Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

wrote in message ...

On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared
Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II.

Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US
Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south.

Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back.

It doesn't end.

In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but
the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the
spoils of war.
(We bought Alaska)
I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s
when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has
given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We
pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today.

The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the
1967 borders.


Reply:
Mexico only had California for 30 years. Could not get Mexicans to emigrate
to Texas, so invited gringos and allowed them to be citizens of Mexico for
going to Texas. California was also partly Russian. Mexicans were never
very far north of the San Francisco Bay area. Probably Santa Rosa area was
a limit. How about the Yuroks and other American Indians that were here
before Spain, etc. Same with Mexico. Find the Inca and Maya king
descendants.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:09:22 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2011 11:42:22 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2011 11:37:12 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...



I have no idea what point you're trying to make about Mubarak. He
didn't take over in a coup d'état.

Who lead the coup?


There was no coup. Do you have the ability to Google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak

Mubarak took power after a failed coup.

The only real significance of the coup (actually just an attempt to
kill every senior member of the Mubarak administration) was that it
killed Sadat and allowed Mubarak to move up one slot.

Mubarak was part of every step of the deal with Israel and that was
what set off the gang who tried to kill them. He maintained power with
oppressive suppression of any opposition to the current policies.
Now that this suppression is gone, it is not unreasonable to believe
the same feelings that brought on Sadat's assassination will boil up.

In fact it came from the same army that is now running the country. We
just do not know which faction is in control. It is safe to say it is
not the Sadat/Mubarak wing or the revolution would not have had army
support.

The fact is that you're just making stuff up. You claim to know things
you don't. Your comments reflect a pretty big deficit of understanding
of Egypt and the region in general.

Just watch a rerun of Zakaria GPS today and reevaluate what you think
you know.

I heard nothing that would indicate there's something more than what
meets the eye. Are you suggesting it's supposed to be a perfect state
four months after the Spring??

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:39:13 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 May 2011 08:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:55:59 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 May 2011 18:13:13 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 10:13:22 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 17:18:06 -0600,
wrote:

On 20/05/2011 1:58 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2011 12:49:41 -0600,
wrote:

It isn't about good will, it is about a sellout. Islam has declared
Israel an enemy of state. Reminds me of "peac in our time pre-WW II.

Maybe give Alaska back to the Russians while you are at it. And the US
Canadian border to the west should be a few degrees south.

Maybe give the Mexicans California and Texas back.

It doesn't end.
In this case it would be more like letting the Germans keep Poland but
the Texas California situation might be similar. We took that as the
spoils of war.
(We bought Alaska)
I really thought the idea of wars of conquest went out since the 40s
when we gave everything back that we took in WWII. In fact the US has
given back virtually everything it has taken in war since 1898. We
pretty much only have Puerto Rico and a small patch in Cuba today.

The only lasting peace in the middle east will have to start at the
1967 borders.
Fact is, go back far enough, Israel has claim. Islam fascism didn't get
brewing until 630AD....

So picking some arbitrary point in time between then and now...sort of
arrogant of Obama to say that. If I was Israel, I would open up talks
with the Russians and Chinese.... US is an UNRELIABLE ally.
Russia and China might want them to go back to the pre-1948 borders.
It should be noted that the Saudis are nuzzling up to the Chinese as
we speak and most of the Arab world was aligned with the Soviets until
fairly recently. The thing that changed that was Mubarak aligning
himself with the US and getting billions in US military aid about 30
years ago. Then a week into the protests we threw him under the bus.
It would not be surprising that they started looking East for a
friend.

I just *love* your "conservative" view of history. Egypt began getting
U.S. military aid *after* it came to terms with a peace treaty with
Israel. You know, the deal Jimmy Carter brokered.

I didn't say what prompted the cooperation but you are right.
It is amazing what you can get if you promise to upgrade a country's
obsolete Soviet hardware with first line US hardware and a billion
dollar's worth of training to use them.
It is also significant that the guy we cut that deal with is gone. We
are still not sure who will rise up from the shambles in Egypt but we
hope it turns out better than Iran.


The peace deal was signed with Sadat, who was assassinated. It was
always a tragedy that the aftermath threw up Mubarak who, after all, was
just another right-wing dictator, the kind we always seem to support.

Sadat got his ass handed to him in 1973 and knew that his Soviet
equipment was useless. As Greg said his deal with Israel got him new
equipment, training and billions of dollars. Mubarak could have been
seeing all of the money coming in and decided that he wanted to line his
pockets rather than let Sadat pad his families pockets.


It also ushered in a lasting peace between two countries at each
other's throats.

Peace is usually what happens after you get your ass kicked by another
country.

So, that's your method maintaining peace... beat up on everyone else?
Sheesh.

Peace does not come from mutual respect it comes from fear of getting
your ass kicked or from recently having your ass kicked.

Maybe in your tiny world, but mutual respect is the key to lasting
peace.


I have no idea what point you're trying to make about Mubarak. He
didn't take over in a coup d'état.

Who lead the coup?


There was no coup. Do you have the ability to Google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak

Mubarak took power after a failed coup.

Huh? There was no failed coup that involved Mubarak's ascendancy to
the office. He was already there.

All of the Routers are capable of running IPv6 now. All of your recent
Ethernet interfaces are capable of running IPv6. All of the OSes are
capable of running IPv6. The problem is that the internal network
infrastructure, meaning policies and procedures is are not capable of
running IPv6.


Perhaps, but you're confusing threats. LOL

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:50:03 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

Canuck57 wrote:


Mubarak was betrayed by Obama, few know he was elected

You obviously know nothing about the last "election" in Egypt that
Mubarak won. The "election" was fixed from the beginning.

Why are pushing your standards upon another country. You reek of
colonialism.

Oh come on. That isn't worthy of more than a bird sturdy on the head.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

On 22/05/2011 6:09 PM, Harryk wrote:
BAR wrote:
In articleWfGdnZA9yJNm9ETQnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
BAR wrote:
In ,
says...
Canuck57 wrote:

Mubarak was betrayed by Obama, few know he was elected
You obviously know nothing about the last "election" in Egypt that
Mubarak won. The "election" was fixed from the beginning.
Why are pushing your standards upon another country. You reek of
colonialism.
D'oh. Get up to speed, birther. Your boy Canuck claimed Mubarak was
"elected" in a "real" election. The election was fixed by any reasonable
standards. Oh, and Mubarak didn't become president because of a coup, as
you stated. Didn't they teach you history in the marines, since you
obviously skipped it while you were in high school?

They way the Egyptians conduct their elections is their business not
ours. Why do you want to meddle in everybody's else's business?




Go play with scotty and canuck, your fellow birther boys, nudnick.

Fleabagger denial disease? Wow haryk, your fried.

BAR had it right. Obama had no business screwing with Egyptian
DEMOCRACY. Makes Obama be ANTI-democratic.

--
Take a look at ANY country, more debt is more problems. So why do we
allow our governments more debt? Selfishness, greed, denial, ignorance?

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

In article , naled24511
@mypacks.net says...

Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator

Bull****.

The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

In article , naled24511
@mypacks.net says...

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:32:07 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 07:56:42 -0400, wrote:

In articleCIGdnQVNtt0Kp0TQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator
Bull****.
The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.
The power behind every government is ultimately the military.
You just have to look at our last big "state vs feds" situation, the
civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s.
A good example is when Orval Faubus challenged the law, Eisenhower
sent in the 101st Airborne,.
Or when the governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to murder
unarmed students at Kent State.

Technically the national guard is not really the military. They work
for the governor, not the federal government but the general point is
valid.
All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a government gun and
the military has the biggest guns..


Please...there's no need to split the hair that fine.

Only when it helps YOUR side of a case, eh, asshole?

Gas prices - maybe boating will get cheaper...
 

On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:52:36 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 12:32:07 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 07:56:42 -0400, wrote:

In articleCIGdnQVNtt0Kp0TQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com, naled24511
@mypacks.net says...
Canuck57 wrote:
Mubarak was no dictator
Bull****.
The power behind the throne in Egypt was and is the military.

The power behind every government is ultimately the military.
You just have to look at our last big "state vs feds" situation, the
civil rights decisions of the 50s and 60s.
A good example is when Orval Faubus challenged the law, Eisenhower
sent in the 101st Airborne,.

Or when the governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to murder
unarmed students at Kent State.

Technically the national guard is not really the military. They work
for the governor, not the federal government but the general point is
valid.
All laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a government gun and
the military has the biggest guns..

The National Guard is a reserve military force, which is composed of
state militia and/or units of active or inactive federal service
personnel. They are a joint force of Army, Air Force, and the state
militia. They are in the US Code, but they do operate under state
governors but are administered under DOD.

Laws are ultimately enforced by the collective effort of citizens.
Sometimes this is via the military, sometimes directly via civilians.