Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

DSK said:
for a President to threaten war in such a manner would be a greivous
violation of the Constitution.


Dave wrote:
Could you 'splain again which section it is that prohibits a President from
threatening war?

Read Article 2. This specifies how the President shall be elected and
which powers he may exercise. The President may make treaties with
foreign countries (subject to ratification by Congress), but he cannot
declare war. The President is the Commander In Chief but he cannot
explicitly threaten war, nor can he invade other countries except under
specific circumstances and in a limited way... this is why President
Bush went out of his way to get Congressional approval of the invasion
of Iraq... remember?

Now read the 9th and 10th amendment... if he could do those things, the
Constitution would specifically grant those powers. If it doesn't say
so, he can't.

It is a conservative belief that the Constitution be interpreted
strictly & literally, and that it's grants & enumerations be taken
seriously. I don't know what you believe in, are you a conservative or a
liberal?

DSK

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Joe" steelredcloudof wrote

BTW I just heard 8 out of the 10 suicide murders on the planes in NY
on 9/11 passed thru Iran on the way to Canada. Coming out in the 911
commissions reports

Well, there's two countries to bomb the crap out of.

SV

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Of course, neither are you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:47:16 -0400, DSK said:

The President is the Commander In Chief but he cannot
explicitly threaten war

A Constitutional scholar you're not, Doug.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Dave wrote:
A Constitutional scholar you're not, Doug.

Nope... however it is relatively plainly written. All legal obfuscation
aside, there is no legal basis for a President to make the kind of
threats against another country that Joe was talking about. That would
be a de-facto (spiffy technical term, huh) act of war.

Do you have an explanation of for the timing of the release of the
Iranian hostages, considering that they declared they were willing to
send them home about three months before the election and then held them
until "15 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated"??

I do... it's logical and consistent with known facts... but it is not
flattering to Reagan and thus rejected by you "constitutional scholar"
types. BTW if you don't believe in the Constitution, does that make you
conservative or liberal?

DSK

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
|
| "Joe" steelredcloudof wrote
|
| BTW I just heard 8 out of the 10 suicide murders on the planes in NY
| on 9/11 passed thru Iran on the way to Canada. Coming out in the 911
| commissions reports
|
| Well, there's two countries to bomb the crap out of.

You still got bombs left after that last fiasco??? We're safe as long as
we're not your allies.
Please start your first sweep through Quebec.

CM

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Dave wrote:
The scope of the President's power in foreign relations was extensively
debated by Madison and Hamilton, with Hamilton arguing for the more
expansive view and Madison taking the more restrictive view. Suffice it to
say that Hamilton's view prevailed. The President has broad power in the
field of foreign relations, including the power to make threats. Do you not
recall the Cuban missile crisis?

To actually carry through on those threats, on the other hand, may well
require action by Congress, and that in itself acts as something of a
restraint on diplomacy.

Dave, you're obfuscating. Hamilton never said anything to the effect
that "The President must be granted the power to threaten immediate war,
with any foreign country, for any or no reason, without any regard to
other authority." Kennedy certainly never called Kruschev on the red
phone and said "Listen you commie fag, I'm sending 10,000 paratroopers
to Moscow to smack you with baseball bats, the planes should be overhead
any minute now." Your claims are ridiculous.

If this were true, then how come Nixon got in trouble for bombing in
Cambodia? How come some factions of the Republicans are still furious
with Clinton for getting invovled in the former Yugoslavia? How come
Bush & Cheney didn't just invade Iraq whenever they wanted, and let
Congress go cry in their soup?

The President does have broad powers, and this can include threats of
war *within* the context of already ongoing diplomacy. The President
cannot treat the U.S. military as though it were his privately owned
video game. Is this what "conservatives" beleive now??

Regards
Doug King

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

And, Dave isn't a constitutional scholar either. So, he's basically
blowing a lot of smoke.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
A Constitutional scholar you're not, Doug.

Nope... however it is relatively plainly written. All legal obfuscation
aside, there is no legal basis for a President to make the kind of
threats against another country that Joe was talking about. That would
be a de-facto (spiffy technical term, huh) act of war.

Do you have an explanation of for the timing of the release of the
Iranian hostages, considering that they declared they were willing to
send them home about three months before the election and then held them
until "15 minutes after Reagan was inaugurated"??

