OT-John Kerry
 

Peter Reilley wrote:

This juror feels that this case is selective enforcement. You feel
differently. You have expressed special disdain for the guy.
I don't like Saddam either but he is in the same class as Sharon.
One gets invaded and the other gets showered with money and arms.
The special treatment seems more than random.

Show me a graveyard with 300,000 Jews in it and I'll agree.

Show me a graveyard with 300,000 Palistinians in it, even.

OT-John Kerry
 

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

Even better - stop being imperialists. It's expensive in
both blood and money, and we're not vicious enough to make
it pay. We'd do better by sticking to trade.

Most of our "imperialism" is related to trade, trying to stabilize
sources of goods.

Aside from Israel. Oooooh, such "Imperialism", supporting a country
the size of a California county. Gonna take over the world.

OT-John Kerry
 

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

As usual, factually correct.

Thanks. I try to stick to facts instead of going off on a
rant, as is the usual usenet procedure. I don't always
succeed.

Oh but you are incorrect.

The Monroe Doctrine and set for by James Monroe ended Jefferson
isolation with the very next presidency. How can you remain
isolationist and neutral and then threaten to blow the crap
our of any other nation that attempts to set up a colony in
the new world.

Remember Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe?
The Independent
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

OT-John Kerry
 

Offbreed wrote:

snipped
trying for some accountability regarding where that money went.

As for the UN, look up the Oil for Food program. Did you know that the
UN refuses to allow an audit of that program? Any idea of how many
MILLIONS of dollars went through it?

We will be called the heavy so long as the US exists. The hell with
what they think.

I have to ask you one question in the pursuit of the heaviness of
the
United States.

How many nations of the United Nations have truly free
elections, respect the right to own private property, and
have laws against bribery and extortion.

So how can you have a honest and moral international
institution when 3/4 of the members are little more than
tin pot dictatorships and that includes Red China.

The Independent

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:23:18 -0900, Offbreed
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

Even better - stop being imperialists. It's expensive in
both blood and money, and we're not vicious enough to make
it pay. We'd do better by sticking to trade.

Most of our "imperialism" is related to trade, trying to stabilize
sources of goods.

Aside from Israel. Oooooh, such "Imperialism", supporting a country
the size of a California county. Gonna take over the world.

Our imperialism is manifest in our military presence all
over the world. But it isn't traditional imperialism. We
haven't taken over territory and people so much as we have
attempted to control the relationships among other people.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 11:38:57 -0800, Jim Dauven
wrote:



Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

As usual, factually correct.

Thanks. I try to stick to facts instead of going off on a
rant, as is the usual usenet procedure. I don't always
succeed.

Oh but you are incorrect.

The Monroe Doctrine and set for by James Monroe ended Jefferson
isolation with the very next presidency. How can you remain
isolationist and neutral and then threaten to blow the crap
our of any other nation that attempts to set up a colony in
the new world.

You are right. And the U.S. put troops on the Mexican
border to help hasten the French departure.

Remember Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe?

Monroe was president quite a while after Washington and
Jefferson. He did fail to follow his elders' good advice.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:44:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

As usual, factually correct.

Thanks. I try to stick to facts instead of going off on a
rant, as is the usual usenet procedure. I don't always
succeed.

Just curious, so please forgive my nosiness. It is obvious that you are
well educated. What is the extent of your "formal" education?

To the extent that I know much of anything, it is a result
of a lifetime of self-directed study. I hated school and
was a terrible student for the brief time I was one - beyond
high school, that is. I didn't have much choice about high
school. High IQ - low scholastic aptitude. Like the old
guy in The Postman, I know stuff.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:37:58 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:15:20 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

This juror feels that this case is selective enforcement. You feel
differently. You have expressed special disdain for the guy.
I don't like Saddam either but he is in the same class as Sharon.
One gets invaded and the other gets showered with money and arms.
The special treatment seems more than random.

You may believe as you wish, Peter, it is your right.

However, I'll have none of your bigotry for myself, thank you.

I must simply assume you are expressing your bigotry against the Jews
since it is apparent you make a presumption they are the bad guys and
that it should be legal and okay to just murder Jews for no particular
reason whatsoever.

I make no claims that Sharon himself is an angel or innocent. But in
the case of Israel, I do hope you remember that the land they occupy,
your beloved UN said they had a right to. The extra territory they
seized, they seized AFTER they were attacked by their neighbors, as a
buffer zone. On numerous occassions, they even offered in good faith
to negotiate the possibility of their giving up that bit of land.
Each time negotiations fell apart for this and that reason. Quite
often because the Palestinians, or some other rabid anti-Jewish group
of bandits and rebels attacked them with the express purpose of
breaking up said negotiations. ( And a few times radicals, not the
average Israeli, within Israel did something to wreck such
negotiations.) Because the radicals, which are a minority BTW, want no
negotiations. They don't even, really, want that extra strip of land
the Israelis occupied. What they want is Israel itself destroyed and
all the Jews dead. Now the regular Palestinians, not the radicals, do
want that strip of land. And have in the past tried to negotiate for
it. So they'll have a home. But each time, the radicals screw things
up.

Wanna know why the Palestinians want that strip of land, Peter?
Because the other countries around that area don't want the
Palestinians either! They're not friends of the Palestinians, not
really. Or they'd help by giving em land and a place to build homes,
etc. They do give "voice" support to the Palestinians however. As
they think it useful to have the Palestinians to continue to harass
the Israelis. Soooo .... why don't the other neighboring countries
themelves attack Israel?

Because they have, in the past, Peter. I assume you probably know at
least a little of history. Several of the various Arab countries in
the past have directly attacked Israel in mass. Full attacks, intent
upon wiping them out. And each time got their asses kicked.

And if Syria, Eqypt, or whomever tried it again today ... results
would be the same. They'd get their asses truly and well kicked and
they know it. That's why they let the Palestinians, whom they don't
even like, keep on harassing the Israelis. And give em verbal
support. But are very, very careful to not be caught giving much
direct support. Because they're well aware of the probable results of
that. Israel WILL attack back at anyone who attacks them. Period.
And they aren't gonna ask for a vote of world opinion, either.

Israel, has every right in the world to respond to an attack upon
them. If they've done anything at all, it's been to show remarkable
restraint. Considering that they CAN, any time they wish, DO what the
Palestinians, Syrians, etc only WISH they could do. And that's attack
their enemy, and well and truly beat the living crap out of them.
Even ganging up on them in the past, the anti-Israeli forces in the
past got their butts kicked on the battle field.

It's one of the reasons some of Israel's foes in the regions put up
with Saddam in the past, even tho they thought he was friggin crazy, a
mad man, and untrustable. And in fact feared that one day he'd attack
them. The radical anti-Israeli types held out hope that Saddam was the
one fellow who'd one day kick Israel's butt. Dumb assed thinking, if
you had asked me. Truth is I have little doubt Saddam would have been
wiped the heck out in 1991, by the Israeli's, after he lobbed some
scud missles into their cities. But we asked them to exercise some
patience. What we did not want was a whole region wide war.

Saddam's only real power and skill was simple. He was very good at
terrifying, threatening, bullying, invading, torturing, and killing
the weak or unprepared. That he did with abandon and glee. Then
pounded on his chest and strutted about proclaiming how great and
wonderful he was, and promptly had another dozen statues of himself
erected somewhere so all could admire him.

Haven't you ever given thought to a central question here? Or has
your obvious bigotry, or perhaps it's simply a lack of knowledge,
blinded you to reality?

Haven't you ever wondered WHY it is that none of the developed
nations, nor even the UN hasn't called for the Israelis to be put down
as a people? They have ASKED the Israelis to come to the negotiating
table in good faith. But there has been no suggestion that the UN try
to take over Israel or try to create their downfall.

The reason is simple. Reasonable people, who are not operating from
the basis of bigotry, have recognized that the Israelis DO have a
fundamental right to lash back at those who attack them. The fact
that the Jews occupied that land, is simply viewed as it is in reality
.... an established fact. Given validity by the UN and others who have
recognized Israel as a separate nation. Done. Finito. Fact. Now
let's move on and see what we can do about NOW, and the future.
Trying to change the past, trying to cry about the past, is a waste of
time and useless. Serving no purpose except to perpetuate hatred and
killings. The head of the UN, as well as the heads of a great many
other countries, including ours, have said the same.

The most the UN has done is to mildly admonish Israel from time to
time by saying the equivalent in diplomatic and political terms of,
"Hey, don't you think you went a little bit too far that last time?
Yep, sure you had the right to go in and kick some ass. We
acknowledge that. But we think yah got in a couple extra licks there
that you really didn't have to do to get even. Could yah watch that
next time?"

It's similar to the situation where one man might attack another. And
the attacked man not only whups his attacker, but once the attacker is
down, gives him a couple extra kicks in the head or ribs. Go before a
judge, and the judge most likely will acknowledge the attacked man had
the right to defend self, not be at all upset by that fact. But may
well admonish the attacked man for those couple extra kicks in the
end, as being unnecessary. And tell him not to do that part again.

The fact that the attacker was hurt, is irrelevant. He brought that
uponhimself and got what he deserved. Judge wouldn't care about that.
He'd only be concerned that the defender got in those extra,
unnecessary kicks. In our society, a decent, law abiding citizen is
expected to restrain himself from the use of "unnecessary" force. But
the defender had the perfect right to do whatever necessary, even kill
the man if need be, if that was what was needed to halt the attack.

The above, are FAR different than such things as targeting random
buses of ordinary innocent civilians going about their daily business,
setting off bombs in a school, blowing up a cafe, so on and so forth.


The Palestinian fighters were killed in the line of duty. Their families
deserve to be supported.

Righttttt. Sure.

Are you just always full of such BS or what?

Under your ideas of the way things should go, we ... the U.S. ...
should be giving medals to, paying bonuses to, and encouraging our
soldiers to deliberately target and attack old men and mommas with
babies in their arms and kill them willy-nilly. And Iraqi workers
innocently going to work carrying lunch boxes. The more the merrier,
and the more non-combatants and innocents a soldier kills, the bigger
the medal and bonus he gets.

