Dave Hall wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:21:00 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


A survey a year or so ago indicated that the world feared the US more
than any other country. Before you say that's a good thing, remember
the playground bully -- eventually 2 or 3 of his victims get together
and put him in his place.


I've seen similar reports that claim that the U.S. was also the
biggest "terrorist". But you have to take the perspective of the
people selected for these surveys into consideration when analyzing
this data.

We don't bully or terrorize anyone. But we do stand up for what's
right. Self determination and democracy is a far better life than one
of oppression and despotism.

I expect I could find more than a few Iraqis who disagree with you


Yes, but the opinions of Saddam loyalists, insurgent fighters, muslim
extremists, and people caught in the middle of a bad situation have
either a bias or an agenda, and their opinions should be suspect.

Many Iraqi's don't trust us (especially after we failed to back up
their uprising at the end of the Gulf War), but in the end, we will
deliver them a better government. One that they can take part in
running. How is that terrorism on our part?

Can you give me any good reason *WHY* the Iraqis *SHOULD* trust us?



It's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Yet bush is so eager to get other nations to join in again, despite more
and more pulling out.


Define "eager"? Bush has tempered his initial slamming of those
ingrate nations like France et al, and now wants to normalize
relations again. But he's not pulling a Lewinsky on anyone.

He has bribed most (if not all) the current participants.


Proof please? Where has he "bribed" anyone?

the coalition of the bought -- read up a little on the "incentives" they
were offered to join.

Do your homework -- bush wanted to count something like 50 countries as
part of the coalition -- countries like Haiti, which offered no more
than (iM?)moral support. the Ukrainians got loans, as did the polish.
the only country who *MIGHT* be there on their own is Britain, and their
about to pull out just as soon as they dump Blair.


According to what factual account? Remember, editorial opinions are
tainted with bias. Just like those "stories" of bribing Iraqi voters.



Scott Ritter is a turncoat, who was likely paid to do so. He was very
pro WMD in the beginning, and then suddenly became a harsh critic of
even his own earlier actions. He smells bad, and I would take his word
for anything.

"I would take his word for anything."

NOTE --- I did NOT doctor the above -- perhaps a slip revealing your
true beliefs (I can't spell Freudian)


"Would NOT" would be the correct statement. At least you (seemingly)
understood my intent if not the typo.

Which leaves me a bit puzzled as to a lack of any additional comment.

I thought you said it all. Why was he appointed if he could not be
trusted? When he speaks out against the war, suddenly he's booted out,
or quits -- lots of others like him are no longer with the administration.


Same thing with Richard Clarke.

When one does a sudden 180 on their ideals, it is certainly
suspicious. One wonders how many zeroes were on the big check.....




And Hackworth seems to have gained the trust of the grunt types who
write him regularly.


Hackworth used to be a straight shooter and regular contributor to
talk radio. Evidently he's had a change of heart.

He realized the guys on the ground, and those coming back wounded were
getting shorted -- and began to holler -- the neo-cons don't like dissent.


There is nothing stronger than a united front. A front displaying
dissent is a sign of something less than solidarity, and a potential
weakness to be exploited by our enemies. That was part of the reason
why we basically lost Vietnam. The enemy only needs top hold out long
enough to allow our own country to implode under increasing dissent.
The enemy doesn't defeat us, we defeat ourselves by questioning our
original mission.

My COuntry right or wrong -- *BULL*****


I agree with him that the "grunts" should be compensated better. But
that shouldn't change how they feel about the war in general.




Why? Does the existence of evidence which shatters your pre-conceived
notions of what this war is all about, make you feel uncomfortable to
the point of denial?

The revelation that columnists can be and have been bought, makes me
more than a little suspicious of those supporting the one with the money.


That works both ways. Michael Moore and George Soros, among other
notable liberals, both have a sizable sum of money to "sway" writers.

More uses his money o speak for himself


He speaks a bunch of crap, but his money allows him to,present it in
such a way as to cause some people to wonder.


, and Soros tells where his money
goes. Bush was found out.


"Found out"? By whom? In what way? What "columnists" are on Bush's
payroll?

Dave -- do you ever actually READ the news? I'm not going to play this
game with you. Stick your head even further up the ass of O'Reilly or
whatever fox "newsman" you like -- it won't change facts.

Dave