"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

I just wish we'd stop effin' with the rest of the world, bring it
all back home, and start taking care of our own for once.


I'm with you on this one.

--

-Mike-

Note follow-ups.

Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Note crossposting and follow-ups.


No - screw the crossposting. Why would you go and start that crap?
Please
don't take up on this crossposting stuff. Kindly keep comments
within your
own group.

What do you mean by 'your own group'? I do not own any newsgroups.

It is simply a matter of nettiquette to post articles in a newsgroup
where they are on topic.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...
Note follow-ups.

Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Note crossposting and follow-ups.


No - screw the crossposting. Why would you go and start that crap?
Please
don't take up on this crossposting stuff. Kindly keep comments
within your
own group.

What do you mean by 'your own group'? I do not own any newsgroups.

It is simply a matter of nettiquette to post articles in a newsgroup
where they are on topic.


I meant that folks in alt.politics should discuss things in alt.politics and
folks in rec.woodworking should discuss things in rec.woodworking. If one
wants to discuss things with another group they should go to that group to
hold that discussion. It is not, nor has it ever been netiquette to cross
post as you did. It only invites an invasion of conversations that are not
relevant to the group in question. If what you were trying to accomplish
was to take a political discussion away from a woodworking group (not
necessarily a bad idea all by itself...), then it works better to get the
participants to go there. Opening this group up to a deluge from
alt.politics by cross posting there does nothing in the name of netiquette.

--

-Mike-

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Don't worry. This one won't last forever. Once Shrub attacks Iran,
the Muslims will unite globally against us and we won't be around
any more. Duck and cover, guys. This one's gonna be nasty.

OR, if he doesn't go into Iran and Syria, he'll try to shove
"democracy" down Korea's throat and get the Chinese to come
to their aid. Once our imports are stopped dead in their tracks,
we'll implode by ourselves.

I just wish we'd stop effin' with the rest of the world, bring it
all back home, and start taking care of our own for once.

An ostrich with his head in the sand couldn't be doing a better job of
ignoring global reality.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message news:

Yeah, it's such a great thing for the world that America was watching
out for us. _America_ told Saddam that it was OK to invade Kuwait.
_America_ taught the 9/11 pilots to fly. Yeah, great vigilance there.

Lose the knee jerk rant against "America" .. it is unbecoming of you, and
you know better. Your enemy is not America, but muslim fundamentalist ...
learn to accept that and you may yet survive.

Just hope like hell that there is still someone around to protect you
from yourself by _carrying_ the fight to those just waiting fo the
opportunity to eradicate your infidel ass.

Go Team America !
If there isn't already a fight, carry one right on in there.

Don't worry, we've managed to rise to the occasion a couple of times in the
past, much to your benefit, and we will do so again.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Robatoy" wrote in message
In article
"Swingman" wrote:


[snip]

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
situation?

Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?

Again... just asking.

Tsk, tsk ... or just baiting? In any event, these shallow, irrelevant
questions miss the mark completely.

There is no question that we have the tools to do the job. The question is
do we have the will?

When the sheep ultimately look up and see, ONCE AGAIN, their loved ones
dying in the streets of Hometown, USA, just hope like hell there is enough
of that "will" left to get the job done.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Silvan" wrote in message

I finally saw one of those up close and personal. Wow. Not armored is an
understatement. Nothing gives you a feeling of security in an under-fire
situation like sitting on a cushion directly on top of a gas tank, right?

Security is relative. Flying in a helicopter, with no armor, while watching
the tracer rounds pass by, and knowing that you're only seeing about 1/7th
of those little buggers, doesn't leave you with a helluva lot of regard for
the dangers of sitting atop a tank of diesel, not gas, while tooling along
on the ground.

Besides, you gotta put the tank somewhere. I'm certain that if some of the
global master thinkers/planners ranting against reality hereabouts can come
up with a better solution, they'll find someone to listen.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

wrote in message

It is simply a matter of nettiquette to post articles in a newsgroup
where they are on topic.

Thing about it is, its a complicated world. ... many here are using filters
that work against crossposting. If you take out the crossposting, you defeat
the filter.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.

The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ... quit your
whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:11:35 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:


[snip]

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
situation?

Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?

Again... just asking.

0¿0


Rob

Rob.. In my experience, that's a squad or platoon level decision...
The brass in the choppers make decisions based on the "big picture"
and the pressure on them from higher up brass...
The guys on the ground that are taking fire are the ones that have to
decide whether they're going to disobey the order from "above" to
avoid needless loss of their people..

