap dog mainstream media.
>
You sure do have a thing about blow jobs. Get your mind off sex and
think coherently before calling other people 'witless'.
>>>As a policy matter, we have no business being involved in incidences
>>>that do not impact our national interest.
>>
>>If we sit idly by while genocide takes place, we degrade ourselves as
>>a people. Our degradation is against the national interest.
>
>Oh really? How does that happen -- by magic? Please sir, describe the
>logically bulletproof rationale for this preposterous assertion. Do you
>libnuts just make this stuff up as you go?
>
You idiot. I'm a conservative. As a conservative I believe in a
strong American military, which can not be defeated by the Milosevics
and Husseins of the world. I don't give a shit about Clinton. John
McCain will be President soon, and I want him to start from a position
of strength. In the world of 'logic', we call this 'common sense'.
Regarding America, the world's leading proponent of human rights,
and its most militarily powerful, allowing genocide to occur while
standing by with one thumb up its ass and another in its mouth not
being degrading, and your request that I 'logically' explain it, I can
only suggest that you avoid further use of the word 'logic', lest it
bite you in the ass once more.
.
>>> As a practical matter, we
>>>could not possibly involve ourselves in every incident that illicits
>>>strong emotions in Americans.
>>>
>>When those emotions dictate that we act, the only 'practical' action
>>is to act.
>
>Oh that's rich! Emotions are a valid basis for committing under trained,
>under equipped, under funded, demoralized troops to multiple little tyrant hot
>spots all over the globe where there is no demonstrable American security
>interest (like there was in the Gulf), to fling million dollar missiles at
>aspirin factories based on flawed intelligence derived from an equally
>eviscerated intelligence community. It's OK to do it for "EMOTIONAL" reasons
>but it's not OK to do so if there is some kind of (gag) "self-interest" for
>America in it. Tell ya what dood -- let's put YOU out on point when our
>troops invade Kosovo. Let's see you put YOUR sorry ass where your mouth is.
>
Hey honey, don't get emotional. It's interesting how your emotions
get all wound up about Kuwaiti oil, but you are stone cold about
hundreds of thousands of women and children living and dying in the
mud. Tell ya what dood, I'll take the point. You stay home and do
some more drugs. I don't want you around. Then we'll both be happy.
>>--Vic, whose head isn't in the sand.
>
>...because it's too far up his STD infected liberal ass!
>
What's with the flower children these days? They used to like sex.
Now it appears they're abstainers, afraid of 'STD'. Look, just wash
it good right afterwards and take a piss while your washing it.
Always worked for me. Now this was with whores in various ports
years ago, so I'm not sure the method will be efficacious today, or
that it will work with your wife, but surely a rubber will suffice.
Matter of fact, that'll do us all a favor.
--Vic, with a little friendly advice for the novice.
Victor Smith
>
>These Men all believe stupid Willy got us into a mess, but it is up to
>the American people to redeem the situation.
>
>John McCain
>Bob Dole
>Alexander Haig
>William Kristol
>Henry Kissinger
>Donald Rumsfield
>Lawrence Eagleburger
>Ed Rollins
>
>
>Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
What's sad about this list is its brevity.
--Vic, figuring the list will grow.
Michael J. Kiraly
>
> Michael J. Kiraly (m...@ameritech.net) wrote:
> : > Let's face it.
> : > Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy, power-mad demagogue
> : > and is a serious threat to America and the world.
>
> : Let's face it. The guy who said this also believes that he
> : can see radio waves
>
> Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Unless
> you're blind, you too can see "radio waves."
>
Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, yes, but
not part of the visible spectrum, which constitutes only a small
portion thereof. Get a clue, would you? Sheesh, you're a bigger
idiot than Potter, for Christ's sake. I didn't think that was
possible, but I guess it is.
Michael J. Kiraly
>
> Dennis....
>
> On 3 Apr 1999 15:26:32 -0800, Dennis '68 <gamm...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 15:21:47 GMT, in article
> ><370631f5....@news.mindspring.com>, gui...@mail.serve.com stated:
> >
> >>We're a Christian nation?
> >>
> >>I suddenly feel disenfranchised.
> >
> >No. We are not a Christian Nation. And when the radical right wing
> >realizes this, America will be a better place.
> >
> Yes, we are a christian nation! Our basic moral strictures, legal
> structure are based on Judeo-Christian principals. Our coinage
> reflects the deference that our founding fathers had for God.
Oh, really now?
Michael A. Clem
Don Linsenbach wrote:
> Victor Smith <vics...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:370baeca...@news.chi.ameritech.net...
> > On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:01:33 -0500, BlueDog <pt...@geocities.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >National interest? World's policeman?
> > >
> > >Abortion is a domestic issue.
> >
> > How so? Are 'domestic babies' different than 'foreign babies'?
> >
>
> Yea, the parents of 'foreign' babies don't pay US taxes.
>
> > > Worldwide atrocities of greater magnitude
> > >than Kosovo have occurred without US intervention ... and are occurring
> > >without US intervention as we speak. The US is not the world's
> > >policeman.
> > >
> > NATO is the policeman of Europe. We are a member of NATO.
>
> 'Policeman'???
> You are mistaken.
> Policeman are policeman.
> Soldiers are soldiers.
> There IS a difference, you know.
>
> >
> > >As a policy matter, we have no business being involved in incidences
> > >that do not impact our national interest.
> >
> > If we sit idly by while genocide takes place, we degrade ourselves as
> > a people. Our degradation is against the national interest.
>
> Why? Because YOU say so?
> Arrogant asshole, aren't you?
>
> >
> > > As a practical matter, we
> > >could not possibly involve ourselves in every incident that illicits
> > >strong emotions in Americans.
> > >
> > When those emotions dictate that we act, the only 'practical' action
> > is to act.
>
> Then ACT !
> And stop thinking other people should ACT for you.
> Go on, get your gun and get your sorry ass over there, so you can stop the
> degradation.
> Or are you just blowin' smoke out of your ass again?
> >
> > --Vic, whose head isn't in the sand, it's in his ass.
