Veterans of Foreign Wars

Religions > Atheism > Veterans of Foreign Wars

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 8

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"dapra"
Date:	20 Aug 2007 09:00:03 PM
Object:	Veterans of Foreign Wars

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".
Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign countries
is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation are called
"defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed to the
Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).
The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits,
that would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they
would be seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.
.

User: "The Cunning Linguist"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	20 Aug 2007 09:54:51 PM

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cmdnVSA2O-k1VfbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com...

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".

Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign countries
is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation are called
"defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed to the
Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).

The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits, that
would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they would be
seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.

It's called slapping your snot locker. If I know Bob and his kin don't like
me and I find they are going to do bad things to my family then I send my
kin and beat them to the punch. What you are referencing is the Neville
Chamberlain approach and it don't work. This is a rough world and, believe
it or not, there are bad people out there. Yes, that's right and they don't
like us. I know, I know it's a shock to hear someone tell you that there
are people who really, really don't like us.. And guess what? You can't
sit down around the campfire with them singing Kumbaya to make things
better. Perhaps, you ought to have someone slap your snot locker.
.

User: "JoeC"
Title: Hello...l	01 Sep 2007 02:48:18 PM

I have seen your posts and it is good to get some allies against the
group think of the blogs. I think there is a concerted effort to remove
conservative thought from the web. I have made point after point how
and why I disagree with US defeat. I have said that the terrorists are
the aggressors with the objective of imposing a religon that makes any
mainstream conservitiave religon look like Romper Room. Still they
offer minimal debate. Usually, they post some some sided article and
and call you stupid or other names if you disagree. It comes to the
point when any thinking person will not subject themselves to insults
and bullying just because they express their opinion. They have chased
off those who want debate and left the bottom of the barrel of the right
using the same tactic back name calling and bad language. Yes, it is
fun to call names at times, I succumb to the temptation.
There are topics I want to discuss, such as what individuals think about
the Republican candidates. How republicans see the party and what their
frustrations are. Yes, I hear stories what a poll says, but I never
have been polled and would like to know what others thing.
I talk to real people who have political views and most of them are
thinking even the ones that I disagree. I often wonder if this is a
result of the millions that George Soros has spent to buy the web. It
is well known that he has funded many sites that spread his agenda and
if we are debating his bought and paid for surrogates. Also I can tell
by the activity of some posters they are professionals posters. In
other words they have other income such as retirement and they just post
for a majority of their day.
It would be an effective strategy because the internet is a powerful way
to share ideas and would be a huge political gain to dominate this
medium of communication. I do analyst in addition to linguist work. I
do value the thoughts of linguists because of the experiences they have.
You are right, there are forces that are aggressors against the US.
I have a good article I can post about public opinion and war aims:
I needed therapy after the responses I got because I did not know there
so many committed leftest there were and how blind they are to evidence
they don't like.
During last week's two-day summit, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
thanked President Bush for leading the global war on terror. Mr. Brown
acknowledged "the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in
this fight against international terrorism" and vowed to follow Winston
Churchill's lead and make Britain's ties with America even stronger.
Mr. Brown's statements elicited anger from many of Mr. Bush's domestic
detractors, who claim the president concocted the war on terror for
personal gain. But as someone who escaped from communist Romania -- with
two death sentences on his head -- in order to become a citizen of this
great country, I have a hard time understanding why some of our top
political leaders can dare in a time of war to call our commander in
chief a "liar," a "deceiver" and a "fraud."
[Propaganda Redux]
I spent decades scrutinizing the U.S. from Europe, and I learned that
international respect for America is directly proportional to America's
own respect for its president.
My father spent most of his life working for General Motors in Romania
and had a picture of President Truman in our house in Bucharest. While
"America" was a vague place somewhere thousands of miles away, he was
her tangible symbol. For us, it was he who had helped save civilization
from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom
after the war -- if only for a brief while. We learned that America
loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.
Later, when I headed Romania's intelligence station in West Germany,
everyone there admired America too. People would often tell me that the
"Amis" meant the difference between night and day in their lives. By
"night" they meant East Germany, where their former compatriots were
scraping along under economic privation and Stasi brutality. That was then.
But in September 2002, a German cabinet minister, Herta Dauebler-Gmelin,
had the nerve to compare Mr. Bush to Hitler. In one post-Iraq-war poll
40% of Canada's teenagers called the U.S. "evil," and even before the
fall of Saddam 57% of Greeks answered "neither" when asked which country
was more democratic, the U.S. or Iraq.
Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American
president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence
community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same
strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point
out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no
matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler
-- as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they
asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did
everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.
The communist effort to generate hatred for the American president began
soon after President Truman set up NATO and propelled the three Western
occupation forces to unite their zones to form a new West German nation.
We were tasked to take advantage of the reawakened patriotic feelings
stirring in the European countries that had been subjugated by the
Nazis, in order to shift their hatred for Hitler over into hatred for
Truman -- the leader of the new "occupation power." Western Europe was
still grateful to the U.S. for having restored its freedom, but it had
strong leftist movements that we secretly financed. They were like putty
in our hands.
The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy,
and we gave them one. In no time they began beating their drums decrying
President Truman as the "butcher of Hiroshima." We went on to spend many
years and many billions of dollars disparaging subsequent presidents:
Eisenhower as a war-mongering "shark" run by the military-industrial
complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who had bumped off his predecessor,
Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy
Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer. In 1978, when I left Romania for
good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million
signatures on a "Yankees-Go-Home" petition, at the same time launching
the slogan "Europe for the Europeans."
During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world,
pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian
soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human
genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those
weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans
ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the
enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against
the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than
holiness.
The final goal of our anti-American offensive was to discourage the U.S.
from protecting the world against communist terrorism and expansion.
Sadly, we succeeded. After U.S. forces precipitously pulled out of
Vietnam, the victorious communists massacred some two million people in
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Another million tried to escape, but many
died in the attempt. This tragedy also created a credibility gap between
America and the rest of the world, damaged the cohesion of American
foreign policy, and poisoned domestic debate in the U.S.
Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet
playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush
critics continued our mud-slinging at America's commander in chief. One
speaker, Martin O'Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the
summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush
administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired
four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce
the American commander in chief as a "deserter." And visitors to the
national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat
depicting the American president surrounded by the words, "Give Bush the
Boot."
Competition is indeed the engine that has driven the American dream
forward, but unity in time of war has made America the leader of the
world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans died to defeat Nazism, but
their country of immigrants remained sturdily united. The U.S. held
national elections during the war, but those running for office
entertained no thought of damaging America's international prestige in
their quest for personal victory. Republican challenger Thomas Dewey
declined to criticize President Roosevelt's war policy. At the end of
that war, a united America rebuilt its vanquished enemies. It took seven
years to turn Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into democracies, but that
effort generated an unprecedented technological explosion and 50 years
of unmatched prosperity for us all.
Now we are again at war. It is not the president's war. It is America's
war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to
join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should
handle this war, and they don't know either. But I do know that if
America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as
they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism
will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: "We
fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after
there in the West."
On July 28, I celebrated 29 years since President Carter signed off on
my request for political asylum, and I am still tremendously proud that
the leader of the Free World granted me my freedom. During these years I
have lived here under five presidents -- some better than others -- but
I have always felt that I was living in paradise. My American
citizenship has given me a feeling of pride, hope and security that is
surpassed only by the joy of simply being alive. There are millions of
other immigrants who are equally proud that they restarted their lives
from scratch in order to be in this magnanimous country. I appeal to
them to help keep our beloved America united and honorable. We may not
be able to change the habits of our current political representatives,
but we may be able to introduce healthy new blood into the U.S. Congress.
For once, the communists got it right. It is America's leader that
counts. Let's return to the traditions of presidents who accepted
nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies. Let's
vote next year for people who believe in America's future, not for the
ones who live in the Cold War past.
Lt. Gen. Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to
have defected from the Soviet bloc. His new book, "Programmed to Kill:
Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination" (Ivan
R. Dee) will be published in November.
.