I was one of many NCO's that were busted for not letting my people do
stupid things that were ordered by people that were too new "in
country" to understand what was going on where the rubber meets the
road...

As to your question about men going blindly forward when ordered,
that's why they drafted teenagers... they still think that they're
immortal..

Try getting a large group of middle age guys to charge that gun, and
you'll have a discussion like this one first.. lol



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Swingman notes:

Security is relative. Flying in a helicopter, with no armor, while watching
the tracer rounds pass by, and knowing that you're only seeing about 1/7th
of those little buggers, doesn't leave you with a helluva lot of regard for
the dangers of sitting atop a tank of diesel, not gas, while tooling along
on the ground.

Besides, you gotta put the tank somewhere. I'm certain that if some of the
global master thinkers/planners ranting against reality hereabouts can come
up with a better solution, they'll find someone to listen.

Flying in a helicopter defies natural laws anyway, IMO. I think they told us
our fuel tanks were "cells" with self-sealing lining. I used to wonder what
difference that would make with nice green tracers doing their penetrating
thing. I was glad I was never in one in such a circumstance, though, and remain
glad today.

But it doesn't take firepower: prelim word is that the Sea Stallion that went
down yesterday killing 31 Marines was screwed up by a sandstorm.

Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
In article
"Swingman" wrote:


[snip]

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
situation?

Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?

Again... just asking.

Tsk, tsk ... or just baiting? In any event, these shallow, irrelevant
questions miss the mark completely.

That was totally uncalled for. If you need to resort to that method of
debate, count me out.

How about that hockey strike, eh?

"mac davis" wrote in message

Rob.. In my experience, that's a squad or platoon level decision...
The brass in the choppers make decisions based on the "big picture"
and the pressure on them from higher up brass...
The guys on the ground that are taking fire are the ones that have to
decide whether they're going to disobey the order from "above" to
avoid needless loss of their people..

You don't have to "disobey" orders in most cases, just be smart about it.

I was one of many NCO's that were busted for not letting my people do
stupid things that were ordered by people that were too new "in
country" to understand what was going on where the rubber meets the
road...

Good on you ... those with courage and sense did the same thing to protect
their men when the "rubber met the road". My hat's off to you.

As to your question about men going blindly forward when ordered,
that's why they drafted teenagers... they still think that they're
immortal..

Try getting a large group of middle age guys to charge that gun, and
you'll have a discussion like this one first.. lol

Those "middle aged guys" are at staff level and you don't often see them in
the thick of things, in any war. In yours and my war, they were famous for
flying around in the relative safety of a helicopter at 1500 feet, trying to
get time in for an Air Medal while playing general.

It was always easy to ignore them and do what you need to do to both
accomplish the mission and protect your own men ... funny how those
Prick25's suddenly wouldn't work for air to ground communications on
occasion, aint it?

As they say, the idea is not to die for your country/cause, but to make the
enemy die for his ... as you obviously know firsthand, you learn this real
early if you're smart, and you die if you don't.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

Flying in a helicopter defies natural laws anyway, IMO. I think they told
us
our fuel tanks were "cells" with self-sealing lining. I used to wonder
what
difference that would make with nice green tracers doing their penetrating
thing. I was glad I was never in one in such a circumstance, though, and
remain
glad today.

I preferred to sit on my flak jacket, in any type of transport, be it ground
or air, instead of wearing it ... for all the good that would do. But there
is comfort, if false security, in liittle things like that which allow your
mind to accept the risks and to keep going.

But it doesn't take firepower: prelim word is that the Sea Stallion that
went
down yesterday killing 31 Marines was screwed up by a sandstorm.

A tragic loss of life ... and contrary to what most likely think I would say
in this thread, a needless one.

I firmly believe we need to take the battle to the Islamic fundamentalist,
but we need to choose those battles wisely. I don't agree for a minute that
we have done so, but all the head-in-the-sand ignoring of the reality that
we damn well better see it to the end, regardless of the wisdom of the
initial choice, just floors me.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Robatoy" wrote in message

Again... just asking.

Tsk, tsk ... or just baiting? In any event, these shallow, irrelevant
questions miss the mark completely.

That was totally uncalled for. If you need to resort to that method of
debate, count me out.

