Religions > Atheism > Smearboat Liars Caught In Own Lies, According to Navy Records
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
18 Aug 2004 10:46:07 PM |
| Object: |
Smearboat Liars Caught In Own Lies, According to Navy Records |
Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most
vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate
of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own
version of events.
In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who
commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly
disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came
under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March
13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.
But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released
yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act,
contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons
fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won
his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for
providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets
flying about him."
....
I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was
released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the
backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of
Kerry's fellow boat commanders.
A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his
actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG
THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the
disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units
in the flotilla also came under fire.
....
Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that
Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his
boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that
assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle
the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might
have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but
he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version
of events.
For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand
what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down
the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later
returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -951 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 04:35:12 AM |
|
|
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gj8bcf.7vq9v1nwjytyN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
[..]
So you aren't interested at all in presenting an opinion why someone
other than Bush is a better canidate? Maybe then you can just tell me
how Bush fucked up the country for you?
Well, just a few posts ago, I said this:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1gj30g9.11xsmzvxwmnc6N%25usenet%40
mile23.c0m&output=gplain>
Too bad you're unable to follow a conversation.
My experience so far has been when the points you bring up are directly
addressed -1) Diplomatic Ties, 2) Bad Economy, 3) Bad War - their
complaints fall flat.
1) How have diplomatic ties been hurt?
You're kidding, right?
2) How is the economy messed up when it is comparable to the one Clinton
had in 1996 when he was re-elected?
Are you fucking blind? Bush got elected, tried to stimulate the economy,
failed. Then there's that whole
hand-out-$300-but-make-everyone-pay-$1600-back-over-time thing.
3) The two wars prosecuted by Bush have been the fastest, most
successful, with the least amount of casualties in the history of the
world. How is that bad?
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going past the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "vinpo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 01:48:55 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjb6lj.cozkao1mwhynoN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum) wrote in message
news:<1gj8bcf.7vq9v1nwjytyN%usenet@mile23.c0m>...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
[..]
So you aren't interested at all in presenting an opinion why someone
other than Bush is a better canidate? Maybe then you can just tell
me
how Bush fucked up the country for you?
Well, just a few posts ago, I said this:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1gj30g9.11xsmzvxwmnc6N%25usenet%40
mile23.c0m&output=gplain>
Too bad you're unable to follow a conversation.
My experience so far has been when the points you bring up are directly
addressed -1) Diplomatic Ties, 2) Bad Economy, 3) Bad War - their
complaints fall flat.
1) How have diplomatic ties been hurt?
You're kidding, right?
2) How is the economy messed up when it is comparable to the one
Clinton
had in 1996 when he was re-elected?
Are you fucking blind? Bush got elected, tried to stimulate the economy,
failed. Then there's that whole
hand-out-$300-but-make-everyone-pay-$1600-back-over-time thing.
3) The two wars prosecuted by Bush have been the fastest, most
successful, with the least amount of casualties in the history of the
world. How is that bad?
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going past the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
:)
whit
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 04:30:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:48:55 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
Shhh! No literary references here! Doubleplus Ungood!
.
|
|
|
| User: "vinpo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 04:36:51 PM |
|
|
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:7077j0h94j143vid4ra7piap2p6rclmjro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:48:55 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
Shhh! No literary references here! Doubleplus Ungood!
i'm just following in paul's footsteps.
he's a pronator, and they are kind of meandering, without purpose, meaning,
or direction.
but what would you expect?
:l
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 05:30:29 PM |
|
|
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:7077j0h94j143vid4ra7piap2p6rclmjro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:48:55 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
Shhh! No literary references here! Doubleplus Ungood!
i'm just following in paul's footsteps.
There are worse things to be known for than bringing literary reference
to usenet.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric da Red" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
31 Aug 2004 01:32:20 PM |
|
|
In article <1gjc6xn.1rv3qc328uzhhN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:7077j0h94j143vid4ra7piap2p6rclmjro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:48:55 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
Shhh! No literary references here! Doubleplus Ungood!
i'm just following in paul's footsteps.
There are worse things to be known for than bringing literary reference
to usenet.
Especially when it was a dark and stormy night.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Beloved Citizen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush DWines Kerry's Poor Attendance. Shall We Talk About Champagne Georgie's 42% Vacation Rate Prior To 9-11? |
31 Aug 2004 05:48:24 PM |
|
|
Or would that be considered "hate" by our lunatic friends on the right?
ergamot@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote in message news:<ch2g7k$33t$1@drizzle.com>...