> >
> >
No, no, no, he's right. We should show our concern by taking up a collection
to pay for his way over there. ;-)
--Mike Clem
deepshooter
ang...@ma.ultranet.com wrote:
> Young republican. Listen. The genocide that is occuring now is not
> the way the world should work. Milosevic has been at this since 1991
> who else has the power and money to put him back in line? Bulgaria? :)
>
Wise Democrat. Hear me. I have serious doubt that genocide is taking place
in Kosovo except that caused by the Clinton administration. There is very
little evidence of atrocities. Observers and humanitarian workers still in
Kosovo have reported seeing no evidence of the mass killings so passionately
reported by CNN and other news organizations. Many of the reports of
killings have proven false when the alleged victims turned up very much
alive. Remember the twenty teachers who were supposed to have been killed in
front of their students? Well, it turns out that the town had only one
teacher in it, and he turns out to be very much alive. Oh, I am sure that of
the hundreds of thousands of Albanians forced out of their homes by the U.S.
bombing and missile strikes, the media can find one or two story tellers who
will relish telling of nonexistent atrocities, but there has been no
supporting evidence whatever. The credibility of the western media is
crumbling, and we shouldn't make serious decisions based on unsupported
statements of well dressed line readers on television.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Don Linsenbach
Treb 'or <tre...@my-dejanews.com> wrote
> The Serbs sorely need to be taken down a peg, and ***we're*** just the
ones
> to do it. And hey, look at it this way - they'll have something to
> celebrate for the next five hundred years.
WE????
Reverse robert talks his long shit when his balls aren't on the line.
It is the height of arrogancy to talk like a man while cowering behind your
mother skirts.
I told you a year ago to watch out for those apron strings cause they will
trip you up.
And here you are, flat on your face, whining like a piss-willy again.
The US is little more than what you have described the serbs as being : the
schoolyard bully.
Going all around the world flexing it's 'silicone injected' muscles.
It is time for that bully to be brought down to reality.
NathanH
Don't get too poised to attack, here. I did not state, by any means,
that the writers of the constitution mandated or commisioned our
monies to state an allegience to God. Monies were still in the stages
of evolution at this time (in fact the 'History Channel' has a very
good documentary on the evolution of american monies). My exact
wording is shown above is "Our coinage reflects the deference that our
founding fathers had for God." You can parse that to your hearts
delight or infer incorrectly with prejudice. You should notice that
in my posting I referred to documents...not necessarily the
constitution, nor could anyone readily infer that I was strictly
referring to the constitution. Our early literature and song our ripe
with the religious commitments that many in our early history
possessed. I will post these, as I have time. So please, feel free
to try to vanquish religious tolerance as you might in this country.
I can tell you that you will most likely fail.
George P. Masologites
>>So I guess you're dumber than he is so go die in
>>Serbia or Kosovo. No Right Winger is stopping you,
>>are they??????
>
>Right-wingers are stopping openly gay men and women from going! Republicans
> always seem to be in front, cheering on the school yard bullies, racists,
>gay-bashers, Serbs, etc.!
Regardless, he _does_ have a point. Anyone who supports Clinton so
fervently _should_ sign up to go fight in Kosovo.
Mike
life on the line. Oh, I forgot you're nothing but a shit talking DEMONcRAT.
Treb 'or wrote in message <3706efa7...@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>These right-wing TRAITORS sure hand me a laugh! Flooding the
>newsgroups with their pathetic propaganda sheets on behalf of the
>serbs. About how Hitler took about two weeks to mow them down
>(probably took him about that long to stop laughing) How they revere
>some spectacular defeat they suffered over five hundred years ago.
>Face it - serbs are LOSERS.......a punk country of about seven million
>backwater retards and a GNP less than half the size of Kansas.
>
>Can you say looooooooos uh herrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
>
>Here's the skinny on these so-called Serbs: They're nothing but a
>dinky little two-bit nation with delusions of grandeur - a tribe of
>Ultra- nationalistic troublemakers who just can't mind their own
>business. It's either the Serbs fighting with the Croatians, or the
>Serbs fighting with the Bosnians, or the Serbs fighting with the
>Albanians - now they're even starting to make trouble for the
>Montenegrans. They're the schoolyard bully who just won't leave the
>other kids alone. And when NATO finally brings them into the
>principal's office to give them their come-uppance, they put on that
>hurt and innocent act and complain how we're being unfair. Bull!
>
>to do it. And hey, look at it this way - they'll have something to
>celebrate for the next five hundred years.
>
>Trebor
>
nycap.rr.com
Dennis '68 <gamm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e680c$9...@drn.newsguy.com...
> I wouldn't die for Clinton {like I wouldn't die for Bush}
>
> But I would die for my country.
>
> You conservatives would ONLY DIE for the myth of the god you call
> Reagan.
>
ass is on the line you call war 'imperialist' and ' immoral' before you run
and hide in England and Sweden. When other people have to pay the price, you
want to save the world from evil. Talk is cheap. Put your life where your
mouth is.
Michael J. Kiraly
Your implication was clear. Dishonest, but clear.
> You should notice that
> in my posting I referred to documents...not necessarily the
> constitution, nor could anyone readily infer that I was strictly
> referring to the constitution.
If the founders believed as you say, then why didn't they ensure that
the Constitution explicitly reflected those beliefs?
> Our early literature and song our ripe
> with the religious commitments that many in our early history
> possessed.
Many in our early history owned slaves and butchered Native
Americans, as well. What is your point?
> I will post these, as I have time. So please, feel free
> to try to vanquish religious tolerance as you might in this country.
Please feel free to set up straw men and knock them down.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
(LQuest) wrote:
>
>
>>All Presidents are thought dishonest by tens of millions. Should they
>>disobey the laws he signs?
>
>There is a huge difference between being THOUGHT dishonest and being PROVEN so
>by evidence and your own admission.
Apparently not. I find Clinton a person with exceptionally good
character. Do you?
And, of course, we are all dishonest. Were we completely honest, we
would have been clubbed to death before leaving childhood.
