once again, i'll state it clearly:
i did not support this war from the beginning
ok?

now that that is out of the way, lets continue.............

if you read my post, the point of it was to deal with the present...........
as we are here in the present.
what do you suppose we do?
whether you or i, agree or disagree with what has taken place with this war
is somewhat (not completely) irrelevant.

care to present any ideas or are you still interested in being critical of
past actions?

i am patiently waiting for someone to provide a possiblity.
and it ain't Kerry.
have not heard one possiblity yet.
i'm also not holding my breath, yet it would be a pleasure to hear something
from someone that holds some value that takes place in the present.

fair winds.......(was a great weekend sailing)

gf.

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

Enjoy your Orange Alert!

sounds like a suggestion for a new drink at the yacht club
fair winds
gf.

Why? It was morally wrong to lie to the American people about
it. We should end it as quickly as possible.

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

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
once again, i'll state it clearly:
i did not support this war from the beginning
ok?

now that that is out of the way, lets continue.............

if you read my post, the point of it was to deal with the
present...........
as we are here in the present.
what do you suppose we do?
whether you or i, agree or disagree with what has taken place with this
war
is somewhat (not completely) irrelevant.

care to present any ideas or are you still interested in being critical of
past actions?

i am patiently waiting for someone to provide a possiblity.
and it ain't Kerry.
have not heard one possiblity yet.
i'm also not holding my breath, yet it would be a pleasure to hear
something
from someone that holds some value that takes place in the present.

fair winds.......(was a great weekend sailing)

gf.

hey one more point: don't you guys read!
what i said: saddam supported the *culture* that terrorists live in
the *argument* for evidence was presented in the preivous posts
gf.

(think i'll work on the "orange alert" mix tonight)

.. 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."

Saddam was the antithesis of religious fanatacism...

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

"gonefishiing" wrote in message
...
hey one more point: don't you guys read!
what i said: saddam supported the *culture* that terrorists live in
the *argument* for evidence was presented in the preivous posts
gf.

(think i'll work on the "orange alert" mix tonight)

. 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."

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:30:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Saddam was the antithesis of religious fanatacism...

It is a bit difficult to follow gf's reasoning, as his inaccurate
statements are so vague it is hard to understand his points

I was listening to a discussion the other day that might clarify this
particular point, though. Saddam was a bit like the right wing
dictators we used to "support" in Latin America and elsewhere.. They
were considered to be an effective means of countering "communism",
which seemed to be considered the greater of the two evils.

Well, Fishboy has KF'd me, so I can say whatever I want!

Absolutely right on about Saddam. I have no problem with
us getting rid of him. I have a problem with how we were
mislead to do it.

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

"felton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:30:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Saddam was the antithesis of religious fanatacism...

It is a bit difficult to follow gf's reasoning, as his inaccurate
statements are so vague it is hard to understand his points

I was listening to a discussion the other day that might clarify this
particular point, though. Saddam was a bit like the right wing
dictators we used to "support" in Latin America and elsewhere.. They
were considered to be an effective means of countering "communism",
which seemed to be considered the greater of the two evils.

"felton" wrote

I was listening to a discussion the other day that might clarify this
particular point, though. Saddam was a bit like the right wing
dictators we used to "support" in Latin America and elsewhere.. They
were considered to be an effective means of countering "communism",
which seemed to be considered the greater of the two evils.

Communist fanatics were better than religious fanatics because religious
fanatics despise our democratic way of life even more than communists did.
They believe it heretical for people to make our own laws and decisions
because their invisible friend (god) has already told everybody what to do
and not do. Worse, they believe that their group or sect is the only one
that understands what invisible friend wants, and that it is their job to
either convert everybody else to their way of thinking or kill them.

Muslims learn to read and write using the Koran taught by religious
fanatics. Then they learn history and philosophy from the same book and
leaders, without exposure to any other ideas, especially conflicting ideas.
So, by the time they are adults, they believe in what the invisible friend
told Mohammad even more fervently than Jerry Falwell believes the late JC is
God - and it is probably impossible to convince them otherwise. But wait,
you say, Shiites say they want freedom. Yes they do - freedom to make Sunnis
and Kurds and everybody else obey their religious rules. Ditto the rest of
them.

Saddam held them all together by providing a secular government. We didn't
like the way he did it but now we are finding that his was the only way.
Give these zealots an inch of liberty and they immediately fall on eah
other - and us.

The only solution is to deprogram these people - teach them that the god of
abraham is a false god. But that's\d face too much resistance from
Christians and Jews, who worship the same god.

The only other way to bring peace is to bring back Saddam - or somebody just
like him. The alternative is contineous chaos.

Question is why are we spending Americn lives and $trillions to do the
impossible?