In article <1gjc6xn.1rv3qc328uzhhN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:7077j0h94j143vid4ra7piap2p6rclmjro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:48:55 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
Shhh! No literary references here! Doubleplus Ungood!
i'm just following in paul's footsteps.
There are worse things to be known for than bringing literary reference
to usenet.
Especially when it was a dark and stormy night.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thean" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush DWines Kerry's Poor Attendance. Shall We Talk About Champagne Georgie's 42% Vacation Rate Prior To 9-11? |
01 Sep 2004 10:23:53 AM |
|
|
"Beloved Citizen" <beloved_citizen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a5ef748b.0408311448.152f8ca2@posting.google.com...
Or would that be considered "hate" by our lunatic friends on the right?
just a bunch of sound and fury methinks
whit
ergamot@drizzle.com (Eric da Red) wrote in message
news:<ch2g7k$33t$1@drizzle.com>...
In article <1gjc6xn.1rv3qc328uzhhN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:7077j0h94j143vid4ra7piap2p6rclmjro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:48:55 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net>
wrote:
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
Shhh! No literary references here! Doubleplus Ungood!
i'm just following in paul's footsteps.
There are worse things to be known for than bringing literary reference
to usenet.
Especially when it was a dark and stormy night.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 07:20:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:30:29 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:7077j0h94j143vid4ra7piap2p6rclmjro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 18:48:55 GMT, "vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
Shhh! No literary references here! Doubleplus Ungood!
i'm just following in paul's footsteps.
There are worse things to be known for than bringing literary reference
to usenet.
Yes, like not having a sense of irony...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 03:26:45 PM |
|
|
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjb6lj.cozkao1mwhynoN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
[..]
3) The two wars prosecuted by Bush have been the fastest, most
successful, with the least amount of casualties in the history of the
world. How is that bad?
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going past the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
:)
Then Bush hasn't accomplished anything, has he?
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "vinpo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 03:31:44 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc1ex.q8r0on5usqgeN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjb6lj.cozkao1mwhynoN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
Al <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
[..]
3) The two wars prosecuted by Bush have been the fastest, most
successful, with the least amount of casualties in the history of
the
world. How is that bad?
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going past the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
:)
Then Bush hasn't accomplished anything, has he?
-
it's a literary reference, paul. that's why i included the smiley.
bush has accomplished plenty
whit
-
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric da Red" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 04:25:58 PM |
|
|
In article <Q8MYc.2966$8d1.2413@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc1ex.q8r0on5usqgeN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going past the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
:)
Then Bush hasn't accomplished anything, has he?
-
it's a literary reference, paul. that's why i included the smiley.
bush has accomplished plenty
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world, especially
after all the good feelings towards the US abroad after 9/11/01.
I can't think of any other President who could have accomplished
it.
The Shrub is in a class by himself.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "vinpo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 04:34:40 PM |
|
|
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q8MYc.2966$8d1.2413@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc1ex.q8r0on5usqgeN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going past
the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
:)
Then Bush hasn't accomplished anything, has he?
-
it's a literary reference, paul. that's why i included the smiley.
bush has accomplished plenty
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world, especially
after all the good feelings towards the US abroad after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
and he did so vis a vis iraq (and afghanistan) etc.
sometimes doing the right thing means losing favor with people (or
collections thereof). i can deal with that.
were the superpower. we're automatically suspect. people like underdogs,
they don't like superpowers.
we are moving (and have been) in a different direction from 'old europe' and
we've already discussed this. this is just icing on the cake. we pissed em
off before, we'll ***** em off again.; it's not like france liked us before
anyway. they didn't let us use their airspace when we attacked libya iirc.
as somebody who has done a fair bit of travel, it would be great if it was
otherwise, but being scorned by the french is just not something i'm very
concerned about.
I can't think of any other President who could have accomplished
it.
but we don't know that. because no other president has had a 9/11
and spare me pearl harbor, because that's different in a # of ways.
i'm not sure that IF gore had been president during 9/11 he would have done
things all that differently.
i know what he's saying NOW, but the rhetoric is one thing...
whit
The Shrub is in a class by himself.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
31 Aug 2004 04:34:59 AM |
|
|
In article <Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q8MYc.2966$8d1.2413@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc1ex.q8r0on5usqgeN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going past
the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there
will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
:)
Then Bush hasn't accomplished anything, has he?
-
it's a literary reference, paul. that's why i included the smiley.
bush has accomplished plenty
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world, especially
after all the good feelings towards the US abroad after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
and he did so vis a vis iraq (and afghanistan) etc.
Explain how invading Iraq was the "right thing."
sometimes doing the right thing means losing favor with people (or
collections thereof). i can deal with that.
I bet Jack the Ripper, Hitler, etc., all said the same thing.
were the superpower. we're automatically suspect. people like underdogs,
they don't like superpowers.
Oh BS. People around the world love us; they just hate our government.
we are moving (and have been) in a different direction from 'old europe'
and
we've already discussed this. this is just icing on the cake. we pissed
em
off before, we'll ***** em off again.; it's not like france liked us before
anyway. they didn't let us use their airspace when we attacked libya iirc.
Would we have let, say, Canada use our airspace to attack Mexico?
as somebody who has done a fair bit of travel, it would be great if it was
otherwise, but being scorned by the french is just not something i'm very
concerned about.
How about most of the rest of the world too? That's what breeds terrorism.
I can't think of any other President who could have accomplished
it.
but we don't know that. because no other president has had a 9/11
and spare me pearl harbor, because that's different in a # of ways.
i'm not sure that IF gore had been president during 9/11 he would have done
things all that differently.
Bet he wouldn't have invaded Iraq over nothing.
i know what he's saying NOW, but the rhetoric is one thing...
whit
The Shrub is in a class by himself.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thean" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
31 Aug 2004 09:47:48 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:ch1unn$f72$7@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q8MYc.2966$8d1.2413@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc1ex.q8r0on5usqgeN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going
past
the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there
will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
:)
Then Bush hasn't accomplished anything, has he?
-
it's a literary reference, paul. that's why i included the smiley.
bush has accomplished plenty
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world, especially
after all the good feelings towards the US abroad after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
and he did so vis a vis iraq (and afghanistan) etc.
Explain how invading Iraq was the "right thing."
asked and answered at least 1/2 dozen times. you must be new
sometimes doing the right thing means losing favor with people (or
collections thereof). i can deal with that.
I bet Jack the Ripper, Hitler, etc., all said the same thing.
and gandhi and winston churchill and mlk
were the superpower. we're automatically suspect. people like
underdogs,
they don't like superpowers.
Oh BS. People around the world love us; they just hate our government.
our govt. IS us. "of the people, by the people"
furthermore, WE (the collective) ARE the superpower.
not our govt.
we are moving (and have been) in a different direction from 'old europe'
and
we've already discussed this. this is just icing on the cake. we pissed
em
off before, we'll ***** em off again.; it's not like france liked us
before
anyway. they didn't let us use their airspace when we attacked libya
iirc.
Would we have let, say, Canada use our airspace to attack Mexico?
that's an irrelevant attempt at analogy since libya deserved to be attacked.
mexico does not
as somebody who has done a fair bit of travel, it would be great if it
was
otherwise, but being scorned by the french is just not something i'm very
concerned about.
How about most of the rest of the world too? That's what breeds
terrorism.
spare me the "breeds terrorism" part.
we bred plenty of terrorism well before 9/11. the Cole, the embassy, the
first attack on the WTC.
these people ARE evil, and we have taken the fight TO them
I can't think of any other President who could have accomplished
it.
but we don't know that. because no other president has had a 9/11
and spare me pearl harbor, because that's different in a # of ways.
i'm not sure that IF gore had been president during 9/11 he would have
done
things all that differently.
Bet he wouldn't have invaded Iraq over nothing.
but we didn't invade over nothing, so that's an argument based on false
premise
whit
i know what he's saying NOW, but the rhetoric is one thing...
whit
The Shrub is in a class by himself.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
01 Sep 2004 06:20:23 AM |
|
|
In article <2pjhgaFlj6tnU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Thean" <thea@home.net> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
Oh BS. People around the world love us; they just hate our government.
our govt. IS us. "of the people, by the people"
Sorry, most of us voted against Bush 4 years ago.
furthermore, WE (the collective) ARE the superpower.
not our govt.
we are moving (and have been) in a different direction from 'old europe'
and
we've already discussed this. this is just icing on the cake. we
pissed
em
off before, we'll ***** em off again.; it's not like france liked us
before
anyway. they didn't let us use their airspace when we attacked libya
iirc.
