wrote:

And, for the fourth time, I state that I mistakenly referred to the
Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

Right, I got that. Sorry.

No, it implied that you believed investigations and fact-finding
were part of an impeachment hearing.

No ****! And you don't?

Look, the context of our back-n-forth has been jumbled by mistakes that both
you and I have made.... probably from writing too fast to catch the
mistakes. I don't have the desire to continue this discussion which is
encumbered by misconstrued text and trying to back-track on mistakes made.
If we were talking face-to-face the mistakes would take no time at all to
correct, and the discussion would stay on track. The writing and waiting for
a response then slogging through interminable text just ain't working for me
right now. My bad. I guess you can have the last word :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
|| Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:
||
||| Morris Dovey wrote:
||||
|||| I understand your desire for retribution for wrongs; as well as
|||| your loathing of evil and your desire to eliminate it. I also
|||| understand that you would impose your own personal notion of
|||| justice (and perhaps your own personal definition of evil) on all
|||| the rest of the world.
|||
||| Not the case, or at least not as you frame it. The only "evil" for
||| which I see redress is that "evil" which causes harm to others.
||| For instance, I think drug abuse is "evil" in that is causes
||| great harm to the individual abusing the drug. But until/unless
||| their drug abuse causes harm to others, I seek no legal (i.e.,
||| forceful) remediation. In the matter of geopolitics, I similarly
||| do not see it as our (the democratic West) job to intervene
||| until/unless the actions of other people or nations jeopardizes
||| that democratic West.
||
|| That's a form of isolationism that I don't think will work.
|
| It worked really well until 1899 when TR decided we needed to stick
| our beak into everyone else's business. It's been downhill ever
| since.
|
|| Interventions are seldom welcome; and we would do well to
|| participate as members of a global community intervention team.
|| Unilateral interventions should only be done as a last ditch
|| desperation effort.
|
| Intervention in the terms I described - when necessary to remediate
| threat against the democratic West - ought never to rarely to be
| a group grope. The nations under threat should act as unilaterally
| as
| they wish. The planet is not some Harvard debating society and
| feeling good about how we're all one happy planet is not the point.

Group grope? I'm not certain what you're trying to imply by that.
Acting unilaterally invites anyone and everyone who might have
objections to retalliate against the nation so acting, either
separately or in concert. The US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq would
have played very differently without the in-theater support of allies.
I would suggest you re-examine the information.

||| The thing that makes the current situation difficult is that the
||| threat is a gathering and growing one with very real potential for
||| global nuclear holocaust. The moral question is analogous to this:
||| If you're in a bar and someone threatens you, just *when* do you
||| have the right to act forcefully? Assuming they have the means to
||| carry out their threat ("threat" is only meaningful if the
||| capacity to deliver the promise exists), do you wait until you've
||| actually been struck by the beer bottle or can you act during the
||| backswing? What is distressing about this entire debate is that
||| the political Right wants to use this as an excuse to "deliver"
||| the enemy into democracy, which clearly does not work. By
||| contrast, the Left seems to want to wait until we're actually
||| bleeding on the bar counter before acting, and in the mean time
||| have some silly nuanced discussion about whether our domestic
||| legal protections ought to be invoked. What is rarely discussed
||| is the dimension of the asymmetric threat in a nuclear world
||| connected by travel, transportation, and techology. In this case,
||| the "beer bottle" once delivered will be devastating.
||
|| Your assessment seems to be unduly pessimistic; which doesn't mean
|| that you're necessarily wrong - but I just don't think the actual
|| threat level is really so high.
|
| I repeat - the threat *today* is not that high. But the threat
| *tomorrow* will be higher than at any time in human history for
| a few simple reasons:
|
| 1) The suicidal eschatology of the Islamic radicals.
|
| 2) Technology, communications, and travel make the planet a
| very small place.
|
| 3) The Islamification of Europe as the existing populations dwindle
| having failed to reproduce effectively. This gives the radicals
| a large land and population base (in the future) from which to
| operate.
|
| Combine those three, and add the availability of a nuclear weapon.
| I repeat: You get the highest threat level known to mankind in all
| of history. Even in the Cold War, the players - who had lots of
| nukes - weren't suicidal maniacs. They wanted to survive. But when
| you have a tribal culture of fairly low sophistication (which
| describes
| a good part of the Islamic world), it's not hard to imagine nuclear
| holocaust in the name of Jihad.
|
||
|| I don't go to bars - in part because I really don't enjoy being
|| around ****faced people who can't control themselves. In the
|| relatively few
|
| Me either. I find drunks repulsive. I don't mind going into a bar,
| I just leave when the stupidity begins.
|
|| real life fights I've been in, I've tried first to avoid a fight
|| altogether, taken the first and only blow from an oponent, and then
|
| We cannot afford to take "the first blow" in the matters before us.
| The first nuclear blow will be fatal because it will trigger
| responses that will just escalate.

We are and will remain vulnerable to that first strike. As I assess
the situation, it'll likely _not_ be a nuclear explosion. In any
scenario, the choice of response will be ours to make.

|| fought berserk. I've never fought to inflict pain - I fight to end
|| the fight as quickly and decisively as possible.
|
||| Like you, I dislike much of what is going on at the moment, but
||| what choice do we realistically have? Do we wait for an
||| apocalyptic culture of suicidal maniacs to be armed to the point
||| that we have no choice but to respond with nuclear weapons? In
||| the real world the choice is not the Sunday School choice of
||| simple Good vs. Bad. It is the choice between Bad and Worse.
||
|| We have a number of choices: We can become culturally aware, learn
|| a bit of world history, and recognize that all peoples have
|| something to
|
| Sorry, I don't buy this kind of multiculturalist sentiment. The only
| thing the tribal savages of the Arab Penninsula and Africa have to
| teach us is that tribalism kills remorselessly and for no particular
| purpose.

My experience was very different. I lived on the Arab Peninsula (Saudi
Arabia, Al Hasa Province, Dhahran and Abqaiq) for a total of ten
years. Along with English and American History I studied Arabic,
French, and Middle Eastern history. I was an inquisitive lad; and
asked questions about everything I could imagine of everyone,
everywhere. I'm not an expert on the middle east; but I can assure you
that you're unbelievably wrong. Your ignorance can be understood. Your
prejudice and slander is shameful.

|| offer. We can be the kind of friend that no one wants to pick a
|| fight
|
| Please explain what reasonable/rational basis UBL and his followers
| had for picking a fight with us? We helped them fight the Soviets
| to get them out of Afghanistan. In the early 20th century, it was
| the
| West that provided the capital and know how to extract the oil
| from their stand that makes their nations so wealthy. It is sheer
| fantasy to believe that we can act in manner so nicely as to
| discourage evil people from acting against us. Evil has to be met
| with extreme prejudice and violence to be quelled. There are no
| counterexamples.

If you're really unaware of any rational basis, then you have a lot of
history to catch up on. I suggest skipping the crusades and fast
forewarding to the start of the twentieth century. If you decide that
you'd like to have an in-depth understanding, you'll need to back up
at least to the time of Moses.

That's a lot of history - and most Americans just aren't much
interested. Yet it set the stage for things that're happening today.
You aren't likely aware; but it was a Persian king who was responsible
for freeing the Judeans from Babylon, for allowing them to return to
Judea, even for encouraging them to build the temple in Jerusalem.
When they bogged down and lost heart, it was another Persian king who
sent a priest/lawgiver who brought with him the beginning of the
Talmud. While this may be of little interest to many Americans, the
Persians were key to the development and survival of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. It is not my place to teach you history; but
if you intend to publicly spout value judgements, you should take the
trouble to know at least a little bit of the story. If you want to
understand them, then you need to understand that they never forgot
their contributions - and now that you have just that much of a
glimmer; I suggest a bit of reflection about how people who /do/ know
the whole history in detail might feel about how things are playing
today.

If you don't manage any more than just the first half of the twentieth
century, you'll have all the rational basis you might care to have.

How closely do you watch the news? Did you notice the types of
aircraft used to bomb Beirut, the UN outpost, and non-belligerent
targets? Are you so naive as to think that the civilians on the ground
hold only the Israeli pilots responsible?

|| with. We can look back at our own recent history and notice that
|| power flowed to us most rapidly when we empowered others; and
|| drained away most rapidly when we attempted to use our power to
|| control others. We can do a lot better job of listening to both
|| friends and adversaries.
|
| You are under the evil spell of the popular culture that says we
| are someone trying to "control others". I don't see it that way.
| Had the Islamic radicals not made war on us, especially on our own
| soil, Bush and his advisors could *never* had made the case to
| invade Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. I don't think most Americans
| of any political persuasion want to "control" any other part of
| the planet. We do, however, want to be left alone.

No, I'm not under any such spell. I've been watching closely since the
beginning of the pre Iraq invasion build-up. Evidence in favor of
controlling the territory far, far outweighs any evidence in favor of
helping the Iraqis have any kind of better life.

I have a personal story involving USAID that strongly reinforces my
conclusion. I had good reason to believe that I could be of help in
restoring some parts of the Iraqi infrastructure on a volunteer basis.
In brief, USAID wasn't interested in helping rebuild Iraqi
infrastructure.

||| The thing that makes this discussion so perverse is that the
||| neo-cons have conflated defense and "bringing stability and
||| democracy to the region". No wonder their critics shake their
||| heads in dismay. But, that said, no matter how lousy the
||| rationale', the general trajectory of stopping the disease before
||| it is an epidemic is a sound one. Given any realistic and
||| possible alternative, I'd support it, but I just don't see one.
||| Lockeian/Jeffersonian Liberty is and always should be our
||| inarguable guiding principle. But, it's not a suicide pact and
||| ugly conditions demand ugly responses.
||
|| There are possible ways of slowing down and ultimately stopping the
|| "disease"; but we'll first need to decide that's what we really
|| want to do...
||
|||| I've seen this before - and don't need more.
|||
||| I understand and share your angst for exactly the same reasons, I
||| suspect. But I find it telling that the relatively minor sins of
||| the West in these matters get magnified out of all proportion but
||| the very real and far more serious abuses of the asymmetric
||| warriors get's only a brief glance in the popular debate. As I've
||| said previously, one of the (many) reasons I've become so
||| completely disaffected with the political Left is that they have
||| utterly failed in their role as the "loyal opposition". Instead of
||| dissecting every small failing of the Bush administration, the US
||| Left should have been acting quietly and diplomatically within the
||| halls of power to steer a course everyone could live with. They
||| haven't. They've taken the stance that *anything* W and his crew
||| does is wrong with hope against hope they can regain majority
||| power. Their political ambition trumps the good of democracy.They
||| are contemptible for this. (N.B. That the neo-cons, however wrong
||| you think they are, have *not* done this. They have taken a
||| position and stuck to it in the face of great political pressure
||| and possible loss of power.) Unfortunately, this means that, at
||| least for now, the neo-cons get it all their way. I find this
||| chilling, but not as chilling as doing nothing while we argue
||| about whether US Code applies to Jamal The Suicide Bomber ...
||
|| The sins of the West are "relatively minor" only to westerners.
|| There are cultural issues at play with no shortage of ignorance and
|| misunderstanding at any side.
|
| Our sins are minor by any objective scale. The human rights abuses
| and generally awful behavior in a good part of the rest of the world
| make our sins vanish into the rounding error. The fact that some
| tribal religious nut wants to magnify them to get people to not
| notice his own murderous behavior does not change this.

