The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo
gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez
to help him in his vow to bring down our government.
Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why should
U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take
down our government?
Alert friends and family; most of them probably don't know that Citgo is
owned by the Venezuela government.

YOU CAN VERIFY THIS ON THE CITGO WEB PAGE.
http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO.jsp

He undoubtedly has dictatorial tendencies. He's also done more for the
poor than previous governments- and he's having a good time with
Bush. Boycott if you wish. OTOH, I thought about boycotting Lukoil
after hearing about the recent killing of Russia's bravest journalist-
Putin is a thug, too. As Tom Friedman of the NY Times has been
writing(though he's a bit of a late convert), our dependency on oil is
unhealthy in a lot of ways.

"barbarow" wrote in message
news:dBJXg.18414$wE5.11029@trnddc02...
The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of
Citgo
gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez
to help him in his vow to bring down our government.
Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why should
U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to
take
down our government?
Alert friends and family; most of them probably don't know that Citgo is
owned by the Venezuela government.

YOU CAN VERIFY THIS ON THE CITGO WEB PAGE.
http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO.jsp



I'm not clear on why Chavez bothers you. His speeches are no different than
Bush's. "Bring it on!" Remember? He is complicit in the murder of 2712 of
our soldiers, while blissfully ignoring the Afghanistan-Pakistan border
area, where the real problems lie.

Cost of war

The totals:

2712 US soldiers, 236 Coalition soldiers, and approximately 43,546 to 48,343
Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq from the beginning of the war and
occupation to September 30.

4172 Iraqi police and guardsmen have been killed since January 2005,
according to an estimate compiled from news reports.

American soldiers killed between September 25-September 30:

Corporal Casey L. Mellen, 21, Huachuca City, Arizona | Staff Sergeant Jose
A. Lanzarin, 28, Lubbock, Texas | Staff Sergeant Edward C. Reynolds, Jr.,
27, Groves, Texas | Private First Class Henry Paul, 24, KoloniaPohnpei,
Federated States of Micronesia | Private First Class Christopher T. Riviere,
21, Cooper City, Florida | First Lieutenant James N. Lyons, 28, Rochester,
New York | Lance Corporal James Chamroeun, 20, Union City, Georgia | Private
First Class Christopher T. Blaney, 19, Winter Park, Florida | Staff Sergeant
Scott E. Nisely, 48, Marshalltown, Iowa | Specialist Kampha B. Sourivong,
20, Iowa City, Iowa

Sources: US Department of Defense, www.icasualties.org,
www.iraqbodycount.net

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

2712 US soldiers, 236 Coalition soldiers, and approximately 43,546 to 48,343
Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq from the beginning of the war and
occupation to September 30.
The survey supervised by Johns Hopkins put Iraqi deaths close to 650,000.

Nick

wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

2712 US soldiers, 236 Coalition soldiers, and approximately 43,546 to
48,343
Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq from the beginning of the war and
occupation to September 30.

The survey supervised by Johns Hopkins put Iraqi deaths close to 650,000.

Nick


Right. I totally forgot having listened to a report about that yesterday on
the radio:
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/10/12.php#11450

barbarow wrote:
The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo
gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez
to help him in his vow to bring down our government.
Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why should
U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take
down our government?
Alert friends and family; most of them probably don't know that Citgo is
owned by the Venezuela government.

Oil and gas are global commodities. Boycotting a certain brand of gas
will affect the producers very little since oil and gas is traded
globally at well established prices. A producer has many options for
where to sell product. Regardless of my personal opinion that man has
the as much right to ridicule and demean Bush as anyone else. Calling
him out publicly and threatening boycotts only further publicizes his
opinions and gives them more credibility. The U.S. government has
chosen to ignore him for these very reasons.

Sev wrote:
He undoubtedly has dictatorial tendencies. He's also done more for the
poor than previous governments- ...

And _most particularly_ his poor (formerly) self...

Lawrence wrote:
barbarow wrote:
....

Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. ...
....

Oil and gas are global commodities. Boycotting a certain brand of gas
will affect the producers very little since oil and gas is traded
globally at well established prices. A producer has many options for
where to sell product. ...