Would we have let, say, Canada use our airspace to attack Mexico?
that's an irrelevant attempt at analogy since libya deserved to be
attacked.
mexico does not
Quite relevant. Suppose Mexico did something to Canada that Canada didn't
like?
as somebody who has done a fair bit of travel, it would be great if it
was
otherwise, but being scorned by the french is just not something i'm
very
concerned about.
How about most of the rest of the world too? That's what breeds
terrorism.
spare me the "breeds terrorism" part.
we bred plenty of terrorism well before 9/11. the Cole, the embassy, the
first attack on the WTC.
And none of it in Iraq. Until now. Face it, GWB is the best recruiting
tool al Qaida ever had.
these people ARE evil, and we have taken the fight TO them
Since they weren't in Iraq, hardly.
I can't think of any other President who could have accomplished
it.
but we don't know that. because no other president has had a 9/11
and spare me pearl harbor, because that's different in a # of ways.
i'm not sure that IF gore had been president during 9/11 he would have
done
things all that differently.
Bet he wouldn't have invaded Iraq over nothing.
but we didn't invade over nothing, so that's an argument based on false
premise
We invaded over lies about WMD and ties to al Qaida. That's worse than
nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thean" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
01 Sep 2004 11:32:28 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:ch4p99$n3u$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <2pjhgaFlj6tnU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Thean" <thea@home.net> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
Oh BS. People around the world love us; they just hate our government.
our govt. IS us. "of the people, by the people"
Sorry, most of us voted against Bush 4 years ago.
but we don't have DIRECT democracy.
we have an EC. who are apportioned by popular vote WITHIN states. it's
still of the people, by the people.
furthermore, WE (the collective) ARE the superpower.
not our govt.
we are moving (and have been) in a different direction from 'old
europe'
and
we've already discussed this. this is just icing on the cake. we
pissed
em
off before, we'll ***** em off again.; it's not like france liked us
before
anyway. they didn't let us use their airspace when we attacked libya
iirc.
Would we have let, say, Canada use our airspace to attack Mexico?
that's an irrelevant attempt at analogy since libya deserved to be
attacked.
mexico does not
Quite relevant. Suppose Mexico did something to Canada that Canada didn't
like?
if they DESERVED the attack, we WOULD let canada use our airspace (at least
bush would)
as somebody who has done a fair bit of travel, it would be great if it
was
otherwise, but being scorned by the french is just not something i'm
very
concerned about.
How about most of the rest of the world too? That's what breeds
terrorism.
spare me the "breeds terrorism" part.
we bred plenty of terrorism well before 9/11. the Cole, the embassy, the
first attack on the WTC.
And none of it in Iraq.
there were plenty of terrorists in iraq prior to 9/11. there are more now
Until now. Face it, GWB is the best recruiting
tool al Qaida ever had.
that's great. let's recruit them OVER THERE, and then kill them OVER
THERE.
works for me
these people ARE evil, and we have taken the fight TO them
Since they weren't in Iraq, hardly.
we aren't fighting them (to nearly as large an extent) in the US, so the
point stands
I can't think of any other President who could have accomplished
it.
but we don't know that. because no other president has had a 9/11
and spare me pearl harbor, because that's different in a # of ways.
i'm not sure that IF gore had been president during 9/11 he would have
done
things all that differently.
Bet he wouldn't have invaded Iraq over nothing.
but we didn't invade over nothing, so that's an argument based on false
premise
We invaded over lies about WMD and ties to al Qaida. That's worse than
nothing.
we did not invade over lies to WMD (bad intelligence, to an extent, yes. it
was not the only reason/justification, as i stated over a year ago).
as for ties to al qaeda, there were (albeit not hyooge). there were no ties
to 9/11. that's a different story.
there were ties to TERRORISM. as well as the fact that iraq was subject to
ceasefire agreement, under a ruthless dictator, and in violation of their
promise to destroy AND ACCOUNT for WMD's
so, it was justified
according to kerry, it is STILL justified even knowing what we know vis a
vis WMD's NOW.
