OT: Catch-22 on terrorism
James Schrumpf
demands better leadership to do the right thing even in the face of no
public support -- implying that a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan could
have eliminated the threat that resulted in the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
All well and good, but pure 20-20 hindsight: if a preemptive invasion
HAD eliminated the possibility of the 9/11 attacks, we would have never
known what we were saved from. It's like the classic time travel paradox
about killing your grandfather.
Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold move
against a known supporter of terrorism (though not a 9/11 conspirator) in
the face of public opinion, and what does he get for his trouble:
constant denouncement by world opinion and the media.
Exactly what would have happened if the US had invaded Afghanistan before
the 9/11 atatcks.
Now, in the same vein as the rhetorical preemptive strike on Afghanistan,
if this takedown of Saddam has prevented...SOMETHING BAD... from
happening, perhaps a couple of years in the future, we'll never know what
it was because it's been prevented.
A similar thing happened after Y2K, when programmers spent millions of
man-hours and billions of dollars feverishly reworking vital code to make
sure it could handle the date change, and then when nothing happened at
midnight, some people said "See? We TOLD you there was no problem."
Bob Kerrey said, "The bottom line for me is, it just pains me to have to
say that on the 11th of September that 19 men and less than half a
million dollars defeated every single defensive mechanism we had in place
-- utterly."
Well, Mr. Kerrey, back in 1950 Robert A. Heinlein wrote in "Starship
Troopers", about the dangers of depending too much on military
technology: "While you're trying to read a vernier scale, someone might
sneak up behind you and hit you with a rock."
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
"PC Load Letter"? What the @&*% does THAT mean?!
Vijay Ramanujan
Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
> Bob Kerrey wonders why nothing was done about al-Queda before 9/11, and
> demands better leadership to do the right thing even in the face of no
> public support -- implying that a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan could
> have eliminated the threat that resulted in the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
It's a happy coincidence for me that I was pretty much calling for
something to be done about Afghanistan *before* september 11th, so I'm
not engaging solely in 20/20 hindsight when I say I wish someone
(Clinton, Bush) had taken out the Taliban earlier.
Unfortunately, Al Queda had nothing to do with my reasoning.
> All well and good, but pure 20-20 hindsight: if a preemptive invasion
> HAD eliminated the possibility of the 9/11 attacks, we would have never
> known what we were saved from. It's like the classic time travel paradox
> about killing your grandfather.
Sure. I'll agree with that. It is a nasty situation, and the basic
lesson of it is that sometimes a president has to sacrifice his own
electibility to do what he thinks is right. That is what I don't think
Bush was even willing to consider.
I believe the reasons he gave for invading Iraq were total bullshit,
and he knew it. That's my belief, and it's not concocted out of thin
air.
I believe he had what he thought were good reasons. I also believe that
his administration wasn't confident in selling the people on the
reasons he had (abstract goals of stability and democracy: hard to
explain the concrete American benefits to the electorate), so he went
searching for something he could sell and now that's biting him in the
ass.
Vijay R.
James Schrumpf
news:250320042212171467%vij...@cybernex.net:
OK, so consider this scenario: The pres really thinks that invading Iraq
will help the war on terrorism, and for the reasons you state. But he
can't do it without a good reason that the public will go for (also as
you state) and the best consensus intelligence doesn't paint a compelling
enough picture to sell the concept.
So he embellishes a bit here, leaves out a doubt there, and makes the
picture look just threatening enough to give him a mandate to go for it.
After the dust settles a bit, the full reality becomes clear to everybody
and the howls of outrage go up that a con's been pulled.
Now, consider that he would know all along that the cover would be blown,
but too late to back out. So in a very real sense he DID "sacrifice his
own electibility to do what he thinks is right." He "fooled" everyone
for as long as it took to do what he really, really thought was the right
thing to do.
Brilliant risk-taker or craven liar? I'm pretty sure that the split is
along ideological lines. As the commander of the ill-fated Iranian
hostage rescue attempt said afterwards, "The only true failure is the
failure to try."
We haven't failed in Iraq yet.
Vijay Ramanujan
Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
> OK, so consider this scenario: The pres really thinks that invading Iraq
> will help the war on terrorism, and for the reasons you state. But he
> can't do it without a good reason that the public will go for (also as
> you state) and the best consensus intelligence doesn't paint a compelling
> enough picture to sell the concept.
>
> So he embellishes a bit here, leaves out a doubt there, and makes the
> picture look just threatening enough to give him a mandate to go for it.
>
> After the dust settles a bit, the full reality becomes clear to everybody
> and the howls of outrage go up that a con's been pulled.
>
> Now, consider that he would know all along that the cover would be blown,
> but too late to back out. So in a very real sense he DID "sacrifice his
> own electibility to do what he thinks is right." He "fooled" everyone
> for as long as it took to do what he really, really thought was the right
> thing to do.
I don't buy it because he hasn't come clean on the reasons, his
administration has fudged the record (the "immediate threat" bit, the
Niger link) and they are still repeating dubious claims. He is refusing
to admit that there was a pretext and a pretense, but the reasons
weren't the ones he gave.
The less cowardly thing to do, in that circumstance, would be to do
what Tony Blair did and tell the people "I tried to convince you, but
it didn't work, and I'm going to war anyway because it's the right
thing to do." Not that Tony Blair is exempt from the accusations of
lying (I actually haven't paid any attention to the British fallout and
who said what when), but that stand has more courage than "let's see
how long we can fool you." Bush is still trying to fool us long enough
to get his 2nd term.
Vijay R.
James Schrumpf
Well, it's all what-if-ing anyway. Maybe he really does believe it.
Maybe there's good reasons for maintaining plausible (?) deniability.
I know there's layers upon layers of intel work going on, and since I
would have gone along with the plan if he had said "Saddam's a bad guy
and we're taking him out," it doesn't bother me. The Nation goes on, and
a bad or good president makes very little difference in the march of
time.
David Loewe, Jr.
Funny, I'd consider that going in on "what he thought were good
reasons" despite understanding that it wasn't something he thought he
could sell to the people would be a perfect example of sacrificing "
his own electibility to do what he thinks is right."
--
"When I hold you in my arms, And I feel my finger on your trigger,
I know no one can do me no harm, because happiness is a warm gun,
Yes it is."
John Lennon and Paul McCartney
Vijay Ramanujan
Schrumpf <jaspammen...@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
> Well, it's all what-if-ing anyway. Maybe he really does believe it.
> Maybe there's good reasons for maintaining plausible (?) deniability.
> I know there's layers upon layers of intel work going on, and since I
> would have gone along with the plan if he had said "Saddam's a bad guy
> and we're taking him out," it doesn't bother me.
I would have, sort of, but not at that moment. At that moment, I think
we would have been much better served focusing more attention on
Afghanistan and less on Iraq.
> The Nation goes on, and
> a bad or good president makes very little difference in the march of
> time.
I don't know ... maybe in some grand sweep of history ways, but small
items in a budget can have huge effects on individual lives, and
judicial appointments (especially Supreme Court) may be even more
important than that.
Vijay R.
David Loewe, Jr.
Indeed.
The SCOTUS appointments are the biggest reason why a Bush victory is
imperative.
--
"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste,
swim with the current."
- Thomas Jefferson
Tom Enright
> Bob Kerrey wonders why nothing was done about al-Queda before 9/11, and
> demands better leadership to do the right thing even in the face of no
> public support -- implying that a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan could
> have eliminated the threat that resulted in the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
Let's say Bush & co. had discovered evidence of the plan before the attack
and had Ashcroft lock them up somewhere (Gitmo?). There is no doubt in my
mind that the ACLU and the usual suspects would be demanding their release
from the "concentration camp" in Cuba and going on about Bush's paranoid
fantasies about hijackers flying planes into buildings. We would be hearing
how Bush is inventing a reason to invade Afgahnistan.
-TOE
Today's palindrome of Thomas O'Reilly Enright: Thgirne Yllier'o Samoht
<snip>
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> Bob Kerrey wonders why nothing was done about al-Queda before 9/11, and
> demands better leadership to do the right thing even in the face of no
> public support -- implying that a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan could
> have eliminated the threat that resulted in the WTC/Pentagon attacks.
>
> All well and good, but pure 20-20 hindsight: if a preemptive invasion
> HAD eliminated the possibility of the 9/11 attacks, we would have never
> known what we were saved from. It's like the classic time travel
> paradox about killing your grandfather.
Sort of a point, but don't we know we did a good job when we prevented the
millenial attacks (without knowing exactly how many people would have
died)?
> Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold
> move against a known supporter of terrorism
Right here your train falls off the tracks. For Saddam's level of
"supporter of terrorism", we could more credibly go after ten or so much
more dangerous regimes. Please stop pushing this lie.
--
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Remove the woopitywoo, you moron.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
>> I believe he had what he thought were good reasons. I also believe that
>> his administration wasn't confident in selling the people on the
>> reasons he had (abstract goals of stability and democracy: hard to
>> explain the concrete American benefits to the electorate), so he went
>> searching for something he could sell and now that's biting him in the
>> ass.
>>
>> Vijay R.
>>
>>
> OK, so consider this scenario: The pres really thinks that invading
> Iraq will help the war on terrorism, and for the reasons you state.
No. It looks like Vijay said the Pres might have had good reasons WHICH
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERRORISM. It wasn't hard to see what he
meant.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Two words, you lying sack of shit:
2000 Millenial plot.
Randolph M. Jones
I have problems with lying on a personal level. But from a political
perspective, I just think it's incredibly short-sighted. The whole "boy
who cried wolf" fable is not just a story. The fact is that something
much more dangerous than Iraq could come along, and the first reaction
people will reasonably have is, "Yeah, sure...like we're going to
believe you *this* time." Bush damaged his own credibility, and did
nothing to help the credibility of the US government in general. In
terms of US credibility, I actually think Bush has pretty much held up
the status quo, rather then inflicting much new damage, *except* for the
fact that we were benefiting from an incredible amount of worldwide
goodwill after 9/11, and I feel the potential opportunities provided by
that goodwill were completely squandered, specifically by the lying.
I guess in general I feel like you *might* be able to make the case that
there were "good" reasons to lie, but I think there were much better
reasons not to.
Randolph M. Jones
You feel it's imperative that we be prevented from burning the flag and
that religion further encroach its way into the government?
Randolph M. Jones
If he weren't a liar, people wouldn't have so many doubts about what he
says.
David Loewe, Jr.
None of which are situated quite as well, would be as easy to conquer,
would have as far ranging an effect...the list goes on and on.
--
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like...
victory!"
- Apocalypse Now
David Loewe, Jr.
No.