Well, yes and no...virtually all of Citgo's refining capacity is in the
US and their particular variety of crude is unsuited for most other
refineries so there isn't really an unlimited global market for their
crude. While they could undoubtedly sell refined product elsewhere, it
wouldn't be as nearly efficient. (Not that I think a boycott would
have much _real_ impact, it's just not possible to implement
effectively enough. I'd like (personally, it's not going to happen,
and really shouldn't, but it's a nice thought ) to nationalize all
Argentine assets in the US.

barbarow wrote:
....

Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why should
U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take
down our government?
....

OTOH, why should we penalize perfectly well-meaning and innocent US
citizens who operate (and many did/have since _long_ before the sale to
Argentina) and make _their_ livings with Citgo-branded products when
they had absolutely nothing to do with nor any control over the
transfer???

One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks with
free heating oil in our country which is more than can be said for Bush
and his pals.

wrote in message
ups.com...
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks with
free heating oil in our country which is more than can be said for Bush
and his pals.


What poor folks? We don't have any poor people here, do we? I don't see them
when political fund raising events are shown on TV.

:-)

All he did was to call a spade a spade. He was correct.

wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks with
free heating oil ...

Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here and
there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by actual
humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me...

I'm quite sure Citgo will claim the deduction from the the taxes...

Should there be more government subsidizes for fuel? Personally, very
mixed emotions/thoughts on that. Some are deserving, undoubtedly, but
in general there are social programs and other assistance programs in
place through a myriad of federal, state, local governments as well as
private charities, church and other non-profits and the (heavens!)
utility companies themselves. OTOH, there are many who simply use any
excuse to avoid/shift their own responsibilities to others. 'Tis a
quandary...

"dpb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks with
free heating oil ...

Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here and
there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by actual
humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me...

No more of a political stunt than Bush sending out those tax rebate checks
at a time when he's spending like a drunken sailor with no end in sight.

Sev wrote:
He undoubtedly has dictatorial tendencies. He's also done more for
the poor than previous governments- and he's having a good time with
Bush. Boycott if you wish. OTOH, I thought about boycotting Lukoil
after hearing about the recent killing of Russia's bravest journalist-
Putin is a thug, too. As Tom Friedman of the NY Times has been
writing(though he's a bit of a late convert), our dependency on oil is
unhealthy in a lot of ways.

But Friedman is deranged. There are dozens of web sites debunking his
predictions. Heck, even the ombudsman for the NY Times had to publically
apologize for Friedman's errors regarding the 2000 election (Friedman
himself evidently refused to correct his columns).

As for Chavez doing more for the poor than previous governments, that may
very well be the problem. The government should get out of the way and let
the poor do for themselves. For example, we had over a 100,000 poor,
unemployed, Katrina evacuees come to Houston. Today, most of them have jobs.

On 13 Oct 2006 06:18:53 -0700, "Sev" wrote:


He undoubtedly has dictatorial tendencies. He's also done more for the
poor than previous governments- and he's having a good time with
Bush. Boycott if you wish. OTOH, I thought about boycotting Lukoil
after hearing about the recent killing of Russia's bravest journalist-
Putin is a thug, too. As Tom Friedman of the NY Times has been
writing(though he's a bit of a late convert), our dependency on oil is
unhealthy in a lot of ways.

"Bit of a late convert!" Dass ich nicht lache!

Tom Friedman is a phony; a ***ing opportunist. A fellow-traveler of
Mr."State of Denial" Bob Woodward. They put up a finger to see which
way the wind is blowing, and rush in to capitalize on the latest
trend.

I remember with disgust a TV documentary Friedman did in which
he moans and groans at length over Palestinians having to take the
long way around the security fence/wall to get to their school/work.

He devotes about 5 throwaway minutes to the Israelis struggling to
protect themselves from Palestinian suicide bombers, trained by their
terrorist masters to blow themselves up at pizza parlors, shopping
malls, religious ceremonies, student dormitories -- anywhere they can
kill Jewish civilians.

Tfui!

Disillusioned

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks with
free heating oil ...

Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here and
there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by actual
humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me...

No more of a political stunt than Bush sending out those tax rebate checks
at a time when he's spending like a drunken sailor with no end in sight.

