Hey mister, can ya spare 87 billion?
h...@nospam.com
This is after, what, I think it's been about 50 billion?
Now at a time of nearing record budget deficit (the last record was
set under Ronald Ray-gun, of course), and at a time of unprecidented
tax cuts for the wealthy. So, now this begs the question, where is
the money coming from?
Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our
children and grandchildren.
How come we can't just create the wealth? What's all this deficit
spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they
can pay it all off for us right?
I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions
and we've generated 87 billion. Easy.
Hal
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Philippe
<h...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j89plv0q9sr69hapq...@4ax.com...
> How come we can't just create the wealth? What's all this deficit
> spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
> wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they
> can pay it all off for us right?
>
> I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions
> and we've generated 87 billion. Easy.
>
> Hal
Nah... Just do what Mexico did... print more $$.. *Instant* cash.... who
needs deficits....
;)
Jason Steiner
Yeah, we should do like we did after WWI. They had to pay reparations
to us. That was a sweet fuckin' deal. Don't know why we ever started
rebuilding countries after we bombed 'em into dust. Just seems like
a waste of money to me.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
Kirk Lawson
Jason Steiner wrote:
>
> <h...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > Now Duuuhhhhhbya wants 87 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
>
> Yeah, we should do like we did after WWI. They had to pay reparations
> to us. That was a sweet fuckin' deal. Don't know why we ever started
> rebuilding countries after we bombed 'em into dust. Just seems like
> a waste of money to me.
>
> jason
Adjusted for Inflation and present day ratio to GDP, the Marshall Plan would
have been over 300 Billion in today's dollars.
iirc.
Peace favor your sword (IH)
--
"In these modern times, many men are wounded for not having weapons or knowledge
of their use."
-Achille Marozzo, 1536
--
"...it's the nature of the media and the participants. A herd of martial artists
gets together and a fight breaks out; quelle surprise."
-Chas Speaking of rec.martial-arts
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Mark Goldberg
>Now Duuuhhhhhbya wants 87 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
>
>
>
Hey hooker boy!
WW II caused the Marshall Plan, that cost what 7x's that by todays money!
And Japan, and Korea, we saved the world from totalirarianism, and grew
democracy.
Little weasals quit and run- work can take time- I always thought it
would, and said so.
We should have wacked a few more of the murderers of the baathists...
not let them have gone home, like the gentlemen army
we were.
After 90' Saddam had a museum that showed how he won that war.... just
as the Egyptians have one today, showing how they actually won
the 67 ( or is it the 73') war,
that is how they view these generosities.
But it is manageable, doable, and worth the effort to accomplish.
Now you... run off
Mark
Eric Neale
>
> http://www.cnn.com
>
> This is after, what, I think it's been about 50 billion?
>
> Now at a time of nearing record budget deficit (the last record was
> set under Ronald Ray-gun, of course), and at a time of unprecidented
> tax cuts for the wealthy. So, now this begs the question, where is
> the money coming from?
>
> Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our
> children and grandchildren.
>
> How come we can't just create the wealth? What's all this deficit
> spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
> wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they
> can pay it all off for us right?
>
> I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions
> and we've generated 87 billion. Easy.
Hal don't you ever grow tired of losing these debates?
.B.
"Eric Neale" <calvin...@ocsnet.net> wrote in message
news:fca39b3b.03090...@posting.google.com...
In his mind, he has never lost one.
and drain deez nuts
>set under Ronald Ray-gun, of course), a
Huh? The previous record deficit was under Bill Clitton.
>and at a time of unprecidented
>tax cuts for the wealthy.
The tax cuts were across the board, you moron.
>So, now this begs the question, where is
>the money coming from?
Hopefully, from you.
>Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our
>children and grandchildren.
Nein. They will have no choice but to inflate their way out of this one.
>
>I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions
>and we've generated 87 billion. Easy.
>
>Hal
Yes. The Fed could print $87 billion without any problem.
Trav
Shuurai
I saw give him 100 billion, just to be safe.
> This is after, what, I think it's been about 50 billion?
Yeah, and we made sure to use 50 billion that was supposed to pay for
medication for old ladies.
> Now at a time of nearing record budget deficit (the last record was
> set under Ronald Ray-gun, of course), and at a time of unprecidented
> tax cuts for the wealthy. So, now this begs the question, where is
> the money coming from?
Certainly not from folks like you, who don't buy food or cars or anything
else that might contribute to the stealing of wealth from the environment.
> Deficit spending of course. The bill will be passed on to our
> children and grandchildren.
Good. It'll motivate them.
> How come we can't just create the wealth? What's all this deficit
> spending shit about anyway? I mean, if we can simply create all this
> wealth, all we need is a few rich people to sell some stuff and they
> can pay it all off for us right?
I don't see why we should quite frankly... Let the poor pay for it with
all the tax money they're contributing.
> I mean, its that simple right? Just a few simple sales transactions
> and we've generated 87 billion. Easy.
We could sell you, Hal. That would be an easy $3 to get us started.
Todd Christensen
> h...@nospam.com wrote in message news:<j89plv0q9sr69hapq...@4ax.com>...
> > Now Duuuhhhhhbya wants 87 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
>
> I saw give him 100 billion, just to be safe.
Oh. It will be more. WAAAAY more. The 87mil is a very rough figure and
mostly for just the military part of the bill. There are other costs
in excess of that to be sure.
> > This is after, what, I think it's been about 50 billion?
>
> Yeah, and we made sure to use 50 billion that was supposed to pay for
> medication for old ladies.
Dubbya has grown the goverment, gone into massive debt and started
wars in foriegn countries. He has no choice but to go into massive
inflation just like Johnson.
Why is it that Republicans, of all people, still kiss this man's ass?
I suppose in one respect his Iraq plan (or lack there of) HAS succeded
in making Iraq MORE like America. Power failures, unemployment, lack
of security. Just like America.
hcannon18
hcannon18
Gee I bet that is the about the amount for New York State's annual budget.
Pump that Iraqi oil!
Fraser Johnston
> >and we've generated 87 billion. Easy.
> >
> >Hal
>
> Yes. The Fed could print $87 billion without any problem.
>
> Trav
We had a ultra right wing politician in australia who started her own
political party. Her policies were interesting to say the least. When
asked where she would get the money to implement them she said with a
straight face "We will just print more money." I shit you not.
Fraser
Steve Gombosi
Todd Christensen <to...@quesinberry.com> wrote:
>Shuu...@hotmail.com (Shuurai) wrote in message news:<a9d0195c.03090...@posting.google.com>...
>> h...@nospam.com wrote in message news:<j89plv0q9sr69hapq...@4ax.com>...
>> > Now Duuuhhhhhbya wants 87 billion to continue the war on Iraq.
>>
>> I saw give him 100 billion, just to be safe.
>
>Oh. It will be more. WAAAAY more. The 87mil is a very rough figure and
Billion, not million.
And that is only for the next year. I find it interesting that we can spend
nearly a hundred billion in a single year to rebuild the infrastructure
of Iraq, but couldn't spare 1/250 of that to upgrade the electrical grid in the
United States (Congressional Republicans, acting on instructions from
the White House, killed a bill that would have provided $350 million
for grid upgrades back in 2001). Even after the blackout, Bush personally
nixed an effort by his own administration to revive this proposal.
>mostly for just the military part of the bill. There are other costs
>in excess of that to be sure.
Well, after all Cheney is still on the Halliburton payroll (he will be
continuing to receive "deferred compensation" from Halliburton through
2004 under an executive compensation agreement he signed with the
company in 1998). We've got to fund that somehow. A few billion dollars
of secret, single-bidder contracts ought to help nicely.
Last year, they paid him $162,392 (almost as much as his VP salary
of $190,134). Cheney also retained Halliburton stock options worth
over $8 million (and that was after selling $22 million worth when
he left the company). Of course, that's a lot less than the $1.6
million they paid him during 2001 - his first year as Vice President
of the United States of Hall^H^H^H^HAmerica.
>> > This is after, what, I think it's been about 50 billion?
>>
>> Yeah, and we made sure to use 50 billion that was supposed to pay for
>> medication for old ladies.
Maybe we should have used those $50 billion and those 150,000 troops
in Afghanistan. Maybe if we'd done *that* we'd have Osama's head on a
pike at 1 World Trade Center, where it belongs.
>Dubbya has grown the goverment, gone into massive debt and started
>wars in foriegn countries. He has no choice but to go into massive
>inflation just like Johnson.
Nah. If nobody's got a job, consumer demand won't be sufficient to increase
prices.
You know, this might actually be Bush's answer to the "jobless recovery".
If he can keep 150,000 Americans in Iraq, they won't be back here adding
to the unemployment rolls.
>Why is it that Republicans, of all people, still kiss this man's ass?
Because the Republican claim to fiscal conservatism and financial
responsibility is pure bullshit.
The deficit this year will be $525 billion, according to the Administration's
latest estimates. Last year, 131 million individual income tax returns
were filed...so Bush's deficit for this year *alone* is about $4,000.00
per taxpayer. I don't know about the rest of you, but I can think of
other things I'd like to do with $4000.00.
Having said that:
Despite the campaign of disinformation that led up to this war, we're
in Iraq for the long haul. We *cannot* screw this up. If we do so,
we'll be far worse off in the region than we've ever been. We'll have
to spend the money (I'm betting on between $600 billion and an even
trillion before it's all over in a decade or so), and we'll have to
suck up to the French, the Germans, the Chinese, and the Russians in
order to get the UN behind us.
>I suppose in one respect his Iraq plan (or lack there of) HAS succeded
>in making Iraq MORE like America. Power failures, unemployment, lack
>of security. Just like America.
Just wait for the rigged elections, Todd. You'll swear it's Florida.
Steve
Shadowstreak
"Fraser Johnston" <fra...@NOSPAMjcis.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f5e8c8d$0$23613$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
He's (Fraser's) not kidding, folks
But she was just stupid, really, and that example pretty much sums up her
entire political knowledge. No idea how she would have achieved such a high
level of recognition without being used as a smokescreen, though.
-Geoff
hcannon18
"Fraser Johnston" <fra...@NOSPAMjcis.com.au> wrote in message
news:3f5e8c8d$0$23613$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
>
hcannon18
"Steve Gombosi" <s...@niwot.scd.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:bjmiqb$17s$1...@niwot.scd.ucar.edu...
Florida? Oh you must mean those people too stupid to use a punch ballot. As
a result Florida revamps its whole balloting process to combat stupidity.
and drain deez nuts
>entire political knowledge. No idea how she would have achieved such a high
>level of recognition without being used as a smokescreen, though.
>
>-Geoff
Stupid? That's exactly how fiat currencies WORK, people...she hit the nail on
the head.
Trav
and drain deez nuts
>We had a ultra right wing politician in australia who started her own
>political party. Her policies were interesting to say the least. When
>asked where she would get the money to implement them she said with a
>straight face "We will just print more money." I shit you not.
>
>Fraser
Well, where DO you think they get the money from?
Trav
and drain deez nuts
>> I saw give him 100 billion, just to be safe.
>
>Oh. It will be more. WAAAAY more. The 87mil is a very rough figure and
>mostly for just the military part of the bill. There are other costs
>in excess of that to be sure.
>
I'm wondering how much in pork riders goes into the $87B.
When Clitton wanted another 29 bil for his fucking war in Bosnia in which he
DID NOT GO TO THE UN, the Congress basically doubled the check on pork. THAT
was "the surplus."
>I suppose in one respect his Iraq plan (or lack there of) HAS succeded
>in making Iraq MORE like America. Power failures, unemployment, lack
>of security. Just like America
It appears that the Iraqis wanted liberation but nothing else. They could not
topple Saddam alone but they didn't EVER want to live together as one nation
like they have UNDER Saddam. They were good neighbors UNDER Saddam, but with
him gone, now they are ready to move on and Balkanize.
The Kurds want a nation, the Sunnis want one, and the Shiites want one. We
balkanized Yugoslavia, why not here? Nobody bitched then, did they? Ended up
with fking nations nobody remembers, coupla more Olympic team reps, that's all.
Trav
and drain deez nuts
>
>Despite the campaign of disinformation that led up to this war, we're
>in Iraq for the long haul. We *cannot* screw this up.
I don't think it can be salvaged. The fundamental presumption that Iraq was
"one nation" was flawed. They are not. Saddam was the unifying force. Like
the USSR, they are not one nation, they are an agglomeration of several wannabe
smaller states with people who hate each other, like in the Balkans.
The sooner we recognize this, the better. They are blowing up fking UN
buildings there. They are lashing out at everything "outsider" and what is the
plan to salvage this? Let France take care of it?
OPEC is a threat to the USA. We banned price fixing among american
corporations 80 years ago. It's time to end it on oil by killing people like
Al Gore who profit from Occidental and other evil oil companies.
>and we'll have to
>suck up to the French, the Germans, the Chinese, and the Russians in
>order to get the UN behind us.
>
We should exit the UN. It's a joke.
Saudi Arabia is proof of why you can't give nukes to every single person. That
nation has now produced a large handful of billionaire fanatics. They have the
means to do whatever they want; they can literally just BUY a jihad. No cost
is too high. Shit, OBL could BUY a freaking LARGE JET himself if he wanted to;
he has the money. There are other fanatics who are even RICHER. This is what
has happened when we gave these sick fuckers the keys to sit on oil wells.
Trav
and drain deez nuts
>>
>> Steve
>
>Florida? Oh you must mean those people too stupid to use a punch ballot. As
>a result Florida revamps its whole balloting process to combat stupidity.
Or Illinois or Missouri...oh wait, they went Democrat.
Trav
John
After a recent conversation I had, I think the cheapest way to rebuild
Iraq (and Afghanistan) is to infuse Confucian philosophy into these
countries.
It's a fairly secular philosophy compatible with most religions, it's
distinctly NON-Western (so no accusations about molding these
countries into a Western image) and it seemed to be successful in
creating stability (and, eventually stagnation) in very unstable
regions.
Chas
> Saudi Arabia is proof of why you can't give nukes to every single person.