Geez, guy, I don't even know you. And, as far as I know, in real life
you could be a perfectly fine, decent person.

But I gotta tell you that you post stuff that sounds, to me, like it
was typed by a whacked out, crazy man.

Are you even aware of the fact that in polls, when asked, the MAJORITY
of the Palestinians do not even agree with you? The majority do want
that chunk of land that's being argued about. They would like a
regular home because those "friendly" Arab neighbors who voice ever so
much support for them ... treat em like ****. And that majority keeps
on asking the leadership to negotiate, and if they can strike a deal
with Israel for that strip of land, TAKE THE DEAL.

But a minority of the extremists keeps the conflict going.

How do you overthrow such a system? I cannot think of any other way
given the resources that the Palestinians have and the nature of the enemy
that they face.

You can't? Then I'm glad you're not in charge.

Fact is, the Israeli are not entirely innocents. They've made
missteps and mistakes. No one denies that.

However, the conflict over there would have ended long ago if it'd not
been for a minority of extremists.

Do you have any clue whatsoever of what you're talking about?

The Israelis fundamentally make the point that they're not going away.
End of subject. NO ONE, outside of a few extremist leaders has even
suggested they should. Those extremists want ONE THING. The
destruction of Israel. And TOTAL power, for themselves.

Ain't gonna happen. Not now, not 100 years from now.

I have no idea what one-sided line of BS yah been reading. But let me
hit you up with some reality.

Something like 22% of Israel is Arab-Muslim. And there are even more
Arabs, who were there when the Jews came and renamed the place Israel,
who have since converted to Judaism. Willingly, their own idea. Still
more are Arab-Jews from other countries who immigrated to Israel from
neighboring Arab states for safety, and freedom. Like a bunch from
Iraq. Where, under Saddam, Jews were often killed or jailed.

And, BTW, quite a number of those Arab-Muslims, who are also Israeli,
are members of the military there, or local defense forces. Because
they now consider themselves Israeli, tho not Jews. And it's their
home, too.

Further, did you know that an estimated 100,000 to 110,000
Palestinians quite obviously don't hate the Israelis nor want them to
go away. They work in Israel. About 55,000 are card carrying work
permit holders. The rest are "illegal" workers but the Israelis let
that pass. They let Palestinians into the country, across the border
all the time. To shop, do business, visit family, etc. Yes, some
Palestinians have family on the Israeli side of the border. And the
families regularly visit each other.

What was it, maybe 6 months ago I read an article about one young
woman who was convinced by the radicals to become a human bomb. She
underwent the training. But when it came time, and she was finally
told her target. The target she was given was a grade school. And
she came to her senses. Said she could not do that.

Didn't say it to her trainers, of course. She wasn't that stupid. She
knew they were obviously as whacked out as you are to judge by what
things you say in your posts. They'd have either killed her or
threatened to kill her family if she did not do what they wanted. So
she kept mouth shut til she got across the border into Israel and went
straight to her aunt's house and asked for help. To get rid of the
bomb. She didn't want to kill children. Didn't want to kill anyone
any more. She'd decided the guys who'd sent her were in truth not
liberators or freedom fighters ... rather they were cold blooded
killers using her for their own purposes, to their own gain and glory,
and they didn't care who they hurt as long as they got their way.
Aunt called Israeli police, who relieved the young woman of her bomb.
They did question her, wanting identity of the perps who'd sent her,
of course. But let her go, and gave her permission to stay in Israel
if she wished. She was afraid to go home, afraid of what those every
so nice, well intended "freedom fighters" would do to her.

In any event, the Israelis even encourage this border crossing. And
the application by Palestinians to come work there. Israelis even
throw state sponsored "Job Fairs" which are attended by both
prospective employers and hopeful employees. There is NO LACK of
willing Palestinians who show up applying for jobs. Since the
Israelis have a local reputation for paying better, being nicer to
employees, having safer and more sanitary working conditions, etc ...
than what the Palestinians can find trying to work for the Lebanese
and Syrians.

Even when the Israelis go to high alert status, after an attack by the
extremists, and shut down the border crossings. Fact is, they don't
completely shut down the borders. Even when the crossings are "shut
down" some 30,000 Palestinian workers, who've applied for and got
special clearance ... had background checks done on themselves by the
Israeli intelligence to show that they're not members of the radical
groups ... still are allowed to cross the borders at such times.

In total for the Palestinian workers who routinely, daily work in
Israel, they bring home what represents about 40% of the total income
of the Palestinians in that area.

THEY think they're well treated and well paid by the Israelis.

Fact is. many of those suicide bombings, and missle launches by the
Palestinian extremist groups kill the peaceful Palestinians, too.
Kill them while they're peacefully walking to work, lunch boxes in
hand like any other honest folk. Or riding in Israeli buses. Or
shopping in an Israeli store. Or stopped at an Israeli cafe for tea
and a bite to eat.

You're argument holds, in the balance, little water with me, Peter. I
think your argument against the Israelis, who have admittedly made
mistakes, is exaggerated all out of bounds to the realty of the
situation.

I assert that the reality is that if we could find some way to
restrain the extremists, who are small in numbers, on both sides.
Make em back off, or whatever. The vast majority of Israelis and
Palestinians would get along just fine and work out things between
them to mutual satisfaction.

Most of them ... both sides ... do not seem to share your one sided,
slanted, biased, and bigotted view of the true situation over there.
Both of them not only say, but act like they can work out a peaceful
settlement if the friggin radicals would take a hike and go away.

BTW, Peter, it was some of the radical, terrorist members of the
Palestinians who were captured by the Israelis who told us that they
were trainned at the al Quds terrorist trainning camp just north of
Baghdad. And that they themselves had seen and met Al Qaeda members
also training at that same camp.

forth. Undoubtedly Saddam would have challenged us to come on in,
just like he did to the very end, thinking his Army was gonna stand up
and die for a friggin crazy man. Most of em had sense enough to know
he was perfectly willing for THEM to die, so he could be a more
glorious figure in history. Most of them had it figured out that he
didn't give a rip about them or their familes. The only thing Saddam
really cared about was ... Saddam. Hell, he once expressed the
opinion that he thought it was perfectly acceptable for 20 million of
his folks to die, if needed, to bolster his power, image, and
prominence in the world.


After 9/11 the US went into a blind rage and invaded Afghanistan.
First to get Al Quaida because they were the people responsible
for 9/11. We had no fight with the Taiban as we were first told.
That soon changed and the Tailbone became our target.

Again, I'll say BS, Peter.

Total ... utter ... BS.

For many years we've known about the Al Qaeda, and known about their
stronghold in Afghanistan, and their ties with the Taliban. There is
nothing new to that. It's not as if it were something we "just
discovered" after 9/11.

The Al Qaeda and affliliated groups have been killing Americans for a
long time. LONG before 9/11.

For years we've suspected that we were gonna eventually have to do
something. For years, dating back to before the Iraq war in 1991,
annually when making their security report for the year, both the
civilian intelligence agencies of the US, and our military
intelligence groups have consistently warned that the odds were nearly
100% probable that we'd be attacked more frequently, and with
increasing deadliness as time passed.

But the truth is, that the U.S. tends to be slow to rile up and make
really angry. Truth is ... we don't want a friggin war, nor do we want
to invade or take over other countries. Screw it, whatever for? The
oil? Bull****. We can buy oil. And if the price goes up adequately,
we have a LOT of oil reserves. It's just more expensive oil. But
prices go up enough, we'll use it instead. It's as simple as that.

Why do you think that even the countries who do not like us much don't
just arbitrarily jack their prices to us up sky high? They could you
know. And we wouldn't stop em. We'd just resort to getting our oil
elsewhere. From other countries. Or we'd tap into our own more
expensive oil. Hell, if we gotta pay that much, why bother to pay
those guys? We could just as well keep the money at home.

But those folks over there know that. That's why they don't do any
such foolishness. Because the reality is ... they want our money even
more than they hate us. The people in power, want the money. For
themselves, for their palaces, and limousines, and private jet liners,
and their junkets to the sin cities of the world where they can party
til they fall down in a drunken stupor, gamble, and visit only the
best prostitutes. Yah know, kinda like a lot of the top folks from
your region of the world. The elite, priviledged class, who act like
royalty. And who are convinced they know what's better for the
"commoners" than the commoners do. But they make sure they dribble a
little money downwards to the low classes to keep em happy. Other
people's money, of course. Far be it that they should use their own.

Anyway, we tooks hits year after year. And Americans died. Just like
the intelligence analysts predicted and reported ... PUBLICALLY. It
has been no secret.

But it was a bomb in Lebanon, a bomb in a cafe in Germany, an embassy
in Africa, a port here, a base there. Involving, for the most part,
only a few Americans. And most of those were military members or
members of the State Department.

So we bit the bullet and hoped the issue would go away eventually.
The members of the military and the senior members of the Embassies
are volunteers. And they are not fools. They know they're taking a
risk, that they're considered legitimate or at least semi-legitimate
targets, and voluntarily assume the risk as part of their duties.
Many members of the embassies are in fact sent to a school in the U.S.
before taking their assignments overseas. Where they are
psychologically prepped for, as much as a human can be, the
possibility of being blown to bits. Or captured and slowly cut to
pieces and the pieces mailed home one at a time. It's happened
before. I know these things Peter. I've known folks assigned to those
Embassies, plus once I did a short tour (6 months) at one. Part of a
Navy attachment. I filled in for a guy who was diagnosed with cancer
and sent home for treatment.

They're also prepped for the fact that if captured, we'll try to
rescue them ... BUT ... we will cut no deals with terrorists. We will
not give em what we would not have given in the first place in
exchange for the hostages. Want to bargain? Release the hostages
first.

If you were not aware of it, Peter, every police agency, law
enforcement group, military, and intelligence agency in the world of
any significant size and advanced training KNOWS, from past history a
key thing.

One NEVER negotiates with a terrorist who has the upper hand at the
moment. Never, ever. Such has failed every single time in history it
has been tried.

It's not hard to understand.

It we talk about a murderer in the US as a for instance. Suppose this
fellow goes and kills a few people in cold blood. And makes his
demands. He wants $5,000,000 cash. Or he'll kill more.

Think we should give it to him? Chuckle ... sure, right, that'll
work. He'll go spend it, blow it on booze and broads or whatever else
tickles his fancy. And when all the money is gone. He'll just think
up another "just cause" to demand more money, or land, or concessions,
or whatever. Then go out and kill some more folks. After all, this
worked for him last time, And make his new demands.

Fact is, knuckle under to his demands, and he'll do it again, and
again, and again. Happens every time. Because the truth is that what
terrorists really want ... no matter about the lying words out of
their mouths ... those are just their excuses for their actions ...
what they really want is power, and other people to fear them. And
they will not stop til they get it, or are killed, or are soundly
whipped to the point they realize they can not win and decide to come
to a negotiating table ... honestly, this time.

The ONLY way, and history backs up my assertion, that yah get such
type folks to negotiate with you honestly and earnestly, and MEAN it
when they say the words "I want peace" instead of just shucking and
jiving yah, is to make em bleed as badly as they made others bleed.
You strike back, and you strike back meaning it. You slam the living
hell out of em. And make believers out of them that YOU are not gonna
cave in and you'll strike again, and again, just like they do.

THEN ... you have a chance, a possibility, of honest negotiations for
some mutually acceptable compromise. But only then. Those who use
force and intimidation as their preferred means of getting what they
want, do not listen to anything ... not really ... except equal or
better force turned against them. That they understand. That will
get them to wanting to sit down and make peace. And actually mean it.
This has been studied by some of the best minds not only in this
country but many others. And they all reached the very same
conclusion.

In nearly every case in history were folks folded and caved in to the
demands of terrorists, the end result was that after the agreement was
made, more folks died than would have happened if they had fought
back.

Anyway, we were well aware of the Al Qaeda and their affiliated
groups. And well aware they'd strike us again. Had numerous times in
the past. But while on some occassions we made half hearted attempts
to strike em back. It was only half hearted. We did not want a
friggin war. Period. We bit the bullet time and time again.

We even bit the bullet and made a half hearted efforted to slap back
when they set off the first bomb in New York. But that didn't work as
well as they'd hoped and the casualties were low. So we didn't really
try hard to get em back. We lacked the will and motivation. We were
still hoping they'd go away and leave us alone.

But when they brought down the trade center, that finally changed the
picture. Folks sat up and paid attention. And patience was indeed
lost.

This was not a few State Department employees or members of the
military. Who know and accept the risks of their jobs. And accept
assignments to countries with freaky, whacked out, cold blooded
killers, torturers, and murders ... yah know, the kind of folks you
admire and want to be just like. This was clearly targeted at
civilians. Most of whom were not particularly political one way or the
other, nor members of the military or ruling government.

If it'd been just the Pentagon, the average American would not have
been AS upset. Not happy, for sure. Damn angry. But it'd not been
the same.

The Twin Towers, in particular, horrified them. And ANGERED them.
This was unmistakeable a direct, planned attack against innocent
civilians in our own country. Not innocents accidently caught in a
cross fire or something. DELIBERATELY targeted. They were out and out
frigging DEMANDING action of their government. And rightly so.

Even if Bush had not been in office, if it'd been someone else. I'd
bet every last dime I have to my name that if whoever the President
had been, if he'd not taken direct, affirmative action ... not
mouthing useless, phoney words ... I mean ACTION ... he'd have been
booted from office promptly at the first opportunity the voters had.
And some members of the House and the Senate would have followed him
in his departure.

The Prez decided to act. Congress backed him up. Not only backed him
up by signing a resolution giving him authority to act. They promptly
then scurried like rats for the nearest news cameras and microphones
to proudly proclaim to one and all that they'd signed the resolution,
and fully supported the Prez, and if it were found necessary, the
armed forces of the U.S.

Now, of course, some of em are singing a different tune. But what
else is new when one is speaking about habitual liars? It's typical
of many, not all .. but many, career politicians. Who'd readily poison
their own spouses (or arrange for a convenient ... accident), or
prostitute their own 5 year old daughters if they thought it'd get
them enough votes to win the next election.

Now, maybe you're hard of hearing, or do not read well, I don't know.
Or perhaps you didn't actually hear or read exactly what Bush said. I
did. And I didn't focus on just one part. I listened to everything
he said in that speech of his where he announced his intentions.

This, BTW is unusual for me. I despise spending any more time
listening to politicians talk than I absolutely have to. I despise
folks who make a living by lying, double speaking, and fooling folks.
And few can withstand the temptation to become corrupt once they get
into office.

But I figured this event was probably important enough so I should
listen and see what he had to say.

Peter, I do not see how one could be at all confused by what he said.
It was clear, to the point, and definite. He said he intended
identify the terrorists behind that attack, and those who were like
em, and those who supported them, no matter WHERE they were. Period,
end of subject. Clear enough.

He was very clear. No waffling around about it. He was going after
the terrorists. AND those who supported and aided them. AND he was
going ANYWHERE where he could find em and identify em.

He elaborated clearly. That meant ANY country. Period. So countries
who did not want us knocking on the door should come clean, let us
look around. OR ... they could handle the matter themselves. That
was acceptable. Perfectly fine if they cleaned up their own houses.

And if you did not know Peter, dozens and dozens of countries in fact
started doing that. Started cracking down. Some neither needed nor
wanted our help. And that was fine. They took care of their own
business. Others asked for help and we sent teams of advisors to many
places to render aid.

Do you know what "reasonable belief" is, under law, Peter?

It's a principle whereby if an agent of the law has evidence that
would lead the ordinary, reasonable person to believe a crime was
committed, or was likely committed, and that Person A may have
committed said crime, a cop can investigate, to establish more facts.
Pro or con. Which is how a cop has authority if he sees yah weaving
around on the road, to pull you over. To FORCE you off the road if
need be if you're refusing to cooperate. So he can check and see if
you were simply inattentive, drunk, ill, whatever the case may be.

Similarly if a cop is driving along and sees a store owner running out
of his store saying he's be robbed. Guy had on a long brown coat and
went "That way." The cop going that way, if he sees a fellow in a
long brown boat, has fully legal cause, "reasonable belief", to stop
the fellow and demand that he be allowed to search the guy to see if
he has the stolen goods.

Reasonable belief is NOT proof of guilt. Only a court establishes
guilt. But it is a recognized mechanism that allows the cops to
search for evidence, stop bad guys, and so forth. I'm not aware of
any country anywhere which doesn't recognize "reasonable belief" in
some form or other. And if the cops have evidence enough to convince
a judge of "reasonable belief" he can and will issue them a warrant to
go to the home of a person, and whether that person wants em to or
not, whether that person resists or not, they WILL search that home.
By force, if necessary.

If we did not have such rules, then it'd be quite easy for a fellow to
come find your wife, for instance, and murder her. Being careful to
ensure that no one saw him in the act, or at least he did not leave
alive anyone who saw him in the act. And then if he could get home and
hide his gun inside. Even if the cops had leads and evidence that
pointed at him. Perhaps he left behind finger prints, or dropped a
card with his name on it. It's be almost impossible for them to
prosecute him. They really, really need that "reasonable belief"
clause to get a warrant so they can go inside and look around for more
proof (or lack of it). Otherwise, investigation halts abruptly when
guy just smiles at em and says, "No, you can not search my house.
Screw off." And the odds are the murderer will get away with the
crime. And maybe many others until such time as the cops actually
catch him in the act before he can hide the evidence.

Thus we have a mechanism that says if there is adequate "reasonable
belief", and the suitable authority who has the power to do so says
"Go ahead and search." the cops can and will go in and search.
Whether the occupant likes it or not, whether the occupant makes a
fight of it or not.

We found evidence that pointed at Al Qaeda and Osama. And their
headquarters was in Afghanistan. And the Taliban were hiding them,
aiding them, and protecting them.

So we went in to get them.

Nothing new or different here from what Bush said, and what seems
reasonable to me. We wanted the guys who sent the first fellows to
attack the Twin Towers, AND those who supported and aided the
terrorists. Period.

Then we found certain evidences that pointed Iraq's way. Things found
among the Taliban, info given us by the intel services of other
countries, info from terrorists the Israelis had captured, and so
forth.

None, that I'm aware of, pointed directly at Saddam. But plenty that
supported the idea that key players within Saddam's regime had Al
Qaeda connections. And that Al Qaeda were seen training in that
country.

Add that we KNEW Saddam had WMD, at least at some point in time. And
he'd used them quite gleefully not only on soldiers but on an entire
village within Iraq. Old folks, young ones, mothers, babies, etc ...
his people had killed em all. As much to test their gear as for any
other reason. They could have just shot em all. But wanted to see
how well their stuff worked, close up and personal.

We had "reasonable belief" that he still had WMDs.

Remember, reasonable belief is not the same as "proof". It is
reasonable belief. The belief was so reasonable the UN was still
trying to search for the stuff and said they believed he had it.
Clinton said he believed. We had Iraqi refugees and ex-patriots
swearing they thought he still had the stuff. Etc.

Yes, the CIA was wrong in their estimate. But myself I chalk it up
under the category of a mistake, rather than incompetence. When you
are hampered by the laws in this country, pushed by a bunch of
liberals, which said the CIA could no longer employ agents of ... ummm
.... questionable character ... as insiders to keep us informed of what
was going on. Nor could we have an American agent do anything that
was illegal by our laws. It became almost impossible to infiltrate
many organizations and get info. Terrorists aren't dumb yah know.
They are well aware of the rules the CIA was forced to play by. So we
had no "eyes" of our own inside Iraq.

Aerial or satellite recon cameras? Forget it. They're riduculously
easy to fool. Or own military, the front line folks who need to be
able to do it, practice fooling such all the time. Geez, almost
certainly some of Saddam's own troops saw some of the first of our
special forces types entering their country and wandering around.
They just didn't realize what they were seeing. In a case I know of,
what they saw was a group of guys who looked exactly like a normal
everyday sight in those regions. Poor, back country traders, dressed
in local garb, beards, sun burnt, riding horses and leading donkies
loaded with trade goods, headed for a market in some town. Only ...
some of those ignorant back county hick traders were real ... and some
were not. Some were our special forces people. Still others would
know how to penetrate, and did, so that no one saw them. Except
perhaps as a shadow in the night. That was there one moment, gone the
next.

Quite literally, without Humint, as it's called, human intelligence on
the scene, we are half blind. Despite all the high tech gadgets in
the world.

So we went with what we had, Which was the best knowledge we could
get. And keeping all the other reasons in mind that I listed in a
prior post, besides the WMD, we demanded Saddam let us look around.
Freely. Go where we wished, when we wished. No interference. Or, let
the damned useless UN do it. Either way, one or the other.

He refused. We went in. We had reasonable belief in plenty. Now it
was time to find out what he actually had. He wanted to fight about
it? He got his fight. End of story.







We killed
a lot of people but gained little satisfaction. The targets that
we wanted, bin Laden and Omar escaped. We began looking
for another target.

So you see my problem, fellow juror. You feel that it is justified to
punish in the most extreme manor someone that is no worse than a
lot of other guys out there.

Wrong.

By your reasoning, if the cops come across 5 guys who just murdered a
bunch of folks, but only have the manpower and resources at hand to
catch one, for now. That since the others are gonna get away with it,
they should let the one they got go, so he can go kill some more.

Am I safe to assume that under your reasoning, that since somebody in
the Congo is now killing someone else. And we're not tracking him
down. Then if someone else comes to your home and kills your loved
ones ... we should let him go?

We have not the power, nor the resources, nor the inclination to
police the world, sir. For that matter, it's not even our
responsibility. And if we tried, same folks would curse as for doing
so as those who curse us for not doing so,

So our only alternative. Is to ignore those who hate us, as they'll
hate us no matter what we do. Hate is hate. It is not logical nor
reasonable.

In the case of Saddam, for a whole host of reasons, we as a country,
and it's WE ... not Bush ... remember that all those Congressmen gave
him their support, at first until they figured out the could make
political gain by reversing themselves and trying to backstab him ...
we as a country decided he did pose a danger to US. We decided that
as he was so willing to kill off his own folks in horrid fashion. And
since it was known that he'd take war to other countries any time he
felt he could get away with it. (remember Kuwaitt?) Since he was
KNOWN to have possessed .... and MORE importantly .... he was known to
USE WMDs. And since we had some evidence, evidence so good that even
the UN and Clinton believed it, that he might have more but was hiding
it. And since he'd not allow unrestricted searches to take place to
verify whether he did or did not have em. Since we knew he publically
called, many times, for folks to kill the evil US people. Since we
knew he supported some terrorists, thus it was not unlikely he might
support others, and we had intelligence info saying that in fact he
did, or at least key officials in his government did. And since we
knew from past experience, it's all history if you read it, that
Saddam would attack others quickly, violently, and without mercy any
time he felt like he might get away with it. We warned, "Do this, to
show us your good intentions and that you mean us no harm.", and when
he refused, we ACTED.

Now, you might disagree with this. That's your right ... to disagree.
Simply disagreement doesn't mean you are in fact correct. Many of us
think you are not.

As it turns out, some of our intelligence was faulty. Some of it was
accurate.

It would seem that he either did not have the large stock piles of
WMDs, or managed to get them shipped off elsewhere. Shrug So what?
We NOW know he's not got them. And know that he was trying to keep an
active WMD development program in action. Hiding a lab here, a lab
there, small samples of this and that here and there. His own
scientists say that he was still trying to develop the knowledge to
make the stuff ... for later. Why did we worry about Saddam's WMDs
more than someone else's? Who else has a recent history of being so
friggin willing to use em that he tested a batch out on a whole town
of folks in his own country? Who else has them that seemed like such
a crazy, wild assed, loved to do it mass murderer? Hell, even his own
neighbors and fellow Muslims were scared of him.


Saddam was a bad guy, we agree, but was he going to invade any
neighbor after what happened with the first gulf war? Even if he was
truly insane, was he making preparations to invade a neighbor again?

Your long list of the crimes includes
things that are not crimes at all but rather things that you don't like.
They
have violated laws that are rarely enforced. Is your disdain for this
guy
coloring
your judgement?

Pete.

Nope.

I don't worry about the person who have a history of being a decent,
law abiding citizen who has a gun, either. Or a whole basement full
of guns.

I do worry about the known murders who have guns, however.

Bob


You seem to be making the case of going after anyone that might commit
a crime. You take the accusation that he might have weapons as sufficient
evidence that we need to act. Your line of reasoning will lead to many
such preemptive strikes.

You may argue that preemptive strikes make us safer but the opposite is
true.
Once preemptive strikes become the normal method of diplomatic discourse
we will be the worse off. The notion of preemptive strikes will be used
by everyone. We will be the likely target. We can hardly complain as
we legitimized that reasoning.

While we may be the last standing world power, we do not have the power
to invade everyone. We do not even have the power to invade everyone
in the Middle East even though that is where our government seems to be
taking us.

Live and let live seems to be a better policy.

Pete.

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann" wrote:

(snip)
Remember, I'm not the prosecutor, I'm just another juror like you. I've
presented no evidence here, I've only commented on, or repeated, the
evidence I've seen.

I've noticed a trend in all the "evidence" you've presented, though. It seems to
have a very strong anti-Bush bias.

Make up your own mind. I never undertook the
prosecutorial function to convict. As I wrote, you gotta separate the
wheat from the chaff.

First you gotta have wheat AND chaff before you can separate them. ;)

OT-John Kerry
 

Jim Dauven wrote:

I have to ask you one question in the pursuit of the heaviness of
the
United States.

How many nations of the United Nations have truly free
elections, respect the right to own private property, and
have laws against bribery and extortion.

So how can you have a honest and moral international
institution when 3/4 of the members are little more than
tin pot dictatorships and that includes Red China.

Got that right.

I think it's called "chutzpa".

OT-John Kerry
 

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

Our imperialism is manifest in our military presence all
over the world. But it isn't traditional imperialism. We
haven't taken over territory and people so much as we have
attempted to control the relationships among other people.

Like I said. "Trade". People that are fighting are not buying or
selling what we want. Not as much of it, anyway.

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:37:58 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Bob G" wrote in message
.. .

Sorry, I've been busy with other things all day, was typing fast as I
could. And hit the send key before I finished.


Saddam was a bad guy, we agree, but was he going to invade any
neighbor after what happened with the first gulf war? Even if he was
truly insane, was he making preparations to invade a neighbor again?

I'll tell yah what. We'll just check and see if your argument holds
water. Howabout we all start signing a petition saying we want Saddam
to be let off on a light sentence, parole and community service. On
the condition he moves in to you neighborhood.

How safe are you gonna feel?

We know that Saddam was maintaining an Army in that region that was
larger, better trained, and better equipped than his neighbors, by
far. With the exception of the Israelis. Whose regular army is
smaller. But they have a large reserve force. And the Israelis in
the past have proved more than a match for their enemies even when
outnumbered several to one. Not a doubt in my mind that if he'd
picked a war with them, they would have pulverized his forces and not
been as merciful and easy going about it as we were. They can't
afford to be. Only about 6.5 million people in Israel, and it's
surrounded by enemies. If they fooled around about it, took too long,
etc, not at all unlikely one of the other neighbors would try
attacking em from behind. They'd have engaged Saddam's forces with an
attitude of "No mercy, no ground given.", feeling they had no choice.

Kuwaitt was sure that he might attack again. Why do you think they
welcomed our forces, even tho it cost em brownie points with their
friends and neighbors. Saddam had surprise attacked em before and his
people had shown no mercy. Thousands died, thousands were raped. The
country set afire. Saddam's minions had looted hospitals and
literally threw sick and dying adults, and newly delivered infants out
of their beds to the floor and stripped the hospitals of beds, linen,
incubators for infants, medicine, and all useable medical gear. And
left patients to die.

Saudi Arabia does not even like us much. Just barely tolerates us.
BUT, even so the rulers DID tolerate our being there, insisted we stay
as a matter of fact. Despite the fact it ****ed off many of their own
folks who hate us. Because they felt Saddam would attack if he felt
he could get away with it. Once we'd taken Iraq, the Saudi government
is a bit relieved that we're leaving Saudi Arabia, tho. They do have
a significant element within their country who do not want us,
specifically, nor westerners in general to have a presence in that
country except as visitors. Come visit ... okay, now get out. Some
of it is hatred. Not all. Some of it is just a belief among some
Muslims that westerners if allowed to stay in too many numbers might
corrupt good Muslims. Okay, fine, their country, I have no problem
with that.

Yes, there were MANY reasons to belief he might just be waiting for
sanctions to be lifted, everyone to turn their back, and for us to
have a weak willed President and Congress, and he might have been
sorely put to resist the temptation. He was already buying weapons
from folks like the French, which under UN resolution he was not
supposed to have. Those resolutions did not prohibit him from having
an Army or weapons. But there were certain limitations in place as
concerns range of weapons such as missles, and other such rules meant
to ensure that his weapons were defensive in nature, not offensive.
weapons. He was already violating those rules with help of the French
and who knows who else. I haven't bothered to read all the reports.

We know now, have the evidence, that while we did not find large
stockpiles of WMDs, he did have an active WMD research and development
program going. And was very interested in it's progress. It seems
however, that he was at least in part thwarted by some of his own
people. Scientists and the like. Who were feeding him false and
misleading info. I don't think we've got the whole of that story yet.
Kinda hard to tell who's telling the truth and who is not. And we
have literally MOUNTAINS of papers and documents, notes and records,
folks still have not gone thru.

You ask whether or not he'd have risked doing another invasion. Why
not? He could have avoided this last war with us easily. But
refused, and dared us to come in. Maintained all the way up to the
end that his forces could and would beat us.

Personally, I think he actually thought he could do it, too.

Saddam once said he thought it was perfectly acceptable if 20 million
of his people were to die to further his cause and the glory of his
regime. As long as in the end, he won and was still alive.

