Due to falling poll numbers...
 

Doesn't matter why as long as it gets done!
capture of Osama - a good thing, better thing would be the death of Osama
locating of WMD - Again why would this be a bad thing?
For what ever reasons, the world would be a better place, if this happened.




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
of Dubya the Dumb...capture of Osama and locating of WMD are
imminent...stay tuned.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c1b3f8

This is why it is so dangerous for us to have such a simple-minded fool
in the White House.

It's a good thing, then, that we don't. The only truly simple minded fool
that we routinely see 'round about here posts under the name of Harry
Krause.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c1b3f8$13lvnm$1@ID-

In other words, the
terrorists have transcended the impact of any single terrorist leader,
or even single terrorist organization. We are not in an era like World
War II, where the capture or assassination or suicide of someone like
Mussolini or Hitler basically ends the involvement of a nation or a
group of combatants.


All the terrorists (that we are worried about) have one thing in common.
They are Islamic "fundies" who would wish to impose Islamic theocracy on
thier peoples and others. They are also willing to die for thier cause,
whatever it may be at the moment. We need to help them do that.

It will take a great bloodbath the likes of which has not been seen since
WW2 to rid the world of this evil. This problem is much bigger than Bush. We
are the "great Satan" that has let the evils of personal choice and the
freedom for all to go to hell if they so wish out of the bottle. The liberty
bell cannot be unrung. Only problem is we need a western educated, forward
thinking, secular minded, Islamic leader to rise up and spearhead the
bloodbath.

Or to turn your paragraph on it's end in a sick way. An Islamic Stalin or
Hitler type who is willing to "purge" that extemist viewpoint from our
planet. In a perfect world, it would be a movement we could support at
first, withdraw support from when it got too messy (to keep our hands
clean), and then kiss and make up with later after the fundie bodies are
burned and forgotten about.

Could we raise a few million man army and go over there and "purge" the
fundies - you bet. One way to guarantee we don't cause any human suffering
over there is to kill them all, then they won't suffer. But I'd rather it
come from "within" over there so our hands don't look as bloody.

-W ( "feel the power of the dark side, young Jedi")

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


Still got snow up there in Westford?

Patches of earth showing, even bare spots on the driveway.

Why the non-sequitur?

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 15:29:25 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


This is why it is so dangerous for us to have such a simple-minded fool
in the White House. He simply does not understand what he is facing.

http://www.faultline.org/news/2001/1...ependence.html

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


Still got snow up there in Westford?

Patches of earth showing, even bare spots on the driveway.

Why the non-sequitur?



Life is a non-seq, John; think outside the box.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

Our Christian fundies are not prone to grave acts of terrorism. Yes, we've
had a few abortion clinic bombing / shootings - but they don't go around
blowing up skyscrapers for Jesus.

Do I want to start WW3? - no. Do I feel that it's 90% inevitable?, yes.
Faced with said "inevitability" would I strike first and catastrophicly - I
don't have the stomach.

-W



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c1bd48$1g5g3a$1@ID-

You want to start World War III? That's the sure way to do it. Besides,
I'm not sure "their" Islamic fundies are any worse than "our" Christian
fundies. Conservative fundies are the plague everywhere, especially if
there are lots of them.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Bush's actions since 9-11 have consolidated and brought
together terrorist movements all over the world whose one unifying
principle is hatred for the United States.

A travelling salesman happens upon a hole-in-wall motel while travelling
late at night on a remote road to nowhere. He asks for a room and the desk
manager replies they don't have any available since the only one left is not
suitable for *anyone* to sleep in.

"I'll take it!" replies the salesman.

"But you haven't heard why it's not fit to sleep in. There are thousands
of flies infesting the room and we haven't been able to get rid of them"
says the manager.

"Doesn't matter" responds the salesman " because I haven't slept in 30 hours
and I really need a place to sleep".

The next morning, the salesman comes to the desk to check out with a big
smile on his face and looking well-rested.

"You look well-rested. How the heck did you manage with all the flies last
night?" asked the manager.

"Just fine" says the salesman.