Then why do you get upset if you were indeed "just asking"?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

Swingman wrote:
wrote in message

It is simply a matter of nettiquette to post articles in a
newsgroup
where they are on topic.

Thing about it is, its a complicated world. ... many here are using
filters
that work against crossposting. If you take out the crossposting, you
defeat
the filter.


IOW, those who filter to remove cross-posts don't want to read
the OT articles in the first place, right?

Works for me.

Rec.woodworking is one newsgroup that works as intended. We
have great, flame-free discussions of woodworking and woodworking-
related topics. Most of the off-topic articles are crossposted
here by trolls.

What boggles the mind is that evidently a few of the regular
participants are unhappy about that flame-free environment and
insist on posting off-topic articles with subjects guaranteed to
provoke flame wars. One supposes that results largely from two
factors. First, a profound ignorance of UseNet itself and/or an
attitude that accepted rules of nettiquette are for other people
only.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...


What boggles the mind is that evidently a few of the regular
participants are unhappy about that flame-free environment and
insist on posting off-topic articles with subjects guaranteed to
provoke flame wars. One supposes that results largely from two
factors. First, a profound ignorance of UseNet itself and/or an
attitude that accepted rules of nettiquette are for other people
only.


I think I'm beginning to see your original intention Fred, which was either
not clear, or I simply missed, earlier on. I now appears you were trying to
direct the conversation over to alt.politics rather than allow it to run
here. I wouldn't agree with that as a tactic, but if that's what your
intent was, then I did misinterpret it in the beginning. It appeared to me
to be what we see a lot of in usenet - trolls who cross post in order to
bring others in from different groups, for the sake of creating a major
cluster f*ck. If I misinterpreted your intent, then I apologize.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:

I now appears you were trying to
direct the conversation over to alt.politics rather than allow it to
run
here.

As the British say, spot on.

Thanks.

--

FF

wrote in message

IOW, those who filter to remove cross-posts don't want to read
the OT articles in the first place, right?

Not necessarily ... everyone responds differently at different times. Many
don't mind participating in the ocassional OT rant/tirade/dicussion/flame
fest if it is among familiar participants of the group. The best, and worst,
of us are guilty.

Then, there is always the NEXT key for net nanny wannabe's.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message

Again... just asking.

Tsk, tsk ... or just baiting? In any event, these shallow, irrelevant
questions miss the mark completely.

That was totally uncalled for. If you need to resort to that method of
debate, count me out.

Then why do you get upset if you were indeed "just asking"?

I am not upset. No reason to be upset.

In article ,
mac davis wrote:


Rob.. In my experience, that's a squad or platoon level decision...
The brass in the choppers make decisions based on the "big picture"
and the pressure on them from higher up brass...
The guys on the ground that are taking fire are the ones that have to
decide whether they're going to disobey the order from "above" to
avoid needless loss of their people..

I was one of many NCO's that were busted for not letting my people do
stupid things that were ordered by people that were too new "in
country" to understand what was going on where the rubber meets the
road...

As to your question about men going blindly forward when ordered,
that's why they drafted teenagers... they still think that they're
immortal..

Try getting a large group of middle age guys to charge that gun, and
you'll have a discussion like this one first.. lol


Thanks, Mac. That I understood.

0¿0

Rob

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:34:03 -0500, Robatoy wrote:

.... snip
How about that hockey strike, eh?

So, has anybody missed hockey this season?





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

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

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

"Swingman" wrote in news:XfedncFu4qJyimTcRVn-
:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.

The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ... quit your
whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

You must be working overtime keeping up with all the political posts. I
think you have a very long row to hoe.

"Great mistakes in the ruling part, will be borne by the people without
mutiny or murmur." -- John Locke

"Swingman" wrote in
:

....
There is no question that we have the tools to do the job. The
question is do we have the will?
....

So what tools are you suggesting?

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
mac davis wrote:


Rob.. In my experience, that's a squad or platoon level decision...
The brass in the choppers make decisions based on the "big picture"
and the pressure on them from higher up brass...
The guys on the ground that are taking fire are the ones that have to
decide whether they're going to disobey the order from "above" to
avoid needless loss of their people..

I was one of many NCO's that were busted for not letting my people do
stupid things that were ordered by people that were too new "in
country" to understand what was going on where the rubber meets the
road...

As to your question about men going blindly forward when ordered,
that's why they drafted teenagers... they still think that they're
immortal..