Ever see Beirut before the first Israeli bombing? I have - and I
understand why it was called the "Paris of the Mediterranean". It was
a beautiful city, bustling with tourists and business people from all
over the world. Seen it lately? How does it make you feel to know that
your tax dollars provided the foreign aid to purchase the weapons that
did the damage? Not very long ago (a year?) I read that we shipped the
Israelis 25 F-16 fighter planes. Do you have /any/ idea how much death
and destruction can be (or has been) inflicted with that many Vipers?
If you and your family lived in Beirut, how "minor" a sin would you
have considered delivery of that capability into the hands of the
destroyers?

I'd suggest that committing lesser sins than someone else does not
make your sins go away, as you suggest - unless you have some insights
into the nature of sin that everyone else has missed.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

On 6 Oct 2006 14:34:49 -0700, wrote:

... snip

If so, then he was never misidentified as a Republican right?


No Fred, but there were sure a lot of graphics from the MSM with
Toricelli identified as Toricelli (Rep - NJ)

So what's your point and why are you frothing at the mouth
about it?


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 16:23:27 -0700, "Dave Bugg" wrote:

wrote:

It's only petty if you consider accusing a man of being
an internet pervert is somehow worse than accusing him
of being a Democrat....

That's a nice try at trying to side-step into another reality. However, my
comments were based on buffoons who seem to think that some sorta graphic
title screw-up is a conspiracy rather than accepting that it is just a
screw-up. Whether it is ABC, NBC or FOX or republican or democrat. Any of it
is petty.

Dave, I'd agree with you, particularly over a *single* instance as cited
in this instance. In other instances, this has gone on for quite some time
(one indicted/accused democrat representative was always identified as
so-and-so (Rep -- state)) I inadvertently thought it was Toricelli, but he
was a Senator at the time, it was one of the other democrat representatives
who was caught up in some scandal. This is not as benign as it appears,
especially when you look at the number of people (read - voters) who get
their news only from a few main stream media outlets and form their
opinions based upon a few 30 second sound bites. By not identifying the
party, or as in the case I cited, using Rep (for representative), someone
half paying attention will associate the accused with the Republican party
rather than their actual party and thus, by association cast aspersion on
that party. Probably not good for an overwhelming flood of voting, but
certainly helps buy a few percentage points. Now, in the case of the Foley
scandal, I can't believe that a single incident falls into the "conspiracy"
realm. The cases I have seen of this have gone on for days and weeks with
the news anchors rarely, if ever mentioning the party affiliation of the
accused if of one party and mentioning it in every other sentence if they
were members of the other party. I haven't watched Fox news for quite some
time, but reading their web page, they don't remotely fall into the realm
of conservative bias. Almost all of their articles are the same Al AP and
Al Reuters newswire stories everybody else carries with the exact biases
those services have.




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:08:00 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Larry Blanchard (in ) said:
||
||| Morris Dovey wrote:
|||
|||| It would seem that you've not noticed the rather large number of
|||| men and women who valued our principles more highly than their
|||| personal survival - and the lesser (but still awesomely large)
|||| number who did not, in fact, survive - all so that you and I
|||| might live in what you so casually refer to as "fantasyland".
|||
||| Well said. But to be fair it must be noted that the terrorists
||| are also willing to die for their principles - or at least for
||| their religion. Ones dedication to a principle does not
||| necessarily prove the validity of that principle.
||
|| Of course - and yet the very existance of a principle as such
|| indicates that there is some strong cultural validation. When such
|| a situation arises, it would seem to me that both sides need to
|| learn more about the (other's) culture and the context in which
|| that validation took place.
|
| Well, from their "holy" book, here is the negotiating position
| that the Jihadis offer:
| In order to avoid future attacks, you can make one of the
| following 3 choices:
| 1) Convert to islam. They are will then welcome you as a brother
| among themselves.
| 2) Acknowledge your defeat, pay them the head tax (jizya) and they
| will allow you to live in your "false" faith as a second class
| citizen under their rule. Be well assured, you will be a second
| class citizen, subject to the whim of their faith. The bleating
| from the left about the "fascist" Bush is absolutely silly -- these
| folks are for real. Try finding the First Baptist Church of Mecca,
| or Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Medina. Look at the laws in places
| like Indonesia and others controlled by these people.
| 3) Refuse to bow to their will; they are then free to kill you,
| anywhere, anytime.

And yet, during my entire ten year stay in Suadi Arabia, I was never
asked to convert to Islam. My Christianity was not merely tolerated
but accepted as a natural part of my makeup.

As a pre-teen and young teenager I visited Hofuf and Al Khobar alone
and unmolested. I visited with shopkeepers and was probably a PIA
because of all the questions I asked; but never - repeat never - was I
/treated/ like a PIA. My inquisitiveness did draw a few smiles; but it
also produced invitations to share coffee or tea and conversation.

Oh yes, I went to Sunday school and attended protestant worship
services every Friday. We called the services "Fellowship Services"
and the Saudis were aware when and where the services were held. The
RC "Fellowship Services" were held in the same place a half hour after
the protestant "Fellowship Services" ended.

| OK, now, what is your counter-offer? Oh, and just to make it
| interesting, realize that lying to "khafirs" (infidels) is not only
| accepted and sanctioned, it is advocated in their religious
| teachings. So, any agreements or contracts you sign with these
| people is subject to revocation at their whim. So, your
| counter-offer and your decision regarding the "solemn agreement"
| they will make with you?

And for all of that I can't recall even a single instance of having
been lied to, stolen from, or cheated by a Moslem /ever/ in Arabia.
Gee, you don't suppose I got singled out for some kind of special
treatment?

| Realize that for the people committing these acts and the
| countries that harbor them or are controlled by them, islam is more
| than just a religion; it *is* their whole culture and way of life.
| From enslaving their women in the hajib and burka to the rejection
| of all things islam to the way they treat their criminals. The
| sharia law is their whole goal and the spread of islam to the
| entire world is their raison' de' etre'. Unfortunately, unlike
| orthodox Christianity in its evangelism, islam is founded on
| spreading by the sword and killing those who fail to convert is
| absolutely condoned. [yeah, I know about the inquisition --- that
| does *not* count as orthodox Christianity, there was nothing
| scriptural about that activity]. Take a look at the current islamic
| rise in France and England; once these groups get power in small
| regions to implement sharia, they will spread and attempt to
| implement that in larger regions as well. Note that in those
| countries, the groups aren't calling for equal rights, they are
| calling for extra rights and the ability to live outside of the
| rest of the cultural norm.

s Yeah, we all know this stuff - the problem is that when I was
there I saw no evidence of any of it. The adult male Saudis that I met
loved their families but appropriately didn't share (and I didn't pry)
intimate details. My mother visited (by invitation) with arab women
and wouldn't say much about it to me other than to say that they
seemed like good and happy people. Mom was _the_ anti-gossip and
wasn't bashful about telling me that some things were "none of your
business."

| The silence from the "moderate" muslims condemning these acts is
| deafening. While there are a few moderate voices, they are few and
| far between and very often accompanied by a whole bunch of "but
| monkeys". i.e. "but you have to understand ... " "but you don't
| realize their ... " etc.

I suspect that if I were a Muslim, I'd probably decide that discretion
was the better part of valor, too. They also watched the 89 people of
'different' religious conviction die in Waco. Hell, that even made me
wary.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

wrote in
oups.com:


Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:
snip

It's only petty if you consider accusing a man of being
an internet pervert is somehow worse than accusing him
of being a Democrat....


hmmm

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 22:17:08 -0500, "Morris Dovey" wrote:

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:08:00 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Larry Blanchard (in ) said:
||
||| Morris Dovey wrote:
|||
|||| It would seem that you've not noticed the rather large number of
|||| men and women who valued our principles more highly than their
|||| personal survival - and the lesser (but still awesomely large)
|||| number who did not, in fact, survive - all so that you and I
|||| might live in what you so casually refer to as "fantasyland".
|||
||| Well said. But to be fair it must be noted that the terrorists
||| are also willing to die for their principles - or at least for
||| their religion. Ones dedication to a principle does not
||| necessarily prove the validity of that principle.
||
|| Of course - and yet the very existance of a principle as such
|| indicates that there is some strong cultural validation. When such
|| a situation arises, it would seem to me that both sides need to
|| learn more about the (other's) culture and the context in which
|| that validation took place.
|
| Well, from their "holy" book, here is the negotiating position
| that the Jihadis offer:
| In order to avoid future attacks, you can make one of the
| following 3 choices:
| 1) Convert to islam. They are will then welcome you as a brother
| among themselves.
| 2) Acknowledge your defeat, pay them the head tax (jizya) and they
| will allow you to live in your "false" faith as a second class
| citizen under their rule. Be well assured, you will be a second
| class citizen, subject to the whim of their faith. The bleating
| from the left about the "fascist" Bush is absolutely silly -- these
| folks are for real. Try finding the First Baptist Church of Mecca,
| or Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Medina. Look at the laws in places
| like Indonesia and others controlled by these people.
| 3) Refuse to bow to their will; they are then free to kill you,
| anywhere, anytime.

And yet, during my entire ten year stay in Suadi Arabia, I was never
asked to convert to Islam. My Christianity was not merely tolerated
but accepted as a natural part of my makeup.

As a pre-teen and young teenager I visited Hofuf and Al Khobar alone
and unmolested. I visited with shopkeepers and was probably a PIA
because of all the questions I asked; but never - repeat never - was I
/treated/ like a PIA. My inquisitiveness did draw a few smiles; but it
also produced invitations to share coffee or tea and conversation.

Oh yes, I went to Sunday school and attended protestant worship
services every Friday. We called the services "Fellowship Services"
and the Saudis were aware when and where the services were held. The
RC "Fellowship Services" were held in the same place a half hour after
the protestant "Fellowship Services" ended.


You realize that it not the Saudis that we are fighting, right? Those
Saudis who flew the planes into the towers were not acting at the behest of
the Saudi government. The Saudis do contribute to the problem through
their support of Wahabbism, but they are careful not to do so within their
own boundaries.

Now, if you were a Saudi citizen, how would you have been treated had you
openly attended Sunday School or other "Fellowship Services"? Also, how
would the Saudis have treated you had you offered to share details of your
faith? Not in a pushy way, but just sharing?

Indonesia has laws that prohibit Christians from openly evangelizing or
sharing their faith. The converse is not true.

Back to the point, it's not the Saudis, or the Kuwaities, or the UAE
citizens that are the issue and they aren't the ones openly and actively
pushing the concept of jihad on the west (they may be quietly supporting
and abetting, but that's a different issue). They aren't the ones who are
going to be issuing the ultimatums --- it's those who are pursuing the
radical agenda that are going to be making those offers.


| OK, now, what is your counter-offer? Oh, and just to make it
| interesting, realize that lying to "khafirs" (infidels) is not only
| accepted and sanctioned, it is advocated in their religious
| teachings. So, any agreements or contracts you sign with these
| people is subject to revocation at their whim. So, your
| counter-offer and your decision regarding the "solemn agreement"
| they will make with you?

And for all of that I can't recall even a single instance of having
been lied to, stolen from, or cheated by a Moslem /ever/ in Arabia.
Gee, you don't suppose I got singled out for some kind of special
treatment?



| Realize that for the people committing these acts and the
| countries that harbor them or are controlled by them, islam is more
| than just a religion; it *is* their whole culture and way of life.
| From enslaving their women in the hajib and burka to the rejection
| of all things islam to the way they treat their criminals. The
| sharia law is their whole goal and the spread of islam to the
| entire world is their raison' de' etre'. Unfortunately, unlike
| orthodox Christianity in its evangelism, islam is founded on
| spreading by the sword and killing those who fail to convert is
| absolutely condoned. [yeah, I know about the inquisition --- that
| does *not* count as orthodox Christianity, there was nothing
| scriptural about that activity]. Take a look at the current islamic
| rise in France and England; once these groups get power in small
| regions to implement sharia, they will spread and attempt to
| implement that in larger regions as well. Note that in those
| countries, the groups aren't calling for equal rights, they are
| calling for extra rights and the ability to live outside of the
| rest of the cultural norm.

s Yeah, we all know this stuff - the problem is that when I was
there I saw no evidence of any of it. The adult male Saudis that I met
loved their families but appropriately didn't share (and I didn't pry)
intimate details. My mother visited (by invitation) with arab women
and wouldn't say much about it to me other than to say that they
seemed like good and happy people. Mom was _the_ anti-gossip and
wasn't bashful about telling me that some things were "none of your
business."


