On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 18:23:11 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Thanks for the article and the tip. The author is correct in his statements
about the 'mainstream media'. The good news is not anti-Bush, therefore not
good.


"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
.................snip............
He described recent US government actions as "aggressive" in a
speech
at
a youth festival in Caracas.

As a result, Venezuelan oil "instead of going to the United States,
could go elsewhere," he said.
produces 80% of the world's supply.
...............snip..............
If Chavez turns off the spigot, you'll start to see violence at the
gas
pump.
Harry.......You heard it first here! Venezuela will soon be
attacked
by
the USA..........There will be some feeble excuse invented by the CIA
and
American troops will invade.

Nope. Iran is in the crosshairs right now.


In your wet dreams, perhaps. Bush no longer has the standing to wage a
war
on trumped-up evidence. For him to do *anything* Iran, that country
would have to be taking blatant, overt actions that directly threaten
the
United States, and for Bush to even suggest anything like that, he'd
need
hard evidence.


...or an Iraqi/Iranian border dispute that escalates just a wee bit too
much.

First will come sharper sanctions, then a marine embargo, and then Iran
lashing out at us. We'll simply be reacting in self-defense.




Perhaps you, "Smithers," Robbins, Fritz, Calif Ill, Herring, and a few
other righties can volunteer yourselves into a platoon and head over to
the Middle East to stop some bullets for Dumb Boy Bush. Send me a
postcard
from the front.

I don't believe we should occupy Iran. I think we should just completely
destroy their infrastructure, and make it impossible for them to arm
terrorists flooding into Iraq and Israel.

harry must have missed this.............

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/52321.htm

So folks don't have to register:
THE REAL IRAQ NEWS
By RALPH PETERS

WHAT was the big "Iraq" story in August? Which vital issue got the most
air-time and ink? The camp-out of a sad, tormented woman who had lost her
son, her marriage and her judgment.

The media pounced on poor Cindy Sheehan in an anti-Bush, anti-war frenzy.
The disappointment was obvious when she decided to go home.

What should have made headlines? It would've been nice to see more attention
devoted to the complexity and importance of drafting a new constitution for
Iraq. But my nomination for the "Greatest Story Never Told" is a quieter
one: Locked in a difficult war, the U.S. Army is exceeding its re-enlistment
and first-time enlistment goals. Has anybody mentioned that to you?

Remember last spring, when the Army's recruitment efforts fell short for a
few months? The media's glee would have made you confuse the New York Times
and Air America.

When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers
dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered
was the wonderful news that the Army couldn't find enough soldiers. We were
warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train
wreck.

Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army's numbers look great.
Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record
levels. And you don't hear a whisper about it from the "mainstream media."

Let's look at the numbers, which offer a different picture of patriotism
than the editorial pages do.

* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions - its key combat organizations - has
exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most
intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is
at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with
the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and
the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its
re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft.
Where are the headlines?

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last
spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every
young American despises his or her country and our president.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away
from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment
stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years
that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention
comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I've even heard
a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up - but let's wait for
confirmation on that.)

Of course, we'll hear stammering about an "army of mercenaries"- naive,
uneducated kids lured by the promise of big retention bonuses. That's
another lie told by the elite to excuse themselves from serving our country
in uniform.

The young men and women who have been through the crucible of combat - often
on repeated deployments - are hardly naive. Their education levels exceed
the American average. And, as of Aug. 2, the Army had spent a 2005 total of
only $347 million on Selective Re-enlistment Bonuses - that's weekend
walking-around money for America's Fortune 500 CEOs.

Big bucks for risking your life? Not hardly. Only 60 percent of soldiers get
any re-enlistment bonus. For the overwhelming number whose skills merit an
extra incentive, bonuses runs between $6,000 and $12,400 per year of
contracted service - per year of facing death, wounds, separation from
family and uncertainty as to whether you'll ever see that family again.

A total of 643 soldiers with very special capabilities, from special
operators to doctors, got an average payment of $57,000 - a fraction of what
the private sector offers them for doing the same jobs at far less risk.

No, they don't do it for the money.

Guess we have to face it: Patriotism is alive and well. Soldiers believe in
the Army, and they believe in their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They
love their comrades, too. And yes, the word is "love." They would die for
the man or woman serving beside them. They're risking their lives to save a
broken state, to give tens of millions of human beings a chance at decent
lives, to do the grim work that no one else in the world is willing to do.

Their reward? The Cindy Sheehan Extravaganza. Predictions of disaster. The
depiction of Michael Moore as a hero and our soldiers as dupes. And a
ceaseless attempt to convince the American people that there's no hope in
Iraq.

The ugly truth is that much of the media only cares about our soldiers when
they're dead or crippled. That's a story.

As you read this, 500,000 soldiers are on active duty because they chose to
serve their country. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of Reservists and
Guard members have been called into uniform. And they're all behaving as
true soldiers do: Running toward the sound of the guns, not away from them.

We should be humbled by their choices, honored by their sacrifices, and
proud of what they're fighting to achieve. Instead of the jerk's refrain
"Support our troops, bring them home," the line should run "Support our
troops, make their home worthy of them."

Our young men and women in uniform - in every service - deserve far better
than we've given them.





(BTW--If you don't want to register in order to log on to online newspapers,
etc, then get the BugMeNot plugin for Mozilla. Right click on the username,
and a random username pops up for most websites)





--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD