 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / December 2006Portrait of the average American voter...
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original I don't think that gentle creature would vote war criminals into office - twice! > > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original > > I don't think that gentle creature would vote war criminals into office > - twice! Little guy probably has more compassion and intelligence as well! > http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original > > -- > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: > www.pbase.com/markuson Lol......cute shot of baby gorilla. Give us credit; we essentially "fired" our president on Tuesday. I only wonder what took the country so damned long to catch on to this lunatic and his band of thugs. >Give us credit; we essentially "fired" our president on Tuesday. I only >wonder what took the country so damned long to catch on to this lunatic and >his band of thugs. I wish it were so. But Boy Genius and Turd Blossom can still do a good deal of damage. Let's hope none of the Supreme Court justices kick off or decide to retire between now and Jan 20, 2009. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > I wish it were so. But Boy Genius and > Turd Blossom can still do a good deal of > damage. Very OT this. But I had to ask: 'Turd Blossom'? >> I wish it were so. But Boy Genius and >> Turd Blossom can still do a good deal of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >But I had to ask: 'Turd Blossom'? It's Dubya's own nickname for Karl Rove. You haven't been paying attention, have you? rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > It's Dubya's own nickname for Karl Rove. > > You haven't been paying attention, have you? To what? I haven't read all of this thread, no. I don't pay a lot of attention to US news either. But I do know that the Conservative party are drafting their immigration policy that outlines how they will control the number of economic immigrants from outside the EU. And I do wonder how we can stem the flow of economic immigrants INSIDE the EU when we have no common monetary policy. But I suspect you haven't been paying attention to this. >> It's Dubya's own nickname for Karl Rove. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > But I suspect you haven't been paying attention to this. Yeah.....I guess we'll just have to suffer along with our 4.5% unemployment rate and 12 thousand plus Dow for another two years....... > Yeah.....I guess we'll just have to suffer along with our 4.5% unemployment > rate and 12 thousand plus Dow for another two years....... Thanks William, whatever. My point was I was being chastised for not knowing something that may well be all over the news in the US but, the Internet being international some of us may not know. How much knowledge of UK politics does rafe have? TBH I wasn't saying I really cared that much about the story I mentioned, it was just used to highlight that US != the World and that you can't expect a correspondant to be fully aware of your local news, no matter how well it is known locally. SignatureReplace .invalid with .com to email. >>> It's Dubya's own nickname for Karl Rove. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yeah.....I guess we'll just have to suffer along with our 4.5% > unemployment rate and 12 thousand plus Dow for another two years....... William, don't forget that this guy has NEVER vetoed a spending bill, increase the size of government by magnificent proportions, and has increased the national debt to nearly $9 Trillion! He's a classic big-government big spending liberal president. And the Dow has nothing to do with him, it's IN SPITE of him. >>>> It's Dubya's own nickname for Karl Rove. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > And the Dow has nothing to do with him, it's IN SPITE of him. I agree with all that.....But what makes you think that a Democrat would do anything different? All presidents, (and politicians in general) are very good at spending other people's money.....Yours and mine...... >>>>> It's Dubya's own nickname for Karl Rove. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > do anything different? All presidents, (and politicians in general) are > very good at spending other people's money.....Yours and mine...... The issue isn't dem versus repub, it's a complete and total lack of checks and balances! One party rule, at any level of our government is a disaster! And with a guy like Bush, who is hopelessley uninformed, the problem is even worse. Did you see his press conference the other day? He actually said that he didn't know where people got the idea we had to "stay the course" in Iraq! Of course, the night time anchors played clip after clip of him saying the words, hundreds of times over the last several years. He's just not very smart, not well read, and totally clueless. The dems, who are nothing to write home about, will at least provide the much needed checks and balances that have been missing during Bush's administration. If he doesn't get it by now, than he's useless. >>>>>> It's Dubya's own nickname for Karl Rove. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > provide the much needed checks and balances that have been missing during > Bush's administration. If he doesn't get it by now, than he's useless. All valid comments....But just don't say that he is an evil genius who went into Iraq in order to steal oil for all his crooked buddies....The two points of view just aren't compatible......He's either a clueless simpleton, or an evil genius, but he can't be both at the same time....:^) > All valid comments....But just don't say that he is an evil genius who went > into Iraq in order to steal oil for all his crooked buddies....The two > points of view just aren't compatible......He's either a clueless simpleton, > or an evil genius, but he can't be both at the same time....:^) Ok, how's about "He's a clueless simpleton who was used as a front man by evil geniuses."? I note the neocons who made war attractive to him are now distancing themselves at a very rapid pace. Bush has done his part and may now be thrown aside. What will the US do now that their President hasn't spoken directly to God for MONTHS? Perhaps I misunderestimate him. mike >> All valid comments....But just don't say that he is an evil genius who >> went into Iraq in order to steal oil for all his crooked buddies....The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Ok, how's about "He's a clueless simpleton who was used as a front man by > evil geniuses."? I'll buy that...At least, that's logically possible. I don't happen to believe it, because I am not a conspirationalist......(if you'll allow me to coin a new word) I seriously doubt that either Chaney, Rummy, or Powell/Rice are either evil or have made any money off of Bush's Iraqi invasion. So your theory just doesn't wash with me.....Sorry......I'm sure you'll try again, however......I'd be much more willing to believe that Bush was angry at Saddam for making a fool out of his (Bush's) father, and so he pushed for the Iraqi invasion for that reason.....But, in the long run, he didn't have any way to really control the evidence as presented to the cabinet and/or the state department....Presidents just don't have that much power. So, I really think he and they were all suckered into believing in the WMD's mostly because Saddam himself tried to convince everyone that he had them. (He wanted Iran to believe it) And, much to his surprise, he was successful! (I bet he wishes now that he hadn't done it) >I'll buy that...At least, that's logically possible. I don't happen to >believe it, because I am not a conspirationalist......