Robatoy wrote:

In article ,
Tim Daneliuk wrote:


Well, let's see now. Setting aside the entirely inappropriate, rude,
and vicious tone of this rant, let's review the rather significant
*good* things the religions he mentions have accomplished:


First things first.
I learned a long time ago to be on the look-out for red herrings and
straw men.
I do not admire the writer, please don't use the old transparent
"discredit/shoot the messenger" routine. I posted the link to that rant
to illustrate the ridiculousness in what motivates some people to chose
certain paths to destroy themselves and others. Irony with an edge.
Sorry you missed my point.

I'm sorry as well ... I read it as an apologetic for the rant. My Bad.


I have read your posts in the past with a great deal of interest and I
appreciate your reply again this time. You are absolutely correct that
many wonderful things have been done by selfless, committed religious
people. I am aware of that. To use your words: I have
met and know some of these people personally. They are remarkably
brave, devout, and humble people, [snip]

What are the odds of Bush becoming the poster boy for a religious
faction doing the right thing?

The odds are small - but they *should* be. As the Chief Executive of our
government, his job is not to do the "right thing" because exactly what
is "right" is at least debatable and certainly not agreed to by everyone
in this nation. His sole job is to preserve Liberty by defending the
Constitution. In fact that's the only legitimate job for any of the
Federal government. By that measure, all three branches of government,
and all the regulatory agencies pretty much get a D-. The military gets
an A+ because they do exactly that 99% of the time.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

After I was discharged in February of '72, and became involved as a
Vet against the war in Vietnam, I wondered how we had become so
hardened to the nightly statistics during the news. Today they might
call it the virtualization of war I presume.

Thank-you Tom for having the courage to be honest, to remind us of the
thousands mourning the loss of life, the loss of hopes and dreams, the
loss....

Thanks,
Bc

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:49:16 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:

2000 Young Americans have now died since the beginning of this "War".

Why is it important to post this here?

21 more young Americans have died since I last posted the count, a
week ago.

Why is it important to post this here?

The demographics of the Wreck are very interesting.

We are old enough to have served in other wars.

We are old enough to have children and grandchildren who might be
called to serve in this "War".

We are old enough to know better.

We vote, we are smart, and we can make a difference if we try.

Why is it important to post this here?

The killing of our children in a "War" that has been entered into
without regard for probable cause, without a clear purpose, without a
description of victory - is no war that we want our children to be
involved in.

To those who would say that, "They enlisted, they know the mission." -
watch the current advertising for the military on television.

Is there a mention of dismemberment? Do they advertise the
possibility of death? Do the ads have the degree of disclosure of
possibilities that we would demand from those who would sell us drugs,
food, and tools?

Why is it important to post this here?

Yes, I have been big on keeping the Wreck free of political discourse.

This is not about politics.

This is about the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Some arguments transcend boundaries that once were useful.

Why is it important to post this here?



Isn't it obvious? And, yes, I will post an update every week, so set
your filters, if you are of such a mind.



For those who have served in the military, I would encourage them to
read the words of a man who grew up in my home town. A two time
Congressional Medal Of Honor recipient. A Marine who should have been
Commandant - but was too honest:

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm



Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Bc
pathwalkatcenturyteldotnet

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Bob Carter wrote:

After I was discharged in February of '72, and became involved as a
Vet against the war in Vietnam, I wondered how we had become so
hardened to the nightly statistics during the news. Today they might
call it the virtualization of war I presume.

Thank-you Tom for having the courage to be honest, to remind us of the
thousands mourning the loss of life, the loss of hopes and dreams, the
loss....

Thanks,
Bc



Yes, it's a real shame those pesky Kurds and Shiites aren't getting
butchered regularly like they used to. Long live the status quo.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

It is scary, isn't it? Would you trade you son or daughter for a purple
heart?
j4

I am confused.....are you asking if someone would trade a child for a
medal, as if the award were some valuable "trinket"? Or are you saying
that the sacrifice is somehow "equal" in value to receiving the purple
heart?

TWS wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:08:55 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , Patrick Conroy wrote:
wrote in :

How in the world, does the world deal with the faction of Islam which
believes that the conversion of whole world to Islam is necessary and
is demanded of them. And that the end justifies the means, including
any type of terror against Jews, Christians, and even other Islamic
woman and children.


By teaching the children otherwise.

I'd be interested in seeing your proposals for doing that...
Let's see...

By setting a good example for one thing.

Yes, we should be more like France and Russia and supply the dictator
with everything he needs to carry out his atrocities, take the money
and turn our back and pretend it isn't happening. Ever hear of the food
for oil scandal? Maybe we should set that kind of example.

It is not a very wise thing
for the only remaining superpower to act like an international bully
by bombing any country that makes us uneasy. Gaining global community
support not only is more effective at keeping the dictators in check
but also builds diplomatic capital with those countries who are(were)
friendly or neutral. Raging around the world, flexing our (weakening)
military muscles only weakens our relationship with those whose
support we need to REALLY fight international terrorism.

So how many more useless resolutions would you have the worthless UN
pass before finally doing something about them. Apparently fourteen
times of saying "Saddam, if you do this one more time, we're gonna...."
wasn't enough for you. If the UN wants to appear weak, let them. It
doesn't mean we have to. Thats why we formed this country, remember? We
don't have to go along with the Europeans or the UN. Ever see "Star
Wars"? Remember the cantina scene? All the corrupt space trash? Now
look at the UN and see the similarities.

Parenting is
hard work, being a bullying parent sounds like the easy way out but it
is only inviting disaster.

Next you're going to tell us it takes a village to raise a child,
right? My parents were often mean, bullying nonetheless loving parents
and I turned out just fine. Now on the other hand, I see plenty of ill
mannered little snots everywhere I go these days, disrespecting their
parents in public, telling them to "shut up", etc. These things never
went on in my formative years, and that wasn't so long ago.

It would be nice if the people who claim
to be patriots understood that the US can and should be a shining
example - of what's right with a constitutional democracy and not by
flaunting and abusing the advantage of strength we've built by being a
constitutional democracy.

OK, can't let this slide....we are not a democracy and we weren't
designed to be one by our constitution. We were given a republic by our
founding fathers. Someone asked Ben Franklin, "Mr. Franklin, what form
of government have you given us?" Ben said, "I have given you a
republic, if you can keep it." If you don't know the difference between
a democracy and a republic, blame your public schools, and then go look
it up.


But we get distracted - this was a discussion about Iraq - not about
Islamic terrorists. Saddam Hussein bore NO tolerance for any kind of
fundamentalism, Islamic or otherwise - to associate Iraq with Islamic
terrorism simply buys the BIG LIE we've been handed by this
administration (and his father).

The 9/11 commission even established a connection between Al Quaeda and
Iraq. Lets see here, Al Quaeda is a worldwide network with cells in a
majority of countries around the world (including the United States,
Canada, and the UK). But naturally they didn't exist in
Iraq.....right? By the way, if you believe that, I have a beach front
condo in the middle of Kansas you might be interested in.

Sure, Saddam was perfectly willing
to make deals with any enemies of the US but he was also smart enough
to keep his hands (and borders) clean because he knew any appearance
of explicit support for terrorism would bring the US might onto his
head. The irony is that the invasion of Iraq actually OPENED the
borders of Iraq to Al Queada. Before, the situation was controlled,
now it's a f**king mess with 2000+ US soldiers paying the ultimate
price for the current administration's egotism and lack of foresight.

So what is your solution? I hear people slam Bush for his "egotism and
lack of foresight", but I never hear any other plan. At least he is
doing something, and not just talking about it. Puzzling, isn't it? As
I recall, even democrats voted in favor of this war. And yes, soldiers
have died. It tends to happen in a war you know. And before you call me
a chicken hawk, I'll have you know that I was there the first time
around in 91'. We should be ashamed as Americans for pulling out the
first time. It lead to the deaths of countless thousands of Iraqis at
the hands of this guy you seem to have so much admiration for. They
thought we were going to help them then, and they rose up only to watch
us pull out and almost say "just kidding!". In my eyes, this is setting
the record straight with the Iraqi people. It is an atonement for the
sin of the elder Bush.

Thanks,

DJ



TWS

On 27 Oct 2005 21:37:30 -0700, wrote:

snip
By setting a good example for one thing.

Yes, we should be more like France and Russia

It figures that anyone who considers bullying a reasonable solution
would also consider the only alternative is to be a wuss.

TWS

In article .com,
wrote:

Lets see here, Al Quaeda is a worldwide network with cells in a
majority of countries around the world (including the United States,
Canada, and the UK). But naturally they didn't exist in
Iraq.....right?

By that flawed, snot-nosed logic, the US shouldn't attack some more
countries with a few Al Qaeda members in it? Like Canada? We'll never
notice a little DU around our uranium mines..

The bulk of the terrorists flying the planes were Saudis. Saudi Arabia
has had Al Qaeda cells on their soil...why not bomb them, Mr. Jazz?

(I just love the imagery..."So why not bomb the Saudis,
Mr.Jazz?"..silhouettes, cigar smoke..could be a line from Kubrick's Dr.
Strangelove.)

The fact that you were at the First Gulf War doesn't qualify you as a
rational thinker, bub, as your other paragraphs so clearly demonstrate.

There's a fair bit of military history in my family/ancestry, unlike the
kid down the street who came back all thrilled and wide-eyed, because he
got to "kill real people"

As I have opined here before, there are reasons to go to war. [sarcasm
switch=ON] To have a daddyBush who is on the board of The Carlisle
Group, a company which handles investment portfolios for oil wealth and
invests it in things like defence contractors, had NOTHING to do with
starting any kind of war. (Other members include James Baker..yup, same
one who negotiated a Florida victory for Shrub in 2000, Carlucci,
Powell, the list is a who's who of political influence..google Carlisle
Group..you'll have chills....)
Just like Dick Cheney's stock-options in Halliburton had nothing to do
with starting a war either. Along the same lines, there was NO influence
on behalf of Israel via a group of neocons to kick a little butt in the
Middle East. [sarcasm switch=OFF]

Afghanistan to the north, Iraq in the south..almost ready to build that
pipe-line from the Caspian oilfields to the Gulf..ooops..Iran is in the
way....better get that oil before the Chinese go for it....(All that
IMHO *is* a reason to capture some strategic positions, but stop
insulting people by trying to sell them lies based on forged yellow cake
documents.) It's the arrogance that blows up MY skirt.
("these idiot minions will swallow anything") Isn't it Tim Daneliuk in
here who refers to them as sheeple? If so, I'm steeling the
contrac(p)tion. In my country, the sheeple have strong questions like "
oh, wow, man, will that **** with the price of beer, dude?" or " How
about those Maple Leafs, eh?" " That's one sweet ogee bit you're
spinning there, dude" ^5's

You know... important stuff.

Wow..that's some strong tea I'm drinking here... off to the shop to make
some money for the ShopBot fund.

David Sizemore wrote:
It is scary, isn't it? Would you trade you son or daughter for a purple
heart?
j4


I am confused.....are you asking if someone would trade a child for a
medal, as if the award were some valuable "trinket"? Or are you saying
that the sacrifice is somehow "equal" in value to receiving the purple
heart?

It's a trinket. Good analogy for which I thank you. It says that your
child was blown away for good reason or no good reason, depending upon
how you feel about the latest war. Good night and good luck.
sigh,
jo4hn