That
> nation has now produced a large handful of billionaire fanatics. They
have the
> means to do whatever they want; they can literally just BUY a jihad.
And we are reticent to just kill a bunch of 'civilians', as wars have been
prosecuted for centuries. We've been reticent to attack the
banking/finance/currency system that makes it possible- and we were quick to
abandon our contractual rights when they 'nationalized' the oilfields in the
first place. It simply put the reigns of power in the hands of a few
despots.
A half dozen tac nukes in the right places and we wouldn't have to worry
about the problem for another fifty years.
Chas
Olaf
and drain deez nuts wrote:
>
> The Kurds want a nation, the Sunnis want one, and the Shiites want one. We
> balkanized Yugoslavia, why not here? Nobody bitched then, did they? Ended up
> with fking nations nobody remembers, coupla more Olympic team reps, that's all.
>
Have to agree on this score. The argument has always been that splitting the
country up will lead to instability. I have to wonder what they call what is going
on now? Hopefully they'll figure it out quicker in Iraq than they did in
Yugoslavia when the country fell apart after Tito died.
-Olaf
Karim Rashad
> We should exit the UN. It's a joke.
The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that though...
--
Karim Rashad <remove SPAMFREE: krashad at SPAMorbisFREEuk.com>
Kirk Lawson
and drain deez nuts wrote:
>
> >But she was just stupid, really, and that example pretty much sums up her
> >entire political knowledge. No idea how she would have achieved such a high
> >level of recognition without being used as a smokescreen, though.
> >
> >-Geoff
>
> Stupid?
Yes. Stupid.
She told the truth. That makes her unelectable.
> That's exactly how fiat currencies WORK, people...she hit the nail on
> the head.
It's dumb to warn investors before hand that you're planning on devaluing their
debts by creating massive inflation.
Kirk Lawson
Karim Rashad wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:32:13 +0000, and drain deez nuts wrote:
> > We should exit the UN. It's a joke.
>
> The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that though...
If we had to pay off our UN debts, we might have to start charging the U.N. rent
for the true value of that primo piece of property they're squatting on.
Back to the original U.S. debt, of course.
Chas
> The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that though...
We ought to start charging the assholes for what we do for them.
Close the building, send them to Bruxelles; turn the fucker into a parking
lot.
Remind me of what they *ever* did but leech off of us and act like we're
chumps for being so nice about it.
Chas
.B.
"Karim Rashad" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.10....@privacy.net...
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:32:13 +0000, and drain deez nuts wrote:
> > We should exit the UN. It's a joke.
>
> The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that though...
What about what is owed to us? Fuck 'em if they want their "dues".
Chas
> > The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that though...
> What about what is owed to us? Fuck 'em if they want their "dues".
Hell; we could just expose them to New York City taxes and fees and make
money at the enterprise.
The UN is a bunch of leeches. They come here from countries that don't have
a pot to piss in or a window to throw it through, and are wearing silk
suits, eating at Chez Bucks and living in palatial surroundings.
As they say in southern poland; fuck themski, ya'll.
Chas
Olaf
Karim Rashad wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:32:13 +0000, and drain deez nuts wrote:
> > We should exit the UN. It's a joke.
>
> The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that though...
>
Well, the assessment of US debts to the UN is a joke, its way too
high. Even in Canada almost everyone knows that. Not sure why
the US agreed to it in the first place...
-Olaf
Eric Neale
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> Karim Rashad wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 16:32:13 +0000, and drain deez nuts wrote:
> > > We should exit the UN. It's a joke.
> >
> > The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that though...
>
> If we had to pay off our UN debts, we might have to start charging the U.N. rent
> for the true value of that primo piece of property they're squatting on.
Did you ever see this episode?
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/02/02kun.phtml
It was a riot! They had a good point.
=)
Shuurai
> > We should exit the UN. It's a joke.
>
> The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that though...
That's a fucking joke, right?
It's about time that the world accept the fact that the United States *IS*
the UN. We pay the bills, we provide the bulk of the force behind it...
What exactly do you think we "owe" the United Nations??
Todd Christensen
> >>
> >> I saw give him 100 billion, just to be safe.
> >
> >Oh. It will be more. WAAAAY more. The 87mil is a very rough figure and
> >mostly for just the military part of the bill. There are other costs
> >in excess of that to be sure.
> >
>
> I'm wondering how much in pork riders goes into the $87B.
HUUUUGE amounts of pork. Something like 2bil for those Bradley's? WTF?
They SUCKED!
> When Clitton wanted another 29 bil for his fucking war in Bosnia in which he
> DID NOT GO TO THE UN, the Congress basically doubled the check on pork. THAT
> was "the surplus."
At least the Europeans kicked in 11-14 bil. It is thier continent
after all.
> >I suppose in one respect his Iraq plan (or lack there of) HAS succeded
> >in making Iraq MORE like America. Power failures, unemployment, lack
> >of security. Just like America
>
> It appears that the Iraqis wanted liberation but nothing else. They could not
> topple Saddam alone but they didn't EVER want to live together as one nation
> like they have UNDER Saddam. They were good neighbors UNDER Saddam, but with
> him gone, now they are ready to move on and Balkanize.
Liberation. HAH! They have no expectation of anything like what we
call freedom. Not to mention the other stuff - the responsibilities -
that go with it. Pluralism. Tollerance. (Well... even America is
slipping on those)
> The Kurds want a nation, the Sunnis want one, and the Shiites want one. We
> balkanized Yugoslavia, why not here? Nobody bitched then, did they? Ended up
> with fking nations nobody remembers, coupla more Olympic team reps, that's all.
Ah. But WHO gets the oil. (Other than us.) As the PNAC guys explain it
civil wars burn lot's of oil and it's hard to collect the bill.
The Bushies REALLY royally fucked this up. The sad part is everybody
told them this would happen. All thier top strategists. The Pentagon.
Me. Everybody. The stupid arrogant fucks rejected the UN for extremist
ideological bullshit reasons, they were so cavelier and dismissive
with the Russians and Germans (the "old Europe" rhetoricbulshit ).
Fuck this knee jerk anti-UN BULLSHIT. Yeah the UN sucks. But they got
guys that can eat bullets while WE do the work. Same with NATO.
They forgot one important immutale fact: They needed warm bodies, IE-
240,00 (now less than fucking 175,000) troops CANNOT occupy a nation
of 24 MILLION. IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY.
We could of had 300,000 more fucking troops in there. Sounds pretty
good about now to Ol Bush and Rummy. But- WHOOOPS- TOO FUCKING BAD.
We could have EASILY got the Germans and Russians on board. All they
wanted was fucking OIL! It would have been an easy play.
Their domestic political concerns could be aligned by spinning it
that :
"We need to keep an eye on these Americans... so we have to send
troops to make sure they don't go cave man on these poor Arabs" The
Germans gave us tons of oveteurs.
And we WERE building to that Wolfy was the one who was concillitory
and argued for Powells approach.
I don't why we fucked it up. Makes no sense. The only thing I can
think is that BECTEL and Haliburton had Cheney's ass in a bind and
told him no way could we split that oil and pay for the war. I don't
know.
Stupid.
Now Dubbya is going to grovel to the French and the UN. Guess what.
They are going to get PAID BIG now. They have our ass over a barrel.
Before we could have named the price.
But not now.
Todd Christensen
> Gee I bet that is the about the amount for New York State's annual budget.
> Pump that Iraqi oil!
Hard to pump the oil when the pipelines get blown up every goddamned
week.
Would be nice to have some Blue Helmets guarding that shit about now.
Have NATO guarding those borders that are NOW leaking Al Queda like a
fucking busted sewer pipe.
Too bad the dumbsits don't pay attention to facts before thier ass in
the fire, huh?
Fraser Johnston
>
> Trav
By taxing the fuck out of us.
Fraser
Caterbro
the funny part is, they'd be happier and better off in switzerland- why don't we
let them go?
the UN does pay rent, by the way- through the federal gov't- your tax dollars
> Chas
>
Caterbro
what exactly does the UN owe us?
carl
Caterbro
> > The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that though...
>
> We ought to start charging the assholes for what we do for them.
> Close the building, send them to Bruxelles; turn the fucker into a parking
> lot.
> Remind me of what they *ever* did but leech off of us and act like we're
> chumps for being so nice about it.
provide an umbrella mandate for us to pretend that goestrategic military
actions are not American imperialism?
clean up our messes and keep the rest of the world from allying against us enmasse?
provide a clean, christian(for lack of a better term) record of armed intervention in
countries struggling to fight off the effects of US foreign policy and the WTO?
fund the WHO?
carl
> Chas
>
Caterbro
> If we had to pay off our UN debts, we might have to start charging the U.N. rent
> for the true value of that primo piece of property they're squatting on.
> Back to the original U.S. debt, of course.
forgiven, and you know it bub:) a debt forgiven ceases to exist except in
the jealousy of the principal
carl
Chas
> the funny part is, they'd be happier and better off in switzerland- why
don't we
> let them go?
Switzerland is too nice for them- Send them to Belgium and let them drink
beer with fat people who despise them.
Chas
Chas
> provide an umbrella mandate for us to pretend that goestrategic military
> actions are not American imperialism?
Oh fucking please- we've 'installed' democracy in over a hundred twenty
countries- and the UN is the bastion of despots, dictators, theocracy and
monarchy.
Get real.
> clean up our messes and keep the rest of the world from allying against us
enmasse?
Make messes, act in utter self interest, and the rest of the world should
act civilly or be prepared for utter hell. They've worn out our patience
with their ingratitude, theft and corruption, and arrogant mistaking of
kindness for weakness.
> provide a clean, christian(for lack of a better term) record of armed
intervention in
> countries struggling to fight off the effects of US foreign policy and the
WTO?
Bullshit- at the worst picking the dictator most willing to do business with
us- depending on how strategic their assets.
> fund the WHO?
Let Cuba send doctors to Africa- he sure sent plenty of 'advisors'. Let the
SovUn pick up the tab- oops- they're gone now, aren't they? Let Europe pay
'reparations' to the peoples they colonialized- instead of walking away, or
in England's case, a carriage. Let the muslim world pay it's own way with
the money the plutocrats use to live in decadent and unparalled splendor.
I remember the Kuwaitis calling us their 'white slaves'- mamelukes. I
remember Bandar greasing around his personal F-16 and laughing at the guys
who both found the oil and pay him for it.
Nah; fuck'em. Pound it into black glass and start over.
Chas
Caterbro
> > provide an umbrella mandate for us to pretend that goestrategic military
> > actions are not American imperialism?
>
> Oh fucking please- we've 'installed' democracy in over a hundred twenty
> countries- and the UN is the bastion of despots, dictators, theocracy and
> monarchy.
> Get real.
name one country we have "installed democracy" in
> > clean up our messes and keep the rest of the world from allying against us
> enmasse?
>
> Make messes, act in utter self interest, and the rest of the world should
> act civilly or be prepared for utter hell. They've worn out our patience
> with their ingratitude, theft and corruption, and arrogant mistaking of
> kindness for weakness.
whoop- self interest of the entire globe; hard to quantify, there, bub.
"utter self interest"starts when the democratic interest of everybody else
votes against you.
as for the rest, we have the worst track record ever, so, uh, why
expect faith?
> Bullshit- at the worst picking the dictator most willing to do business with
> us- depending on how strategic their assets.
uhhuh, so no democracy, no freedom, no nothing except the rich royal
bastads we fund?
grand.
> > fund the WHO?
>
> Let Cuba send doctors to Africa- he sure sent plenty of 'advisors'.
he did.
>b Let the
> SovUn pick up the tab- oops- they're gone now, aren't they? Let Europe pay
> 'reparations' to the peoples they colonialized
they have.
>- instead of walking away, or
> in England's case, a carriage.
> Let the muslim world pay it's own way with
> the money the plutocrats use to live in decadent and unparalled splendor.
well, we provide, the elite live in splendor- can you name an arab country we
fostered democracy and freedom in?
> I remember the Kuwaitis calling us their 'white slaves'- mamelukes.
ohh, the Kuwaitis, the same kuwaitis that we loved, learned and fought with?
carl
Batman
>
>"Fraser Johnston" <fra...@NOSPAMjcis.com.au> wrote in message
>>
>> We had a ultra right wing politician in australia who started her own
>> political party. Her policies were interesting to say the least. When
>> asked where she would get the money to implement them she said with a
>> straight face "We will just print more money." I shit you not.
>>
>> Fraser
>>
>Well where do you think the left gets it from?
Yeah, i keep forgetting that 'right wing' is the exact opposite for them as it
is for us in the US. Therefore, doesn't surprise me.
-jeff (IH)
Chas
> name one country we have "installed democracy" in
Well, the big one is Japan. Same thing with Germany.
Scads of little countries that went from monarchy or strong man rule to
democratic representative republics under our advice and assistence.
> > Make messes, act in utter self interest, and the rest of the world
should
> > act civilly or be prepared for utter hell. They've worn out our patience
> > with their ingratitude, theft and corruption, and arrogant mistaking of
> > kindness for weakness.
> whoop- self interest of the entire globe; hard to quantify, there, bub.
Bullshit; the Great Experiment that is America is in contrast to the world's
general history of despots, dictators, warlords and monarchs. We have no
reason whatsoever to respect one man as representative of a nation.
> "utter self interest"starts when the democratic interest of everybody else
> votes against you.
What vote?
And, if they democratically decide to become your adversary, why respect
that either?
> uhhuh, so no democracy, no freedom, no nothing except the rich royal
> bastads we fund?
I remember when they 'nationalized' the oilfields- it was theft then, and
it's extortion now. Sure we recognized their royal family- and sure we
accepted it meekly when they nationalized because we didn't want to seem
exploitative- they took it for weakness, tribute, or stupidity.
> well, we provide, the elite live in splendor- can you name an arab country
we
> fostered democracy and freedom in?
We've helped them try to achieve democracy in Egypt, all over fucking
Africa, throughout Persia, in fucking miserable Pakistan, in the southern
Filipines and in Indonesia.
> > I remember the Kuwaitis calling us their 'white slaves'- mamelukes.