Try getting a large group of middle age guys to charge that gun, and
you'll have a discussion like this one first.. lol


While the discussion rages among the "army of one" types, the actual action,
for which the infiltration was to have provided a diversion, has resulted in
a four time casualty rate.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

"Swingman" wrote in

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Yeah, a few percent difference is a "mandate." Go figure.
49+ million votes against don't mean a thing to him.

The election is over. The American _people_ made a decision ... quit
your
whining and get over the fact you were in a minority.

You must be working overtime keeping up with all the political posts. I
think you have a very long row to hoe.

It's mainly because I wouldn't know Robin Hartl if she bit me on the ass,
don't care which hand Sears uses to screw its customers, figured out a long
time ago how to remove insulation from wires, and have no problem whatsoever
finding my local BORG.

The short answer is don't you worry about it ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
"Swingman" wrote in

...
There is no question that we have the tools to do the job. The
question is do we have the will?
...

So what tools are you suggesting?

What would you like to hear? ... "Nuclear"?

Sorry, not from me..

All military unit's readiness to perform a mission revolves around two major
categories: Men and Materiel. Depending upon the mission, and often
political necessities, neither has to be at "full strength", according to
the respective table of organization and equipment, to perform effectively.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "tools" at this point ... as noted
above, the "will" to finish what we started is the bigger concern, due the
fools and dunderheads, and the media that fuels their antics, who refuse to
see the consequences of not doing so.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...

.. Besides, the rights of free speech and free press are
fundamental to a democracy (at least until some dunderhead decides
otherwise).

Except, of course, at Harvard ... or anywhere if you're not PC.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

I think it is the fools and dunderheads that got us into this mess to
begin with.

It's hard to disagree with you, but the point is moot ... we're in it up to
our eyeballs. The task now is to deal a blow to our avowed enemies while we
extricate ourselves, or walk off and stick our heads in the sand, ignoring
global reality in the 21st century.

Besides, the rights of free speech and free press are
fundamental to a democracy (at least until some dunderhead decides
otherwise).

There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy. Couple
that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either side, and you end
up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken to be based passion and
politics, instead of reason.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

I think it is the fools and dunderheads that got us into this mess to
begin with.

It's hard to disagree with you, but the point is moot ... we're in it
up to our eyeballs. The task now is to deal a blow to our avowed
enemies while we extricate ourselves, or walk off and stick our heads
in the sand, ignoring global reality in the 21st century.

There are alternatives besides "staying the course" and "sticking our heads
in the sand." It is not a sign of weakness to learn from our mistakes, it
is a sign of resiliency and strength. I also believe that now the mistake
of going to war has been made, we must succeed ... and adjustment of our
approach is much needed. It is not unpatriotic for that to be pointed out.

Besides, the rights of free speech and free press are
fundamental to a democracy (at least until some dunderhead decides
otherwise).

There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy.
Couple that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either
side, and you end up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken to
be based passion and politics, instead of reason.

Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.
Sometimes fighting while upholding those ideals is harder, but in the long
run worth it. When you start censoring free press and free speech in the
name of supporting the war, then you are already operating in a dangerous
haze based on passion and politics.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:27:46 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy. Couple
that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either side, and you end
up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken to be based passion and
politics, instead of reason.


Trashing "the press" globally is a neat way to equate them to
the nonsense on talk radio (left and right). "The press" isn't
perfect, but overall it is much closer to the truth than talk radio
and our government.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy.
Couple that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either
side, and you end up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken to
be based passion and politics, instead of reason.

Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.

That is a damn provincial attitude to the rest of the world, and a perfect
example of head-in-the-sand when it comes to global terrorism.

Sometimes fighting while upholding those ideals is harder, but in the long
run worth it. When you start censoring free press and free speech in the
name of supporting the war, then you are already operating in a dangerous
haze based on passion and politics.

Whoa .. bucko!. Not old enough to remember WWII, or much American history
are we?

There is nothing "nonsense" about limits on free speech. AAMOF, it is a
historical fact in this country since day 1 (remember the principle of
yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), particularly in times of war or
national danger ... and if we lose this one, WWII will look like a walk in
the park.

Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what is going
on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan Rather and CBS,
and the paying of "journalists" by the present administration, sound
familiar?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"GregP" wrote in message
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:27:46 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:


There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy.
Couple
that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either side, and you
end
up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken to be based passion and
politics, instead of reason.