But certainly no less...

OTOH, istr just seeing last quarter's federal tax receipts were highest
in history...in spite of (or owing to?) tax cuts.

Hopefully falling oil prices will send him back to his coca farm.

dpb wrote:

MUCH SNPPED ...




Well, yes and no...virtually all of Citgo's refining capacity is in the
US and their particular variety of crude is unsuited for most other
refineries so there isn't really an unlimited global market for their
crude. While they could undoubtedly sell refined product elsewhere, it
wouldn't be as nearly efficient. (Not that I think a boycott would
have much _real_ impact, it's just not possible to implement
effectively enough. I'd like (personally, it's not going to happen,
and really shouldn't, but it's a nice thought ) to nationalize all
Argentine assets in the US.
^^^^^^

Argentine assets? What do Argntine assets have to do with Chavez
and Citgpo, pray tell?

And while you are busily advocating "nationalizing" foreign assets
(isn't that what the US caled "stealing" when castro dd it in Cuba in
1960 - 1964 ?) do understand that the US Constitution requires that yo
the taxpayes pay for any asset the government takes.


Last i lookd the Constitution as still in force ( well, except for
habeus corus and a few bits and pieces here and there tha Bush doesn't
like) and I am sure that you are a big supporter of the Constitution.
You just love the Second Amendment, right?

jJim McLaughlin wrote:


Last i lookd the Constitution as still in force ( well, except for
habeus corus and a few bits and pieces here and there tha Bush doesn't
like) and I am sure that you are a big supporter of the Constitution.
You just love the Second Amendment, right?

You mean the Article I, Section 9 part that reads:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

This, of course, seemingly conflicts with the president's Article II powers.
But that apparent conflict was sorted out hundreds of years ago; the
president's wartime powers trump the habeas corpus restriction. For example,
during WW2, we had 511 POW camps in the US, housing some 475,000 of enemy
POWs (some even US citizens). Not one had habeas corpus rights.

Bottom line: enemy combatants (legal or illegal) don't get habeas corpus
rights.

I love the 2nd Amendment. I have a disagreement - as do the various
appellate courts - about its interpretation. Interestingly, in today's news,
I see that a free concealed handgun carry class is being offered to Utah
teachers so more of them can carry a concealed handgun in their classrooms.

jJim McLaughlin wrote:
dpb wrote:

....
...
I'd like (personally, it's not going to happen,
and really shouldn't, but it's a nice thought ) to nationalize all
Argentine assets in the US.
^^^^^^

Argentine assets? What do Argntine assets have to do with Chavez
and Citgpo, pray tell?

Nothing other than a brain-cramp from an old fart...


And while you are busily advocating "nationalizing" foreign assets
....

_IF_ you will actually read what I wrote instead of jumping to a
conclusion, you will see that I'm not seriously advocating
nationalizing anything as an actual policy, simply saying it would be a
fun (and quite effective) way to pull his chain in
return...specifically I quote "...not going to happen and really
shouldn't..."

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:18:52 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks with
free heating oil in our country which is more than can be said for Bush
and his pals.


What poor folks? We don't have any poor people here, do we? I don't see them
when political fund raising events are shown on TV.

:-)

Yeah, somebody slipped up and let those pictures from the New Orleans
temporary concentration camps get on TV. Gave away the ballgame.

Aspasia

HeyBub wrote:

jJim McLaughlin wrote:


Last i lookd the Constitution as still in force ( well, except for
habeus corus and a few bits and pieces here and there tha Bush doesn't
like) and I am sure that you are a big supporter of the Constitution.
You just love the Second Amendment, right?


You mean the Article I, Section 9 part that reads:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless
when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

This, of course, seemingly conflicts with the president's Article II powers.
But that apparent conflict was sorted out hundreds of years ago; the
president's wartime powers trump the habeas corpus restriction. For example,
during WW2, we had 511 POW camps in the US, housing some 475,000 of enemy
POWs (some even US citizens). Not one had habeas corpus rights.


Problem is that the recent statute purports to eliminate the writ, not
merely suspend it. And under the cConstitution you can't eliminate the
writ. Further, the writ may only be suspended in case of Invasion or
Rbellion. Last I looked there was neither going on. So the
legislation is invalid on its face.

Further, the legislation purports to apply to everyone -- youtr
grandmother, your grandkids, your significant other, and anybody at
Gitmpo.

When you quote Article I Section 9, take the time to read the
legislation in detail and quotre it, too.

Be real careful what you wish for, you may get it.





Bottom line: enemy combatants (legal or illegal) don't get habeas corpus
rights.

I love the 2nd Amendment. I have a disagreement - as do the various
appellate courts - about its interpretation. Interestingly, in today's news,
I see that a free concealed handgun carry class is being offered to Utah
teachers so more of them can carry a concealed handgun in their classrooms.

jJim McLaughlin wrote:

You mean the Article I, Section 9 part that reads:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require it." This, of course, seemingly conflicts with the president's
Article II
powers. But that apparent conflict was sorted out hundreds of years
ago; the president's wartime powers trump the habeas corpus
restriction. For example, during WW2, we had 511 POW camps in the
US, housing some 475,000 of enemy POWs (some even US citizens). Not
one had habeas corpus rights.

Problem is that the recent statute purports to eliminate the writ, not
merely suspend it. And under the cConstitution you can't eliminate
the writ. Further, the writ may only be suspended in case of
Invasion or Rbellion. Last I looked there was neither going on. So the
legislation is invalid on its face.

Actually, the constitution is silent on the possibility of elimination. As I
tried to point out, in cases of conflict, something has to give. Tradition,
precedence, and common sense have established that the president's
war-making power is primary. Secondly, it does not matter what the
constitution says; the only thing that counts is what the constitution
means. Authority for determining what the constitution means is vested with
the judiciary who, for 230 years, have universally held that the president's
Article II powers are supreme. The law to which you refer merely codifies
that which has been common law since the Magna Carta.


Further, the legislation purports to apply to everyone -- youtr
grandmother, your grandkids, your significant other, and anybody at
Gitmpo.

Sure, we don't have multiple layers of law.


When you quote Article I Section 9, take the time to read the
legislation in detail and quotre it, too.

Be real careful what you wish for, you may get it.


If wishes were fishes.... I depend, rather, on techniques making it
impossible for my political opponents to properly vote, such as allocating
too few voting machines in their strong areas, hiring a policeman to stand
outside the polling place door to intimidate the criminal element,
challenging each voter at the polls, designing the ballot such that those of
wee intellect vote for the tooth-fairy, and so on.

I'm trying to get the president to delegate the power to annoint some voters
as "unlawful enemy combatants" so we won't have to fool with them.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

"barbarow" wrote in message
news:dBJXg.18414$wE5.11029@trnddc02...
The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner
of Citgo
gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to
Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government.
Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why
should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has
vowed to take
down our government?
Alert friends and family; most of them probably don't know that Citgo
is owned by the Venezuela government.

YOU CAN VERIFY THIS ON THE CITGO WEB PAGE.
http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO.jsp



I'm not clear on why Chavez bothers you. His speeches are no different
than Bush's. "Bring it on!" Remember? He is complicit in the murder
of 2712 of our soldiers, while blissfully ignoring the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border area, where the real problems lie.

Cost of war

The totals:

2712 US soldiers, 236 Coalition soldiers, and approximately 43,546 to
48,343 Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq from the beginning of
the war and occupation to September 30.

4172 Iraqi police and guardsmen have been killed since January 2005,
according to an estimate compiled from news reports.

American soldiers killed between September 25-September 30:

Corporal Casey L. Mellen, 21, Huachuca City, Arizona | Staff Sergeant
Jose A. Lanzarin, 28, Lubbock, Texas | Staff Sergeant Edward C.
Reynolds, Jr., 27, Groves, Texas | Private First Class Henry Paul, 24,
KoloniaPohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia | Private First Class
Christopher T. Riviere, 21, Cooper City, Florida | First Lieutenant
James N. Lyons, 28, Rochester, New York | Lance Corporal James
Chamroeun, 20, Union City, Georgia | Private First Class Christopher
T. Blaney, 19, Winter Park, Florida | Staff Sergeant Scott E. Nisely,
48, Marshalltown, Iowa | Specialist Kampha B. Sourivong, 20, Iowa
City, Iowa

Sources: US Department of Defense, www.icasualties.org,
www.iraqbodycount.net




What would the cost be if a nuke goes off in NYC?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

wrote in
ups.com:

One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks with
free heating oil in our country which is more than can be said for Bush
and his pals.


ISTR that the "poor people" recently turned down Chavez' offer of free oil.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"dpb" wrote in
oups.com:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks
with free heating oil ...

Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here
and there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by
actual humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me...

No more of a political stunt than Bush sending out those tax rebate
checks at a time when he's spending like a drunken sailor with no end
in sight.

Defending the country is expensive.
Even moreso since the last administration neglected so much. B-)


But certainly no less...

OTOH, istr just seeing last quarter's federal tax receipts were
highest in history...in spite of (or owing to?) tax cuts.


Don't confuse JSB with the details! He has his Bush-hatred to mind.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

2712 US soldiers, 236 Coalition soldiers, and approximately 43,546 to
48,343
Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq from the beginning of the
war and occupation to September 30.

The survey supervised by Johns Hopkins put Iraqi deaths close to
650,000.

Nick


Right. I totally forgot having listened to a report about that
yesterday on the radio:
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/10/12.php#11450




As if the liberal Johns Hopkins would get it right..
http://article.nationalreview.com/q/...YzZTA3NzE0M2Zm
MmY3MjJkOTc=


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 14 Oct 2006 00:57:22 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"dpb" wrote in
roups.com:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks
with free heating oil ...

Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here
and there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by
actual humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me...

No more of a political stunt than Bush sending out those tax rebate
checks at a time when he's spending like a drunken sailor with no end
in sight.

Defending the country is expensive.
Even moreso since the last administration neglected so much. B-)

Excuse me, but which country was attacking us? I mean, against which
country did we need to defend ourselves?

ISTR that a group of crazies armed with box cutters attacked us -
thanks to the utter stupidity and inattentiveness of our institutions,
who ignored the warnings of a few alert officials. Plus, of course,
the utter arrogance of the Administration, disregarding explicit
warnings..

Presumably the crazies were organized and funded under OBL auspices.
(and funded by Bush's good friends, the Saudis). So why didn't we
follow up in Afg. rather than recklessly invade Iraq? The Admin.
deliberately failed to go after OBL when the military had definite
info of his whereabouts in Afg. Interesting...

Saddam was in no way, shape or form allied with the Islamist
terrorists. He hated OBL guts, and used his dictatorial powers to
keep Iraq SECULAR! Women were free; they could study, dress normally,
and exercise professions. Unless you were on Saddam's S-list, life
was pretty good for his fellow Sunnis -- jobs, cafes, entertainment; a
reasonable standard of living.

But Saddam -- not exactly in touch with reality -- was whacky enough
to think that he could turn down the US offer to keep him in power as
long as he would guarantee the supply of oil.

The Saudis went for the deal years ago, and have been in clover ever
since. Cutting off hands, oppressing women, executing infidels,
sucking the country dry to keep the "royal family" in booze and
whores; the whole ball of wax. But the oil supply is guaranteed!

Saddam actually wanted to bust OPEC so he could price his oil
fairly, AND he wanted to denominate the prices in Euros, not Dollars.
Heavens to Betsy! The nerve, wanting to control his own oil.

And the rest is history, with the White House chicken-hawks saying
openly that Afgh was on the back burner, "because there are better
targets in Iraq."

Colin Powell let his country down at that UN yellow-cake speech.
When he realized how he'd been had, the only noble course
would have been immediately to resign and go public about his
reasons.

BTW - You'll recall that the acronym for the invasion of Iraq
started out as Operation Iraqui Liberation. But somebody
pointed out that OIL just might be, uh, a little too obvious.
So they changed it to Operation Iraqui Freedom...

Q.E.D.

GWB wrote:
Hopefully falling oil prices will send him back to his coca farm.

Mr. President? That's Evo Morales. Bolivia. Gas.

On 13 Oct 2006 20:44:58 -0700, "Sev" wrote:


GWB wrote:
Hopefully falling oil prices will send him back to his coca farm.