> ohh, the Kuwaitis, the same kuwaitis that we loved, learned and fought
with?
Yeah; we should have let Saddam kill all the degenerate motherfuckers, then
gone in and zapped him.
Chas
Kirk Lawson
> fund the WHO?
The U.N. funder "The Who"??? Way cool! Which concerts?
Kirk Lawson
Caterbro wrote:
>
> Kirk Lawson <NO_lklaw...@heapy.com_SPAMSUX> wrote in <3F5F6B1B...@heapy.com_SPAMSUX>:
>
> > If we had to pay off our UN debts, we might have to start charging the U.N. rent
> > for the true value of that primo piece of property they're squatting on.
>
> > Back to the original U.S. debt, of course.
>
> forgiven, and you know it bub:)
Yeah, but it's just kina a pet peeve to hear people go on about the 'U.S. debts
to the U.N.' while completely ignoring the glorious free ride that the U.N. gets
on so many levels.
<shrug>
>a debt forgiven ceases to exist except in
> the jealousy of the principal
What? 'Hard feelings' you say? Out of *humans*?!?!
;-)
Karim Rashad
>> The USA might have to pay back their UN debts if they did that
>> though...
>
> That's a fucking joke, right?
>
> It's about time that the world accept the fact that the United States
> *IS* the UN. We pay the bills, we provide the bulk of the force behind
> it... What exactly do you think we "owe" the United Nations??
I don't know the details. Only thing I really have to say on the matter
is that everyone doing the UN bashing here seems only to be taking into
account the Security Council and peacekeepers. The UN do lots of good
stuff; the UNDP, which I think is the biggest UN agency, does untold good
work in many countries, with input from everyone. The UNHCR, FAO and WHO
likewise.
Karim Rashad
>> Hell; we could just expose them to New York City taxes and fees and
>> make money at the enterprise.
>> The UN is a bunch of leeches. They come here from countries that don't
>> have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it through, and are wearing
>> silk suits, eating at Chez Bucks and living in palatial surroundings.
>> As they say in southern poland; fuck themski, ya'll.
>
>
> the funny part is, they'd be happier and better off in switzerland- why
> don't we
> let them go?
Many of the UN agencies have their headquarters in Geneva; the Security
Council building doesn't solely make up the United Nations. Good building
that though; I watched 1998's 4th of July fireworks show from the 40th
floor of it- *damn* those elevators move fast!
Badger North
<NO_lklaw...@heapy.com> wrote:
>Caterbro wrote:
>
>> fund the WHO?
>
>The U.N. funder "The Who"??? Way cool! Which concerts?
I believe it was "Won't Get Who'd Again" IV through VII.
Badger Jones
http://members.rogers.com/badger
www.geocities.com/marxistdetective/taunting.htm
and drain deez nuts
>civil wars burn lot's of oil and it's hard to collect the bill.
>
>The Bushies REALLY royally fucked this up. The sad part is everybody
>told them this would happen. All thier top strategists. The Pentagon.
>Me. Everybody. The stupid arrogant fucks rejected the UN for extremist
>ideological bullshit reasons, they were so cavelier and dismissive
>with the Russians and Germans (the "old Europe" rhetoricbulshit ).
>Fuck this knee jerk anti-UN BULLSHIT. Yeah the UN sucks. But they got
>guys that can eat bullets while WE do the work. Same with NATO.
I'm not entirely sure that they cared.
France used this as their Waterloo. They are not, and have never been, our
ally. This is a nation which outright cooperated with the Germans, might as
well have been fighting for them, and has denied us access to their ports all
throughout the Cold War while places like freakin Monaco didn't. They're an
enemy with a seat on the UN SC. The UN is functionally useless.
We will not get France to agree unless they are overpaid.
>
>They forgot one important immutale fact: They needed warm bodies, IE-
>240,00 (now less than fucking 175,000) troops CANNOT occupy a nation
>of 24 MILLION. IT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY.
Listen...last I heard a truck bomb went off outside the UN bldg there. They no
more want them than us.
>
>We could have EASILY got the Germans and Russians on board. All they
>wanted was fucking OIL! It would have been an easy play.
Huh? Nobody wanted to share. They didn't want the war. They wanted the
continuance of arms sales, oil sales, and everything that Saddam brought.
Us was really either our way or their way. They didn't show a single sign at
all of changing their tune at the UN. Russia, Germany, maybe they get on
board, at the end, Germany was neutral and they'll be the first to break ranks,
but the rest of them?
>
>I don't why we fucked it up. Makes no sense. The only thing I can
>think is that BECTEL and Haliburton had Cheney's ass in a bind and
>told him no way could we split that oil and pay for the war. I don't
>know.
I have no clue, but the current approach is really not as bad as it is made out
to be. Yes, people are grumbling, but the coverage is OVERstating the problem.
We are losing soldiers and people somehow ridiculously expected it to be wine
and roses.
Saddam has been in a state of internal civil war since 1991, remember? WE put
that condition into effect and were functionally ARMING the south, the north,
Al Islam, all of them.
>
>Now Dubbya is going to grovel to the French and the UN
Nope. No groveling. Money talks. As things stand now, the French have
bubkus. They'll stay that way. We can do a joint
Germany/Russia/Spain/US/Britain operation without them and we should.
The UN should end here.
>They are going to get PAID BIG now.
I disagree; we don't really NEED them. None of the credible Democrats wants to
end the war either.
>They have our ass over a barrel.
>Before we could have named the price.
>
>But not now.
>
No; we have their ass on the barrel or at least on even footing. They'll cave
for the right price but it will be less than they'd have had before the war.
Things have changed in Iraq; if we walk away, can ANY of them expect to recover
their investments? Against Kurdistan? Shiiteistan? Probably not.
Trav
Chas
>.....Only thing I really have to say on the matter
> is that everyone doing the UN bashing here seems only to be taking into
> account the Security Council and peacekeepers. The UN do lots of good
> stuff; the UNDP, which I think is the biggest UN agency, does untold good
> work in many countries, with input from everyone. The UNHCR, FAO and WHO
> likewise.
Yeah; at military procurement prices.
What do you think these assholes steal *first*?
You've got a huge administrative bureaucracy, full of guys making money at
US corporate standards, delivering fucking sacks of grain by first class
transport that are immediately sold off by the guys with the guns they spent
the last fucking graft on- with our competitors <g>
In a country that doesn't even support it's *own* poor; fix it's *own*
infrastructure, fund it's *own* higher education-
nah; tired of 'em.
Chas
Mark Goldberg
>
>...I remember when they 'nationalized' the oilfields- it was theft then, and
>it's extortion now. Sure we recognized their royal family- and sure we
>accepted it meekly when they nationalized because we didn't want to seem
>exploitative- they took it for weakness, tribute, or stupidity.
>
>
Not to go too off tangent, but the Saudi's have spent most of their
money building mosques around the world, where there are no moslems, or
few,
and that is how they announce their intent. When they built that one
in Rome, under the umbrella of the freedom of religion, the newspapers
in S Arabia, and the arab lands, spoke with an arrogance and haughtiness
that was startling... to them, it was a sign that the chrisitans really
knew that they were naturally the superior religion, because they in
fact, would never allow an infidel religion to do the same anywhere
islam is.
This was back in 88' I think... when the west was just plain opening up
their hearts and minds and nations, and saying,' hey, come on in,
everyone's welcome.'
and that is a good thought, a western thought- but not for some people
and to some people.
Now it's two years status post 9/11. The lovely fellows of al queda
celebrated it for us by releasing a 6 mo old tape from hell telling us
'your gonna die,' which of course is the highest form of observance for
the fanatically faithfull,
and the new cleric for the Va mosque where some of the hijackers got
jazzed up for the homicide says now, ' shahids are just like marines,
semper fi'
which if you read carefully, should explain how they view us, the west,
and everything other than themselves.
Mark
Lee Casebolt
Caterbro wrote:
>>Oh fucking please- we've 'installed' democracy in over a hundred twenty
>>countries- and the UN is the bastion of despots, dictators, theocracy and
>>monarchy.
>>Get real.
>>
>
>
> name one country we have "installed democracy" in
Japan.
That was easy.
Lee Casebolt
and drain deez nuts
>actions are not American imperialism?
That's EXACTLY what it is and what ALL of the stink is about.
Look around you.
9/11 was not about Islam versus America it was about localism versus globalism.
Look at EVERY meeting of the world bank, IMF, GATT, any world trade meeting.
They are picketed mercilessly by a HUGE cross section of people - unions,
peasants, farmers, "clerics," anyone opposed to the onslaught of
Americo-centric EMPIRE, and the people RIOT violently EVERY time, no matter
what nation the meetings are in.
Globalism, the WTC, look at all the symbology that went into 9/11. It was ALL
about ENDING this central control over the world; that's what globalism
entails. Worldwide power radiates outward from the Federal Reserve Bank of NY.
The 9/11 terrorists struck a blow at globalism. There were riots here in DC
over the World Bank. They have been everywhere. Everywhere there are massive
marches AGAINST shit like NAFTA, GATT, everything that is going on, this
supranational collusion between elected leaders to cede sovereignty to agencies
which operate ABOVE the law and above due process and outside of public
scrutiny.
It isn't Islam per se that is causing this, it is globalism, change, the "New
World Order." The frightening thing is that, after the last real peerless
world empire, Rome, humanity fell into the dark ages for 1500 years where
advances and knowledge were forgotten, eschewed, persecuted, and the church and
a rise of balkanized feudalism served to enshrine aristocracy and superstition
above all else.
We are kind of near that now...our deficits, the treasury, is bankrupt.
Meanwhile, our defense budget is massive because our garrisons are EVERYWHERE,
just like Rome's were. Britain had the good sense to let their colonies go and
they had competition in the world. We are the last empire standing and we are
spread out everywhere to the vast reaches and the people who made this empire
want to extend it further. They will get treaties that cede sovereignty to
foreigners. Hell, what LAWS do WIPO or WTO members actually FALL under? Who
do they HAVE to obey? Who can arrest them? They have diplomatic immunity to a
non-country, to, basically, a corporation that nations have agreed should be
the uber ruler.
THAT is why things are happening these days. Gird up your loins and buy guns,
cigarettes, and gold. It is only going to get worse.
Trav
cate...@iffle.com
> > name one country we have "installed democracy" in
>
> Well, the big one is Japan. Same thing with Germany.
> Scads of little countries that went from monarchy or strong man rule to
> democratic representative republics under our advice and assistence.
my bad; i always put a little disclaimer " except for WWII renconstruction."
that was dandy, yes, but it was in a different era, done by better men
without the current political climate we inhabit.
since then, zippo.
i really think much of your perspective springs from this generational
thing; when you were a tyke, you could meet the men who did those
good things, folks still talked about it, it was An Issue.
since then, the example has been very, very poor. it's like pinning your
hopes on jeffery dahmer becuase he helped old ladies across the
street when he was a boy scout. I see dahmer; you hold out hope that
boy scout might just peek out again.
> Bullshit; the Great Experiment that is America is in contrast to the world's
> general history of despots, dictators, warlords and monarchs. We have no
> reason whatsoever to respect one man as representative of a nation.
why then do we cozen them, kill for them, pay them, and prop them up?
> > "utter self interest"starts when the democratic interest of everybody else
> > votes against you.
>
> What vote?
the UN vote. it's everybody, you know.
> And, if they democratically decide to become your adversary, why respect
> that either?
because, you damn stubborn goat (no offense meant:)), the democractic
process is the alternative to slugging it out. it is also, as you well know, the redress
of the many against the unheeding oppressor; c. Am. Rev.
and generally, when someone is your enemy, it's good to figure out why. if your
conduct can be adjusted to resolve the problem without violence, in a mutually
agreeable fashion, it should.
> I remember when they 'nationalized' the oilfields- it was theft then, and
> it's extortion now.
it was theft when the brits got them too. all things considered, i'm in favor
of putting resources in the hands of them that are living on top of them.
you think america stood still for our resources hopping the boat back to
britain? no, we said; that's our shit, we live here, cut the trees, farm the
tobacco, mine the silver, and we're keeping the proceeds.
we have a moral imperative to respect that right in other countries, and
help them pursue it. America should be about the breaking of empire
and self-determination, not the other way around.
>Sure we recognized their royal family
*A* royal family. and only becuase they got to the brits first. and the
arabs were rightly PO'd about that, too. kicked most of them out right
quick, too
> We've helped them try to achieve democracy in Egypt, all over fucking
> Africa, throughout Persia, in fucking miserable Pakistan, in the southern
> Filipines and in Indonesia.
no, we did away with Nassar. or was it saudi arabia?
the colonial countries helped the africans with
their democracies, not us.
Pakistan is like Saudi arabia's retarded little brother- a authoritarian dictatorship
, rabidly anti-american and islamicist- we even helped out the putsch that booted
their fledging democracy.
the philipines did it in spite, not because of our help, and only because we were
looking the other way.
indonesia? give me a break- we installed a madman who managed one of the
worst genocides in history and did it all in leaky little boats.
Carl
> Chas
>
cate...@iffle.com
> > name one country we have "installed democracy" in
>
>
> Japan.
>
> That was easy.
>
> Lee Casebolt
name one other than post-wwii reconstruction.
carl
cate...@iffle.com
> >provide an umbrella mandate for us to pretend that goestrategic military
> >actions are not American imperialism?
>
> That's EXACTLY what it is and what ALL of the stink is about.
yep- we got up the UN, found out about the cold war, and said, we want this thing
to legitimize our carte blanche actions. the multinationals found out about it and
said, we want this thing to get us UNRESTRICTED, INTERNATIONAL trade protections.
everybody else said, we want this thing to function as a relief from warmaking
and as an agent of cooperation; we want a democractic world.
silly them, huh?
> Look around you.
>
this is such a nice summary that i'm not snipping it.
superb meta analysis is the economic determinism mold.
there are cultural determining factors to this as well, but
the economic analysis is the better tool.
one more point; America's "advanced capitalism" mirrors the Roman pattern-
from manufacturers to administrators; producers to in-gathers.
Carl
Mark Goldberg
>"Chas" <ch...@chasclements.com> wrote in <tMWdnWssGYq...@comcast.com>:
>
>
>>>name one country we have "installed democracy" in
>>>
>>>
>>Well, the big one is Japan. Same thing with Germany.
>>Scads of little countries that went from monarchy or strong man rule to
>>democratic representative republics under our advice and assistence.
>>
>>
>
>
>my bad; i always put a little disclaimer " except for WWII renconstruction."
>
>that was dandy, yes, but it was in a different era, done by better men
>without the current political climate we inhabit.
>
>since then, zippo.
>
>i really think much of your perspective springs from this generational
>thing; when you were a tyke, you could meet the men who did those
>good things, folks still talked about it, it was An Issue.
>
>since then, the example has been very, very poor. it's like pinning your
>hopes on jeffery dahmer becuase he helped old ladies across the
>street when he was a boy scout. I see dahmer; you hold out hope that
>boy scout might just peek out again.
>
Your being disingenuous carl. JFK's Liberalism has been thoroughly
discreditied and abandoned by the Democratic party.
1. independent and patriotic; america should fight for liberty, and
certainly on our own, as this was our legacy, warts and all.
2. smaller government when possible, lower taxes.
3. ask not what your country can do for you- ask what you can do for
your country.
Now does that sound like the libs of today???
mark
Paul Tanenbaum
> ....
> I'm wondering how much in pork riders goes into the $87B.
In the first Iraq war appropriation last year, $200K went to
the San Francisco Institute For AIDS Research. I kid you not.
They just recently had a celebration of the event, with
Repreparasite, er I mean Representative Pelosi there, taking
her bows, being thanked for her wonderful thoughtful generosity.
Generous with WHOSE money, one might ask... somehow, they never
mention that...
---
Paul T.
Todd Christensen
Yeah but the current crop of Republican loudmouths, trust-fund babies,
and chickenhawks aint exactly Barry Goldwater, either.
The Kennedy "make the world safe for democracy" type Democrats are not
all gone. They are just bitter.
My old man is one. He VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam as young officer in
special forces. He believed that shit and put it on the line. All he
got was betrayal from ALL sides. The war's very premis became unjust
and corrupt.
The disafected liberals are the dudes who later became the roots of
the Neoconservative movement. Socially fairly liberal - certainly
progressive - but foriegn policy hawks. Now that movement is largly
co-opted by the corporate Gloabalism movement and fanatical far right
Zionism crowd.
Hence what we see in Iraq profiting only a cabal of a slect few and
damn to everybody else. It is too bad. They have some of the better
strategists.
It's time to rise above this Liberal/Conservative thing. It is mostly
bullshit.
I am to the right of Atilla the Hun on some things and to the left of
Trotsky on others. When given straight facts most people are like
that.
Look at peoples principles.
BillMahoney68
>The Kennedy "make the world safe for democracy" type Democrats are not
>all gone. They are just bitter.
Kennedy?
Aint he the guy that caused the cuban missle crisis and sold out freedom
fighters at the bay of pigs?
And aint he the one that started veitnam but micromanaged it so much that our
boys werent allowed to release the beast?
>My old man is one. He VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam as young officer in
>special forces. He believed that shit and put it on the line. All he
>got was betrayal from ALL sides.
Wrong.
The dems betrayed him.
And they did it on purpose.Cause they were on the side of the veitcong.
Nixon was the only repub involved, and he ran the war well enough that he was
reelected and on his way to winning it when the dems decided to use watergate
to run him outta town and save the VC's ass.
>The war's very premis became unjust
>and corrupt.
Ill give you that JFK was one of the few anti communist dems.
The premise was pure as can be.
We wanted to save half veitnam from becoming slaves to a facist like the other
half already was.
The liberals say it was confusing.
THEY were confused cause they are communists and americans/.
In fact opinion polls as late as nixons re-election show the ajerican populace
was never confusaed.They were behind the war.
You know what demograph was MOST behind the war?
Young white males.
The guys getting drafted.
Hows that gel with the revisionist history the liberals teach as fact?
>The disafected liberals are the dudes who later became the roots of
>the Neoconservative movement.
The ones that realised there already was a leftist superpower.And it was called
the USSR.And it trampled human rights every day.
>Now that movement is largly
>co-opted by the corporate Gloabalism movement and fanatical far right
>Zionism crowd.
The right is co-opted by proud americans.Who cant be manipulated by the media
in to class hatred..Try though they might.
>Hence what we see in Iraq profiting only a cabal of a slect few and
>damn to everybody else.
It profits the 30 mil in Iraq.And all of us that dont want madmen seething with
anti american feelings running countries.
Gi
Caterbro
> And aint he the one that started veitnam but micromanaged it so much that our
> boys werent allowed to release the beast?
nope. still a bush war/police action under K. it was JOhnson, that raving loon
> Wrong.
> The dems betrayed him.
> And they did it on purpose.Cause they were on the side of the veitcong.
ho, ho.
> Nixon was the only repub involved, and he ran the war well enough that he was
> reelected and on his way to winning it when the dems decided to use watergate
> to run him outta town and save the VC's ass.
you are talking out of your ass. i mean, truly.
> We wanted to save half veitnam from becoming slaves to a facist like the other
> half already was.
it was a big fucking accident that blew out of hand. Ho was not a fascist.
the other half wasn't slaves to anything until we came along. we made sure
the north was bombed out and the south was enslaved.
> The liberals say it was confusing.
there is nothing confusing about it. it was a great big giant mistake.
> THEY were confused cause they are communists and americans/.
> In fact opinion polls as late as nixons re-election show the ajerican populace
> was never confusaed.They were behind the war.
by 70, support was dropping, and when we pulled out, less than a
third supported the war.
> You know what demograph was MOST behind the war?
> Young white males.
> The guys getting drafted.
where the hell are you getting this crap?
> Hows that gel with the revisionist history the liberals teach as fact?
my primary source or facts on the war is Gunther Lewy, the MOST
CONSERVATIVE historian to write on and he thinks it was a big fuckup.
> It profits the 30 mil in Iraq.
funny that they don't seem grateful. nor the other we help out. in fact,
the more we try to helpm the more pissed off everyone else gets.
what does that suggest?
b
And all of us that dont want madmen seething with
> anti american feelings running countries.
you don't mind suadi arabia, pakistan, most of africa, etc., etc.
you should just not bite on the political threads.
carl
> Gi
BillMahoney68
>b-m01.aol.com>:
>
>> And aint he the one that started veitnam but micromanaged it so much that
>our
>> boys werent allowed to release the beast?
>
>nope. still a bush war/police action under K. it was JOhnson, that raving
>loon
Well he shoulda made it a real war.
>> Nixon was the only repub involved, and he ran the war well enough that he
>was
>> reelected and on his way to winning it when the dems decided to use
>watergate
>> to run him outta town and save the VC's ass.
>
>
>you are talking out of your ass
Im telling true history.
It may shock those whove never heard history told by a nonliberal before.
They decided the 60's were grand and the 50's sucked.
They decided the 80's were full of greed.
They just say it until the gullible start believing it.
>> We wanted to save half veitnam from becoming slaves to a facist like the
>other
>> half already was.
>
>it was a big fucking accident that blew out of hand. Ho was not a fascist.
He was a savage murdering dictator.
>the other half wasn't slaves to anything until we came along.
But they were about to be.
> anything until we came along. we made sure
>the north was bombed out and the south was enslaved.
We didnt drop near enopugh of then bomobs.Cause the weak kneed dems are all
about "containment" rather than kicking ass.
Gi
BillMahoney68
>> In fact opinion polls as late as nixons re-election show the ajerican
>populace
>> was never confusaed.They were behind the war.
>
> by 70, support was dropping, and when we pulled out, less than a
>third supported the war.
Only according to movies.
I can hit ya with numbers if ya demand it.
>
>> You know what demograph was MOST behind the war?
>> Young white males.
>> The guys getting drafted.
>
>where the hell are you getting this crap?
Type it tommorrow.Gotta go to bed.But youll see.
I was surprised to.
>
>> It profits the 30 mil in Iraq.
>
>funny that they don't seem grateful.
Another lie.Around 90% are thrilled.Just the ones being interveiwed arent.
>nor the other we help out. in fact,
> the more we try to helpm the more pissed off everyone else gets.
>
>what does that suggest?
The media hates ametica.
'
>
>And all of us that dont want madmen seething with
>> anti american feelings running countries.
>
>you don't mind suadi arabia, pakistan, most of africa, etc., etc.
Sure I do.
But one war at a time.
Gi
Olaf
BillMahoney68 wrote:
>
>
> > anything until we came along. we made sure
> >the north was bombed out and the south was enslaved.
>
> We didnt drop near enopugh of then bomobs.Cause the weak kneed dems are all
> about "containment" rather than kicking ass.
No, even Nixon limited the number of bombs dropped, and last I heard
he was a republican. The problem with escalation in Vietnam was that
too much of it would bring in the Chinese and Soviets, and there would
have been no chance of winning a war in Asia against those two at that
time. The folks who point out that the US fought against self imposed
restraints always forget to mention the main reason for those restraints,
followed by dems and repubs alike.
And the republicans were also too "weak kneed" to risk a nuclear
confrontation with the Soviets over Vietnam, so using nukes wasn't
a real option either...seems they didn't think Vietnam was worth mushroom
clouds over most of the northern hemisphere (including the US).
-Olaf
BillMahoney68
>
>> > anything until we came along. we made sure
>> >the north was bombed out and the south was enslaved.
>>
>> We didnt drop near enopugh of then bomobs.Cause the weak kneed dems are all
>> about "containment" rather than kicking ass.
>
>No, even Nixon limited the number of bombs dropped, and last I heard
>he was a republican.
Nixon essentially won it with the paris peace accords, but the dems led the usa
to doubecross our vetnamese allies.
They turned their back on by trumping up watergate.
During the frenzy over watergate the dems demanded nixon seek their approval
before resuming bombing.This was in 73.
Within months the north invaded the south and the dems wouldnt even approve aid
for our allies.
Which got them slaughtered.
Even a weak repub in Ford pleaded with the dems in 75 to send the last
resisters in the south aid.He didnt even ask for troops, just aid.
The dems said "no".And the tanks rolled into saigon.Then they got reeducation
camps, and the slaughter of millions of our allies.
And still the dems say it wasnt a war fought for the right reasons.
Even after the murder of MILLIONS.
>The problem with escalation in Vietnam was that
>too much of it would bring in the Chinese and Soviets, and there would
>have been no chance of winning a war in Asia against those two at that
>time.
So we should have fought it with our hands tied like we did?
Look, if the USSR wanted to take us on they didnt need the excuse of a little
peice of real estate like nam.
No.
The problem in NAm was that liberals WANTED nam to go commie.
>
>And the republicans were also too "weak kneed" to risk a nuclear
>confrontation with the Soviets over Vietnam,
Only ford.If noxons peace accord was enforced the commies had to stay out of
the south.if they broke the rules nixon had what he needed for support of full
scale annihilation of the north.
Gi
Olaf
BillMahoney68 wrote:
> >rom: Olaf ol...@I.Hate.Spam.
>
> >
> >> > anything until we came along. we made sure
> >> >the north was bombed out and the south was enslaved.
> >>
> >> We didnt drop near enopugh of then bomobs.Cause the weak kneed dems are all
> >> about "containment" rather than kicking ass.
> >
> >No, even Nixon limited the number of bombs dropped, and last I heard
> >he was a republican.
>
> Nixon essentially won it with the paris peace accords, but the dems led the usa
> to doubecross our vetnamese allies.
The north vietnamese were never anywhere close to giving up. Their
supplies were coming in from China and the Soviets, and Nixon showed
no interest in bombing either of them. The Soviets especially loved
the war, as it was costing the US a bundle to fight, and was basically
unwinnable. The best the US could have got was a tie (ie both sides
go nuclear and most of the northern hemisphere destroyed in a nuclear
war that would leave both the US and the Soviets as fourth rate powers).
>
> They turned their back on by trumping up watergate.
Watergate was very serious, even the republican's admit this. They didn't
have to trump it up...
>
> During the frenzy over watergate the dems demanded nixon seek their approval
> before resuming bombing.This was in 73.
> Within months the north invaded the south and the dems wouldnt even approve aid
> for our allies.
>
> Which got them slaughtered.
> Even a weak repub in Ford pleaded with the dems in 75 to send the last
> resisters in the south aid.He didnt even ask for troops, just aid.
> The dems said "no".And the tanks rolled into saigon.Then they got reeducation
> camps, and the slaughter of millions of our allies. And still the dems say it
> wasnt a war fought for the right reasons.
> Even after the murder of MILLIONS.
>
The dems and the republican's are both quite indifferent to wars where
millions get killed (Rwanda, the Congo come to mind as obvious examples).
Why should Vietnam be any different?
>
> >The problem with escalation in Vietnam was that
> >too much of it would bring in the Chinese and Soviets, and there would
> >have been no chance of winning a war in Asia against those two at that
> >time.
>
> So we should have fought it with our hands tied like we did?
> Look, if the USSR wanted to take us on they didnt need the excuse of a little
> peice of real estate like nam.
> No.
> The problem in NAm was that liberals WANTED nam to go commie.
The USSR didn't want to take on the US anymore than the US wanted
to take on the USSR. Both sides went out of their away to avoid direct
confrontation. But the only way the US could have won was to start
using nuclear weapons, and very few American's were willing to sacrifice
New York and every other city over 100,000 people for Saigon.
>
>
> >
> >And the republicans were also too "weak kneed" to risk a nuclear
> >confrontation with the Soviets over Vietnam,
>
> Only ford.If noxons peace accord was enforced the commies had to stay out of
> the south.if they broke the rules nixon had what he needed for support of full
> scale annihilation of the north.
>
Do you really think Nixon would have started a full scale nuclear war with
the Soviets over Vietnam? We're talking about 1970, when both sides
had MIRV's with multiple 1 megaton warheads, nuclear subs making first
strikes impossible and so on. The scenerio was discussed and abandoned
under Lyndon Johnson...the US drops nukes on NVietnam, the Soviets
and Chinese drop nukes on SVietnam, and from there the chances for
escalation were considered to be close to 100% by even the hawks.