(if you'll allow me to >coin a new word) I seriously doubt that either Chaney, Rummy, or Powell/Rice >are either evil or have made any money off of Bush's Iraqi invasion. There is plenty of documentary evidence around about how this whole disasterous state arose. While there is no doubt they will personally gain from the whole thing, the main driver is strategy. (For personal gain, the defense industry alone will have received a boost of billions of dollars, and guess where they will go when they're booted out--just look at all their predecessors ad nauseum. As well, the Darth Chaneys made their roll from the oil industry as well as the aid industry (Haliburton, KB&R, etc.) But this was not the prime motivator. They were following the docterine laid out by Wolfowitz at the behest of Cheney (secretary of Defense--who he?) back in 1990. 1990! Surely not! Yes, this whole thing was spun up >10 years ahead of time. http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm March 8, 1992 U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop A One-Superpower World http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3544.htm How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/theguardian_3.htm In the job for the second time, Rumsfeld took as his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, the dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins, who had last served in government as Cheney's undersecretary of defence for policy. In February 1992 Wolfowitz and Zalmay Khalilzad of the NSC staff - currently a member of Bush junior's NSC staff and his envoy to Afghanistan - completed a project, initiated by Cheney two years before, to articulate America's political and military mission in the post-cold war world. The document, a draft of what was called a defence planning guidance, was leaked to the New York Times in early March 1992. By the Times's account, the policy paper asserted that America's mission was to ensure that no rival superpower emerged in any part of the world >So your >theory just doesn't wash with me.....Sorry......I'm sure you'll try again, >however......I'd be much more willing to believe that Bush was angry at >Saddam for making a fool out of his (Bush's) father, and so he pushed for >the Iraqi invasion for that reason..... So no, the reason wasn't personal grudge. But Bush, unlike the clever boys Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al, was actually driven by God. [That indirectly from people who actually worked in the Whitehouse] What we have is a fundamentalist with the most power in the world, in a real crusade of christian democracy being advised by ex cold warriors with a plan. He no doubt believed in the "domino theory" of middle-east democratic change. The state of affairs is the result of: 1. The collapse of communist europe, leaving the single super-power state and the policy that America must assert its dominence with unassailable force, to preclude any rivals developing. 2. The need for a foothold in the middle east, (outside of Israel) given the likely collapse of the ally with Saudi Arabia. 3. The fortuitous disarray in Iraq, which was known to be depleted of force after 10+ years of sanction, and which dictatorial tyrannical regime could be overthrown with praise rather than condemnation. 4. The strategic need for a long term supply and channel of middle east oil, with a view to replacing Saudi in the long term, and to avoid a potential axis of S.Iraq and Iran. 5. The trump card of Sept 11 2001, giving them carte blanche to run any evidence up the 'terrorist' flagpole without challenge. >But, in the long run, he didn't have >any way to really control the evidence as presented to the cabinet and/or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(He wanted Iran to believe it) And, much to his surprise, he was successful! >(I bet he wishes now that he hadn't done it) He, and the Whitehouse, most definitely did have the power and control of evidence, not just in selecting what to present where, but to bend and spin it the way the UK gov't did [see Kelly investigation]. The Niger uranium lie, deliberately included, was just the most clumsy of that handywork. SignatureKen Tough >>I'll buy that...At least, that's logically possible. I don't happen to >>believe it, because I am not a conspirationalist......(if you'll allow me [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > Niger uranium lie, deliberately included, was just the most clumsy of > that handywork. You know, I'd love to go to all your URL's and do all that reading to see if it will change my mind, but I can't get anyone on this list, (except Annika) to even download my lousy 500 word essay on why Saddam Hussein was a rotten bastard. So why should I spend my time with any of you guys? but I'll make a bargain with you. If you read my essay, and comment on it, then I'll read the material on your URL's. I will save this email so I have the material for future reference. >>> I'll buy that...At least, that's logically possible. I don't happen >>> to believe it, because I am not a conspirationalist......(if you'll [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > URL's. I will save this email so I have the material for future > reference. I think I read your essay once upon a time, William, but would you mind e-mailing it to me again? Add a 2 in my e-mail as indicated... Thanks. Mark SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > You know, I'd love to go to all your URL's and do all that reading to see > if it will change my mind, but I can't get anyone on this list, (except [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then I'll read the material on your URL's. I will save this email so I > have the material for future reference. William, we dont' need your essay to know Saddam was a rotten bastard. But that's not the business of the US. The world is full of them, and we have our own RB to contend with. Who died and put the US in charge of who is allowed to lead other countries? > William, we dont' need your essay to know Saddam was a rotten > bastard. But that's not the business of the US. The world is full of > them, and we have our own RB to contend with. Who died and put the US > in charge of who is allowed to lead other countries? And yet you guys have to ask why events like 9/11 happen. It's sad that it takes a 9/11 event to wake up the average American to what we are doing in these oil rich countries. Don't go over there and act like we are "helping" these uncivilized tribal pack animals find democracy when they don't want it or are even capable of understanding it. Only reason we are over there is for the oil. Surely, if it were a humanitarian mission we would have troops in Dafar (sp) preventing the daily genocide. What, no oil in that part of Africa? Rita >> William, we dont' need your essay to know Saddam was a rotten >> bastard. But that's not the business of the US. The world is full of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > in Dafar (sp) preventing the daily genocide. What, no oil in that part of > Africa? Well, if I could go back in time and change history, I would not have helped GB build up its defenses, and I would have refused to enter WW-II, and, in fact, WW-I before that....Then I would drop in on the year 2000, and have a good laugh. The world doesn't deserve the United States. They are far too stupid to know a good thing when they trip over it. > Well, if I could go back in time and change history, I would not have helped > GB build up its defenses, and I would have refused to enter WW-II, and, in > fact, WW-I before that....Then I would drop in on the year 2000, and have a > good laugh. The world doesn't deserve the United States. They are far too > stupid to know a good thing when they trip over it. The US economy as it is would not exist in the conditions you describe. >> Well, if I could go back in time and change history, I would not have >> helped GB build up its defenses, and I would have refused to enter WW-II, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The US economy as it is would not exist in the conditions you describe. That's right....We would be living under some kind of German socialist state economy....Those of us who were still alive....... > >> Well, if I could go back in time and change history, I would not have > >> helped GB build up its defenses, and I would have refused to enter WW-II, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's right....We would be living under some kind of German socialist state > economy....Those of us who were still alive....... Just a little right of the last 6 years in the US. >>>> Well, if I could go back in time and change history, I would not >>>> have helped GB build up its defenses, and I would have refused to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Just a little right of the last 6 years in the US. I'm hoping, for your sake, that you are kidding. Anyone who really believes that statement is a complete fool without the slightest concept of the past. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >I'm hoping, for your sake, that you are kidding. >Anyone who really believes that statement is a complete fool without the >slightest concept of the past. Listen to some of the rhetoric from Coulter and Malkin, and you begin to wonder... Dubya isn't foolish enough to say such things himself, naturally. But he has given himself the right to make you disappear without a trace, if you are deemed to be a terrorist. And he gets to decide who's a terrorist, because he's "the decider." Amazing to me that so many Americans are eager to lay down their hard-won liberties out of fear of Osama. Amazing to me that so many Americans sincerely believe that Dubya is interested in "protecting" them. Dubya says, "they hate us for our freedoms." Maybe that's why he's so eager to throw them away. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>I'm hoping, for your sake, that you are kidding. >>Anyone who really believes that statement is a complete fool without the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Dubya says, "they hate us for our freedoms." > Maybe that's why he's so eager to throw them away. Can you name one person who's, "disappeared" at the hands of "Dubya"? - Talk about being paranoid........Get a grip...... http://www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com/video_disp.asp?videoid=1429 > http://www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com/video_disp.asp?videoid=1429 What an appropriate representation for the views and mentality of many Dems here in this thread. Funny thing is, I always pictured Rafe as being a little younger... The buffoon in the video has at LEAST as much intelligence as those here who claim we've lived in Nazi Germany for the last 6 years. I wish I could time-warp them back to 1939 Berlin. After first soiling themselves, they'd beg to come back to George Bush in about 3 seconds. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> http://www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com/video_disp.asp?videoid=1429 > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >first soiling themselves, they'd beg to come back to George Bush in about 3 >seconds. That man is no buffoon, in fact he is one of my heroes. http://www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com/video_disp.asp?videoid=1429 Maybe you can entertain us with more of your US history acumen :))) like you did earlier in this thread which _was_ an appropriate representation of Republicans.... It's amazing to me anyone supports this shameless Bush administration.... mind boggling. RP© >>> http://www.thekidfrombrooklyn.com/video_disp.asp?videoid=1429 >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > It's amazing to me anyone supports this shameless Bush > administration.... mind boggling. I find significant problems with Bush. The difference is that some here take their criticisms and turn it into blind, all-encompassing hatred...where ANY accusation is assumed to be factual, and ANY evil motive is assumed to be true. Blind hatred is never productive. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >I find significant problems with Bush. The difference is that some here >take their criticisms and turn it into blind, all-encompassing >hatred...where ANY accusation is assumed to be factual, and ANY evil motive >is assumed to be true. Blind hatred is never productive. But it's not blind hatred, at least not for me. All the reasons propelling me to have no respect for this administration are well documented. I am confident this is just the tip of the iceberg. Now that congress and senate *finally* can look into all the shady deals over the last 6 years, I suspect the investigations will end in a flurry of criminal charges from the white house on down. If you find significant problems with Bush, why must you always defend him? That is blind support.... which cannot be productive. This is indeed a shameful, corrupt and arrogant administration. RP© >> I find significant problems with Bush. The difference is that some >> here take their criticisms and turn it into blind, all-encompassing [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If you find significant problems with Bush, why must you always defend > him? I defend against the extreme. We've got yahoos here claiming the last 6 years under Bush has been **literally** like living in Nazi Germany, for crying out loud. This is the kind of irrational attacks that deserve a should be defended even by YOU and other Dems. >That is blind support.... which cannot be productive. See above. > This is indeed a shameful, corrupt and arrogant administration. I agree about some arrogance, and I frankly agree that Bush has his share of baffoonery. I just don't think he's evil, which is an assumption many here seem to operate under. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>I find significant problems with Bush. The difference is that some here >>take their criticisms and turn it into blind, all-encompassing [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > This is indeed a shameful, corrupt and arrogant administration. Tell you what.....If the new democratic congress finds any of that stuff you mentioned on Bush or his veep or cabinet members, I will be the first to admit that he's a crook.....But lets wait until that happens, OK? In the meantime, don't pretend that you can see into the man's mind and know what motivates him. >Can you name one person who's, "disappeared" at the hands of "Dubya"? - Talk >about being paranoid........Get a grip...... Maher Arar [innocent Canadian man in transit through US, rendered to Syria for torture] Hassan Mustafa Nasr [cleric kidnapped in Italy and rendered to Egypt for torture] Granted, they showed up again to tell of their passage through the CIA 'black sites'. You could consider the children (< 14 years of age), imprisoned in solitary in Guantanamo without seeing the outside world since, as being "disappeared" too.. SignatureKen Tough >>Can you name one person who's, "disappeared" at the hands of "Dubya"? - >>Talk [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > solitary in Guantanamo without seeing the outside world since, as > being "disappeared" too.. Yes.....There have been a couple or three mistakes, but even these have lived to tell about it....You can't operate a war without some mistakes......But you've still got a long way to go before you can compete with the three thousand innocents who were killed on 9/11. Or the tens of thousands that Saddam murdered in his dungeons and chemical warfare experiments, not to mention those he killed just by being, "Saddam" for thirty years. Why is it that the enemy can cut off heads on national TV, but when we toss the wrong guy in jail for a few months, we become the "monsters" and our President becomes, "The worst terrorist of all"? Do you think Saddam would have released one of his prisoners when he realized that he'd made a mistake? - Hell no, he wouldn't....He'd just arrest their whole family and kill them too, so no one would be left to tell about it. Don't you know the difference between good and