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
01 Sep 2004 12:02:19 PM |
|
|
In article <2pmc0mFmc4ooU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Thean" <thea@home.net> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:ch4p99$n3u$13@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <2pjhgaFlj6tnU1@uni-berlin.de>, "Thean" <thea@home.net> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
Oh BS. People around the world love us; they just hate our
government.
our govt. IS us. "of the people, by the people"
Sorry, most of us voted against Bush 4 years ago.
but we don't have DIRECT democracy.
we have an EC. who are apportioned by popular vote WITHIN states. it's
still of the people, by the people.
furthermore, WE (the collective) ARE the superpower.
not our govt.
we are moving (and have been) in a different direction from 'old
europe'
and
we've already discussed this. this is just icing on the cake. we
pissed
em
off before, we'll ***** em off again.; it's not like france liked us
before
anyway. they didn't let us use their airspace when we attacked libya
iirc.
Would we have let, say, Canada use our airspace to attack Mexico?
that's an irrelevant attempt at analogy since libya deserved to be
attacked.
mexico does not
Quite relevant. Suppose Mexico did something to Canada that Canada
didn't
like?
if they DESERVED the attack, we WOULD let canada use our airspace (at least
bush would)
as somebody who has done a fair bit of travel, it would be great if
it
was
otherwise, but being scorned by the french is just not something i'm
very
concerned about.
How about most of the rest of the world too? That's what breeds
terrorism.
spare me the "breeds terrorism" part.
we bred plenty of terrorism well before 9/11. the Cole, the embassy,
the
first attack on the WTC.
And none of it in Iraq.
there were plenty of terrorists in iraq prior to 9/11.
As there were in Saudi Arabia and the US. None of them attacked us from
iraq however.
there are more now
Yes, thanks to Bush.
Until now. Face it, GWB is the best recruiting
tool al Qaida ever had.
that's great. let's recruit them OVER THERE, and then kill them OVER
THERE.
works for me
these people ARE evil, and we have taken the fight TO them
Since they weren't in Iraq, hardly.
we aren't fighting them (to nearly as large an extent) in the US, so the
point stands
I can't think of any other President who could have accomplished
it.
but we don't know that. because no other president has had a 9/11
and spare me pearl harbor, because that's different in a # of ways.
i'm not sure that IF gore had been president during 9/11 he would
have
done
things all that differently.
Bet he wouldn't have invaded Iraq over nothing.
but we didn't invade over nothing, so that's an argument based on false
premise
We invaded over lies about WMD and ties to al Qaida. That's worse than
nothing.
we did not invade over lies to WMD (bad intelligence, to an extent, yes.
it
was not the only reason/justification, as i stated over a year ago).
You can state it until the cows come home; that was the case Bush made to
the people.
as for ties to al qaeda, there were (albeit not hyooge).
Now you're lying, as every investigation has found.
there were no ties
to 9/11. that's a different story.
Nor to al Qaida.
there were ties to TERRORISM.
Not any directed at us.
as well as the fact that iraq was subject to
ceasefire agreement,
With the UN, not the US.
under a ruthless dictator,
Like Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, etc.
and in violation of their
promise to destroy AND ACCOUNT for WMD's
They said they had none and it turns out they were right.
so, it was justified
How? No WMD, no ties to al Qaida or 9/11. The whole argument then was
terrorism; now it's "Saddam was a bad man." The world is full of bad men;
we can't go around invading all of them.
according to kerry, it is STILL justified even knowing what we know vis a
vis WMD's NOW.
Did you read what the vice-chair of the Senate committee said?
whit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric da Red" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 05:14:02 PM |
|
|
In article <Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q8MYc.2966$8d1.2413@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc1ex.q8r0on5usqgeN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going past
the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
:)
Then Bush hasn't accomplished anything, has he?
-
it's a literary reference, paul. that's why i included the smiley.
bush has accomplished plenty
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world, especially
after all the good feelings towards the US abroad after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
Me too.
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat is
not the right thing.
Ever.
and he did so vis a vis iraq (and afghanistan) etc.
sometimes doing the right thing means losing favor with people (or
collections thereof). i can deal with that.
Poppy Bush (10 times the President of his miserable son) managed to
do the right thing while obtaining much material international
support.
were the superpower. we're automatically suspect. people like underdogs,
they don't like superpowers.
Oh please. Spare us the comic book psychology.
we are moving (and have been) in a different direction from 'old europe' and
we've already discussed this.
Yes. And as I pointed out, the whole New/Old Europe thing is just a
marketing sham.
this is just icing on the cake. we pissed em
off before, we'll ***** em off again.;
And all for the wrong causes.
What a waste.
it's not like france liked us before
anyway.
