"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:30:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!


No one said anything about voluntary enlistments. That is what is happening now
that your post would make mandatory (which is not enlisting, but being drafted).
If your 'proposal' had been law, would it have worked for WW II?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:32:53 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same horrific fate.
Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in your house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.


Sorry, but if you want to single out non-participating hypocrites, you
ought to be pointing your black finger at Bush, Cheney, and the rest of
those yellow-spined chickenhawks.

Apology accepted.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

It was going to be Britan or France. France is the easier target with a
larger Muslim population and the French birng diplomacy to a war and loose
everytime.

France has one thing that they, the Islamofacists, want.

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



Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands


November 6, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST





Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's
about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street
riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's
Western Standard back in February.



Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead
of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported
in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last
night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a
week of urban unrest.''

''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and
Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of
the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to
discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as
''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more
estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded
ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than
anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent
years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab
street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.



http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...-steyn06.html#

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:30:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:3qjvm198424nl2n9angvtsrbdvjove3eeu@4ax. com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight
and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor
of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or
be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to
serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with
what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it
yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we
knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the
enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there
for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!


No one said anything about voluntary enlistments. That is what is
happening now
that your post would make mandatory (which is not enlisting, but being
drafted).
If your 'proposal' had been law, would it have worked for WW II?
--
John H

By would it have worked, if you mean "Would Congress have authorized war"?,
I think YES, it would have worked.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:03:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:30:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:3qjvm198424nl2n9angvtsrbdvjove3eeu@4ax .com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight
and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor
of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or
be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to
serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with
what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it
yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we
knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the
enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there
for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!


No one said anything about voluntary enlistments. That is what is
happening now
that your post would make mandatory (which is not enlisting, but being
drafted).
If your 'proposal' had been law, would it have worked for WW II?
--
John H

By would it have worked, if you mean "Would Congress have authorized war"?,
I think YES, it would have worked.


And only Democrats would have been forced to fight.

OK. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:43:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:35:45 +0100, Len wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.
Perhaps, due to the way the present America was taken by force from
the original inhabitants, war is in the cultural heritage of the us
somewhat seen as a legitimate and effective means to an end, much more
than in europe. Our cultural heritage is older, with much more
experience in the field of losing and of what happens if a country is
defeated but also humiliated (ww1, Germany). All european countries
have had their serious defeats and the history books tell all about
it. In europe I grew up (10 years after ww2) with a notion of "war is
hell. It must be prevented as much as possible".

But I respect that sometimes not acting is even worse than acting.
When the acting is based on lies, all legitemacy is lost up front.
Retreat is another matter, you will have to take into account what
situation will arise after that. After all you're responsible as a
world-leading nation that has started the war unilaterally.

Regards, Len.

Your comment, "When the acting is based on lies..." let's us all know where
you're coming from.

Regards,


Most Americans believe the Bush Administration is lying about Iraq, and
the reasons it gave for going in there.

That's a hell of an indictment of most Americans.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:03:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:30:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:1imvm1dlvrkne1on8qg3eqk24icn7pa43u@4ax. com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:3qjvm198424nl2n9angvtsrbdvjove3eeu@4a x.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the
sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight
and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely
in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor
of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that
person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this,
or
be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war -
same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half
the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to
serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with
what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it
yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we
knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the
enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where
were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded
Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there
for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!


No one said anything about voluntary enlistments. That is what is
happening now
that your post would make mandatory (which is not enlisting, but being
drafted).
If your 'proposal' had been law, would it have worked for WW II?
--
John H

By would it have worked, if you mean "Would Congress have authorized
war"?,
I think YES, it would have worked.


And only Democrats would have been forced to fight.

OK. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Great! It would've separated the chicken hawks from the real people, same as
now.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:55:32 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


The problem in the United States now is that we have an incompetent
president who is inept in diplomacy and who is being led by the nose by a
group of neocons with an agenda that includes a form of "world
domination."

Which could be why the world sees Communist China more favorably than us.
We did beat the Russians, though, by two points.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4318551.stm

Eisboch wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/ctlzp

Holy Crap, Skipper!

When was that picture taken, 1922?

You may be missing something very important here. Pay close attention.

But I thought it was a pic of Skipper and Harry back in the better days of
rec.boats.

Harry would be the one in the middle...after his failed attempt at The
Challenge.

--
Skipper