I do... it's logical and consistent with known facts... but it is not
flattering to Reagan and thus rejected by you "constitutional scholar"
types. BTW if you don't believe in the Constitution, does that make you
conservative or liberal?

DSK

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

I think we off-shore their manufacture.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
|
| "Joe" steelredcloudof wrote
|
| BTW I just heard 8 out of the 10 suicide murders on the planes in NY
| on 9/11 passed thru Iran on the way to Canada. Coming out in the 911
| commissions reports
|
| Well, there's two countries to bomb the crap out of.

You still got bombs left after that last fiasco??? We're safe as long as
we're not your allies.
Please start your first sweep through Quebec.

CM

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Dave wrote:
Not obfuscating at all.

Yeah, but I thought that was more polite than saying "you're full of ****."

... What Hamilton said is that the doctrine of
enumerated powers on which you're relying doesn't apply in the area of
foreign relations. In that field he believed the President's authority was
to be plenary

Plenary powers damn sure don't include threatening war with another
country. And you wouldn't argue that they did, if we were talking about
a different President... say, Truman, for example.

DSK

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Joe" wrote
Legend is....He made the call first thing after he left the podium from
the swearing in ceramony.

Legend is the call went something like this: "OK, I'm in and the illegal
parts you need to get your weapons systems back up are on the way ......"

Secondly, ... Why would we reward a country
that had just held 52 hostages 444 days?


Well it goes back to the trader days on the silk route thru the middle
east. The are very skilled people in bartering and have a keen skill
in the art of negotiating. Ronald by heart was a Texan, but the sad
fact was he lived in California. Had he been a true Texas he would not
of bartered with dogs,

So Jimmy Otter must be a truer Texan than RR? Like all Californians, RR
thot Texans a joke.

Thats one of the reasons I like Bush as president. It's been a tough
hard road the last few years, and he's still stickin to his guns.

Yup, it's been tough watching neighbor kids getting killed and our
retirement investment evaporate. Bush may have been a draft dodger himself
but he has no problem sendin our sons and daughters to die in Iraq or
spending our retirement funds to rebuild it. Makes him real popular in
place like Moe's ....

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Dave" wrote
Do you not recall the Cuban missile crisis?


I do. Kruchev didn't like having our missiles in Turkey, etc., so he put
some of his own in Cuba. Finding them JFK blustered then caved in and pulled
our missiles back. Having gained his objectives, Kruchev took his home too.
JFK threw another bash for the US press and declared a victory ... and
that's how kids who weren't there remember it.

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Dave" wrote

Not obfuscating at all. What Hamilton said is that the doctrine of
enumerated powers on which you're relying doesn't apply in the area of
foreign relations. ...

But Daud, who cares what Hamilton thot? Madison and other Virginians wrote
the Constitution and better knew what it meant than some damnyankee who got
himself shot to death in a duel by the second most popular man in America,
VP Burr.

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:31:09 -0400, "Vito" said:

But Daud, who cares what Hamilton thot? Madison and other Virginians
wrote
the Constitution and better knew what it meant than some damnyankee who
got
himself shot to death in a duel by the second most popular man in
America,
VP Burr.

I'm afraid you're demonstrating a profound ignorance of both history and
Constitutional jurisprudence.

Common debating ruse - if you cannot attack the truth attack the messenger.
Works well on the Homer Simpson crowd, as Bush has oft demonstrated.

Do you disagree that Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, et al authored most of the
Constitution? If so, who do you think did so? Hamilton?

Do you claim that Hamilton was not killed by Burr, who as VP had finished
second in the presidential election?

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

DSK said:
Plenary powers damn sure don't include threatening war with another
country.


Dave wrote:
You and I simply disagree on that point.

Yep. You can disagree with little ol' me all you want. But who does
history... and the written word of the Constitution... agree with?

If the President could simply start a war with another country any time
he felt like it, and making threats such as Joe described *would* start
a war, then lots of episodes in our history... such as Nixon's little
problem with bombing Cambodia or GWB's effort to convince Congress to
allow him to invade Iraq... would never have happened.

So there.

DSK

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Dave" wrote

best-known contribution to Constitutional jurisprudence was The Federalist
papers, written with Madison and Jay. My recollection is that Hamilton
authored the largest number of those papers, though I haven't sat down and
counted them. In urging approval of the document they spell out in great
detail the kind of government the draftsmen of the Constitution intended,
.....

Are these what got him killed?

