| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"K C" |
| Date: |
26 May 2004 09:31:38 AM |
| Object: |
terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
Democrats have been passively pushing the belief that terrorists are
only striking us due to Bush being President. They suggest that if we
had another President, the terrorists wouldn't hit us.
Consider that the only major attack on the USA mainland was planned
under Clinton. Every expert says that 9-11 was planned for at least 2
years in advance. That means, it started developing in Sept 1999
under Bill Clinton. Since Bush has been President, apprently, every
attack has been foiled under George Bush.
Electing a Dem President wouldn't stop the terrorists from attacking
us. It would only lower our ability to respond.
http://beingone.20m.com/troopsupport.html
.
|
|
| User: "Mook23" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
26 May 2004 07:39:57 PM |
|
|
"K C" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2aab65fe.0405260614.3a347aae@posting.google.com...
Democrats have been passively pushing the belief that terrorists are
only striking us due to Bush being President.
Really? I thought maybe it was due, at least in part, to 50 some odd years
of global economic and political manipulation by the US? Manipulation that
resulted in horribly abusive regimes like Saddam (who recieved millions in
suport and arms) and Osama (who recieved training for himself and his
followers by the CIA, while being financially supported by the Saudis,
another US ally). Ironic, isn't it?
They suggest that if we
had another President, the terrorists wouldn't hit us.
I think it has more to do with global policy than any "president" (i.e.
powerless figurehead manipulated by big business and the military industrial
complex).
Consider that the only major attack on the USA mainland was planned
under Clinton. Every expert says that 9-11 was planned for at least 2
years in advance. That means, it started developing in Sept 1999
under Bill Clinton. Since Bush has been President, apprently, every
attack has been foiled under George Bush.
Oh yes. All of those blanket alerts and other nonsense were honest to
goodness nuke weilding terrorists. In fact, I think he actually took them
out himself, with his shirt off and a Rambo bandana on his head. Please....
Bush is to coked to tie his shoes
Electing a Dem President wouldn't stop the terrorists from attacking
us. It would only lower our ability to respond.
Or, more likely, it would precipitate a good hard look at the "whys" of 9/11
and the overwhelming global tide of anti-american sentiment (not just among
Muslims mind you, Canada and Europe are no friends of the US).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
27 May 2004 10:10:19 AM |
|
|
Democrats have been passively pushing the belief that terrorists are
only striking us due to Bush being President.
Really? I thought maybe it was due, at least in part, to 50 some odd years
of global economic and political manipulation by the US? Manipulation that
resulted in horribly abusive regimes like Saddam (who recieved millions in
suport and arms) and Osama (who recieved training for himself and his
followers by the CIA, while being financially supported by the Saudis,
another US ally). Ironic, isn't it?
Exactly! Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the
20th century, the United States (as well as France, Britian,
USSR/Russia, Germany, China and Japan) have always treated the middle
east as a resource that needs to be coddled to avoid out-right war.
That position has led us down a path of supporting dictators (Saddam
Hussein), terrorists (Osma Bin Laden and Yasser Arafat),
non-democratic societies (Saudi Arabia), etc. This policy is failed.
We can longer sit by idly and let the hate, lack of freedom and
out-right murder continue in that part of the world.
So, I would take it that you agree with the neo-conservatives that
basically believe that you can not longer pacify the region. You must
strike back at it. You must right the wrongs. You must bring feedom.
You must eliminate terrorism.
Right?
Russ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
27 May 2004 01:39:05 PM |
|
|
(Russ) wrote:
We can longer sit by idly and let the hate, lack of freedom and
out-right murder continue in that part of the world.
Why not? What makes it any of our business?
Why do we treat them any different than we treat Burma or Rwanda or
Tibet?
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
28 May 2004 01:05:43 PM |
|
|
We can longer sit by idly and let the hate, lack of freedom and
out-right murder continue in that part of the world.
Why not? What makes it any of our business?
1) Oil. Oil is a strategic resource that is used during times of peace
and war.
2) Terrorism. Terror has hit our friends, our allys and our own
shores. We can no longer dismiss it as a problem that exists
elsewhere.
3) Money. It has become increasingly expensive to continue combat
operations to keep that region from outright war.
4) Modern economies. Having more stable, trade-friendly and modern
econimies in that part of the world is likely to have huge positive
impacts for the United States.
Why do we treat them any different than we treat Burma or Rwanda or
Tibet?
Unlike in the middle east, Burma, Rwanda and Tibet have no strategic
interest for the United States (i.e., resources.) And, of course,
there aren't any terrorists flying into airplanes from these
countries.
While the United States does much to help the plight of other
countries, we can not (nor should we) get involved in every conflict.
Russ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
28 May 2004 03:22:29 PM |
|
|
(Russ) wrote:
We can longer sit by idly and let the hate, lack of freedom and
out-right murder continue in that part of the world.
Why not? What makes it any of our business?
1) Oil. Oil is a strategic resource that is used during times of peace
and war.
So? It is their oil, not ours. The fact that we need it means that
we should be good little capitalists and pay according to the laws of
the marketplace.
2) Terrorism. Terror has hit our friends, our allys and our own
shores. We can no longer dismiss it as a problem that exists
elsewhere.
To justify acting against those who attack our friends and allies, we
should wait until they ask for our help publicly.
The terrorists that attack our shores? They weren't in Iraq.
3) Money. It has become increasingly expensive to continue combat
operations to keep that region from outright war.
Why is it any of our business?
4) Modern economies. Having more stable, trade-friendly and modern
econimies in that part of the world is likely to have huge positive
impacts for the United States.
Why does that justify violating the sovereignty of other nations?
Why do we treat them any different than we treat Burma or Rwanda or
Tibet?
Unlike in the middle east, Burma, Rwanda and Tibet have no strategic
interest for the United States (i.e., resources.)
Why should that be relevant. The resources belong to them and not to
us. We have no right to take them, or even to manipulate them. Just
be good capitalists and deal with the laws of the marketplace.
And, of course,
there aren't any terrorists flying into airplanes from these
countries.
You might want to rethink that sentence %^)
While the United States does much to help the plight of other
countries, we can not (nor should we) get involved in every conflict.
We should get involved in NO conflict unless absolutely necessary.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
01 Jun 2004 03:54:39 PM |
|
|
We can longer sit by idly and let the hate, lack of freedom and
out-right murder continue in that part of the world.
Why not? What makes it any of our business?
1) Oil. Oil is a strategic resource that is used during times of peace
and war.
So? It is their oil, not ours. The fact that we need it means that
we should be good little capitalists and pay according to the laws of
the marketplace.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism. There is a virtual monopoly
by OPEC; so, dealing fairly with the middle east is not a sit-back
proposition.
2) Terrorism. Terror has hit our friends, our allys and our own
shores. We can no longer dismiss it as a problem that exists
elsewhere.
To justify acting against those who attack our friends and allies, we
should wait until they ask for our help publicly.
Israel is an ally. They have asked for help. Britian is an ally. They
have asked for help. Turkey is an ally. They have asked for help.
The terrorists that attack our shores? They weren't in Iraq.
First, I said "that part of the world" not Iraq. The question you
posed was: why is the middle east different than Africa. Second, Iraq
has sponsored many forms of terrorism from renumeration to Palestinian
families of suicide bombers to terrorist camps. They had many ties to
terrorism -- perhaps not Al-Qaida, but Al-Qaida is just one of many.
3) Money. It has become increasingly expensive to continue combat
operations to keep that region from outright war.
Why is it any of our business?
Simple economics. Our economy depends on the costs of basic resources
such as fuel. As fuel prices go up, our economy slumps. We spend money
according to what is best for our economy. In some cases, stablization
is important. In other cases, elimination is important.
4) Modern economies. Having more stable, trade-friendly and modern
econimies in that part of the world is likely to have huge positive
impacts for the United States.
Why does that justify violating the sovereignty of other nations?
Again, goes to the question of middle east vs. Africa. Alone, it is
certainly not sufficient reason.
Why do we treat them any different than we treat Burma or Rwanda or
Tibet?
Unlike in the middle east, Burma, Rwanda and Tibet have no strategic
interest for the United States (i.e., resources.)
Why should that be relevant. The resources belong to them and not to
us. We have no right to take them, or even to manipulate them. Just
be good capitalists and deal with the laws of the marketplace.
Good capitalists does not equal laisse-faire capatalists. Sorry, but
limited natural resources are different than manufactured goods.
And, of course,
there aren't any terrorists flying into airplanes from these
countries.
You might want to rethink that sentence %^)
Yeah... doesn't really make sense, does it? ;)
While the United States does much to help the plight of other
countries, we can not (nor should we) get involved in every conflict.
We should get involved in NO conflict unless absolutely necessary.
I bet your definition of "absolutely necessary" would almost never
happen. Was our involvement in WWII "absolutely necessary"? What about
the Korean War? Certainly, the American Civil War was not "absolutely
necessary", Lincoln simply had to allow the Conferdate States to
exist. The 1991 defense of Kuwait was certainly not "absolutely
necessary." Heck, according to your points, we should have been good
capitalists and just let that happen.
Russ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
01 Jun 2004 10:48:13 PM |
|
|
(Russ) wrote:
We can longer sit by idly and let the hate, lack of freedom and
out-right murder continue in that part of the world.
Why not? What makes it any of our business?
1) Oil. Oil is a strategic resource that is used during times of peace
and war.
So? It is their oil, not ours. The fact that we need it means that
we should be good little capitalists and pay according to the laws of
the marketplace.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism. There is a virtual monopoly
by OPEC; so, dealing fairly with the middle east is not a sit-back
proposition.
By that argument, everything is our business. Please provide us your
complete financial information.
2) Terrorism. Terror has hit our friends, our allys and our own
shores. We can no longer dismiss it as a problem that exists
elsewhere.
To justify acting against those who attack our friends and allies, we
should wait until they ask for our help publicly.
Israel is an ally. They have asked for help. Britian is an ally. They
have asked for help. Turkey is an ally. They have asked for help.
Which of them asked us to attack terrorists for them? Israel has been
doing that for themselves much better than we have. Britain went
along with us, not vice versa. Turkey did not even support our
invasion of Iraq.
The terrorists that attack our shores? They weren't in Iraq.
First, I said "that part of the world" not Iraq.
Iraq is part of "that part of the world", is it not? And it was a
place where "hate, lack of freedom and out-right murder continue"d,
and except possibly for the freedom bit, still continues (some people,
at least, consider anarchy to be freedom).
The question you
posed was: why is the middle east different than Africa.
There is oil in Nigeria, Russia, and Mexico, among other places.
Second, Iraq
has sponsored many forms of terrorism from renumeration to Palestinian
families of suicide bombers to terrorist camps.
Why is that our business? More importantly, why is it our business
now, and it was not during, say, the Reagan or Bush I years?
3) Money. It has become increasingly expensive to continue combat
operations to keep that region from outright war.
Why is it any of our business?
Simple economics. Our economy depends on the costs of basic resources
such as fuel. As fuel prices go up, our economy slumps. We spend money
according to what is best for our economy. In some cases, stablization
is important. In other cases, elimination is important.
Does that mean that I can eliminate you if it will benefit my
economics?
Why do we treat them any different than we treat Burma or Rwanda or
Tibet?
Unlike in the middle east, Burma, Rwanda and Tibet have no strategic
interest for the United States (i.e., resources.)
Why should that be relevant. The resources belong to them and not to
us. We have no right to take them, or even to manipulate them. Just
be good capitalists and deal with the laws of the marketplace.
Good capitalists does not equal laisse-faire capatalists. Sorry, but
limited natural resources are different than manufactured goods.
I consider that a non-answer.
While the United States does much to help the plight of other
countries, we can not (nor should we) get involved in every conflict.
We should get involved in NO conflict unless absolutely necessary.
I bet your definition of "absolutely necessary" would almost never
happen. Was our involvement in WWII "absolutely necessary"?
Once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we were involved. Germany
declared war on us, which involved us in that part of the war.
What about the Korean War?
That was UN action.
Certainly, the American Civil War was not "absolutely
necessary", Lincoln simply had to allow the Conferdate States to
exist.
They did not legally exist, and he could not uphold his oath and allow
them. In any event, they attacked Fort Sumter, not vice versa.
The 1991 defense of Kuwait was certainly not "absolutely
necessary." Heck, according to your points, we should have been good
capitalists and just let that happen.
That time, we followed international law.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Russ" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
02 Jun 2004 12:51:26 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message news:<5niqb0tohh5dngneuc6cmgsi222ajrqk5g@4ax.com>...
russbp@hotmail.com (Russ) wrote:
We can longer sit by idly and let the hate, lack of freedom and
out-right murder continue in that part of the world.
Why not? What makes it any of our business?
1) Oil. Oil is a strategic resource that is used during times of peace
and war.
So? It is their oil, not ours. The fact that we need it means that
we should be good little capitalists and pay according to the laws of
the marketplace.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism. There is a virtual monopoly
by OPEC; so, dealing fairly with the middle east is not a sit-back
proposition.
By that argument, everything is our business. Please provide us your
complete financial information.
Not sure what you mean by: "provide us your complete financial
information." And yes, all resources that have impact on the United
States of America is our business. How we decide to handle it is
obviously a matter of discussion.
2) Terrorism. Terror has hit our friends, our allys and our own
shores. We can no longer dismiss it as a problem that exists
elsewhere.
To justify acting against those who attack our friends and allies, we
should wait until they ask for our help publicly.
Israel is an ally. They have asked for help. Britian is an ally. They
have asked for help. Turkey is an ally. They have asked for help.
Which of them asked us to attack terrorists for them? Israel has been
doing that for themselves much better than we have. Britain went
along with us, not vice versa. Turkey did not even support our
invasion of Iraq.
The terrorists that attack our shores? They weren't in Iraq.
First, I said "that part of the world" not Iraq.
Iraq is part of "that part of the world", is it not? And it was a
place where "hate, lack of freedom and out-right murder continue"d,
and except possibly for the freedom bit, still continues (some people,
at least, consider anarchy to be freedom).
Iraq = hate? Yes.
Iraq = lack of freedom? Yes.
Iraq = out-right murder? Yes.
Does it still continue? Sure. Was Japan or Germany immediately
democratic within 18 months of WWII?
The question you
posed was: why is the middle east different than Africa.
There is oil in Nigeria, Russia, and Mexico, among other places.
Oil in Nigeria isn't close to the middle east. Oil in Russia is within
our strategic interests, and we have spent a lot of time in both
military and econimic policies towards Russia -- certainly much more
than Iraq or the middle east. Mexico is a fairly open a free society
and an ally of the United States. No need to intervene in any major
way.
Second, Iraq
has sponsored many forms of terrorism from renumeration to Palestinian
families of suicide bombers to terrorist camps.
Why is that our business? More importantly, why is it our business
now, and it was not during, say, the Reagan or Bush I years?
It was our business from the fall of the Ottoman Empire. We have
followed a policy of apeasement to the middle east since that time. We
have made the choice to change that policy -- especially since the
Soviets are no longer a superpower willing to take the side of the
non-free middle eastern states.
Since 9/11 our overall strategy has changed. Instead of responding to
an attack on the USS Cole with basic inaction, we have said: no more.
Attack us, and you will pay a sincerence price.
3) Money. It has become increasingly expensive to continue combat
operations to keep that region from outright war.
Why is it any of our business?
Simple economics. Our economy depends on the costs of basic resources
such as fuel. As fuel prices go up, our economy slumps. We spend money
according to what is best for our economy. In some cases, stablization
is important. In other cases, elimination is important.
Does that mean that I can eliminate you if it will benefit my
economics?
Of course. What else is war about? Again, you have to weigh: 1) the
moral implications of that choice, 2) the economic implications of
that choice and 3) the intangible sacrifices associated with that
choice.
Why do we treat them any different than we treat Burma or Rwanda or
Tibet?
Unlike in the middle east, Burma, Rwanda and Tibet have no strategic
interest for the United States (i.e., resources.)
Why should that be relevant. The resources belong to them and not to
us. We have no right to take them, or even to manipulate them. Just
be good capitalists and deal with the laws of the marketplace.
Good capitalists does not equal laisse-faire capatalists. Sorry, but
limited natural resources are different than manufactured goods.
I consider that a non-answer.
Ok.
While the United States does much to help the plight of other
countries, we can not (nor should we) get involved in every conflict.
We should get involved in NO conflict unless absolutely necessary.
I bet your definition of "absolutely necessary" would almost never
happen. Was our involvement in WWII "absolutely necessary"?
Once the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we were involved. Germany
declared war on us, which involved us in that part of the war.
Once 9/11 happened, we were involved. Iraq was an ally in terror to
Afghanistan. We had the convenient excuse that Iraq was in violation
of international law to launch an attack.
What about the Korean War?
That was UN action.
So was Iraq.
Certainly, the American Civil War was not "absolutely
necessary", Lincoln simply had to allow the Conferdate States to
exist.
They did not legally exist, and he could not uphold his oath and allow
them. In any event, they attacked Fort Sumter, not vice versa.
They attacked New York, not vice versa.
The 1991 defense of Kuwait was certainly not "absolutely
necessary." Heck, according to your points, we should have been good
capitalists and just let that happen.
That time, we followed international law.
How do you explain the fact that so many considered our actions to be
war crimes?
And, how did the US not follow international law in 2003? What
resolution has been passed that condemned the actions of the United
States? What provision of international law says that the UNSC can not
take military action against a state that is in material violation of
a UNSC resolution that was deemed their "final opportunity to comply
with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the
Council" and "will face serious consequences as a result of its
continued violations of its obligations."
Saying the US did not follow international law in 2003 is an OPINION
until resolutions have been passed condemning the action. Everything
else is politics.
Russ
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
27 May 2004 08:42:03 AM |
|
|
Electing a Dem President wouldn't stop the terrorists from attacking
us. It would only lower our ability to respond.
Or, more likely, it would precipitate a good hard look at the "whys" of 9/11
and the overwhelming global tide of anti-american sentiment (not just among
Muslims mind you, Canada and Europe are no friends of the US).
Did you not even read my post? They hated us BEFORE Bush was President.
http://beingone.20m.com/providence.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric blair" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
27 May 2004 02:35:04 AM |
|
|
Mook23 wrote:
"K C" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2aab65fe.0405260614.3a347aae@posting.google.com...
Democrats have been passively pushing the belief that terrorists are
only striking us due to Bush being President.
Really? I thought maybe it was due, at least in part, to 50 some odd years
of global economic and political manipulation by the US? Manipulation that
resulted in horribly abusive regimes like Saddam (who recieved millions in
suport and arms) and Osama (who recieved training for himself and his
followers by the CIA, while being financially supported by the Saudis,
another US ally). Ironic, isn't it?
They suggest that if we
had another President, the terrorists wouldn't hit us.
I think it has more to do with global policy than any "president" (i.e.
powerless figurehead manipulated by big business and the military industrial
complex).
Consider that the only major attack on the USA mainland was planned
under Clinton. Every expert says that 9-11 was planned for at least 2
years in advance. That means, it started developing in Sept 1999
under Bill Clinton. Since Bush has been President, apprently, every
attack has been foiled under George Bush.
Oh yes. All of those blanket alerts and other nonsense were honest to
goodness nuke weilding terrorists. In fact, I think he actually took them
out himself, with his shirt off and a Rambo bandana on his head. Please....
Bush is to coked to tie his shoes
Electing a Dem President wouldn't stop the terrorists from attacking
us. It would only lower our ability to respond.
Or, more likely, it would precipitate a good hard look at the "whys" of 9/11
and the overwhelming global tide of anti-american sentiment (not just among
Muslims mind you, