hi,

calling all home pprofessional Mr. Fix it.

We are in desperate need to fix Mr Bush brains, as todate, he has not
been able to fir One single piece of WMD evidence.

who wants to volunteer and tell us how to give him a great tune up ?
or shal we say tune Off ?!



http://healthyslimmers.blogspot.com/

http://www.lookyoungsecrets.blogspot.com/

http://www.cure4imsomnia.blogspot.com/

http://www.place2rent.blogspot.com/

http://collegeandloans.blogspot.com/

http://make600everyday.blogspot.com/

http://googleadsenseforyou.blogspot.com/

http://refinanceyourloans.blogspot.com/

On Mar 1, 1:07 am, "flyawayteeks" wrote:
hi,

calling all home pprofessional Mr. Fix it.

We are in desperate need to fix Mr Bush brains, as todate, he has not
been able to fir One single piece of WMD evidence.


You may have a point. The UN found that Saddam manufactured 9
million lb of chemical warfare weapons and wouldn't account for the
stockpiles when challenged by the UN.

But when Bush went in and shut down the Saddam murder machine they
only found a few tons of chemical warfare agent (Sarin).

Of course, a few tons of Sarin is enough to kill 20,000,000 people.
(Or 40,000,000 if you use it right)

Gee, that's not a lot. We have 300,000,000 people in the U.S.
Saddam could gave Al Qaida enough to kill half the school children in
the country and we would still have a lot of people left over.

On the other hand, if Bush didn't go in and shut down the murder
machine, Saddam could have cranked up the chemical warfare factories
and turned out a few more tons. If you have the know-how, the
experienced people and the facilities to make 9 million lb, another
hundred thousand lb or so isn't that hard.

flyawayteeks wrote:
hi,

calling all home pprofessional Mr. Fix it.

We are in desperate need to fix Mr Bush brains, as todate, he has not
been able to fir One single piece of WMD evidence.

who wants to volunteer and tell us how to give him a great tune up ?
or shal we say tune Off ?!


As his predecessor said (paraphrasing), "it depends on what the definition
of WMD is."

In my view, Saadam was the ultimate WMD. We evicted him from his homes,
killed his children, exiled his family, confiscated his fortune, killed or
jailed his friends, forced him into a hole in the ground, and ultimately
hanged him.

I guess we could have made him stay after school.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
As his predecessor said (paraphrasing), "it depends on what the definition
of WMD is."

In my view, Saadam was the ultimate WMD. We evicted him from his homes,
killed his children, exiled his family, confiscated his fortune, killed or
jailed his friends, forced him into a hole in the ground, and ultimately
hanged him.

And only caused the death of 600,000 iraqis. Good job!

Bob

On Mar 1, 11:10 am, "Bob F" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
As his predecessor said (paraphrasing), "it depends on what the definition
of WMD is."

In my view, Saadam was the ultimate WMD. We evicted him from his homes,
killed his children, exiled his family, confiscated his fortune, killed or
jailed his friends, forced him into a hole in the ground, and ultimately
hanged him.

And only caused the death of 600,000 iraqis. Good job!

Bob

Yeah, yeah. Make up some more numbers. How about
60,000,000. . .how about 60,000,000,000,000.

The Saddam Murder Machine is responsible for the death of over
2,000,000 innocent people. Saddam had passed Poi Pot as one of the
most prolific mass murderers in the history of the world. He
probably couldn't catch Stalin or Mao but he was trying hard.

Bush was nominated for a Nobel for shutting down the Saddam Murder
Machine.

The Big Lie campaign in use by the Democrats is really frightening.
It has worked in the past to elect Presidents who have been not only
among the worst of the Century (Johnson, Carter, Clinton) but also
among the worst in the history of the County (Clinton). It could
elect some really terrible people, Hillary and Edwards, who could
easily supplant Bill Clinton in his tie for 2nd worst President in our
history.

"Rouz" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 1, 11:10 am, "Bob F" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
As his predecessor said (paraphrasing), "it depends on what the
definition
of WMD is."