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Class time was over for you a long time ago.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:15:49 -0400, "Vito" said:

Are these what got him killed?

Class time is over. You'll have to look it up as homework.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Woof. I thought it was quite thoughtful and bit funny,
but you're thin skin is getting in the way.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:31:51 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:


Class time was over for you a long time ago.

And still another thoughtful contribution from Ganz.

You follow me around like a puppy dog, don't you, barking at every
opportunity?


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Vito" wrote


Yup, it's been tough watching neighbor kids getting killed.

Yup it is, just like it was on Normandy, Iwo Jima, Iran, the first
gulf war, ect defeating evil.


and our
retirement investment evaporate.

Gee mines up 25% this year..


Bush may have been a draft dodger himself
but he has no problem sendin our sons and daughters to die in Iraq or
spending our retirement funds to rebuild it.

Iraq is going to pay us back, dont get all upset.


Makes him real popular in
place like Moe's ....

Never been to Moe's. Is that were you hangout?

Joe

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

I thought mines are down....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Gee mines up 25% this year..

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Vito" wrote


Yup, it's been tough watching neighbor kids getting killed.

Yup it is, just like it was on Normandy, Iwo Jima, Iran, the first
gulf war, ect defeating evil.

You choose to ignore major differences. Germany attacked our allies and sank
our ships and Japan attacked us directly. Together they had the will and
means to subjugate us had we not fought back. The Gulf War was fought to
push Iraq back out of Kuwait - a limited acheivable objective. Bush's
current folly is an open ended war with unacheivable objectives, more like
Vietnam than any other war we've got into. Like Vietnam, it will kill
hundreds then thousands of our best young men and suck up $billions while
our military makes do with aging weapon systems, until the shrub leaves
office and some intellegent president shuts the tap. Then Iraq will return
to being what it was before beause that's the only thing they know. Our
puppet governors are quickly learning that they'll have to act just like
Saddam or else be overthrown by somebody who does.


and our retirement investment evaporate.

Gee mines up 25% this year..

Mine too -- after loosing over 55% right after the shrub took office.


Iraq is going to pay us back, dont get all upset.

Bwahahahaha! Look, I got this bridge for sale .....

Never been to Moe's. ....

I'da swore I saw you and Homer Simpson there chearing Bush's last speech.

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:34:47 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap:

. Bush's
current folly is an open ended war with unacheivable objectives, more like
Vietnam than any other war we've got into. Like Vietnam, it will kill
hundreds then thousands of our best young men and suck up $billions while

You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.

Today, our troops occupy Baghdad. Saddam is in our jail. His son's
are dead, and we occupy his palaces. The government we set up rules
Iraq. We are the superpower. We rule, not the United Nations. Deal
with reality.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Horvath" wrote in message
| You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
| Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.
|
| Today, our troops occupy Baghdad. Saddam is in our jail. His son's
| are dead, and we occupy his palaces. The government we set up rules
| Iraq. We are the superpower. We rule, not the United Nations. Deal
| with reality.

....and that my ignorant dipstick sums up nicely how the rest of the world
sees the USA.
Heh... that attitude is why you guys are so well loved globally!

CM

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

simple ****,......... that made perfect sense!
thanks

gf.


"Horvath" wrote in message
...

You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.

Today, our troops occupy Baghdad. Saddam is in our jail. His son's
are dead, and we occupy his palaces. The government we set up rules
Iraq. We are the superpower. We rule, not the United Nations. Deal
with reality.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:44:22 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote this crap:


"Horvath" wrote in message
| You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
| Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.
|
| Today, our troops occupy Baghdad. Saddam is in our jail. His son's
| are dead, and we occupy his palaces. The government we set up rules
| Iraq. We are the superpower. We rule, not the United Nations. Deal
| with reality.

...and that my ignorant dipstick sums up nicely how the rest of the world
sees the USA.
Heh... that attitude is why you guys are so well loved globally!


You're finally making some sense. Do we asked to be loved? Do we
care if we hurt France's feelings?




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:51:43 +1000, OzOne wrote this crap:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:38:03 -0400, Horvath
scribbled thusly:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:34:47 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap:

. Bush's
current folly is an open ended war with unacheivable objectives, more like
Vietnam than any other war we've got into. Like Vietnam, it will kill
hundreds then thousands of our best young men and suck up $billions while

You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.

Only because of the politics of the time.

