"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Doug Kanter wrote:
... How else can one explain spastic foreign policy decisions? Over the
past couple of years, I've given you a number of possible explanations
including complete incompetence, or a sick need for sexual excitement
derived from violence. Pick one.

You're pretty cynical. Remember the rule of thumb: 'Never attribute to
malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.'

Besides, you're overlooking the one thing that President Bush's policies
have been hugely successful at... generating profits for certain favored
corporations...

"Favored corporations"? You mean US corporations...instead of the French,
German, Russian, and Chinese corporations that were benefitting from
skirting the UN sanctions against Iraq.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"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.


It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults.

But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic
foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you a
number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a
sick
need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one.


I'm posting this only to show basskisser that it is possible to ignore
written
material. Also, it is possible to entertain thoughts without resorting to
personal insults.

I haven't insulted you, unless you're one of those guys who takes it
personally when someone disagrees with his choice of TV, lawnmower or car.
I'm simply pointing out that when you strip away all the valid, sane
reasons (which do not apply to our foreign policy lately), the only ones
left are the bizarre.

What's bizarre is the inability to see the good things happening in the
Middle East right now as a result of Bush's policies. One would have to be
stupid or ignorant to not see it. Which are you? (Pick one).

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

NOYB wrote:

If anything, it's the left that is hoping for another attack on US soil.

Really? I guess it's "the left" that has reaped enormous profits,
including outright theft of hundreds of millions of dollars along with
fraud, price gouging, etc etc.



Then they can say "See! Bush's war on terror isn't working."


Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are
numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down?


Where?




Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working.



That's an opinion again, Doug.

Where doesn't matter. It's a small planet.

Does he mean in Iraq?

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

"John H" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
om...

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news:1110214761.754015.126700@o13g2000cwo. googlegroups.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.


It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults.

But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic
foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you
a
number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a
sick
need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one.


I'm posting this only to show basskisser that it is possible to ignore
written
material. Also, it is possible to entertain thoughts without resorting
to
personal insults.

I haven't insulted you, unless you're one of those guys who takes it
personally when someone disagrees with his choice of TV, lawnmower or
car. I'm simply pointing out that when you strip away all the valid, sane
reasons (which do not apply to our foreign policy lately), the only ones
left are the bizarre.


What's bizarre is the inability to see the good things happening in the
Middle East right now as a result of Bush's policies. One would have to
be stupid or ignorant to not see it. Which are you? (Pick one).




The best thing that has happened to the Middle East is the death of Yassar
Arafat.

That one event has changed the status of the "situation" between Israel
and Palestine for once and for all, and is helping to deflate the pressure
in the entire region.

What bearing did Arafat's death have on the decisions to hold elections in
Egypt and Saudi Arabia? How did Arafat's death influence the Lebanese
desire to see Syrian troops removed from their country? How did Arafat's
death lead to a democratic election in Iraq? How did Arafat's death to
Qaddafi's sudden change of heart?

I agree that "one event" has changed the Middle East. But it wasn't
Arafat's death. It was Bush's decision to oust the government of any nation
that supports terrorism.

Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are
numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down?


NOYB wrote:
Where?


Does it matter, if Americans are getting killed by terrorists?


Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working.



That's an opinion again, Doug.


Well, it's an opinion that is backed by numbers in the the real world. I
guess in your opinion, that Bush/Cheney's "war on terror" is a success
despite evidence to the contrary?

Do you believe that water flows up hill, too?

DSK

Besides, you're overlooking the one thing that President Bush's policies
have been hugely successful at... generating profits for certain favored
corporations...


NOYB wrote:
"Favored corporations"? You mean US corporations...instead of the French,
German, Russian, and Chinese corporations that were benefitting from
skirting the UN sanctions against Iraq.


No, I mean corporations other than the ones that make needed body armor
for U.S. troops, for example.

DSK

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:39:15 -0500, DSK wrote:

Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are
numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down?


NOYB wrote:
Where?


Does it matter, if Americans are getting killed by terrorists?


Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working.



That's an opinion again, Doug.


Well, it's an opinion that is backed by numbers in the the real world. I
guess in your opinion, that Bush/Cheney's "war on terror" is a success
despite evidence to the contrary?

Do you believe that water flows up hill, too?

DSK

It ain't over!


John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:39:15 -0500, DSK wrote:

Let's see... were more people killed by terrorists in 2002 or 2004? Are
numbers & fatalities of terrorist attacks going up or down?


NOYB wrote:
Where?


Does it matter, if Americans are getting killed by terrorists?


Fact: President Bush's "war on terror" is not working.



That's an opinion again, Doug.


Well, it's an opinion that is backed by numbers in the the real world. I
guess in your opinion, that Bush/Cheney's "war on terror" is a success
despite evidence to the contrary?

Do you believe that water flows up hill, too?

DSK


Has there ever been a war where the opposition did not wear uniforms? Has
there ever been a war where the opposition fights from Mosques? Has there
ever been a war where the opposition uses children, straps bombs to them,
and has them walk into crowded streets killing their own people? Has there
ever been a war with no casualties?

Hmmm.

JimH wrote:
Has there ever been a war where the opposition did not wear uniforms? Has
there ever been a war where the opposition fights from Mosques? Has there
ever been a war where the opposition uses children, straps bombs to them,
and has them walk into crowded streets killing their own people?

Yes.

Ignorance is not strength, Orwell notwithstanding.

... Has there
ever been a war with no casualties?


Has there ever been a war with lots and lots of casualties, for no
purpose, which could have been avoided with better planning & better
equipment, in which the side suffering all these avoidable casualties
made a credible claim to be "winning"?

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:27:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 18:42:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"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.


It's a shame I agreed to stopping personal insults.

But John....it's true. You know that. How else can one explain spastic
foreign policy decisions? Over the past couple of years, I've given you
a
number of possible explanations including complete incompetence, or a
sick
need for sexual excitement derived from violence. Pick one.


I'm posting this only to show basskisser that it is possible to ignore
written
material. Also, it is possible to entertain thoughts without resorting
to
personal insults.

I haven't insulted you, unless you're one of those guys who takes it
personally when someone disagrees with his choice of TV, lawnmower or
car. I'm simply pointing out that when you strip away all the valid, sane
reasons (which do not apply to our foreign policy lately), the only ones
left are the bizarre.

What's bizarre is the inability to see the good things happening in the
Middle East right now as a result of Bush's policies. One would have to
be stupid or ignorant to not see it. Which are you? (Pick one).



I'm someone who does not agree with this statement of foreign policy:
U.S. to Arab World: "Stop hating us, or suffer the consequences". You know
it's true, although you're too small to admit it publicly.