IKE like about something which really mattered - his heart attack,
before the election. Disobey him?
JFK too lied about his Addison's disease, to deceive voters? Disobey>?
Bush said that Thomas (whose nomination I supported) was the best man
for the job, and that his race played no role in his selection -
obvious lies. Disobey him?
Reagan had maybe seven times as many people in his administration
indicted, convicted or officially investigated for administrative
wrongdoing as Clinton has had - disobey Reagan?
You THINK Clinton dishonest and a cur. IMO you are dead wrong.
Many thought the same things about Reagan and Bush - and I can
certainly provide proof for you, if you want, as to them being
dishonest. Reagan lied about the implications of his budget proposals,
which cost us TRILLIONS! - ask his head of Office of Management and
Budget, Mr. Stockman, who confessed in his book.
SO tens of millions will always have proof a President is dishonest.
What you propose is anarchy.
The best way to resolve our fights over who is a President who should
be obeyed is to rely on the law - not our views of the men carrying
out the law. Legislation, Constitution, courts, and so on.
It is only in following the protections of our laws that we can find
freedom. Doing the right thing, instead of the legal thing, leads to
tyranny. The Ayatollah's hanging judge Khalid brought people in a
hundred at a time, and without letting them even speak, sentenced them
all to die. He was a "good" person. An "honest" person. And he chose
to do the "right" thing instead of the legal thing.
You don';t know it, but what you propose is to adopt the rules of
Judge Khalid.
The fact that you must have such a
>difference pointed out to you is evidence of the very cultural decay I
>described earlier in this post.
No, I am more sophisticated in this than you are, IMO. As were our
founding fathers. Doing the "right" thing sounds so obviously right.
It leads to hell.
>
>"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government
> officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that
> are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence
> of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the
> law scrupulously."
>
Thank you for conceding my point. Such honesty, and such a willingness
to concede error, is rare here. Bravo.
> --Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting,
> Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
>
>Oh if we only believed this!
>
>--Mike
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
LQuest
>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 02:31:48 GMT, lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net
>(LQuest) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 00:26:35 GMT, vics...@ameritech.net (Victor Smith) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:01:33 -0500, BlueDog <pt...@geocities.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>National interest? World's policeman?
>>>>
>>>>Abortion is a domestic issue.
>>>
>>>How so? Are 'domestic babies' different than 'foreign babies'?
>>>
>>>> Worldwide atrocities of greater magnitude
>>>>than Kosovo have occurred without US intervention ... and are occurring
>>>>without US intervention as we speak. The US is not the world's
>>>>policeman.
>>>>
>>>NATO is the policeman of Europe. We are a member of NATO.
>>
>>Wow! You really ARE naive aren't you. Why is there no parity in participation
>>(IOW -- it's really just an American adventure with NATO as the excuse and
>>political justification). What percentage of the TOTAL cost of the operation
>>is being born by non-American members? If China decides to invade America
>>will Greece or Macedonia, or Italy send troops to defend US -- a NATO "member"
>>-- hmmm?
>>
>Quit humming. You remind me of Monica Lewinsky.
>I'll answer that question when you tell me the difference between
>'foreign' and 'domestic' babies.
There is no difference. That's a different debate.
>>Why is it, dear fellow, that all those lovely little socialist european
>>countries who inhabit NATO (to sustain the "multi-national pretense of NATO)
>>are unable to mount an effective military response to Milosevich on their own
>>-- hmmm? And where is THEIR moral outrage?
>
>Guess you don't get out much. It appears that NATO's 'little
>socialist european countries' will provide 85% of the ground troops
>that will soon march into Yugoslavia.
Credible source please. If this is true then why is it not 100%
>> After all, this 600 year old
>>civil war is happening in their own back yard. Why should they not be leading
>>the charge instead of BJ boy puppeteer manipulating hapless American youth in
>>uniform he so arrogantly loathes and has so thoroughly de-funded, disparaged
>>and demoralized?
>>
>It's real handy having BJ Clinton around to excuse your moral
>decrepitude, eh wot, dear chap? Ollie North, former man, also
Your definition of moral is irrelevant here. Well informed, enlightened self
interest is the sole source of all morality. Fraudulent morality results
from pure emotion. But that's another debate WAY beyond the scope of this
medium.
>attempts to use this ploy. But as a matter of fact, U.S. air power
>leads the charge because it is the best tool for the job.
And why is that? If the Chico ms North Korean Communists invade Alaska, will
the Italians or Spanish or Portuguese or Germans or Swedes send their air
force and navy to help us repel them?
>As to manipulation of our military, Clinton hasn't a chance in hell.
Sorry dood. Already doing it.
>And your depiction of our military men as 'puppets' and 'demoralized'
>will have the same chance of convincing anyone but a fool that
>Milosevic needn't be destroyed.
Oh Melosevic DOES need to be shot in a public square. But we're not the ones
to do it or even make it possible. But of course ALL of that is based on a
GIGANTIC leap of faith -- that we're actually being told the truth, the WHOLE
truth and nothing BUT the truth about the whole affair in Serbia. Sorry, this
world is just too twisted by diabolical politicians (like BJ boy) and their
army of media sycophants to take anything reported in the mainstream media at
total face value.
>>Did you know that in order to skirt the funding requirements for the legally
>>mandated minimum number of standing army divisions, our eminently and
>>diabolically clever premier politician, "cum in the nearest young mouth"
>>Clinton, has simply re-defined the traditional number of troops that define a
>>standard army division? He reduced it by about 20% so he could brag to the
>>witless American public that he had reduced the cost of the military without
>>reducing the number of standing divisions. All this was, of course, ignored
>>by the lap dog mainstream media.
>>
>You sure do have a thing about blow jobs. Get your mind off sex and
>think coherently before calling other people 'witless'.
Yeah -- you and your Golden boy worshipping ilk would just LOVE for all of us
to forget about the skank in the White House. What's wrong dood -- does it
embarrass you to have your ideological pet yanked so harshly and justly into
the light of public scrutiny?