In my view, Saadam was the ultimate WMD. We evicted him from his
homes,
killed his children, exiled his family, confiscated his fortune,
killed or
jailed his friends, forced him into a hole in the ground, and
ultimately
hanged him.

And only caused the death of 600,000 iraqis. Good job!

Bob

Yeah, yeah. Make up some more numbers. How about
60,000,000. . .how about 60,000,000,000,000.

The Saddam Murder Machine is responsible for the death of over
2,000,000 innocent people. Saddam had passed Poi Pot as one of the
most prolific mass murderers in the history of the world. He
probably couldn't catch Stalin or Mao but he was trying hard.

Bush was nominated for a Nobel for shutting down the Saddam Murder
Machine.

The Big Lie campaign in use by the Democrats is really frightening.
It has worked in the past to elect Presidents who have been not only
among the worst of the Century (Johnson, Carter, Clinton) but also
among the worst in the history of the County (Clinton). It could
elect some really terrible people, Hillary and Edwards, who could
easily supplant Bill Clinton in his tie for 2nd worst President in our
history.

I think the worst president ever is certainly the one in office now.
I'm not sure that clinton is even in the ballpark.

On Mar 1, 11:59�am, "Rouz" wrote:


The Saddam Murder Machine is responsible for the death of over
2,000,000 innocent people. * Saddam had passed Poi Pot as one of the
most prolific mass murderers in the history of the world. * He
probably couldn't catch Stalin or Mao but he was trying hard.

He was a dreadful dictator. As a member of AI in the late 70s/ early
80s, I wrote letters trying to secure release of prisoners there. I
was certainly disgusted by U.S. dealings with his regime, mostly by
Republican Admins. That idiot Carter, for all his failings and
inconsistencies, at least had the sense and BALLS to tell the
Realpoliticians that human rights mattered.

Bush was nominated for a Nobel for shutting down the Saddam Murder
Machine.

By who? Bolton? I expect he's been nominated for a few other awards
as well- Darwins primarily. Somehow I think he has a better shot at
actually collecting those. You know, those silly Scandinavian
Socialists don't get their news "fair and balanced" so they may not be
able to appreciate how swimmingly things are going in old Mesopotamia.

The Big Lie campaign in use by the Democrats is really frightening.
It has worked in the past to elect Presidents who have been not only
among the worst of the Century (Johnson, Carter, Clinton) but *also
among the worst in the history of the County *(Clinton).

Which Clinton County are we talking about here? Seriously, guy, some
folks (generally speaking, Americans) may not agree with this
assessment.

� �It could
elect some really terrible people, *Hillary and Edwards, *who could
easily supplant Bill Clinton in his tie for 2nd worst President in our
history.

Yup. Worked in 2000, too. Fortunately, wiser heads intervened. And
here we are.

FWIW I think a lot of people- like myself- had very mixed feelings
about the Iraq war initially. I certainly knew how awful Saddam was,
and was silly enough to give this Admin the benefit of the doubt that
they might pull it competently. But it turned out it was strictly a
faith based initiative. They have made a mess of it beyond what I
could have imagined. It reads like a bad contractor story.

"Bob F" wrote in message
. ..
I'm not sure that clinton is even in the ballpark.

yeah but...you're an idiot!

"AlarmCoJoe" wrote in message
...

"Bob F" wrote in message
. ..
I'm not sure that clinton is even in the ballpark.

yeah but...you're an idiot!

At least I didn't drink the cool-aid that you did.

There aren't many people left in this country that think that
Bush is doing a good job. You have to be totally oblivious
of reality to think so.

Sev wrote:

He was a dreadful dictator. As a member of AI in the late 70s/ early
80s, I wrote letters trying to secure release of prisoners there. I
was certainly disgusted by U.S. dealings with his regime, mostly by
Republican Admins. That idiot Carter, for all his failings and
inconsistencies, at least had the sense and BALLS to tell the
Realpoliticians that human rights mattered.

Carter says a lot, and no doubt means it. But what did he DO? The Iranians
invaded soverign US territory and held our people prisoner for 444 days. The
Russians invaded Afghanistan and Carter cancelled our participation in the
Moscow Olympics. Bah.