-Olaf
MH
>
> BillMahoney68 wrote:
>
>
>>>rom: Olaf ol...@I.Hate.Spam.
>>
>>>>>anything until we came along. we made sure
>>>>>the north was bombed out and the south was enslaved.
>>>>
>>>>We didnt drop near enopugh of then bomobs.Cause the weak kneed dems are all
>>>>about "containment" rather than kicking ass.
>>>
>>>No, even Nixon limited the number of bombs dropped, and last I heard
>>>he was a republican.
>>
>>Nixon essentially won it with the paris peace accords, but the dems led the usa
>>to doubecross our vetnamese allies.
>
>
> The north vietnamese were never anywhere close to giving up. Their
> supplies were coming in from China and the Soviets, and Nixon showed
> no interest in bombing either of them. The Soviets especially loved
> the war, as it was costing the US a bundle to fight, and was basically
> unwinnable. The best the US could have got was a tie (ie both sides
> go nuclear and most of the northern hemisphere destroyed in a nuclear
> war that would leave both the US and the Soviets as fourth rate powers).
And not only them. there used to be a joke during the cold war period:
Q. what is the definition of a tactical nuke?
A. a nuke that strikes somewhere in germany.
cate...@iffle.com
>
> > >No, even Nixon limited the number of bombs dropped, and last I heard
> > >he was a republican.
> >
> > Nixon essentially won it with the paris peace accords, but the dems led the usa
> > to doubecross our vetnamese allies.
the paris accords were becuase the VIET CONG had won, not the other way around.
in his most famous peice of skullduggery, kissinger queered the meeting up by
ensuring that the SVietnamese negotiator would cuase talks to break down. the s
outh was forced to accede anyway. the US broke the peace accords the VERY
NEXT DAY by beginning the first wave of a bombing campiagn that eventrually
killed close a million vietnamese.
get your facts right(who ever wrote that:) )
> The north vietnamese were never anywhere close to giving up. Their
> supplies were coming in from China and the Soviets, and Nixon showed
> no interest in bombing either of them.
china and the soviets sold them arms, but the North Vietnamese were never i
n the pocket of, fighting for, or poliutically spearheaded by, either the russians or the chinsese
>The Soviets especially loved
> the war, as it was costing the US a bundle to fight, and was basically
> unwinnable. The best the US could have got was a tie (ie both sides
> go nuclear and most of the northern hemisphere destroyed in a nuclear
> war that would leave both the US and the Soviets as fourth rate powers).
even if the US had nuked vietnam, the russians would not necessarily have responded.
cate...@iffle.com
> >it was a big fucking accident that blew out of hand. Ho was not a fascist.
>
> He was a savage murdering dictator.
he was not. you are wrong about this.
cate...@iffle.com
> > by 70, support was dropping, and when we pulled out, less than a
> >third supported the war.
>
> Only according to movies.
> I can hit ya with numbers if ya demand it.
i will beat you do it, you gimp.
when the war "officialy" kicked off, in 65, 61 percent of young white
males supported it. they were about 5 points ahead of other groups.
by '70, that number was dowb to 41% support, with other groups trailing
by 10 points or more.
by '71 and the end of the war, 34% of YWMs supported the war.
overall, support for the war peaked in the general population at 65%
by the war's end, that support was around 27%
not to mention that fact that polling data consistently turned up 20%
"no opinion"
> >nor the other we help out. in fact,
> > the more we try to helpm the more pissed off everyone else gets.
> >
> >what does that suggest?
>
> The media hates ametica.
or... we aren't helping much, and even if we are, they don't want or help.
i mean, how many times do you try and pick a strange drunk up and dust him off
when he keeps hitting you?
carl
Todd Christensen
> >m: "Caterbro"
>
> >> In fact opinion polls as late as nixons re-election show the ajerican
> populace
> >> was never confusaed.They were behind the war.
> >
> > by 70, support was dropping, and when we pulled out, less than a
> >third supported the war.
>
> Only according to movies.
> I can hit ya with numbers if ya demand it.
You would be wronge. There are mountains of stats on this that ALL
disagree with you. For a start look up that little tome called The Ten
Thousand Day War by Stanley Karnow. Do a little reading.
Gi where do you get you history from some factoid digest sound byte
spouted by Hannity or Limbaugh? Niether, BTW, fucking served in in the
military. Rush dodged the draft completely. But they are BIIIIG
patriot revisionists now. You bet.
Back in the late sixties early seventies ther were plenty of guys like
that. Chicken hawks who were for the war at first - cuaght up in the
jingositic machine - untill cognitive dissonance was just too hard to
maintain as the bodies rolled home and the Drat spun thier way.
Eventually plenty of Republicans - most in fact - were against the
war.
A war that the Democrats started.
> Another lie.Around 90% are thrilled.Just the ones being interveiwed arent.
> The media hates ametica.
You are brain washed by that very media.
The news has gone WAAAY over the top to find videogenic Iraqi's that
tow the Bush party line. Shit they have logos with the American Flag
animated over them with every report hard to stiffle that patriotic
tear. Every report is peppered with pre-arranged State Department
catch phrases and press releases.
But now those sympathetic Iraqi guys have all gone and hid. Thier own
people have turned on them and are killing them.
If they are so thrilled with us? Why are they bombing the our troops,
the UN, thier OWN mosques and pipelines? Why are they mad at us when
thier own people kill thier own people?
Well sure: because they are stupid. But other than that because they
are pissed at Bush for fucking this thing up so bad and because they
dont WANT to be liberated.
They want a strong man. They dont want our ideals. They never have.
Never will.
Wake up. As long as we are there this shit will NOT stop. Ever. Count
on it.
Keep saying your bullshit and believe these childish little lies the
Bushies are spewing - in three or four years, 2,000 American lives and
another 155 Billion dollars later we will still be no closer to
*Demoracy* in Iraq. I'm sure youll find plenty more *liberals* to
blame for YOU being duped and so easy to manipulate.
> Sure I do.
> But one war at a time.
You mean THREE wars at a time - not including Liberia. Your attention
span is too short to even get CURRENT events correct.
BillMahoney68
>From: to...@quesinberry.com (Todd Christensen)
>
>> >> In fact opinion polls as late as nixons re-election show the ajerican
>> populace
>> >> was never confusaed.They were behind the war.
>> >
>> > by 70, support was dropping, and when we pulled out, less than a
>> >third supported the war.
>>
>> Only according to movies.
>> I can hit ya with numbers if ya demand it.
>
>You would be wronge. There are mountains of stats on this that ALL
>disagree with you. For a start look up that little tome called The Ten
>Thousand Day War by Stanley Karnow. Do a little reading.
I did.
I read Paul Johnsons "Modern Times"
The numbers are there.
See for yourself.
Karnows book isnt scienctific.
>
>Gi where do you get you history from some factoid digest sound byte
>spouted by Hannity or Limbaugh? Niether, BTW, fucking served in in the
>military.
So? Reagan did, Bush senior, tons of repubs.
A higher % of them did than dems in congress did.
But almost 2-1.
>
>The news has gone WAAAY over the top to find videogenic Iraqi's that
>tow the Bush party line.
You cant really believe that.
The facts are that MOST Iraqis are thrilled we are there./Yet it is the 15%
that aint thats on TV all night.
>
> If they are so thrilled with us? Why are they bombing the our troops,
>the UN,
The broken republican guard is.Cause they know when a working government is set
up, they will be on the bottom rung or dead.
>believe these childish little lies the
>Bushies are spewing - in three or four years, 2,000 American lives
2000 lives to stop husseins reign of terror?
LOL.Thats pretty easy aint it?
>I'm sure youll find plenty more *liberals* to
>blame for YOU being duped and so easy to manipulate.
I blame you liberals just for beinbg anti american commie/fags.
AND GOD WILLING someday you will pay for shitting on the country that you owe
so much too.
You're a spoiled brat.
You all are.
Gi
BillMahoney68
>From: Olaf ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com
>
>> Nixon essentially won it with the paris peace accords, but the dems led the
>usa
>> to doubecross our vetnamese allies.
>
>The north vietnamese were never anywhere close to giving up. Their
>supplies were coming in from China and the Soviets, and Nixon showed
>no interest in bombing either of them. The Soviets especially loved
>the war, as it was costing the US a bundle to fight, and was basically
>unwinnable.
Read my post again.The peace accord was set to stop the commies in their
tracks.
>
>Watergate was very serious, even the republican's admit this. They didn't
>have to trump it up...
Not half as serious as lying under oath about sexual favors from paid
underlings in exchange for promotions.
Yet clitton walked.
>
>The dems and the republican's are both quite indifferent to wars where
>millions get killed (Rwanda, the Congo come to mind as obvious examples).
>Why should Vietnam be any different?
Cause the commies were gunning for us.
>> No.
>> The problem in NAm was that liberals WANTED nam to go commie.
>
>The USSR didn't want to take on the US anymore than the US wanted
>to take on the USSR.
"we will bury you!!!"
Sure.
>Both sides went out of their away to avoid direct
>confrontation.
They were waiting for a sign that we couldnt handle them.
Carters response to afghanistan almost did it.
>
>> Only ford.If noxons peace accord was enforced the commies had to stay out
>of
>> the south.if they broke the rules nixon had what he needed for support of
>full
>> scale annihilation of the north.
>>
>
>Do you really think Nixon would have started a full scale nuclear war with
>the Soviets over Vietnam?
If the north violated the accord, nixon woulda shredded em if the dems let him
stay in the office he was voted into.
Do you really think a rabid anti commie like Nixon wouldnt have rolled the
dice?
Gi
Mike Sigman
"BillMahoney68" <billma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030914201211...@mb-m27.aol.com...
>
> I blame you liberals just for beinbg anti american commie/fags.
> AND GOD WILLING someday you will pay for shitting on the country that you
owe
> so much too.
> You're a spoiled brat.
> You all are.
A few years back, the government released a lot of intercepted
communications from the Soviets during the 40's and 50's. It turned out
that the Truman and FDR administrations (Democrats and Liberals to boot) had
indeed been infiltrated by between 100 to 200 actual Soviet spies. *IN* the
administration. The liberals had denied it for years and done a lot to
demonize "McCarthyism". What stunned me was that when the irrefutable
truth came out (maybe 4 years ago? I forget exactly), it got almost no play
in the media because most of the liberal media was to blame for a lot of the
howling and it turns out they were wrong in a big way. One of the biggest
stories of the century was dropped like a hot potatoe. I just noted
(belatedly, I guess, since I don't follow everything) that some woman named
Ann Coulter has written a book about the same release of tapes and she
apparently lays it hard on the liberals. McCarthy apparently
*underestimated* how many communists were in the U.S. government. BTW, I'm
not recommending the book because I haven't read it yet, except for a few
paragraphs at a book store (I think the name is "Treason", but I could be
wrong).
The point is that a lot of the rift between liberal Democrats and U.S.
citizens who are patriotic began during the days prior to WW2. In those
days, remember, Hitler was not a "bad guy" until he invaded other countries,
etc, and prior to that the "American Nazi Party" was not thought badly of.
Stalin was "Uncle Joe" to many Democrats and to be a communist or member of
the "American Communist Party" was to be a true liberal and not the same
thing as a "Soviet Spy". Unfortunately, it's now been shown that the
American Communist Party answered directly to Russia and ran spies for them.
The Democrats have never gotten over this "unfair" dislike of communists and
they resisted almost every "anti-communist" move up until the end of the
Cold War. The release of those tapes has brought one of the big silences
about communism and socialism of all times. But people like Hal have never
gotten the word and they still call anyone who speaks against liberals as a
"McCarthyite".
So this anti-American crap is not something really new from liberals... it
goes back prior to WW2.
FWIW
Mike
BillMahoney68
>-m01.aol.com>:
>>
>
>> >it was a big fucking accident that blew out of hand. Ho was not a fascist.
>
>>
>> He was a savage murdering dictator.
>
>
>he was not. you are wrong about this.
>
liberals called Ho chi minh the veitnamese george washington,
He brought communism to millions.The same communism that murdered millions.
But the dems love him...of course they loved stalin too.FDR called him "uncle
joe".
He murder 15 million.
But hey...thats why pencils have erasers.
Gi
BillMahoney68
>
>> > by 70, support was dropping, and when we pulled out, less than a
>> >third supported the war.
>>
>> Only according to movies.
>> I can hit ya with numbers if ya demand it.
>
>i will beat you do it, you gimp.
>
>when the war "officialy" kicked off, in 65, 61 percent of young white
>males supported it. they were about 5 points ahead of other groups.
>
>by '70, that number was dowb to 41% support, with other groups trailing
>by 10 points or more.
>
>by '71 and the end of the war, 34% of YWMs supported the war.
>
>overall, support for the war peaked in the general population at 65%
>
>by the war's end, that support was around 27%
>
So the war was popular.
Then the media staged photos of american atrocities and enemy defeats like the
tet offebsive were propped up as victories.
In any case, youre wrong.
The best book on veitnam war stats is modern time, by paul johnson.
he shows conclusively that the number oppossed to the war never got higher than
20%.
>
>not to mention that fact that polling data consistently turned up 20%
>"no opinion"
the ones saying "no opinion" afdter the onslaught of the libebral media are
pretty firmly in my column.
>
>i mean, how many times do you try and pick a strange drunk up and dust him
>off
>when he keeps hitting you?
Never.Im, a republican.
I would only help someone to help himself.
Gi
C McKew
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> A few years back, the government released a lot of intercepted
> communications from the Soviets during the 40's and 50's. It turned out
> that the Truman and FDR administrations (Democrats and Liberals to boot) had
> indeed been infiltrated by between 100 to 200 actual Soviet spies. *IN* the
> administration. The liberals had denied it for years and done a lot to
> demonize "McCarthyism".
Hi Mike,
I'm prepared to accept those numbers (and recall similar numbers).