>>>>As a policy matter, we have no business being involved in incidences
>>>>that do not impact our national interest.
>>>
>>>If we sit idly by while genocide takes place, we degrade ourselves as
>>>a people. Our degradation is against the national interest.
>>
>>Oh really? How does that happen -- by magic? Please sir, describe the
>>logically bulletproof rationale for this preposterous assertion. Do you
>>libnuts just make this stuff up as you go?
>>
>You idiot. I'm a conservative. As a conservative I believe in a
>strong American military, which can not be defeated by the Milosevics
>and Husseins of the world. I don't give a shit about Clinton. John
>McCain will be President soon, and I want him to start from a position
>of strength. In the world of 'logic', we call this 'common sense'.
>Regarding America, the world's leading proponent of human rights,
Oh really. Then let's start by having some here -- beginning with one of the
most important of all inviolable human rights -- the right to travel and
conduct harmless commerce in TOTAL, un-scrutinized, unrecorded privacy -- OK?
How about repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. How about repealing asset
forfeiture laws. How about repealing ALL laws that make it illegal to create
and operate a totally private bank. How about forcing the IRS, the BATF, the
FDA, the FCC the DOJ the EPA et. all to actually obey the same laws they
enforce? How about enforcing the Freedom of Information Act? How about
actually enforcing the 9th and 10th Amendments? How about repealing the RICO
Act? How about restoring State Sovereignty to it's originally intended
status? How about ending our stupendously destructive, legally codified class
war --the ones that sacrifice productive genius to envious mediocrity? How
about ending ALL forms of GROUP rights -- making us truly a nation where ALL
Men are actually EQUAL under law? In short how about actually being what we
so comically pretend to be?
>and its most militarily powerful, allowing genocide to occur while
>standing by with one thumb up its ass and another in its mouth not
>being degrading, and your request that I 'logically' explain it, I can
>only suggest that you avoid further use of the word 'logic', lest it
>bite you in the ass once more.
America is not responsible for the bad choices made by other cultures. But if
we must help, why not just arm the KLA and let them fight for their own
territory -- like we would have to do if ours were invaded. Oops I forgot --
WE are our own most lethal enemy.
>>>> As a practical matter, we
>>>>could not possibly involve ourselves in every incident that illicits
>>>>strong emotions in Americans.
>>>>
>>>When those emotions dictate that we act, the only 'practical' action
>>>is to act.
>>
>>Oh that's rich! Emotions are a valid basis for committing under trained,
>>under equipped, under funded, demoralized troops to multiple little tyrant hot
>>spots all over the globe where there is no demonstrable American security
>>interest (like there was in the Gulf), to fling million dollar missiles at
>>aspirin factories based on flawed intelligence derived from an equally
>>eviscerated intelligence community. It's OK to do it for "EMOTIONAL" reasons
>>but it's not OK to do so if there is some kind of (gag) "self-interest" for
>>America in it. Tell ya what dood -- let's put YOU out on point when our
>>troops invade Kosovo. Let's see you put YOUR sorry ass where your mouth is.
>>
>Hey honey, don't get emotional. It's interesting how your emotions
>get all wound up about Kuwaiti oil, but you are stone cold about
>hundreds of thousands of women and children living and dying in the
>mud. Tell ya what dood, I'll take the point. You stay home and do
>some more drugs. I don't want you around. Then we'll both be happy.
A horrible tragedy (allegedly) to say the least -- especially for the children
:-(. What about Tibet? What about Borneo (cannibalistic genocidal killing),
Kurdistan, Sudan, Nigeria, and many others where even MORE genocide is
happening than in Kosovo? Oh I forgot -- those are not WHITE people killing
each other. I guess they're just not as important. Geesh -- WHITE folks
killing each other -- now THAT"S a problem. I think I smell the putrid stench
of racism in the White House.
--Mike
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
wrote:
>>George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
>>
>yasmin2:
>
>Well, Clinton thinks he's above the law & dodged the draft
>& lied about it to boot.
Saying you are going to go to ROTC, and then changing your mind when
you get a safe draft number, is perfectly legal. Mr. Cheney using a
student deferment to avoid the draft was perfectly legal. Rush
Limbaugh claiming that a hair cyst on his butt made him medically
unfit to serve is legal (though the reports of his Dad interfering
with the draft board may be different).
I am not in favor of disobeying the law. I am arguing the opposite:
that the military should obey the law as well.
>
>So why we should respect him now.
Because he was elected. We have a law: the president orders the
military to jump, they jump.
If we only obeyed orders of those we respect we would be in trouble. I
did not respect Reagan - should I have ignored the laws he signed?
> This is an insane military
>incursion. Our guys will do as they are ordered but
>they really shouldn't have to carry out what this bunch
>of incompetants of NATO are doing.
Well, saying that you disagree with the policy is fine. Someone, not
you, had posted that our military folks would consider disobeying
their orders. I think that is a terrible slap in the face of our
service people. They are professionals who understand our form of
govt, and to argue that they would violate their obligations is an
insult to them.
OK to think Clinton or Reagan is a cur etc. Not ok to argue that the
military should no longer be subject to civilian control.
>
>It is immoral & does not even make sense. They are
>causing more suffering than they say they want to
>stop.
Could be. That does not mean it does not make sense. Before, Milosovic
capitulated after two weeks of bombs. So he masses forty thousand on
the border of Kosovo, and we figure he is going to ethnically cleanse
the ethnic albanians. So we bomb - might stop him. He chooses to do it
anyway - so what have we lost?
And if we stand up to such "ethnic cleansing" now, maybe the next guy
will think twice. Even if this does not work out so great.
I don't see how you can say it is immoral to try to avoid cleansing.
You can say it is misguided - but obviously NATO did not intend to
produce cleansing - they intended to avoid it.
>
>NATO should not even be attacking any soverign country!
Why not? The ethnic cleansing forces refugees which destabilize other
nations. Milosovic shoves Albanians into other countries - so this is
not just something affecting only Yugoslavia. If he shot missiles from
his soil into the soil of another nation, you would agree we could act
- right? He is shooting human missiles into Albania, Macedonia,
Turkey, Montenegro, etc. Not that different.
The real issue is a possible war between Turkey and Greece, IMO. That
is worth fighting to prevent.
Humanitarian considerations are also significant.
>I think it has outlived it's purpose & maybe it's time
>to scrap it. The "evil empire" it was designed to
>protect us from has collapsed.
True. But Russia will rise again. THe East will become more powerful.
Maybe premature.
>
>Now they are attacking small soverign countries that
>will not except their occupation troops.
A country massed to shove refugees into other nations, risking wars
there as a result. Shooting human missiles into other countries.
>
>This should have been taken to the UN where more
>competant folks might be able to devise a better plan
>to help these people realign themselves into more
>livable areas.
UN would veto bombs.
>
>This has been a fisaco to be laid at the feet of
>the "Wicked Witch of the West" Albright.
All NATO nations supported the bombs. Not just Allbright.
>
>She is more of an European than an American in
>her views of foreign policy. They should "dump"
>her, the woman is way out of her league.
>
> yasmin2
>
I doubt we know enough to evaluate her. Maybe we should listen less to
foreign columnists like Ms. Huffington?
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
Krow
Krow
Michael J. Kiraly <m...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:37070118...@ameritech.net...
David Annis
<joel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>RHA wrote in message <7e6766$9pu$1...@uuneo.neosoft.com>...
>>In article <3705D9...@global.net>, HOOVER <ho...@global.net> wrote:
>>>Excellent question- anyone who answers "yes" to this is far beyond any
>>>possibility of salvation. You liberals: Answer the question!!
>>
>> Are you saying the Marines in Beirut "died" for Reagan, the
>> soldiers who died in Panama "died" for Bush as did those in
>> the Gulf War. The men who died in Vietnam died for Johnson
>> and/or Nixon; in Korea, for Truman or Eisenhower; in WWII, for
>> FDR?
>>
>> You are a fool.
>>
>>
>>--
>>rha
>
>I though he was asking if you would die for BJ Clinton. Not America.
>Cheers,
>JArgo.
>
Why do I suspect this to be a dishonest, hidden-agenda, trick question
(sorta like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?")?
Also, why are you pointing the question only at "liberals"? That bears
a distinct resemblance to "baiting"?
******************************************************
* Dave Annis | With age comes wisdom, if you *
* Sheboygan, WI | stay awake along the way! *
******************************************************
Gary L. Dare
: If conscription is reinstated as result of a protracted conflict, I will
: finance my son's escape to Canada or some other neutral territory. He will
: not fight in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the US.
Canada is a NATO combatant, flying 12 CF-18's from Aviano
and sending relief teams for the refugees.
Canada and the US are now square with their draft dodgers
(mostly Quebecois in WWII, pre-Pearl Harbor, and Vietnam).
Before conscription, the exploding US prison population
(with lack of facilities) should be explored. Gangers
without rape & robbery charges (just association and/or
weapons and/or found-at-the-scene) are paramilitaries
already. Nonviolent drug offenders can provide wimpy
white collars as relief workers (community service).
The 4.2% unemployment rate is actually putting the US
on the verge of an economic crisis, as you're scraping
for the unfit just to fill reqs. Conscription would
kill productivity by taking able experienced workers.
--
Gary L. Dare
g...@ripco.com
Ripco, Chicago's Oldest Online Information Service
The OldTimer
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. wrote in message
<370a7eb7....@news.newsguy.com>...
The insult to veterans and active duty is being told by those that were
unworthy of being a soldier (draft dodgers and others without the honor or
character to fight for their country) now telling others to die so a failed
President can make a feeble attempt to salvage a legacy other than being a
teenage sex crazed idiot. That is the insult.
One of the most enjoyable things about being 65 is
watching the younger generations make the same
dumb mistakes, the same stupid assumptions,
buy the same political scams and fall for the same
societal gimmicks and not having a clue as to what
is really going on. The fun is seeing that look on
their faces, when the truth finally hits them.
The OldTimer
NathanH
<m...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>NathanH wrote:
>>
>> Mr. Kiraly....
>>
>> On Sun, 04 Apr 1999 01:19:27 -0500, "Michael J. Kiraly"
>> <m...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>>
>> >NathanH wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dennis....
>> >>
>> >> On 3 Apr 1999 15:26:32 -0800, Dennis '68 <gamm...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 15:21:47 GMT, in article
>> >> ><370631f5....@news.mindspring.com>, gui...@mail.serve.com stated:
>> >> >
>> >> >>We're a Christian nation?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I suddenly feel disenfranchised.
>> >> >
>> >> >No. We are not a Christian Nation. And when the radical right wing
>> >> >realizes this, America will be a better place.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, we are a christian nation! Our basic moral strictures, legal
>> >> structure are based on Judeo-Christian principals. Our coinage
>> >> reflects the deference that our founding fathers had for God.
>> >
>> >Oh, really now?
>> >
>> >http://www.walrus.com/users/resist/nwo/041898igwt.html
>>
>> Don't get too poised to attack, here. I did not state, by any means,
>> that the writers of the constitution mandated or commisioned our
>> monies to state an allegience to God. Monies were still in the stages
>> of evolution at this time (in fact the 'History Channel' has a very
>> good documentary on the evolution of american monies). My exact
>> wording is shown above is "Our coinage reflects the deference that our
>> founding fathers had for God." You can parse that to your hearts
>> delight or infer incorrectly with prejudice.
>
>Your implication was clear. Dishonest, but clear.
>
Yes, you have found me out, here is the root of my dishonesty...
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law--Bloomington
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their ***Creator**** with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...............
..........
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of ****Divine Providence,**** we mutually pledge to each
other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Caveat - Please notice the Capitalization in 'Divine Providence'.
This is to help you to interpret this little bit a little more
precisely.
>> You should notice that
>> in my posting I referred to documents...not necessarily the
>> constitution, nor could anyone readily infer that I was strictly
>> referring to the constitution.