The Carter presidency was a reaction to the Nixon kerfuffle. We traded Nixon
(arguably one of the most successful presidents in history [ending the Viet
Nam war, establishing relations with Red China, etc.]) for one of the worst,
completely on the basis of perceived morality.



FWIW I think a lot of people- like myself- had very mixed feelings
about the Iraq war initially. I certainly knew how awful Saddam was,
and was silly enough to give this Admin the benefit of the doubt that
they might pull it competently. But it turned out it was strictly a
faith based initiative. They have made a mess of it beyond what I
could have imagined. It reads like a bad contractor story.

What's the "mess"? I know it's intuitively obvious to those affliced with
BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) but to me and others the Iraq business is a
resounding success.

On Mar 1, 4:19 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Sev wrote:

He was a dreadful dictator. As a member of AI in the late 70s/ early
80s, I wrote letters trying to secure release of prisoners there. I
was certainly disgusted by U.S. dealings with his regime, mostly by
Republican Admins. That idiot Carter, for all his failings and
inconsistencies, at least had the sense and BALLS to tell the
Realpoliticians that human rights mattered.

Carter says a lot, and no doubt means it. But what did he DO? The Iranians
invaded soverign US territory and held our people prisoner for 444 days. The
Russians invaded Afghanistan and Carter cancelled our participation in the
Moscow Olympics. Bah.

That's because Carter was worried about harm coming to the 55
hostages, to the exclusion of all else. He allowed the Islamic
extremisits to hold him and the country hostage too. He ignored that
there were far bigger issues, like making sure our we don't let some
two bit dictator make us look weak and impotent. All Carter had to
do was send a private message to the Iranians, tellling them that if
harm comes to the hostages, they will get bombed back to the stone
age. Then, he could have imposed a total naval blockade and if that
didn't get the hostage released, gradually escalate. Instead, he let
us get humiliated. Funny how the minute Ronald Reagan took the oath
of office the Iranians let the hostages go, isn't it? Guess they
thought he was a nuclear cowboy who meant business, instead of a pussy
peanut farmer.





The Carter presidency was a reaction to the Nixon kerfuffle. We traded Nixon
(arguably one of the most successful presidents in history [ending the Viet
Nam war, establishing relations with Red China, etc.]) for one of the worst,
completely on the basis of perceived morality.

FWIW I think a lot of people- like myself- had very mixed feelings
about the Iraq war initially. I certainly knew how awful Saddam was,
and was silly enough to give this Admin the benefit of the doubt that
they might pull it competently. But it turned out it was strictly a
faith based initiative. They have made a mess of it beyond what I
could have imagined. It reads like a bad contractor story.

What's the "mess"? I know it's intuitively obvious to those affliced with
BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) but to me and others the Iraq business is a
resounding success.


Well, part of it is a mess. The big mistake Bush made was thinking
that most of the Iraqi people had brains and decency enough to put
aside age old differences, once Saddam was gone. He thought they
would move to form a peaceful government and step up to root out
trouble makers. Some did. Up in the Kurdish north, the US has a
whopping 100 troops. Multimillion dollar shopping centers and housing
are going up, there is no violence. In the past Arabic was taught as
the second language in school. Now that second language is English.
They are greatful for being liberated and want a strong relationship
with the US and Europe. Funny how you never hear that on the news,
isn't it?

In article , Judge Seidlin wrote:

He needs a brain transplant even if it's a retarded brain. Anything would
be an improvement.

Why don't you offer him yours? Fits your criteria, and you're not using it
anyway...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
Carter says a lot, and no doubt means it. But what did he DO? The Iranians
invaded soverign US territory and held our people prisoner for 444 days.
The
Russians invaded Afghanistan and Carter cancelled our participation in the
Moscow Olympics. Bah.

And they all came back alive. Think of how Bushie would have resolved it.

Bob

On Mar 3, 5:04 pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Carter says a lot, and no doubt means it. But what did he DO? The Iranians
invaded soverign US territory and held our people prisoner for 444 days.
The
Russians invaded Afghanistan and Carter cancelled our participation in the
Moscow Olympics. Bah.

And they all came back alive. Think of how Bushie would have resolved it.

Bob

Carter could very likely have gotten the hostages back inside a couple
months, if the whole world didn't know he was a pussy and he stopped
acting like one. When you're president, there are the lives and
futures of 200 million Americans and free people around the world that
depend on certain countries knowing that they can't kick the US
around. Carter ignored that, sending the message to everyone that
they can pull this and get away with it. If tjhe Iranians can do it,
why shouldn't the next country do what they please?

The Iranians committed an open act of war against the US. The
world might be a different place now, had Carter stood up to Islamic
extremists then and done the right thing. All he had to do was tell
the Iranians privately that if harm came to the hostages, they would
pay the ultimate price and he would level the country. Then start
with a full embargo on all shipping into and out of the country,
followed by further ratching up, as required. How many American
deaths do you think the Iranians have directly caused in the last 25
years? A lot more than 50.

Funny how they got free the minute the guy they thought was a nuclear
cowboy took the oath of office, ain't it?

On 3 Mar 2007 14:31:35 -0800, wrote:

On Mar 3, 5:04 pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Carter says a lot, and no doubt means it. But what did he DO? The Iranians
invaded soverign US territory and held our people prisoner for 444 days.
The
Russians invaded Afghanistan and Carter cancelled our participation in the
Moscow Olympics. Bah.

And they all came back alive. Think of how Bushie would have resolved it.

Bob

Carter could very likely have gotten the hostages back inside a couple
months, if the whole world didn't know he was a pussy and he stopped
acting like one. When you're president, there are the lives and
futures of 200 million Americans and free people around the world that
depend on certain countries knowing that they can't kick the US
around. Carter ignored that, sending the message to everyone that
they can pull this and get away with it. If tjhe Iranians can do it,
why shouldn't the next country do what they please?

The Iranians committed an open act of war against the US. The
world might be a different place now, had Carter stood up to Islamic
extremists then and done the right thing. All he had to do was tell
...


I love it. No history at all. No mention of us putting their dictator
in power (remember that Shah guy?) because it was good for certain
multinational corporations. Nah, those Iranians had no good reason for
being angry at the US.

On Mar 6, 8:54 am, dgk wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 14:31:35 -0800, wrote:





On Mar 3, 5:04 pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Carter says a lot, and no doubt means it. But what did he DO? The Iranians
invaded soverign US territory and held our people prisoner for 444 days.
The
Russians invaded Afghanistan and Carter cancelled our participation in the
Moscow Olympics. Bah.

And they all came back alive. Think of how Bushie would have resolved it.

Bob

Carter could very likely have gotten the hostages back inside a couple
months, if the whole world didn't know he was a pussy and he stopped
acting like one. When you're president, there are the lives and
futures of 200 million Americans and free people around the world that
depend on certain countries knowing that they can't kick the US
around. Carter ignored that, sending the message to everyone that
they can pull this and get away with it. If tjhe Iranians can do it,
why shouldn't the next country do what they please?

The Iranians committed an open act of war against the US. The
world might be a different place now, had Carter stood up to Islamic
extremists then and done the right thing. All he had to do was tell
...

I love it. No history at all. No mention of us putting their dictator
in power (remember that Shah guy?) because it was good for certain
multinational corporations. Nah, those Iranians had no good reason for
being angry at the US.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Guys like you are never happy. When the US supports a dictator like
the Shah that was friendly to the west, who kept the Russians out
during the cold war, maintained a peaceful country and kept the worst
of the crazy Islamic extremists locked up, that was bad. When we
gave support to Saddam to keep the Iranians from winning the war with
Iraq and expanding further into the middle east, that's bad. If we
let a dictator like Saddam kill, torture, rape and invade other
countries, that's bad. If we then take out Saddam and try to give the
Iraqi people the right of self determination, that's bad. And if we
just pull out, and let 500,000 Iraqis die in a civil war, that will be
bad too.

Nothing will satisfy guys like you. If you found 500lbs of gold bars
buried in your yard, you'd bitch cause they were tarnished.

