"Jim," wrote in message
...
wrote:
NOYB wrote:

I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike
plans
are certainly already written.

************************

"What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New
American Century)

You guys need to be careful what you wish for.

I thought 9/11 was considered the modern Pearl Harbor?

It was worse. Pearl Harbor was a legitimate military target. 9/11 was the
murder of civilians.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
NOYB wrote:

I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike
plans
are certainly already written.

************************

"What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New
American Century)

You guys need to be careful what you wish for.




I cannot understand why Nobby thinks "retaliation" is adequate payback for
thousands of dead US residents.

Perhaps you don't understand exactly what I mean by "retaliation". We know
that Syria and Iran continue to *openly* support terrorist organizations
that commit international acts of terror. It wouldn't take much effort (or
cost many US lives) to launch an all-out aerial assault on the leadership of
both of those countries



We were attacked by a bunch of Non Governmental Organization Saudis, and
we retaliated by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, and killing tens of
thousands of Iraqis.

We removed the governments of two countries which provided training and/or
funding to terrorists.



Big whoop.

"Well, Mrs. Smith, we're sorry you lost your husband in the destruction of
the WTC. Don't you feel better now that we've killed 20,000 Iraqi
children?"

The point is, after we're attacked again, do you think there is any chance
Bush will step up to the plate and admit he failed us...again?


Maybe he and his supporters will try to play the "Well, we can't stop them
all" game.

And you guys play the "Well, we can't kill 'em all" game. We certainly have
a better chance of "stopping them" by "killing them" than by trying to seal
our borders to keep them from coming into this country.


"You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop
fighting." --Curtis LeMay

NOYB wrote:

You liberals are a sick bunch

********

Netsock is a liberal? Who would have guessed?

I'd be in favor of no casualties at all. On any side. Including
Republicans. After all, if your whole tribe disappeared it would be a
lot more difficult for us moderate progressives to appear so absolutely
right on all subjects by comparison. :-)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:

I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike
plans
are certainly already written.

************************

"What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New
American Century)

You guys need to be careful what you wish for.


PNAC never said such a thing.



How would you possibly know that? Maybe it did.

Gould put quotes around the statement, implying that he took the quote
directly from PNAC. It's up to him to cite the source. Otherwise, it's
horsepoop.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


First of all, you've mixed statements made in the PNAC document with
opinions stated in the American Free Press article. Post the PNAC document
and let people decide for themselves.


“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long
one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl
Harbor.”

That's a far cry from saying "What this country needs is another Pearl
Harbor."

BTW--if you think that PNAC has the wherewithal to make something like that
happen, then you're as nutty as Cynthia McKinney.

wrote in message
oups.com...
NOYB wrote:

You liberals are a sick bunch

********

Netsock is a liberal? Who would have guessed?

I'd be in favor of no casualties at all. On any side. Including
Republicans. After all, if your whole tribe disappeared it would be a
lot more difficult for us moderate progressives to appear so absolutely
right on all subjects by comparison. :-)


But the last few elections have shown that my tribe is growing, while your
tribe is shrinking.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
NOYB wrote:

I don't know about the rationalizations...but the retaliatory strike
plans
are certainly already written.

************************

"What this country needs is another Pearl Harbor" (Project for the New
American Century)

You guys need to be careful what you wish for.


*You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones hoping
for bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't
politics more important than Country for many on the left?


I'm not sure what Chuck meant, but I can add something useful: Boys like
NOYB want something bad to happen because it means they'll see footage on TV
from cameras mounted on cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and he'll be
able to have sex again for a week or two afterward.

On 7 Mar 2005 09:17:46 -0800, wrote:

JimH wrote:

*You guys*? I guess you mean the left as those are the only ones
hoping for
bad things to happen, including in the Middle East. After all, aren't
politics more important than Country for many on the left?

**************

That's a very poor guess.

"You guys" refers to people who endorse the principles and recommended
policies of the PNAC- a positon NOYB has taken in this forum several
times.

We're about one terrorist attack on the US away from a lot of moderates
joining the rabid right wingers in calling for an all-out, WWII, bring
back the draft, drop the nukes style obliteration of the middle east.
I'm convinced that radical reactionaries on the right are praying for
such an event every night.

The "first" modern Pearl Harbor, 9-11, didn't quite get the job done as
far as the PNAC is concerned, so if one is desirable ("what this
country needs") then two or more must be even better.

Chuck, I sure hope those considering initiating that attack have the same
realizations you do. Perhaps the idea of retaliatory destruction will make
someone think.

The idea that many Democrats are hoping for the worst is not confined to JimH.
It's all over TV.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:23:32 -0500, Netsock wrote:

wrote:

We're about one terrorist attack on the US away from a lot of moderates
joining the rabid right wingers in calling for an all-out, WWII, bring
back the draft


I'm all for the draft, so long as there are NO exemptions for the sons
of wealthy rightwingers. Every male out of high school, eligible for the
draft. No college hall pass.

The more sones of rightwing warmongers coming home in body bags, the
better chance there will be that wiser heads will prevail and we'll come
to the realization that warmongering ain't he answer.

I'm not hoping for lots of body bags, but I agree that a draft should be
'without' exemptions that are in any way class related. I can see exemptions for
married persons with children.

Of course, females should be included in the draft also.

Lastly, the ability to pass an entrance exam should not be a requirement. That
will let the high school dropouts and non-English speakers qualify.


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On 7 Mar 2005 10:22:45 -0800, wrote:

NOYB wrote:

You liberals are a sick bunch

********

Netsock is a liberal? Who would have guessed?

I'd be in favor of no casualties at all. On any side. Including
Republicans. After all, if your whole tribe disappeared it would be a
lot more difficult for us moderate progressives to appear so absolutely
right on all subjects by comparison. :-)

Well! I'm glad to see you've dropped that 'I'm an independent' stuff!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."