evil? Where were you raised, anyway? Wherever it was, it certainly wasn't on the streets of New York, where I was raised, I learned to tell the good guys from the bad guys when I was only 8 or 10 years old, and I haven't forgotten the lessons, either....... > Yes.....There have been a couple or three mistakes, Oops Graham, I'm sure you typed too fast, I'm sure you meant to say: couple or three _hundred_ "mistakes". More likely over a thousand. >> Yes.....There have been a couple or three mistakes, > > Oops Graham, I'm sure you typed too fast, I'm sure you meant to say: > > couple or three _hundred_ "mistakes". More likely over a thousand. Whatever. They are all alive and well, and living in Suburbia USA or somewhere....Unlike the millions that Saddam killed, who are pushing up daisies.... >"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote >> >>> Yes.....There have been a couple or three mistakes, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >somewhere....Unlike the millions that Saddam killed, who are pushing up >daisies.... With the exception of the 100,000 to 200,000 that have died directly or indirectly as a result of the war, of course. SignatureKen Tough >>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote >> >>>> Yes.....There have been a couple or three mistakes, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > With the exception of the 100,000 to 200,000 that have died directly > or indirectly as a result of the war, of course. True, but I don't blame Bush for those....Saddam could have avoided war had he complied with the UN resolutions and cooperated with the rest of the world in some reasonable manner. He had plenty of warning....It took Bush months to mobilize all those troops and ships and stuff. To put all the blame on Bush, and none on Saddam Hussein is ridiculous..... >> You could consider the children (< 14 years of age), imprisoned in >> solitary in Guantanamo without seeing the outside world since, as >> being "disappeared" too.. >> >Yes.....There have been a couple or three mistakes, but even these have >lived to tell about it.. There have been plenty who *didn't* live to tell about it. > Can you name one person who's, "disappeared" at the hands of "Dubya"? - Talk > about being paranoid........Get a grip...... When prisoners are kept without access to a lawyer nor protections under the Geneva Convention they are in a no mans land. This is a Bush creation and it should make your skin crawl. That "interogation methods" are discussed along the lines of what degree is acceptable or not should make you fear what is happening. Under the Geneva Convention a soldier need only give the basic information about himself. Under US law, a person may be questioned with his lawyer present and need not say anything at all against himself. The principle is that the prosecution must make the case. Now the US is using "interogation" methods to get intelligence. It has long been known that "interrogation" yields faulty information. For the families of many prisoners taken by the US, these prisoners have disapeared and there is no telling where, when or if they will turn up again. >> Can you name one person who's, "disappeared" at the hands of "Dubya"? - >> Talk about being paranoid........Get a grip...... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > disapeared and there is no telling where, when or if they will turn up > again. The reason you think that way, Alan, is because you don't see the war on terrorism as a "war" at all....You see it as the actions of roving bands of criminals, who all should be tried and convicted by a jury of their peers in a valid court of law before they are condemned, punished, whatever. And, you might have a valid point. But it is also true that if we were to consider all terrorists that way, and give them all those things, the war against terrorism would be impossible to win. Certainly you would have to admit that, during World War II, we couldn't arrest, try and convict every German or Japanese soldier before we pulled the trigger on him. So, somewhere between an enemy soldier in a world war, and the local guy who holds up a 7-11 store, the "constitutional rights and privileges" that citizens and others here, must kick in. The question is, where is that line of demarcation? And, if we extend those rights and privileges to all the terrorists, can we ever expect to win the war? >>>Can you name one person who's, "disappeared" at the hands of "Dubya"? - >>>Talk about being paranoid........Get a grip...... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > of demarcation? And, if we extend those rights and privileges to all the > terrorists, can we ever expect to win the war? So the US is lowering itself to the level of terrorists? There are only two possible states: 1) POW: no torture under the GC. 2) Criminal: no torture under the US Constitution/amended. There are no other states. If you capture a terrorist he falls under (your choice of the above) and he cannot be tortured. Otherwise what is the United States? >>>>Can you name one person who's, "disappeared" at the hands of "Dubya"? - >>>>Talk about being paranoid........Get a grip...... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > (your choice of the above) and he cannot be tortured. Otherwise what is > the United States? You haven't addressed the issue. Are terrorists enemy soldiers, facing us on a battlefield? - Or are they just common criminals, like the guy knocking over the local liquor store? Do they get all the rights and privileges of common criminals? - Or do we have the right to shoot them on sight? In wartime, an enemy combatant, dressed in civilian clothes, caught here on our shores is a spy, and can expect to be shot. Are we at war, or what? "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in > There are no other states. If you capture a terrorist he falls under > (your choice of the above) and he cannot be tortured. Otherwise what is > the United States? Sometime ago, I stated (on this forum, I think) that non-citizens shouldn't get the same constitutional rights as our citizens do. Everyone came down on me like a ton of bricks, and informed me that I was wrong, and that today, any visitor here has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the US.....Now, (it seems) this policy is coming back to haunt us.....It does pose a dilemma, when it is applied to spies who are here to do us harm. Even a non-citizen here on a visa, who commits a crime, can't be deported if we don't know where he came from. And, if we do, what's to prevent him from coming back to finish his mission? I don't think we can survive terrorism under your rules, Alan. We have no control over our borders, and no right to treat non-citizen insurgents as spies. So you insist that we give a fair trial to all these creeps, before a jury of their peers, just like they were American citizens......I don't think that's possible. So, our only alternative is to just hand them the keys to our country, and meekly lay our heads on the chopping block....... > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Sometime ago, I stated (on this forum, I think) that non-citizens shouldn't > get the same constitutional rights as our citizens do. Everyone came down on There was actually a case before the courts that prompted somebody to start to go for a Supreme Court ruling. However it never went anywhere. > me like a ton of bricks, and informed me that I was wrong, and that today, Yep. > any visitor here has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of the > US.....Now, (it seems) this policy is coming back to haunt us.....It does There is no privilege other than the _protection_ of the US Constitution. > pose a dilemma, when it is applied to spies who are here to do us harm. Even > a non-citizen here on a visa, who commits a crime, can't be deported if we [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > alternative is to just hand them the keys to