On 6 Mar 2007 07:04:15 -0800, wrote:

On Mar 6, 8:54 am, dgk wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 14:31:35 -0800, wrote:





On Mar 3, 5:04 pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
Carter says a lot, and no doubt means it. But what did he DO? The Iranians
invaded soverign US territory and held our people prisoner for 444 days.
The
Russians invaded Afghanistan and Carter cancelled our participation in the
Moscow Olympics. Bah.

And they all came back alive. Think of how Bushie would have resolved it.

Bob

Carter could very likely have gotten the hostages back inside a couple
months, if the whole world didn't know he was a pussy and he stopped
acting like one. When you're president, there are the lives and
futures of 200 million Americans and free people around the world that
depend on certain countries knowing that they can't kick the US
around. Carter ignored that, sending the message to everyone that
they can pull this and get away with it. If tjhe Iranians can do it,
why shouldn't the next country do what they please?

The Iranians committed an open act of war against the US. The
world might be a different place now, had Carter stood up to Islamic
extremists then and done the right thing. All he had to do was tell
...

I love it. No history at all. No mention of us putting their dictator
in power (remember that Shah guy?) because it was good for certain
multinational corporations. Nah, those Iranians had no good reason for
being angry at the US.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Guys like you are never happy. When the US supports a dictator like
the Shah that was friendly to the west, who kept the Russians out
during the cold war, maintained a peaceful country and kept the worst
of the crazy Islamic extremists locked up, that was bad. When we
gave support to Saddam to keep the Iranians from winning the war with
Iraq and expanding further into the middle east, that's bad. If we
let a dictator like Saddam kill, torture, rape and invade other
countries, that's bad. If we then take out Saddam and try to give the
Iraqi people the right of self determination, that's bad. And if we
just pull out, and let 500,000 Iraqis die in a civil war, that will be
bad too.

Nothing will satisfy guys like you. If you found 500lbs of gold bars
buried in your yard, you'd bitch cause they were tarnished.

We very well might have had the best intentions in the world in
installing the Shah. We didn't, but that is for another day. The point
is, our support for the Shah eliminated all moderate secular
opposition, and left only the radical clerics. Thus the history that
apparently began with the "open act of war" needs a bit of
explanation.

We gave support to both Iran and Iraq during the war, happy to see as
many dead on both sides as possible. Pragmatic for you possibly, but I
think that our role in that war was disgusting.

To the best of my knowledge, much of gold's value is that it does not
tarnish. For the record, I would be happy to find gold bars in my
backyard. Oddly enough, last year some sort of sinkhole opened in my
yard. There was, unfortunately, nothing but air inside. It took much
dirt to fill that hole. Heavy dirt.

On Mar 6, 1:43?pm, dgk wrote:


We very well might have had the best intentions in the world in
installing the Shah. We didn't, but that is for another day. The point
is, our support for the Shah eliminated all moderate secular
opposition, and left only the radical clerics. Thus the history that
apparently began with the "open act of war" needs a bit of
explanation.

We gave support to both Iran and Iraq during the war, happy to see as
many dead on both sides as possible. Pragmatic for you possibly, but I
think that our role in that war was disgusting.

To the best of my knowledge, much of gold's value is that it does not
tarnish. For the record, I would be happy to find gold bars in my
backyard. Oddly enough, last year some sort of sinkhole opened in my
yard. There was, unfortunately, nothing but air inside. It took much
dirt to fill that hole. Heavy dirt.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heavy dirt? I suspect you are concealing a nuclear reprocessing
facility in your back yard. Call in a bunker buster...
More seriously, you and I are on the same page. You have to
wonder sometimes where we would be today if we had practiced the most
naive goodwill imaginable over the past generation or two, instead of
all this righteous skulduggery. Far, far better off than we are, I
often think.

On Mar 8, 12:16 am, "Sev" wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:43?pm, dgk wrote:







We very well might have had the best intentions in the world in
installing the Shah. We didn't, but that is for another day. The point
is, our support for the Shah eliminated all moderate secular
opposition, and left only the radical clerics. Thus the history that
apparently began with the "open act of war" needs a bit of
explanation.