You are aware of the riots in France, the push for allowing various
communities in London and areas in Canada to be ruled by sharia? Those
folks aren't playing "good and happy people" nor are they assimilating into
the countries into which they have emigrated -- they are attempting to get
those countries to conform to *their* culture.

I have also read other first-person accounts of dealings with the Arab
world. One of the most telling statements was, "I found that I liked them,
but couldn't respect them". I also know, through my wife's acquaintances,
a woman whose husband was in Saudi -- she had very interesting observations
regarding their views of western women.

| The silence from the "moderate" muslims condemning these acts is
| deafening. While there are a few moderate voices, they are few and
| far between and very often accompanied by a whole bunch of "but
| monkeys". i.e. "but you have to understand ... " "but you don't
| realize their ... " etc.

I suspect that if I were a Muslim, I'd probably decide that discretion
was the better part of valor, too. They also watched the 89 people of
'different' religious conviction die in Waco. Hell, that even made me
wary.

You have got to be kidding.

We have Time magazine fabricate a story about desecrating the Koran and
the muslims seethe, rage, riot and burn churches and kill people.

We have somebody draw cartoons and the muslim world seethes, burns
churches and kills people.

A pope makes a statement referencing an 13'th century pope's comments
regarding how islam tends to be violent and we get muslims seething,
rioting, burning churches, and killing people. Then they make the
statement that anyone calling their religion violent should have their head
cut off.

Now, you might say that the moderates are afraid of these people, but at
the same time, that doesn't speak well for the direction that religion is
taking, does it? Somehow you tie their failure to speak out to Janet
Reno's attack on Waco?

You still haven't provided your answer; given the jihadi's going-in
negotiating position, what is your counter-offer? Simply saying, weill I
was in Saudi Arabia and they are really nice people who didn't bother me is
not going to work.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

wrote in
oups.com:


Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:


Regardless, it appears that you are aguing that one or more
Articles of Impeachment must be introduced before the House could
hold hearings to investigate allegation of impeachable acts.

No, that's not what I am saying.

That is just plain wrong.

The House could, and should, investigate and gather evidence before
any Articles of Impeachment are introduced.

That is what I said.

Yet you contradict that below, when you say that impeachment
hearings follow the introduction of Articles of Impeachment.


Indeed, that is just
what the House Judiciary Committee did during Watergate.

Yes. But again you had stated, "Sufficient evidece to support an
impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear *until after the
impeachment hearing had begun"*.

And, for the fourth time, I state that I mistakenly referred to the
Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.





... But, unlike what
you had stated, discovery of facts are not undertaken *after*
the Articles are presented to the House. After the Articles are
presented, the facts in evidence are judged by the House members
to either support or not support impeachment.

I did not state that "discovery of facts are undertaken *after*
the Articles are presented to the House. " Nor did I state
anything that reasonably could be interpretted as such.

When you stated "Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment of
Richard Nixon did not appear until after the impeachment hearing
had begun", I reasonably interpreted such.

That interpretation is unreasonable because it presuposes that
Articles
of Impeachment MUST be introduced before the House could hold
hearings to investigate allegations of impeachable acts.

No, it implied that you believed investigations and fact-finding were
part of an impeachment hearing.

No ****! And you don't?

Investigation and fact-finding are (ostensibly) the function
of all Congressional hearings.

Seriously, why do you suppose the House commitees hold
hearings and call witnesses to testify if not to investigate and
find facts?

BTW,
I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.


My statement was erroneous, because the House never conducted
'impeachment hearings' per se, for the impeachment of Richard
Nixon. E.g. I incorrectly called the Watergate hearings,
Impeachment hearings.
I corrected that error in my next article, and then in the next
article after
that pointed out to you that I had done so. Here we are three (3)
articles
later and you are still writing as if I had never corrected that
error.

You may have thought you corrected the error, but it didn't read that
way.

It still appears that you didn't read it at all.

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.

Now I see that.

You see what, exactly?

I hope you see:

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.

But since three times were not sufficient to get that through to you,
I have repeated it four more times.

Do you get it yet?


Regardless, had Nixon not resigned, the House Judiciary Committee
undoubtrable would have voted to send one or more Articles of
Impeachment
to the House for debate.

Even if Nixon had not resigned and had been impeached, there is no
reason to suppose that 'impeachment hearings' would ever have been
held. The Watergate hearings were sufficient to produce the
evidence needed for Articles of Impeachment.

Sigh... Articles of Impeachment ARE what impeachment hearings are
based on. There is NO impeachment unless the Articles of Impeachment
are heard in the House, and the House members vote, by a simple
majority, to *accept* the Articles of Impeachment.

What do you mean by heard?

Are you seriously suggesting that if the House Judiciary committee
had voted to send Articles of Impeachment to the floor the House
would have sent them back to committee for more hearings?
Why would they not have proceeded to debate the Articles based
on the evidence developed durig the Watergate hearings?


Moreover the historical
example I presented, that of the House Judiciary Comittee's
Watergate hearings, is an example of Articles of Impeachment
being introduced
after evidence was discovered, not befor

But, Articles of Impeachment were NOT introduced to the House.
Nixon resigned prior to that event

Three articles were introduced into the committee, without
'impeachment hearings' per se, being held. There is no reason to
suppose that the committee would have adjourned the Watergate
investigation and then
held impeachment hearings before sending the Articles to the House
for debate.

What don't you get about the fact that there IS no impeachment
hearing UNTIL Articles of Impeachment are filed into the House.

What do mean by 'filed'?

One of the many things you don't get, is that hearings of any sort
are not required. It is possible for an Article of Impeachment to be
introduced to the floor of the House, the measure debated, and
then passed, without ever any hearings being held. Hell, even
debate is optional, if no one in the House cares to speak on the
matter it could go straight to a vote. Depending on the rules of
procedure, a vote per se may not even be needed. The person
introducing the Article of Impeachment could request that it
be passed by unanimous consent, and if no one objects,
it would. Unwise and improbable, but possible.

However if hearings are held, they are held to develop the evidence
upon which Articles of Impeachment are based. The Articles
of Impeachment are developed during or after the hearings, not
before.




The sequence of events was:

Watergate hearings by the House judiciary committee.

Articles of Impeachment introduced into the House Judiciary
Committee

Wrong. Articles of Impeachment were NEVER introduced into the House
Committee.

We disagree. Three Articles of Impeachment were intoduced into the
House Judiciary Committee, debated and passed by that Committee
by votes of 27-11, 28-10, and 27-17, respectively.

The full text may be read he
http://watergate.info/impeachment/im...articles.shtml


Nixon resigned.

Right. He resigned prior to any Articles being developed.

What do you mean by 'developed'?

Three Articles of Impeachment were passed by the House Judiciary
Committee.

I don't know if being passed by the committe qualifies as
being heard, filed, or developed, nor do I care. They were passed
by the committee and sent to the floor of the House for
debate.


Had Nixon not resigned then the follwoing sequence is likely:


Actually, I was wrong again, that which follows below DID happen.

Articles of Impeachment sent from teh Judiciary Committee to
the floor of the House for debate.

THEN Nixon resigned mooting the issue
prior to the House intiating the debate.


One or more Articles of Impeachment passed by the House.

No 'impeachment hearings' per se.

Huh? Do the Articles just hang around? After Articles are introduced,
there HAS to be a hearing in order for the House to procede to a vote
on the matter.

Wrong. Once a measure is on the floor the time for hearings
has ended and the time for debate has begun. The House
COULD send the matter back to committee which then COULD
hold more hearings but that would be the exception and not
at all likely in the posited hypothetical.

Why would one set of hearings be held to develop the evidence
needed to write the Aritcles of Impeachment and then a second
set of hearings held to re-confirm that same evidence?


Articles of Impeachment do not precede investigation, they are
written (or not) based on evidence developed during the
investigation.

Now you are trying to lecture me on what I have already told you.

That is because you keep contradicting yourself.




...

Please cite the House rules which allow the majority to do this.
Quite the contrary, the minority has procedural abilities to
conduct whatever hearings and factfinding is necessary in cases
of misdeeds
by the Executive branch.

Please cite the House Rules that allow a minority on a committee
to conduct hearings before a House committee, when the majority
of committee members vote against doing so.

...snip of requests for citations

Sure. I'll show you mine when you show me yours.


Mine is consistent with the general principle of majority rule.

Yours is consitent with, what?

Executive Branch oversight by congress.

How so?


A minority can meet in caucus and conduct 'hearings' of their own
and indeed, the Democrats have done just that. But those hearings
are no way comparable to hearings held by House committees.

Correct, and that is what I am referring to. Regardless, they can
still develop the facts and evidence needed as the basis for Articles
of Impeachment.

They cannot subpoena witnesses nor compel testimony under oath.

THAT is the difference between conducting an investigation and
blowing smoke.

--

FF

PS, in case you didn't notice:

I mistakenly referred to the Watergate
hearings as impeachment hearings.

I should have written:
Sufficient evidece to support an impeachment
of Richard Nixon did not appear until after the watergate hearings had
begun.



Gents, how thin can you split a hair?

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

The*silence*from*the*"moderate"*muslims*condemning *thes
e*acts*is
deafening.**While*there*are*a*few*moderate*voices, *
they*are*few*and*far
between and very often accompanied by a whole bunch of "but monkeys".
i.e.
"but you have to understand ... " "but you don't realize their ... "
etc.

That is indeed the most troubling fact associated with Islam. There
seems to be no loud dissenting voices to the radicals. Some of that
may be due to fear, but I'd still like to see some stronger indication
that they disagree as to the nature of Islam.


Larry,
RTFB.
Hank

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| You realize that it not the Saudis that we are fighting, right?
| Those Saudis who flew the planes into the towers were not acting at
| the behest of the Saudi government. The Saudis do contribute to
| the problem through their support of Wahabbism, but they are
| careful not to do so within their own boundaries.

Yuppers - nor the typical moslems of any nation. We're discussing a
relatively tiny portion of a large population spread across many
nations.
|
| Now, if you were a Saudi citizen, how would you have been treated
| had you openly attended Sunday School or other "Fellowship
| Services"? Also, how would the Saudis have treated you had you
| offered to share details of your faith? Not in a pushy way, but
| just sharing?

It would probably not have been a big deal if I'd gone to satisfy my
curiosity. If I attended for any other reason, I'd probably have been
admonished.

I did, in fact have a number of conversations with Saudis about both
Christianity and Islam. In all of those discussions we were interested
in learning about how the other thought and felt about their beliefs.
I recall being surprised to learn that we shared the same Old
Testament.

| Indonesia has laws that prohibit Christians from openly
| evangelizing or sharing their faith. The converse is not true.

There've been enough pushy JW's ring my doorbell that I might've been
tempted to pass that same law, given the opportunity.

| Back to the point, it's not the Saudis, or the Kuwaities, or the
| UAE citizens that are the issue and they aren't the ones openly and
| actively pushing the concept of jihad on the west (they may be
| quietly supporting and abetting, but that's a different issue).
| They aren't the ones who are going to be issuing the ultimatums ---
| it's those who are pursuing the radical agenda that are going to be
| making those offers.