What I wish to point out is that they were _spies_. What McCarthyism
did was victimise _Communists_ (Well, by names, yes. By intent more
like naive idealists and well-meaning socialists, more than a few were
misguided fools, some were a bit crazy. None of them flew airplanes
into large buildings).
McCarthy wasn't about purging spies from administrations, he was
defining "good" and "evil" for the general population, with a sting in
the tail of his definition.
I note that very few spies were caught over that era. Once again points to
defects in the interaction between intelligence operatives in the field,
and the channels that "manage" their information, and the executives
who selectively exploit it for their own personal agendas. Not ALL
in the executives, but too many. You can tell when their influence
is high, because the amount of road kill is much higher.
> I just noted (belatedly, I guess, since I don't follow everything) that some
> woman named Ann Coulter has written a book about the same release of
> tapes and she apparently lays it hard on the liberals.
Far be it from me to teach my grand-mama to suck eggs, but Mike, you need
to hear from someone that Coulter is a consummate manipulative propagandist.
She's part of the club that makes all conservatives look like lying bully-boys.
Non sequitur is her middle name, and ad hominem is her style. She would
be right at home in rec.martial-arts.
Mike, you deserve to read better material than hers (and I'm sure you do).
CCCate.
Mike Sigman
"C McKew" <cate_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:xd89b.102563$bo1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> > A few years back, the government released a lot of intercepted
> > communications from the Soviets during the 40's and 50's. It turned
out
> > that the Truman and FDR administrations (Democrats and Liberals to boot)
had
> > indeed been infiltrated by between 100 to 200 actual Soviet spies. *IN*
the
> > administration. The liberals had denied it for years and done a lot to
> > demonize "McCarthyism".
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I'm prepared to accept those numbers (and recall similar numbers).
> What I wish to point out is that they were _spies_. What McCarthyism
> did was victimise _Communists_ (Well, by names, yes. By intent more
> like naive idealists and well-meaning socialists, more than a few were
> misguided fools, some were a bit crazy. None of them flew airplanes
> into large buildings).
And some of them gave vital U.S. secrets to the Soviets. To this day,
many liberals defend the attitude and facts of those deeds... which is what
I mean by the "Anti-American" slant of so many liberals.
The problem with your thesis is that you separate American "communists" from
"Soviet Spies", yet it's been shown that the American Communist Party was an
arm of the Soviet intelligence and that they cultivated a lot of these
"communists" as "spies".
>
> McCarthy wasn't about purging spies from administrations, he was
> defining "good" and "evil" for the general population, with a sting in
> the tail of his definition.
Really? Can you give me a source on that? His basic tenet was that there
were communists in the U.S. government.
>
> I note that very few spies were caught over that era. Once again points to
> defects in the interaction between intelligence operatives in the field,
> and the channels that "manage" their information, and the executives
> who selectively exploit it for their own personal agendas. Not ALL
> in the executives, but too many. You can tell when their influence
> is high, because the amount of road kill is much higher.
>
> > I just noted (belatedly, I guess, since I don't follow everything) that
some
> > woman named Ann Coulter has written a book about the same release of
> > tapes and she apparently lays it hard on the liberals.
>
> Far be it from me to teach my grand-mama to suck eggs, but Mike, you need
> to hear from someone that Coulter is a consummate manipulative
propagandist.
> She's part of the club that makes all conservatives look like lying
bully-boys.
> Non sequitur is her middle name, and ad hominem is her style. She would
> be right at home in rec.martial-arts.
>
> Mike, you deserve to read better material than hers (and I'm sure you do).
Like I said, I haven't read the book. I just noted that she is using the
Venona Project (there's a good book on it that is a lot more factual... I
have it somewhere, but I can't think of the name) while much of the liberal
media avoided mentioning it like the plague. Perhaps Coulter is as you
say or perhaps you are guilty of character assassination... I don't have
time to look into it. The only really interesting things that piqued my
interest en passant at the bookstore were that she apparently developed her
thesis around the much-neglected Venona information and she appeared to
footnote just about every other sentence. Perhaps you should read the book
and see if she is really a "consummate manipulative propagandist" or whether
you just put yourself in that category. :^))))
Given how much liberal media attention went to defending the Rosenburgs et
al, I'd like to hear your explanation of why even the NYTimes went more or
less silent with the revelation of those tapes. Frankly, a lot of
"liberals" look very anti-American to me (not that I prefer hardnosed
"Superpatriots" and their baggage), regardless of all the flummery about
"they're just using the freedom of expression".
Mike
Olaf
BillMahoney68 wrote:
> >e 87 billion?
> >From: Olaf ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com
>
> >
> >> Nixon essentially won it with the paris peace accords, but the dems led the
> >usa
> >> to doubecross our vetnamese allies.
> >
> >The north vietnamese were never anywhere close to giving up. Their
> >supplies were coming in from China and the Soviets, and Nixon showed
> >no interest in bombing either of them. The Soviets especially loved
> >the war, as it was costing the US a bundle to fight, and was basically
> >unwinnable.
>
> Read my post again.The peace accord was set to stop the commies in their
> tracks.
>
It had no chance of doing so, the NVietnamese knew they were close to
winning.
>
> >
> >Watergate was very serious, even the republican's admit this. They didn't
> >have to trump it up...
>
> Not half as serious as lying under oath about sexual favors from paid
> underlings in exchange for promotions.
> Yet clitton walked.
>
> >
> >The dems and the republican's are both quite indifferent to wars where
> >millions get killed (Rwanda, the Congo come to mind as obvious examples).
> >Why should Vietnam be any different?
>
> Cause the commies were gunning for us.
>
The loss of Vietnam (as hindsight proves) meant diddly squat in terms
of the battle between the commies and the US. Of course the commies
were trying to take over everything, but it made no sense to waste money
and lives fighting them in a backwater like Vietnam. Take a look at what
happened when Vietnam fell...almost nothing.
>
> >> No.
> >> The problem in NAm was that liberals WANTED nam to go commie.
> >
> >The USSR didn't want to take on the US anymore than the US wanted
> >to take on the USSR.
>
> "we will bury you!!!"
> Sure.
>
Yup, they hoped to incite revolutions and basically take over the world.
But they didn't want to fight a nuclear war to do it. The US wanted to
replace the communists with a democracy. But they didn't want to fight
a nuclear war to do it either. Or why do you think no war was fought
between NATO and the Warsaw Pact for 40 very tense years?
>
> >Both sides went out of their away to avoid direct
> >confrontation.
>
> They were waiting for a sign that we couldnt handle them.
> Carters response to afghanistan almost did it.
>
Going into Afghanistan probably cost the Soviets their empire. The
nuclear arms race was peanuts in comparison. Carter's response
unwittingly gave the Soviets enough rope to hang themselves.
>
> >
> >> Only ford.If noxons peace accord was enforced the commies had to stay out
> >of
> >> the south.if they broke the rules nixon had what he needed for support of
> >full
> >> scale annihilation of the north.
> >>
> >
> >Do you really think Nixon would have started a full scale nuclear war with
> >the Soviets over Vietnam?
>
> If the north violated the accord, nixon woulda shredded em if the dems let him
> stay in the office he was voted into.
>
> Do you really think a rabid anti commie like Nixon wouldnt have rolled the
> dice?
> Gi
So you think the US would have been willing to sacrifice between 100,000,000
and 150,000,000 people for the good of Vietnam?
-Olaf
BillMahoney68
>ge
>news:20030914201211...@mb-m27.aol.com...
>>
>> I blame you liberals just for beinbg anti american commie/fags.
>> AND GOD WILLING someday you will pay for shitting on the country that you
>owe
>> so much too.
>> You're a spoiled brat.
>> You all are.
>
>A few years back, the government released a lot of intercepted
>communications from the Soviets during the 40's and 50's. It turned out
>that the Truman and FDR administrations (Democrats and Liberals to boot) had
>indeed been infiltrated by between 100 to 200 actual Soviet spies.
Published in the venona papers.
Essentially it proved that not only mcarthy was roight, they are were commies.
But that the core of the democratic party had actually known they were
infiltrated by commies for decades.
Yet the re;lease of these papers barely made the news.
McCarthy was a great patriot.
We should ALL admit that now.
> What stunned me was that when the irrefutable
>truth came out (maybe 4 years ago? I forget exactly),
94 I think....maybe 95.
Time flies.
>it got almost no play
>in the media because most of the liberal media was to blame for a lot of the
>howling and it turns out they were wrong in a big way.
And the dems still revere their alger Hisses.
Its as if once history is written it cant be changed.MCcARTHY WAS on a
withhunt.
THATS the story.
Even though ALL the guys(an gals) he mentioned as commies were in fact, later
proven to be commies.
MOST were more than that.
They were soviet spies.Right in the white house.
And truman knew it.
> One of the biggest
>stories of the century was dropped like a hot potatoe. I just noted
>(belatedly, I guess,
It would have gutted the dems.
Or should I say outed them.
The democratic party wanted the soviets to win the cold war.
That is the truth.It explains dems foreign policy disasters.
It sounds crazy, but it isnt.
> since I don't follow everything) that some woman named
>Ann Coulter has written a book about the same release of tapes and she
>apparently lays it hard on the liberals.
Amazing book.It spells it out.
> McCarthy apparently
>*underestimated* how many communists were in the U.S. government.
Yup.By like 2-1.And again, many, if not most were actually on the USSRs
payroll.
And get this.NONE were republicans.
Zero.
> (I think the name is "Treason",
correct.
All those idiotic movies with noble blacklisted directors never mention that
they REALLY WERE COMMUNISTS.
Gi
Mike Sigman
"Olaf" <ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com> wrote in message
news:3F651810...@I.Hate.Spam.com...
>
>
> The loss of Vietnam (as hindsight proves) meant diddly squat in terms
> of the battle between the commies and the US. Of course the commies
> were trying to take over everything, but it made no sense to waste money
> and lives fighting them in a backwater like Vietnam. Take a look at what
> happened when Vietnam fell...almost nothing.
Oh surely! I agree! After Vietnam went to the NVM's, the North Vietnamese
backed the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and somewhere around 2 million Cambodians
were killed by the communist Khmer Rouge. Of course 2 million people means
little when it's only a bunch of dirty foreigners, but I'm always amazed at
how 1 death is a horror to liberals, but many deaths are only meaningless
statistics. In the 20th Century, somewhere around 100 million peoples'
deaths are ascribed to communists, yet there is a wistful relationship
between "liberals" and the "socialists" called "communists".
Mike
BillMahoney68
> What McCarthyism
>did was victimise _Communists_
crap.
McCarthy went after communist part members in the US government.
COVERT communists.
America was invaded by a covery civilian army loyal to a hostile country.
That is a HUGE deal.
It would be like it turns out john ashcroft is a member of al queda(sp) or the
taliban.
That aint worth knowing?
>What McCarthyism
>did was victimise _Communists_ (Well, by names, yes. By intent more
>like naive idealists and well-meaning socialists,
BULLSHIT.
These were guys taking orders from moscow.
alger hiss, judith coplon, the rosenbergs, friggin currie actually told the
sovietsthat the american had just cracked the code that produced the info
release in the venona project.
He was working for OUR president.
These were traitors that deserved execution.
>. None of them flew airplanes
>into large buildings).
They gave the soviets info that allowed the them to build nuclear bombs.
They were more dangerous than bin ladens gang by an order of magnitude.
>McCarthy wasn't about purging spies from administrations, he was
>defining "good" and "evil" for the general population, with a sting in
>the tail of his definition.
Thats the myth the dems tried to convince you.And it worked.Thats how they got
off.They attacked his motives.
He didnt give a wit about good and evil.This was the USA vs the USSR.
>
>I note that very few spies were caught over that era.
They were known to exist.BUT THE DEMS SAVED THEIR ASS by demanding mcCarthy
expose his sources in open counrt.Joe wouldnt get his people killed.They were
infoirments.So tye venona info was classified for 40 years.
Then when it got out we found that mcCarthy did indeed have tapes proving
conspiracy against the USA in dozones of cases.And the dems knew it.But they
buried it.
>
>Far be it from me to teach my grand-mama to suck eggs, but Mike, you need
>to hear from someone that Coulter is a consummate manipulative propagandist.
Ah the spirit of the scumbag dems in the 50s lives on.
When you got the facts against you....attack the messanger.
Gi
C McKew
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote :
> "C McKew" <cate_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote :
>
> > I'm prepared to accept those numbers (and recall similar numbers).
> > What I wish to point out is that they were _spies_. What McCarthyism
> > did was victimise _Communists_ (Well, by names, yes. By intent more
> > like naive idealists and well-meaning socialists, more than a few were
> > misguided fools, some were a bit crazy. None of them flew airplanes
> > into large buildings).
>
> And some of them gave vital U.S. secrets to the Soviets. To this day,
> many liberals defend the attitude and facts of those deeds... which is what
> I mean by the "Anti-American" slant of so many liberals.
>
> The problem with your thesis is that you separate American "communists" from
> "Soviet Spies", yet it's been shown that the American Communist Party was an
> arm of the Soviet intelligence and that they cultivated a lot of these
> "communists" as "spies".
I never said the Soviets weren't pricks, or that there were no spies. The ones
in government positions could have been handled differently. The broad brush
did a lot of damage to non-spies, and freedom of thought (and freedom of
association, its close bedfellow).
I agree that there was genuine reasons for concern. My point is that the
response did not address the concern, but did MUCH to help careers
and election. I expect smear campaigns, but McCarthy created the
mother of all smears. I could argue that it fortified the resolve of the
right and the left, and fortified the Soviet push to infiltrate, rather than
mellow it out. They, too needed evidences of "evil" to garner support
(just as Osama bL whips up his mad crowd).
> > McCarthy wasn't about purging spies from administrations, he was
> > defining "good" and "evil" for the general population, with a sting in
> > the tail of his definition.
>
> Really? Can you give me a source on that? His basic tenet was that there
> were communists in the U.S. government.