Mr. President?

No, that's another GWB.


That's Evo Morales. Bolivia. Gas.

Two peas in a pod. Chavez supports Morales in legalizing growing coca
leaf and offered Bolivia $1 million to research the uses of coca and
build factories to process coca flour or tea.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
:

wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

2712 US soldiers, 236 Coalition soldiers, and approximately 43,546 to
48,343
Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq from the beginning of the
war and occupation to September 30.

The survey supervised by Johns Hopkins put Iraqi deaths close to
650,000.

Nick


Right. I totally forgot having listened to a report about that
yesterday on the radio:
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/10/12.php#11450




As if the liberal Johns Hopkins would get it right..
http://article.nationalreview.com/q/...YzZTA3NzE0M2Zm
MmY3MjJkOTc=
Jim Yanik


Did you listen to the radio story?

aspasia wrote in message
...
On 14 Oct 2006 00:57:22 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"dpb" wrote in
groups.com:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks
with free heating oil ...

Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here
and there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by
actual humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me...

No more of a political stunt than Bush sending out those tax rebate
checks at a time when he's spending like a drunken sailor with no end
in sight.

Defending the country is expensive.
Even moreso since the last administration neglected so much. B-)

Excuse me, but which country was attacking us? I mean, against which
country did we need to defend ourselves?

ISTR that a group of crazies armed with box cutters attacked us -
thanks to the utter stupidity and inattentiveness of our institutions,
who ignored the warnings of a few alert officials. Plus, of course,
the utter arrogance of the Administration, disregarding explicit
warnings..

Presumably the crazies were organized and funded under OBL auspices.
(and funded by Bush's good friends, the Saudis). So why didn't we
follow up in Afg. rather than recklessly invade Iraq? The Admin.
deliberately failed to go after OBL when the military had definite
info of his whereabouts in Afg. Interesting...


Actually, the CIA entered Afghanistan within a few weeks of 9/11 to lay the
groundwork for the arrival of the military. A few special ops teams arrived
in October to direct the bombing of Taliban forces so tribes working with
the CIA (in return for bags of cash) could take over Kabul, which happened
very quickly. This was not a bad idea, and it made for good television.
Unfortunately, our troops were never allowed to properly enter the region on
Pakistan's side of the border, where OBL is still assumed to be hiding.
Doing so would have created a violent domestic mess for Musharraf and
threatened other forms of cooperation he provided afterward. The tribes
living on his side of the border are absolutely dead set against the
presence of foreign troops, something they've been putting up with since the
British presence years ago. Militarily, they're a handful, so Pakistan's
official policy is basically "hands off". Our government has honored this
policy because some decent intelligence manages to flow from the area.

The CIA estimates that if we *did* enter this region, we could probably
achieve our goal for a tiny fraction of the cost of the disaster in Iraq.

"GWB" wrote in message
...
On 13 Oct 2006 20:44:58 -0700, "Sev" wrote:


GWB wrote:
Hopefully falling oil prices will send him back to his coca farm.

Mr. President?

No, that's another GWB.


That's Evo Morales. Bolivia. Gas.

Two peas in a pod. Chavez supports Morales in legalizing growing coca
leaf and offered Bolivia $1 million to research the uses of coca and
build factories to process coca flour or tea.


Hmm.....maybe that's why Bush finds him annoying. If what you said is true,
and it's successful, it will make Bush (and the DEA & several past
presidents) look like idiots for wasting so many years dropping herbicides
and chasing go-fast boats all over the Caribbean.

Jim Yanik wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks with
free heating oil ...

ISTR that the "poor people" recently turned down Chavez' offer of free oil.

Some in Alaska reportedly did that. OTOH, at least one group (in NYC,
perhaps?) were reported to have accepted after the church visit.
Whether it actually will transpire and how I've not heard any more
since the big flap of the day (after the UN)...

aspasia wrote in :

On 14 Oct 2006 00:57:22 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"dpb" wrote in
groups.com:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks
with free heating oil ...

Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here
and there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by
actual humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me...

No more of a political stunt than Bush sending out those tax rebate
checks at a time when he's spending like a drunken sailor with no end
in sight.

Defending the country is expensive.
Even moreso since the last administration neglected so much. B-)

Excuse me, but which country was attacking us? I mean, against which
country did we need to defend ourselves?

Does it have to be a COUNTRY that attacks us? What about countries that
support groups that attack us? Have you already forgotten 9-11?
There's a new paradigm in warfighting,if you haven't noticed.

And the Clinton admin neglected US defense in MANY ways,not just one.
He weakened the US Military,ignored terrorism -including many attacks
against the US by state-sponsored groups,not just 9-11.He depended on talk
and pieces of paper instead of concrete action,with people known to be
deceitful.

ISTR that a group of crazies armed with box cutters attacked us -
thanks to the utter stupidity and inattentiveness of our institutions,
who ignored the warnings of a few alert officials. Plus, of course,
the utter arrogance of the Administration, disregarding explicit
warnings..

Or Clinton letting OBL go unharmed.

Presumably the crazies were organized and funded under OBL auspices.
(and funded by Bush's good friends, the Saudis).

Created long before Bush was in office.

So why didn't we
follow up in Afg. rather than recklessly invade Iraq? The Admin.
deliberately failed to go after OBL when the military had definite
info of his whereabouts in Afg. Interesting...

Yes,since it was CLINTON who failed there.
Then when OBL fled into Pakistan,the task became much more difficult,due to
the Paki political situation.

Saddam was in no way, shape or form allied with the Islamist
terrorists.

There's now plenty of evidence this statement is wrong.
You should not let the MSM lead you around so much.

He hated OBL guts,

But agreed that he could operate as long as he left Iraq alone.Salman Pak
was a training site for terrorists,Saddam sheltered wanted terrorists.

and used his dictatorial powers to
keep Iraq SECULAR! Women were free;

HAH!

they could study, dress normally,
and exercise professions.

and get RAPED by Saddam,his sons or flunkies,then murdered and dumped in
the Tigris or Euphrates.

Unless you were on Saddam's S-list, life
was pretty good for his fellow Sunnis -- jobs, cafes, entertainment; a
reasonable standard of living.

But Saddam -- not exactly in touch with reality -- was whacky enough
to think that he could turn down the US offer to keep him in power as
long as he would guarantee the supply of oil.

Now you've gone off the deep end.(joining Saddam)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .


Now you've gone off the deep end.(joining Saddam)
Jim Yanik

I'm curious: What are the last 3 books you've read about the situations in
Afghanistan and Iraq?

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:37:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

aspasia wrote in message
m...
On 14 Oct 2006 00:57:22 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"dpb" wrote in
egroups.com:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks
with free heating oil ...

Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here
and there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by
actual humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me...

No more of a political stunt than Bush sending out those tax rebate
checks at a time when he's spending like a drunken sailor with no end
in sight.

Defending the country is expensive.
Even moreso since the last administration neglected so much. B-)

Excuse me, but which country was attacking us? I mean, against which
country did we need to defend ourselves?

ISTR that a group of crazies armed with box cutters attacked us -
thanks to the utter stupidity and inattentiveness of our institutions,
who ignored the warnings of a few alert officials. Plus, of course,
the utter arrogance of the Administration, disregarding explicit
warnings..

Presumably the crazies were organized and funded under OBL auspices.
(and funded by Bush's good friends, the Saudis). So why didn't we
follow up in Afg. rather than recklessly invade Iraq? The Admin.
deliberately failed to go after OBL when the military had definite
info of his whereabouts in Afg. Interesting...


Actually, the CIA entered Afghanistan within a few weeks of 9/11 to lay the
groundwork for the arrival of the military. A few special ops teams arrived
in October to direct the bombing of Taliban forces so tribes working with
the CIA (in return for bags of cash) could take over Kabul, which happened
very quickly. This was not a bad idea, and it made for good television.
Unfortunately, our troops were never allowed to properly enter the region on
Pakistan's side of the border, where OBL is still assumed to be hiding.
Doing so would have created a violent domestic mess for Musharraf and
threatened other forms of cooperation he provided afterward. The tribes
living on his side of the border are absolutely dead set against the
presence of foreign troops, something they've been putting up with since the
British presence years ago. Militarily, they're a handful, so Pakistan's
official policy is basically "hands off". Our government has honored this
policy because some decent intelligence manages to flow from the area.