Today, our troops occupy Baghdad.
No doubt about that....pity you don't control it.
Saddam is in our jail.
He's in gaol alright
His son's
are dead, and we occupy his palaces.
Yep, no argument here....I wonder when the palaces will become
property of the Iraqi people?
The government we set up rules
Iraq.
That would be the democracy you installed, Right?
We are the superpower.
Yep, and because of that arrogance, you have thousands of dogs biting
at your legs.

Licking our feet, and eating out of our hands, you mean.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:44:22 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote:


"Horvath" wrote in message
| You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
| Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.
|
| Today, our troops occupy Baghdad. Saddam is in our jail. His son's
| are dead, and we occupy his palaces. The government we set up rules
| Iraq. We are the superpower. We rule, not the United Nations. Deal
| with reality.

...and that my ignorant dipstick sums up nicely how the rest of the world
sees the USA.
Heh... that attitude is why you guys are so well loved globally!

CM

Horvath has set the bar for success pretty low. Most thinking people
would think that "occupying" a country at the cost of about $1.5
billion per week, while losing 900+ Americans to overthrow one aging,
impotent dictator is hardly "success". In the meantime, we have
destroyed our international credibility and done nothing to lessen
the threat of terrorism.

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Horvath" wrote in message
| You're finally making some sense. Do we asked to be loved? Do we
| care if we hurt France's feelings?

YES!
Yes you do or it wouldn't matter as much to you... all you seem to be doing
is asking why everyone hates you while stealing their candy.

CM

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

felton,
first i should say i did not support this war at its being.

assuming i buy your agrument for a few minutes
which, by the way, i don't.
....what would you propose as an alternative?

impotent dictator?
this impotent dictator has supported the very culture that these terrorists
live in and thrive on.
they didn't just materialize out of thin air with grenade launchers strapped
to their backs.

when reduced to it base issues - i see 2 possiblities (offer another)
damned if we do
damned if we don't

ask the people in the phillipines if they feel like " they got one over on
the terrorists" and "feel safer"
now there are more7 hostages.

i also disagree with the idea that we have done nothing to lessen the
threat.
the installation of a ( hopefully) more reasonable governing body, counter
to the culture that spawned terror is how it will happen, if at all.
and this is being done.
the threat is here forever.
the difference now is that it is recognized and can be adressed. (see 9/11
commission report for one example)

ok....how do we confront this problem to "lessen the threat"?
raffle humvees off in iraq?
food stamps?
welfare programs?
rock concerts for world peace?
give them ganz?

oh ......change our culture.
get rid of our sailboats?
get rid of our suv's?
get rid of our need for oil?
live in abject poverty?
and buy swords?

the points above are deliberate in their obvious absurdity
neither work.

the first relies on american arrogance/ignorance to buy our way. (its
happened before)
the second relies on changing american culture and trusting the terrorists.
(not likely)
a the third possiblity is we leave the middle east all together and
hide--it was impossible to do in the 20th century--still impossible in the
21st century.(which also means abandoning israel--do you really believe that
is possible?)

personally, i'd like to hear a dem. offer a possiblity rather than the
continued broad sweeping and overly general criticisms.
for me, this is how kerry has proven his inability to lead and that he is a
putz.

a registered dem in NY voting republican.
gf.


"felton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:44:22 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote:

Horvath has set the bar for success pretty low. Most thinking people
would think that "occupying" a country at the cost of about $1.5
billion per week, while losing 900+ Americans to overthrow one aging,
impotent dictator is hardly "success". In the meantime, we have
destroyed our international credibility and done nothing to lessen
the threat of terrorism.

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

You are completely full of sh*t. Good news, you KF'd me.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
felton,
first i should say i did not support this war at its being.

assuming i buy your agrument for a few minutes
which, by the way, i don't.
....what would you propose as an alternative?

impotent dictator?
this impotent dictator has supported the very culture that these
terrorists
live in and thrive on.
they didn't just materialize out of thin air with grenade launchers
strapped
to their backs.

when reduced to it base issues - i see 2 possiblities (offer another)
damned if we do
damned if we don't

ask the people in the phillipines if they feel like " they got one over on
the terrorists" and "feel safer"
now there are more7 hostages.