Trashing "the press" globally is a neat way to equate them to
the nonsense on talk radio (left and right). "The press" isn't
perfect, but overall it is much closer to the truth than talk radio
and our government.

And why do you think that is? We only have one government, but historically
have had many different voices in the "press" ... it takes all the voices to
keep the one in line.

Problem is "corporate"consolidation of the many voices of the press into
fewer entities these days ... and the fact that the ones that make the big
dollars are blatantly one sided, or worse, for sale.

I will say this ... if my big city (Houston) is any example, the press is
not nearly as "free", or as impartial, as it was 30 years ago ... and that's
a fact.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

"Swingman" wrote in message


Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what is
going
on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan Rather and CBS,
and the paying of "journalists" by the present administration, sound
familiar?

Let me clarify that, Nate ... I meant you in the larger sense, not "you" in
particular.

Sorry ...

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:10:12 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

And why do you think that is? We only have one government, but historically
have had many different voices in the "press" ... it takes all the voices to
keep the one in line.

Problem is "corporate"consolidation of the many voices of the press into
fewer entities these days ... and the fact that the ones that make the big
dollars are blatantly one sided, or worse, for sale.


Some are, most aren't, tho there has been a lot less criticism of
Bush's antics than there would have been 30 years ago.

I will say this ... if my big city (Houston) is any example, the press is
not nearly as "free", or as impartial, as it was 30 years ago ... and that's
a fact.

That's most likely true.

"Swingman" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy.
Couple that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either
side, and you end up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken
to be based passion and politics, instead of reason.

Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.

That is a damn provincial attitude to the rest of the world, and a
perfect example of head-in-the-sand when it comes to global terrorism.

No, this idea that somehow we have to give up our freedoms in order to
more effectively fight terrorism is wrong. The idea that somehow our
democratic process of free speech, free press, and political opposition
somehow provides aid to the enemy is wrong, too. It's entirely possible
to fight a smart war on terrorism and still protect our ideals. We are
not fighting a smart war on terrorism.

There are some people that say we need to permit torture, indefinite
imprisonment of American citizens without charge or legal counsel,
suspension of habeas corpus, supression of free speech, censorship of
news reports from the battlefield -- those people scare me as much as
Bin Laden. Countries that allow this wake up one day and find they live
in a dictatorship.

Sometimes fighting while upholding those ideals is harder, but in the
long run worth it. When you start censoring free press and free
speech in the name of supporting the war, then you are already
operating in a dangerous haze based on passion and politics.

Whoa .. bucko!. Not old enough to remember WWII, or much American
history are we?

Right, I'm not old enough to remember WWII (I'm only in my early-mid
40's). I do remember a fair amount of American history. America's not
perfect, but generally it has valued democratic ideals and in the
periods of history where that's not been done it's usually viewed
negatively later (e.g., Joe McCarthy, Nisei camps, etc).

There is nothing "nonsense" about limits on free speech. AAMOF, it is
a historical fact in this country since day 1 (remember the principle
of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), particularly in times of war
or national danger ... and if we lose this one, WWII will look like a
walk in the park.

Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what is
going on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan
Rather and CBS, and the paying of "journalists" by the present
administration, sound familiar?

Yes, there are limits on free speech, especially involving public safety
and libel. Of course that's not what we are talking about. We are
talking about whether or not the political opposition has the right (or
duty) to point out the failings of the current leadership. I believe
they do. We are talking about whether the process of democratic dissent
provides aid to the enemy. I believe it does not.

I agree that the press is not doing as good a job as it ought to. It's
not asking the critical questions, it's sloppy, it's partisan. It
accepts dodges and nonanswers from our politicians. It's even being
bribed by our politicians. But for all its many faults, it's still part
of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks and
balances.

"Swingman" wrote in
:

"Swingman" wrote in message


Solution: get your head out of the sand and start listening to what
is
going
on around you when it comes to a "free press" also ... Dan Rather and
CBS, and the paying of "journalists" by the present administration,
sound familiar?

Let me clarify that, Nate ... I meant you in the larger sense, not
"you" in particular.

Sorry ...


No offense taken. It's an interesting discussion.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

Yes, there are limits on free speech, especially involving public safety
and libel. Of course that's not what we are talking about.

Of course, that is EXACTY what I was talking about.