User: "raven1"
Title: Re: Hello...l	02 Sep 2007 04:11:12 AM

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:48:18 -0500, JoeC <ncoic@us.army.mil> wrote:

I have seen your posts and it is good to get some allies against the
group think of the blogs. I think there is a concerted effort to remove
conservative thought from the web.

"Conservative thought". Now *there's* something that hasn't been tried
in a while...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Hello...l	01 Sep 2007 10:45:08 PM

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:48:18 -0500, JoeC <ncoic@us.army.mil> wrote:

Lt. Gen. Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence official ever to
have defected from the Soviet bloc.

People who post the ramblings of know-nothing morons aren't too
intelligent themselves.
.

User: "dapra"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	20 Aug 2007 10:38:32 PM

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cmdnVSA2O-k1VfbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com...

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".

Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign countries
is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation are called
"defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed to the
Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).

The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits, that
would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they would be
seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of
rag tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.
Germany was the leading industrial, scientific power house at the time.
Not for many scientists emigrating to the US, they would certainly got
the H-bomb before the US.
Of course there are 1.2 billion Muslims, so Bush with occupying a Muslim
country, kidnapping, torturing them, he has a good chance to extend the
'war on terror' for ever.
Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.
.

User: "The Cunning Linguist"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 10:06:49 AM

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3cGdnRWLCd_SwlfbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cmdnVSA2O-k1VfbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com...

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".

Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign countries
is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation are called
"defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed to the
Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).

The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits, that
would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they would
be seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.