>
>If the founders believed as you say, then why didn't they ensure that
>the Constitution explicitly reflected those beliefs?
>
Please note a redacted version of Declaration of Independence shown
above. The constitution was a a document detailing our rights as
citizens. There was no imperative, nor should there have been to
explicitly refer to God. Now, you may try to, misguidedly, parse the
wording in the Declaration, but whether implicitly or explicitly all
those that signed that document were referring to God.
And all is not lost...I have more documents to follow...
(If you want to see the signatures of everyone that signed the
Declaration of Independence, I can post that for you. If you want to
see the whole document, I can post that as well!)
>> Our early literature and song our ripe
>> with the religious commitments that many in our early history
>> possessed.
>
>Many in our early history owned slaves and butchered Native
>Americans, as well. What is your point?
>
No society will ever be free of the criminal element. Your retort,
here, is pointless.
>> I will post these, as I have time. So please, feel free
>> to try to vanquish religious tolerance as you might in this country.
>
>Please feel free to set up straw men and knock them down.
Ah, but I have no straw to work with....
I never post anything in this NG with a dishonest intent. I may at
times be mistaken and insufferable, but not dishonest. If I am
mistaken then, hopefully, I will recognize such and, if I do I will
confess as much. Dishonesty is a repast well disposed for the liberal
mindset. Dishonesty doesn't suit me well.
Mark Nichols
<crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
> Treb 'or <tre...@my-dejanews.com> wrote
> > The Serbs sorely need to be taken down a peg, and ***we're*** just the
> ones
> > to do it. And hey, look at it this way - they'll have something to
> > celebrate for the next five hundred years.
>
> WE????
> Reverse robert talks his long shit when his balls aren't on the line.
> It is the height of arrogancy to talk like a man while cowering behind your
> mother skirts.
> I told you a year ago to watch out for those apron strings cause they will
> trip you up.
> And here you are, flat on your face, whining like a piss-willy again.
> The US is little more than what you have described the serbs as being : the
> schoolyard bully.
> Going all around the world flexing it's 'silicone injected' muscles.
> It is time for that bully to be brought down to reality.
Spoken like a true right-wing Serb-supporting coward.
k_man18
>
> > I think anyone, and this is just my opinion, ... I think that anyone who
> > opposes our involvement in Kosovo is a selfish, and possibly bigoted
> person.
>
> Well, that's poppycock, and I suspect you know it.
No it isn't! Anyone who opposes our involvement in the stopping of a genocide
is a selfish person. Period. Only someone who can care less about others would
oppose our involvement in Kosovo.
> > How can anyone boldly assert that our troops are there at the whim of Bill
> > Clinton! Can you think of any other country capable of stopping the
> genocide.
> > Considering our military is 33% larger than our biggest enemy,
>
> Say what? What "biggest enemy" are you talking about? Or, was this just
> pulled out of the air?
I got that from a ducmentary about or military on the Descovery Ch. It
blabbered on and on about how much Reagan built it up, etc.
k_man18
> > I do not think anyone who joins the military is doing it for the current
> > president. Could it be for a love of country? Wanting to uphold and protect
> > the rights we enjoy as Americans? The situation is Kosovo is disgusting.
> > There is an ethnic cleansing taking place, or in other words, a genocide.
>
> Don't believe all the propaganda fed you by the media. The only genocide
> in the Balkans is being perpetrated by NATO.
I wasn't feed any lines of "propaganda" by the media. I wonder what kind of
bull Limbaugh ha sbeen feeding you. These people have been at war for many
years. The death toll is in the millions. It can get higher.
>
> I
> > doubt that any troops involved with the stopping of the genocide are doing
it
> > for Bill Clinton. I highly doubt that anyone there is thinking, "Hey. I bet
> > Bill will be glad I'm risking my life for HIM and not millions of Albanians
> > being killed because of their religion."
> >
>
> So now the number of Albanians killed is in the millions, is it? How many
> million? Six? The propaganda barrage is warping everyone's perception of
> what's happening. You don't hear about them very much, but there are between
> 30,000 and 50,000 well armed and organized guerillas fighting against the
> Serbs inside Kosovo, and they are all Albanians. Try to remember that they
> are rebels and traitors, and they are trying to kill Serbs and overthrow the
> legitimate government in order to get control of Kosovo. Of course,
> according to the media and NATO spokesmen, everytime one of the rebels is
> killed, it is termed an atrocity, and since they are all Albanian, it is
> called "ethnic cleansing."
You're selfish.
>
> > I have a few questions: Why do the Republicans oppose our involvement in
> > Kosovo so much?
>
> Because it's wrong. Because it's plain murder. Because the people we are
> killing haven't done anything wrong. Because the U.S. has no national
> interest there. Because it's dangerous. Because it's incredibly expensive
> for no good cause.
I knew it. The Republicans were just thinking about their wallets again. THERE
IS MORE TO LIFE THAN MONEY.
t...@earthlink.net
m...@ameritech.net wrote:
> Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> > Let's face it.
> > Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy, power-mad demagogue
> > and is a serious threat to America and the world.
>
> Let's face it. The guy who said this also believes that he
> President of the United States.
I am pleased to see that the Mike Kiraly
does not take exception to my assertion that
"Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy, power-mad demagogue
and is a serious threat to America and the world."
but seems to indicate a willingness to debate me
on matter of science in sci.physics.
It is interesting to note that he does have fantasies
about being able to read the minds of people
( Note that he thinks, that I think, that Billy Carter
was president of the U.S., and of course,
I do not, nor have I ever thought this. ).
I am looking forward to engaging Mike Kiraly
in the sci.physics, as it is ckear from his
posts, that he is vastly over-matched by me,
and most others, in the political forums.
I assert that Mike Kilary does not have the knowledge
and mental equipment, to establish dichotomies with
me in sci.physics, and that he will cut and run.
I assert that Mike is a mental-light-weight
bush-whacker and will not show up in sci.physics.
Keep tuned to sci.physics to see what Mike does.
Tom Potter
t...@earthlink.net
Lib...@eiu.edu (D. Ferrel Atkins ) wrote:
> In article <7e5fls$fm5$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net> "Tom Potter"
<t...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> >AA wrote in message <370593...@ma.ultranet.com>...
> >>D. Ferrel Atkins wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In article <7e3nir$ncg$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net> "Tom Potter"
> ><t...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >>> >George P. Masologites wrote in message
> >>> ><370551c7....@news.mindspring.com>...
> >>> >>"Snowy" <Snow_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>American soldiers will tell Bill Clinton to "ram his orders up his
> >ass" if
> >>> >>>they are expcted to suffer any loss of life whatsoever on his behalf.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>That's called 'treason.' Even if some of the soldiers don't feel like
> >>> >>they should fight and die for Bill Clinton, I suspect they'd do so
> >>> >>before fighting and dying _against_ Bill Clinton.
> >>>
> >>> >"I vas jus following orders." is not a valid excuse in any government.
> >>>
> >>> >It is the responsibility of all America military personnel to refuse
> >orders
> >>> >that violate the Constitution, and there is ample reason to believe
> >>> >that Bill Clinton is the one who is violating the Constitution,
> >>> >not to mention the United Nations and the NATO charters.
> >>>
> >>> >Read the Constitution some time.
> >>> >Bill Clinton is conducting an offensive war,
> >>> >and only Congress has the authority to declare war.
> >>>
> >>> >The only thing that is saving Bill Clinton ass from a treason charge,
> >>> >is that the present members of Congress have no guts, and they don't
> >>> >want to take a chance on irritating the public.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Let's see, shall we hang Ronnie Reagan for the war in
> >>> Grenada without Congressional approval, or Georgie Bush's little
> >>> escapade in Panama without Congressional approval?
> >>>
> >>> Ferrel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Finally a beacon in the fog of miseducated and misinfomed people.
> >>And an excellent point. Peace
>
> >The poster makes a good point!
>
> >Reagan sent in a small ground force
> >who took out the Communists in Grenada in one day.
>
> One Day? I believe it took more than one day, in
> part because -- remember -- the communication system between
> the Army and Navy was so screwed up that one office made a
> call on a pay phone with his personal phonecard.
> That is small consolation to the mothers who lost
> sons -- how many were killed? -- as I recall about 20?? // Ferrel
>
> >Bush sent in a small ground force
> >to capture a major player in the drug cartel,
>
> I don't know that it was a SMALL ground force; I remember
> that they spent a lot of time playing rock music at Noriega's "palace".
>
> >and take back a critical link in world transportation ( The Panama Canal ),
> >that Billy Carter had foolishly given to a corrupt government in Panama.
>
> I believe at the time JIMMY Carter was President; Billy was
> the one who had a beer named after him.
Sorry I made a typo and got you confused.
I'll try to write so that even low I.Q. people can understand.
> >Both of these actions were quick, cheap and involved
> >critical American interests.
>
> >His interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation
> >is like saving that it was okay for the South to secede from the union,
> >and for any ethnic, religious or regional group in America
> >to engage in domestic terrorism to secede from the union
> >in this country.
>
> I was under the impression that Panama was a sovereign
> nation. If they want to deal in drugs, do we have the authority to
> shoot them up? If we can shoot up a country because it deals in
> drugs (of which we disapprove), why can't we shoot up a country]
> which deals in murder (of which we disapprove).// Ferrel
How do you feel about Jimmy ( ;-) ) Clinton
bombing a sovereign nation that fought against Hitler
and Stalin? Did Lincoln have the right to kill
hundreds of thousands of people, to "preserve the Union"?
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
t...@earthlink.net
There is a world of difference between Grenada and Kosovo.
Grenda was a quick, cheap operation designed to save the
lives of Americans, and it did not deplete the American
military arsenal, jepordize Social Security, nor create
major enemies for America.
Bill Clinton's War has created hundreds of thousands of
refugees, many of who will end up as American welfare cases,
( And Democratic voters ), has caused many powerful nations
in the world to rearm and realign their alliances, has
jepordized Social Security, has destroyed America's
ability to engage in a war that actually involved its'
national interest, has set the stage from enormous
government military spending in the immediate future,
has destroyed a small nation that fought against Hitler
and Stalin, etc.
In fact, Bill Clinton's War has set the stage for
the realignment of international alliances,
and for World War III.
Tom Potter
Dennis '68
<3706d555...@news.giganews.com>, jpj...@psbnewton.com stated:
>
>Dennis....
I know who I am.
>On 3 Apr 1999 15:26:32 -0800, Dennis '68 <gamm...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 15:21:47 GMT, in article
>><370631f5....@news.mindspring.com>, gui...@mail.serve.com stated:
>>
>>>We're a Christian nation?
>>>
>>>I suddenly feel disenfranchised.
>>
>>No. We are not a Christian Nation. And when the radical right wing
>>realizes this, America will be a better place.
>>
>Yes, we are a christian nation! Our basic moral strictures, legal
>structure are based on Judeo-Christian principals.
In fact, the things that proves we are not a Christian nation is the
Seperation of Church and State and the freedom of religion. As a citizen
of this nation, I don't have to be a Christian. Therefore, this is not
some fundamentalist Christian madated-values Country.
You confuse the fact that most religious people identify themselves
as Christians.
>Our coinage
>reflects the deference that our founding fathers had for God. The
>mention of God in much of our early documents reflects this reverence
>for God. The separation of church and state was a precept developed
>as an umbrella of protection for the church from the 'state' in a
>non-reciprocating relationship.
This is a matter for interpretation. Ever hear about those prayer
in school court cases and the prayer before city council meetings ?
It is easy to disobey the law [the Constitution] when everyone
agrees to go against it. I don't see "non-reciprocating relationship"
in MY Constitution. I see seperation between church and state and
I can see why right wingers are upset when the Islamic member of the
city Council stands up and says s/he is offended by the prayer that
extolls the greatness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I will
extoll his greatness at the proper time but I won't force my values
on others that don't want them. Stewardship and witnessing are still ok but
not at City Hall.