You seem to be making the case of going after anyone that might commit
a crime. You take the accusation that he might have weapons as sufficient
evidence that we need to act. Your line of reasoning will lead to many
such preemptive strikes.

Could be. But you keep evading a direct point. We were and are after
Al Qaeda, AND those who support them. For that I'll not apologize nor
back away from the position.

Saddam could have solved the issue simply. All he had to do was to
allow us, or the UN, his choice, to go in and WITHOUT restriction,
limitations, and so forth to look around and satisfy ourselves that he
was telling the truth.

We had reasonable belief. Some of it turned out incorrect. Some of it
was dead on correct.

Now, let me give yah a hint. Let's suppose you are a past, known
murderer. Ohhh, and let's suppose yah served your time and are out
again. Now, let's suppose somebody new gets murdered. And the police
investigate. And find good evidence, not "proof" ... good evidence,
evidence so good that not only do their higher authority, a judge,
decides that YOU, a known murderer, MAY have done it. Or may have
aided and abetted. But also other higher authorities also think yah
may well have either done it or aided and abetted. And said higher
authority signs equivalent of a warrant and tells cops ... "Go search
for more and better evidence."

Do you REALLY think that when the cops come to your door and ask to
search for evidence .... that they're gonna take your "No" for a final
answer?

Now, what do yah suppose they're gonna do if instead of letting them
in, you tell em "I'm not letting you in and if you come in anyway ...
I'm armed and I'm gonna kill all of you and dance on your graves."

Think said cops are just gonna go away?

Think they're gonna say, "Pretty Please?"

Live and let live seems to be a better policy.

Pete.

I'll agree with your last.

If, in fact Saddam would have let the inspections happen, without his
restrictions which made it very easy to hide things. We would have
left him be. We ... time and time and time again said that we'd back
off if he'd cooperate in full. All we wanted was to verify as truth
that he had no WMDs and no Al Qaeda training camps and bases, etc.

In truth, I don't like this preemptive thing, myself. Leaves a
friggin dirty taste in my mouth.

But I can live with this one, no problem.

And I think most Americans can.

For those of you who hate Bush, I think that if you're betting on this
Iraq thing to do him in, I think you're GREATLY mistaken. I don't
think that's going to be the making or breaking point.

I think that in the end, on balance, the majority of Americans are
gonna give him a pass on this Iraq thing, and a "Good Job" pat on the
back.

Peronally, I'd bet that when it gets down to brass tacks come
November, the -majority- of folks are gonna have little to no interest
in hearing debates about Iraq. And will give Bush a brownie point for
that action. Most Americans don't like the Iraq thing, but pretty
much figure that in the balance, it was probably the right thing to
do. And I'd agree with that.

Personally, I think the real battle will be over other issues.

Personally, I think Bush is okay. As of right now, tho my opinion
could change, I think he's the best pick of the lot I see unless
Liberman and ... maybe Edwards sticks in the race.

Then I'm gonna be hard pressed. I'm not real fond of some of the
other things Bush has done or advocated. This spending thing is not
going over real well with me. And his comment, suggesting he might
support a constitutional amendment over that marriage issue isn't
making me any happier, either. I do not like the Feds getting involved
in matters I consider to be things which should be left up to
individual states to decide. I'm also not fond of the suggestion we
extend the Patriot Act. Okay, I could live with it short term. I
find myself a LOT more resistant to an extension of it. I believe him
that they've not abused it. Fine. Still does not change my mind that
such a thing should be a very short term, only when absolutely
necessary thing. We've knocked the Al Qaeda reeling. They're still
there, but at a much diminshed capacity. So why do we need to extend
the Patriot Act? I'd like some sort of explaination.

I'm also starting to worry over this issue that we have one American
who was associated with the Al Qaeda, who we tried in a regular
civilian court. And he got regular treatment, rights, freedom to talk
with his lawyers, etc. Yet we also have another American, no
different that I can tell, who'd being treated as a prisoner of war.
No public communication, lawyer not free to see him, so on and so
forth.

What gives with this? I'd really like an answer. Why are they being
treated differently? Might seem like a small point to others. Isn't
to me. Fine, if he's guilty, he's guilty. Fry him if he deserves it.
I'll help. But why isn't he getting the same rights as the other
fellow? Why can't his lawyer get answers to his questions from the
Feds? Etc.

And, as a matter of principle, I'm not real fond of the idea that one
party dominates the House, Senate, and Presidency at the same time. I
think it's fundamentally a bad idea. Too much power in one set of
hands makes me nervous. I don't care whose hands.

I think it's gonna be other issues, not Iraq, which are gonna be the
most important ones to Americans in November.

Bob

OT-John Kerry
 

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:16:36 -0600, Bob G wrote:
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. But long history, and
international legal agreements, every since we've had such things,
acknowledges that there is a difference between a soldier accidentally
killing a civilian in battle ... or having no choice but to take the
chances of killing some innocent civilians if the enemy is hiding
behind such and NOT killing the enemy despite the chances of civilian
casualties means the likelihood of even higher casualties later ... as
versus deliberately targeting innocent civilians with the express
purpose of targeting civilians.

That last part can be done, the deliberate targeting of civilians,
only in specific circumstances. i.e. It is commonly recognized that
the governing group of an enemy, who do the organizing, give direction
to the soldiers, etc ... aren't, really, "innocent" civilians. Thus a
military force is not tried for attacking, for instance, the
equivalent of our Congress, or a governor, etc. Also, exception is
normally made in the case of a necessity to attack factories making
bombs or other war machinery.

The above, are FAR different than such things as targeting random
buses of ordinary innocent civilians going about their daily business,
setting off bombs in a school, blowing up a cafe, so on and so forth.

The fire bombing of Dresden, fire bombing of Tokyo, the Blitz, etc
are all examples where non-military targets were attacked and
innocent civilians deliberately targeted, in order to *break the will*
of the enemy population to resist. The Allies even gave this tactic
a name, they called it *total war*. No allied officer was ever called
a "terrorist" for waging it.

Gary

OT-John Kerry
 

Gary Coffman wrote:
The fire bombing of Dresden, fire bombing of Tokyo, the Blitz, etc
are all examples where non-military targets were attacked and
innocent civilians deliberately targeted, in order to *break the will*
of the enemy population to resist. The Allies even gave this tactic
a name, they called it *total war*. No allied officer was ever called
a "terrorist" for waging it.

I remember Belgrado and Rotterdam. It was surrender
or there will be another city 'ausradiert'. HTH
--
SATOR AREPO TENET OPERA ROTAS
Have 5 nice days! John
******************************
--- ILN 000.000.001 ---

OT-John Kerry
 

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:44:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

As usual, factually correct.

Thanks. I try to stick to facts instead of going off on a
rant, as is the usual usenet procedure. I don't always
succeed.

Just curious, so please forgive my nosiness. It is obvious that you
are well educated. What is the extent of your "formal" education?

To the extent that I know much of anything, it is a result
of a lifetime of self-directed study. I hated school and
was a terrible student for the brief time I was one - beyond
high school, that is. I didn't have much choice about high
school. High IQ - low scholastic aptitude. Like the old
guy in The Postman, I know stuff.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice"?

OT-John Kerry
 

On 31 Jan 2004 07:39:21 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...

This is what my grandmother used to call "if you don't
want to get hit by a train, don't play on the RR tracks."

As Greg (?) said..indeed I also encountered NVA and Cong prisoners who
fought harder because of the support from Hollywood. etc. Most of those
poor *******s came south pushing a bicycle covered with supplies, 2000
miles, and without encouragement from the protesters (and the AK47s of
their Political Officer), would simply have quit and gone home.

We were invading their country. Of course they were dedicated.
Of course the ARVN had to be prodded out of helicopters, they
didn't care what was going on.

Your blind spot is the definition of original causation. There
was no causation from anti-war protesters. The real driving force
behind US soldiers getting killed was the govenmentt taxing
it's citizens to get money, to raise an army and send them overseas.

That's the root cause and until that is interrupted the entire
CF will keep on happening.

There was no good reason for the US to assume the colonial
role of the French. But it did, which got us into a war of attrition
where none of our national interests were at stake. The only
thing of US interest in that country was the blood of US
servicemen.

The best thing we could do was to get out immediately, but
our politicians wouldn't just order a pull out, because it would
cause them to lose face. So the people had to force the issue
in the streets and at the polls. That took *far* too long, and
our servicemen paid a price in blood for the delay before
sanity finally took hold and we did withdraw.

Blaming those trying to get our people out of Vietnam is
blaming the wrong people. The ones responsible for American
blood being spilled were those who ordered those troops to
Vietnam in the first place.

Gary

OT-John Kerry
 

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On 31 Jan 2004 07:39:21 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...
The best thing we could do was to get out immediately, but
our politicians wouldn't just order a pull out, because it would
cause them to lose face. So the people had to force the issue
in the streets and at the polls. That took *far* too long, and
our servicemen paid a price in blood for the delay before
sanity finally took hold and we did withdraw.

Blaming those trying to get our people out of Vietnam is
blaming the wrong people. The ones responsible for American
blood being spilled were those who ordered those troops to
Vietnam in the first place.

Gary

Well, yeah, that's the Party line. I watched it all happen and that's not
what it looked like to me. Or to my slightly younger relatives who served
"in country".

Harold Burton
(Collum Puniceus)

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:47:04 -0900, Offbreed
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

Our imperialism is manifest in our military presence all
over the world. But it isn't traditional imperialism. We
haven't taken over territory and people so much as we have
attempted to control the relationships among other people.

Like I said. "Trade". People that are fighting are not buying or
selling what we want. Not as much of it, anyway.

That could be. When I said "trade," I of course meant
voluntary trade.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:43:04 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:

(snips)

Just curious, so please forgive my nosiness. It is obvious that you
are well educated. What is the extent of your "formal" education?

To the extent that I know much of anything, it is a result
of a lifetime of self-directed study. I hated school and
was a terrible student for the brief time I was one - beyond
high school, that is. I didn't have much choice about high
school. High IQ - low scholastic aptitude. Like the old
guy in The Postman, I know stuff.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice"?

