Religions > Atheism > President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Eric Smith" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2004 08:59:35 AM |
| Object: |
President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
I found this website while cruising around for investment ideas. I
think it makes a powerful case for why a fundamentalist President such
as Bush is going to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. You'll
find the actual info on this on the page under the GLD heading the
link is here:
http://www.secretsymbols.com/StocksToBuy/StockToBuy2004.html
After reading the stock recommendations, I think what the author says
about the President attacking Iran is absolutely correct and will
happen. The website even says there have been some sort of talks
between Ariel Sharon and President Bush on the timing of this matter
and the need for such an attack.
Eric
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
30 Nov 2004 10:27:09 AM |
|
|
"Eric Smith" <defendingfreedom@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5960941.0411300659.33c2b4d6@posting.google.com...
I found this website while cruising around for investment ideas. I
think it makes a powerful case for why a fundamentalist President such
as Bush is going to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. You'll
find the actual info on this on the page under the GLD heading the
link is here:
http://www.secretsymbols.com/StocksToBuy/StockToBuy2004.html
After reading the stock recommendations, I think what the author says
about the President attacking Iran is absolutely correct and will
happen. The website even says there have been some sort of talks
between Ariel Sharon and President Bush on the timing of this matter
and the need for such an attack.
Four More Wars! Four More Wars! Four More Wars!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
30 Nov 2004 12:45:44 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2004, Denis Loubet dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
"Eric Smith" <defendingfreedom@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5960941.0411300659.33c2b4d6@posting.google.com...
I found this website while cruising around for investment ideas. I
think it makes a powerful case for why a fundamentalist President such
as Bush is going to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. You'll
find the actual info on this on the page under the GLD heading the
link is here:
http://www.secretsymbols.com/StocksToBuy/StockToBuy2004.html
After reading the stock recommendations, I think what the author says
about the President attacking Iran is absolutely correct and will
happen. The website even says there have been some sort of talks
between Ariel Sharon and President Bush on the timing of this matter
and the need for such an attack.
Four More Wars! Four More Wars! Four More Wars!
Somewhere out there must be a country with a fundy leader who sees the
USA's arsenal of nukes as a threat. Using Bush as an example, I can't
see why we won't be attacked for the same reason in the future.
This whole thing sucks bad. I'd be very surprised if the human race
lasts another few hundred years at this rate.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Godfrey" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
30 Nov 2004 01:11:01 PM |
|
|
On 30 Nov 2004 06:59:35 -0800, (Eric
Smith) wrote:
I found this website while cruising around for investment ideas. I
think it makes a powerful case for why a fundamentalist President such
as Bush is going to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. You'll
find the actual info on this on the page under the GLD heading the
link is here:
http://www.secretsymbols.com/StocksToBuy/StockToBuy2004.html
After reading the stock recommendations, I think what the author says
about the President attacking Iran is absolutely correct and will
happen. The website even says there have been some sort of talks
between Ariel Sharon and President Bush on the timing of this matter
and the need for such an attack.
Eric
I don't know about the religious component- that is mostly
speculation.
But it is true that a nuclear Iran would be a very dangerous thing for
Israel and ultimately for the region and should be dealt with. It is
also true that Iran is one-third of Bush's "axis of evil" and that he
has been rattling the saber for some time now. But I disagree that
he'd have the same motivation and justification to attack Iran that he
had with Iraq.
Part of this is due to the uproar in the aftermath of his decision to
go into Iraq, and part of this is the fundamental difference between
Saddam's Iraq and the current situation in Iran. A war might turn the
populace against us and might solidify the mullahs' power, whereas the
outcry for reform that now exists may actually result in their
overthrow.
But there is certainly a crux here: do we wait for inner reform and
risk allowing an anti-American Islamist state to become a nuclear
power or do we attack that state and add further fuel to the
anti-American fire that is now burning in the region?
Or do we tacitly support Israel's right to take out the facilities?
Partisanship aside, I think it's a difficult situation with no good
answer. I personally would prefer that Iran peacefully disarm, but
the best way for that to happen may be the credible threat of force by
Bush.
He may be hated in the region, but he DOES have credibility when it
comes to the use of force. So perhaps that's the ultimate plan- to
cow Iran into backing down.
All in all I'd say your guy offers a pretty astute assessment. He
neglected to mention the mention that third possibility, however: that
Bush may be able to make his point through threats of force rather
than through actual force. I wonder what the effect would be on GLD
stock if that took place? If it wasn't actual military action but
simply a show of strength that resolved the situation.
-Godfrey
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth"
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
30 Nov 2004 05:29:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey <no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
On 30 Nov 2004 06:59:35 -0800, (Eric
Smith) wrote:
I found this website while cruising around for investment ideas. I
think it makes a powerful case for why a fundamentalist President such
as Bush is going to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities. You'll
find the actual info on this on the page under the GLD heading the
link is here:
http://www.secretsymbols.com/StocksToBuy/StockToBuy2004.html
After reading the stock recommendations, I think what the author says
about the President attacking Iran is absolutely correct and will
happen. The website even says there have been some sort of talks
between Ariel Sharon and President Bush on the timing of this matter
and the need for such an attack.
Eric
I don't know about the religious component- that is mostly
speculation.
But it is true that a nuclear Iran would be a very dangerous thing for
Israel and ultimately for the region and should be dealt with. It is
also true that Iran is one-third of Bush's "axis of evil" and that he
has been rattling the saber for some time now. But I disagree that
he'd have the same motivation and justification to attack Iran that he
had with Iraq.
Part of this is due to the uproar in the aftermath of his decision to
go into Iraq, and part of this is the fundamental difference between
Saddam's Iraq and the current situation in Iran. A war might turn the
populace against us and might solidify the mullahs' power, whereas the
outcry for reform that now exists may actually result in their
overthrow.
But there is certainly a crux here: do we wait for inner reform and
risk allowing an anti-American Islamist state to become a nuclear
power or do we attack that state and add further fuel to the
anti-American fire that is now burning in the region?
Or do we tacitly support Israel's right to take out the facilities?
Partisanship aside, I think it's a difficult situation with no good
answer. I personally would prefer that Iran peacefully disarm, but
the best way for that to happen may be the credible threat of force by
Bush.
He may be hated in the region, but he DOES have credibility when it
comes to the use of force. So perhaps that's the ultimate plan- to
cow Iran into backing down.
All in all I'd say your guy offers a pretty astute assessment. He
neglected to mention the mention that third possibility, however: that
Bush may be able to make his point through threats of force rather
than through actual force. I wonder what the effect would be on GLD
stock if that took place? If it wasn't actual military action but
simply a show of strength that resolved the situation.
-Godfrey
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth"
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Godfrey" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
30 Nov 2004 05:47:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey <no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and emotional
connection with certain events, practices or in this case political
parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq and Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in addition to
which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which Iraq
never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past that they are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a potential
benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is serious about what
he says and only a fool would doubt that he is willing to use force to
back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the bombs in
our arsenal.
-Godfrey
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth"
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
30 Nov 2004 06:51:59 PM |
|
|
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey <no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such thoughts.
They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and emotional
connection with certain events, practices or in this case political
parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq and Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in addition to
which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which Iraq
never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past that they are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a potential
benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is serious about what
he says and only a fool would doubt that he is willing to use force to
back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the bombs in
our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an unprovoked attack
upon a soverign foreign nation to gain that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's credibility, but who
wants that kind of cred?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
30 Nov 2004 10:17:09 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey <no@address.provided>
wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such
thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and
emotional connection with certain events, practices or in this case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq and Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in addition to
which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which Iraq
never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past that they are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a potential
benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is serious about
what he says and only a fool would doubt that he is willing to use
force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an unprovoked
attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's credibility,
but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that means
anything.
The UN doesn't have that kind of cred, and it's completely ineffective.
Iran's mullahs must be laughing up their sleeves at the latest IAEA
"promises".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
01 Dec 2004 12:27:28 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey <no@address.provided>
wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such
thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and
emotional connection with certain events, practices or in this case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq and Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in addition to
which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which Iraq
never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past that they are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a potential
benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is serious about
what he says and only a fool would doubt that he is willing to use
force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an unprovoked
attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's credibility,
but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that means
anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's your motto.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
01 Dec 2004 09:10:48 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn-
pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey <no@address.provided>
wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such
thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and
emotional connection with certain events, practices or in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in addition to
which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which Iraq
never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a potential
benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is serious about
what he says and only a fool would doubt that he is willing to use
force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an unprovoked
attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's credibility,
but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that means
anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's your motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
01 Dec 2004 11:25:19 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn-
pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey <no@address.provided>
wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such
thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and
emotional connection with certain events, practices or in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in addition to
which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which Iraq
never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a potential
benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is serious about
what he says and only a fool would doubt that he is willing to use
force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an unprovoked
attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's credibility,
but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that means
anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's your motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that means
anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the credibility to
deal with thugs. If you have another interpretation for what you said, I'm
willing to listen.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
01 Dec 2004 01:53:26 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn-
pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey <no@address.provided>
wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such
thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and
emotional connection with certain events, practices or in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in addition
to which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which
Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past
that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a
potential benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is
serious about what he says and only a fool would doubt that he
is willing to use force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain that
credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that
means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's your
motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that means
anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another interpretation for
what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of credibility as a
thug", meaning that we have proved that we can and will use force.
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a soveriegn
nation".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
01 Dec 2004 02:20:51 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn-
pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey <no@address.provided>
wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such
thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and
emotional connection with certain events, practices or in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in addition
to which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which
Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past
that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a
potential benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is
serious about what he says and only a fool would doubt that he
is willing to use force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain that
credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that
means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's your
motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that means
anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another interpretation for
what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of credibility as a
thug", meaning that we have proved that we can and will use force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility as a thug, then
we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and have the credibility of a thug.
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a soveriegn
nation".
Of course not.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
01 Dec 2004 02:30:09 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RaWdnTU_nZEhujPcRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn-
pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey
<no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such
thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and
emotional connection with certain events, practices or in
this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq
and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in
addition to which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which
Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past
that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a
potential benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is
serious about what he says and only a fool would doubt that
he is willing to use force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain that
credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that
means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's your
motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that
means anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another interpretation
for what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of credibility as a
thug", meaning that we have proved that we can and will use force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility as a thug,
then we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and have the credibility
of a thug.
Like I said, your narrowminded worldview would see it that way.
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a
soveriegn nation".
Of course not.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
01 Dec 2004 04:11:32 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B29DB638016fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RaWdnTU_nZEhujPcRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn-
pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey
<no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with such
thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from and
emotional connection with certain events, practices or in
this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq
and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in
addition to which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something which
Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in the past
that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps some
not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a
potential benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush is
serious about what he says and only a fool would doubt that
he is willing to use force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain that
credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that
means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's your
motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that
means anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another interpretation
for what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of credibility as a
thug", meaning that we have proved that we can and will use force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility as a thug,
then we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and have the credibility
of a thug.
Like I said, your narrowminded worldview would see it that way.
What's the wide-minded worldview say? That you can act like a thug, yet not
be a thug?
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a
soveriegn nation".
Of course not.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
01 Dec 2004 10:40:02 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:S46dnSQ64fwx3DPcRVn-ow@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B29DB638016fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RaWdnTU_nZEhujPcRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn- pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey
<no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with
such thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from
and emotional connection with certain events, practices or
in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always
beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq
and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in
addition to which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something
which Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in
the past that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps
some not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a
potential benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush
is serious about what he says and only a fool would doubt
that he is willing to use force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all
the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain
that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility
that means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's your
motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that
means anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another interpretation
for what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of credibility as a
thug", meaning that we have proved that we can and will use force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility as a
thug, then we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and have the
credibility of a thug.
Like I said, your narrowminded worldview would see it that way.
What's the wide-minded worldview say? That you can act like a thug,
yet not be a thug?
That there's a difference, which you refuse to acknowledge, between
being a thug like Saddam and using force to take out a thug like Saddam.
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a
soveriegn nation".
Of course not.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
01 Dec 2004 11:36:35 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2F0C1B718Afstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:S46dnSQ64fwx3DPcRVn-ow@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B29DB638016fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RaWdnTU_nZEhujPcRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn- pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey
<no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with
such thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from
and emotional connection with certain events, practices or
in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always
beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations (Iraq
and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in
addition to which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something
which Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven in
the past that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps
some not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a
potential benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that Bush
is serious about what he says and only a fool would doubt
that he is willing to use force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than all
the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain
that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility
that means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's your
motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility that
means anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another interpretation
for what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of credibility as a
thug", meaning that we have proved that we can and will use force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility as a
thug, then we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and have the
credibility of a thug.