I am against legislating from the bench.
--
"Before the Gulf War started, the Iraqi Army was the the fourth largest
in the world. Now, its the second largest army in Iraq."
- Wall Street Journal, 15 March 1991
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.
Iraq was situated very poorly for dealing with 'known supporters of
terrorism'. Iran would be better; as would Saudi Arabia.
Iraq was easy to conquer compared to what? Any regime in the area would be
a pushover, as far as the conquerin' goes.
Iraq was the most secular regime in the region. Our "far ranging effect"
is likely to be a boost for Shia fundamentalism more than anything else.
David Loewe, Jr.
<mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
?
Who said that was the criteria?
You might remember that I agree with DenBeste.
>Iran would be better; as would Saudi Arabia.
How about a place smack dab between the two?
And, Saudi Arabia is not doable. That would inflame Islam far more
than it'd be worth as an opening gambit.
>
>Iraq was easy to conquer compared to what? Any regime in the area would be
>a pushover, as far as the conquerin' goes.
Would we have been able to get basing for "Any regime in the area..."?
I think not.
>
>Iraq was the most secular regime in the region.
Didn't matter with the madman in power.
>Our "far ranging effect"
>is likely to be a boost for Shia fundamentalism more than anything else.
Depends on how the Constitution turns out.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
lein
Saddam didn't support terrorist?
--
John Leinaweaver
Randolph M. Jones
I've seen this phrase a lot, and I admit I don't have a complete grasp
of its meaning. Can you give me examples of supreme court decisions
that you wouldn't count as "legislating from the bench"?
Randolph M. Jones
Do you agree with Noam Chomsky, then, that one of the primary factors in
determining US military action is whether the target is easy to conquer?
lein
That was Clinton, not Bush you idiot. The ACLU's members (read trial lawyers)
loved Clinton.
--
John Leinaweaver
David Loewe, Jr.
No.
--
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
- Arnold Edinborough
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
>>Iran would be better; as would Saudi Arabia.
>
> How about a place smack dab between the two?
Really really crappy. If Great Britain was pissed about terrorists from
Mexico and Canada attacking them, and those terrorists never even set foot
in the USA; and the USA had never sponsored nontrivial terrorism; you
idiots would have GB attack the USA because it happens to sit between
them. Oh, and, uh, our grandaddy's attacked them. And the oil fields in
Texas.
Uh-oh.
> And, Saudi Arabia is not doable. That would inflame Islam far more than
> it'd be worth as an opening gambit.
WAR on TERROR. Not OCCASIONAL SKIRMISHES against CONVENIENT TARGETS.
>>Iraq was easy to conquer compared to what? Any regime in the area would
>>be a pushover, as far as the conquerin' goes.
>
> Would we have been able to get basing for "Any regime in the area..."?
>
> I think not.
I agree. You think not.
>>Iraq was the most secular regime in the region.
>
> Didn't matter with the madman in power.
"would have as far ranging an effect"
>>Our "far ranging effect"
>>is likely to be a boost for Shia fundamentalism more than anything else.
>
> Depends on how the Constitution turns out.
If you can't tell by now,...
James Schrumpf
news:885ec7ed.04032...@posting.google.com:
Plus, that guy was caught trying to cross the border with a car full of
explosives, a pretty obvious Bad Thing. Much less ambivalent than what
was going on around the 9/11 planners.
Again, what could have been done to prevent, at the final moment, the
9/11 hijackings? Even with the draconian security measures in place now,
several people have demonstrated how easy it STILL is to sneak onto
planes with weapons equivalent to the plastic boxcutters used by the 9/11
hijackers, and even worse.
The hijack procedures in effect pre-9/11 were to not interfere with the
hijackers in flight so as not to jeapordize the passengers. No one,
except for worst-case planners, had considered the possibility of using
the planes themselves as bombs; and worst-case responses were not
considered to be the optimum responses in the real world.
Why don't we just blame the passengers for not doing _their_ best to stop
the hijackings? They were on the spot and knew exactly who the enemy
was.
Because it makes as much sense as blaming government planners from not
foreseeing the possibility of such inhuman behavior. At the worst, we
usually expected the enemy to act in some kind of recognizably human way;
we certainly won't make THAT mistake again.
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.26....@iwoopitywooo.com:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:39:56 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>
>> Bob Kerrey wonders why nothing was done about al-Queda before 9/11,
>> and demands better leadership to do the right thing even in the face
>> of no public support -- implying that a pre-9/11 invasion of
>> Afghanistan could have eliminated the threat that resulted in the
>> WTC/Pentagon attacks.
>>
>> All well and good, but pure 20-20 hindsight: if a preemptive
>> invasion HAD eliminated the possibility of the 9/11 attacks, we would
>> have never known what we were saved from. It's like the classic time
>> travel paradox about killing your grandfather.
>
> Sort of a point, but don't we know we did a good job when we prevented
> the millenial attacks (without knowing exactly how many people would
> have died)?
That's because we know what the weapon was, and what the target was going
to be. We wouldn't have known any of those things in my what-if
scenario.
>
>> Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold
>> move against a known supporter of terrorism
>
> Right here your train falls off the tracks. For Saddam's level of
> "supporter of terrorism", we could more credibly go after ten or so
> much more dangerous regimes. Please stop pushing this lie.
>
Who else was paying suicide bomber families $25K a pop? Who else
recently had invaded two different neighboring countries in consecutive
decades? Who else was causing the deaths of over 100K of his own
citizens per year?