our country, and meekly lay our > heads on the chopping block....... You don't understand the difference between defence and a police state. You also don't understand that if you declare people as POW, you still can't torture them. The US practice of "exporting" people to countries with less restrictive interrogation rules is just a legal workaround and a moral disgrace. And yes you can accuse non-citizens (and citizens too!!) of spying but like any "free democracy" you have to have reasonable cause to bring it before a grand jury &| judge. (Of course right now this is being bypassed any time that someone can reasonbly be labeled a "terrorist". Under this guideline an innocent Canadian (Arar) was arrested in the US and then deported to Syria (where he was born) and then tortured by the Syrians. This shoddy event is due to the negligence and incompetence of Canadian and US officials alike. The principle of US law was always "better a 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent be jailed". This has been totally lost. Countries that have had severe restrictions on borders has been a social and economic misfits. The more severe the restrictions the more severe the economic drag. Canada and the US are the least restrictive countries in the world and are mutually the largest trade partners in the entire world. I travel to the US with a Quebec drivers licence, no problem (this privilege ends next year due to US paranoia). We would go to the US without anyhting but a verbal declaration. Now you need photo ID of some kind that has some probable (not certain) link to citizenship. Next year (or beginning of 2008, I'm not sure) Canadians will need a passport to go to the US. All of this will be restricive on economic activity. Day visits will drop and harm commerce and tourism. etc. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. SNIP > We would go to the US without anyhting but a verbal declaration. > Now you need photo ID of some kind that has some probable (not > certain) link to citizenship. Next year (or beginning of 2008, I'm > not sure) Canadians will need a passport to go to the US. Consider yourself lucky. Europeans also need to hand over all details about Credit card spendings, religious believes, and feeding habits (or be refused access). No record of (mis-) use of the (CC) info is made available (other than commercial companies finding their details being used against them). Also finger print details, iris scans, and DNA information are required to be an integral part of our passports, if we would 'like' to visit the USA. Which means that anybody who can fake that, will have unrestricted access. The first fakes have already emerged, so a false sense of security will provide an even more baseless access for the bad guys, and violation of the rights of innocent people at the same time. SignatureBart >> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in > >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > You don't understand the difference between defence and a police state. I wonder if the terrorists understand the difference...... > You also don't understand that if you declare people as POW, you still > can't torture them. The US practice of "exporting" people to countries [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > This shoddy event is due to the negligence and incompetence of Canadian > and US officials alike. Yeah, I saw that "60 minutes" clip...... > The principle of US law was always "better a 100 guilty men go free than > that 1 innocent be jailed". This has been totally lost. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Cheers, > Alan I sympathize with your inconvenience, but you still haven't addressed my essential question. Where does "battlefield conditions," where you shoot first, and ask questions later, end, and "try everyone in a court of law before a jury of their peers" begin? In this type of terrorist war, the soldiers aren't all dressed in uniform, and aren't all there standing in a row, waiting to be gunned down like good soldiers are supposed to be. In WW-II, an enemy combatant, caught behind our lines, out of uniform, was considered a spy, and was summarily shot, without a trial by a jury of his peers. Now, we are in a war, and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of, "enemy combatants", all dressed in civilian clothes, plotting to do us grave bodily harm. So, what do you want us to do? I doubt if we can survive by giving them all a fair trial before a jury of their peers. [...] >> There is no privilege other than the _protection_ of the US Constitution. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >I wonder if the terrorists understand the difference...... It doesn't matter. The whole *point* of democracies is that they are supposed to behave better than dictatorships, etc, & their soldiers are supposed to behave better than terrorists. If our democracies lower themselves to the behaviour of the systems they're fighing, they cease to be any better, or indeed, to be any different. >Canada and the US are the least restrictive countries in the world and >are mutually the largest trade partners in the entire world. I travel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >beginning of 2008, I'm not sure) Canadians will need a passport to go to >the US. From the US, I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico via air, rail or boat 1 January 2007. I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico by car or on foot 1 January 2008. RP© > From the US, I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico via > air, rail or boat 1 January 2007. > I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico by car or on foot > 1 January 2008. Maybe you should leave now? >> From the US, I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico via >> air, rail or boat 1 January 2007. >> I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico by car or on foot >> 1 January 2008. > >Maybe you should leave now? That would be nice but no. We'll be leaving Dec. 22nd. RP© > From the US, I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico via > air, rail or boat 1 January 2007. > I will need a passport to travel to Canada or Mexico by car or on foot > 1 January 2008. Travel is pretty restrictive here, the police can't drive across the country line no matter what the circumstances. And no one can ride their bike across the county line regardless of whatever documentation they might have on them. In fact I have to show my drivers license just to go to the next county. Scott >> I'm hoping, for your sake, that you are kidding. >> Anyone who really believes that statement is a complete fool without >> the slightest concept of the past. > > Listen to some of the rhetoric from Coulter and Malkin, > and you begin to wonder... > Dubya isn't foolish enough to say such things himself, > naturally. But he has given himself the right to make > you disappear without a trace, if you are deemed to > be a terrorist. And he gets to decide who's a terrorist, > because he's "the decider." Rafe, If we lived in a reality even romotely similar to Nazi Germany, as you and Walter seem to feel the US resembles because of the current administration, you (Rafe) would already be in prison for your posts here in this orum. -That you are **free** to express your hatred for the president is proof that the comparison is ridiculous. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >If we lived in a reality even romotely similar to Nazi Germany, as you and >Walter seem to feel the US resembles because of the current administration, >you (Rafe) would already be in prison for your posts here in this >orum. -That you are **free** to express your hatred for the president is >proof that the comparison is ridiculous. Mark, don't f.cking lecture me about fascism or Nazis. You know not whereof you speak. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>If we lived in a reality even romotely similar to Nazi Germany, as you and >>Walter seem to feel the US resembles because of the current [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Mark, don't f.cking lecture me about fascism > or Nazis. You know not whereof you speak. I can attest to the fact that if anyone in either Nazi Germany, or Iraq before our invasion were to talk about the leadership as the democrats have done about ours during the last 6 years, they would have been killed immediately. (If they were lucky) To compare George Bush to either of these two tyrants is patently ridiculous, but the democrats do it all the time........ >> If we lived in a reality even romotely similar to Nazi Germany, as >> you and Walter seem to feel the US resembles because of the current [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Mark, don't f.cking lecture me about fascism > or Nazis. Clearly you need some lecturing, Rafe. You've agreed with the ridiculous assertion that the last 6 years have been similar to Nazi Germany. Anyone willing to agree/support such an assertion is in dire need of a basic awareness of the regime practices you're comparing with the Bush administration. >You know not whereof you speak. Oh brother. Apparently you feel that old-style sentences sound "wise." They do nothing to undo your previous statements. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > If we lived in a reality even romotely similar to Nazi Germany, as you and > Walter seem to feel the US resembles because of the current administration, > you (Rafe) would already be in prison for your posts here in this > orum. -That you are **free** to express your hatred for the president is > proof that the comparison is ridiculous. Mark, My comment was a specific response response to >> That's right....We would be living under some kind of German socialist state >> economy....Those of us who were still alive....... >Just a little right of the last 6 years in the US. pointing out two things Germany wasn't socialist despite the name of the ruling political party, it was right of center and became increasingly totalitarian. Second from the outside looking in some of the early things that happened in Germany has been happening in the US. I was specifically referring to loss of personal freedoms exchanged for personal for security. Good bad or indifferent I don't have a right to judge, this is an internal American issue. > That you are **free** to express your hatred for the president is > proof that the comparison is ridiculous. Characterizing my comments as hatred for the president is simply not true. I have no opinion on him as an individual, none I understand one on one he is charming.. w.. >> If we lived in a reality even romotely similar to Nazi Germany, as >> you and Walter seem to feel the US resembles because of the current [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > one > he is charming.. Thank you for your comments/clarification, Walter. In general, I think it's usually a mistake to throw the "Nazi" punch. Perhpas a less-extreme example would convey your point more clearly. Mark SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >Characterizing my comments as hatred for the president is simply not true. >I have no opinion on him as an individual, none I understand one on one >he is charming.. The Nazi, whom we did abhor, Is now gemütlichkeiter, For when he isn't making war No one could be politer. He woos Miss Liberty with zeal; He bows with grace and rigor, To kiss the hand and click the heel -- Before he clicks the trigger. gemütlich warm and congenial; pleasant or friendly (noun form gemütlichkeit warm friendliness; amicability) rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com "Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message > Characterizing my comments as hatred for the president is simply not true. > I have no opinion on him as an individual, none I understand one on one > he is charming.. > > w.. Saying that he, "lied to the American People about the WMD's and only went into Iraq to steal their oil and feed money to his industrialist buddies" isn't a personal attack? God.....With friendly comments like that, why would anyone need enemies? But that's all I've been hearing from the democrats for the last 4 years........ I have not made any such comments. None of my comments have been personal in this discussion except one to you and that was immediately followed by the cheap shot reference to make it clear that I saw humour in a particular phrase and was individually attacking you. Driving down this morning (My usual Monday 3 hour drive) I was thinking how personal this whole discussion had become instead of the evaluation of ideas, political policy and approaches to world problems. For me I just want to see the killing stop in Iraq, Darfur, Palestine, where ever. A week after its over the winner or loser will be week old news. The weather was too bad over the weekend to enjoy the prelude to winter with my camera. Annika, that was a fine shot of Chattanooga, you live in a beautiful state Tennessee is. Now that is a personal opinion. w.. > "Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > anyone need enemies? But that's all I've been hearing from the democrats for > the last 4 years........ >Surely, if it were a humanitarian mission we would have troops > in Dafar (sp) preventing the daily genocide. What, no oil in that part of > Africa? Actually, there are fossil fuel resources in Darfur, that's why you've actually heard of the place to begin with, not because of an alleged genocide, those are going on all over Africa in places your mainstream media will never bother to mention to you. >> William, we dont' need your essay to know Saddam was a rotten >> bastard. But that's not the business of the US. The world is full of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Rita >Actually, there are fossil fuel resources in Darfur, that's why you've >actually heard of the place to begin with, not because of an alleged >genocide, those are going on all over Africa in places your mainstream media >will never bother to mention to you. But what's happening in Darfur is the worst. That's primarily because it's the interface between black and arab africa (the arab side having the greater control, of course) and also because it really is so far off the beaten track it's hard to know what's going on there. On the oil front, there is an interesting BBC radio documentary on the politics of African Oil, called "Profit and Loss: The Story of African Oil" examining the situation in Sao Tome & Principe, Gabon, Chad (next to Sudan/Darfur) and Nigeria. You can find it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1216_oil/index.shtml Another interesting series is the US covert interests in the Sahara region, Secrets in the Sand http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/4131336.