i also disagree with the idea that we have done nothing to lessen the
threat.
the installation of a ( hopefully) more reasonable governing body, counter
to the culture that spawned terror is how it will happen, if at all.
and this is being done.
the threat is here forever.
the difference now is that it is recognized and can be adressed. (see 9/11
commission report for one example)

ok....how do we confront this problem to "lessen the threat"?
raffle humvees off in iraq?
food stamps?
welfare programs?
rock concerts for world peace?
give them ganz?

oh ......change our culture.
get rid of our sailboats?
get rid of our suv's?
get rid of our need for oil?
live in abject poverty?
and buy swords?

the points above are deliberate in their obvious absurdity
neither work.

the first relies on american arrogance/ignorance to buy our way. (its
happened before)
the second relies on changing american culture and trusting the
terrorists.
(not likely)
a the third possiblity is we leave the middle east all together and
hide--it was impossible to do in the 20th century--still impossible in the
21st century.(which also means abandoning israel--do you really believe
that
is possible?)

personally, i'd like to hear a dem. offer a possiblity rather than the
continued broad sweeping and overly general criticisms.
for me, this is how kerry has proven his inability to lead and that he is
a
putz.

a registered dem in NY voting republican.
gf.


"felton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:44:22 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote:

Horvath has set the bar for success pretty low. Most thinking people
would think that "occupying" a country at the cost of about $1.5
billion per week, while losing 900+ Americans to overthrow one aging,
impotent dictator is hardly "success". In the meantime, we have
destroyed our international credibility and done nothing to lessen
the threat of terrorism.

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Like your boyfriend?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:51:43 +1000, OzOne wrote this crap:

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:38:03 -0400, Horvath
scribbled thusly:

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:34:47 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap:

. Bush's
current folly is an open ended war with unacheivable objectives, more
like
Vietnam than any other war we've got into. Like Vietnam, it will kill
hundreds then thousands of our best young men and suck up $billions
while

You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.

Only because of the politics of the time.

Today, our troops occupy Baghdad.
No doubt about that....pity you don't control it.
Saddam is in our jail.
He's in gaol alright
His son's
are dead, and we occupy his palaces.
Yep, no argument here....I wonder when the palaces will become
property of the Iraqi people?
The government we set up rules
Iraq.
That would be the democracy you installed, Right?
We are the superpower.
Yep, and because of that arrogance, you have thousands of dogs biting
at your legs.

Licking our feet, and eating out of our hands, you mean.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:24:07 -0400, "gonefishiing"
wrote:

felton,
first i should say i did not support this war at its being.

assuming i buy your agrument for a few minutes
which, by the way, i don't.
....what would you propose as an alternative?

Not go off on unrelated snipe hunts when we should be hunting for
bears. Our issue was terrorism. If you have been paying attention at
all, you would know that terrorists are primarily muslim extremists,
or jihadists if you prefer that term. Iraq was run by a ruthless
secular dictator who was Muslim in name only. He and the terrorists
were natural enemies. He wasn't a sponsor of terrorism. There was NO
connection between Iraq and 9/11 and Iraq was NO threat to us, or even
his neighbors when we attacked. We had destroyed his military in the
first Gulf War.

Don't believe me? How about Colin Powell in 2001

"One aspect of Michael Moore's documentary film, "Fahrenheit 9/11,"
that you won't hear Republicans denouncing is a 2001 video clip of
Colin Powell calling Saddam Hussein no threat.

Audiences react with shocked murmurs. The film doesn't explain the
context, a Feb. 24, 2001, diplomatic meeting in Cairo. Pressed by
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak about the Iraqi people's suffering
under U.S. economic sanctions, Powell reminded his audience that they
existed to check Saddam's ambitions.

"And frankly," he added, "they have worked. He has not developed any
significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He
is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Not only was Iraq no danger to the United States, it had no capacity
to menace such powerhouses as Jordan and Kuwait. So why are we reading
news accounts like this in July 2004: "Saddam's army posed little
threat, Senate panel says" and "Panel describes long weakening of
Hussein army."



impotent dictator?
this impotent dictator has supported the very culture that these terrorists
live in and thrive on.
they didn't just materialize out of thin air with grenade launchers strapped
to their backs.

Actually you may have confused Iraq with Iran, Syria, Yemen or Saudi
Arabia. Iraq has never been linked to the death of one American
through terrorist attack. If it is your attitude that "all them Arabs
look alike to me", then there isn't much reason for you not to vote
for Bush.

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...


impotent dictator?
this impotent dictator has supported the very culture that these
terrorists
live in and thrive on.