It's called slapping your snot locker. If I know Bob and his kin don't
like me and I find they are going to do bad things to my family then I
send my kin and beat them to the punch. What you are referencing is the
Neville Chamberlain approach and it don't work. This is a rough world
and, believe it or not, there are bad people out there. Yes, that's
right and they don't like us. I know, I know it's a shock to hear
someone tell you that there are people who really, really don't like us..
And guess what? You can't sit down around the campfire with them singing
Kumbaya to make things better. Perhaps, you ought to have someone slap
your snot locker.

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of rag
tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.

I never compared Nazi Germmany to anything. Obviously, you take what is
written and change it to fit your personal prejudice (and your prejudice is
obvious).

Germany was the leading industrial, scientific power house at the time.
Not for many scientists emigrating to the US, they would certainly got the
H-bomb before the US.

Of course there are 1.2 billion Muslims, so Bush with occupying a Muslim
country, kidnapping, torturing them, he has a good chance to extend the
'war on terror' for ever.

Bush can occupy the White House but hardly could he, or anyone, occupy an
entire country, However, I assume you are referring to Iraq. I didn't know
the population of Iraq was 1.2 billion?

Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.

I didn't bring up Chamberlain, I referred to his type of diplomacy. BTW,
I'm well aware what's behind the reason for the war on terror but, it's
obvious you basing your opinion upon your preconceived conclusions.

User: "dapra"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	22 Aug 2007 12:17:19 PM

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3cGdnRWLCd_SwlfbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cmdnVSA2O-k1VfbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com...

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".

Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign countries
is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation are called
"defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed to the
Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).

The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits, that
would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they would
be seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.

It's called slapping your snot locker. If I know Bob and his kin don't
like me and I find they are going to do bad things to my family then I
send my kin and beat them to the punch. What you are referencing is the
Neville Chamberlain approach and it don't work. This is a rough world
and, believe it or not, there are bad people out there. Yes, that's
right and they don't like us. I know, I know it's a shock to hear
someone tell you that there are people who really, really don't like us..
And guess what? You can't sit down around the campfire with them singing
Kumbaya to make things better. Perhaps, you ought to have someone slap
your snot locker.

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of rag
tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.

I never compared Nazi Germmany to anything. Obviously, you take what is
written and change it to fit your personal prejudice (and your prejudice is
obvious).

Oh, you, innocent one!? You have no idea what the name of Chamberlain
connotes in the public's mind.

Bush can occupy the White House but hardly could he, or anyone, occupy an
entire country, However, I assume you are referring to Iraq. I didn't know
the population of Iraq was 1.2 billion?

Bush doesn't occupy the WH either, just a small part of it, if you want
to be literal (and stupid). But he ordered the US military to occupy
Iraq. The same sophistry applies to your 1.2 billion rebut, though your
sophistry lacks reasoning, thereby it's a complement to call it sophistry.

Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.

"preconceived conclusions"? No. The facts.
* We found no WMD's, but we, Bush established numerous military bases.
* We found no AQ connections to Saddam, but we, Bush were successful of
establishing new training ground for terrorists. It's not a small
achievement for Bush, since he is not working for bin Laden, though it
seems so.
* We funded no democracy, but chaos. And the initial goal of
establishing a neo liberal economy, a colonial exploitation fizzled out
after Bremer's orders became meaningless.
.

User: "The Cunning Linguist"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	22 Aug 2007 03:01:49 PM

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06ednYJlE-P98lHbnZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3cGdnRWLCd_SwlfbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cmdnVSA2O-k1VfbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com...

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".

Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign
countries is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation
are called "defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed
to the Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).

The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits,
that would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they
would be seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.

It's called slapping your snot locker. If I know Bob and his kin don't
like me and I find they are going to do bad things to my family then I
send my kin and beat them to the punch. What you are referencing is the
Neville Chamberlain approach and it don't work. This is a rough world
and, believe it or not, there are bad people out there. Yes, that's
right and they don't like us. I know, I know it's a shock to hear
someone tell you that there are people who really, really don't like
us.. And guess what? You can't sit down around the campfire with them
singing Kumbaya to make things better. Perhaps, you ought to have
someone slap your snot locker.

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of rag
tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.

I never compared Nazi Germmany to anything. Obviously, you take what is
written and change it to fit your personal prejudice (and your prejudice
is obvious).

Oh, you, innocent one!? You have no idea what the name of Chamberlain
connotes in the public's mind.

Everyone I've ever talked to links Chamberlain with the shortsighted belief
that talking peace with Germany would bring about a peaceful compromise with
Germany. The term 'Neville Chamberlain' is synonomous with the naive
liberal thought that we can all get along.
What do you think would have happened in Bosnia had no one intervened?

Germany was the leading industrial, scientific power house at the time.
Not for many scientists emigrating to the US, they would certainly got
the H-bomb before the US.

Of course there are 1.2 billion Muslims, so Bush with occupying a Muslim
country, kidnapping, torturing them, he has a good chance to extend the
'war on terror' for ever.

