Which candidate....
 

will Al-Qaeda support?

Which candidate....
 

I dunno about al-Qaeda...but Kerry is reaching out to the Iranians for their
support. I guess he figures that if Iran sends enough insurgents into Iraq
to bloody enough of our troops, then our country will elect him to deal with
the problem. What a scumbag.





Read:

February 12, 2004 No.661

Iranian News Agency Alleges Presidential Candidate John Kerry Sends
Email Message

According to an article published in the Tehran Times, the office of
U.S. Senator and leading Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry sent
an email message to the Mehr News Agency . The following is the article as
it appeared in English : [1]

"The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic
presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an email saying
that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if
he wins the election. The text of the e-mail follows:

"'As Americans who have lived and worked extensively overseas, we have
personally witnessed the high regard with which people around the world have
historically viewed the United States. Sadly, we are also painfully aware of
how the actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over
the past three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of
both parties over many decades and put many of our international
relationships at risk.

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to
restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs
the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every
continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build
new friendships and overcome tensions with others.

"'We are convinced that John Kerry is the candidate best qualified to
meet this challenge. Senator Kerry has the diplomatic skill and temperament
as well as a lifetime of accomplishments in [the] field of international
affairs. He believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to
efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer.

"'An understanding of global affairs is essential in these times, and
central to this campaign. Kerry has the experience and the understanding
necessary to successfully restore the United States to its position of
respect within the community of nations. He has the judgment and vision
necessary to assure that the United States fulfills a leadership role in
meeting the challenges we face throughout the world.

"'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection
of important international initiatives, from the Kyoto Accords to the
Biological Weapons Convention, have alienated much of the world and
squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11. This climate of
hostility affects us all, but most especially impacts those who reside
overseas. Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread,
extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man
and woman on the street as well.

"'We believe John Kerry is the Democrat who can go toe-to-toe against
the current Administration on national security and defense issues. We also
remain convinced that John Kerry has the best chance of beating the
incumbent in November, and putting America on a new course that will lead to
a safer, more secure, and more stable world.'"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Tehran Times (Iran), February 8, 2004.





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----




"Jerry Steele" wrote in message
om...
will Al-Qaeda support?

Which candidate....
 

NOYB wrote:

I dunno about al-Qaeda...but Kerry is reaching out to the Iranians for their
support. I guess he figures that if Iran sends enough insurgents into Iraq
to bloody enough of our troops, then our country will elect him to deal with
the problem.

Please quote the part of Kerry's message that encourages "Iranian
insurgents" to attack our troops.

... What a scumbag.

I agree. You must be pretty hard up to believe any lie and repeat all
slander from BushCo. Once the brain starts to atrophy, it's difficult to
reverse...

DSK

Which candidate....
 

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

I dunno about al-Qaeda...but Kerry is reaching out to the Iranians for
their
support. I guess he figures that if Iran sends enough insurgents into
Iraq
to bloody enough of our troops, then our country will elect him to deal
with
the problem. What a scumbag.





Read:

February 12, 2004 No.661

Iranian News Agency Alleges Presidential Candidate John Kerry
Sends
Email Message

According to an article published in the Tehran Times, the office
of
U.S. Senator and leading Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry
sent
an email message to the Mehr News Agency . The following is the article
as
it appeared in English : [1]

"The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the
Democratic
presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an email
saying
that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president
if
he wins the election. The text of the e-mail follows:

"'As Americans who have lived and worked extensively overseas, we
have
personally witnessed the high regard with which people around the world
have
historically viewed the United States. Sadly, we are also painfully
aware of
how the actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government
over
the past three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents
of
both parties over many decades and put many of our international
relationships at risk.




It reads to me like a news release Kerry's office might have sent out to
every known news agency on the face of the planet.

I've done this myself, although not internationally, on behalf of
clients many times. I have the ability to email a news release
simultaneously to tens of thousands of news outlets via an email list
service to which I subscribe. I also obtain the fax numbers of these
news outlets, and, for many of them, their snail mail addrssses.

Sounds to me as if you are unsophisticated in these matters.

It's sounds like an olive branch to me...and the Iranians will read it as
appeasement. In other words, should Kerry become President, he will undo
what Bush has done, and remove the pressure on Iran. Why *wouldn't* the
Iranians view that as an open invitation to continue stirring up unrest in
Iraq? It's in their best interest to have Kerry as US President...rather
than Bush.

For reasons obvious to most intelligent people, every Presidential successor
makes it a point to let potential enemies know that they'll be no radical
change in US policy with the changing of an administration. Kerry is going
down a very dangerous path here...and encouraging rogue nations to create as
much chaos as needed to politically damage Bush.

Which candidate....
 

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

I dunno about al-Qaeda...but Kerry is reaching out to the Iranians for
their
support. I guess he figures that if Iran sends enough insurgents into
Iraq
to bloody enough of our troops, then our country will elect him to deal
with
the problem.

Please quote the part of Kerry's message that encourages "Iranian
insurgents" to attack our troops.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? It's no secret that Bush has been
putting the heat on Iran. We have 125,000 troops on their Western
border...and air bases on their Eastern border. There's a distinct
possibility that those troops will be used against Iran should Bush be
reelected. The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others". In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel, and Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.





... What a scumbag.

I agree. You must be pretty hard up to believe any lie and repeat all
slander from BushCo. Once the brain starts to atrophy, it's difficult to
reverse...

DSK

Which candidate....
 

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 11:57:39 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

It reads to me like a news release Kerry's office might have sent out to
every known news agency on the face of the planet.

Yup, looks like spam to me, but then I didn't put it through my secret
decoder ring.

Which candidate....
 

Please quote the part of Kerry's message that encourages "Iranian
insurgents" to attack our troops.


NOYB wrote:
Are you being intentionally obtuse? It's no secret that Bush has been
putting the heat on Iran.


I am not "obtuse" at all, however I do not see public disagreement with
BushCo as "treason." Obviously, you do. I thought GW Bush was President,
not Fuhrer.


... Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others". In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel, and Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

Hardly.

First of all, Saddam's "missiles to strike Israel" are every bit as much
a fantasy as his WMD's. Secondly, Iran is *still* pursuing a nuclear
weapons capability (or at least, as much of a one as they can afford)and
the Bush team is doing little or nothing to stop them... kinda like
North Korea...


In other words, you are mindlessly spouting any and all BushCo
propaganda, no matter how slanderous, stupid, and blatantly untrue.

If the Bush worshippers keep hitting this "dissent equals treason"
button hard enough, they'll be out on their ear come November. Americans
don't like being pushed around. OTOH, maybe that's BushCo's plan... get
installed by the Supreme Court for a 2nd term, no matter what the
electorate decides, only maybe this time they will install him for
life... and change his title...

DSK

Which candidate....
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Please quote the part of Kerry's message that encourages "Iranian
insurgents" to attack our troops.


NOYB wrote:
Are you being intentionally obtuse? It's no secret that Bush has been
putting the heat on Iran.


I am not "obtuse" at all, however I do not see public disagreement with
BushCo as "treason." Obviously, you do. I thought GW Bush was President,
not Fuhrer.

You can publically disagree with Bush all you want. However, when you're a
US Senator, and you start sending emails to the intelligence communities of
enemy nations...emails that have the intent of undermining the authority of
the incumbent President...then you're a traitor.






... Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others". In
other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel, and
Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

Hardly.

First of all, Saddam's "missiles to strike Israel" are every bit as much
a fantasy as his WMD's.

Kay's report said that they had several missiles and missile programs that
were in violation of UN Res. 1441. In fact, Kay said they were much more
advanced in that area than we once thought.


Secondly, Iran is *still* pursuing a nuclear
weapons capability (or at least, as much of a one as they can afford)and
the Bush team is doing little or nothing to stop them...

You just right along and keep believing that they're doing nothing...
Iran is in our cross-hairs. Bet on it. We wouldn't have troops stationed
on their Western and Eastern borders if Bush didn't mean business.


kinda like
North Korea...

N. Korea was a situation where diplomacy (via China) has kept them at
bay...for now.



In other words, you are mindlessly spouting any and all BushCo
propaganda, no matter how slanderous, stupid, and blatantly untrue.

If the Bush worshippers keep hitting this "dissent equals treason"
button hard enough, they'll be out on their ear come November. Americans
don't like being pushed around. OTOH, maybe that's BushCo's plan... get
installed by the Supreme Court for a 2nd term, no matter what the
electorate decides, only maybe this time they will install him for
life... and change his title...

Which candidate....
 

NOYB wrote:
You can publically disagree with Bush all you want.

I can, but you apparently cannot ;)

.... However, when you're a
US Senator, and you start sending emails to the intelligence communities of
enemy nations...emails that have the intent of undermining the authority of
the incumbent President...then you're a traitor.

Possibly so, did anybody do that?

The Kerry email that you quoted was 1- sent to news agencies 2- did not
have any intent of "undermining the authority of the incumbent President."

Looking at naked facts is apparently too embarrassing for your morality
& ethics...

DSK

Which candidate....
 

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


It's sounds like an olive branch to me...and the Iranians will read it as
appeasement. In other words, should Kerry become President, he will undo
what Bush has done, and remove the pressure on Iran. Why *wouldn't* the
Iranians view that as an open invitation to continue stirring up unrest in
Iraq? It's in their best interest to have Kerry as US President...rather
than Bush.

It's a blessing to have a guy like you to learn from. Here's your chance:
What country are Lebanese people from?

Which candidate....
 

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

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel, and
Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

In other words? Actually, that's a conclusion only a moron could make.

Which candidate....
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..


I am not "obtuse" at all, however I do not see public disagreement with
BushCo as "treason." Obviously, you do. I thought GW Bush was President,
not Fuhrer.


Not fuhrer, either. Try "deity".

Which candidate....
 

In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

Perhaps he'll write a comic book on the subject, of course it'll be
ghost written by Paul Wolfowitz and edited by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

Which candidate....
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
You can publically disagree with Bush all you want.

I can, but you apparently cannot ;)

.... However, when you're a
US Senator, and you start sending emails to the intelligence communities
of
enemy nations...emails that have the intent of undermining the authority
of
the incumbent President...then you're a traitor.

Possibly so, did anybody do that?

The Kerry email that you quoted was 1- sent to news agencies 2- did not
have any intent of "undermining the authority of the incumbent President."

Sure it did.

These are precisely the type of ones you use to undermine a leader:

'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of
important international initiatives"

"actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the past
three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both
parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships at
risk."

"restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world"

" repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so
damaged in the past few years"

"overcome tensions with others"

As a senator, he has no right to screw with our country's foreign policy.
If he wants to voice his concerns on the Senate floor, then that's his
right...and his responsibility. But to do it through an email to a foreign
news agency is traitorous.

Which candidate....
 

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


These are precisely the type of ones you use to undermine a leader:

Some policies NEED to be undermined.


'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of
important international initiatives"

"actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the
past
three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both
parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships
at
risk."

"restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world"

" repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so
damaged in the past few years"

"overcome tensions with others"

These are all positive goals. Why do you have a problem with them?


As a senator, he has no right to screw with our country's foreign policy.
If he wants to voice his concerns on the Senate floor, then that's his
right...and his responsibility. But to do it through an email to a
foreign
news agency is traitorous.

It's about time.

Which candidate....
 

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:44:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

is traitorous.

Now we've finally gotten to the bottom of this. He's charged as being
a traitor. Interesting the staunchest Bush supporters have put the
traitor label on all who didn't support the administrations policies
and methods. It certainly can't be any big surprise your crowd is
trying to pin the label on Kerry, now that he looks like the likely
democratic candidate. Anyone who dared run against Bush would have
quickly been labeled a traitor.

bb

Which candidate....
 

Lebanon?


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


It's sounds like an olive branch to me...and the Iranians will read it
as
appeasement. In other words, should Kerry become President, he will
undo
what Bush has done, and remove the pressure on Iran. Why *wouldn't* the
Iranians view that as an open invitation to continue stirring up unrest
in
Iraq? It's in their best interest to have Kerry as US
President...rather
than Bush.

It's a blessing to have a guy like you to learn from. Here's your chance:
What country are Lebanese people from?

Which candidate....
 

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

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible.

We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.




In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel, and
Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

In other words? Actually, that's a conclusion only a moron could make.

The only reason bin Laden hasn't successfully usurped power in the Middle
East is because of our presence over there. Kerry would remove the
cat...and once again, the mice would play.

Which candidate....
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

You mean like the American Revolution? Or the Cival War? Or WWII? Or the
Spanish-American War? Or the War of 1812?

Our country has an history of winning peace through war.

Which candidate....
 

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


These are precisely the type of ones you use to undermine a leader:

Some policies NEED to be undermined.


'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of
important international initiatives"

"actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the
past
three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both
parties over many decades and put many of our international
relationships
at
risk."

"restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world"

" repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so
damaged in the past few years"

"overcome tensions with others"

These are all positive goals. Why do you have a problem with them?


Because I feel as though our "damaged" credibility, damaged alliances, and
heightened tension is with countries that we shouldn't be reaching out to in
the first place. For instance, our supposed allies...France, Russia and
China...were secretly skirting the Iraqi arms embargo, and were making
under-the-table oil deals with Saddam should sanctions be removed. We don't
owe them an apology.

Meanwhile, Syria was sponsoring terrorist acts against Israel, laundering
money for Saddam, sending weapons to Iraq, and likely concealing Saddam's
WMD program. They are very likely next on our list after Iraq.

Iran also sponsors terrorist acts against our ally, Israel. They have also
been pursuing nuclear weapons, and have been inciting unrest in Iraq to
damage US resolve. They should and will be dealt with once Bush is
reelected.





As a senator, he has no right to screw with our country's foreign
policy.
If he wants to voice his concerns on the Senate floor, then that's his
right...and his responsibility. But to do it through an email to a
foreign
news agency is traitorous.

It's about time.


The only reason Kerry felt it was "time" is because it's an election year.
He's a blatant hypocrite who fully supported the removal of Saddam from
power...until it became politically convenient to oppose it.

Which candidate....
 

"bb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:44:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

is traitorous.

Now we've finally gotten to the bottom of this. He's charged as being
a traitor. Interesting the staunchest Bush supporters have put the
traitor label on all who didn't support the administrations policies
and methods. It certainly can't be any big surprise your crowd is
trying to pin the label on Kerry, now that he looks like the likely
democratic candidate. Anyone who dared run against Bush would have
quickly been labeled a traitor.

If the shoe fits...

Which candidate....
 

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:07:45 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Now we've finally gotten to the bottom of this. He's charged as being
a traitor. Interesting the staunchest Bush supporters have put the
traitor label on all who didn't support the administrations policies
and methods. It certainly can't be any big surprise your crowd is
trying to pin the label on Kerry, now that he looks like the likely
democratic candidate. Anyone who dared run against Bush would have
quickly been labeled a traitor.

If the shoe fits...

But the shoe doesn't fit. Those who put forth other options for
handling issues are not traitors. Those that use the traitor tag for
political gain come much closer to fitting that description.

bb

Which candidate....
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Bush has got to go, before we're blown off the face of the earth.

You guys said the same thing about Reagan's nuclear brinkmanship with the
Soviet Union. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Which candidate....
 

bb wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:07:45 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Now we've finally gotten to the bottom of this. He's charged as being
a traitor. Interesting the staunchest Bush supporters have put the
traitor label on all who didn't support the administrations policies
and methods. It certainly can't be any big surprise your crowd is
trying to pin the label on Kerry, now that he looks like the likely
democratic candidate. Anyone who dared run against Bush would have
quickly been labeled a traitor.

If the shoe fits...

But the shoe doesn't fit. Those who put forth other options for
handling issues are not traitors. Those that use the traitor tag for
political gain come much closer to fitting that description.

bb


It's the latest iteration of the idiotic "my country right or wrong"
kind of thinking that kept us in Vietnam and ended up costing 55,000 US
lives and at least a million Vietnamese.

BTW, the latest CBS poll has Kerry five points ahead of Bush. "Bush's
economic recovery is almost as bad as his recession."



--
Show George W. Bush the Door...in 2004.

Which candidate....
 

The Kerry email that you quoted was 1- sent to news agencies 2- did not
have any intent of "undermining the authority of the incumbent President."



NOYB wrote:
Sure it did.

Sorry, it is obvious that you're in full BushCo propaganda parrot mode.
However I stick around one more post to deflate your claims


These are precisely the type of ones you use to undermine a leader:

'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of
important international initiatives"

That is stating a very obvious fact... pretty much in the exact words
used by either Bush or Cheney at one time or another. In other words,
Dick Cheney can announce that the US will act unilaterally and rejects
other nations initiatives, but Kerry cannot say they have done so....
very nice...



As a senator, he has no right to screw with our country's foreign policy.

But as a Presidential candidate, he has every right to announce what his
future policy goals will be... which is what he has done.

In other words, you're just mindlessly carping about Kerry because he's
not Bush... gee what agenda do you have in mind?



If he wants to voice his concerns on the Senate floor, then that's his
right...and his responsibility. But to do it through an email to a foreign
news agency is traitorous.

But wait, first you said he sent this email to 'foreign intelligence
agencies' and now it's just plain news? In other words, you are lying
out your butt to try and make Kerry look bad?

Good thing you didn't have any credibility to start with, NOBBY, because
you would have just shredded it ;)

DSK

Which candidate....
 

Very good! In last week's attack on the Iraqi police station, several of the
attackers were found to be Lebanese, which, as you pointed out, means they
were from Lebanon. Don't worry so much about Iran. There's quite a movement
afoot there to stem the influence of Islamic nut-cases. That country will be
valuable to us in the future and it won't require military persuasion. You
will need to seek your fantasies and hard-ons elsewhere.

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


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


It's sounds like an olive branch to me...and the Iranians will read it
as
appeasement. In other words, should Kerry become President, he will
undo
what Bush has done, and remove the pressure on Iran. Why *wouldn't*
the
Iranians view that as an open invitation to continue stirring up
unrest
in
Iraq? It's in their best interest to have Kerry as US
President...rather
than Bush.

It's a blessing to have a guy like you to learn from. Here's your
chance:
What country are Lebanese people from?

Which candidate....
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Very good! In last week's attack on the Iraqi police station, several of
the
attackers were found to be Lebanese

as well as other nationalities...

Which candidate....
 

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


I'm going to use lots of white space here to make it simpler for you to
follow along. If it seems the message has ended, be sure to page down and
check first.

These are all positive goals. Why do you have a problem with them?

Because I feel as though our "damaged" credibility, damaged alliances, and
heightened tension is with countries that we shouldn't be reaching out to
in
the first place. For instance, our supposed allies...France, Russia and
China...were secretly skirting the Iraqi arms embargo, and were making
under-the-table oil deals with Saddam should sanctions be removed. We
don't
owe them an apology.

Translation: Profit-making entities were making oil deals which depended on
certain political outcomes. Are you stupid enough to think American
companies don't do that every single day, with every natural resource you
can name? Answer the question. Are you that stupid? It's yes or no.

White space. Room for you to think.
=========================



Meanwhile, Syria was sponsoring terrorist acts against Israel, laundering
money for Saddam, sending weapons to Iraq, and likely concealing Saddam's
WMD program. They are very likely next on our list after Iraq.

Are you stupid enough to lump Syria into the same category as France, Russia
and China? Yes or no?

White space. Room for you to think.
=========================




Iran also sponsors terrorist acts against our ally, Israel. They have
also
been pursuing nuclear weapons, and have been inciting unrest in Iraq to
damage US resolve. They should and will be dealt with once Bush is
reelected.

Pursuing nuclear weapons? Shut your cake hole. They're doing exactly what we
are - trying to expand their arsenal. On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

Messing with Israel and inciting unrest in Iraq? Shut your cake hole. We do
that all the time in our hemisphere. Ever heard of Colombia, El Salvador or
Panama?? Who said we're the only country which can exert influence, peaceful
or otherwise?

White space. Room for you to think.
=========================



The only reason Kerry felt it was "time" is because it's an election year.
He's a blatant hypocrite who fully supported the removal of Saddam from
power...until it became politically convenient to oppose it.

I guess you get your hard-ons from seeing people killed. I think that falls
under the heading of "psychopath". I get excited be seeing people finessed.
Must be a function of maturity.

Which candidate....
 

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

We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.

Disarmament? Over the next 10 years, which country do you believe will add
the largest number of TOTALLY NEW types of nuclear weapons to its
collection, while still maintaining the old ones in an operational state?



In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel, and
Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

In other words? Actually, that's a conclusion only a moron could make.

The only reason bin Laden hasn't successfully usurped power in the Middle
East is because of our presence over there. Kerry would remove the
cat...and once again, the mice would play.

Bin Laden, eh? I'm sure you've answered this question before, but try again.
Definition of "news source": One whose stories on one topic last more than 2
minutes. With that in mind, which news sources do you listen to regularly?

Which candidate....
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

I think that about sums up your feelings for our country.

Which candidate....
 

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

We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.

Disarmament? Over the next 10 years, which country do you believe will add
the largest number of TOTALLY NEW types of nuclear weapons to its
collection, while still maintaining the old ones in an operational state?

Probably China. I know you were thinking that *we* will.

Nevertheless, it's a terrific deterrent. However, terrorist-sponsoring
states are not pursuing WMD's as "deterrents".





In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel,
and
Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

In other words? Actually, that's a conclusion only a moron could make.

The only reason bin Laden hasn't successfully usurped power in the
Middle
East is because of our presence over there. Kerry would remove the
cat...and once again, the mice would play.

Bin Laden, eh? I'm sure you've answered this question before, but try
again.
Definition of "news source": One whose stories on one topic last more than
2
minutes. With that in mind, which news sources do you listen to regularly?

*You* seem to do a good job at telling stories...and doing so for more than
2 minutes. Can I count you among my "regularly listened to news sources"?

Which candidate....
 

NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

I think that about sums up your feelings for our country.




You can hardly blame him; since the appointment of Bush, our country has
been going to hell in a handbasket.

--
Show George W. Bush the Door...in 2004.

Which candidate....
 

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

I think that about sums up your feelings for our country.




You can hardly blame him; since the appointment of Bush, our country has
been going to hell in a handbasket.

I'd surmise that Doug has felt that way for a long, long time...well before
Bush.

Which candidate....
 

In article . net,
says...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Bush has got to go, before we're blown off the face of the earth.

You guys said the same thing about Reagan's nuclear brinkmanship with the
Soviet Union. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Well, if Dubya was thought to be smart enough to pull off a bluff like
Star Wars, maybe you'd have something.

Bush can't act, what makes you think he can convince the rest of the
world he's willing to spend any amount of money to be the military
powerhouse of the world?

....b'dum bum.

Which candidate....
 

In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

You mean like the American Revolution? Or the Cival War? Or WWII? Or the
Spanish-American War? Or the War of 1812?

Our country has an history of winning peace through war.

Uh, other than the war we had with ourselves, please tell me in which of
those wars we were the instigator, aggressor?

If you fail to recognize the difference, please go sit in the corner and
think for as long as it takes until you do.

Which candidate....
 

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

I think that about sums up your feelings for our country.

Translation: You have no idea what our current nuclear program is about.
That sums up YOUR feelings about our country. One of the responsibilities of
a good citizen is to be informed. You are a traitor. Suitable only for
compost.

Which candidate....
 

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

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

We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a
terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.

Disarmament? Over the next 10 years, which country do you believe will
add
the largest number of TOTALLY NEW types of nuclear weapons to its
collection, while still maintaining the old ones in an operational
state?

Probably China. I know you were thinking that *we* will.

Sorry. It's us. This is according to Sam Nunn and a few other left-wing
whores who'd like to see us leave a better world for our kids.



Nevertheless, it's a terrific deterrent. However, terrorist-sponsoring
states are not pursuing WMD's as "deterrents".

Yeah. It's a great deterrent. It worked real well in terms of keeping the
NYC skyline unaltered, didn't it? It's also kept the Russians from attacking
us with their rusting sub fleet.


Bin Laden, eh? I'm sure you've answered this question before, but try
again.
Definition of "news source": One whose stories on one topic last more
than
2
minutes. With that in mind, which news sources do you listen to
regularly?

*You* seem to do a good job at telling stories...and doing so for more
than
2 minutes. Can I count you among my "regularly listened to news sources"?



In the past two weeks, I've heard analyses by people who know these things,
saying that Bin Laden is likely to be a non-issue at this point. However,
9/11 gave quite a bit of confidence to thugs who are in no way connected
with OBL. But, just to entertain idiots, let's assume this was false. Where
would YOU pursue OBL if you were the president, instead of the queen of
Boca?

Which candidate....
 

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

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

You mean like the American Revolution? Or the Cival


Civil.

Which candidate....
 

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

The Iranians know that. Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others".

Very bad. We should always strive to INCREASE tensions with other
countries
using any means possible. It's the way to peace. If you're a moron.

It's a BushCo policy. "Winning Peace thru War"

You mean like the American Revolution? Or the Cival War? Or WWII? Or
the
Spanish-American War? Or the War of 1812?

Our country has an history of winning peace through war.

Uh, other than the war we had with ourselves, please tell me in which of
those wars we were the instigator, aggressor?


That's irrelevant. As I said, we have a history of winning peace through
war.

Which candidate....
 

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

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

We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a
terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.

Disarmament? Over the next 10 years, which country do you believe will
add
the largest number of TOTALLY NEW types of nuclear weapons to its
collection, while still maintaining the old ones in an operational
state?

Probably China. I know you were thinking that *we* will.

Sorry. It's us. This is according to Sam Nunn and a few other left-wing
whores who'd like to see us leave a better world for our kids.



Nevertheless, it's a terrific deterrent. However, terrorist-sponsoring
states are not pursuing WMD's as "deterrents".

Yeah. It's a great deterrent. It worked real well in terms of keeping the
NYC skyline unaltered, didn't it? It's also kept the Russians from
attacking
us with their rusting sub fleet.


Bin Laden, eh? I'm sure you've answered this question before, but try
again.
Definition of "news source": One whose stories on one topic last more
than
2
minutes. With that in mind, which news sources do you listen to
regularly?

*You* seem to do a good job at telling stories...and doing so for more
than
2 minutes. Can I count you among my "regularly listened to news
sources"?



In the past two weeks, I've heard analyses by people who know these
things,
saying that Bin Laden is likely to be a non-issue at this point. However,
9/11 gave quite a bit of confidence to thugs who are in no way connected
with OBL. But, just to entertain idiots, let's assume this was false.
Where
would YOU pursue OBL

I'd remove Afghanistan as a training base for terrorists. I'd remove Saddam
as a financial supporter of terrorists. I'd then occupy Iraq for two
reasons: 1) to ensure a safe flow of oil should the House of Saud be overrun
by extremists, and 2) as a launching point into Syria and Iran.
I'd also occupy Afghanistan as a launching point into Iran and Pakistan.
I'd then march right into the hills in Northwestern Pakistan and grab OBL.