You have no evidence to back up your point of view.



they didn't just materialize out of thin air with grenade launchers
strapped
to their backs.

Correct! They appeared AFTER the Allies took over.

You cannot cite a single example of Al Q'aeda activity in Iraq when Saddam
was in charge. I bet that you are too stupid to realise why Saddam didn't
tolerate Al Q'aeda. [Hint] ... Iraq was a *secular* state.


when reduced to it base issues - i see 2 possiblities (offer another)
damned if we do
Correct.
damned if we don't
Incorrect.






i also disagree with the idea that we have done nothing to lessen the
threat.
the installation of a ( hopefully) more reasonable governing body, counter
to the culture that spawned terror is how it will happen, if at all.
and this is being done.


the threat is here forever.

Nah. Once Bush is gone the threat will begin to recede. I can't believe
that you will elect such an imbecile again.

the difference now is that it is recognized and can be adressed. (see 9/11
commission report for one example)

ok....how do we confront this problem to "lessen the threat"?
raffle humvees off in iraq?
food stamps?
welfare programs?
rock concerts for world peace?
give them ganz?

oh ......change our culture.

Yes.

get rid of our sailboats?

No.
get rid of our suv's?

Yes.
get rid of our need for oil?
Reduce it.

live in abject poverty?

No.
and buy swords?

Guns are better.

the points above are deliberate in their obvious absurdity
neither work.

Invading the wrong country doesn't work, either.


the first relies on american arrogance/ignorance to buy our way. (its
happened before)
the second relies on changing american culture and trusting the
terrorists.
(not likely)
a the third possiblity is we leave the middle east all together and
hide--it was impossible to do in the 20th century--still impossible in the
21st century.(which also means abandoning israel--do you really believe
that
is possible?)

It's possible - but I don't think that you should do it.

Regards




Donal
--

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:48:06 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote this crap:


"Horvath" wrote in message
| You're finally making some sense. Do we asked to be loved? Do we
| care if we hurt France's feelings?

YES!

No. You are whacked.

Yes you do or it wouldn't matter as much to you... all you seem to be doing
is asking why everyone hates you while stealing their candy.

I don't care what France thinks of us. Most Americans don't give a
rat's ass what France thinks of us.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Most Americans think you're stoopid.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:48:06 -0300, "Capt. Mooron"
wrote this crap:


"Horvath" wrote in message
| You're finally making some sense. Do we asked to be loved? Do we
| care if we hurt France's feelings?

YES!

No. You are whacked.

Yes you do or it wouldn't matter as much to you... all you seem to be
doing
is asking why everyone hates you while stealing their candy.

I don't care what France thinks of us. Most Americans don't give a
rat's ass what France thinks of us.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Donal, on behalf of all Americans, I apologize for our government's
mistake. I can offer no reasonable excuse, since those in power
clearly knew what they were doing. They lied to us as well. Please
accept my apology. Unfortunately, there's not a damn thing I can
do about it, except attempt to throw out the slimy *******s this
coming November.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...


impotent dictator?
this impotent dictator has supported the very culture that these
terrorists
live in and thrive on.

You have no evidence to back up your point of view.



they didn't just materialize out of thin air with grenade launchers
strapped
to their backs.

Correct! They appeared AFTER the Allies took over.

You cannot cite a single example of Al Q'aeda activity in Iraq when Saddam
was in charge. I bet that you are too stupid to realise why Saddam didn't
tolerate Al Q'aeda. [Hint] ... Iraq was a *secular* state.


when reduced to it base issues - i see 2 possiblities (offer another)
damned if we do
Correct.
damned if we don't
Incorrect.






i also disagree with the idea that we have done nothing to lessen the
threat.
the installation of a ( hopefully) more reasonable governing body,
counter
to the culture that spawned terror is how it will happen, if at all.
and this is being done.


the threat is here forever.

Nah. Once Bush is gone the threat will begin to recede. I can't believe
that you will elect such an imbecile again.

the difference now is that it is recognized and can be adressed. (see
9/11
commission report for one example)

ok....how do we confront this problem to "lessen the threat"?
raffle humvees off in iraq?
food stamps?
welfare programs?
rock concerts for world peace?
give them ganz?

oh ......change our culture.

Yes.

get rid of our sailboats?

No.
get rid of our suv's?

Yes.
get rid of our need for oil?
Reduce it.

live in abject poverty?