We gave support to both Iran and Iraq during the war, happy to see as
many dead on both sides as possible. Pragmatic for you possibly, but I
think that our role in that war was disgusting.

To the best of my knowledge, much of gold's value is that it does not
tarnish. For the record, I would be happy to find gold bars in my
backyard. Oddly enough, last year some sort of sinkhole opened in my
yard. There was, unfortunately, nothing but air inside. It took much
dirt to fill that hole. Heavy dirt.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Heavy dirt? I suspect you are concealing a nuclear reprocessing
facility in your back yard. Call in a bunker buster...
More seriously, you and I are on the same page. You have to
wonder sometimes where we would be today if we had practiced the most
naive goodwill imaginable over the past generation or two, instead of
all this righteous skulduggery. Far, far better off than we are, I
often think.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



You mean like the naive goodwill of Neville Chanberlain, when he went
around kissing Hitler's ass? Or the benign neglect when the world
ignored Pol Pot? Or how about Idi Amin? Remember him? Or
Stalin? Maybe we should have sent these guys a big pile of foreign
aid and a birthday cake, while they murderd millions of people. Then
they would have been nice guys, right?

Amazing how appeasers like you take every opportunity to blame the US
for everything that goes wrong. This country has been far more
generous and sent more money and aid to countries around the world
than any other. Open a history book and learn. What did we do after
WWII, when we had to finally stop two brutal regimes bent on world
conquest, after the world had followed your naive ideas? Did we
enslave our conquered enemies? Take their countries over? No, we
sent what in today's dollars would be trillions in aid, rebuilt
Germany and Japan, helped rebuild all of Western Europe, and
established democratic governments. But that ain;t good enough for
USA bashing guys like you, who just **** and moan and only look at
anything that you can find wrong with the USA, while ignoring the real
evil in the world.

On Mar 8, 7:13�am, wrote:

You mean like the naive goodwill of Neville Chanberlain, when he went
around kissing Hitler's ass? * *Or the benign neglect when the world
ignored Pol Pot? *Or how about Idi Amin? * Remember him? *Or
Stalin? * *Maybe we should have sent these guys a big pile of foreign
aid and a birthday cake, while they murderd millions of people. *Then
they would have been nice guys, right?

Amazing how appeasers like you take every opportunity to blame the US
for everything that goes wrong. * This country has been far more
generous and sent more money and aid to countries around the world
than any other. *Open a history book and learn. * What did we do after
WWII, when we had to finally stop two brutal regimes bent on world
conquest, after the world had followed your naive ideas? * * Did we
enslave our conquered enemies? *Take their countries over? * No, we
sent what in today's dollars would be trillions in aid, rebuilt
Germany and Japan, helped rebuild all of Western Europe, and
established democratic governments. *But that ain;t good enough for
USA bashing guys like you, who just **** and moan and only look at
anything that you can find wrong with the USA, while ignoring the real
evil in the world.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

FWIW it's worth, I was posing it as a hypothetical. Please don't put
me in a class of "guys like me;" the straitjacket doesn't fit. I
love my country and know its virtues, but am not blind to its vices
either (particularly the present Vice- sorry, couldn't resist that).
Trader, I find you highly sensible and thoughtful on practical
matters, but a bit off the wall on politics and "environmentalists"
I don't see how it is patriotic to defend our abysmal and foolish
errors in policy, which have done great harm to our national interest,
as well as to others. As far as Hitler goes, both of my parents
lived through the London blitz... Far from "ignoring the real evil
in the world...." isn't that what I criticised our government for
doing when it has nefarious dealings with dictators? Not to say one
doesn't have to at times (the WWII alliance with Stalin), but we've
done it too frequently when necessity didn't dictate. In particular,
I don't like simplemindedness in politics/ policy (which it has seemed
to me this Admin. is full of)- and yes, my hypothetical suggestion was
certainly simpleminded- born of exasperation. It has always saddened
me that people who are thoughtful and careful in areas in which they
have a professional or personal competence can be so extravagantly
simple when it comes to larger matters.

