On Apr 13, 9:36 am, the_bmac wrote:
Gogarty wrote:
Why? One wonders. Surely that's not what the average Ozzie wanted. New
Zealanders seem to be more level headed about foreign entanglements. But
then, they are quite different countries despite being lumped as The
Antipodies or Anzacs.

Not sure, but if in Australia they use the first-past-the-post electoral model, un-representative,
un-Democratic anomalies can occur, such as we see in Canada where a dimwit Republican wannabe gets to
be Prime Minister with 30-35% of the popular vote. Polls done by conservative newspapers show 70% of
Canadians NOT in support of our soldiers being in Afghanistan fighting Bush's mythical "war on
terror", yet our PM keeps us there.

Mythical war on terror? Tell that to the 3000+ killed in NYC by the
Taliban, based in Afganstan. BTW 25 of the people killed on 9-11 were
Canadian citizens, not that you seem to give a f*&k.

These people are common criminals, heroin traders and murderers. The
al-Queda and their Afgahn hosts the Taliban kill, tourture and maim
the innocent to control 75% of the worlds heroin traffic. They do so
under the guise of Islam. Islam is against terror, Islam is for
understanding and termperance! These people headed by Osama bin
Landen, the Taliban the al-Qaeda terrorist camps have held hostage a
great religion for long enough! Now the truth is comming out about the
Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Let us make sure that there are no more
bin ladens!


But whether this rightard swing in Australia explains a Customs
regime that seems to be out of control is an open question.

Right, they should just allow anyone, at any time, to sail in on a
breeze. So what if they do not follow proper up to date custom
procedures. It's not like a terrorist would attack them....now is it?

Don't like it, don't go to OZ.

Joe

wrote in message
oups.com...
These people are common criminals, heroin traders and murderers. The
al-Queda and their Afgahn hosts the Taliban kill, tourture and maim
the innocent to control 75% of the worlds heroin traffic. They do so
under the guise of Islam.

Exactly. They are criminals (not sure about the "common" part). Since when
does a nation go to war to combat crime, however heinous? It is impossible
to fight a "war on terror (sic)" or even a war on terrorism; terrorists are
everywhere, and will strike targets of opportunity when they present
themselves, and most of these people cannot be identified before they commit
their particular crime.

Should bin Laden be dealt with? Absolutely. But apparently he is worth more
to the Powers that Be alive and free than dead. Look at all the power they
have gained by his being "at large."

In article .com,
wrote:

Mythical war on terror?

SRC, you misread the post to which you were replying. Of course there is
real terror focused against us. It kills real people.

Our current inept president is feeding more and more fuel on the
misplaced anger against our country and likely more American lives will
be lost directly as a result of terrorist activity engendered as a
result of his policies.

What the poster was referring to was the activities of this
administration having little to do with terrorism (other than perhaps
feeding its fire). Our war in Iraq is over oil. The administration made
it clear with its handouts to maintain oil fields and its recent
insistence that Iran allow foreign multinational corporations to control
its oil reserves. As far as electrical, water, and health we destroyed
the lives of Iraquis making any sort of lasting peace problematic.

Our efforts in Afghanistan have resulted in the greatest upsurge in
opium and related poppy product exports in such a short time in our
lifetime. The war on drugs is another bait and switch (as the Iraq oil
fiasco) creating a class of criminals, more fear (a staple of this
administration's policies) and a distraction both in focus and use of
funds against the real crimes and criminals in this country.

Can we now get back to boating/cruising.

Harlan

--
To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?

On Apr 13, 10:14 am, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

These people are common criminals, heroin traders and murderers. The
al-Queda and their Afgahn hosts the Taliban kill, tourture and maim
the innocent to control 75% of the worlds heroin traffic. They do so
under the guise of Islam.

Exactly. They are criminals (not sure about the "common" part). Since when
does a nation go to war to combat crime, however heinous? It is impossible
to fight a "war on terror (sic)" or even a war on terrorism; terrorists are
everywhere, and will strike targets of opportunity when they present
themselves, and most of these people cannot be identified before they commit
their particular crime.

Wrong.



Should bin Laden be dealt with? Absolutely. But apparently he is worth more
to the Powers that Be alive and free than dead. Look at all the power they
have gained by his being "at large."

Yeah right, and 9-11 was an inside job, and M. Moore is your hero.

Joe

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 13, 10:14 am, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

These people are common criminals, heroin traders and murderers. The
al-Queda and their Afgahn hosts the Taliban kill, tourture and maim
the innocent to control 75% of the worlds heroin traffic. They do so
under the guise of Islam.

Exactly. They are criminals (not sure about the "common" part). Since
when
does a nation go to war to combat crime, however heinous? It is
impossible
to fight a "war on terror (sic)" or even a war on terrorism; terrorists
are
everywhere, and will strike targets of opportunity when they present
themselves, and most of these people cannot be identified before they
commit
their particular crime.

Wrong.



Should bin Laden be dealt with? Absolutely. But apparently he is worth
more
to the Powers that Be alive and free than dead. Look at all the power
they
have gained by his being "at large."

Yeah right, and 9-11 was an inside job, and M. Moore is your hero.


Apparently, an administration, that mislead the country about a war of
choice where 10s of 1000s have died needlessly and that continues to
capriciously sacrifice the lives of our troops, that is incompetent and
corrupt beyond belief, and that spends our money like a drunken sailor, is
yours.

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

On Apr 13, 11:31 am, Harlan Lachman wrote:
In article .com,

wrote:
Mythical war on terror?

SRC, you misread the post to which you were replying. Of course there is
real terror focused against us. It kills real people.


I did not miss read anything Harlan, here is the exact quote:
" Polls done by conservative newspapers show 70% of Canadians NOT in
support of our soldiers being in Afghanistan fighting Bush's mythical
"war on terror", "




Our current inept president is feeding more and more fuel on the
misplaced anger against our country and likely more American lives will
be lost directly as a result of terrorist activity engendered as a
result of his policies.


"We are engaged in a basic struggle," says Senator John McCain. "A
struggle between humanity and inhumanity, between builders and
destroyers. If fighting these people and preventing the export of
their brand of radicalism and terror is not intrinsic to the national
security and most cherished values of the United States, I don't know
what is."

What the poster was referring to was the activities of this
administration having little to do with terrorism (other than perhaps
feeding its fire).

Tell that to the 25,000 troops in Afghanistan, including some 14,000
serving in the NATO-led force, which totals about 36,000 troops. You
may be willing to bow down to terrorists but they are not.

Our war in Iraq is over oil.

Bull****, they do not have any measurable oil in Afghanistan, and the
amount coming out of iran is very little on the world market. If we
wanted to go to war over oil I can think of several other more
profitable places to invade.


The administration made
it clear with its handouts to maintain oil fields and its recent
insistence that Iran allow foreign multinational corporations to control
its oil reserves.

Iran does not have the infrastructure or equiptment to do the job.
Until they have a stable govt more people in Iraq will profit by the
oil getting to a being sold on the market. Lets hope the contracts
"handouts" are given out according to the countries helping Iran the
most.


As far as electrical, water, and health we destroyed
the lives of Iraquis making any sort of lasting peace problematic.

We destroyed? **** just yeaterday an Al-Queida suicide bomber tried to
destroy the newly ELECTED parlement, and they destroyed a major bridge
in the country..Not the USA. I'm glad the Iraqi elected leaders are
not as gulliable as you are.

Iraqi lawmakers expressed outrage and resolve today in a rare session
of parliament on the Muslim holy day, a day after a suicide bomber
ripped through their cafeteria in a brazen attack inside Baghdad's
U.S.-guarded Green Zone.

A red and white bouquet sat in place of Mohammed Awad, a Sunni member
of the moderate National Dialogue Front killed in Thursday's attack on
the parliament cafeteria. Lawmakers ambled up to the podium to
denounce the bombing, including one man with his arm in a sling and a
woman wearing a neck brace.

"The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they
take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President
Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger
our unity becomes."

Sounds like a determined new govt to me.


Our efforts in Afghanistan have resulted in the greatest upsurge in
opium and related poppy product exports in such a short time in our
lifetime. The war on drugs is another bait and switch (as the Iraq oil
fiasco) creating a class of criminals, more fear (a staple of this
administration's policies) and a distraction both in focus and use of
funds against the real crimes and criminals in this country.

Can we now get back to boating/cruising.

A freedom you can enjoy, without worry. Freedoms nice huh?

Joe

Harlan

--
To respond, obviously drop the "nospan"?

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 13, 10:14 am, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

These people are common criminals, heroin traders and murderers. The
al-Queda and their Afgahn hosts the Taliban kill, tourture and maim
the innocent to control 75% of the worlds heroin traffic. They do so
under the guise of Islam.

Exactly. They are criminals (not sure about the "common" part). Since
when
does a nation go to war to combat crime, however heinous? It is
impossible
to fight a "war on terror (sic)" or even a war on terrorism; terrorists
are
everywhere, and will strike targets of opportunity when they present
themselves, and most of these people cannot be identified before they
commit
their particular crime.

Wrong.



Should bin Laden be dealt with? Absolutely. But apparently he is worth
more
to the Powers that Be alive and free than dead. Look at all the power
they
have gained by his being "at large."

Yeah right, and 9-11 was an inside job, and M. Moore is your hero.

Joe



Wow. You totally defeated my arguments. Impressive.

On Apr 13, 3:32 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Apr 13, 10:14 am, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

These people are common criminals, heroin traders and murderers. The
al-Queda and their Afgahn hosts the Taliban kill, tourture and maim
the innocent to control 75% of the worlds heroin traffic. They do so
under the guise of Islam.

Exactly. They are criminals (not sure about the "common" part). Since
when
does a nation go to war to combat crime, however heinous? It is
impossible
to fight a "war on terror (sic)" or even a war on terrorism; terrorists
are
everywhere, and will strike targets of opportunity when they present
themselves, and most of these people cannot be identified before they
commit
their particular crime.

Wrong.

Should bin Laden be dealt with? Absolutely. But apparently he is worth
more
to the Powers that Be alive and free than dead. Look at all the power
they
have gained by his being "at large."

Yeah right, and 9-11 was an inside job, and M. Moore is your hero.

Joe

Wow. You totally defeated my arguments. Impressive.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No doubt.

Joe

On 12 Apr 2007 08:20:07 -0700, "Bob" wrote:

On Apr 12, 6:42 am, Don W
wrote:
Bob wrote:
Interesting situation.

You must not have read about the other two
cases--one against a dutch couple, and the other
against a different american couple. If you
browse around that link for a little bit, you'll
get a different feeling about what is going on...
and it stinks.

Don W.

Wow..... Sounds as though things have really gone bad since I went
mucking about that island. Maybe the Aussies have just made it to the
21st century and started taking on some of the wonderfull attributes
of our own loved das Homeland Securtiy.
Too bad. Was a good place. I hope anybody with other recent experinces
will add to this discussion.
Bewildered Bob

I have not read "Jim's Blog" - (where is it?) so I cannot comment. I
also sometimes live in Australia (my wife and son presently do for his
schooling) and have onbly had one bad experience - Brisbane Customs
where I would advise anyone not to enter in. When we first arrived in
Sydney from across the Tasman, the land of freedom, democracy and
God's little corner of the world, we had to fill out a form declaring
the value of our yacht and such removeable items as SSB radios etc.
The borading Customs officer warned us twice to be careful what we put
on the form as regards values as we may7 want to either import the
yacht or sell it at a later date -- hence taxes. When we finally left
Sydney sev eral years later ( the boat had stayed too long there but
nobody cared even though they knew) the fellow in the Customs office
warned us to avoid Brisbane Customs. We later found out why when we
bought a luggage trolley from Westmarine and had to pay duty. I was
hauled into the office and interrogated as to why I had avoided
importing my boat - I was made to feel like a criminal by two Perry
Mason wannabees. Apart from that, they are rather good. I have found
that there is usually a way around officialdom and seeking their
advice or asking for help usually brings out thye best inj them.

As to when Australia became a territory of the USA - Mainly since LBJ
and definitely when Deputy Sheriff Howard took over (Our Malaysian
Prime Minister coined the phrase which fits well). He is often
interviewed on television regarding Australia's reaction to world
events. He usually responds along the lines of "I have spoken to Mr
Bush by phone and ......." I don't think he realises that the US does
not award knighthoods. Seriouisly though, in many ways Australia is
attempting to be the US in the souithern hemisphere. It is almost at
the Teddy Roosevelt era in many ways. It regards South east Asia as
its sphere of influence and were quite annoyed that they had to sign
away the right of pre-emptive strike in order to attend the last ASEAN
conference as guests SEA people do not consider Australia as part of
Asia but as another western nation despite Australia's politicians
claims. unlike the US `though, Australia will remain the mine and the
farm for a long time to come. Australians (I do have citizenship) may
object, but that is how I see it.

cheers
Peter

"Peter Hendra" wrote in message
...
On 12 Apr 2007 08:20:07 -0700, "Bob" wrote:
As to when Australia became a territory of the USA - Mainly since LBJ
and definitely when Deputy Sheriff Howard took over (Our Malaysian
Prime Minister coined the phrase which fits well). He is often
interviewed on television regarding Australia's reaction to world
events. He usually responds along the lines of "I have spoken to Mr
Bush by phone and ......." I don't think he realises that the US does
not award knighthoods. Seriouisly though, in many ways Australia is
attempting to be the US in the souithern hemisphere. It is almost at
the Teddy Roosevelt era in many ways. It regards South east Asia as
its sphere of influence and were quite annoyed that they had to sign
away the right of pre-emptive strike in order to attend the last ASEAN
conference as guests SEA people do not consider Australia as part of
Asia but as another western nation despite Australia's politicians
claims. unlike the US `though, Australia will remain the mine and the
farm for a long time to come. Australians (I do have citizenship) may
object, but that is how I see it.

cheers
Peter

Peter, the "right of pre-emptive strike" is reserved, by divine right, to
the United States of America. So mind your P's and Q's, mate, or your
wallabies'll glow in the dark.