France has been a good ally for decades, even centuries.
France contributed (and still contributes) much to the military
effort in Afghanistan.
France provided (and still provides) a lot of useful intelligence
about international terrorist organizations. A healthy amount of
the clear and precise warnings about the 9/11/01 attacks came from
French intelligence.
they didn't let us use their airspace when we attacked libya iirc.
A good thing, since Libya was the wrong target.
See, that's how it is with friends. Good friends sometimes have to
point out your shortcomings and help you to avoid error. A good
friend doesn't say, "You want to rob a bank? Cool, let me drive the
get-away car" or "Sure, you can use my kitchen to cook up some
meth."
France is a good friend to the USA.
as somebody who has done a fair bit of travel, it would be great if it was
otherwise, but being scorned by the french is just not something i'm very
concerned about.
I can't think of any other President who could have accomplished
it.
but we don't know that. because no other president has had a 9/11
True, though a complete non-sequitur.
and spare me pearl harbor, because that's different in a # of ways.
It was. I've been saying that since, well, since 9/11/01.
i'm not sure that IF gore had been president during 9/11 he would have done
things all that differently.
I suspect Gore would have ordered attacks on Afghanistan. I doubt he
would have engineered a "pre-emptive" bi-lateral attack on Iraq.
Of course, the odds were slightly higher that the 9/11/01 attacks
would not have happened if Gore had been President. Fighting
terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular were top priorities
in the Clinton administration, and President Gore would have likely
continued this emphasis.
i know what he's saying NOW, but the rhetoric is one thing...
Gore sounds like a Real Democrat (tm) when he's not running for
office. The guy's timing is way off.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "vinpo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 05:31:43 PM |
|
|
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch08ra$vlk$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q8MYc.2966$8d1.2413@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc1ex.q8r0on5usqgeN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
They're still on-going. They're not over. They'll keep going
past
the
forseeable future. From the Bush administration forward, there
will
*always* be a war the US is fighting in the mid-east.
we have always been at war with the mid-east.
:)
Then Bush hasn't accomplished anything, has he?
-
it's a literary reference, paul. that's why i included the smiley.
bush has accomplished plenty
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world, especially
after all the good feelings towards the US abroad after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
Me too.
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat is
not the right thing.
Ever.
iyo. at least we can define the difference of opinion
of course, i disagree with "no threat". ie ZERO threat.
and he did so vis a vis iraq (and afghanistan) etc.
sometimes doing the right thing means losing favor with people (or
collections thereof). i can deal with that.
Poppy Bush (10 times the President of his miserable son) managed to
do the right thing while obtaining much material international
support.
were the superpower. we're automatically suspect. people like
underdogs,
they don't like superpowers.
Oh please. Spare us the comic book psychology.
we are moving (and have been) in a different direction from 'old europe'
and
we've already discussed this.
Yes. And as I pointed out, the whole New/Old Europe thing is just a
marketing sham.
rubbish
do you not see the difference between countries recently freed from the yoke
of communist oppression, and "old europe"?
this is just icing on the cake. we pissed em
off before, we'll ***** em off again.;
And all for the wrong causes.
What a waste.
it's not like france liked us before
anyway.
France has been a good ally for decades, even centuries.
France contributed (and still contributes) much to the military
effort in Afghanistan.
France provided (and still provides) a lot of useful intelligence
about international terrorist organizations. A healthy amount of
the clear and precise warnings about the 9/11/01 attacks came from
French intelligence.
they didn't let us use their airspace when we attacked libya iirc.
A good thing, since Libya was the wrong target.
See, that's how it is with friends. Good friends sometimes have to
point out your shortcomings and help you to avoid error. A good
friend doesn't say, "You want to rob a bank? Cool, let me drive the
get-away car" or "Sure, you can use my kitchen to cook up some
meth."
France is a good friend to the USA.
france is an ungrateful ally, and to paraphrase - full of cheese eating
surrender monkeys.
as somebody who has done a fair bit of travel, it would be great if it
was
otherwise, but being scorned by the french is just not something i'm very
concerned about.
I can't think of any other President who could have accomplished
it.
but we don't know that. because no other president has had a 9/11
True, though a complete non-sequitur.
my point is that gore could have accomplished it.
probably not nader.
lord knows what nader would have done ex-post 9/11
i shudder at the thought
and spare me pearl harbor, because that's different in a # of ways.