No.
and buy swords?

Guns are better.

the points above are deliberate in their obvious absurdity
neither work.

Invading the wrong country doesn't work, either.


the first relies on american arrogance/ignorance to buy our way. (its
happened before)
the second relies on changing american culture and trusting the
terrorists.
(not likely)
a the third possiblity is we leave the middle east all together and
hide--it was impossible to do in the 20th century--still impossible in
the
21st century.(which also means abandoning israel--do you really believe
that
is possible?)

It's possible - but I don't think that you should do it.

Regards




Donal
--

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

On Behalf of ME! ... I can't believe you are apologizing to a Brit.....
they were your war time buddies.... most substantial ally.... the best ally
you had..... they backed your government's misrepresentations and abetted
your invasion of a sovereign nation that posed you no direct threat... for
the sole purpose of a misguided and ill planned strategy at eliminating
terrorism! The direct result of your also ill conceived sponsorship of
Osama in the first place.

I once discussed a problem with a friend regarding a rude and unruly
neighbour. I told my friend to build an ugly fence... a very ugly fence.....
that would force his neighbour to build an expensive new fence on his side
to maintain property value. He could then remove his ugly fence and
effectively have his rude neighbor fence himself in.

Enjoy your Orange Alert!

Freedom...Phf-f-f-t-t-t!!!

CM






"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
| Donal, on behalf of all Americans, I apologize for our government's
| mistake. I can offer no reasonable excuse, since those in power
| clearly knew what they were doing. They lied to us as well. Please
| accept my apology. Unfortunately, there's not a damn thing I can
| do about it, except attempt to throw out the slimy *******s this
| coming November.

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message ...
"Horvath" wrote in message
| You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
| Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.
|
| Today, our troops occupy Baghdad. Saddam is in our jail. His son's
| are dead, and we occupy his palaces. The government we set up rules
| Iraq. We are the superpower. We rule, not the United Nations. Deal
| with reality.

...and that my ignorant dipstick sums up nicely how the rest of the world
sees the USA.
Heh... that attitude is why you guys are so well loved globally!

CM


Mooran, You just do not get it.
1st we could give a rats ass what the spitting Nazi'x and the Smelly
Frogs think about us.

2nd Were we loved globely before bringing democracy to Itan?

Were we loved on 911, on the Cole, lebanon, Iraq hostages, first trade
center bombing, ect. All took place before we decided to stop giving a
hoot about what you' and the rest of the world thinks. We are going to
start loving ourselfs. And we are going to kill those that want to
kill us before they get the chance.

We are mad as hell and we are not going to take the worlds radical
**** anymore. Wanna hate us... go ahead we could care less, wanna kill
us, got news for you.... we are going to kill you first or lock you up
and throw away the key.

Joe

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

Man do you have things backwards... if we started giving a ****,
we wouldn't have the problems we're having. You said it yourself,
and then contradicted yourself.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
m...
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
"Horvath" wrote in message
| You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
| Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.
|
| Today, our troops occupy Baghdad. Saddam is in our jail. His son's
| are dead, and we occupy his palaces. The government we set up rules
| Iraq. We are the superpower. We rule, not the United Nations. Deal
| with reality.

...and that my ignorant dipstick sums up nicely how the rest of the
world
sees the USA.
Heh... that attitude is why you guys are so well loved globally!

CM


Mooran, You just do not get it.
1st we could give a rats ass what the spitting Nazi'x and the Smelly
Frogs think about us.

2nd Were we loved globely before bringing democracy to Itan?

Were we loved on 911, on the Cole, lebanon, Iraq hostages, first trade
center bombing, ect. All took place before we decided to stop giving a
hoot about what you' and the rest of the world thinks. We are going to
start loving ourselfs. And we are going to kill those that want to
kill us before they get the chance.

We are mad as hell and we are not going to take the worlds radical
**** anymore. Wanna hate us... go ahead we could care less, wanna kill
us, got news for you.... we are going to kill you first or lock you up
and throw away the key.

Joe

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

"Joe" wrote in message
m...
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...
"Horvath" wrote in message
| You are whacked. This is nothing like Vietnam. We couldn't attack
| Hanoi. We couldn't cut the Ho Chi Mihn trail.
|
| Today, our troops occupy Baghdad. Saddam is in our jail. His son's
| are dead, and we occupy his palaces. The government we set up rules
| Iraq. We are the superpower. We rule, not the United Nations. Deal
| with reality.