Perhaps N. Korea's leader comes close, but with China so nearby we don't
dare pull off the kind of invasion we could in friendless Iraq. And I
still think Saddam was worse.
Jeffrey Davis
The point of this week's testimony hasn't been to focus on 9/11 but on
the Bush lie that they've really pursued terrorists in a way that
matches their rhetoric. You're arguing with a shadow.
James Schrumpf
news:40645AB4...@colby.edu:
Well, first off you have to prove he was lying, and not just wanting
badly to believe the intelligence.
Secondly, I agree with the writer who said that Europe felt very
sympathetic with an America shattered and on its knees, and not very
sympathetic with one who'd picked out a target and gone after it
regardless of what Europe wanted them to do.
Look, people been complaining that we needed leadership pre-9/11 that
would have gone into Afghanistan unilaterally, regardless of world, or
even American, opinion. Now we have a leader who's gone into Iraq --
another supporter of world terrorism -- unilaterally and regardless of
world and American opinion, and he's being raked over the coals.
The same damb thing would have happened to the Afghan invasion, because
without the 9/11 justification, no one would have wanted American troops
fighting in a foreign land for "no good reason."
You know it would have.
If they'd then found evidence of the 9/11 planning, some people would
call it a scam implemented to justify the invasion. If we found evidence
of WMD now in Iraq, how many people would believe it and how many would
make a claim of "fraud"?
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> Secondly, I agree with the writer who said that Europe felt very
> sympathetic with an America shattered and on its knees, and not very
> sympathetic with one who'd picked out a target and gone after it
> regardless of what Europe wanted them to do.
This is a lie.
Most of Europe was strongly in support of us whacking the shit out of
alQaeda and Afghanistan.
If you keep repeating this lie often enough, you start to look like Karl
Rove's hand is up your ass. Please stop.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Thanks, Karl.
You realize you're playing right into the hands of the people who are
dumbing down your party, don't you?
The ACLU would have had no problem with arresting people for suspicion of
planning a terrorist plot - as long as it was done publically and through
the civilian courts; which I happen to think is a good idea anyways.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
>>> Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold
>>> move against a known supporter of terrorism
>>
>> Right here your train falls off the tracks. For Saddam's level of
>> "supporter of terrorism", we could more credibly go after ten or so
>> much more dangerous regimes. Please stop pushing this lie.
>
> Who else was paying suicide bomber families $25K a pop? Who else
> recently had invaded two different neighboring countries in consecutive
> decades? Who else was causing the deaths of over 100K of his own
> citizens per year?
Nobody else. And that has nothing to do with his regime being dangerous.
Saudi Arabia spent millions supporting alQaeda who ATTACKED US ON OUR OWN
SOIL. Pakistan supported alQaeda and continues to, in many peoples' minds.
Sudan. Iran. Syria. Yemen. Etc.
David Loewe, Jr.
<rjo...@colby.edu> wrote:
Sorry for the delay...
Just about any ruling where they rule on the constitutionality of a
law and justify it by citing the actual text of the constitution -
instead of citing "...penumbras, formed by emanations from those
guarantees that give them substance."
David Loewe, Jr.
<mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:07:38 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>
>>>> Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold
>>>> move against a known supporter of terrorism
>>>
>>> Right here your train falls off the tracks. For Saddam's level of
>>> "supporter of terrorism", we could more credibly go after ten or so
>>> much more dangerous regimes. Please stop pushing this lie.
>>
>> Who else was paying suicide bomber families $25K a pop? Who else
>> recently had invaded two different neighboring countries in consecutive
>> decades? Who else was causing the deaths of over 100K of his own
>> citizens per year?
>
>Nobody else. And that has nothing to do with his regime being dangerous.
>
>Saudi Arabia spent millions supporting alQaeda who ATTACKED US ON OUR OWN
>SOIL.
By your definition, America spent millions supporting the IRA who
ATTACKED BRITISH SUBJECTS ON THEIR OWN SOIL.
But it was not US Government policy. Does this give the British
Government the right to intervene in, say, Boston?
>Pakistan supported alQaeda and continues to, in many peoples' minds.
>Sudan. Iran. Syria. Yemen. Etc.
--
"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its
credibility. And vice versa."
-Lazarus Long
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:22:45 -0600, Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:07:38 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>
>>>>> Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold
>>>>> move against a known supporter of terrorism
>>>>
>>>> Right here your train falls off the tracks. For Saddam's level of
>>>> "supporter of terrorism", we could more credibly go after ten or so
>>>> much more dangerous regimes. Please stop pushing this lie.
>>>
>>> Who else was paying suicide bomber families $25K a pop? Who else
>>> recently had invaded two different neighboring countries in
>>> consecutive decades? Who else was causing the deaths of over 100K of
>>> his own citizens per year?
>>
>>Nobody else. And that has nothing to do with his regime being dangerous.
>>
>>Saudi Arabia spent millions supporting alQaeda who ATTACKED US ON OUR
>>OWN SOIL.
>
> By your definition, America spent millions supporting the IRA who
> ATTACKED BRITISH SUBJECTS ON THEIR OWN SOIL.
>
> But it was not US Government policy. Does this give the British
> Government the right to intervene in, say, Boston?
It was the policy of the Saudi government to tacitly encourage alQaeda in
any number of ways. If the US had done the same with the IRA, the British
in fact WOULD have the moral justification for intervening.
Your efforts to equate the two show that you know nothing about what those
asses in Saudi Arabia really did.
abor...@ichips.intel.com
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:22:45 -0600, Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:07:38 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>
>>>>> Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold
>>>>> move against a known supporter of terrorism
>>>>
>>>> Right here your train falls off the tracks. For Saddam's level of
>>>> "supporter of terrorism", we could more credibly go after ten or so
>>>> much more dangerous regimes. Please stop pushing this lie.
>>>
>>> Who else was paying suicide bomber families $25K a pop? Who else
>>> recently had invaded two different neighboring countries in consecutive
>>> decades? Who else was causing the deaths of over 100K of his own
>>> citizens per year?
>>
>>Nobody else. And that has nothing to do with his regime being dangerous.
>>
>>Saudi Arabia spent millions supporting alQaeda who ATTACKED US ON OUR OWN
>>SOIL.
> By your definition, America spent millions supporting the IRA who
> ATTACKED BRITISH SUBJECTS ON THEIR OWN SOIL.
> But it was not US Government policy. Does this give the British
> Government the right to intervene in, say, Boston?
According to our own current foreign police, yes.
--
Aaron Borgman HE Design Engineer
abor...@ichips.intel.com
JF4-4-C5
phone: 503-712-3212
Disclaimer: All above opinions are mine... not Intel's
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:22:45 -0600, Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
>> <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>
>>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:07:38 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold
>>>>>> move against a known supporter of terrorism
>>>>>
>>>>> Right here your train falls off the tracks. For Saddam's level of
>>>>> "supporter of terrorism", we could more credibly go after ten or so
>>>>> much more dangerous regimes. Please stop pushing this lie.
>>>>
>>>> Who else was paying suicide bomber families $25K a pop? Who else
>>>> recently had invaded two different neighboring countries in consecutive
>>>> decades? Who else was causing the deaths of over 100K of his own
>>>> citizens per year?
>>>
>>>Nobody else. And that has nothing to do with his regime being dangerous.
>>>
>>>Saudi Arabia spent millions supporting alQaeda who ATTACKED US ON OUR OWN
>>>SOIL.
>
>> By your definition, America spent millions supporting the IRA who
>> ATTACKED BRITISH SUBJECTS ON THEIR OWN SOIL.
>
>> But it was not US Government policy. Does this give the British
>> Government the right to intervene in, say, Boston?
>
>According to our own current foreign police, yes.
I love it. I get two different answers from the lefties.
Priceless.
--
"Knee-jerk liberals and all the certified saints of sanctified humanism
are quick to condemn this great and much-maligned Transylvanian
statesman."
- William F. Buckley, Jr. "The Wit and Wisdom of Vlad the Impaler"
lein
Imagine if M13K was English:
The United Staates spent millions supporting the IRA who ATTACKED US ON OUR
OWN SOIL.
--
John Leinaweaver
abor...@ichips.intel.com
> Priceless.
Us card carrying libertarians are so left wing....
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.29....@iwoopitywooo.com:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:18:31 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>
>> Secondly, I agree with the writer who said that Europe felt very
>> sympathetic with an America shattered and on its knees, and not very
>> sympathetic with one who'd picked out a target and gone after it
>> regardless of what Europe wanted them to do.
>
> This is a lie.
>
> Most of Europe was strongly in support of us whacking the shit out of
> alQaeda and Afghanistan.
>
> If you keep repeating this lie often enough, you start to look like
> Karl Rove's hand is up your ass. Please stop.
>
How can an opinion be a lie?
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.29....@iwoopitywooo.com:
What is my party, Mike? Think carefully, if possible, before answering.
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.29....@iwoopitywooo.com:
And you don't know, either. But it is a truism that something repeated
often enough will be believed by someone, somewhere.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <ltng60lmspt0tqj18...@4ax.com>):
Look up the phrase "checks and balances".
--
Daniel Seriff
I really think I should hang around with rappers more often.
David Loewe, Jr.
No need. I already know what the principle is.
Now, unless you have some sort of point to make (instead of one that
you're only going to hint at), I suggest you shut up.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
Funny, I consider myself a "card carrying libertarian" but you and I
seem to be at odds.
--
"Neon lights, A Nobel Prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set me free"
Living Colour
Bill Deems
>
>Funny, I consider myself a "card carrying libertarian" but you and I
>seem to be at odds.
How are we ever going to get anywhere if you guys can't get along? Y'all
need to read the manual and get back in step. Dissent is so Republicrat.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com>
> wrote in news:pan.2004.03.29....@iwoopitywooo.com:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:18:31 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>
>>> Secondly, I agree with the writer who said that Europe felt very
>>> sympathetic with an America shattered and on its knees, and not very
>>> sympathetic with one who'd picked out a target and gone after it
>>> regardless of what Europe wanted them to do.
>>
>> This is a lie.
>>
>> Most of Europe was strongly in support of us whacking the shit out of
>> alQaeda and Afghanistan.
>>
>> If you keep repeating this lie often enough, you start to look like
>> Karl Rove's hand is up your ass. Please stop.
>
> How can an opinion be a lie?
I believe that you are posting your article from the middle of a volcano.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Republican In All But Name.
HTH,
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
My sources are credible. The linkage of the Saudis to alQaeda was, in the
past, credible enough for even you to admit there was a huge problem
there, if you recall.
abor...@ichips.intel.com
You may consider yourself a card carrying libertarian, but your position
decries the tenets of the party.