It was. I've been saying that since, well, since 9/11/01.
i'm not sure that IF gore had been president during 9/11 he would have
done
things all that differently.
I suspect Gore would have ordered attacks on Afghanistan. I doubt he
would have engineered a "pre-emptive" bi-lateral attack on Iraq.
oooooh.
so we have gone from (mebbe not with you specifically) "unilateral' to
"bilateral"
Of course, the odds were slightly higher that the 9/11/01 attacks
would not have happened if Gore had been President. Fighting
terrorism in general and al-Qaida in particular were top priorities
in the Clinton administration, and President Gore would have likely
continued this emphasis.
i know what he's saying NOW, but the rhetoric is one thing...
Gore sounds like a Real Democrat (tm) when he's not running for
office. The guy's timing is way off.
no. a real democrat is somebody like kennedy.
not a guy who writes horrendous books about the environment that make
thoreau look like joyce in comparison, and engages in faux anger and emotion
when it DOESN"T matter, and nobody cares anyway.
whit
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 05:48:13 PM |
|
|
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch08ra$vlk$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, vinpo
<vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
[..]
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world, especially
after all the good feelings towards the US abroad after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
Me too.
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat is not
the right thing.
Ever.
iyo. at least we can define the difference of opinion
Here's the definition of this difference of opinion: You're an
imperialist, and Eric isn't.
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric da Red" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
31 Aug 2004 01:25:14 PM |
|
|
In article <1gjc942.1g4sp4e198nzalN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
[..]
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world, especially
after all the good feelings towards the US abroad after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
Me too.
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat is not
the right thing.
Ever.
iyo. at least we can define the difference of opinion
Here's the definition of this difference of opinion: You're an
imperialist, and Eric isn't.
All sorts of people think that pre-emptive war is a bad idea, even
some imperialists.
IIRC, it's even against international law, at least since the early
19th century.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "vinpo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 05:50:21 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc942.1g4sp4e198nzalN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch08ra$vlk$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo
<vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
[..]
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world, especially
after all the good feelings towards the US abroad after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
Me too.
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat is not
the right thing.
Ever.
iyo. at least we can define the difference of opinion
Here's the definition of this difference of opinion: You're an
imperialist, and Eric isn't.
rubbish.
i believe in being pro-active. eric doesn't
whit
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 06:04:06 PM |
|
|
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc942.1g4sp4e198nzalN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch08ra$vlk$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
[..]
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world,
especially after all the good feelings towards the US abroad
after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
Me too.
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat is
not the right thing.
Ever.
iyo. at least we can define the difference of opinion
Here's the definition of this difference of opinion: You're an
imperialist, and Eric isn't.
rubbish.
Not in the least.
i believe in being pro-active.
That's not what you said above. You implied that a 'pre-emptive'
invasion against a nation that posed no threat can sometimes be the
right thing. Or do you share Eric's opinion on the matter?
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "vinpo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
30 Aug 2004 06:23:32 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc9r5.13k0mdo3mo777N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc942.1g4sp4e198nzalN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch08ra$vlk$1@drizzle.com...
In article <Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
[..]
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world,
especially after all the good feelings towards the US abroad
after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
Me too.
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat is
not the right thing.
Ever.
iyo. at least we can define the difference of opinion
Here's the definition of this difference of opinion: You're an
imperialist, and Eric isn't.
rubbish.
Not in the least.
i believe in being pro-active.
That's not what you said above. You implied that a 'pre-emptive'
invasion against a nation that posed no threat can sometimes be the
right thing. Or do you share Eric's opinion on the matter?
first of all, i said i disagreed with the notion of "no threat"
second of all, based on the totality of the circumstances it can be, and was
justified.
just as kerry believe(s), and elie weisel, and lieberman, and hillary
hth
whit
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
31 Aug 2004 04:40:29 AM |
|
|
In article <UFOYc.3059$w%6.2449@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc9r5.13k0mdo3mo777N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc942.1g4sp4e198nzalN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch08ra$vlk$1@drizzle.com...
In article
<Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
[..]
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world,
especially after all the good feelings towards the US abroad
after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
Me too.
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat is
not the right thing.
Ever.
iyo. at least we can define the difference of opinion
Here's the definition of this difference of opinion: You're an
imperialist, and Eric isn't.
rubbish.
Not in the least.
i believe in being pro-active.