No, "The Postman."

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

OT-John Kerry
 

On 31 Jan 2004 07:39:21 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

This is what my grandmother used to call "if you don't
want to get hit by a train, don't play on the RR tracks."

As Greg (?) said..indeed I also encountered NVA and Cong prisoners who
fought harder because of the support from Hollywood. etc. Most of those
poor *******s came south pushing a bicycle covered with supplies, 2000
miles, and without encouragement from the protesters (and the AK47s of
their Political Officer), would simply have quit and gone home.

We were invading their country. Of course they were dedicated.
Of course the ARVN had to be prodded out of helicopters, they
didn't care what was going on.

Your blind spot is the definition of original causation. There
was no causation from anti-war protesters. The real driving force
behind US soldiers getting killed was the govenmentt taxing
it's citizens to get money, to raise an army and send them overseas.

That's the root cause and until that is interrupted the entire
CF will keep on happening.

Jim

Sorry Jim, on this subject you are totally wrong.. Sorry buddy. Ill not
argue with you about it as you are completly convinced you have the
whole story.

Ill simply note that Im in complete agreement with those that think Jane
Fonda should have been tried, convicted and executed for giving aid and
comfort to the enemy and treason. And buried next to the Rosenbergs.

Ill withdraw from this subject.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:43:04 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:44:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

As usual, factually correct.

Thanks. I try to stick to facts instead of going off on a
rant, as is the usual usenet procedure. I don't always
succeed.

Just curious, so please forgive my nosiness. It is obvious that you
are well educated. What is the extent of your "formal" education?

To the extent that I know much of anything, it is a result
of a lifetime of self-directed study. I hated school and
was a terrible student for the brief time I was one - beyond
high school, that is. I didn't have much choice about high
school. High IQ - low scholastic aptitude. Like the old
guy in The Postman, I know stuff.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice"?

I believe he means the movie with Kevin Costner.
Sue

OT-John Kerry
 

"Noah Simoneaux" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

(snip)
Remember, I'm not the prosecutor, I'm just another juror like you.
I've
presented no evidence here, I've only commented on, or repeated, the
evidence I've seen.

I've noticed a trend in all the "evidence" you've presented, though.
It seems to
have a very strong anti-Bush bias.

If you google "Bush lies" that's what you're gonna get. I glanced at
the pages, and they seemed to represent the breed. Some of the stuff
seemed to have some reference or cite associated with them.

Make up your own mind. I never undertook the
prosecutorial function to convict. As I wrote, you gotta separate
the
wheat from the chaff.

First you gotta have wheat AND chaff before you can separate them. ;)

OT-John Kerry
 

"Gary Coffman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:16:36 -0600, Bob G wrote:
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. But long history, and
international legal agreements, every since we've had such things,
acknowledges that there is a difference between a soldier
accidentally
killing a civilian in battle ... or having no choice but to take the
chances of killing some innocent civilians if the enemy is hiding
behind such and NOT killing the enemy despite the chances of civilian
casualties means the likelihood of even higher casualties later ...
as
versus deliberately targeting innocent civilians with the express
purpose of targeting civilians.

That last part can be done, the deliberate targeting of civilians,
only in specific circumstances. i.e. It is commonly recognized that
the governing group of an enemy, who do the organizing, give
direction
to the soldiers, etc ... aren't, really, "innocent" civilians. Thus
a
military force is not tried for attacking, for instance, the
equivalent of our Congress, or a governor, etc. Also, exception is
normally made in the case of a necessity to attack factories making
bombs or other war machinery.

The above, are FAR different than such things as targeting random
buses of ordinary innocent civilians going about their daily
business,
setting off bombs in a school, blowing up a cafe, so on and so forth.

The fire bombing of Dresden, fire bombing of Tokyo, the Blitz, etc
are all examples where non-military targets were attacked and
innocent civilians deliberately targeted, in order to *break the will*
of the enemy population to resist. The Allies even gave this tactic
a name, they called it *total war*. No allied officer was ever called
a "terrorist" for waging it.

True, but they did express some concern about possible war crimes trials
if they lost the war.

Jeff

OT-John Kerry
 

Sue wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:43:04 GMT, "ATP"
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 18:44:56 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 17:20:57 GMT, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:03:48 GMT, John Husvar
wrote:

(snips)

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

"Isolation" was what the detractors called neutrality, the
policy Washington and Jefferson urged us to follow. Of
course, neutrality doesn't allow for world-wide empire, so
the politicians had to ditch it, starting in 1898, if not
before. By the New Deal, the chattering class had consigned
neutrality to the dust bin of history.

As usual, factually correct.

Thanks. I try to stick to facts instead of going off on a
rant, as is the usual usenet procedure. I don't always
succeed.

Just curious, so please forgive my nosiness. It is obvious that
you are well educated. What is the extent of your "formal"
education?

To the extent that I know much of anything, it is a result
of a lifetime of self-directed study. I hated school and
was a terrible student for the brief time I was one - beyond
high school, that is. I didn't have much choice about high
school. High IQ - low scholastic aptitude. Like the old
guy in The Postman, I know stuff.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice"?

I believe he means the movie with Kevin Costner.
Sue

I was jokingly referring to the movie with Jack Nicholson. Movies that
Costner starred in would be way too obscure to reference.

OT-John Kerry
 

Gunner wrote:
On 31 Jan 2004 07:39:21 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner
says...

This is what my grandmother used to call "if you don't
want to get hit by a train, don't play on the RR tracks."

As Greg (?) said..indeed I also encountered NVA and Cong prisoners
who fought harder because of the support from Hollywood. etc. Most
of those poor *******s came south pushing a bicycle covered with
supplies, 2000 miles, and without encouragement from the protesters
(and the AK47s of their Political Officer), would simply have quit
and gone home.

We were invading their country. Of course they were dedicated.
Of course the ARVN had to be prodded out of helicopters, they
didn't care what was going on.

Your blind spot is the definition of original causation. There
was no causation from anti-war protesters. The real driving force
behind US soldiers getting killed was the govenmentt taxing
it's citizens to get money, to raise an army and send them overseas.

That's the root cause and until that is interrupted the entire
CF will keep on happening.

Jim

Sorry Jim, on this subject you are totally wrong.. Sorry buddy. Ill
not argue with you about it as you are completly convinced you have
the whole story.

Ill simply note that Im in complete agreement with those that think
Jane Fonda should have been tried, convicted and executed for giving
aid and comfort to the enemy and treason. And buried next to the
Rosenbergs.

Jane Fonda was guilty of treason. However there was a difference between
what she did and simple domestic opposition to the war. WRT giving aid and
comfort to the enemy simply by virtue of political discussion in the US,
that's an unavoidable side effect of democracy. There are times when people
should just shut up for a while, but to expect that everybody is going to be
silent for years while a conflict is dragging on is not consistent with
maintaining our democracy.

OT-John Kerry
 

In article , Gunner says...

Sorry Jim, on this subject you are totally wrong.. Sorry buddy. Ill not
argue with you about it as you are completly convinced you have the
whole story.

OK then we shall agree to disagree on it.

Ill simply note that Im in complete agreement with those that think Jane
Fonda should have been tried, convicted and executed for giving aid and
comfort to the enemy and treason. And buried next to the Rosenbergs.

Ill withdraw from this subject.

Likewise - but remember I was talking about domestic US protest,
by regular citizens. I think ms fonda was not in that catagory
fwiw.

Jim

==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

OT-John Kerry
 

Pete saysWe should not
have invaded even if he did have them. It virtually guarantees that
every country than might be in our "invade next" list will develop
WMD's of their own.

Or, much more likely, they will avoid the threat and not develop them or open
up their programs and disarm.. Libya for example. Korea is reportedly much
more cooperative now as well.
Greg Sefton

OT-John Kerry
 

Do you think that Libya is our friend now? Have we made them see the
light? Do they now believe that we have the right to invade whoever
we like?

Pete, The point isn't to make thugs with WMD's like us, it's to make them fear
us.
Greg sefton

OT-John Kerry
 

Do they now believe Israel has a right to be a racist state?

Pete.

Racist state ??? I don't think so. Racist states are China, Japan, numerous
Arab & African countries etc. Israel could be a tribalist state.. maybe. But
then who isn't ( a little) ? :o). Judaism isn't a race, in case you're
wondering. Hint: it's a religion
Greg Sefton

OT-John Kerry
 

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Do they now believe Israel has a right to be a racist state?

Pete.

Racist state ??? I don't think so. Racist states are China, Japan,
numerous
Arab & African countries etc. Israel could be a tribalist state.. maybe.
But
then who isn't ( a little) ? :o). Judaism isn't a race, in case you're
wondering. Hint: it's a religion
Greg Sefton

Israel is the worst racist state. Is that OK for you? Other countries
may
not have flawless records on this subject including the US. Only
Israel is enforcing it's racist policies with genocide, assassinations,
and torture.

Pete.

OT-John Kerry
 

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:47:04 -0900, Offbreed
wrote:

Like I said. "Trade". People that are fighting are not buying or
selling what we want. Not as much of it, anyway.


That could be. When I said "trade," I of course meant
voluntary trade.

So do I.

?? Maybe "People who are in the middle of a fight with someone are not
likely to buy what we have to sell or be too distracted to supply what
we want to buy"?

Though tariffs come awful close to coercion.

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 08:53:11 -0900, Offbreed
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:47:04 -0900, Offbreed
wrote:

Like I said. "Trade". People that are fighting are not buying or
selling what we want. Not as much of it, anyway.


That could be. When I said "trade," I of course meant
voluntary trade.

So do I.

?? Maybe "People who are in the middle of a fight with someone are not
likely to buy what we have to sell or be too distracted to supply what
we want to buy"?

I don't understand your meaning. If foreigners aren't
likely to buy from us or sell to us, for whatever reason,
then we aren't likely to trade with them.

Though tariffs come awful close to coercion.