David Loewe, Jr.
<snort>
The problem is that, unless you are as insane as some people around
here think you are, you don't *really* believe that.
--
"You're free to be as much of an asshole as you wish -- as long as I'm
not paying for it."
- Todd Masco
David Loewe, Jr.
<mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
But not credible enough for you to give links, apparently.
How CONVENIENT...
--
"Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious
triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take
rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor
suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that
knows not victory or defeat." Theodore Roosevelt
Aaron J. Ginn
This might be the most ridiculous statement you've ever made. And
that's saying a lot!
--
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes."
-- Oscar Wilde
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:55:57 -0600, Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:02:34 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>
>>> Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com>
>>> wrote in news:pan.2004.03.29....@iwoopitywooo.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:18:31 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, I agree with the writer who said that Europe felt very
>>>>> sympathetic with an America shattered and on its knees, and not very
>>>>> sympathetic with one who'd picked out a target and gone after it
>>>>> regardless of what Europe wanted them to do.
>>>>
>>>> This is a lie.
>>>>
>>>> Most of Europe was strongly in support of us whacking the shit out of
>>>> alQaeda and Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>> If you keep repeating this lie often enough, you start to look like
>>>> Karl Rove's hand is up your ass. Please stop.
>>>
>>> How can an opinion be a lie?
>>
>>I believe that you are posting your article from the middle of a volcano.
>
> <snort>
<fart>
> The problem is that, unless you are as insane as some people around
> here think you are, you don't *really* believe that.
Then I just lied, didn't I?
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
>>> And you don't know, either. But it is a truism that something
>>> repeated often enough will be believed by someone, somewhere.
>>
>>My sources are credible. The linkage of the Saudis to alQaeda was, in
>>the past, credible enough for even you to admit there was a huge problem
>>there, if you recall.
>
> But not credible enough for you to give links, apparently.
Use google, you no-talent assclown. I've posted on the subject here on
numerous occasions.
lein
>
> > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 08:22:45 -0600, Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> > <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:07:38 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold
> >>>>> move against a known supporter of terrorism
> >>>>
> >>>> Right here your train falls off the tracks. For Saddam's level of
> >>>> "supporter of terrorism", we could more credibly go after ten or so
> >>>> much more dangerous regimes. Please stop pushing this lie.
> >>>
> >>> Who else was paying suicide bomber families $25K a pop? Who else
> >>> recently had invaded two different neighboring countries in
> >>> consecutive decades? Who else was causing the deaths of over 100K of
> >>> his own citizens per year?
> >>
> >>Nobody else. And that has nothing to do with his regime being dangerous.
> >>
> >>Saudi Arabia spent millions supporting alQaeda who ATTACKED US ON OUR
> >>OWN SOIL.
> >
> > By your definition, America spent millions supporting the IRA who
> > ATTACKED BRITISH SUBJECTS ON THEIR OWN SOIL.
> >
> > But it was not US Government policy. Does this give the British
> > Government the right to intervene in, say, Boston?
>
> It was the policy of the Saudi government to tacitly encourage alQaeda in
> any number of ways. If the US had done the same with the IRA, the British
> in fact WOULD have the moral justification for intervening.
So when governments in the U.S. issue parade permits on public land, where
people gather and pass the hat for IRA donations, is it tacitly encouraged?
>
> Your efforts to equate the two show that you know nothing about what those
> asses in Saudi Arabia really did.
So what did Ted Kennedy do now?
--
John Leinaweaver
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.30...@iwoopitywooo.com:
This just proves what your opinions are worth.
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.30....@iwoopitywooo.com:
Yes. You lied that it was your opinion.
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.30....@iwoopitywooo.com:
No, as I said then there was a problem with individual Saudis donating
to the terrorists. I've never agreed that the Saudi government was
doing so.
But the problem with your "logic" is that in all the countries _you'd_
like to attack, there are nascent and growing pro-democracy or at least
reformist movements afoot to curb the power of the presidents-for-life,
sheiks, and kings. There were none, and no possibility of any, in Iraq;
nor were any of these other leaders opressing their citizenry and
attacking their neighbors as regulary and appallingly as Saddam was.
David Loewe, Jr.
<mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:14:39 -0600, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:55:57 -0600, Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
>> <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:02:34 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com>
>>>> wrote in news:pan.2004.03.29....@iwoopitywooo.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:18:31 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, I agree with the writer who said that Europe felt very
>>>>>> sympathetic with an America shattered and on its knees, and not very
>>>>>> sympathetic with one who'd picked out a target and gone after it
>>>>>> regardless of what Europe wanted them to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of Europe was strongly in support of us whacking the shit out of
>>>>> alQaeda and Afghanistan.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you keep repeating this lie often enough, you start to look like
>>>>> Karl Rove's hand is up your ass. Please stop.
>>>>
>>>> How can an opinion be a lie?
>>>
>>>I believe that you are posting your article from the middle of a volcano.
>>
>> <snort>
>
><fart>
>
>> The problem is that, unless you are as insane as some people around
>> here think you are, you don't *really* believe that.
>
>Then I just lied, didn't I?
But, it wasn't really your opinion, now was it?
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire
David Loewe, Jr.
<mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:15:42 -0600, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>>> And you don't know, either. But it is a truism that something
>>>> repeated often enough will be believed by someone, somewhere.