Agreed.

||| Realize that for the people committing these acts and the
||| countries that harbor them or are controlled by them, islam is
||| more than just a religion; it *is* their whole culture and way of
||| life. From enslaving their women in the hajib and burka to the
||| rejection of all things islam to the way they treat their
||| criminals. The sharia law is their whole goal and the spread of
||| islam to the entire world is their raison' de' etre'.
||| Unfortunately, unlike orthodox Christianity in its evangelism,
||| islam is founded on spreading by the sword and killing those who
||| fail to convert is absolutely condoned. [yeah, I know about the
||| inquisition --- that does *not* count as orthodox Christianity,
||| there was nothing scriptural about that activity]. Take a look at
||| the current islamic rise in France and England; once these groups
||| get power in small regions to implement sharia, they will spread
||| and attempt to implement that in larger regions as well. Note
||| that in those countries, the groups aren't calling for equal
||| rights, they are calling for extra rights and the ability to live
||| outside of the rest of the cultural norm.
||
|| s Yeah, we all know this stuff - the problem is that when I was
|| there I saw no evidence of any of it. The adult male Saudis that I
|| met loved their families but appropriately didn't share (and I
|| didn't pry) intimate details. My mother visited (by invitation)
|| with arab women and wouldn't say much about it to me other than to
|| say that they seemed like good and happy people. Mom was _the_
|| anti-gossip and wasn't bashful about telling me that some things
|| were "none of your business."
||
|
| You are aware of the riots in France, the push for allowing
| various communities in London and areas in Canada to be ruled by
| sharia? Those folks aren't playing "good and happy people" nor are
| they assimilating into the countries into which they have emigrated
| -- they are attempting to get those countries to conform to *their*
| culture.

Yup.

| I have also read other first-person accounts of dealings with the
| Arab world. One of the most telling statements was, "I found that
| I liked them, but couldn't respect them". I also know, through my
| wife's acquaintances, a woman whose husband was in Saudi -- she had
| very interesting observations regarding their views of western
| women.

Well, I was a kid and my parents required that I show respect to all
adults. I did so and in return was treated with respect by them - and
somewhere along this process of treating each other with respect, I
found myself experiencing a very real respect.

I never had any contact with Saudi women so can't offer any first-hand
experience. I will, however, suggest that foreign women (no matter
where you are) seem to be considered either exotic or weird (or both).

||| The silence from the "moderate" muslims condemning these acts is
||| deafening. While there are a few moderate voices, they are few
||| and far between and very often accompanied by a whole bunch of
||| "but monkeys". i.e. "but you have to understand ... " "but you
||| don't realize their ... " etc.
||
|| I suspect that if I were a Muslim, I'd probably decide that
|| discretion was the better part of valor, too. They also watched
|| the 89 people of 'different' religious conviction die in Waco.
|| Hell, that even made me wary.
|
| You have got to be kidding.
|
| We have Time magazine fabricate a story about desecrating the
| Koran and the muslims seethe, rage, riot and burn churches and kill
| people.
|
| We have somebody draw cartoons and the muslim world seethes,
| burns churches and kills people.
|
| A pope makes a statement referencing an 13'th century pope's
| comments regarding how islam tends to be violent and we get muslims
| seething, rioting, burning churches, and killing people. Then they
| make the statement that anyone calling their religion violent
| should have their head cut off.

Those reactions /are/ extreme. One of the questions worth asking might
be how many people were participating out of a moslem population of
how many? You speak as if all moslems went off the deep end; but I
know that not all did.

| Now, you might say that the moderates are afraid of these people,
| but at the same time, that doesn't speak well for the direction
| that religion is taking, does it? Somehow you tie their failure to
| speak out to Janet Reno's attack on Waco?

Does it speak at all of the direction Islam is taking? If the KKK
plants a burning cross in someone's front yard, does that speak of the
direction Christianity is taking? If the Attorney General sets up an
operation that causes the deaths of 89 men, women, and children of a
fringe religious sect, does that speak to the direction the US
government is taking WRT religious groups?

| You still haven't provided your answer; given the jihadi's
| going-in negotiating position, what is your counter-offer? Simply
| saying, weill I was in Saudi Arabia and they are really nice people
| who didn't bother me is not going to work.

I didn't, did I? Why would you conclude that I would join in such a
negotiation? My most likely response would be "I'm not interested. Go
to hell," just as it would be to the KKK, the skinheads, any other
kind of extremists who offered a similarly unacceptable set of
choices.

Right here in the States I've been threatened, I've been shot at on
two occasions, and I've actually been hurt a couple of times; but I
seem to lack the circuitry for it to upset my applecart.

And finally, no - they are not free to kill me. They can choose to
/try/ - but I am similarly free to avoid being killed; and I'm free to
dispatch individuals who make that attempt.

You missed my point, BTW, on the Saudis (but also the Lebanese,
Pakistanis, et al). I didn't say that they were nice people who didn't
bother me - or I didn't mean to convey that. In more clear terms,
those I got to know were /good/ people who accepted me exactly as I
was. Not tolerated - accepted.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

"Morris Dovey" wrote in news:45271c50$0$25784$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

Mark & Juanita (in ) said:

| On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:08:00 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
| wrote:
|
|| Larry Blanchard (in ) said:
||
||| Morris Dovey wrote:
|||
|||| It would seem that you've not noticed the rather large number of
|||| men and women who valued our principles more highly than their
|||| personal survival - and the lesser (but still awesomely large)
|||| number who did not, in fact, survive - all so that you and I
|||| might live in what you so casually refer to as "fantasyland".
|||
||| Well said. But to be fair it must be noted that the terrorists
||| are also willing to die for their principles - or at least for
||| their religion. Ones dedication to a principle does not
||| necessarily prove the validity of that principle.
||
|| Of course - and yet the very existance of a principle as such
|| indicates that there is some strong cultural validation. When such
|| a situation arises, it would seem to me that both sides need to
|| learn more about the (other's) culture and the context in which
|| that validation took place.
|
| Well, from their "holy" book, here is the negotiating position
| that the Jihadis offer:
| In order to avoid future attacks, you can make one of the
| following 3 choices:
| 1) Convert to islam. They are will then welcome you as a brother
| among themselves.
| 2) Acknowledge your defeat, pay them the head tax (jizya) and they
| will allow you to live in your "false" faith as a second class
| citizen under their rule. Be well assured, you will be a second
| class citizen, subject to the whim of their faith. The bleating
| from the left about the "fascist" Bush is absolutely silly -- these
| folks are for real. Try finding the First Baptist Church of Mecca,
| or Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Medina. Look at the laws in places
| like Indonesia and others controlled by these people.
| 3) Refuse to bow to their will; they are then free to kill you,
| anywhere, anytime.

And yet, during my entire ten year stay in Suadi Arabia, I was never
asked to convert to Islam. My Christianity was not merely tolerated
but accepted as a natural part of my makeup.

As a pre-teen and young teenager I visited Hofuf and Al Khobar alone
and unmolested. I visited with shopkeepers and was probably a PIA
because of all the questions I asked; but never - repeat never - was I
/treated/ like a PIA. My inquisitiveness did draw a few smiles; but it
also produced invitations to share coffee or tea and conversation.

Oh yes, I went to Sunday school and attended protestant worship
services every Friday. We called the services "Fellowship Services"
and the Saudis were aware when and where the services were held. The
RC "Fellowship Services" were held in the same place a half hour after
the protestant "Fellowship Services" ended.

| OK, now, what is your counter-offer? Oh, and just to make it
| interesting, realize that lying to "khafirs" (infidels) is not only
| accepted and sanctioned, it is advocated in their religious
| teachings. So, any agreements or contracts you sign with these
| people is subject to revocation at their whim. So, your
| counter-offer and your decision regarding the "solemn agreement"
| they will make with you?

And for all of that I can't recall even a single instance of having
been lied to, stolen from, or cheated by a Moslem /ever/ in Arabia.
Gee, you don't suppose I got singled out for some kind of special
treatment?

| Realize that for the people committing these acts and the
| countries that harbor them or are controlled by them, islam is more
| than just a religion; it *is* their whole culture and way of life.
| From enslaving their women in the hajib and burka to the rejection
| of all things islam to the way they treat their criminals. The
| sharia law is their whole goal and the spread of islam to the
| entire world is their raison' de' etre'. Unfortunately, unlike
| orthodox Christianity in its evangelism, islam is founded on
| spreading by the sword and killing those who fail to convert is
| absolutely condoned. [yeah, I know about the inquisition --- that
| does *not* count as orthodox Christianity, there was nothing
| scriptural about that activity]. Take a look at the current islamic
| rise in France and England; once these groups get power in small
| regions to implement sharia, they will spread and attempt to
| implement that in larger regions as well. Note that in those
| countries, the groups aren't calling for equal rights, they are
| calling for extra rights and the ability to live outside of the
| rest of the cultural norm.

s Yeah, we all know this stuff - the problem is that when I was
there I saw no evidence of any of it. The adult male Saudis that I met
loved their families but appropriately didn't share (and I didn't pry)
intimate details. My mother visited (by invitation) with arab women
and wouldn't say much about it to me other than to say that they
seemed like good and happy people. Mom was _the_ anti-gossip and
wasn't bashful about telling me that some things were "none of your
business."

| The silence from the "moderate" muslims condemning these acts is
| deafening. While there are a few moderate voices, they are few and
| far between and very often accompanied by a whole bunch of "but
| monkeys". i.e. "but you have to understand ... " "but you don't
| realize their ... " etc.

I suspect that if I were a Muslim, I'd probably decide that discretion
was the better part of valor, too. They also watched the 89 people of
'different' religious conviction die in Waco. Hell, that even made me
wary.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto




Morris,
I wasn't a little boy when I was in Saudi Arabia. I was working at
ARAMCO (not for) and living in Al Khobar. Many nights I stayed in the
ARAMCO compound in Dharan ('nother story for another time).
I was there before and during and after Ramadan, 1977. I had the
experience of meeting the Matawa (sp) during this time. I had the habit
(no pun) of wearing thobe and gutra (sp. was a long time ago) along with
sneakers (very comfortable outfit). Being a bit swarthy (Mohawk, French,
and some other tribal ancestry), possessing a nose of aristocratic merit,
and a truly magnificant moustache, the Matawa caught me eating a half
chicken on the beach. It didn't take them long to see I wasn't an Arab,
but it was a little touchy for a bit (they had whips or glorified
switches). I didn't take kindly to being thrashed about the shoulders,
but I was in their country and shut up (did say MF a few times though). I
saw many people, mostly women, whipped by the Matawa (sp) for sins
against religious law. I was working and living with some Lebannonese
arabs (shared the same bungalow in the compound). We became fairly good
friends (even shared much sadeki). These friends were Christains, but not
strong believers (like me). The week after Ramadan, they said we should
go to Dammam and watch the punishments. Dammam was very much like the
county seat, but you know that. So I went with them dressed in all my Al
Khobar finery (sort of looked liked the average Saudi Aramco 'worker' (I
never saw a Saudi actually do any work). The punishments were two
beheadings that day (I was told the executions were for highway robbery).
Everybody should witness an execution by beheading. The executioner
doesn't use an axe; a kind of sword is used. The sword reminded me of an
odd shaped meat cleaver. The subject is made to kneel and bare the neck
(there was no block) and the executioner (swordsman) lined his cut and
swung. There was a lot of blood, but it seemed to drip or run away from
the raised platform. The executioner used one swing to behead the first
man, but took two for the second. In each case the head was gathered in a
white cloth and placed with the body that was also wrapped, by this time,
in a white cloth. After the executions there were hands that were chopped
off. we were able to get out of there after eight or nine (didn't see
them all and not in great detail). A woman was supposedly killed later by
stoning, but we didn't see it. We went to Bahrain later and got kind of
drunk, but not drunk.
The Arabs follow their holy book to the letter. Like you say, you were
very safe there and they didn't try to convert you. I didn't feel that
safe there, but I was putting myself in that position by going places
that were unofficially off limits to non-believers. I would never have
been so stupid as to try and visit Mecca. I've got balls still and am
very happy about that. These people follow their holy book by the letter.
I read and I'm sure you've read the koran (Quoran or whatever). What
might have worked for them in the eighth century may not in the twenty-
first century.
Sorry for rambling,
Hank

Morris Dovey wrote:
Tim Daneliuk (in ) said:
SNIP

| Intervention in the terms I described - when necessary to remediate
| threat against the democratic West - ought never to rarely to be
| a group grope. The nations under threat should act as unilaterally
| as
| they wish. The planet is not some Harvard debating society and
| feeling good about how we're all one happy planet is not the point.