They are coercive, but between the citizens of the country
applying the tariffs. Foreigners have no right to export
into a country that applies a tariff without paying the
tariff.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

OT-John Kerry
 

Peter Reilley wrote:
"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Do they now believe Israel has a right to be a racist state?

Pete.

Racist state ??? I don't think so. Racist states are China, Japan,
numerous Arab & African countries etc. Israel could be a tribalist
state.. maybe. But then who isn't ( a little) ? :o). Judaism isn't
a race, in case you're wondering. Hint: it's a religion
Greg Sefton

Israel is the worst racist state. Is that OK for you? Other
countries may
not have flawless records on this subject including the US. Only
Israel is enforcing it's racist policies with genocide,
assassinations, and torture.

Pete.

Then they're not very efficient at genocide. BTW, I'm no friend of Israel, I
think you're way overstating your case.

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:41:17 -0500, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Do they now believe Israel has a right to be a racist state?

Pete.

Racist state ??? I don't think so. Racist states are China, Japan,
numerous
Arab & African countries etc. Israel could be a tribalist state.. maybe.
But
then who isn't ( a little) ? :o). Judaism isn't a race, in case you're
wondering. Hint: it's a religion
Greg Sefton

Israel is the worst racist state. Is that OK for you? Other countries
may
not have flawless records on this subject including the US. Only
Israel is enforcing it's racist policies with genocide, assassinations,
and torture.

Pete.


A friend of mine is a very black Jew. He went to Israel a couple years
ago and had a very nice time. He is taking his Asian (Jewish) wife along
this next year.

Btw..what race are Palestinians? I seemed to have missed that genotype
in biology.

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

OT-John Kerry
 

Gunner wrote:

Btw..what race are Palestinians?

There really is no simple answer to this question, because "race" is a very
complex issue, with many shades of grey. And many differing opinions, about
origins of race, ethnicity, skin color, blood lines, cultural heritage, etc.

But since you are a man who desires and understands only black and white issues
and answers, and has no room for subtle graduations, here is your answer.

Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies,

Mediterranid race

Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt
to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element
among the Oriental Jews)


I seemed to have missed that genotype
in biology.

Along with a great deal of other subjects you missed.

Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com

OT-John Kerry
 

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 08:05:43 GMT, Abrasha wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Btw..what race are Palestinians?

There really is no simple answer to this question, because "race" is a very
complex issue, with many shades of grey. And many differing opinions, about
origins of race, ethnicity, skin color, blood lines, cultural heritage, etc.

But since you are a man who desires and understands only black and white issues
and answers, and has no room for subtle graduations, here is your answer.

Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies,

Mediterranid race

Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt
to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element
among the Oriental Jews)


Hummmm It appears that the above descriptions fit not only the
Palestinians, but a good percentage of the Jewish residents of Israel,
not to mention its Arab citizens.

So unless they discriminate against their own citizens, members of the
military, government and civil authorities..Id have to say that once
again Petty is spewing a racism charge out his ass.

I seemed to have missed that genotype
in biology.

Along with a great deal of other subjects you missed.



You missed your calling as you would have made a great HMO lawyer. Too
bad you became a "Rough Trade" homosexual prostitute instead.

I understand its an honorable trade in Holland. Come over on an H1-B
visa?

Gunner

Liberals - Cosmopolitan critics, men who are the friends
of every country save their own. Benjamin Disraeli

OT-John Kerry
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 21:15:47 -0500, Gary Coffman
wrote:

The fire bombing of Dresden, fire bombing of Tokyo, the Blitz, etc
are all examples where non-military targets were attacked and
innocent civilians deliberately targeted, in order to *break the will*
of the enemy population to resist. The Allies even gave this tactic
a name, they called it *total war*. No allied officer was ever called
a "terrorist" for waging it.

Gary

You have a valid point.

I must say, tho, when I first read your post I was most inclined to
dismiss it right off the bat.

As I was at first certain you must be just a troll, a juvenile who
knew no better, etc.

Then I re-thought the matter. And it occurred to me you might
earnestly believe you made a valid argument.

I suppose it's possible, particularly if your schooling was after the
mid 70's. When folks started rewriting history in the text books.
And educational performance standards and expectations started
dropping.

Don't get me wrong. The old text books were indeed biased and
slanted, Gave mostly one side of the story. The issue is that many
of the new ones have re-written history in a fashion just as
inaccurate, biased, and slanted ... just the other way. Almost to the
point where some I've seen, not all, could well qualify more as works
of fiction than books of fact.

I don't state the above simply as something heard second hand. My
work regularly and routinely takes me into schools of several school
districts. And out of curiosity I'll sometimes thumb thru modern text
books to see what the students are studying these days.

I am personally, fundamentaly opposed to presenting history in biased
fashion, either way. In text books. The reason is simple. The study
of history is meant as a mechanism of learning. Learning who we all
are, where we came from, what happened before us, and so forth. With,
as one of it's main points, the idea that we all learn from history.
What was right, what was wrong, what worked, what did not work, and so
forth.

Truth, and learning to improve ourselves is NOT furthered by lies, or
one sided, biased views, etc. We are all best served by knowing the
whole story. The good, the bad, the ugly, and the indifferent.

Biases passed off as factually the whole story does nothing more than
breed and further more misunderstanding. More understandings breeds
more hatred, more mistakes, etc.

Now, I don't know how much you read or what. So I'm sort of at a loss
for where to go from here. As I don't know WHICH version of the story
you read.

But since you equate, or try to equate, Dresden with the crashing of
those aircraft into the Twin Towers, I'll presume you've read at least
one accounting or explaination. And, given that you use it as your
argument, I presume it was slanted against America. And likely did
not give both sides of that debate, and may not have explained a
"whole picture" of the event.

Hmmmm. Let's try this.

Bear with me please.

He's dead now, but I used to know a fellow who was a bombadier in WW2.
For a while, til his aircraft was shot down. And he spent the rest of
the war in a German prisoner of war camp. He and I spent some time
talking about that war.

His side, as he related it to me. He was just a junior officer, a
bombadier. So he certainly was not privy to any high secrets. What
he did know was, that the Germans had invaded other countries first.
In some cases they'd done so most unexpectedly, after lying and saying
they had no such intention. They had killed hundreds of thousands, if
not more. At the time, no one had any sort of count. They'd robbed
and stolen, confiscated for their own use, etc ... the property of
others. Their soldiers, some of them ... almost certainly not all,
probably not even most ... had engaged in rape, senseless beatings of
people for no good reason other than their own entertainment and had
killed not only enemy soldiers but innocent civilians who'd not done
anything to harm them.

I will stress here, I do not believe MOST Germans, or German soldiers
engaged in atrocities. The friend of whom I speak, did not think so,
either. He'd gotten to know some of his guards while in that POW camp
and he told me that some of them did not like some of the stuff going
on, either.

This fits with my experience in my 55 years. And, yes, I have been in
war myself. And have the scars to show for it. Fact is, MOST folks,
of any group of peoples, are nice, decent folks. But, also, amongst
any peoples, there are those who are not.

Anyway, he knew the things above. He knew that England was being, and
had been, pounded by German explosives. Not targeted specifically at
military installations or munitions factories. German technology was
not yet that good. They were hitting whatever they could. Well aware
that mostly they were hitting civilians, but that was okay with them,
it suited their purpose.

He also knew something else he told me. That the Germans were in fact
a formidible foe. Generally as bright as any peoples of any country,
strong minded, strong willed, competent, capable, not weaklings,
dedicated, loyal to their country and peers, etc. And had some
scientists and engineers who were as good as any, anywhere. Their
machinest, mechanics, tin benders, electricians, molders, foundry
workers,and so forth ... as good as any anywhere.

In short, these were no meek, mild, weaklings and underdogs. They
were a serious foe. And at the time, nobody knew who was gonna win
that conflict, for sure. The Germans themselves thought they were at
least the equals of their foes and had no intentions of giving up
easily, if ever. And they were as dedicated to killing their enemies
and winning that war, as the allies were dedicated to defeating them.

Also, my friend told me that while he did not know much about it, the
rumors were making their rounds. That the Germans were actively
developing better weapons. And no one doubted they could do it. They
were bright, well educated, and trying as hard as their enemies. He'd
already heard rumors about poisons gases. The Germans had already
started using newer, longer range, higher payload rockets to slam
civilians in England. And some sort of new aircraft that moved so
fast that it could not be shot down except by the shearest of luck was
rumored to be in the works.

This last, was not just a rumor. Tho, my friend had not known it was
a reality until after he was relased from that POW camp. The Germans
had indeed been racing the clock. Trying to develop a useable,
workable "superfast" combat aircraft. Trying to do so before the
allies destroyed their ability to do so. It was a race. Just as they
raced to developed other, newer, more effective weapons the allies
could not deal with before the allies crippled their ability to make
them. In the case of the "superfast" fighter, the Germans succeeded,
almost.

They produced such using two different methods. One was a rocket
engine driven aircraft. The other was a jet engine driven aircraft.

And they were nearly untouchable by the allied forces. So fast a man
manually operating a machine gun in a bomber could not hit one except
by luck. And when one of these aircraft attacked allied aircraft, it
was pretty much the proverbial "turkey shoot". The German pilot had
the upper hand and could shoot down allied aircraft virtually at will.
Very good, very advanced aircraft for it's time. The Me292, IIRC from
memory.

But they were too late. And too few. The allies won that race. The
Germans never got a chance to produce more than a few. If they'd won
the new and better weapons production race, the outcome of that war
might well have been very different.

Anyway, my friend's general thoughts on the matter was that the
struggle in which he participated was an all out, life or death issue.
And while he did not do missions over Dresden himself, he participated
in other mass saturation bombings. I can tell you, he did not like
it. Not even a little. But at the time, he felt, truly felt, he had
no choice. That the Allies had no choice. Seemingly, the Germans had
no give to em. And if one gave em even half a chance, they'd win that
war. And more people would die at their hands. Plus, the thought was
on his mind, and that of his comrades, it was talked about all the
time. That the longer the war went on, the more people who'd die on
both sides. That it was best to end it as decisively and quickly as
possible. And that meant hitting the Germans hard, very hard, as
they'd already shown they'd not surrender easily. Often did not
surrender in the field until so utterly defeated they saw no hope.