>>>
>>>My sources are credible. The linkage of the Saudis to alQaeda was, in
>>>the past, credible enough for even you to admit there was a huge problem
>>>there, if you recall.
>>
>> But not credible enough for you to give links, apparently.
>
>Use google, you no-talent assclown. I've posted on the subject here on
>numerous occasions.
<chuckle>
When people make presentations to new clients do they tell them to
just "Use google, you no-talent assclown" when asked how their shit
works?
It's NOT MY JOB YOU BLOVIATED PIECE OF WHALEDRECK.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
1) What position would that be?
2) I said I was a libertarian, not that I was a member of the
Libertarian Party.
I mean, afterall, I am a democrat, not a Democrat.
--
"I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne
David Loewe, Jr.
J. Ginn) wrote:
It just shows how uninformed you are...
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Now, what if I should have known better?
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com>
> wrote in news:pan.2004.03.30...@iwoopitywooo.com:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:02:34 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>
>>> Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com>
>>> wrote in news:pan.2004.03.29....@iwoopitywooo.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:18:31 -0600, James Schrumpf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, I agree with the writer who said that Europe felt very
>>>>> sympathetic with an America shattered and on its knees, and not very
>>>>> sympathetic with one who'd picked out a target and gone after it
>>>>> regardless of what Europe wanted them to do.
>>>>
>>>> This is a lie.
>>>>
>>>> Most of Europe was strongly in support of us whacking the shit out of
>>>> alQaeda and Afghanistan.
>>>>
>>>> If you keep repeating this lie often enough, you start to look like
>>>> Karl Rove's hand is up your ass. Please stop.
>>>
>>> How can an opinion be a lie?
>>
>> I believe that you are posting your article from the middle of a
>> volcano.
>>
>>
> This just proves what your opinions are worth.
More than yours, since you're apparently now nothing but a Bush
mouthpiece.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:39:02 -0600, Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:15:42 -0600, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>>> And you don't know, either. But it is a truism that something
>>>>> repeated often enough will be believed by someone, somewhere.
>>>>
>>>>My sources are credible. The linkage of the Saudis to alQaeda was, in
>>>>the past, credible enough for even you to admit there was a huge problem
>>>>there, if you recall.
>>>
>>> But not credible enough for you to give links, apparently.
>>
>>Use google, you no-talent assclown. I've posted on the subject here on
>>numerous occasions.
>
> <chuckle>
<fart>
> When people make presentations to new clients do they tell them to
> just "Use google, you no-talent assclown" when asked how their shit
> works?
>
> It's NOT MY JOB YOU BLOVIATED PIECE OF WHALEDRECK.
Become funny, interesting, or dead.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Nor did I say so above. You obligingly left it in:
"It was the policy of the Saudi government to tacitly encourage alQaeda in
any number of ways."
If you don't argue with that, then shut up. If you do, then argue with it
instead of with "the Saudi government donated to terrorists", which I
never said.
> But the problem with your "logic" is that in all the countries _you'd_
> like to attack, there are nascent and growing pro-democracy or at least
> reformist movements afoot to curb the power of the presidents-for-life,
> sheiks, and kings.
You're insane if you think there's a reformist movement afoot in Saudi
Arabia. If anything, there's a fundamentalist overthrow waiting to happen.
Likewise with Pakistan.
Iraq was a secular bulwark _against_ forces like that. Yes, Hussein was a
horrible evil man. So was Stalin; but we didn't mind using him against the
Nazis.
RJ
<mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>
>Become funny, interesting, or dead.
You first.
---
Bob
Randolph M. Jones
What else would "card carrying" mean?
Randolph M. Jones
> Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.03.29....@iwoopitywooo.com>...
>
>>
>>
>>>>>Now in the present time, we DO have a president who is making a bold
>>>>>move against a known supporter of terrorism
>>>>
>>>>Right here your train falls off the tracks. For Saddam's level of
>>>>"supporter of terrorism", we could more credibly go after ten or so
>>>>much more dangerous regimes. Please stop pushing this lie.
>>>
>>>Who else was paying suicide bomber families $25K a pop? Who else
>>>recently had invaded two different neighboring countries in consecutive
>>>decades? Who else was causing the deaths of over 100K of his own
>>>citizens per year?
>>
>>Nobody else. And that has nothing to do with his regime being dangerous.
>>
>>Saudi Arabia spent millions supporting alQaeda who ATTACKED US ON OUR OWN
>>Sudan. Iran. Syria. Yemen. Etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> Imagine if M13K was English:
>
> The United Staates spent millions supporting the IRA who ATTACKED US ON OUR
> OWN SOIL.
I don't understand this tack by the neoconservatives in this thread.
The neoconservative doctrine seems quite clear to me that it *would*
blame the US for supporting IRA terrorists (that is, if they were
anybody other than the US).
abor...@ichips.intel.com
Military usage only in defense.
> 2) I said I was a libertarian, not that I was a member of the
> Libertarian Party.
Then to claim you are a "card carrying libertarian" is disingenuous.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
>> Imagine if M13K was English:
>>
>> The United Staates spent millions supporting the IRA who ATTACKED US ON
>> OUR OWN SOIL.
>
> I don't understand this tack by the neoconservatives in this thread. The
> neoconservative doctrine seems quite clear to me that it *would* blame
> the US for supporting IRA terrorists (that is, if they were anybody
> other than the US).