The CIA estimates that if we *did* enter this region, we could probably
achieve our goal for a tiny fraction of the cost of the disaster in Iraq.

Of course, but that would not have served the political ends of Bush's
handlers and the Wolfowitz-Feith etc. neocons who planned the invasion
(and who now have been conveniently sanitized out of the
Administration).

The objective always was to secure Bush's "base" for political reasons
- i.e. hanging onto power -- by keeping ignorant (and not so
ignorant!) people so scared that they don't realize they're being
****ed up the *** in terms of their domestic needs -- environment,
health, education, and REAL security. (Remember Katrina?
Textbook illustration of utter failure on the domestic front.)

Meantime the cynical, power-grabbing White House is openly
contemptuous of their evangelical supporters. see "Shooting from the
Heart", new book by former White House insider David Kuo.

The other -- and overriding reason to virtually abandon Afgh. -- was
to put an end to Saddam's dream of demolishing OPEC and
running his own oil business. Can't have our Saudi allies overridden
by another cruel dictator!

Aspasia

aspasia wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:37:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

aspasia wrote in message
om...
On 14 Oct 2006 00:57:22 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"dpb" wrote in
legroups.com:


JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
One might add that Chavez has been very generous in helping folks
with free heating oil ...

Not really much at all in the overall scheme of things. A few here
and there for the political advantage, not at all motivated by
actual humanitarian objectives says the cynic in me...

No more of a political stunt than Bush sending out those tax rebate
checks at a time when he's spending like a drunken sailor with no end
in sight.

Defending the country is expensive.
Even moreso since the last administration neglected so much. B-)

Excuse me, but which country was attacking us? I mean, against which
country did we need to defend ourselves?

ISTR that a group of crazies armed with box cutters attacked us -
thanks to the utter stupidity and inattentiveness of our institutions,
who ignored the warnings of a few alert officials. Plus, of course,
the utter arrogance of the Administration, disregarding explicit
warnings..

Presumably the crazies were organized and funded under OBL auspices.
(and funded by Bush's good friends, the Saudis). So why didn't we
follow up in Afg. rather than recklessly invade Iraq? The Admin.
deliberately failed to go after OBL when the military had definite
info of his whereabouts in Afg. Interesting...


Actually, the CIA entered Afghanistan within a few weeks of 9/11 to lay
the
groundwork for the arrival of the military. A few special ops teams
arrived
in October to direct the bombing of Taliban forces so tribes working with
the CIA (in return for bags of cash) could take over Kabul, which happened
very quickly. This was not a bad idea, and it made for good television.
Unfortunately, our troops were never allowed to properly enter the region
on
Pakistan's side of the border, where OBL is still assumed to be hiding.
Doing so would have created a violent domestic mess for Musharraf and
threatened other forms of cooperation he provided afterward. The tribes
living on his side of the border are absolutely dead set against the
presence of foreign troops, something they've been putting up with since
the
British presence years ago. Militarily, they're a handful, so Pakistan's
official policy is basically "hands off". Our government has honored this
policy because some decent intelligence manages to flow from the area.

The CIA estimates that if we *did* enter this region, we could probably
achieve our goal for a tiny fraction of the cost of the disaster in Iraq.

Of course, but that would not have served the political ends of Bush's
handlers and the Wolfowitz-Feith etc. neocons who planned the invasion
(and who now have been conveniently sanitized out of the
Administration).

The objective always was to secure Bush's "base" for political reasons
- i.e. hanging onto power -- by keeping ignorant (and not so
ignorant!) people so scared that they don't realize they're being
****ed up the *** in terms of their domestic needs -- environment,
health, education, and REAL security. (Remember Katrina?
Textbook illustration of utter failure on the domestic front.)


What bothers me most about the situation is that a competent president could
have hung a map behind him, turned on the TV cameras, and explained to the
country why a mission had turned out to be impossible. Instead, the current
knucklehead says "Well, we decided OBL wasn't really the most important
target".