Like I said, your narrowminded worldview would see it that way.
What's the wide-minded worldview say? That you can act like a thug,
yet not be a thug?
That there's a difference, which you refuse to acknowledge, between
being a thug like Saddam and using force to take out a thug like Saddam.
A thug is a thug. If the attack on Iraq had been in self defense, we would
not be a thug, and I would be behind the actions we're taking 100%. But it
clearly wasn't a case of self defense or retaliation, we just attacked.
That's what makes us a thug.
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a
soveriegn nation".
Of course not.
How did they provoke us?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
02 Dec 2004 09:13:58 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:YpqdnUiRI4d-NDPcRVn-iQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2F0C1B718Afstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:S46dnSQ64fwx3DPcRVn-ow@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B29DB638016fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RaWdnTU_nZEhujPcRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn- pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey
<no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with
such thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from
and emotional connection with certain events, practices
or in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always
beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations
(Iraq and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in
addition to which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something
which Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven
in the past that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps
some not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a
potential benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that
Bush is serious about what he says and only a fool would
doubt that he is willing to use force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than
all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain
that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility
that means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's
your motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to interpret
it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility
that means anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another
interpretation for what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of credibility
as a thug", meaning that we have proved that we can and will use
force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility as a
thug, then we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and have the
credibility of a thug.
Like I said, your narrowminded worldview would see it that way.
What's the wide-minded worldview say? That you can act like a thug,
yet not be a thug?
That there's a difference, which you refuse to acknowledge, between
being a thug like Saddam and using force to take out a thug like
Saddam.
A thug is a thug. If the attack on Iraq had been in self defense, we
would not be a thug, and I would be behind the actions we're taking
100%. But it clearly wasn't a case of self defense or retaliation, we
just attacked. That's what makes us a thug.
That's what makes you so narrow-minded.
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a
soveriegn nation".
Of course not.
How did they provoke us?
Oh, please, spare me the ignorant blank look of incomprehension. I've
gone over that so many times here that you can surely find it by a
little searching.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
02 Dec 2004 11:34:25 AM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B36817C87A9fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:YpqdnUiRI4d-NDPcRVn-iQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2F0C1B718Afstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:S46dnSQ64fwx3DPcRVn-ow@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B29DB638016fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RaWdnTU_nZEhujPcRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn- pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey
<no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind with
such thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself from
and emotional connection with certain events, practices
or in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always
beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations
(Iraq and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq, in
addition to which Iran is a completely different beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within, something
which Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have also proven
in the past that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so perhaps
some not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at least a
potential benefit of that war; nobody can doubt that
Bush is serious about what he says and only a fool would
doubt that he is willing to use force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than
all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to gain
that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility
that means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know that's
your motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to interpret
it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility
that means anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another
interpretation for what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of credibility
as a thug", meaning that we have proved that we can and will use
force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility as a
thug, then we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and have the
credibility of a thug.
Like I said, your narrowminded worldview would see it that way.
What's the wide-minded worldview say? That you can act like a thug,
yet not be a thug?
That there's a difference, which you refuse to acknowledge, between
being a thug like Saddam and using force to take out a thug like
Saddam.
A thug is a thug. If the attack on Iraq had been in self defense, we
would not be a thug, and I would be behind the actions we're taking
100%. But it clearly wasn't a case of self defense or retaliation, we
just attacked. That's what makes us a thug.
That's what makes you so narrow-minded.
Which does? The fact that I think throwing the first punch makes one a thug,
or the fact that I don't think Iraq provoked us? Or both?
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a
soveriegn nation".
Of course not.
How did they provoke us?
Oh, please, spare me the ignorant blank look of incomprehension. I've
gone over that so many times here that you can surely find it by a
little searching.
Oh, that's right, they played a shell game with WMDs that didn't exist.