Bush can occupy the White House but hardly could he, or anyone, occupy an
entire country, However, I assume you are referring to Iraq. I didn't
know the population of Iraq was 1.2 billion?

Bush doesn't occupy the WH either, just a small part of it, if you want to
be literal (and stupid). But he ordered the US military to occupy Iraq.
The same sophistry applies to your 1.2 billion rebut, though your
sophistry lacks reasoning, thereby it's a complement to call it sophistry.

Hey, I did the best I could with your incoherent post.

Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.

I didn't bring up Chamberlain, I referred to his type of diplomacy.
BTW, I'm well aware what's behind the reason for the war on terror but,
it's obvious you basing your opinion upon your preconceived conclusions.

"preconceived conclusions"? No. The facts.

* We found no WMD's, but we, Bush established numerous military bases.

There were many who also believed there were WMDs in Iraq.

* We found no AQ connections to Saddam, but we, Bush were successful of
establishing new training ground for terrorists. It's not a small
achievement for Bush, since he is not working for bin Laden, though it
seems so.

* We funded no democracy, but chaos. And the initial goal of establishing
a neo liberal economy, a colonial exploitation fizzled out after Bremer's
orders became meaningless.

Here, I'll sort of agree with you. There are many countries ruled by
dictators who should be eliminated. However, the best chance for a
successful transition to a free society is for that countries own people to
do the deed.
Looks like we have made numerous mistakes in Iraq but the present problem is
how to let go of the tigers tail without getting bit.
.

User: "Free Lunch"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	22 Aug 2007 03:11:28 PM

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:01:49 GMT, in alt.atheism
"The Cunning Linguist" <thinhthi@pacbell.net> wrote in
<NC0zi.50372$YL5.28852@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06ednYJlE-P98lHbnZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3cGdnRWLCd_SwlfbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com...

....

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of rag
tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.

I never compared Nazi Germmany to anything. Obviously, you take what is
written and change it to fit your personal prejudice (and your prejudice
is obvious).

Oh, you, innocent one!? You have no idea what the name of Chamberlain
connotes in the public's mind.

It's not as if Chamberlain actually had any way of stopping Hitler when
he went to Munich.

What do you think would have happened in Bosnia had no one intervened?

The same thing that was happening when no one was intervening.
....

Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.

I didn't bring up Chamberlain, I referred to his type of diplomacy.
BTW, I'm well aware what's behind the reason for the war on terror but,
it's obvious you basing your opinion upon your preconceived conclusions.

"preconceived conclusions"? No. The facts.

* We found no WMD's, but we, Bush established numerous military bases.

There were many who also believed there were WMDs in Iraq.

That is why there were inspectors in Iraq trying to verify whether
Saddam had them or not. Bush's behavior tells us that he didn't want to
find out that none existed so he decided to attack before the
inspections were done.

Here, I'll sort of agree with you. There are many countries ruled by
dictators who should be eliminated. However, the best chance for a
successful transition to a free society is for that countries own people to
do the deed.

Looks like we have made numerous mistakes in Iraq but the present problem is
how to let go of the tigers tail without getting bit.

Assuming that we can kick the problem down the road is very likely to
make it worse. Pulling out immediately is a bad idea, hanging on longer
is a catastrophic idea. There are no good choices left. Bush made sure
of that.
.

User: "The Cunning Linguist"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	22 Aug 2007 04:07:56 PM

"Free Lunch" <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ap5pc3pdrrv2ju3a3vburgqa6jicmrhm84@4ax.com...

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:01:49 GMT, in alt.atheism
"The Cunning Linguist" <thinhthi@pacbell.net> wrote in
<NC0zi.50372$YL5.28852@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06ednYJlE-P98lHbnZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3cGdnRWLCd_SwlfbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com...

...

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of
rag
tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.

I never compared Nazi Germmany to anything. Obviously, you take what
is
written and change it to fit your personal prejudice (and your
prejudice
is obvious).

Oh, you, innocent one!? You have no idea what the name of Chamberlain
connotes in the public's mind.

Everyone I've ever talked to links Chamberlain with the shortsighted
belief
that talking peace with Germany would bring about a peaceful compromise
with
Germany. The term 'Neville Chamberlain' is synonomous with the naive
liberal thought that we can all get along.

It's not as if Chamberlain actually had any way of stopping Hitler when
he went to Munich.

It's about understanding the problem and evaluating it based upon yours and
your opposition's goals, not wishful thinking. I'm sure Chamberlain did
what he did out of good intentions but circumstances were staring him in the
face and he should have been able to see it coming.

What do you think would have happened in Bosnia had no one intervened?

The same thing that was happening when no one was intervening.

Wow, you are short sighted. The Europeans thought the same thing in 1914.

...

Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.

I didn't bring up Chamberlain, I referred to his type of diplomacy.
BTW, I'm well aware what's behind the reason for the war on terror but,
it's obvious you basing your opinion upon your preconceived
conclusions.