Group grope? I'm not certain what you're trying to imply by that.
Acting unilaterally invites anyone and everyone who might have
objections to retalliate against the nation so acting, either
separately or in concert. The US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq would
have played very differently without the in-theater support of allies.
I would suggest you re-examine the information.

Sure they would have (though there was considerable more support
by our allies in the former as compared to the latter). But absent such
in-theater support should we just sit around and wait until we can
convince the rest of the world that we really are acting in our own
best interest and defense? The problem with multilateralism as a
single guiding policy is that it injects bureaucracy and politics
into a process exactly when swift action is needed. Not *every*
time, but often enough that it simply cannot be the sole or principal
guide as to how and when a nation acts to defend itself.

SNIP

|
| Sorry, I don't buy this kind of multiculturalist sentiment. The only
| thing the tribal savages of the Arab Penninsula and Africa have to
| teach us is that tribalism kills remorselessly and for no particular
| purpose.

My experience was very different. I lived on the Arab Peninsula (Saudi
Arabia, Al Hasa Province, Dhahran and Abqaiq) for a total of ten
years. Along with English and American History I studied Arabic,
French, and Middle Eastern history. I was an inquisitive lad; and
asked questions about everything I could imagine of everyone,
everywhere. I'm not an expert on the middle east; but I can assure you
that you're unbelievably wrong. Your ignorance can be understood. Your

I'm not remotely wrong. The events of the past 5 decades alone
(nevermind the previous 6 or so centuries) provide ample examples of the
foul malignancy that is Islamic tribalism as I will shortly demonstrate.


prejudice and slander is shameful.

And your resorting to the currently popular "If you criticize a group,
you must be a bigot" tactic is despicable. I have not now or ever liked
or disliked anyone based on their group membership, ethnicity, religion,
or any of the rest of your oh-so-tender litmus tests for sufficient PC
sensitivity. My judgment about other individuals and groups (and myself,
for that matter) is rooted in their *character* and *actions* alone.
When I see scumbag behavior, the perpetrator is a scumbag. When I see
someone condoning evil actions, they are evil. When I see virtuous
actions, the doer is a virtuous person. Most people are some complex
combination of virtue and vice. I have no question that *individual*
Islamic tribalists are very much the same way - certainly the ones
I've gotten to know personally are. But when Islamic tribalism acts
with a *group* voice, it has more and more turned into an ugly,
sadistic, depraved, and degenerate voice.

Moreover, I know how to observe Reality as it is. Let's examine just a
few of great moments of the Islamic hit parade from the general area of
Araby (though not all the people involved were Arab, all were Muslim)
from the past few decades:


- Pushing an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise ship to his death.

- Murdering a bunch of Israeli athletes in the 1970s.

- Weaponizing children and other civilians to deliver terrorist
attacks by suicide.

- Intentionally (as opposed to accidentally during time of war)
targeting civilians for slaughter.

- Bombing diplomats and embassies.

- Buying slaves from African Mauretania (and possibly Somalia).

- Running what is believed to be the largest white slavery
ring of young Western women anywhere in the world, pretty
much all of whom were kidnapped and are raped more-or-less
daily.

- In all the Arab/Israeli conflicts to date, something less than
100,000 people have died - military and civilian. In the same
period of time, approximately 3 *million* Muslims (you know,
The Religion Of "Peace") have killed *each other* ...
and then tried to pin the blame on the West, Israel,
or any other boogeyman they thought would stick.

- Precipitating wholesale slaughter of the Kurds.

- Persecution and even murder of Christians living in their lands.

- Brutal beheading of non-combatant Western civilians.

- Blowing up buildings and airplanes full of non-combatant civilians.

- Targeting the Pentagon (a legitimate target of war by our enemies)
using innocent civilians in the delivery of the weapons.

- Running rape rooms with government sanction to keep the populace
cowering.

- Severely restricting the rights of women up to, and including
giving men the legal right to beat and otherwise brutalize them.

... I could go on (and on, and on, and on ...) but why bother?
If we expand our view to global Islamic tribalism it
gets even more gruesome. Have a brief look at the
Muslims in the former Yugoslavia prior to it becoming
one nation - i.e. During WWII. "Horrific" doesn't
do justice in describing their actions (though, in fairness,
the Catholic Croats were as bad or worse).

These actions took place not first because the people involved were
Muslim (though that is part of the problem). These actions took place
primarily because these people are *tribal* and were acting not first as
individuals, but as members of their collective. By analogy, I have no
doubt that many of the 3rd Reich's top officers were good dinner
companions, decent fathers, doting husbands, and kind to others. But
that doesn't make them anything other than what they we murderous
savages.

Your pandering defense of that tribalist mentality by attempting to
paint me as some sort of bigot is revolting. It is not prejudice or
intolerance to take note of historical fact and see the common
connective tissue. When people are persuaded to act with absolutely no
restraint in the name of their God and their tribe and target innocent
civilians by intent as a tactic of war, that makes them "savages". Your
defense of them in the face of this kind of inarguable evidence makes
you morally complicit with evil.

It makes no difference that individual Islamic tribesmen are often
decent, kind, tolerant and all the rest. Too often, when they speak
for their tribe/religion they justify all manner of horrors without
the blink of an eye.

It makes no difference that your childhood experiences were different -
Islamic tribalism is behaving savagely *today*.

The many rich Arab/Islamic cultural and intellectual traditions of which
we are all beneficiaries do not vitiate their current status as tribal
savages - these elevated traditions have not stopped their evil actions
in current times.

The fact that the savagery is only being acted out by a few people
changes very little. The loud silence from the *rest* of their
fellow tribalists and co-religionists is a strong indication that
the radical savages speak for the heart of a much, much larger community.

They will cease being "savages" only when they renounce violence
(military or otherwise) against non-combatants and this message is
proclaimed widely, regularly, and with complete authority by their
political and religious leaders.

That ain't "prejudice" Bubba, that's Reality Observed.

FWIW, those of us not busy trying to make excuses for evil and who see
things as they actually are, are not surprised. Every single
class of social/political "collectivism" (tribalism, theocracy,
monarchy, socialism, communism, nationalism) inevitably degrades into
widespread violence against the innocent. Tribalism is merely one
datapoint in a larger body of "do what's good for the group" thinking.
Every single one of those schools of thought is, or eventually becomes a
moral cesspool.

(N.B. That I've never argued for US or Western action in these matters
on the basis of nationalism ("My country, right or wrong because
We're better than They are") I have argued on the basis of self-defense
in the face of a gathering storm. That's because I consider blind
nationalism just as debauched as tribalism - they are just different
lesions from the same collectivist cancer. And *that* is a lesson the
Right needs to learn in this country.)


|| offer. We can be the kind of friend that no one wants to pick a
|| fight
|
| Please explain what reasonable/rational basis UBL and his followers
| had for picking a fight with us? We helped them fight the Soviets
| to get them out of Afghanistan. In the early 20th century, it was
| the
| West that provided the capital and know how to extract the oil
| from their stand that makes their nations so wealthy. It is sheer
| fantasy to believe that we can act in manner so nicely as to
| discourage evil people from acting against us. Evil has to be met
| with extreme prejudice and violence to be quelled. There are no
| counterexamples.

If you're really unaware of any rational basis, then you have a lot of
history to catch up on. I suggest skipping the crusades and fast
forewarding to the start of the twentieth century. If you decide that
you'd like to have an in-depth understanding, you'll need to back up
at least to the time of Moses.

I understand the *irrational* basis for it. The blind theocratic
and tribal hatred that the region fuels. I was asking for a
*rational* one ... and there isn't one. P.S. My undergrad
education included a rather lengthy sequence in Biblical studies
(Old and New Testament), exegesis, theology, and textual criticism.
I have a non-specialist's understanding of the history and mindset of
the region.


That's a lot of history - and most Americans just aren't much
interested. Yet it set the stage for things that're happening today.
You aren't likely aware; but it was a Persian king who was responsible
for freeing the Judeans from Babylon, for allowing them to return to
Judea, even for encouraging them to build the temple in Jerusalem.
When they bogged down and lost heart, it was another Persian king who
sent a priest/lawgiver who brought with him the beginning of the
Talmud. While this may be of little interest to many Americans, the
Persians were key to the development and survival of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam. It is not my place to teach you history; but
if you intend to publicly spout value judgements, you should take the
trouble to know at least a little bit of the story. If you want to
understand them, then you need to understand that they never forgot
their contributions - and now that you have just that much of a
glimmer; I suggest a bit of reflection about how people who /do/ know
the whole history in detail might feel about how things are playing
today.

Oh yawn, more half-history. That was a long time ago, and one or two
things have changed since then in case you've not noticed. These
enlightened Persians of old fathered ... modern Iran, a nation whose
leaders foment race hatred, murder of Christians and Jews, who seek
weapons capabilities so as to wipe Israel off the map and leave a
smoldering nuclear slagpile in its place. (So much for giving the
"Palestinians" a homeland. After Iran gets done, they'll all be glowing
in the dark.) Before you peddle a world that hasn't exists for several
millenia, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with current affairs.


If you don't manage any more than just the first half of the twentieth
century, you'll have all the rational basis you might care to have.

How closely do you watch the news? Did you notice the types of
aircraft used to bomb Beirut, the UN outpost, and non-belligerent
targets? Are you so naive as to think that the civilians on the ground
hold only the Israeli pilots responsible?

The "people on the ground" chose to empower an organization that
is known to specifically target non-combatant civilians. This in the face
of demands by the West and even the useless UN to cease and desist
in so doing. The "people on the ground" demurred to do so. That makes
those "people on the ground" morally complicit with those who actually
intentionally target civilians. "The people on the ground" have no
moral case for complaint - they experienced the consequences of their
choices. (The UN outpost is an exception and is almost certainly
an accident of war.)


|| with. We can look back at our own recent history and notice that
|| power flowed to us most rapidly when we empowered others; and
|| drained away most rapidly when we attempted to use our power to
|| control others. We can do a lot better job of listening to both
|| friends and adversaries.
|
| You are under the evil spell of the popular culture that says we
| are someone trying to "control others". I don't see it that way.
| Had the Islamic radicals not made war on us, especially on our own
| soil, Bush and his advisors could *never* had made the case to
| invade Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. I don't think most Americans
| of any political persuasion want to "control" any other part of
| the planet. We do, however, want to be left alone.

No, I'm not under any such spell. I've been watching closely since the
beginning of the pre Iraq invasion build-up. Evidence in favor of
controlling the territory far, far outweighs any evidence in favor of
helping the Iraqis have any kind of better life.