Ya know, even if they had WMDs, so what? That's still no excuse to invade a
foreign country, unless you also think it's a good excuse for others to
invade our own country. If we're going to be the self-appointed policemen of
the world, we should at least be careful to allow the "bad guys" to
actually do something WRONG before we go invading all over the place. Yeah,
allowing them to do something wrong is dangerous, but it's that bit of
restraint that separates the thugs from the two-fisted good guys.
It's the cross the good guys must bear.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
02 Dec 2004 12:50:04 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:x8qdnZu2LMW9zzLcRVn-tA@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B36817C87A9fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:YpqdnUiRI4d-NDPcRVn-iQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2F0C1B718Afstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:S46dnSQ64fwx3DPcRVn-ow@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B29DB638016fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RaWdnTU_nZEhujPcRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn- pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey
<no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind
with such thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself
from and emotional connection with certain events,
practices or in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always
beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations
(Iraq and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq,
in addition to which Iran is a completely different
beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within,
something which Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have
also proven in the past that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so
perhaps some not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will
take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at
least a potential benefit of that war; nobody can
doubt that Bush is serious about what he says and
only a fool would doubt that he is willing to use
force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than
all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to
gain that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of
credibility that means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know
that's your motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to
interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility
that means anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another
interpretation for what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of
credibility as a thug", meaning that we have proved that we
can and will use force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility as
a thug, then we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and have
the credibility of a thug.
Like I said, your narrowminded worldview would see it that way.
What's the wide-minded worldview say? That you can act like a
thug, yet not be a thug?
That there's a difference, which you refuse to acknowledge,
between being a thug like Saddam and using force to take out a
thug like Saddam.
A thug is a thug. If the attack on Iraq had been in self defense,
we would not be a thug, and I would be behind the actions we're
taking 100%. But it clearly wasn't a case of self defense or
retaliation, we just attacked. That's what makes us a thug.
That's what makes you so narrow-minded.
Which does? The fact that I think throwing the first punch makes one a
thug, or the fact that I don't think Iraq provoked us? Or both?
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a
soveriegn nation".
Of course not.
How did they provoke us?
Oh, please, spare me the ignorant blank look of incomprehension. I've
gone over that so many times here that you can surely find it by a
little searching.
Oh, that's right, they played a shell game with WMDs that didn't
exist.
More of that simple-minded liberal "logic" there. Pick out one issue and
strawman it to death. Then fail to accept or even remember any other
issues.
Ya know, even if they had WMDs, so what? That's still no excuse to
invade a foreign country, unless you also think it's a good excuse for
others to invade our own country.
More narrow-minded single-factor "logic". Mere posession of nukes is
only one factor. The propensity to threaten their neighbors is another.
And don't give me any crap about what a threat the US is to Canada or
Mexico.
If we're going to be the
self-appointed policemen of the world, we should at least be careful
to allow the "bad guys" to actually do something WRONG before we go
invading all over the place.
Like Saddam never did anything wrong?
Yeah, allowing them to do something wrong
is dangerous, but it's that bit of restraint that separates the thugs
from the two-fisted good guys.
It's the cross the good guys must bear.
I refuse to accept that the good guys must handicap themselves so as not
to be called evil by the bad guys.
In fact, I don't really much care what the bad guys call us.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
02 Dec 2004 01:16:15 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B38CBBB35C0fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:x8qdnZu2LMW9zzLcRVn-tA@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B36817C87A9fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:YpqdnUiRI4d-NDPcRVn-iQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2F0C1B718Afstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:S46dnSQ64fwx3DPcRVn-ow@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B29DB638016fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RaWdnTU_nZEhujPcRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn- pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey
<no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind
with such thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself
from and emotional connection with certain events,
practices or in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always
beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two situations
(Iraq and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq,
in addition to which Iran is a completely different
beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within,
something which Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs have
also proven in the past that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so
perhaps some not-so-gentle persuasion is all it will
take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at
least a potential benefit of that war; nobody can
doubt that Bush is serious about what he says and
only a fool would doubt that he is willing to use
force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful than
all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit an
unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation to
gain that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure, it's
credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of
credibility that means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know
that's your motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to
interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of credibility
that means anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have the
credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another
interpretation for what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of
credibility as a thug", meaning that we have proved that we
can and will use force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility as
a thug, then we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and have
the credibility of a thug.