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/documentary_archive/4138200.stm First broadcast August 2005 In the last few years, the Sahara desert has become a focus of interest for the US military - vast and thinly populated with porous borders - it is seen by Washington as a perfect hideout for terrorists... Hope that's interesting. SignatureKen Tough > But what's happening in Darfur is the worst. That's primarily because > it's the interface between black and arab africa (the arab side having > the greater control, of course) and also because it really is so far > off the beaten track it's hard to know what's going on there. There is nothing more serious going on in Darfur than any other part of Africa. The reason Western media is picking on this internal Sudanese issue, is as a ruse to get Western forces on the ground under the guise of the UN, with the aim of establishing a permanent presence there, the goal of which being influence over and unfettered access to Sudanese fossil fuel resources for Western corporations, the fact that the conflict involves Arabs (the West's current bogey men) just makes it even easier to manipulate Western audiences into believing Genocide is going on and intervention is neccessary. You don't seriously think George W. Bush gives two sh.ts about black Africans do you, George W. Bush doesn't give two sh.ts about black Americans, see Katrina response. Thanks for pointing out the other info, i've read alot about the situation already. >>Actually, there are fossil fuel resources in Darfur, that's why you've >>actually heard of the place to begin with, not because of an alleged [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Hope that's interesting. >> But what's happening in Darfur is the worst. That's primarily because >> it's the interface between black and arab africa (the arab side having >> the greater control, of course) and also because it really is so far >> off the beaten track it's hard to know what's going on there. >There is nothing more serious going on in Darfur than any other part of >Africa. I would have said that was the case when Sierre Leone, Liberia, DRC, Uganda [LRA] were at their worst, but those (as I understand it) aren't so active right now. >The reason Western media is picking on this internal Sudanese issue, >is as a ruse to get Western forces on the ground under the guise of the UN, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >black Africans do you, George W. Bush doesn't give two sh.ts about black >Americans, see Katrina response. I had/have the feeling that US is having to be dragged into it; they certainly aren't pushing the issue. It's another Rwanda, where they're trying to avoid the word 'genocide' as much as possible since it forces some action to be taken. SignatureKen Tough >> William, we dont' need your essay to know Saddam was a rotten >> bastard. But that's not the business of the US. The world is full of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > takes a 9/11 event to wake up the average American to what we are doing in > these oil rich countries. The average American only cares that he has gas in the car and that the lights turn on. Asking the average American to consider why The US is so hated by so many in the middle east (and elsewhere) is not relevant to his comfort. Why does the US insist on democracy for Iraq and not for Saudi Arabia? Because SA is stable, if tightly controlled (and losing that stability and control) and supplies the US with about 7% of its daily dose of high quality oil and some amount of NG. It's like in any business where your largest supplier can dominate you if his position is so key to your own production. There are other sources of oil but none as large as S.A. So you have to tolerate their "policies" to keep supply up. But for weaker suppliers, like Iraq, you try to impose your own policies (democracy) in order to have more control over that supplier over the long run. The US trying to establish democracy in a country that has three major religious factions ("nations") that despise one another is a nice dream that cannot be brought to reality, esp. with the approach at hand. Iraq would be better off if its Shi'a population and lands became part of Iran, and the remaining Sunni's make a new nation of Iraq. This would require a lot of land trading which could be hard to negotiate. But don't forget, "Iraq" was created by fiat, not by the people there. For example, the Sunni's could have all of Iraq west of the Euphrates, Iran/Shi'a's could have most of the south east of the Euphrates and the Kurds could have the north east or join the new Iraq / Iran areas accordiong to their own leanings (some Kurds are Shi'a, some Sunni, some are in other 'sects'). The above is convenient in that there large oil fields in the west (near Jordan), SE near Iran, and NE in the "Kurdish" areas. (Although what reserves there are in those fields would need to be examined as well). Of course anything to help the "people" is not of interst to the US where Iran is concerned. > Don't go over there and act like we are > "helping" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in Dafar (sp) preventing the daily genocide. What, no oil in that part of > Africa? The Southern Darfur state (territory?) does contain a lot of oil, but not "massive" amounts. The Chinese are major "investors" there. The Chinese of course are tragically concerned over the human element </> (Other oil interests in the region include comapnies from the US, Malaysia, Canada, Sweden, Austria, France) who seem equally apathetic. But Sudan is not currently a major source of supply for the US nor expected to be in the future. Where does the US get most of its imported oil? US Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries) (Thousand Barrels per Day) Country Aug-06 Jul-06 YTD 2006 Aug-05 Jan - Aug 2005 CANADA 1,850 1,624 1,756 1,596 1,595 MEXICO 1,652 1,561 1,661 1,630 1,574 SAUDI ARABIA 1,477 1,264 1,409 1,444 1,518 VENEZUELA 1,151 1,191 1,160 1,332 1,340 NIGERIA 898 1,014 1,071 1,053 1,065 IRAQ 620 592 562 369 545 ANGOLA 525 666 485 585 429 ALGERIA 506 413 339 330 229 ECUADOR 285 170 267 292 280 BRAZIL 196 187 130 127 93 RUSSIA 167 134 107 72 246 KUWAIT 136 155 159 208 209 COLOMBIA 125 144 160 208 155 CHAD 122 73 84 91 82 NORWAY 108 160 99 59 124 The Sudan therefore is not even 1% of the above. (Norway is a mere 1.1%) From a business POV it's not worth invading the Sudan/Darfur. No ROI. The US remains its own largest supplier at about 5.1 M bbl per day. (But that is outstripped by the sum of the four largest exporters to the US) (Note: The DOE site shows a total consumption of nearly 16 M bbl per day, yet other published figures show 20 M bbl per day for the US. I'm not sure where the discrepency comes from). So I expect the US to invade Canada any day now to stop our rampant liberal democracy from upholding a ban on capital punishment, allowing reasonable access to abortion and other anti-Christian-US behaviour. Then the US will be able to "stabilize and improve the efficiency" of our energy and water resources. Canada is a nation of political idiots. We have a lot of oil and natural gas which we sell cheaply to the US. We have tarsands to rival the energy reserves of Saudi Arabia, but we stupidly burn natural gas to extract the oil (double CO2 whammy). So one area of Canada dominates the economy with a non renewable cheap greenhouse gas resource that we sell cheaply to the US (who use it very inefficiently) for short term gain while our industrial sector becomes increasingly inefficient. This country is doomed over the long term. Our military is tiny and we have 10% of the US population. The US does not invade and take over because we sell them resources cheap and plenty. To compound our stupidity, we're selling increasing amounts of oil to the Chinese because they have all these dwindling value US dollars to dump at a prices slightly above the US selling price. As the US dollar falls in value and as the Chinese dump their immense US dollar holdings to buy more energy from Canada, the US will one day wake up and take over Canada as a defensive (protect the oil) move. Three Canadians will die in the process, a national tragedy that will be swept under the CNN news as we all go to the gun store and arm up to defend the 2nd amendment. And for you Brits/Scots who may be tuning in, please do not believe that your recent 15 years of relative prosperity are due to Thatcher, business prowess or good fortune. It is due to cheap North Sea oil and NG which is now quickly dwindling in production. You are about to be Russia's bitch. Which may be worse than being the US' bitch. Cheers, Alan >>> William, we dont' need your essay to know Saddam was a rotten >>> bastard. But that's not the business of the US. The world is full of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Why does the US insist on democracy for Iraq and not for Saudi Arabia? Because the Saudi Arabians don't make statements like, "We are working on getting an atom bomb, and when we do, we are going to drop it on Israel."