We are
talking about whether or not the political opposition has the right (or
duty) to point out the failings of the current leadership.

Right on ...

I believe
they do. We are talking about whether the process of democratic dissent
provides aid to the enemy. I believe it does not.

Do you not think that "will" can also be gauged from the amount of
ostensible dissent, particularly when the dissent is trumpeted as an agenda
by some in the news media"?

What do you think of Tedddy boy calling for a firm pullout date, even
knowing that the terroist would benefit immensely from that knowledge? While
it is no more than political posturing in his case, it shows a reckless
disregard for those in harm's way, IMO. Ask the surviving POW's from RVN
what effects the likes of Jane Fonda had on their existence as prisoners.

But for all its many faults, it's still part
of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks and
balances.

While I can't disagree, and that is the ideal However, I am afraid that may
be rapidly disappearing. What makes me say that is my perspective of
approximately 50 year of seeing how narrow the field has become in all forms
of media here where I live. From a three newspaper town one newspaper in a
city of 4 million, from numerous radio stations to most being owned by one
company.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 06:04:36 GMT, the inscrutable Nate Perkins
spake:

"Swingman" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message

There is also a point when "free" speech provides aid to the enemy.
Couple that fact with today's press, that can be bought by either
side, and you end up in a dangerous haze that forces the path taken
to be based passion and politics, instead of reason.

Nonsense. American ideals are the only thing worth fighting for.

Define "American ideals", please. Those of our forefathers or those
of the current regime, or those of the American public? They're VASTLY
different, and I have no doubt that the former are spinning wildly in
their graves at the moment from the current regime's antics. We're
in a ****LOAD of trouble if you guys don't realize that.


That is a damn provincial attitude to the rest of the world, and a
perfect example of head-in-the-sand when it comes to global terrorism.

No, this idea that somehow we have to give up our freedoms in order to
more effectively fight terrorism is wrong.

True. We can never effectively fight terrorism and any attempt to
do more than we did pre-911 is foolhardy and drains our reserves.
That, sir, is precisely what bin Laden WANTS. We're spending something
like a million dollars to every one he spends against us.


The idea that somehow our
democratic process of free speech, free press, and political opposition
somehow provides aid to the enemy is wrong, too.

Oh, it does. When the "enemy" knows precisely what we're planning and
when, knows precisely how many forces they fight and the makeup of
said forces, he can become more prepared than we are. Current media
broadcasts give far too much real-time, intricate knowledge for the
safety of our troops.


It's entirely possible
to fight a smart war on terrorism and still protect our ideals. We are
not fighting a smart war on terrorism.

A-freakin'-men. We're doing absolutely nothing to address the CAUSE.


There are some people that say we need to permit torture, indefinite
imprisonment of American citizens without charge or legal counsel,
suspension of habeas corpus, supression of free speech, censorship of
news reports from the battlefield -- those people scare me as much as
Bin Laden. Countries that allow this wake up one day and find they live
in a dictatorship.

Too true.


I agree that the press is not doing as good a job as it ought to. It's
not asking the critical questions, it's sloppy, it's partisan. It
accepts dodges and nonanswers from our politicians. It's even being
bribed by our politicians. But for all its many faults, it's still part
of the system of (what used to be and ought to be) essential checks and
balances.

Is that any reason NOT to fix any of the broken systems in the
country? Our justice system is horribly broken, allowing stupid
lawsuits to ruin it in the name of money. Politicians are bribed,
media folks are bribed, prison guards are bribed, murders are let
out early while rec drug users rot in prison. Martha goes to prison
while O.J. stays out?

The Drug War costs billions of dollars. Do you know how many tons
of drugs are on our streets at any given time TODAY? Given the
billions spent, should there be -any- if the system worked?

Let's slow the wound called "The Drug War" and use some of those
funds to pay for to equip and protect our troops while they're in
this assinine war, eh?


----------------------------------------------------
Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications
================================================== ==

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:03:16 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

What do you think of Tedddy boy calling for a firm pullout date, even
knowing that the terroist would benefit immensely from that knowledge? While
it is no more than political posturing in his case, it shows a reckless
disregard for those in harm's way, IMO.


Sending all those boys and girls into harm's way without
adequate personal armor, adequate vehicle armor, adequate
numbers, and adequate planning killed and maimed a hell
of a lot more of them than anything "Teddy boy" might say,
but fascist wannabes like you can't do anything more than
suck up to this administration.