Neither control or providing the Iraqis a better kind of life is
any of our business. Our business was the dismantling of a loathsome
state that had planned the assassination of a US President, oppressed
civilians, funded terrorist actions against civilians, and was (it
was believed at the time) on a trajectory to deliver more harm
*to us*.


I have a personal story involving USAID that strongly reinforces my
conclusion. I had good reason to believe that I could be of help in
restoring some parts of the Iraqi infrastructure on a volunteer basis.
In brief, USAID wasn't interested in helping rebuild Iraqi
infrastructure.

So what? Did you see any groundswell of foreign activity to come
help rebuild New Orleans? Not our problem except to the extent
that stabilizing the region would probably be in our own interest.

SNIP

Ever see Beirut before the first Israeli bombing? I have - and I
understand why it was called the "Paris of the Mediterranean". It was

'Ever see an Israeli child before it is gutted like the first deer of
hunting season by some apocalyptic Islamic tribal savage with Semtex
stuck up their rearend? We can go on like this for days but the simple
fact remains that Israel - in the main - does NOT intentionally target
civilians. The Islamic tribal savages do. More than that, they make
civilian populations the center of their *military* operations thereby
guaranteeing that reprisals will harm their own civilians. Beirut
was a victim of the Islamic tribal savages first and always. Lebanon
was well on it way to recovery once they kicked the Syrian slimeballs
out ... only to invite the Hezbollah slimeballs in. I have little
patience and no sympathy for self-inflicted wounds.



a beautiful city, bustling with tourists and business people from all
over the world. Seen it lately? How does it make you feel to know that
your tax dollars provided the foreign aid to purchase the weapons that
did the damage? Not very long ago (a year?) I read that we shipped the

Quite proud and hopeful that we can do it over and over and over and
over again until the tribal savages get the message that we will not
be trifled with.

Israelis 25 F-16 fighter planes. Do you have /any/ idea how much death
and destruction can be (or has been) inflicted with that many Vipers?

Not enough, so far, apparently, since the tribal savages continue to
operate far too widely.

If you and your family lived in Beirut, how "minor" a sin would you
have considered delivery of that capability into the hands of the
destroyers?

I'd suggest that committing lesser sins than someone else does not
make your sins go away, as you suggest - unless you have some insights
into the nature of sin that everyone else has missed.

It is not a "sin" to attempt to stop evil. It *is* a sin to make war
on civilians, to hide among them while doing so, to use your pregnant
women and your children as weapons delivery systems, to traffic in
slaves, to kidnap and rape young women, ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Your apologetic for the Islamic world is pathetic. Until and unless
Islam institutionally renounces these and the many other barbaric acts
attributed to it, it is not entitled to the slightest bit of consideration
or quarter. "Institutional renunciation" means that everyone at the
top of the political and ecclesiastical food chain sincerely and loudly
condemns such actions so as to move the heart of the majority population
away from them. (There will always be a wingnut minority in any
collective of humans - we have Al Gore, for example.) When we see the
leadership do this, the majority will follow. When that happens, then UBL
and his merry band of rectal warts will truly become a despised minority
within Islam. In the mean time, pray for peace and aim for killshots ...


--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto




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

wrote:
Note crossposting.

Mr Daneliuk seems to have me confused with another
author. Regardless:

???


OP stated that 'terrorists' are not protected by the Geneva
Conventions. I pointed out that _prisoners_ of a nation
other than their own, are always protected persons, though
that status does not preclude trial and punishment for crimes
comitted prior to their capture, such as fighting in civilian
disguise.

I cited the fourth article of the Fourth protocol of the 1949
Conventions and said that in the quoted text "the convention"
refers to the 1949 Convention in its entirety, not to any specific
protocol thereof. Mr Daneliuk disagreed as indicated below.
Upon review, I am less than certain as to whether the terms
"convention" and "protocol" are used synonymously. But
I remain convinced that the applicablity of the 1949 GCs
is not predjudiced by calling a prisoner a 'terrorist' even
if the appelation is justified by fact.

I don't think anyone claimed that the word "terrorist" somehow
changes the law. I think the claim was (and is) that a person
making war in civilian clothing loses their status as a civilian
(aka non-combatant) and thus the protections that go with it.
They also have no status as a "soldier" because they are not
wearing an identifiable uniform. They thus have little or no
standing under the GC because they are not named as one of
specific classes of those protected.


Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
SNIP
From the Fourth Protocol, 1949:

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who,
at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves,
in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to
the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Sorry Sparky, the 4th Protocol is specifically authored for *civilians*.
A person engaging in combat while dressed in civilian garb - i.e., No
distinguishable uniform is NO LONGER A CIVILIAN, and thus not protected
by this Geneva agreement. That's why we can legally hang spies, incarcerate
them without normal due process, and generally do (almost) anything
we want to them. The Geneva conventions (last I read them - perhaps
Barbara Streisand or Rosie O'Donnell have updated them with their
considerable intellectual abilities) make a clear distinction between
combatants/non-combatants/civilians. Too bad all the Lefties today
can't do the same thing ...
--

Mr Daneliuk is encouraged to cite the artilces in the GCs where he
read the "clear distinction between
combatants/non-combatants/civilians.
Regardless, there is no place in the GCs where a statement, let alone
a clear one, is made that any of the three are not protected persons,
by virtue of being one or more of the three.

While it is also true that the title of the Fourth Protocol refers
specifically
to civlilians, many clauses within the Fourth protocol refer to members

of the armed forces. So the notion that the "any person" as used in
the
Fourth protocol excludes persons who fail to conform to Mr Daneliuk's
definition of civlian, is because of that reference in the title, is
without
merit.

While terms of art such as "spy" and "sabotuer" may seem quaint
to our Attorney General the modern term 'terrorist' was not in vogue
in 1949. The defintions, however do not differ substantively. They
are all persons, who engage in hostilities while not in uniform. There
appears no reasonable basis to claim that the Fourth Protocol
provisions for spies and sabotuers are not as applicable to
'terrorists'.

Let's take the simplest possible path here. The *title*
of the GC in question:

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of *Civilian*
Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. (Emphasis
mine).

Please explain to the class how one can take up
arms and still be a "civilian"?

You want to presume the convention affirmatively - that
by default, anyone not named explicitly is covered.
I presume it negatively - you don't have standing unless
named in a specific class.


The ICRC discusses these issues and others, concluding:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

In short, all the particular cases we have just been
considering confirm a general principle which is embodied
in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in
enemy hands must have some status under international
law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered
by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth
Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel
of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention.
There is no ' intermediate status'; nobody in enemy hands
can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory
solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and
above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.


Regarding

That's why we can legally hang spies, incarcerate
them without normal due process, and generally do
(almost) anything we want to them.

My first criticism is with the fundamental illogic of the
notion. It is the contrapositive of a circular argument.

Unless a person receives due process it can never
be known whether or not that person was entitled
to due process in the first place. Thus due process
can never be denied without the attendent risk that
it is being denied to one who is entitled to it.

It is clearly impossible to treat someone as a "spy" until we know they
are one. Some "process" is obviously required to do so. But you and
yours want the "due" part of that to extend well beyond even the
language of the GC.

Notwithstanding that, you go through all kinds of mental contortion to
demand that a person who is not: a) A uniformed combatant, b) A
non-combatant civilian, c) A diplomat, or d) A non-participating member
of another nation (all subjects of the GCs *by name*) should also be
covered. Don't you suppose that if the writers of the GCs - who took the
time to name these particular classes of individuals - had wanted to
provide specific protection for saboteurs, spies, terrorists, et al they
would have managed to also make *specific* reference to them as well?



Regarding the specific atrocities advocated above,
execution of spies without due process has been
contrary to the laws of war since at least the Hague
Conventions early in the 20th Century, and prohibitted
in the United States by implication of an Act of
the Contintental Congress since the 18th Century.
"Almost anything else" Mr Daneliuk might wish
to advocate is prohibitted by criminal statues that
do not include as a defense, a belief that the
victim was a spy, 'terrorist' or whomever.

You are inventing an argument I did not make. I never said there should
be no "due process". Indeed I think there should be - it's called a
military tribunal. But I see no reason legally or morally to extend the
protections of our domestic legal/social contract nor the protections of
the GCs (wherein such people are not named, but every other class of
protected individual is) to such individuals.


The United States does not permit outlawry,
even for convicted crimnals.

Finally, the 1949 Geneva Conventions are not the
only treaties to which the US is signatory.
The Convention against Torture etc, permits no
exceptions.

Ah, the Dancing Left is back. Every sane and reasonable person should be
opposed to "torture". But the debate at hand is whether scaring people,
intimidating them, making them uncomfortable, depriving them of sleep
constitutes "torture". You know this is the debate but insist in writing
as if your debating opponents just blindly support any and all forms of torture
ignoring that there are degrees of coercion, not all of which are widely
accepted as being "torture". You also conveniently ignore that the
subjects of said intimidation are not party to our legal/social contract
and have no standing to make claims against it.


In summary, my argument that all prisoners
captured in the course or armed conflict or
occupation by the United States and who are
not US citizens are from the moment of their
capture forward, protected persons according
to the 1949 Geneva Conventions is supported
by a plain reading of the Conventions themselves
and by the interpretations by the ICRC and USSC.

I don't see it that way. But if, in fact, you're right then you
and your fellow Left travelers have an excellent case to make
for bringing war crimes charges against this administration.
For all the whining on the Left (and all the stupidities on
the Right), I somehow don't think this is going to happen.
Why? Because, rhetoric aside, you know there is no such case
to be made. You know that the disposition of non-uniformed
combatants is not as cut and dried as you'd like to paint it.

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 14:34:49 -0700, wrote:

.. snip

If so, then he was never misidentified as a Republican right?


No Fred, but there were sure a lot of graphics from the MSM with
Toricelli identified as Toricelli (Rep - NJ)


I'll trust your memory on this. But tell me, what is MSM?

--

FF

I intend to expend the time and effort to better inform myself; and I
would suggest that you do the same. We agree that a problem exists;
but do not agree on what the problem actually is, even though we both
see at least some of the same manifestations. We each seem to have
information that the other does not and that has made dialog difficult
at best and unproductive/acrimonious at worst.

I appreciate that you've caused me to regard some areas of learning as
subjects for investigation. Our discussion has highlighted for me that
there are cultural and historical aspects to this problem that I had
not before considered as germane as I now do. Thank you.

I do not believe that either side can succeed in imposing a solution
on the other - although, sadly, both will almost certainly try and,
almost as certainly, fail.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

Morris Dovey wrote:
I intend to expend the time and effort to better inform myself; and I
would suggest that you do the same. We agree that a problem exists;

This is a continous process for me. "Truth" is a function of time
in geopolitics and requires constant research.

but do not agree on what the problem actually is, even though we both
see at least some of the same manifestations. We each seem to have
information that the other does not and that has made dialog difficult
at best and unproductive/acrimonious at worst.

I appreciate that you've caused me to regard some areas of learning as
subjects for investigation. Our discussion has highlighted for me that
there are cultural and historical aspects to this problem that I had
not before considered as germane as I now do. Thank you.


Likewise.

I do not believe that either side can succeed in imposing a solution
on the other - although, sadly, both will almost certainly try and,
almost as certainly, fail.

And that really worries me, because "failing" in this context (and down
the line a few decades) could bring on a poisoning of the planet and
a level of human tragedy that has never heretofore been seen. Hopefully,
we'll all be smart enough to avoid that...


--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto




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

Dave Bugg wrote:

RogerD wrote:


So did Hitler.


Really!?? How much cajones does it really take to round up the helpless and
gas 'em? Or attack the French?