"preconceived conclusions"? No. The facts.

* We found no WMD's, but we, Bush established numerous military bases.

There were many who also believed there were WMDs in Iraq.

People in Congress had the same info and they agreed with Bush.

* We found no AQ connections to Saddam, but we, Bush were successful of
establishing new training ground for terrorists. It's not a small
achievement for Bush, since he is not working for bin Laden, though it
seems so.

* We funded no democracy, but chaos. And the initial goal of
establishing
a neo liberal economy, a colonial exploitation fizzled out after
Bremer's
orders became meaningless.

Here, I'll sort of agree with you. There are many countries ruled by
dictators who should be eliminated. However, the best chance for a
successful transition to a free society is for that countries own people
to
do the deed.

Looks like we have made numerous mistakes in Iraq but the present problem
is
how to let go of the tigers tail without getting bit.

User: "dapra"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	22 Aug 2007 11:14:42 PM

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06ednYJlE-P98lHbnZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...

[...]

Oh, you, innocent one!? You have no idea what the name of Chamberlain
connotes in the public's mind.

Chamberlain's name, appeasement is also used by right wingers against
any perceived enemies no matter how inferior, or benign they are
compared to Nazi Germany. Its the right wingers slogan for military
aggression, taking Chamberlain's name out of any historical context,
using it as a battle cry to go to war.

What do you think would have happened in Bosnia had no one intervened?

User: "The Cunning Linguist"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	22 Aug 2007 11:40:00 PM

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:stydnZk7xYjolFDbnZ2dnUVZ_v2unZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06ednYJlE-P98lHbnZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...

[...]

Oh, you, innocent one!? You have no idea what the name of Chamberlain
connotes in the public's mind.

Everyone I've ever talked to links Chamberlain with the shortsighted
belief that talking peace with Germany would bring about a peaceful
compromise with Germany. The term 'Neville Chamberlain' is synonomous
with the naive liberal thought that we can all get along.

Chamberlain's name, appeasement is also used by right wingers against any
perceived enemies no matter how inferior, or benign they are compared to
Nazi Germany. Its the right wingers slogan for military aggression, taking
Chamberlain's name out of any historical context, using it as a battle cry
to go to war.

However, I didn't use it in that light. You seem to have a problem with
reading everything to fit your view. Of course, most lefties see a neocon
conspiracy in everyone who don't follow their ideological thought. You
don't have to justify yourself to me. I spent 27 years defending this
country in order to allow people like you the right to be left winger
American haters. This is America nad ain't it great? You ought to run
right out and thank a service person.

What do you think would have happened in Bosnia had no one intervened?

User: "dapra"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	23 Aug 2007 12:08:58 AM

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:stydnZk7xYjolFDbnZ2dnUVZ_v2unZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06ednYJlE-P98lHbnZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...

[...]

Oh, you, innocent one!? You have no idea what the name of Chamberlain
connotes in the public's mind.

Everyone I've ever talked to links Chamberlain with the shortsighted
belief that talking peace with Germany would bring about a peaceful
compromise with Germany. The term 'Neville Chamberlain' is synonomous
with the naive liberal thought that we can all get along.

Chamberlain's name, appeasement is also used by right wingers against any
perceived enemies no matter how inferior, or benign they are compared to
Nazi Germany. Its the right wingers slogan for military aggression, taking
Chamberlain's name out of any historical context, using it as a battle cry
to go to war.

You did not defend the country for 27 years if you can't differentiate
between America, what it stands for, and the US government. You must
have been just a mercenary, sold your soul to the ruling class, execute
their orders.
Serving any cause is not an honor, serving the right one is.
.

User: "The Cunning Linguist"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	23 Aug 2007 10:01:30 AM

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lcSdnWYIGpexi1DbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:stydnZk7xYjolFDbnZ2dnUVZ_v2unZ2d@comcast.com...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:06ednYJlE-P98lHbnZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...

[...]

Oh, you, innocent one!? You have no idea what the name of Chamberlain
connotes in the public's mind.

Everyone I've ever talked to links Chamberlain with the shortsighted
belief that talking peace with Germany would bring about a peaceful
compromise with Germany. The term 'Neville Chamberlain' is synonomous
with the naive liberal thought that we can all get along.

Chamberlain's name, appeasement is also used by right wingers against any
perceived enemies no matter how inferior, or benign they are compared to
Nazi Germany. Its the right wingers slogan for military aggression,
taking Chamberlain's name out of any historical context, using it as a
battle cry to go to war.

However, I didn't use it in that light. You seem to have a problem with
reading everything to fit your view. Of course, most lefties see a
neocon conspiracy in everyone who don't follow their ideological thought.
You don't have to justify yourself to me. I spent 27 years defending
this country in order to allow people like you the right to be left
winger American haters. This is America nad ain't it great? You ought
to run right out and thank a service person.

You did not defend the country for 27 years if you can't differentiate
between America, what it stands for, and the US government. You must have
been just a mercenary, sold your soul to the ruling class, execute their
orders.

Serving any cause is not an honor, serving the right one is.

From the tone of your posts, I would conclude you have difficulty
determining good from reality. It's a tough world and at times "good" can
be a relative concept.
.

User: "Sanders Kaufman"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	23 Aug 2007 07:35:40 PM

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

Serving any cause is not an honor, serving the right one is.

From the tone of your posts, I would conclude you have difficulty
determining good from reality.

From the words of your posts, I conclude that you think "good" and
"real" are mutually exclusive concepts.

It's a tough world and at times "good" can
be a relative concept.

User: "The Cunning Linguist"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	23 Aug 2007 07:56:45 PM

"Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:yJpzi.5194$i75.4818@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

Serving any cause is not an honor, serving the right one is.

From the tone of your posts, I would conclude you have difficulty
determining good from reality.

From the words of your posts, I conclude that you think "good" and "real"
are mutually exclusive concepts.

It's good to trust everyone but hardly realistic.

It's a tough world and at times "good" can
be a relative concept.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 12:33:19 AM

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:38:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , dapra
<dapra1@comcast.net> in <3cGdnRWLCd_SwlfbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cmdnVSA2O-k1VfbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com...

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".

Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign countries
is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation are called
"defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed to the
Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).

The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits, that
would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they would be
seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of
rag tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.

Germany was the leading industrial, scientific power house at the time.
Not for many scientists emigrating to the US, they would certainly got
the H-bomb before the US.

Of course there are 1.2 billion Muslims, so Bush with occupying a Muslim
country, kidnapping, torturing them, he has a good chance to extend the
'war on terror' for ever.

Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.

The principle of having bases is not necessarily unreasonable. And
appeasement is, in general, a bad idea. That said, fighting really
stupid wars against the wrong enemy and doing it badly is far worse
than appeasement.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "The Cunning Linguist"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 10:12:15 AM

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:86ukc3hdp6dpl423atcg488etdvm53u15b@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:38:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , dapra
<dapra1@comcast.net> in <3cGdnRWLCd_SwlfbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cmdnVSA2O-k1VfbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com...

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".

Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign countries
is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation are called
"defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed to the
Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).

The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits,
that
would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they would
be
seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.

It's called slapping your snot locker. If I know Bob and his kin don't
like
me and I find they are going to do bad things to my family then I send
my
kin and beat them to the punch. What you are referencing is the Neville
Chamberlain approach and it don't work. This is a rough world and,
believe
it or not, there are bad people out there. Yes, that's right and they
don't
like us. I know, I know it's a shock to hear someone tell you that
there
are people who really, really don't like us.. And guess what? You
can't
sit down around the campfire with them singing Kumbaya to make things
better. Perhaps, you ought to have someone slap your snot locker.

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of
rag tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.

Germany was the leading industrial, scientific power house at the time.
Not for many scientists emigrating to the US, they would certainly got
the H-bomb before the US.

Of course there are 1.2 billion Muslims, so Bush with occupying a Muslim
country, kidnapping, torturing them, he has a good chance to extend the
'war on terror' for ever.

Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.

The poster could have abreviated his post by simply stating, "I hate Bush".

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 11:55:20 AM

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:12:15 -0700, in alt.atheism , "The Cunning
Linguist" <thinhthi@pacbell.net> in
<mhDyi.648$YQ.588@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:86ukc3hdp6dpl423atcg488etdvm53u15b@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:38:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , dapra
<dapra1@comcast.net> in <3cGdnRWLCd_SwlfbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cmdnVSA2O-k1VfbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com...

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".

Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign countries
is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation are called
"defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed to the
Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).

The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits,
that
would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they would
be
seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.

It's called slapping your snot locker. If I know Bob and his kin don't
like
me and I find they are going to do bad things to my family then I send
my
kin and beat them to the punch. What you are referencing is the Neville
Chamberlain approach and it don't work. This is a rough world and,
believe
it or not, there are bad people out there. Yes, that's right and they
don't
like us. I know, I know it's a shock to hear someone tell you that
there
are people who really, really don't like us.. And guess what? You
can't
sit down around the campfire with them singing Kumbaya to make things
better. Perhaps, you ought to have someone slap your snot locker.

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of
rag tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.

Germany was the leading industrial, scientific power house at the time.
Not for many scientists emigrating to the US, they would certainly got
the H-bomb before the US.

Of course there are 1.2 billion Muslims, so Bush with occupying a Muslim
country, kidnapping, torturing them, he has a good chance to extend the
'war on terror' for ever.

Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.

The poster could have abreviated his post by simply stating, "I hate Bush".

But providing reasons provided more value. You don't seem to disagree
with the reasons, so do you hate Shrub for what he has done? If not,
why not?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "redc1c4"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 11:02:01 AM

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:86ukc3hdp6dpl423atcg488etdvm53u15b@4ax.com...

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:38:32 -0400, in alt.atheism , dapra
<dapra1@comcast.net> in <3cGdnRWLCd_SwlfbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@comcast.com>
wrote:

The Cunning Linguist wrote:

"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9cmdnVSA2O-k1VfbnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@comcast.com...

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton spoke today at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
convention. Though, they differed on Iraq somewhat, both advocated a
militaristic, aggressive foreign policy. They called it "defense".

Since when, maintaining close to 200 military bases in foreign countries
is called "defense"? Waging aggressive wars and occupation are called
"defense"? I'd guess since the Department of War was renamed to the
Department of Defense (August 10, 1949).

The Orwellian language has a long history in the US. Bush & Co just
tremendously improved on it. They have taken it to the upper limits,
that
would embarrass any of the previous totalitarian regimes, as they would
be
seen incompetent comparing to Bush & Co.

It's called slapping your snot locker. If I know Bob and his kin don't
like
me and I find they are going to do bad things to my family then I send
my
kin and beat them to the punch. What you are referencing is the Neville
Chamberlain approach and it don't work. This is a rough world and,
believe
it or not, there are bad people out there. Yes, that's right and they
don't
like us. I know, I know it's a shock to hear someone tell you that
there
are people who really, really don't like us.. And guess what? You
can't
sit down around the campfire with them singing Kumbaya to make things
better. Perhaps, you ought to have someone slap your snot locker.

That's cute. You compare Nazi Germany to a few hundreds, thousands of
rag tag jihadest? It's an astonishing lack of education of history.

Germany was the leading industrial, scientific power house at the time.
Not for many scientists emigrating to the US, they would certainly got
the H-bomb before the US.

Of course there are 1.2 billion Muslims, so Bush with occupying a Muslim
country, kidnapping, torturing them, he has a good chance to extend the
'war on terror' for ever.

Instead of bringing up Chamberlain. You should understand what's behind
the 'war on terror'. Clue; military, imperial aggression, oil.

The poster could have abreviated his post by simply stating, "I hate Bush".

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....
redc1c4,
what exactly *is* there to save in Darfur? %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 11:56:02 AM

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB0C79.5812FFD7@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
[snip]

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....

Your ignorance of my activities is noted.

what exactly *is* there to save in Darfur? %-)

People, not that you care about them.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Tankfixer"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 10:13:18 PM

In article <886mc31c2ql6hijevuqml7aah54k7fdnm2@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB0C79.5812FFD7@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

[snip]

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....

Your ignorance of my activities is noted.

what exactly *is* there to save in Darfur? %-)

People, not that you care about them.

Then vote with your feet and go save them.

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.

User: "redc1c4"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 01:06:29 PM

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB0C79.5812FFD7@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

[snip]

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....

Your ignorance of my activities is noted.

you're not in Darfur doing something, because you're here on Usenet.
if you were there you ought to be busy, & most likely, out of the net anyway.

what exactly *is* there to save in Darfur? %-)

People, not that you care about them.

why are they any more important than people suffering elsewhere?
what pressing national interest is served by spending our finite resources
on them? how do we decide who we're going to save, and what, when, and where
we're going to get involved in the crisis de jour? if we do get involved
somewhere where violence is occurring, (like Darfur), how many American lives
are we willing to loose before the same people demanding we get involved
demand we get out?
if we intervene in Darfur, how exactly are we going to do it, and how
are we going to logistically support it?
redc1c4,
you have no answers, only hand waving & histrionics.
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 01:29:32 PM

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:06:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB29A5.658429F4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB0C79.5812FFD7@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

[snip]

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....

Your ignorance of my activities is noted.

you're not in Darfur doing something, because you're here on Usenet.
if you were there you ought to be busy, & most likely, out of the net anyway.

So since you are not in Iraq you don't care about Iraq. Since you are
not in X, for almost every value of X, you don't care about X.

what exactly *is* there to save in Darfur? %-)

People, not that you care about them.

why are they any more important than people suffering elsewhere?

There are more suffering there than most places and for most of the
time I have been working for them few people knew or cared.

what pressing national interest is served by spending our finite resources
on them?

Stopping the Sudanese government, a supporter of al Qaeda. Showing we
care about something other than our current comfort.

how do we decide who we're going to save, and what, when, and where
we're going to get involved in the crisis de jour?

Do you want a bumper sticker sized answer or will you read more? I
mean, how is that the start of a discussion, especially given that you
are most just expressing personal hostility.

if we do get involved
somewhere where violence is occurring, (like Darfur), how many American lives
are we willing to loose before the same people demanding we get involved
demand we get out?

Do you need an exact number?

if we intervene in Darfur, how exactly are we going to do it, and how
are we going to logistically support it?