"But how?" says the manager

"I bunched 'em".

"You *bunched* 'em?"

"Yeah" says the salesman. "I took a **** in the corner and bunched 'em"

------------------------------------------------------
Bush is just ****ting in the corner (Iraq) and bunching the flies
(terrorists). Harry thinks Bush's actions are creating *new* terrorists.
In reality, Bush is just bringing the sleepers out of their slumber...sooner
rather than later.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

Clams Canino wrote:

Our Christian fundies are not prone to grave acts of terrorism. Yes, we've
had a few abortion clinic bombing / shootings - but they don't go around
blowing up skyscrapers for Jesus.

Oh...so it is just a matter of degree, eh?

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

Clams Canino wrote:
Our Christian fundies are not prone to grave acts of terrorism. Yes, we've
had a few abortion clinic bombing / shootings - but they don't go around
blowing up skyscrapers for Jesus.

Do I want to start WW3? - no. Do I feel that it's 90% inevitable?, yes.

Unfortunately I agree. But the alignments of various countries are far
from clear. We may have different reasons for coming to the same
conclusion. Do a Google search on "Hubbert's Peak" and read some of the
articles that pop up. Or not... it won't cheer you up any.


Faced with said "inevitability" would I strike first and catastrophicly - I
don't have the stomach.


Me neither... and a 'catastrophic first strike' may not even buy
victory, it may not even buy a short term advantage. And it would be an
extremely poor legacy for future generations of Americans. My opinion is
that the best thing we can do is to maintain the US *economic* strength,
not fritter it away for short term luxuries. And we darn sure should not
be vigorously increasing the pool of future enemies while spending
ourselves into oblivion... remember the Reaganites glee at what the USSR
did to itself? Why are we following in their footsteps?

In the global poker game, the US still has some aces in the hole... but
BushCo is not playing very smart (unless you are a major oil or defense
industry contractor).

Regards
Doug King

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c1bd56

Life is a non-seq, John; think outside the box.

Like your socialist mentors 'round the world...

"We know where you live."

Carry on, you're a laugh a minute.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:

Our Christian fundies are not prone to grave acts of terrorism. Yes,
we've
had a few abortion clinic bombing / shootings - but they don't go around
blowing up skyscrapers for Jesus.

Oh...so it is just a matter of degree, eh?

Aren't you the one who always argues in relativisms?

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:
Our Christian fundies are not prone to grave acts of terrorism. Yes,
we've
had a few abortion clinic bombing / shootings - but they don't go around
blowing up skyscrapers for Jesus.

Do I want to start WW3? - no. Do I feel that it's 90% inevitable?, yes.

Unfortunately I agree. But the alignments of various countries are far
from clear. We may have different reasons for coming to the same
conclusion. Do a Google search on "Hubbert's Peak" and read some of the
articles that pop up. Or not... it won't cheer you up any.


Assuming Dr. Hubbert is accurate in his predictions, wouldn't you *want* an
oil man (men) running the country? And why do liberals oppose drilling in
ANWR?

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:25:39 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Assuming Dr. Hubbert is accurate in his predictions, wouldn't you *want*
an oil man (men) running the country? And why do liberals oppose
drilling in ANWR?



It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go
of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In
the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We
have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical
prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil
gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can
make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level
technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary
system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be
true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one
chance, and one chance only. (Hoyle, 1964)

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

NOYB wrote:
Assuming Dr. Hubbert is accurate in his predictions,

I don't know what sort of science is mandatory for dentists (assuming
you really are one). Do you comprehend what a 'bell curve' is and it's
prevalence in natural phenomenon?

Dr. Hubbert's analysis of oil production for individual wells has been
proven over and over to be very accurate. Whether it applies to fossil
fuel production on a global scale is somewhat open to question. However
there is no good reason (other than wishful thinking) to assume that a
lot of little bell curves (individual oil well production) don't add up
to one big bell curve (global oil production).


... wouldn't you *want* an
oil man (men) running the country?

I personally would not necessarily be against 'an oil man' running the
country in an era of decreasing fossil fuel resources; however I would
certainly not want 'an oil man' or any other type of man who was
primarily focussed on short term profits for himself & his circle of
buddies. Which is exactly what we currently have.


...And why do liberals oppose drilling in
ANWR?

Because there is little or no point in destroying a valuable ecosystem
for a very short term benefit to the many, and huge profit to the few.

DSK

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

Give the head a shake again there Harry, your just another minority in your
country, going against the grain of the majority, and against your leader's
direction. Typical rebel. Tell me Harry, you still wearing the frills and
long hair? You still smoking the wacky tobaccky? I thought so.
Peace brother,,,,







"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
of Dubya the Dumb...capture of Osama and locating of WMD are
imminent...stay tuned.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Indeed, it would be a good thing, but it isn't particularly relevant
anymore. Bush's actions since 9-11 have consolidated and brought
together terrorist movements all over the world whose one unifying
principle is hatred for the United States.

How would have Gored handled this situation?

terrorists have transcended the impact of any single terrorist leader,
or even single terrorist organization. We are not in an era like World
War II, where the capture or assassination or suicide of someone like
Mussolini or Hitler basically ends the involvement of a nation or a
group of combatants.

If this is the case, does it matter now who is President? Their single
minded hatred of the US
would not change if Kerry was elected or Bush Re-elected. The only change
would be
that Bush would fight the battle and Kerry would turn command of our troops
over to the United Nations and let them call the shoots.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"JGK" wrote in message news:viz_b.2306

If this is the case, does it matter now who is President? Their single
minded hatred of the US would not change if Kerry was elected or Bush
Re-elected.

Actually, I think it matters very much, but not for the reason Harry
espoused.

This war was launched by al Qaida et al some years back. Some say the first
WTC attack was the initiator, others cite other attacks, such as the Lebanon
Marine Barracks. Al Qaida actually issued a call for war against the US in
1998. The point is that over the years, a significant part of the attack
calculus was that the US response would be token at best. History had shown
that to be the case. In that context, the individual in the Oval Office
made no difference -- the attack could serve to humiliate the USA, boost the
esteem of the responsible group within the Moslem world, and earn only a
nominal response, such as a few cruise missiles, usually targeted at the
wrong spot after a suitable amount of bluster and dire warning from
Washington..

George W. Bush changed the equation by calling their bluff and responding
with substantial military force. The strategy is working, and the
terrorists' world is now disrupted. Not eliminated, but disrupted.

But the calculus from the other side has now changed also. The specific
person and party sitting in the Oval Office has now become a crucially
important factor to al Qaida -- a matter of strategic significance. They
know that George Bush can and will stay after them - with or without
'approval' from the so-called world community. They must suspect strongly
that any other candidate that campaigns on a basis of opposition to Bush's
strategy would likely be less dedicated to the pursuit, and more willing to
seek a negotiated settlement, to let them win a little something if they
will promise to stop being naughty boys. In short, the outcome of this
election is now part and parcel of our enemy's strategy.

I also disagree with Harry's view that the terrorist organizations have
transcended a single leader. Recent history does not bear this out. The
insurgency in the Sunni triangle of Iraq has shown signs of disorganization
and demotivation since the capture of Saddam. Zarqawi recently communicated
with alQaida, requesting assistance in fomenting an internecine religious
war within Iraq before the springtime political turnover. He acknowledged
that they are stymied by the fact that the Americans will not leave, in
spite of the losses, and clearly stated that if they cannot effect an
American collapse before summer, then all is probably lost. 'Pack up and
leave' is essentially the phraseology that was used. Bottom line is that
with Saddam gone, the Ba'athists and outsiders faltered, and when they need
help to avoid disaster, they turn to bin Laden. The big dog of years past
is still the big dog, and his capture, while not ending the activity
outright, will undoubtedly be very, very big.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:11:24 -0500, John Gaquin wrote:

George W. Bush changed the equation by calling their bluff and responding
with substantial military force. The strategy is working, and the
terrorists' world is now disrupted. Not eliminated, but disrupted.

I would agree, up to a point. I can't think of *any* President that would
have responded to 9/11 with a token response. It was an act of war, and
demanded a substantial, and appropriate, military force.


But the calculus from the other side has now changed also. The specific
person and party sitting in the Oval Office has now become a crucially
important factor to al Qaida -- a matter of strategic significance. They
know that George Bush can and will stay after them - with or without
'approval' from the so-called world community. They must suspect strongly
that any other candidate that campaigns on a basis of opposition to Bush's
strategy would likely be less dedicated to the pursuit, and more willing to
seek a negotiated settlement, to let them win a little something if they
will promise to stop being naughty boys. In short, the outcome of this
election is now part and parcel of our enemy's strategy.

Yeah, but something is lost here, al Qaeda. I remember very little
anti-Bush sentiment for his going after bin Laden. It was his Iraq
diversion that upset many, myself included. We have 9,000 troops in
Afghanistan going after the man who declared war on us, and is a clear
threat. We have 130,000 men in Iraq, which was always a questionable
threat.

The good news is that many foreign reports have bin Laden bottled up and
we have just sent in Task Force 121, so maybe . . .

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=233d8bee9cb18264

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

"thunder" wrote in message

Yeah, but something is lost here, al Qaeda. I remember very little
anti-Bush sentiment for his going after bin Laden. It was his Iraq
diversion that upset many, myself included. We have 9,000 troops in
Afghanistan going after the man who declared war on us, and is a clear
threat. We have 130,000 men in Iraq, which was always a questionable
threat.

In 1942, we had whole Armies battling in the sand of north Africa, great sea
battles taking place off the coast of Australia, and OSS agents dying
unknown and unrecognized in the streets of Lisbon and Madrid. There were
not 540, but thousands upon thousands of American dead, but not one soldier
in Germany or Japan, the nations with whom we were at war.

This is not a thirty-day television war. You have to be able to see the
strategy at work.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

Assuming Dr. Hubbert is accurate in his predictions, wouldn't you *want* an
oil man (men) running the country? And why do liberals oppose drilling in
ANWR?

Unless there is some mystical reserve no one is aware of, his
predictions are absolutely spot on. ANWR is a drop in the bucket (3
months supply) and is not worth wasting breath over, according to "Out
of Gas" by David Goodstein, vice provost of Cal Tech. He uses
empirical evidence to suggest that the supply of oil is heading toward
a peak. Oil men will not be needed when this happens, and neither
will SUVs.

Due to falling poll numbers...
 

We have about 5 years --- Google peak oil for a bunch of references.

2 extracts

Conventional oil - and I will explain what I mean by that - provides
most of the oil produced today, and is responsible for about 95% all oil
that has been produced so far.
· It will continue to dominate supply for a long time to come. It is
what matters most.
· Its discovery peaked in the 1960s. We now find one barrel for every
four we consume.
· Middle East share of production is set to rise. The rest of the world
peaked in 1997, and is therefore in terminal decline
· World peak comes within about five years
· Non-conventional oil delays peak only a few years, but will ameliorate
the subsequent decline
· Gas, which is less depleted than oil, will likely peak around 2020

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

ExxonMobil and depletion
In an article named “A revolutionary transformation ” the president of
ExxonMobil Exploration Company, Jon Thompson, reflects on the dramatic
changes in exploration technology over the past 40 years and the
challenges that lie ahead in finding and producing future supplies of
oil and gas:
"In other words, by 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a
volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels
being produced today".



John E. Jaku-Hing wrote:
Assuming Dr. Hubbert is accurate in his predictions, wouldn't you *want* an
oil man (men) running the country? And why do liberals oppose drilling in
ANWR?


Unless there is some mystical reserve no one is aware of, his
predictions are absolutely spot on. ANWR is a drop in the bucket (3
months supply) and is not worth wasting breath over, according to "Out
of Gas" by David Goodstein, vice provost of Cal Tech. He uses
empirical evidence to suggest that the supply of oil is heading toward
a peak. Oil men will not be needed when this happens, and neither
will SUVs.