The Hollywood Ten would be a good place to start.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/blacklist.html (I should admit to having
coffee with Arthur Miller once - not just the two of us, but enough to
have great respect for him). Or more generally (well researched with
referenced sources): http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm
> ...Ann Coulter
>
> Like I said, I haven't read the book. I just noted that she is using the
> Venona Project (there's a good book on it that is a lot more factual... I
> have it somewhere, but I can't think of the name) while much of the liberal
> media avoided mentioning it like the plague. Perhaps Coulter is as you
> say or perhaps you are guilty of character assassination... I don't have
> time to look into it. The only really interesting things that piqued my
> interest en passant at the bookstore were that she apparently developed her
> thesis around the much-neglected Venona information and she appeared to
> footnote just about every other sentence.
I have read large slabs of the Venona documents. They look like good research
to me, and based on good field work.
> Perhaps you should read the book
> and see if she is really a "consummate manipulative propagandist" or whether
> you just put yourself in that category. :^))))
Thank you for the smiley. I have been employed as a manager of spin
doctors, and an analyst of spin in the past (both corporate and government,
but neither in the US). I don't like that kind of work - I'd rather get grubby
with REAL dirt - but I've been deep inside the loop a few times. It does
strike me that the level of deception is higher now than it has been since
the mid 60s (when I wasn't even born).
> Given how much liberal media attention went to defending the Rosenburgs et
> al, I'd like to hear your explanation of why even the NYTimes went more or
> less silent with the revelation of those tapes. Frankly, a lot of
> "liberals" look very anti-American to me (not that I prefer hardnosed
> "Superpatriots" and their baggage), regardless of all the flummery about
> "they're just using the freedom of expression".
Journalists have their own agendas. Sometimes they just get tied up in
the momentum of a story. Rosenbergs was one example. Watergate
was another. Monica and the cigar was a third.
My opinion is that the human rights issues were important for the
Rosenberg story, but the truth (objective investigation) was sacrificed
for a story. Is this wrong? Well, Mike, you have to know how newspapers
work. They have serious deadlines, and they prioritize stories based in
part on what sells papers. I think they needed MORE investigative
resources at the time.
Watergate? Was that investigation (by W and B) un-American?
Monica and the cigar are a joke, right? But the story's purpose was
several-fold. (1) Beat up and attack WJC. (2) Reveal that he DID
lie in public. (3) Sell newspapers. (4) Be entertaining.
Cate.
BillMahoney68
>
>
>The loss of Vietnam (as hindsight proves) meant diddly squat in terms
>of the battle between the commies and the US.
It showed the USSR that the USA wasnt committed to defend our lifestyle.
That the peacenik hippies in this country would side with the commies when
scuffles broke out and the media would fall in line.
It allowed for the ruskies going into afghanistan, the shah taking his
hostages, it emblodened every halfass dictator in the third world.
It made us look weak.
And millions die around the world if the worlds light of liberty is obscured.
Thats us.
>
>> >> No.
>> >> The problem in NAm was that liberals WANTED nam to go commie.
>> >
>> >The USSR didn't want to take on the US anymore than the US wanted
>> >to take on the USSR.
>>
>> "we will bury you!!!"
>> Sure.
>>
>
>Yup, they hoped to incite revolutions and basically take over the world.
>But they didn't want to fight a nuclear war to do it.
Cause they knew they couldnbt win.
If we gutted defense spending theyd have been on us like travs mom on 16 inch
negro pork.
>
>Going into Afghanistan probably cost the Soviets their empire.
Nah.It wasnt shit.What cost them their empire is ronald reagan.
Period.
> Carter's response
>unwittingly gave the Soviets enough rope to hang themselves.
So carters weakness won the world for us?
I must admit, I hadent thought of that.
Is that why he got the nobel peace prize? Or was it cause he let the hostages
rot? Or maybe cause he boycotted the olympics so the russain 15 year old girls
couldnt make our girls feel inferior on the uneven bars.
>
>So you think the US would have been willing to sacrifice between 100,000,000
>and 150,000,000 people for the good of Vietnam?
>
Veitman was a battle in the cold war.
It could have tipped the scales.
Think god it didnt.
Gi
Mike Sigman
"C McKew" <cate_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3f652...@news.iprimus.com.au...
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote :
> "C McKew" <cate_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote :
>
> > I'm prepared to accept those numbers (and recall similar numbers).
> > What I wish to point out is that they were _spies_. What McCarthyism
> > did was victimise _Communists_ (Well, by names, yes. By intent more
> > like naive idealists and well-meaning socialists, more than a few were
> > misguided fools, some were a bit crazy. None of them flew airplanes
> > into large buildings).
>
> And some of them gave vital U.S. secrets to the Soviets. To this day,
> many liberals defend the attitude and facts of those deeds... which is
what
> I mean by the "Anti-American" slant of so many liberals.
>
> The problem with your thesis is that you separate American "communists"
from
> "Soviet Spies", yet it's been shown that the American Communist Party was
an
> arm of the Soviet intelligence and that they cultivated a lot of these
> "communists" as "spies".
I never said the Soviets weren't pricks, or that there were no spies. The
ones
in government positions could have been handled differently.
*****************************
They WERE handled differently.... they were allowed to spy and help Russia
jeopardize the western world for 50 years because of the secrets they gave
away. Oh.... you're complaining about the fact that they were
villified??????? Do you think spies should be sent to Miss Manners'?
******************************
The broad brush
did a lot of damage to non-spies, and freedom of thought (and freedom of
association, its close bedfellow).
***************************
You need to understand something about the US.... yes, there is "freedom of
speech", but that doesn't mean that everything said under "freedom" is not
anti-American. In other words, having "freedoms" to speak, act, and
associate doesn't mean that there is no such thing as a crime.
**************************
I agree that there was genuine reasons for concern. My point is that the
response did not address the concern, but did MUCH to help careers
and election. I expect smear campaigns, but McCarthy created the
mother of all smears. I could argue that it fortified the resolve of the
right and the left, and fortified the Soviet push to infiltrate, rather than
mellow it out. They, too needed evidences of "evil" to garner support
(just as Osama bL whips up his mad crowd).
**************************
OK.... you just said that McCarthy "smeared". I say that he didn't, but
that the common legend has fabricated this idea of "smearing". Tell me who
he smeared.
********************************
> > McCarthy wasn't about purging spies from administrations, he was
> > defining "good" and "evil" for the general population, with a sting in
> > the tail of his definition.
>
> Really? Can you give me a source on that? His basic tenet was that
there
> were communists in the U.S. government.
The Hollywood Ten would be a good place to start.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/blacklist.html (I should admit to having
coffee with Arthur Miller once - not just the two of us, but enough to
have great respect for him). Or more generally (well researched with
referenced sources): http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyism.htm
****************************
Again, I say you're simply parrotting the common liberal legend (which is
skewed) and you have no facts to support what you're saying. The
"Hollywood Ten" were a joke that brought it all on themselves. They were
indeed members of the communist party.... the same communist party that
answered to the Soviets and provided traitorous spies against the U.S.
They refused to answer questions put to them by a House of Representatives
committee.... something that J. McCarthy, a **Senator** was not a member of.
They were jailed for contempt. They *wanted* the notoriety, as did a
number of other Hollywood types who volunteered to appear before committees.
But in the liberal legend, this House investigation is laid before the feet
of McCarthy, who was trying to prove there were communist spies in the U.S.
government.
And by the way, the minor crap about "blacklisting" in Hollywood always
tickles me. Why don't you try to get a job in Hollywood if you're an
announced Christian, or are anti-Gay lifestyle or a number of other "not-in"
things? And then tell me about the moaning cry of "blacklisting".
************************************
Thank you for the smiley. I have been employed as a manager of spin
doctors, and an analyst of spin in the past (both corporate and government,
but neither in the US). I don't like that kind of work - I'd rather get
grubby
with REAL dirt - but I've been deep inside the loop a few times. It does
strike me that the level of deception is higher now than it has been since
the mid 60s (when I wasn't even born).
************************************
Hmmmmm.... *you're* the one that said "you need to hear from someone that
Coulter is a consummate manipulative propagandist.
She's part of the club that makes all conservatives look like lying
bully-boys.Non sequitur is her middle name, and ad hominem is her style. "
I don't know what she's written, but I'd blindly bet she hasn't trashed
anyone as badly as you just did. Care to bet?
******************************
> Given how much liberal media attention went to defending the Rosenburgs et
> al, I'd like to hear your explanation of why even the NYTimes went more
or
> less silent with the revelation of those tapes. Frankly, a lot of
> "liberals" look very anti-American to me (not that I prefer hardnosed
> "Superpatriots" and their baggage), regardless of all the flummery about
> "they're just using the freedom of expression".
Journalists have their own agendas. Sometimes they just get tied up in
the momentum of a story. Rosenbergs was one example. Watergate
was another. Monica and the cigar was a third.
********************************
I never liked Nixon, so Watergate doesn't mean much to me. Note that Nixon
didn't order or commit the breakin.... he simply lied and tried to cover it
up, the same thing that Clinton got off the hook for. The Rosenbergs and
Monica were staunchly defended by liberals, particularly by the NYTimes.
****************************
My opinion is that the human rights issues were important for the
Rosenberg story, but the truth (objective investigation) was sacrificed
for a story. Is this wrong? Well, Mike, you have to know how newspapers
work. They have serious deadlines, and they prioritize stories based in
part on what sells papers. I think they needed MORE investigative
resources at the time.
*****************
Er, I think I know pretty well how newspapers work. I even enjoy a little
patronizing.
*******************
Watergate? Was that investigation (by W and B) un-American?
Monica and the cigar are a joke, right? But the story's purpose was
several-fold. (1) Beat up and attack WJC. (2) Reveal that he DID
lie in public. (3) Sell newspapers. (4) Be entertaining.
****************************
If all Clinton had ever done was Monica, he'd have been home free. He lied
about draft-dodging, he was accused of rape by a credible Democratic
activist, he was deep in money-making scams including Tyson's Chickens, his
"fundraising" from the Communist Chinese Army, Buddhist nuns, etc., was
illegal but his pet A.G. wouldn't prosecute, he laughingly pardoned one of
America's most wanted as he went out of office, etc., etc.,..... but the
highly-moraled "Liberals" still love him as a patron saint. It's becoming
more and more clear that Clinton's deliberate inaction encouraged Osama Bin
Laden to launch the WTC attack. Yet you defend him?
Mike Sigman
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:
Out of context; Gi was saying that Vietnam was strategically important
to the US. In retrospect its obvious it wasn't. Communism was a god awful
system, but fighting in Vietnam did nothing to slow it down, and probably
was responsible for it lasting longer than it otherwise would have because
it took up resources that could have been used on a Marshall Plan for
Central and South America (which with a little bit of money would have
become democratic so fast it would have made Castro's head swim).
Millions of deaths are just stats to dems and repubs alike; take a look
at Africa. Both parties are quite happy to ignore millions of deaths there.
-Olaf
Olaf
BillMahoney68 wrote:
> >: Olaf ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com
>
> >
> >
> >The loss of Vietnam (as hindsight proves) meant diddly squat in terms
> >of the battle between the commies and the US.
>
> It showed the USSR that the USA wasnt committed to defend our lifestyle.
> That the peacenik hippies in this country would side with the commies when
> scuffles broke out and the media would fall in line.
>
It showed the Soviets that the US was willing to waste huge amounts of cash
on a pointless struggle. The Soviets had no doubt that the US was willing
to go to the line to defend important areas (look at the Berlin blockade
and the Cuban missile crisis).
>
> It allowed for the ruskies going into afghanistan, the shah taking his
> hostages, it emblodened every halfass dictator in the third world.
>
I'm guessing you mean Khomeni taking the hostages; the ruskies figured
they could go into Afghanistan after NATO allowed them to go into
Czecheslovakia in '68 and Hungary in '54. Khomeni had nothing to
do with communism, he was an Islamic fundamentalist, and hated the
godless communists as much as he hated the infidels in Europe and
North America.
>
> It made us look weak.
Going in made you look stupid. It was for the most part the tail end
of an anti-colonial war between the Vietnamese and their French masters.
Most 3rd world countries went from thinking the US was the champion
of freedom to the champion of European imperialism when they went
into Vietnam.
>
> >> "we will bury you!!!"
> >> Sure.
> >>
> >
> >Yup, they hoped to incite revolutions and basically take over the world.
> >But they didn't want to fight a nuclear war to do it.
>
> Cause they knew they couldnbt win.
> If we gutted defense spending theyd have been on us like travs mom on 16 inch
> negro pork.
>
Probably, but that has nothing to do with going into Vietnam. Keeping NATO
strong was vitally important, fighting in Vietnam was strategically irrelevant.
>
> >
> >Going into Afghanistan probably cost the Soviets their empire.
>
> Nah.It wasnt shit.What cost them their empire is ronald reagan.
> Period.
>
Take a look at the economics, and how much they spent on the
Afghan war, and what it did to their society. All Reagan did was
run the biggest deficit in American history.
>
> > Carter's response
> >unwittingly gave the Soviets enough rope to hang themselves.
>
> So carters weakness won the world for us?
> I must admit, I hadent thought of that.
> Is that why he got the nobel peace prize? Or was it cause he let the hostages
> rot?
Actually the negotiations to get the hostages out were completed by the time
Reagan took over. The US made a special point of not having them released
until Reagan was president.
Carter was an idiot, but Reagan wasn't any better. Nobel Peace prizes
are jokes...Kissinger got one too, for stopping the dropping of bombs
that he intiated in the first place.
> Or maybe cause he boycotted the olympics so the russain 15 year old girls
> couldnt make our girls feel inferior on the uneven bars.
>
Yup, just one of many dumb things Carter did.
>
> >
> >So you think the US would have been willing to sacrifice between 100,000,000
> >and 150,000,000 people for the good of Vietnam?
> >
>
> Veitman was a battle in the cold war.
> It could have tipped the scales.
> Think god it didnt.
It was strategically irrelevant. There was no domino effect, or anything
even close to it. Not stopping the Soviets from going into Hungary in '54
and Czech in '68 were hundreds of times more important than Vietnam
was.
