NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why are his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists.

Then what's the point?



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
om...
You think the author of this bill really wants a draft? Charlie
Rangel???

Charlie Rangel is a Congressman? I thought he was Dick Morris's
alter-ego...sort of a black James Carville, if you will.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
Good for the Brits! They and the Australians are our only true-blue
allies...although I'm pretty sure that the Beslan incident will make the
Russians understand and accept that our foreign policy is the correct one.
Of course, I can't say enough bad things about France...or Canada. It
must
be the negative French influence on that country.

What bad things are you going to say about Canada? I would like to know.
For your information.
Canada is the largest trading partner that you have in this world.
Canada is a supporter of the USA, with our military forces in Afghanistan.
Canada has supported the USA in many of its endeavors for peace.

Why do you try to bad mouth us? We are friends of the USA.

James D. Carter, Port Captain
"The Boat"
Bayfield, Canada.........

Jim Carter wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
Good for the Brits! They and the Australians are our only true-blue
allies...although I'm pretty sure that the Beslan incident will make the
Russians understand and accept that our foreign policy is the correct one.
Of course, I can't say enough bad things about France...or Canada. It
must
be the negative French influence on that country.

What bad things are you going to say about Canada? I would like to know.
For your information.
Canada is the largest trading partner that you have in this world.
Canada is a supporter of the USA, with our military forces in Afghanistan.
Canada has supported the USA in many of its endeavors for peace.

Why do you try to bad mouth us? We are friends of the USA.

James D. Carter, Port Captain
"The Boat"
Bayfield, Canada.........


It's just right-wing xenophobia, rearing its ugly, ill-educated head.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support
for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why are
his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might
ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become
what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists.

Then what's the point?


Survival! Losing this war means annihilation and extinction for the losing
side. It's not about land or geographical gains like other World Wars.

And because of nuclear weapons, the stakes are a lot higher than religious
wars of the past.

NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support
for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why are
his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might
ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become
what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists.

Then what's the point?


Survival! Losing this war means annihilation and extinction for the losing
side. It's not about land or geographical gains like other World Wars.

And because of nuclear weapons, the stakes are a lot higher than religious
wars of the past.



There are ways to win a war against hydra-headed terrorists without
ending the world, which is what your position would entail. There are
many nations with nuclear weapons now...and if we started using them,
we'd start catching them.

Sorry...nukes ain['t the answer.

--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

I'm sure you, or your kids. grandkids are going to be the first to sign
up, right? And if not, why not?

And, to save a couple of irrevalent posts, I did, 1969 to 1971. How
about you?

Capt. Jeff

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
So what. Every country in the World is dependent upon a strong
America...both economically and militarily. They're own
self-preservation
instincts will bring 'em around sooner or later.

When you find yourself at increased risk as the result of support
for
somebody
who is treating you like manure, the common
solution is unlikely to be *increasing* support.

But you claim that Bush is treating America like manure. So why
are
his
poll numbers sky-rocketing?


Because Americans like simple answers to complicated problems, even
if
the answers are wrong. For them to be otherwise would mean they'd
have
to face the horrible reality, and that is this: our military might
ain't
gonna resolve Islamist terrorism for us.

I figured that the horrible reality was that we would have to become
what we
despise: cold-blooded, calculated killers willing to use any *AND
ALL*
weapons at our disposal...just like the terrorists.

Then what's the point?


Survival! Losing this war means annihilation and extinction for the
losing
side. It's not about land or geographical gains like other World Wars.

And because of nuclear weapons, the stakes are a lot higher than
religious
wars of the past.



There are ways to win a war against hydra-headed terrorists without
ending the world, which is what your position would entail. There are
many nations with nuclear weapons now...and if we started using them,
we'd start catching them.

I don't think so. Who would have the capability and motive to hit us back
if we responded with nukes to the next state-sponsored terrorist attack in
one of our major cities? The only Middle Eastern country that I'm aware of
that has nuclear weapons is Pakistan...and Musharraf's on our
side...especially after al Qaeda tried twice to assassinate him. Which
nuclear power concerns you?

Hitler was smarter than Bush, and a better speaker, too. While Bush
isn't the monster Hitler was...he's working on it.

Much as I dislike Bush, I don't see any real comparison between GWB and Hitler.
There is always the danger that a country that becomes too right wing and too
militant will take the next step and become fascist, (like Germany did), but
comparing GWB, as a person, to Hitler, as a person, would be just as difficult
as it would be silly.

I've never seen an historical account where it was claimed that Germany was
attacked by the Jews...or the French...or the Poles. Were they?

No. Based on "unsettled business" from a previous war, Hitler began attacking
countries that were no threat to Germany at all. Why would anybody think there
was some sort of similarity with Bush?