On Mar 8, 11:20 am, "Sev" wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:13?am, wrote:







You mean like the naive goodwill of Neville Chanberlain, when he went
around kissing Hitler's ass? ? ?Or the benign neglect when the world
ignored Pol Pot? ?Or how about Idi Amin? ? Remember him? ?Or
Stalin? ? ?Maybe we should have sent these guys a big pile of foreign
aid and a birthday cake, while they murderd millions of people. ?Then
they would have been nice guys, right?

Amazing how appeasers like you take every opportunity to blame the US
for everything that goes wrong. ? This country has been far more
generous and sent more money and aid to countries around the world
than any other. ?Open a history book and learn. ? What did we do after
WWII, when we had to finally stop two brutal regimes bent on world
conquest, after the world had followed your naive ideas? ? ? Did we
enslave our conquered enemies? ?Take their countries over? ? No, we
sent what in today's dollars would be trillions in aid, rebuilt
Germany and Japan, helped rebuild all of Western Europe, and
established democratic governments. ?But that ain;t good enough for
USA bashing guys like you, who just **** and moan and only look at
anything that you can find wrong with the USA, while ignoring the real
evil in the world.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

FWIW it's worth, I was posing it as a hypothetical. Please don't put
me in a class of "guys like me;" the straitjacket doesn't fit. I
love my country and know its virtues, but am not blind to its vices
either (particularly the present Vice- sorry, couldn't resist that).
Trader, I find you highly sensible and thoughtful on practical
matters, but a bit off the wall on politics and "environmentalists"
I don't see how it is patriotic to defend our abysmal and foolish
errors in policy, which have done great harm to our national interest,
as well as to others. As far as Hitler goes, both of my parents
lived through the London blitz... Far from "ignoring the real evil
in the world...." isn't that what I criticised our government for
doing when it has nefarious dealings with dictators? Not to say one
doesn't have to at times (the WWII alliance with Stalin), but we've
done it too frequently when necessity didn't dictate. In particular,
I don't like simplemindedness in politics/ policy (which it has seemed
to me this Admin. is full of)- and yes, my hypothetical suggestion was
certainly simpleminded- born of exasperation. It has always saddened
me that people who are thoughtful and careful in areas in which they
have a professional or personal competence can be so extravagantly
simple when it comes to larger matters.-

I don't see how you can claim my views to be extravagantly simple.
You're the one that postulated the US would be far better off today if
we had practiced the most naive goodwill imaginable over the past two
generations, instead of righteous skulduggery. IMO, your stated view
is the one that qualifies as extravagantly simple. I recognize that
the world is a complex place, that requires multiple approaches and
strategies.

And for the record, I don't find what the US has done over the last
two generations to be skulduggery. This get's back to some people
having an incredibly negative view of everything, instead of looking
at all the positives. You seek to find some two bit dictator, that
the US dealt with and focus on that. I look at the big picture, like
the end of the cold war, our triumph over communism and hundreds of
millions of people now living in freedom for the first time in a
hundred years. That would never have happened without this country.
And you make the further wild assumption, with 20-20 hindsight, that
had the US done some things differently, like what we did or didn't do
vis a vis some dictator, that the outcome would have been much
better. It could also have made things much worse.

Look at the president of the last two generations that most closely
followed your naive goodwill idea. I think most would agree that
would be Jimmy Carter. He was all for human rights and goodwill. And
what did we have? The Russians invaded Afghanistan, Iran took 55
Americans hostage for a year and a half, domestically the economy was
a total wreck and in the eyes of much of the world, the US was a
joke. Were the people of Afghanistan better off? How about those
in Iran, that exchanged the Shah, who Carter deliberately undermined,
for a bunch of Islamic extremists? Extremists that are now developing
nuclear weapons, with a president that has stated he would sacrifice a
third of Iran to wipe out Israel. Is the world better off or would
it be better off if the Shah, who had these guys locked up, was still
in power? We are very lucky that some of our enemies didn't
misjudge Carter and try to take further advantage to the point of
creating WWIII.