-Olaf
Chas
> Millions of deaths are just stats to dems and repubs alike; take a look
> at Africa. Both parties are quite happy to ignore millions of deaths
there.
Where is Europe? Where is the Islamic Empire?
What did we lose in Africa that we have to go look for?
Which side do we support?
What does it take to 'rebuild' them when they never had a damned thing to
begin with? Are we responsible for bringing them up to the level of
Manhattan, or just Frogfoot, Georgia?
When do we start taking care of our own first?
Chas
Mike Sigman
In other words, your comment "Take a look at what happened when Vietnam
fell...almost nothing" was wrong, because there was no other context to the
stand-alone sentence. Insofar as the U.S.'s action had no effect on
communist interactions with other countries, you're either being simplistic
or naive. Other countries certainly make different responses when the US
acts or doesn't act.
>
> Millions of deaths are just stats to dems and repubs alike; take a look
> at Africa. Both parties are quite happy to ignore millions of deaths
there.
The Republicans don't go around trying to portray themselves as champions of
the world's poor, Olaf. You need to understand that. The hypocrisy is from
the liberals.
Mike
Mike Sigman
>
>
>
>
> It showed the Soviets that the US was willing to waste huge amounts of
cash
> on a pointless struggle. The Soviets had no doubt that the US was willing
> to go to the line to defend important areas (look at the Berlin blockade
> and the Cuban missile crisis).
>
> >
Different presidents. They try to feel out each president in turn to see
how he will react, Olaf.
>
> Most 3rd world countries went from thinking the US was the champion
> of freedom to the champion of European imperialism when they went
> into Vietnam.
No, that was what the communist and socialist countries tried to say, Olaf,
but at the time it was noted that the U.S. was keeping its part of written
agreements with the South Vietnamese and although you've forgotten it, the
North was the aggressor coming into the South. Not the U.S. going into the
North. How are you "imperialist" when you are helping fight an aggressor,
or is this just "liberal speak"?
>
> Probably, but that has nothing to do with going into Vietnam. Keeping
NATO
> strong was vitally important, fighting in Vietnam was strategically
irrelevant.
Bailing out most of the people we've bailed out could be called
"strategically irrelevant", Olaf.
>
> Actually the negotiations to get the hostages out were completed by the
time
> Reagan took over. The US made a special point of not having them released
> until Reagan was president.
That's absolute bullshit. A complete fabrication. The Iranians made that
choice to thumb their noses at Carter. And it was *widely* reported at the
time.
>
> It was strategically irrelevant. There was no domino effect, or anything
> even close to it.
Yeah... I didn't think those 2 million deaths at the hands of the Khmer
Rouger meant anything to you in terms of "domino effect". You were looking
at it and didn't see it, Olaf.
>Not stopping the Soviets from going into Hungary in '54
> and Czech in '68 were hundreds of times more important than Vietnam
> was.
Why didn't Canada do something????? They seem to have devoted their
resources to breeding malcontents. :^)
Mike
Todd Christensen
> > 87 billion?
> >From: to...@quesinberry.com (Todd Christensen)
>
> >
> >> >> In fact opinion polls as late as nixons re-election show the ajerican
> populace
> >> >> was never confusaed.They were behind the war.
> >> >
> >> > by 70, support was dropping, and when we pulled out, less than a
> >> >third supported the war.
> >>
> >> Only according to movies.
> >> I can hit ya with numbers if ya demand it.
> >
> >You would be wronge. There are mountains of stats on this that ALL
> >disagree with you. For a start look up that little tome called The Ten
> >Thousand Day War by Stanley Karnow. Do a little reading.
>
> I did.
> I read Paul Johnsons "Modern Times"
> The numbers are there.
> See for yourself.
> Karnows book isnt scienctific.
only Pulitzer material and widely recognized, by the former chiefs of
staff during the war, as the defining book about the war. Other than
that.
But I will read Modern Times.
> >Gi where do you get you history from some factoid digest sound byte
> >spouted by Hannity or Limbaugh? Niether, BTW, fucking served in in the
> >military.
>
> So? Reagan did, Bush senior, tons of repubs.
> A higher % of them did than dems in congress did.
> But almost 2-1.
Whoa. Bullshit. Give me cites on that.
Reagan? What the fuck? He did a handfull of propaganda films in
hollywood for *special services* - he never even saw fucking boot
camp.
Bush Sr. Yeah. That guy was a war hero in my opinion.
But we are talking about NOW.
And Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Pearl, Rove, Condie... NONE of them did
service. The leading repubs in the house what, maybe four or five did
active service. The senate maybe a third. And our Coward in Chief?
He spent a quarter of his service time AWOL!
>
> 2000 lives to stop husseins reign of terror?
> LOL.Thats pretty easy aint it?
And the CURRENT riegn of terror is that much better? At least they had
jobs, electricity and knew the rules of survival. Kiss Sadams ass and
live. Now everybody is killing everybody.
> I blame you liberals just for beinbg anti american commie/fags.
> AND GOD WILLING someday you will pay for shittng on the country that you owe
> so much too
> You're a spoiled brat.
I and my whole family was in the service. I never shit on my country.
I love my country. More thanyou can possibly understand. As for fag? I
aint the one who fantasizes on pubic forums about anal rape in prison.
God Willing? you got religion now? How often you go to church there,
porno-boy?
And what is going to happen *some day*? Concentration camps? Or will
we have to wear the republican version of Burkahs, Herr Mahoney?
That's pretty fucked up.
Look. The way I see it my country is being hyjacked by extremist
fanatics who exporting jobs, putting my children in debt, starting
wars they can't finish and crushing my freedoms. They are using
ideaology as a disguse to enrich themselves at our expense. You are
fooled.
I aint some card carring liberal. All my ideas don't come from the
same place. Unlike you. You political philosphy is like some
simplistic 3x5 card handed out at a 1985 Young Republican meeting. Adn
it is incosistent with the scrutiny you place on every thing else. It
is in your parlance "un-scientific" and severly retarded - in the
progressive sense.
Besides. It is my DUTY to speak out. Sure I can be wrong, but we must
hold our leaders to higher standards.
And all you can do is label me with your simplistic sheeple bullshit.
Wake up.
It is you who are shitting on the greatness of this country with your
blind compliance.
You want everybody to be like ou - you want some homogenous right wing
fantasy. Is THAT what this country is about? Lock-step bullshit. Grow
up.
What have YOU done for this nation you hypocrite? NOTHING.
Your 4-fucking-F cartoon watcher you have nothing in comon with the
heros of this country or even with the party whose ass you kiss - they
would shun your midget porn watching, gladiator ass and you know it.
Can you even produce more than three or four elections where you even
voted.
I don't get you. You have taken public dollars for your health care -
you may even collect SS! You have not served shit ... and call me a
spoiled brat?
If it comes down o that... We are ALL spoiled brats.
Sorry gi, but that is crossing a line. Something that is more Sigman
than you. I expect better.
Mike Sigman
"Todd Christensen" <to...@quesinberry.com> wrote in message
news:6c176d5a.03091...@posting.google.com...
> And Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy, Pearl, Rove, Condie... NONE of them did
> service. The leading repubs in the house what, maybe four or five did
> active service. The senate maybe a third. >
You're saying that only 4 or 5 Republican members of the House of
Representatives were in the service? Can you support that?
>And our Coward in Chief?
> He spent a quarter of his service time AWOL!
Was he in the service or do you simply feel like it's a necessity to tear
the the Commander in Chief of the U.S...... the country you're also trying
to tell us you love?
>
> >
> > 2000 lives to stop husseins reign of terror?
> > LOL.Thats pretty easy aint it?
>
> And the CURRENT riegn of terror is that much better? At least they had
> jobs, electricity and knew the rules of survival. Kiss Sadams ass and
> live. Now everybody is killing everybody.
Moron. How many Iraqis do you think were killed by Hussein? Do you
really want to compare that to what's going on now?
>
> I and my whole family was in the service. I never shit on my country.
> I love my country. More thanyou can possibly understand. As for fag? I
> aint the one who fantasizes on pubic forums about anal rape in prison.
Oh get fucked. This whine by you and Hal that you were "in the service"
while at the same time implying that anyone who harms this country under the
pretext of "getting back at George Bush" is a friend of yours. The
service, as anyone knows who has been there, has got more than its share of
misfits and whackos.... you can spot them by how much they beat their chest
about being "patriots".
>
> Look. The way I see it my country is being hyjacked by extremist
> fanatics who exporting jobs,
NAFTA was Bill Clinton's idea. Are you laying that one on Bush, too?
> putting my children in debt,
If half the "social programs" and "entitlements" were dropped, there would
be plenty of money.... who do you think is the major starter of social
programs and when did it start (hint: FDR onward in the Democratic Party)?
> starting
> wars they can't finish and crushing my freedoms.
What wars has Bush started that he "can't finish"... unless you think it
should be over in 4 months?
> They are using
> ideaology as a disguse to enrich themselves at our expense. You are
> fooled.
You're an absolute whacko. Ah, the conspiracies. We were "after oil"
and enriching ourselves in Kosovo and Gulf War 1, remember????
Noooooo..... that's been quietly dropped because it didn't work then. It
doesn't work now.
>
> Besides. It is my DUTY to speak out. Sure I can be wrong, but we must
> hold our leaders to higher standards.
>
You're a classic argument for why "1 person, 1 vote" is a waste of time.
> And all you can do is label me with your simplistic sheeple bullshit.
>
> Wake up.
>
> It is you who are shitting on the greatness of this country with your
> blind compliance.
>
> You want everybody to be like ou - you want some homogenous right wing
> fantasy. Is THAT what this country is about? Lock-step bullshit. Grow
> up.
>
> What have YOU done for this nation you hypocrite? NOTHING.
> Your 4-fucking-F cartoon watcher you have nothing in comon with the
> heros of this country or even with the party whose ass you kiss - they
> would shun your midget porn watching, gladiator ass and you know it.
>
> Can you even produce more than three or four elections where you even
> voted.
>
> I don't get you. You have taken public dollars for your health care -
> you may even collect SS! You have not served shit ... and call me a
> spoiled brat?
>
> If it comes down o that... We are ALL spoiled brats.
>
> Sorry gi, but that is crossing a line. Something that is more Sigman
> than you. I expect better.
You do drugs, right?
Mike
Chas
> >And our Coward in Chief?
> > He spent a quarter of his service time AWOL!
> Was he in the service or do you simply feel like it's a necessity to tear
> the the Commander in Chief of the U.S......
Dad got him a billet as a fighter pilot with the Texas Air National Guard.
He was AWOL for the last eighteen months of his service obligation. During
that period, pilots were being rotated to Nam pretty regularly (from the ANG
units), but they were not 'qualified' if they weren't in administrative
roster. He was on 'skip' because of his adminstrative status.
Happily, Oklahoma didn't invade, and his presence was no more than missed
administratively.
Chas
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:>
> > Millions of deaths are just stats to dems and repubs alike; take a look
> > at Africa. Both parties are quite happy to ignore millions of deaths
> there.
>
> The Republicans don't go around trying to portray themselves as champions of
> the world's poor, Olaf. You need to understand that. The hypocrisy is from
> the liberals.
>
>
There's alot more of it from the democrats, but the republicans have
done their fair share of it as well. Look at the hype around the first
Iraq war (Bush Sr. initially said they should go in to save a democracy,
strangely enough), or now around the second Iraq war. Much of the
justification given is in terms of championing oppressed people. Reagan
did much the same in central and south America.
-Olaf
Mike Sigman
"Chas" <ch...@chasclements.com> wrote in message
news:MB-dnVxAx40...@comcast.com...
> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > >And our Coward in Chief?
> > > He spent a quarter of his service time AWOL!
> > Was he in the service or do you simply feel like it's a necessity to
tear
> > the the Commander in Chief of the U.S......
>
> Dad got him a billet as a fighter pilot with the Texas Air National Guard.
Mebbe so. It's sort of like Ted Kennedy getting by with manslaughter,
cheating on his exams, etc...... when you're rich and powerful, you're rich
and powerful. Animal life is about pecking orders.
> He was AWOL for the last eighteen months of his service obligation.
Hmmmmmmmmm. Can you be AWOL from a National Guard unit? AWOL technically
means that you are away from your billet/duties for 30 days or less.
Anything over 30 days is considered dessertion. So you and Todd are saying
that Bush was a desserter? Or did he miss the numbers of hours that
National Guard guys are supposed to show up and put in on a regular
schedule?
> During
> that period, pilots were being rotated to Nam pretty regularly (from the
ANG
> units), but they were not 'qualified' if they weren't in administrative
> roster. He was on 'skip' because of his adminstrative status.
> Happily, Oklahoma didn't invade, and his presence was no more than missed
> administratively.
So it's another "gotcha" that turns out to not be "AWOL" or "dessertion",
after all?
Mike
Mike Sigman
I don't buy it. They said WMD's. I expect to see WMD's or a good
explanation in the near future or I'm gonna be pissed. If I don't see it,
I'm going to call for Bush's head; if I do see it, I'm going to call for the
heads of all the anti-Americans who didn't support the U.S.'s position and
who were exercising their "free speech" to undermine the U.S. As far as
"oppressed Iraqis" go, fuck 'em. I honestly think that some peoples and
some religions (or other factors) make some people incapable of sustaining
civilization except on a tribal level. Let them rot or drive them into the
sea.
Mike
and drain deez nuts
>between NATO and the Warsaw Pact for 40 very tense years?
Cuz they were scared as fuck of us after we nuked Japan twice.
>
>Going into Afghanistan probably cost the Soviets their empire.
No. Their "empire" was a sham that couldn't support its own weight. Communism
is a joke; it is simply unworkable. The type of socialism that the Soviets
brought was total garbage. Look at Krushchev's reaction to the Ford parking
lot - he couldn't admit that those were employees' cars.
USSR socialism competed with our system of it and was defeated through supply
and demand.
>So you think the US would have been willing to sacrifice between 100,000,000
>and 150,000,000 people for the good of Vietnam?
>
>-Olaf
The USSR never would have started a nuclear war and neither would have we.
Trav