"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 18:34:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:05:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


How you can group all Muslims is laughable not to mention ignorant.

Not all Muslims are terrorists. But the majority of the recent
terrorists that we're fighting now are Muslims. To deny the
influence
of that faith on their actions, is being ignorant.

Stumped by set theory in junior high school?

Huh?

Just as I thought. Go sit in the corner and drink your chocolate milk,
child.

That wasn't fair Doug. :)

For Dave, it's sometimes the only possible response.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 18:34:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 02:05:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


How you can group all Muslims is laughable not to mention ignorant.

Not all Muslims are terrorists. But the majority of the recent
terrorists that we're fighting now are Muslims. To deny the influence
of that faith on their actions, is being ignorant.

Stumped by set theory in junior high school?


Huh?

Dave


Just as I thought. Go sit in the corner and drink your chocolate milk,
child.


Ah Douggie, nice to hear from you again. I see the prospects of home
ownership have not diminished your wonderful congenial personality, if
not your strangely biased viewpoints. Have any of the neighborhood
canines left you a present on the front yard yet?

You should be proud of one thing. I took something you once told me to
heart. You once lambasted me for not taking a more active role in
local politics. I thought about that and decided that you were right.
So rather than spend the last few months arguing with the intellectual
equivalents of brick walls, I decided to get involved with the Bush
re-election campaign. Both my wife and I did our part to get the
people in my local district out to vote. Judging from the fact that
there were still people in line to vote at 11:00 election night, I'd
say our efforts must have paid off. Our county was overwhelmingly red,
and even though the majority of the state was negated by the dense (in
more ways than one) populations of the two major cities, we still did
a good job getting the message out. It felt good.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:


Those of us who sit on the sidelines and throw out criticisms without
being privvy to ALL of the facts, are doing ourselves and our country
a huge disservice.

Dave

The main criticism that I have about GWB is his insistence that we
should spread democracy throughout the Arab world. We have no right to
do so.

Requiring adherence of an aggressive nation (after defeat) to a set of
approved and dictated UN conditions, to which the defeated nation agreed
to, is an entirely different matter. There is no point in imposing the
conditions if they aren't enforced.

Eisboch

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:29:47 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


It's this kind of thinking that resulted in over 110,000
Japanese-Americans being "relocated" at the beginning of Wo rldWarII.

When you are at war, you have to cover your bases.

Cover your bases? By interning American citizens?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:45:19 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:29:47 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


It's this kind of thinking that resulted in over 110,000
Japanese-Americans being "relocated" at the beginning of Wo rldWarII.

When you are at war, you have to cover your bases.

Cover your bases? By interning American citizens?

They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering
the circumstances.

Dave

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:05:08 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering the
circumstances.

Of course, the idea was to learn from history, not judge history. We are
a good people, who have occasionally done bad things. Japanese internment
was a bad thing.

They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering the
circumstances.

At the time, it was very similar to the way one of our enemies was treating a
portion of the population that particular government distrusted. Round em up
and imprison them all, sell off their property to the highest bidder belonging
to an approved race. There is no comparison between how
Germany ultimately dealt with a few million of the Jews and how the US and
Canada treated our Japanese citizens- most of those who went to concentration
camp in North America were ultimately released. In fact, all except those who
died from one (nonviolent) cause or another while in camp.

Did you know that some of he interred were second or latter generation
Americans? Many had never been to Japan, were not fluent in Japanese, and were
certainly no more of a threat than the
millions of German American and Italian American families that were descended
from other Axis peoples. The German and Italian families had an advantage. they
didn't "look funny".

On 08 Nov 2004 17:21:25 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action. But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering the
circumstances.

At the time, it was very similar to the way one of our enemies was treating a
portion of the population that particular government distrusted. Round em up
and imprison them all, sell off their property to the highest bidder belonging
to an approved race. There is no comparison between how
Germany ultimately dealt with a few million of the Jews and how the US and
Canada treated our Japanese citizens- most of those who went to concentration
camp in North America were ultimately released. In fact, all except those who
died from one (nonviolent) cause or another while in camp.

Ok...... I'm not sure what your point is here, other than to draw a
distinction between our policy of internment, and the Germans' desire
for genocide.


Did you know that some of he interred were second or latter generation
Americans? Many had never been to Japan, were not fluent in Japanese, and were
certainly no more of a threat than the
millions of German American and Italian American families that were descended
from other Axis peoples. The German and Italian families had an advantage. they
didn't "look funny".

Well, I wasn't alive then, so I can't make a first hand testimony as
to the reasons why. Suffice to say that someone in the government
thought the threat was real enough to warrant that sort of treatment.

Dave

When you are at war, you have to cover your bases.

Cover your bases? By interning American citizens?

Dave Hall wrote:
They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action.

No, the internment of the Nisei is not "indefensible." It has the
defense you offered: sabotage & espionage.


... But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering
the circumstances.

It was reasonable only if you consider that American citizens have no
rights that the gov't need respect. Clearly, you (and a lot of people)
believe that the convenience of the gov't should override any & all
basic citizen's rights.

I disagree with that philosophy.

DSK

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:25:08 -0500, DSK wrote:

When you are at war, you have to cover your bases.

Cover your bases? By interning American citizens?

Dave Hall wrote:
They had their reasons back then. They were concerned about espionage.
When viewed through the filter of time, it looks like an indefensible
action.

No, the internment of the Nisei is not "indefensible." It has the
defense you offered: sabotage & espionage.

I said indefensible when viewed through the filter of time, namely
now. The reasons for it at the time were pretty much clear cut.

... But at the time, it was a reasonable thing to do considering
the circumstances.

It was reasonable only if you consider that American citizens have no
rights that the gov't need respect.

American citizens willingly curtailed many of their "rights" during
WWII, for the sake of the greater good.

Clearly, you (and a lot of people)
believe that the convenience of the gov't should override any & all
basic citizen's rights.

Only if the situation clearly requires it.

I disagree with that philosophy.

That is certainly your right. But remember how many generations before
you abdicated their rights so that you could still have yours.

Dave

DSK