...and that my ignorant dipstick sums up nicely how the rest of the
world
sees the USA.
Heh... that attitude is why you guys are so well loved globally!

CM


Mooran, You just do not get it.
1st we could give a rats ass what the spitting Nazi'x and the Smelly
Frogs think about us.

2nd Were we loved globely before bringing democracy to Itan?

Were we loved on 911, on the Cole, lebanon, Iraq hostages,

Uh - Oh! Joe shares his leader's geographical awareness.

Iraq ?? Iran?? Who cares? Let's bomb 'em,... eh?


Regards


Donal
--

Good news for America is bad news for the Democrats -OT
 

ok i'll agree with you for the moment.
we had no business in iraq.
now can you respond to my post?

the question was:
....what would you propose as an alternative?
------------------------------------------------------

further: (disagree)
obviously either i was not clear or you did not read my post.
i never stated a direct connection between iraq and taliban, or 9/11

first you state: "muslim in name only" (???????)
and than

"If it is your attitude that "all them Arabs
look alike to me"""

do you see any contradiction here?

no i did not "confuse" iraq and iran.

we did not destroy his military in the gulf war, and this was made evident
by the force used to repell the allied forces.
no threat to iraq's neighbors?
really.
let's see what countries iraq is popular with
iran?........... nah
jordan........ppppppppppp
saudi..........doubtful
united arab emirates.............laugh out loud
kuwait.........sure
israel.....yeah right
egypt..........guess again

no ......no threat to iraq's nieghbors.
perhaps ....syria!
now there's an interesting thought to ponder.

what do you call the guys with grenade launchers and bombs?
or the gentlemen with big swords on video?
politicans
freedom fighters
what?

are you trying to tell us they are foreign fighters?
(i am especially looking forward to your answer to this one)

" Iraq has never been linked to the death of one American
through terrorist attack. "

if you are speaking of pre IRAQ/USA, i agree.
if you believe the hotbed of anti american sentiment in places like
fallujah, is because of bush and is not dangerous..............i'm
impressed.

i see, they just "found" weapons to combat the americans with. nothing to do
with saddam, terrorism or anything else.
just protecting they're homes......still.

if some foreign force entered your hometown, usa tomorrow, what kind of fire
power would you have available, being just a citizen protecting your home?
a pistol is possible
a shotgun or rifle maybe
a bow and arrow

how about a couple of rockets!
now we're talking!

fair winds
gf.



"felton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 12:24:07 -0400, "gonefishiing"
wrote:

felton,
first i should say i did not support this war at its being.

assuming i buy your agrument for a few minutes
which, by the way, i don't.
....what would you propose as an alternative?

Not go off on unrelated snipe hunts when we should be hunting for
bears. Our issue was terrorism. If you have been paying attention at
all, you would know that terrorists are primarily muslim extremists,
or jihadists if you prefer that term. Iraq was run by a ruthless
secular dictator who was Muslim in name only. He and the terrorists
were natural enemies. He wasn't a sponsor of terrorism. There was NO
connection between Iraq and 9/11 and Iraq was NO threat to us, or even
his neighbors when we attacked. We had destroyed his military in the
first Gulf War.

Don't believe me? How about Colin Powell in 2001

"One aspect of Michael Moore's documentary film, "Fahrenheit 9/11,"
that you won't hear Republicans denouncing is a 2001 video clip of
Colin Powell calling Saddam Hussein no threat.

Audiences react with shocked murmurs. The film doesn't explain the
context, a Feb. 24, 2001, diplomatic meeting in Cairo. Pressed by
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak about the Iraqi people's suffering
under U.S. economic sanctions, Powell reminded his audience that they
existed to check Saddam's ambitions.

"And frankly," he added, "they have worked. He has not developed any
significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He
is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Not only was Iraq no danger to the United States, it had no capacity
to menace such powerhouses as Jordan and Kuwait. So why are we reading
news accounts like this in July 2004: "Saddam's army posed little
threat, Senate panel says" and "Panel describes long weakening of
Hussein army."



impotent dictator?
this impotent dictator has supported the very culture that these
terrorists
live in and thrive on.
they didn't just materialize out of thin air with grenade launchers
strapped
to their backs.

If it is your attitude that "all them Arabs
look alike to me", then there isn't much reason for you not to vote
for Bush.