Did you ever get around to reading the links I give or is that too
much for you?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Eris"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 09:50:14 PM

On Aug 21, 2:29 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:06:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in

<46CB29A5.65842...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB0C79.5812F...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

[snip]

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....

Your ignorance of my activities is noted.

you're not in Darfur doing something, because you're here on Usenet.
if you were there you ought to be busy, & most likely, out of the net anyway.

So since you are not in Iraq you don't care about Iraq. Since you are
not in X, for almost every value of X, you don't care about X.

what exactly *is* there to save in Darfur? %-)

People, not that you care about them.

why are they any more important than people suffering elsewhere?

There are more suffering there than most places and for most of the
time I have been working for them few people knew or cared.

what pressing national interest is served by spending our finite resources
on them?

Stopping the Sudanese government, a supporter of al Qaeda. Showing we
care about something other than our current comfort.

how do we decide who we're going to save, and what, when, and where
we're going to get involved in the crisis de jour?

Do you want a bumper sticker sized answer or will you read more? I
mean, how is that the start of a discussion, especially given that you
are most just expressing personal hostility.

if we do get involved
somewhere where violence is occurring, (like Darfur), how many American lives
are we willing to loose before the same people demanding we get involved
demand we get out?

Do you need an exact number?

if we intervene in Darfur, how exactly are we going to do it, and how
are we going to logistically support it?

Did you ever get around to reading the links I give or is that too
much for you?
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

Isn't the Sudanese King the one who ***** slapped Condeleeza Rice
during her Official visit?
Is that where the Muslims rape and bite women on the neck so everyone
will know that they have been raped?
.

User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 08:36:09 PM

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:29:32 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:06:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB29A5.658429F4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB0C79.5812FFD7@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

[snip]

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....

Your ignorance of my activities is noted.

you're not in Darfur doing something, because you're here on Usenet.
if you were there you ought to be busy, & most likely, out of the net anyway.

So since you are not in Iraq you don't care about Iraq. Since you are
not in X, for almost every value of X, you don't care about X.

Well, since you want to play that game.
I served in Iraq - why aren't you in Darfur?
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.

User: "Billzz"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 09:16:30 PM

"Colin Campbell" <activated_95b@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:mm4nc319km0blpueko7haqkftjpr6mi3km@4ax.com...

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:29:32 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:06:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB29A5.658429F4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB0C79.5812FFD7@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

[snip]

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....

Your ignorance of my activities is noted.

you're not in Darfur doing something, because you're here on Usenet.
if you were there you ought to be busy, & most likely, out of the net
anyway.

So since you are not in Iraq you don't care about Iraq. Since you are
not in X, for almost every value of X, you don't care about X.

Well, since you want to play that game.

I served in Iraq - why aren't you in Darfur?

--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

I do not know why I am seeing this as I thought I had both Matt (whoever)
and Colin (whoever) in the plonk file. And the reason is obvious: the
incessant bickering. If you cannot say something that adds to the sum of
human knowledge, then don't answer the person. That's why I do not post
much. I have little to add, and I know it. So I spare senseless arguing
with people, which adds nothing.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 09:28:02 PM

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:36:09 -0700, in alt.atheism , Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@gmail.com (remove underscore)> in
<mm4nc319km0blpueko7haqkftjpr6mi3km@4ax.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:29:32 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:06:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB29A5.658429F4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB0C79.5812FFD7@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

[snip]

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....

Your ignorance of my activities is noted.

you're not in Darfur doing something, because you're here on Usenet.
if you were there you ought to be busy, & most likely, out of the net anyway.

So since you are not in Iraq you don't care about Iraq. Since you are
not in X, for almost every value of X, you don't care about X.

Well, since you want to play that game.

No, I don't want to play that game, your tag team partner redc1c4
wanted to play.

I served in Iraq - why aren't you in Darfur?

--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Tankfixer"
Title: Re: Veterans of Foreign Wars	21 Aug 2007 10:15:49 PM

In article <bo7nc3dl2c50u20a1cfj1hbepqg5rkj30q@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:36:09 -0700, in alt.atheism , Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@gmail.com (remove underscore)> in
<mm4nc319km0blpueko7haqkftjpr6mi3km@4ax.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:29:32 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:06:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB29A5.658429F4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:02:01 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46CB0C79.5812FFD7@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:

[snip]

he could also say: "i'm a hypocrite", because he won't actually *do*
anything about Darfur but whine on Usenet....

Your ignorance of my activities is noted.

you're not in Darfur doing something, because you're here on Usenet.
if you were there you ought to be busy, & most likely, out of the net anyway.

So since you are not in Iraq you don't care about Iraq. Since you are
not in X, for almost every value of X, you don't care about X.

Well, since you want to play that game.

No, I don't want to play that game, your tag team partner redc1c4
wanted to play.

No, you just want others to go do your dirty work and sit all commfy at
home.
Smug in the knowledge you DID something.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.