? > Because SA is stable, if tightly controlled (and losing that stability and > control) and supplies the US with about 7% of its daily dose of high [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (democracy) in order to have more control over that supplier over the long > run. Gee.....I thought "Democracy" was the weakest government there is, when it comes to controlling people....... > The US trying to establish democracy in a country that has three major > religious factions ("nations") that despise one another is a nice dream [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Of course anything to help the "people" is not of interst to the US where > Iran is concerned. Right....We should have left, "helping the people" in the hands of Saddam Hussein........ >> Don't go over there and act like we are "helping" >> these uncivilized tribal pack animals find democracy when they don't want >> it And just how do you know what these uncivilized pack animals want? People said the same thing about the slaves in the US back in the 1850's..... >> or are even capable of understanding it. Only reason we are over there >> is [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > The US remains its own largest supplier at about 5.1 M bbl per day. (But > that is outstripped by the sum of the four largest exporters to the US) An important part of our foreign policy is to run the rest of the world out of oil before we run out of it. > (Note: The DOE site shows a total consumption of nearly 16 M bbl per day, > yet other published figures show 20 M bbl per day for the US. I'm not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the US will be able to "stabilize and improve the efficiency" of our > energy and water resources. Just don't cut off out oil....... > Canada is a nation of political idiots. We have a lot of oil and natural > gas which we sell cheaply to the US. We have tarsands to rival the energy [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Cheers, > Alan >>>>William, we dont' need your essay to know Saddam was a rotten >>>>bastard. But that's not the business of the US. The world is full of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Because the Saudi Arabians don't make statements like, "We are working on > getting an atom bomb, and when we do, we are going to drop it on Israel."? Neither was Iraq.0 >>Because SA is stable, if tightly controlled (and losing that stability and >>control) and supplies the US with about 7% of its daily dose of high [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Gee.....I thought "Democracy" was the weakest government there is, when it > comes to controlling people....... Not when you impose it on others... >>The US trying to establish democracy in a country that has three major >>religious factions ("nations") that despise one another is a nice dream [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Right....We should have left, "helping the people" in the hands of Saddam > Hussein........ Strong governments come from people who build their own government. (Case: US). The Romans used to fight other people's wars. Downfall of the Roman empire. >>>Don't go over there and act like we are "helping" >>>these uncivilized tribal pack animals find democracy when they don't want >>>it > > And just how do you know what these uncivilized pack animals want? People > said the same thing about the slaves in the US back in the 1850's..... I did not say the above. >>>>>William, we dont' need your essay to know Saddam was a rotten >>>>>bastard. But that's not the business of the US. The world is full of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Neither was Iraq.0 No. He just built the biggest rifle ever conceived, and had it aimed at Tel Aviv.......How quickly they forget........ > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message >>>>The average American only cares that he has gas in the car and that the >>>>lights turn on. Asking the average American to consider why The US is >>>>so hated by so many in the middle east (and elsewhere) is not relevant >>>>to his comfort. This is a typical liberal statement....They have no respect for the, "common man". They believe that the average person needs to be led by an intellectual liberal government, because he is incapable of thinking for himself, and voting for the right people. It is one of the more endearing of the liberal characteristics.......Not! >>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > himself, and voting for the right people. It is one of the more endearing of > the liberal characteristics.......Not! To judge by the behaviour of the "average american" who drives a gas guzzler a mere 30 years after an oil embargo that severely damaged the US economy, it is clear that "thinking for himself" is not very good for his children or granddchildren. It is not a "liberal" statement, and frankly every time you don't like something you paint it as "liberal" to spook it away... very much like a certain lame duck in DC. >>>"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > something you paint it as "liberal" to spook it away... very much like a > certain lame duck in DC. I have been observing them for over 30 years now, Alan, and it is certainly one of their chief characteristics....They are elitists, and they think that the average American can't make decisions for himself. I have worked with, (and for) these people, so I know whereof I speak. >No. He just built the biggest rifle ever conceived, and had it aimed at Tel >Aviv.......How quickly they forget........ Actually, it never got finished. The Brits withdrew their tacit support by curtailing shipment of the barrel, and Mossad knocked off the canadian designer, Gerald Bull. SignatureKen Tough >>No. He just built the biggest rifle ever conceived, and had it aimed at >>Tel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > support by curtailing shipment of the barrel, and Mossad knocked > off the canadian designer, Gerald Bull. Yes, but it's part of the proof that Saddam had WMD's. That, and the nuclear reactor the French were helping him build that the Israel air force took out, plus several dozen other incidents over the last thirty years......To claim that he never had any WMD's is patently ridiculous, and entirely prompted by the democrat's blind hatred for Bush and anything republican. Anyone with any common sense at all knows that he had 'em, always had 'em, and just barely managed to ship them out before we invaded, probably to Syria. We even have satellite photos of him removing a whole warehouse overnight.......I wonder why he would do that under cover of darkness? - Isn't it much easier to empty buildings and take them down under daylight conditions? - Duh........ >>>No. He just built the biggest rifle ever conceived, and had it aimed at >>>Tel [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > claim that he never had any WMD's is patently ridiculous, and entirely > prompted by the democrat's blind hatred for Bush and anything republican. Ahem. The whole excuse for the invasion of Iraq was predicated on the "fact" that WMD's were in Iraq and that Hussein was aiding Al Queda. 1) The "intelligence" was always weak, flawed and not backed up by any professionals in the intelligence community. 2) No WMD's have been found. Nothing nada. See 1) above 3) Hussein wanted _nothing_ to do with Al Queda. > Anyone with any common sense at all knows that he had 'em, always had 'em, > and just barely managed to ship them out before we invaded, probably to Proof? > Syria. We even have satellite photos of him removing a whole warehouse > overnight.......I wonder why he would do that under cover of darkness? - Proof? > Isn't it much easier to empty buildings and take them down under daylight > conditions? - Duh........ Duh yourself. Nobody has any proof at all that their were WMD's in Iraq before the US invaded. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message