The above is only meant to give you a glimpse of what was in his mind.
He faced a strong, formidible foe, easily his equal, who would not
give up or surrender easily. And who he knew, had attacked and
invaded others first. lied to people saying they would not ... but
then invaded them, had deliberately targeted civilians, and so forth.
So while he participated in bombing of a nature he despised, he felt
he had no choice. That none of them, he or his comrades, had any
other viable, better alternative.

I only intend to relate his thoughts, as an example of what at least
one of the real participants involved thought about doing the
bombings. Those were his thoughts. And, FWIW, are consistent with
the mind set of numerous other vets of that war with whom I've spoken
in my lifetime. I have known quite a few and have talked to them
about these things.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...n-World-War-II

The above, I think gives a pretty balanced view of what happened at
Dresden. And speaks about the controversy and debate pro and con.

Now, to be clear, generally understood and agreed upon international
convention was such that such aereal bombings were not consistant with
the generally agreed upon concept that one did not deliberately target
innocent civilians not engaged in directly aiding the war effort.

Meaning that civilians making weapons, transporting troops and war
supplies, etc were NOT excempted from attack.

Those refugees traveling thru Dresden were clearly not valid military
targets. Nor were the incidental civilians who simply lived in
Dresden but who were not engaged in the business of producing war
materials.

Problem. At the time there did not exist any reliable method to pick
and choose targets with much accuracy. Particularly when such targets
were located within, for instance, a city which was heavily populated
by innocents.

If you read history, and the stories about the fellows who flew
bombing missions against the Germans, you'll find out that the death
toll and casualty rate to the crews of those bombers was very high.
It was taking a major, all out effort to replace the crew members and
aircraft fast enough to keep up with the loss rate.

Even among those who survived missions physically; the stress, strain,
etc was so high that nervous breakdowns were a commonplace occurance.

The Germans were not just playing the role of helpless victim, they
fought back viciously and well. And for some time the skies over
Germany were filled with anti-aircraft fire, and German fighters. And
they took a heavy toll on those bombers. And the crew of those
bombers felt like the proverbial "sitting ducks". The death and
serious injury toll amongst those fellows was very high.

From a tactical point of view, this created a problem. If one flew low
enough, and carefully enough to try to strike one building among many,
such as a bomb factory in the middle of a city, the attackers were
often slaughtered. But if one flew higher, above the flak of the
anti-aircraft guns, one could not be so accurate. And accuracy with
bombs from planes at the time was iffy at best. If yah could hit the
same block a factory was on under the best conditions, you were doing
good. That was coming in at a lower altitude, slow and steady, taking
your time. And many or most times, trying to do that over a German
city meant your death. So, often, attack bombers flew higher, and
tried to saturate an area in hopes that at least a few of their bombs
hit the intended target.

For some time things settled down to what might be described best as a
viscious, all out, no holds barred, slug out and battle of shear will
power. Who could inflict the most damage, and who could withstand the
most punishment and still hold out til the end and emerge as the
winner? Neither side willing to give an inch until they absolutely
had to, no choice.

Thus, decisions were made. And Dresden and other places happened.
Despite the fact that while one group argued they had no real choice
and argued that the Germans themselves had targeted innocent
civilians; and the other side pointed out that international
agreements barring the -deliberate- targeting of innocent civilians
had been violated.

In the end, after the war, BTW, that argument was held for some time.
But there was no clear cut resolution. One of the issues at hand was
that Germany had in fact been the aggressor, and had themselves
violated the targeting of civilian things. And the other issue was
that at the time no one could think of a viable, workable, reliable,
alternative method that would have worked and still have brought
Germany to it's knees and willing to make peace. Hitler, and his
cohorts seemingly were willing to allow massive numbers of Germans to
die as long as he and his cohorts prevailed in the end.

I know of no one, among many WW2 vets I've known who felt good about
such attacks. The only thing they felt proud of was that they'd
prevailed and won and that a regime which killed countless people had
been defeated.

However, that event, and others you mentioned, left a sour taste in
EVERYBODY's mouth. And it was generally agreed upon by everyone that
such things should be avoided if at all possible in the future.

Viet Nam brought the issue up again. Tho technology had much
improved. We were much better at selective targeting. But no one
disagreed with the fact that this was not good enough. And that at
times methods were used that included saturation bombing, and that too
many bombs missed even when we tried more accurate bomb delivery
methods.

Yes, part of the issue was, on the part of the military, that more
accurate bombs meant more reliably killing enemy combatants or
destroying their war supplies. But that was FAR from the only
thoughts. It was always on the minds of those concerned that we wished
to avoid hitting innocent civilians. NOT, just because of
international law. Actually that was the least of it. The major
thought on this was because it was the right thing to do. One should
do what was necessary to avoid hitting innocents whenever one could.
It was the right thing, and the moral thing to do.

So a lot of time, money and effort went into developing better, and
more accurate weapons. And into training soldiers, sailors, and
airmen in better techniques and tactics and decision making. One of
the reasons we started training soldiers specifically for, and having
them practice tactics in cities where they'd face situations where
they needed to find an enemy hiding among civilians. And having them
develop and pratice techniques which we hoped would minimize
casualties among the innocent.

Which, realistically, is not possible to eliminate altogether.

Despite political rhetoric from those who use such to further
themselves, BTW, international agreements and understandings recognize
this fact. That -some- innocent casualties are, in fact, unavoidable.
What the rules call for is that one does not -deliberately- target
innocent civilians, and that one take every rasonable means to avoid
hitting them. "Reasonable" means. That does not mean a soldier is
asked to commit the equivalent of suicide to avoid hitting a civilian.
That is asked of no one. Not even policemen operate under those
rules.

The Al Qaeda -deliberately- targets civilians. Period. End of
subject. And we are committed to stopping this. And are trying our
best to accomplish it the the best, most moral fashion we can. But
are also dedicated to stopping what we consider their deliberate
murders of innocent civilians.

We held back, back when they were mostly targeting our military folks,
members of government (State Department and such), and so forth.
While we did not like it. Those were at least legitimate or
semi-legitimate targets. LONG ago we could have done what we've done
since 9/11. But restrainned ourselves.

I'm not saying we're a perfect people, and have no faults, or that
we're innately superior just because we're Americans.

I am saying we've tried, poorly at times, to be fair and reasonable,
and to work these things out. Some may not agree with us and that is
fine.

But this changes nothing. The Al Qaeda stepped over the line when
they began to deliberately target innocent civilians and we intend to
respond to that. Period. And have been. And have been prosecuting
them the best we can while trying to do so within the rules that the
international community has set. Which is more than can be said by
the terrorists.

If we truly did not care, if we took the stand and stance Al Qaeda and
their affliates have taken, trust me, we could have created such death
and destruction as the world has never seen. Death and destruction
such as what the Al Qaeda WISH they could sow upon others. And wish
they had the means to do.

Instead, we chose a more difficult route and method. Which has
resulted in many of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen dying when we
could have used a different means. And has resulted in great monetary
cost to us, many soldiers, sailors, and airmen being separated from
their familes and enduring hardships, etc.

We are doing our best. That is all I can say. But have no intention
of letting such terrorists have their way. We even gave Saddam a
chance to come to the table, in HONESTY, and come clean. He refused.
You can see the result.

Now, you may disagree, and that'd fine. That's your right.

But this has been my side of the story, what I believe and think.

Please, don't give me any BS about Al Qaeda having some valid position
because of past wrongs done to them. You probably don't want to go
there. Such arguments are usually bogus and counterproductive to
decreasing hate and discontent, anyway. Nobody can change the past,
nor even make up for it. The past is past. What counts is where do
we go from here, to settle things and establish peace so folks can get
on with their lives.

If you choose the BS arguments about past wrongs, and thus Al Qaeda
has some moral grounds for their actions. Then you bring up a bunch
of other issues and possible future strife, hatred, and more killing.

If Al Qaeda can claim justification for their actions due to past
wrongs. Then _I_ can claim the same. And maybe use it for
justification to come to YOUR home and murder you and your family and
seize your property. And then ask the world to forgive me and look
the other way.

Is this the sort of thing you want?

Bob

OT-John Kerry
 

"ATP" wrote in message
. net...
Peter Reilley wrote:
"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Do they now believe Israel has a right to be a racist state?

Pete.

Racist state ??? I don't think so. Racist states are China, Japan,
numerous Arab & African countries etc. Israel could be a tribalist
state.. maybe. But then who isn't ( a little) ? :o). Judaism isn't
a race, in case you're wondering. Hint: it's a religion
Greg Sefton

Israel is the worst racist state. Is that OK for you? Other
countries may
not have flawless records on this subject including the US. Only
Israel is enforcing it's racist policies with genocide,
assassinations, and torture.

Pete.

Then they're not very efficient at genocide. BTW, I'm no friend of Israel,
I
think you're way overstating your case.


You do have a point. Until now they have engaged on only trial runs, Sabra
and Shatila, so as to gage world opinion. Since the US did not complain
very much and Bush called the man responsible, Sharon, "A man of peace",
Israel rightfully assumes that they have the green light for more genocide.

Israel is caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. The
demographics
of the situation is a problem that they must deal with if they are
to remain a Jewish (racist) state. Genocide is the only way of "adjusting"
the demographic equation.

Israel could have peace by giving the Palestinians their rights but they
don't seem inclined to go that way. Only genocide guarantees their
ethnic purity.

Pete.

OT-John Kerry
 

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

I don't understand your meaning. If foreigners aren't
likely to buy from us or sell to us, for whatever reason,
then we aren't likely to trade with them.

if two people are fighting each other, they will not have time to look
at what I have for sale.

OT-John Kerry
 

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 07:11:08 -0900, Offbreed
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

I don't understand your meaning. If foreigners aren't
likely to buy from us or sell to us, for whatever reason,
then we aren't likely to trade with them.

if two people are fighting each other, they will not have time to look
at what I have for sale.

That's true, but it hardly means it's our duty to make them
stop fighting.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.