1. They're trying to divert attention away from the fact that Bush hasn't
been fighting the War On Terror.
2. Don't give them credence by equating the 'support' of the IRA by a few
citizens with the government-encouraged funding of exported Islamic
nihilism. They aren't even remotely similar.
Ralph Kennedy
> Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist wrote:
> >
> >Become funny, interesting, or dead.
>
> You first.
He already took the latter option quite a ways
back, where the hell have you been.
Show him your marriage certificate, M1EK.
--Ralph Kennedy {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
internet: ken...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> RJ <re_jo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist wrote:
>> >
>> >Become funny, interesting, or dead.
>>
>> You first.
>
> He already took the latter option quite a ways
> back, where the hell have you been.
>
> Show him your marriage certificate, M1EK.
THAT WASN"T FUNNY OR INTERESTING RALPH!!!!!1
James Schrumpf
news:ohvk60hh1a7t6cl4r...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:39:02 -0600, Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:15:42 -0600, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>>> And you don't know, either. But it is a truism that something
>>>>> repeated often enough will be believed by someone, somewhere.
>>>>
>>>>My sources are credible. The linkage of the Saudis to alQaeda was,
>>>>in the past, credible enough for even you to admit there was a huge
>>>>problem there, if you recall.
>>>
>>> But not credible enough for you to give links, apparently.
>>
>>Use google, you no-talent assclown. I've posted on the subject here on
>>numerous occasions.
>
> <chuckle>
>
> When people make presentations to new clients do they tell them to
> just "Use google, you no-talent assclown" when asked how their shit
> works?
>
> It's NOT MY JOB YOU BLOVIATED PIECE OF WHALEDRECK.
"I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you
understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?"
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.31....@iwoopitywooo.com:
Oh yes. No one can independently have the same opinon as someone else
without being a meatpuppet of theirs, eh?
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.31....@iwoopitywooo.com:
That's just your opinion.
James Schrumpf
wrote in news:pan.2004.03.31...@iwoopitywooo.com:
From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32140-2004Mar28.html
"The most underreported and encouraging story in the Middle East in the
past year has been the emergence in public of homegrown civic movements
demanding political change. Two years ago they were nonexistent or in
jail. Now they are out in the open even in the most politically backward
places in the region: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria."
From The World Press Review:
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1734.cfm
"Since King Fahd was essentially disabled by a stroke in 1995, Crown
Prince Abdullah has prematurely risen into prominence as the de facto
spokesperson for the royal family. He is the man U.S. President George W.
Bush contacts, and he represents Saudi Arabia at Arab League Summits and
other such gatherings. He also seems to be pursuing a reformist agenda."
Check your sources. I think you need better ones.
>
> Iraq was a secular bulwark _against_ forces like that. Yes, Hussein
> was a horrible evil man. So was Stalin; but we didn't mind using him
> against the Nazis.
>
So what? We decided not to wait for Saddam to die, taking 40 million or
so of his own people with him.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
And what if I did know better, but I said it anyways because I didn't want
to admit it?
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
Your computer has a virus or a trojan. It stuck the word "independently"
right in the middle of your previously true sentence.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote in
> news:ohvk60hh1a7t6cl4r...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:39:02 -0600, Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
>> <mdahwoop...@iwoopitywooo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:15:42 -0600, David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> And you don't know, either. But it is a truism that something
>>>>>> repeated often enough will be believed by someone, somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>My sources are credible. The linkage of the Saudis to alQaeda was,
>>>>>in the past, credible enough for even you to admit there was a huge
>>>>>problem there, if you recall.
>>>>
>>>> But not credible enough for you to give links, apparently.
>>>
>>>Use google, you no-talent assclown. I've posted on the subject here on
>>>numerous occasions.
>>
>> <chuckle>
>>
>> When people make presentations to new clients do they tell them to
>> just "Use google, you no-talent assclown" when asked how their shit
>> works?
>>
>> It's NOT MY JOB YOU BLOVIATED PIECE OF WHALEDRECK.
>
> "I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you
> understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?"
I wonder if Mr. Loewe actually _has_ a job.
Paranoid Dehumanized Narcissist
The balance of evidence suggests a stronger fundamentalist movement in
both countries than the supposed reformist groundswell. Ten years ago,
Pakistan looked like it would reform in the secular direction, after all.
>> Iraq was a secular bulwark _against_ forces like that. Yes, Hussein
>> was a horrible evil man. So was Stalin; but we didn't mind using him
>> against the Nazis.
>>
>
> So what? We decided not to wait for Saddam to die, taking 40 million or
> so of his own people with him.
And in the meantime, we let the guys who actually attacked us get away.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
I was unaware that adhering to a *philosophy* required an actual "sign
up" and an actual card.
And let me add back in, in it's proper context, the example of this
kind of thing that you snipped out to save *one measly line*.
>>I mean, afterall, I am a democrat, not a Democrat.
--
"So I voted for her. And now that my soul is gone, the echo is really weird
in here..."
Ben Ryan in <3a093...@bingnews.binghamton.edu> on voting for Hillary
Randolph M. Jones
And once again, David Loewe, Jr., refuses to admit that he misused a term.
David Loewe, Jr.
"I'd rather be sorry for something I've done than for something that I
didn't do." ($1 to Kris Kristofferson)
--
"You can build a throne out of bayonets, but you can't sit on it for
very long."
- Boris Yeltsin