It's closer than most would like to admit.

With Hitler and Bush both, it has been to make the people afraid of
the enemies around them.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in every country."

[Hermann Goering]


The trouble I have with Bush is that there is no policy, there is only
ideology. Ask Paul O'Neal, lifelong republican W's first Treasury Secretary.

It's one thing for W to misrepresent his opponents in politics, but it
is a completely different matter to misrepresent and then believe your
own propaganda in war. Two months before the Iraq invasion, it came as a
surprise to Bush to learn that there were two main branches of Islam.
You really do need leaders that are capable of thinking things through...

Lest anyone forget that when the Whitehouse was disatisfied with the
intelligence, they spun their own out of the White House (White House
Information Group). That's the line of crap they handed Colin Powell.
Ask Powell's long time chief of staff and lifelong republican what he
thinks of Bush's deliberate twisting and he will say that he should be
tried for treason. Strong words, but not far off the mark.

Jeff

Henry St.Pierre (in
2) said:

| Morris,
| I wasn't a little boy when I was in Saudi Arabia. I was working at
| ARAMCO (not for) and living in Al Khobar. Many nights I stayed in
| the ARAMCO compound in Dharan ('nother story for another time).
| I was there before and during and after Ramadan, 1977. I had the
| experience of meeting the Matawa (sp) during this time. I had the
| habit (no pun) of wearing thobe and gutra (sp. was a long time ago)
| along with sneakers (very comfortable outfit). Being a bit swarthy
| (Mohawk, French, and some other tribal ancestry), possessing a nose
| of aristocratic merit, and a truly magnificant moustache, the
| Matawa caught me eating a half chicken on the beach. It didn't take
| them long to see I wasn't an Arab, but it was a little touchy for a
| bit (they had whips or glorified switches). I didn't take kindly to
| being thrashed about the shoulders, but I was in their country and
| shut up (did say MF a few times though). I saw many people, mostly
| women, whipped by the Matawa (sp) for sins against religious law. I
| was working and living with some Lebannonese arabs (shared the same
| bungalow in the compound). We became fairly good friends (even
| shared much sadeki). These friends were Christains, but not strong
| believers (like me). The week after Ramadan, they said we should go
| to Dammam and watch the punishments. Dammam was very much like the
| county seat, but you know that. So I went with them dressed in all
| my Al Khobar finery (sort of looked liked the average Saudi Aramco
| 'worker' (I never saw a Saudi actually do any work). The
| punishments were two beheadings that day (I was told the executions
| were for highway robbery). Everybody should witness an execution by
| beheading. The executioner doesn't use an axe; a kind of sword is
| used. The sword reminded me of an odd shaped meat cleaver. The
| subject is made to kneel and bare the neck (there was no block) and
| the executioner (swordsman) lined his cut and swung. There was a
| lot of blood, but it seemed to drip or run away from the raised
| platform. The executioner used one swing to behead the first man,
| but took two for the second. In each case the head was gathered in
| a white cloth and placed with the body that was also wrapped, by
| this time, in a white cloth. After the executions there were hands
| that were chopped off. we were able to get out of there after eight
| or nine (didn't see them all and not in great detail). A woman was
| supposedly killed later by stoning, but we didn't see it. We went
| to Bahrain later and got kind of drunk, but not drunk. The Arabs
| follow their holy book to the letter. Like you say, you were very
| safe there and they didn't try to convert you. I didn't feel that
| safe there, but I was putting myself in that position by going
| places that were unofficially off limits to non-believers. I would
| never have been so stupid as to try and visit Mecca. I've got balls
| still and am very happy about that. These people follow their holy
| book by the letter. I read and I'm sure you've read the koran
| (Quoran or whatever). What might have worked for them in the eighth
| century may not in the twenty- first century.
| Sorry for rambling,
| Hank

Hank...

I heard about but never witnessed any of the punishments. (Same in the
USA.) They seemed harsh; but I was told that they were reserved for
people who were considered what we'd call "hard cases". I asked the
Amir (crown-appointed mayor/judge) of Abqaiq about this part their
justice system and he said that he hated hurting people and worked
hard to find less drastic solutions.

[ Side note: I was a new Boy Scout and the Amir was interested in
that. He seemed to like that we learned to camp in the desert and was
keen on the motto (Be Prepared) and on the Scout Law (A Scout is
trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient,
cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent) and said he thought
those were particularly good things to learn and practice. I got the
distinct impression that he'd have enjoyed camping with us. ]

When I returned to the States, it seemed strange to be told that there
were parts of almost every city where I might not be safe; and that I
should be careful not to leave my car keys in the ignition when I
parked. I still find it unnatural to carry a bunch of keys for all the
(too many!) locks in my life.

In Abqaiq the snack bar (aka the "Date Pit", where kids liked to meet
for Pepsi (Bebsi, no 'P' in Arabic), burgers and fries, and gab) and
dining hall closed during daylight hours in Ramadan. The kids
understood that it might be disrespectful and possibly offensive to
eat within sight of people who were fasting - so we (publicly, at
least) fasted along with them - and were also glad when Ramadan ended.

Interesting that you should still have a thobe and guitra - I also
still have mine (and my gufiya and agul) packed away somewhere. For
anyone who's curious, the thobe is the long-sleeved ankle-length loose
shirt, a guffiya is a skull cap (usually anout 25% larger than a
yamulka), and the guitra is the headscarf worn over the guffiya and
held in place with the (usually rope-like) agul. It's a much healthier
outfit when the temperature is above 120F - but not very safe when
working on or close to machinery. The guitra doubles as a face shield
and air filter during a shamal (sandstorm with strong winds out of the
west). An Abqaiq shamal could take all the paint off one side of an
automobile in an hour. Interesting, but not fun - and hated by
fastidious housekeepers like my mom.

I understand that there's a lot of soul-searching underway in the
Islamic world concerning modernization; but I haven't tracked it any
more closely than I followed the RC discussions on meatless Fridays,
divorce, birth control, and female priests. In both cases, I trust
that the people to whom the changes mattter most will get it all
sorted out for themselves.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

In article .com, wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 14:34:49 -0700, wrote:

.. snip

If so, then he was never misidentified as a Republican right?


No Fred, but there were sure a lot of graphics from the MSM with
Toricelli identified as Toricelli (Rep - NJ)


I'll trust your memory on this. But tell me, what is MSM?

Main Stream Media

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

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

THAT'S IT - I INVOKE GODWIN.


On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:17:50 GMT, Jeff wrote:

Dave Bugg wrote:

RogerD wrote:


So did Hitler.


Really!?? How much cajones does it really take to round up the helpless and
gas 'em? Or attack the French?


It's closer than most would like to admit.

With Hitler and Bush both, it has been to make the people afraid of
the enemies around them.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in every country."

[Hermann Goering]


The trouble I have with Bush is that there is no policy, there is only
ideology. Ask Paul O'Neal, lifelong republican W's first Treasury Secretary.

It's one thing for W to misrepresent his opponents in politics, but it
is a completely different matter to misrepresent and then believe your
own propaganda in war. Two months before the Iraq invasion, it came as a
surprise to Bush to learn that there were two main branches of Islam.
You really do need leaders that are capable of thinking things through...

Lest anyone forget that when the Whitehouse was disatisfied with the
intelligence, they spun their own out of the White House (White House
Information Group). That's the line of crap they handed Colin Powell.
Ask Powell's long time chief of staff and lifelong republican what he
thinks of Bush's deliberate twisting and he will say that he should be
tried for treason. Strong words, but not far off the mark.

Jeff
Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Tom Watson wrote:
THAT'S IT - I INVOKE GODWIN.

I hadn't heard of that before, but it makes sense. Bush has been
comparing Iraq to every other war except Vietnam.

I'm waiting for someone to bring up Clinton... I've given up on my
own thread!

Jeff


On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:17:50 GMT, Jeff wrote:


Dave Bugg wrote:


RogerD wrote:



So did Hitler.


Really!?? How much cajones does it really take to round up the helpless and
gas 'em? Or attack the French?


It's closer than most would like to admit.

With Hitler and Bush both, it has been to make the people afraid of
the enemies around them.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That
is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in every country."

[Hermann Goering]


The trouble I have with Bush is that there is no policy, there is only
ideology. Ask Paul O'Neal, lifelong republican W's first Treasury Secretary.

It's one thing for W to misrepresent his opponents in politics, but it
is a completely different matter to misrepresent and then believe your
own propaganda in war. Two months before the Iraq invasion, it came as a
surprise to Bush to learn that there were two main branches of Islam.
You really do need leaders that are capable of thinking things through...

Lest anyone forget that when the Whitehouse was disatisfied with the
intelligence, they spun their own out of the White House (White House
Information Group). That's the line of crap they handed Colin Powell.
Ask Powell's long time chief of staff and lifelong republican what he
thinks of Bush's deliberate twisting and he will say that he should be
tried for treason. Strong words, but not far off the mark.

Jeff

Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On 7 Oct 2006 10:20:26 -0700, wrote:


Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006 14:34:49 -0700, wrote:

.. snip

If so, then he was never misidentified as a Republican right?


No Fred, but there were sure a lot of graphics from the MSM with
Toricelli identified as Toricelli (Rep - NJ)


I'll trust your memory on this. But tell me, what is MSM?

MSM = Main Stream Media; i.e. CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN

As indicated in another part of this thread, it was not Toricelli as he
was a senator at the time of his scandal; it was however another Democrat
Representative, very possibly Conditt. This was several years ago, but
this was more than a single instance, it went on for several days if not
weeks.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Tom Watson wrote:
THAT'S IT - I INVOKE GODWIN.

Tom... Godwin doesn't count here.
"Why not?" he asks.
Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.
I cite: History.
There is nothing a Bush won't do for power. The biggest nasty in the
Bush family/administration is the 'Hag-With-The-Pearls' Barbera Bush.
No matter where you turn, a Bush has his finger in the pie. That
includes the security company in charge of the 911 airports and the
miscount at the 2000 Florida elections. Then there is Neil.
But, ****, I forgot. The facts make me a conspiracy nut.

Dream on losers!

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were
possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

"Robatoy" wrote in message
ups.com...

Tom Watson wrote:
THAT'S IT - I INVOKE GODWIN.

Tom... Godwin doesn't count here.
"Why not?" he asks.
Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.
I cite: History.
There is nothing a Bush won't do for power. The biggest nasty in the
Bush family/administration is the 'Hag-With-The-Pearls' Barbera Bush.
No matter where you turn, a Bush has his finger in the pie. That
includes the security company in charge of the 911 airports and the
miscount at the 2000 Florida elections. Then there is Neil.
But, ****, I forgot. The facts make me a conspiracy nut.

Dream on losers!

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,
and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were
possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

According to Wikipedia, the Anti-Defamation League has stated that "Rumors
about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of
President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in
recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated."

Now, I'm sure you know more than the ADL and have a bigger axe to grind with
the Nazis than they do, so I'll defer to your opinion. Or not.

todd

In article . com, "Robatoy" wrote:

Tom Watson wrote:
THAT'S IT - I INVOKE GODWIN.

Tom... Godwin doesn't count here.
"Why not?" he asks.
Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.

This is baloney, as Todd has pointed out. Perhaps you're confusing him with
JFK's father, Joseph Kennedy, who really *was* a Nazi sympathizer and
supporter.

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

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

Doug Miller wrote:

Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.

This is baloney, as Todd has pointed out. Perhaps you're confusing him with
JFK's father, Joseph Kennedy, who really *was* a Nazi sympathizer and
supporter.