>This developed from the abuse of
>Henry VII in England relative to the Anglican church and the Roman
>Catholic church. If you're interested in the history of this, let me
>know, I'd be more than happy to post it.
Thanks but no thanks. I had enough of Euro-centric history in school.
This ain't the 18th century either and if the language on the coinage
were to be selected today, it would be different.
The founding fathers also only accounted for white males as citizens.
Was that right ? [no] Thank God {Yes, THANK GOD} for the founding
fathers decision to include Artice V of the Constitution.
===
Just remember: when you go to court, you are trusting your fate to
twelve people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!
Dennis
Michael Zarlenga
> > you're blind, you too can see "radio waves."
> Radio waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum, yes, but
> not part of the visible spectrum, which constitutes only a small
> portion thereof. Get a clue, would you? Sheesh, you're a bigger
> idiot than Potter, for Christ's sake. I didn't think that was
> possible, but I guess it is.
Help give this big idiot that clue, oh, Sage ... please provide
your defintion of "radio waves" and cite the source of that defi-
nition.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
M.Simon
Remember the Gulf War?
Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
M.Simon
Have you stopped paying taxes or are you just giving lip service to
your cause?
Simon
===============================================
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 22:50:53 -0500, "Don Linsenbach"
<crea...@coconet.com> wrote:
>
>Victor Smith <vics...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:370baeca...@news.chi.ameritech.net...
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 19:01:33 -0500, BlueDog <pt...@geocities.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >National interest? World's policeman?
>> >
>> >Abortion is a domestic issue.
>>
>> How so? Are 'domestic babies' different than 'foreign babies'?
>>
>
>Yea, the parents of 'foreign' babies don't pay US taxes.
>
>> > Worldwide atrocities of greater magnitude
>> >than Kosovo have occurred without US intervention ... and are occurring
>> >without US intervention as we speak. The US is not the world's
>> >policeman.
>> >
>> NATO is the policeman of Europe. We are a member of NATO.
>
>'Policeman'???
>You are mistaken.
>Policeman are policeman.
>Soldiers are soldiers.
>There IS a difference, you know.
>
>
>>
>> >As a policy matter, we have no business being involved in incidences
>> >that do not impact our national interest.
>>
>> If we sit idly by while genocide takes place, we degrade ourselves as
>> a people. Our degradation is against the national interest.
>
>Why? Because YOU say so?
>Arrogant asshole, aren't you?
>
>
>>
>> > As a practical matter, we
>> >could not possibly involve ourselves in every incident that illicits
>> >strong emotions in Americans.
>> >
>> When those emotions dictate that we act, the only 'practical' action
>> is to act.
>
>Then ACT !
>And stop thinking other people should ACT for you.
>Go on, get your gun and get your sorry ass over there, so you can stop the
>degradation.
>Or are you just blowin' smoke out of your ass again?
>>
>> --Vic, whose head isn't in the sand, it's in his ass.
>>
>>
>
>
Opinions expressed herein are strictly my own and may or may not represent my views at this particular time or any other
George P. Masologites
>> Don't believe all the propaganda fed you by the media. The only genocide
>> in the Balkans is being perpetrated by NATO.
>
>I wasn't feed any lines of "propaganda" by the media. I wonder what kind of
>bull Limbaugh ha sbeen feeding you. These people have been at war for many
>years. The death toll is in the millions. It can get higher.
Tell me, why don't you think you're being fed propaganda by the media?
M.Simon
I'm a Libertarian and I stand with Real Man and War Hero John McCain.
I take it you stand with the Republican War Wimps.
Simon - Tonkin Bay Yacht Club '66
=========================================================
On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 23:20:08 -0700, "Uriel And Ezrael"
<za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Oh, so it's the "children" again, is it?
>
>I have but one life, and I sure as hell don't want to waste it on any
>Alabanians, or to help bolster our venereal Cummander-in-cheat. I would
>give my life (if I had any choice about it) for American children, but they
>are not threatened (in any way I can concieve of) by Milosevek and the
>Serbs. Clinton's war, on the other hand, if it's not stopped, could one day
>swallow them all up. But I'm sure they will be gratefull that it was all
>done for them. HAH!
>
>Why don't you lousy Liberals shut about about "the children"? It's quite
>clear that you don't give a flying fuck about any of them.
>
>--
>
>Alien Zoology http://home.att.net/~zazel/alienz.htm
M.Simon
Right to life? Republicans? Kosovo?
M.Simon
Remember the Gulf War?
M.Simon
CNN reports 51% favor ground troops.
Uriel And Ezrael
M.Simon <msi...@tefbbs.com> wrote in message
news:3707c2f7...@news.megsinet.net...
>
> I'm a Libertarian and I stand with Real Man and War Hero John McCain.
McCain is an idiot. Clearly, being a POW taught him nothing. He is playing
right into Clinton's hands.
>
> I take it you stand with the Republican War Wimps.
Oh no- I stand for the Liberal defenders of peace. ONWARD CLINTON SOLDIERS!
--
Alien Zoology http://home.att.net/~zazel/alienz.htm
>
> Simon - Tonkin Bay Yacht Club '66
> =========================================================
> On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 23:20:08 -0700, "Uriel And Ezrael"
> <za...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Oh, so it's the "children" again, is it?
> >
> >I have but one life, and I sure as hell don't want to waste it on any
> >Alabanians, or to help bolster our venereal Cummander-in-cheat. I would
> >give my life (if I had any choice about it) for American children, but
they
> >are not threatened (in any way I can concieve of) by Milosevek and the
> >Serbs. Clinton's war, on the other hand, if it's not stopped, could one
day
> >swallow them all up. But I'm sure they will be gratefull that it was all
> >done for them. HAH!
> >
> >Why don't you lousy Liberals shut about about "the children"? It's quite
> >clear that you don't give a flying fuck about any of them.
> >
> >--
> >
> >Alien Zoology http://home.att.net/~zazel/alienz.htm
> >
> >
>