Like I said, your narrowminded worldview would see it that way.
What's the wide-minded worldview say? That you can act like a
thug, yet not be a thug?
That there's a difference, which you refuse to acknowledge,
between being a thug like Saddam and using force to take out a
thug like Saddam.
A thug is a thug. If the attack on Iraq had been in self defense,
we would not be a thug, and I would be behind the actions we're
taking 100%. But it clearly wasn't a case of self defense or
retaliation, we just attacked. That's what makes us a thug.
That's what makes you so narrow-minded.
Which does? The fact that I think throwing the first punch makes one a
thug, or the fact that I don't think Iraq provoked us? Or both?
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing nor
"admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack on a
soveriegn nation".
Of course not.
How did they provoke us?
Oh, please, spare me the ignorant blank look of incomprehension. I've
gone over that so many times here that you can surely find it by a
little searching.
Oh, that's right, they played a shell game with WMDs that didn't
exist.
More of that simple-minded liberal "logic" there. Pick out one issue and
strawman it to death. Then fail to accept or even remember any other
issues.
Hey, the shell game thing is YOUR excuse. YOU are the only one I've heard
describe what Saddam did as a shell game.
Ya know, even if they had WMDs, so what? That's still no excuse to
invade a foreign country, unless you also think it's a good excuse for
others to invade our own country.
More narrow-minded single-factor "logic". Mere posession of nukes is
only one factor. The propensity to threaten their neighbors is another.
And don't give me any crap about what a threat the US is to Canada or
Mexico.
Well, we're certainly a threat to Afganistan and Iraq, now aren't we?
If we're going to be the
self-appointed policemen of the world, we should at least be careful
to allow the "bad guys" to actually do something WRONG before we go
invading all over the place.
Like Saddam never did anything wrong?
What did he do to warrent invasion?
Yeah, allowing them to do something wrong
is dangerous, but it's that bit of restraint that separates the thugs
from the two-fisted good guys.
It's the cross the good guys must bear.
I refuse to accept that the good guys must handicap themselves so as not
to be called evil by the bad guys.
You miss the point. We need to handicap ourselves so as not to be called
evil by EVERYONE ELSE.
In fact, I don't really much care what the bad guys call us.
I don't either. But unless you're willing to call the rest of the world bad
guys, we do kinda need to pay attention to what they think.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
02 Dec 2004 01:36:01 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:gvCdnXMYW5WE9zLcRVn-1Q@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B38CBBB35C0fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:x8qdnZu2LMW9zzLcRVn-tA@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B36817C87A9fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:YpqdnUiRI4d-NDPcRVn-iQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2F0C1B718Afstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:S46dnSQ64fwx3DPcRVn-ow@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B29DB638016fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:RaWdnTU_nZEhujPcRVn-qw@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2977C7E715fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bJudnZxl5LHiYzDcRVn-qg@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B2678F820B5fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:BOqdnYcoyZ_P-TDcRVn- pQ@io.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B1ECE4DA4EBfstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:bpidndygvdtViDDcRVn-ig@io.com:
"Godfrey" <no@address.provided> wrote in message
news:561qq0lgsnf4t5c5unril6pmlgbjikl4vr@4ax.com...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:29:16 -0600, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:11:01 GMT, Godfrey
<no@address.provided> wrote:
Good grief. You're blowing loubert's and vs's mind
with such thoughts. They can't
comprehend reason and logic.
Sure they can. It's never easy to separate oneself
from and emotional connection with certain events,
practices or in this
case
political parties/ideals. But it's nearly always
beneficial.
I would be careful about equating the two
situations (Iraq and
Iran)-
much has changed since Bush decided to attack Iraq,
in addition to which Iran is a completely different
beast.
Iran has a real chance of reform from within,
something which Iraq never had. Iran's mullahs
have also proven in the past that they
are
somewhat more reality-based than Saddam was, so
perhaps some not-so-gentle persuasion is all it
will take.
For those opposed to the war in Iraq, this is at
least a potential benefit of that war; nobody can
doubt that Bush is serious about what he says and
only a fool would doubt that he is willing to use
force to back it up.
That credibility might prove to be more powerful
than all the
bombs
in our arsenal.
You may be right. But it's too bad we had to commit
an unprovoked attack upon a soverign foreign nation
to gain that credibility.
Now we have the same credibility as a thug. Sure,
it's credibility, but who wants that kind of cred?
When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of
credibility that means anything.
When dealing with thugs, become a thug. Yes, I know
that's your motto.
That's how your narrow-minded worldview would see it.
You just SAID it. How the hell else am I supposed to
interpret it?
You said:
"When dealing with thugs, it's the only kind of
credibility that means anything."
Clearly you are saying that we have to be thugs to have
the credibility to deal with thugs. If you have another
interpretation for what you said, I'm willing to listen.
No, I agreed that we had to have "the same kind of
credibility as a thug", meaning that we have proved that we
can and will use force.
Then we're a thug. If we have the same kind of credibility
as a thug, then we're a thug. You can't not be a thug, and
have the credibility of a thug.
Like I said, your narrowminded worldview would see it that
way.
What's the wide-minded worldview say? That you can act like a
thug, yet not be a thug?
That there's a difference, which you refuse to acknowledge,
between being a thug like Saddam and using force to take out a
thug like Saddam.
A thug is a thug. If the attack on Iraq had been in self defense,
we would not be a thug, and I would be behind the actions we're
taking 100%. But it clearly wasn't a case of self defense or
retaliation, we just attacked. That's what makes us a thug.
That's what makes you so narrow-minded.
Which does? The fact that I think throwing the first punch makes one
a thug, or the fact that I don't think Iraq provoked us? Or both?
Of course you must realize by now that I am not agreeing
nor "admitting" that the US committed an "unprovoked attack
on a soveriegn nation".
Of course not.
How did they provoke us?
Oh, please, spare me the ignorant blank look of incomprehension.
I've gone over that so many times here that you can surely find it
by a little searching.
Oh, that's right, they played a shell game with WMDs that didn't
exist.
More of that simple-minded liberal "logic" there. Pick out one issue
and strawman it to death. Then fail to accept or even remember any
other issues.
Hey, the shell game thing is YOUR excuse. YOU are the only one I've
heard describe what Saddam did as a shell game.
It's one of the reasons that I've given, yes. Of course I have listed
*many* reasons why Saddam needed to be taken out of the picture, but you
fail to remember any but the one that you can claim didn't pan out.
And as an aside, the whole point of the shell game is that the pea isn't
under any of the shells.
Ya know, even if they had WMDs, so what? That's still no excuse to
invade a foreign country, unless you also think it's a good excuse
for others to invade our own country.
More narrow-minded single-factor "logic". Mere posession of nukes is
only one factor. The propensity to threaten their neighbors is
another. And don't give me any crap about what a threat the US is to
Canada or Mexico.
Well, we're certainly a threat to Afganistan and Iraq, now aren't we?
Not any more. We're a threat to Iran, now tell me that we should just
play nice with all the Islamic fascists.
If we're going to be the
self-appointed policemen of the world, we should at least be
careful to allow the "bad guys" to actually do something WRONG
before we go invading all over the place.
Like Saddam never did anything wrong?
What did he do to warrent invasion?
Been answered. Insert $1.00 to play again.
Yeah, allowing them to do something wrong
is dangerous, but it's that bit of restraint that separates the
thugs from the two-fisted good guys.
It's the cross the good guys must bear.
I refuse to accept that the good guys must handicap themselves so as
not to be called evil by the bad guys.
You miss the point. We need to handicap ourselves so as not to be
called evil by EVERYONE ELSE.
That is about as evil a "point" as you could make.
In fact, I don't really much care what the bad guys call us.
I don't either. But unless you're willing to call the rest of the
world bad guys, we do kinda need to pay attention to what they think.
The "rest of the world" doesn't much give a damn about us. A few
loudmouthed socialist totalitarian apologist whiners' opinions aren't
worth spit.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Save Your Dixie Cups, The South Will Rise Again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: President Bush to attack Iran sometime after February 2005 |
02 Dec 2004 02:38:49 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95B39486A4DB4fstone69@207.69.189.191...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in
news:gvCdnXMYW5WE9zLcRVn-1Q@io.com:
"Fred Stone&qu | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