That's not what you said above. You implied that a 'pre-emptive'
invasion against a nation that posed no threat can sometimes be the
right thing. Or do you share Eric's opinion on the matter?
first of all, i said i disagreed with the notion of "no threat"
second of all, based on the totality of the circumstances it can be, and
was
justified.
How?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thean" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
31 Aug 2004 09:42:56 AM |
|
|
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:ch1v21$f72$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <UFOYc.3059$w%6.2449@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc9r5.13k0mdo3mo777N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc942.1g4sp4e198nzalN%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch08ra$vlk$1@drizzle.com...
In article
<Q3NYc.3035$8d1.1436@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric da Red <bergamot@drizzle.com> wrote in message
news:ch0616$758$1@drizzle.com...
[..]
It's no small achievement to alienate most of the world,
especially after all the good feelings towards the US abroad
after 9/11/01.
imo, doing the right thing (tm) is more important.
Me too.
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat
is
not the right thing.
Ever.
iyo. at least we can define the difference of opinion
Here's the definition of this difference of opinion: You're an
imperialist, and Eric isn't.
rubbish.
Not in the least.
i believe in being pro-active.
That's not what you said above. You implied that a 'pre-emptive'
invasion against a nation that posed no threat can sometimes be the
right thing. Or do you share Eric's opinion on the matter?
first of all, i said i disagreed with the notion of "no threat"
second of all, based on the totality of the circumstances it can be, and
was
justified.
How?
check deja/google.
i've gone over this at least a halfdozen times.
it's been well over a year, for petes' sake
intelligent, caring, compassionate, patriotic people can and do disagree on
whether it was justified.
kerry, who voted to authorize the invasion gave tacit ratification for same,
of course
whit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
31 Aug 2004 02:29:14 PM |
|
|
Thean <thea@home.net> wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu> wrote in message
news:ch1v21$f72$11@puck.cc.emory.edu...
In article <UFOYc.3059$w%6.2449@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"vinpo" <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
[..]
second of all, based on the totality of the circumstances [the Iraq
invasion] can be, and was justified.
How?
check deja/google.
How will Lloyd know what user name to search for? :-)
i've gone over this at least a halfdozen times.
it's been well over a year, for petes' sake
intelligent, caring, compassionate, patriotic people can and do disagree
on whether it was justified.
kerry, who voted to authorize the invasion gave tacit ratification for
same, of course
Again: Kerry didn't authorize the invasion, he authorized the use of
force, which was tacit ratification for same. You know you're spreading
lies, since you admit the ratification was 'tacit.'
--
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go
to war." - GWB, Houston Chronicle, January 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Capn_TrVth" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
31 Aug 2004 04:51:30 PM |
|
|
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message:
"Ba-GAAWK-BAWK buk-buk-buk-bawk!!."
You make a fine Miss Prissy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric da Red" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings |
31 Aug 2004 01:31:11 PM |
|
|
In article <UFOYc.3059$w%6.2449@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote in message
news:1gjc9r5.13k0mdo3mo777N%usenet@mile23.c0m...
vinpo <vinpo@earthlink.net> wrote:
[..]
A "pre-emptive" invasion against a nation that posed no threat is
not the right thing.
Ever.
iyo. at least we can define the difference of opinion
Here's the definition of this difference of opinion: You're an
imperialist, and Eric isn't.
rubbish.
Not in the least.
i believe in being pro-active.
That's not what you said above. You implied that a 'pre-emptive'
invasion against a nation that posed no threat can sometimes be the
right thing. Or do you share Eric's opinion on the matter?
first of all, i said i disagreed with the notion of "no threat"
You then have to explain how a nation with a dismantled military and
a shaky economy was a sufficiently strong threat that military
invasion was the best available option.
Other nations were more of a threat to US well-being. Pakistan, for
instance, who had given considerable succor to al-Qaida and was busy
proliferating technology for nuclear weapons.
Then there are those two nations, both nuclear powers themselves,
who subsidize a commercial airline manufacturer in direct
competition to our beloved Boeing. There's a real threat for ya.
Maybe we should have invaded France.
second of all, based on the totality of the circumstances it can be, and was
justified.
Feel free to try.
just as kerry believe(s), and elie weisel, and lieberman, and hillary
Since you invoked the Argument From Authority, I'll remind you in
the future that you regard Hillary Clinton as an Authority.
--
Quote Of The Week: "We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up
and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a
challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism."
-- John Kerry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