And it's a non-issue either way. Many of the elite back then were so
terrified of communism that they backed fascism as an alternative.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

todd wrote:

According to Wikipedia, the Anti-Defamation League has stated that "Rumors
about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the grandfather of
President George W. Bush, have circulated widely through the Internet in
recent years. These charges are untenable and politically motivated."

Not that the ADL is biased or anything.....*roars with laughter*

r

Robatoy wrote:

todd wrote:

According to Wikipedia, the Anti-Defamation League has stated that
"Rumors about the alleged Nazi 'ties' of the late Prescott Bush, the
grandfather of President George W. Bush, have circulated widely
through the Internet in recent years. These charges are untenable
and politically motivated."

Not that the ADL is biased or anything.....*roars with laughter*

Pot-Kettle-Black.....

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Robatoy" wrote in message
ups.com...

There is nothing a Bush won't do for power.

Actually, there is nothing any American politition won't do for power. That
is why they are in office, or run for office.

For the benefit of those who have not (and God only knows why not) kill
filed us, I've removed rec.woodworking from the distribution and
continued
this, er, discussion he

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....a91674217fe93a

--

FF

In article , "Leon" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
oups.com...

There is nothing a Bush won't do for power.

Actually, there is nothing any American politition won't do for power. That
is why they are in office, or run for office.

I'm sure that's true in other countries as well; I can't imagine American
politicians have a monopoly on that.

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

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

Larry Blanchard wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote:

Cuz W's grand-daddy was an active contributor to Nazi Germany.
Yes indeedie. Prescot Bush was actually forbidden, by the US Gov't to
continue backing Hitler, after he had done so for years.

This is baloney, as Todd has pointed out. Perhaps you're confusing
him with JFK's father, Joseph Kennedy, who really *was* a Nazi
sympathizer and supporter.

And it's a non-issue either way. Many of the elite back then were so
terrified of communism that they backed fascism as an alternative.


Larry,
Not so with Joe. He was quite the anti-semite and a neo-elitist (new term
for lace curtain Irish in Boston). Charles Lindburgh was also a great
admirerer of the Third Reich, but more because of their advances in
aviation than ideology (my opinion).
Hank

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:09:17 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Art Greenberg wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:17:12 -0500, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

There *is* a good argument (or two) to be made for the position you and the
rest of the ideological Left want to get to, but I'm not going to teach you
how to make it. The homework will be good for you.

You have an excellent command of language, and you express your opinions well.
But you presume too much if you think I want you as my teacher in these
matters. I expect a teacher to lead me to my own conclusions, something I
cannot depend upon you to do any more than I can a politician.


If you will not my "excellent command of the language" you will see that
I specifically do NOT wish to be your (or anyone else's) teacher. I was
merely pointing out that a much more coherent argument for the position
espoused by "Tom Watson" existed than the one he was trying to use.

No, you put on an air of superiority -- you knew the "good argument (or two)",
and you were going to reserve dispensing them for those who want you as their
teacher. If you -really- wanted to compare your arguments with Tom's, you'd
have stated them. Something you have otherwise done with abundance.

Are you and "Watson" one and the same, BTW?

No. Tom has more poet and storyteller in his pinky than I have in my entire
body.

--
Art Greenberg
artg at eclipse dot net

Dave 'Last Word' Bugg wrote:



Pot-Kettle-Black.....


WOW! That was funny.


*singing*... "..sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're...."

r

Robatoy wrote:

Nuthin', as ususal.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:52:19 -0000, Art Greenberg
wrote:


Are you and "Watson" one and the same, BTW?

No. Tom has more poet and storyteller in his pinky than I have in my entire
body.


You give me more than I deserve Art, but I thank you for the kind
words.

Mr. D has come to the point of Nol Pros that all neo-con others do
when arguing about the lack of signatory to the 1979 agreements.

It is a fact that we are outside of the world community on several
levels.

There are global emissions standards that we do not participate in.

There is a lack of signatory responsibility regarding the Geneva
Conventions.

Mr. D likes to make hay about our currency with the 1949 agreements
but says very little about Article One of 1979.


If he would use the whip of 1949, I would also use the chain of 1979.

There is a facticity here which is immensurable - are we a global
neighbor in the correct sense?

Mr. D seems to be Wilsonian in his claims to independence.

History has proven them both the fool.

I thought to let this thread die.


Now, I think that I will let it die - because I will no longer argue
with a fool.




Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Tom Watson wrote:
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:52:19 -0000, Art Greenberg
wrote:


Are you and "Watson" one and the same, BTW?
No. Tom has more poet and storyteller in his pinky than I have in my entire
body.


You give me more than I deserve Art, but I thank you for the kind
words.

He certainly does.


Mr. D has come to the point of Nol Pros that all neo-con others do
when arguing about the lack of signatory to the 1979 agreements.

It is a fact that we are outside of the world community on several
levels.

There are global emissions standards that we do not participate in.

Because there is no clear demonstration of their merit and the subject
remains in considerable debate between and among the actual experts.
Your naughty feelings about the matter notwithstanding, I'd rather
wait until there is a more rigorous and tenable model of the subject
involved instead of depending on models and claims that - to date -
have been entirely wrong or vastly overstated. This does have the
downside of preferring the authority of science to your warm droolings
on the matter. This is not unlike the fringes of the religious movement
whose warm droolings about the age of the earth are also subordinated
to scientific investigation. Perhaps you and your fellow earth-worshiping
pantheists should just get it over with already, declare yourself a religion,
as, in fact, you are, and at least get some tax breaks.


There is a lack of signatory responsibility regarding the Geneva
Conventions.

Because we are sovereign nation and morally obligated to first
act in our own enlightened self-interest. We have no moral obligation to satisfy global
statists of your ilk so you can feel warm and gooey about how
nicely we play with despots, kooks, and monsters around the world.


Mr. D likes to make hay about our currency with the 1949 agreements
but says very little about Article One of 1979.


If he would use the whip of 1949, I would also use the chain of 1979.

It would be an imaginary chain. The additional protocols came into being
in 1977. It may also come a surprise to you that, while the US signed
the documents in question, they have never been ratified - a necessary
step, as I understand it, for them to be binding upon us. So you would
have be "chained" by a protocol to which we are not yet party. What
a shocker.


There is a facticity here which is immensurable - are we a global
neighbor in the correct sense?

"Correct" according to whom? You? Your membership in the
"I Know What's Good For Everyone Else" Society is showing. I do *not*
know what is good for everyone else. I do, however, want what is
proper and good for my nation, and by extension, me. There is a legitimate
debate to be had there about just what that entails. But "being good global
neighbors" is an irrelevancyy except to the extent that it good for ... us.

Mr. D seems to be Wilsonian in his claims to independence.

Wilson was an isolationist. I am not. I believe we should have rich
commercial, cultural, and scientific trade with the rest of the world.
I do not, however, believe that we owe the rest of the world an explanation
for every single thing we do, nor do we have to play Mother-May-I prior
to doing so.

History has proven them both the fool.

History hasn't been around to demonstrate me a fool or otherwise.
You also attribute far more importance to me than I do. I'd
say the foolishness is on your part.


I thought to let this thread die.

No, you just waited until it settled down and got simplified sufficiently.


Now, I think that I will let it die - because I will no longer argue
with a fool.

Game, set, and match ... as usual.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:55:49 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Game, set, and match ... as usual.


Arrogant bull****, as usual.

You have Adams without Jefferson.
Read "History Will Absolve Me".
You have Washington without Lafayette.
Read Pushkin.
You are Wilsonian without attribution.
Read Thoreau.
Read Emerson.
Read Whitman.
Become a real citizen.
Read Jefferson.
Read Franklin.
Read Lee.
Read Grant.
Listen to Dylan.
You are tribal.
Listen to Bach.
Pay particular attention to the Constitution.
Tell me why the Articles of Confederation did not work and apply the
concept globally.
Stop using language as a defense against intelligence.
Read Plato's "Republic".
You are a well spoken idiot - I would like to see you a well read
idiot.


Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Tom Watson wrote:
SNIP

You are a well spoken idiot - I would like to see you a well read
idiot.

Game-Set-Match ^2


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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Dave Bugg wrote:
wrote:

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.
SNIP
So, yes, sufficient evidence *must* be in place prior to presenting the
Articles to the House.

All of which points out one of my central contentions: The Bush critics
largely just hate him so much that any argument, any method, or any
approach is OK so long as it diminishes the administration in some way
(not unlike the Right that hated Clinton with equal ferocity, though
arguably with a more clear basis).

The Bush-haters argue on the one hand that he is a "lying liar who lied
about everything" but when challenged with the evidence that would
support his humiliation and even impeachment, they retreat to "it's ...
because there is insufficient support ... to impeach him", utterly
sidestepping the point that even a failed impeachment would be a source
of considerable humiliation and loss of power for W (assuming there
was some shred of credible evidence to support it).

Rather you dismissed two clear examples of deliberate deception
as 'error', an argument I rebutted he

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...e=source&hl=en

To elaborate further:

The administration 'erred' by describing the 81 mm Medusa missile
tubes as suitable for Uranium enrichment centrifuges the same way
the tobacco company executives 'erred' when they said nicotine was
not addictive and smoking was not proven to cause lung cancer. In
both cases expert advice was obtained and then statements made that
flatly contradicted the conclusions of their own experts.

The Bush administration did manage to find some people who
said the tubes could be used for Uranium enrichment, only those
people lacked the expertise of those who gave the administration
an answer they didn't like.

By your standards of what constitutes 'error' the Bush adminstration
would be in error, not lying, if they consulted with experts at the
USNO, NOAA and the Flat Earth Society, and then announced that
the Earth is flat.

OK, for argument's sake, let's say everything happened just the
way you describe. Do you seriously consider this an impeachable
level of lying? That is, does it meet the "high crimes and misdemeanors"
level of prevarication? Inquiring minds wanna know.

Of course.

Deceiving the Congress in order to indfluence their vote on what
has thus far been the most important piece of legislation of the
21st Century should shurely qualify.


....

No attempt has been to tranform 'the debate' from the Geneva
Conventions
to US laws. Those are separte independent arguments.

But are conveniently conflated when it suits your rhetorical purposes.

False. You conflate the two when you claim someone else is
trying to 'transform' the debate.

You wandered on and on about just *who* was entitled to the
privileges of our system and just *what* actually constituted
our social/legal contract (and idea embedded in the very fabric
of our founding philosophers). You did so in the middle of this
very debate: What shall we do with non-uniformed combatants?
Context is everything, and the context of your commentary on
the matter of our domestic law very reasonably can be inferred to
mean that you think it has at least some applicability. It doesn't
and never will.

Here we disagree.

Out government was founded on the concept that all Men are Created
Equal. NOT all parties to out legal/social contact are created equal.

Due Process and Habeas Corpus, and the protection against
cruel and unusual punishment, have always been applied to
aliens on our soil..



The Bush adminstration, however, prepetually tries to tranform the
debate from respect for the rule of law, to "protecting the American
People". The need for the latter has never been disputed, yet the
Bush adminisiration acts as if debate over what is necessary and
proper to accomplish that, is tatamount to treason.

So, again, if this is so indisputably obvious, and the issues are so cut
and dried (and here I thought Lefties specialized in "nuanced" thinking)
why not embarrass the President by getting the Demo whiner contingent to
get the impeachment ball rolling? After all, it's *obvious* you're
right, and even if you can't win impeachment, the weight of your
considerable "proof" for these claims will certainly undermine the power
and prestige of this President.

Do you think that the Nation benefitted from the Clinton Impeachment?
Do you think that the Republican party benefitted from the same?

Is it often the case taht those who respect only power often make
the msitake of assuming that the same is true for those who oppose
them.

--

FF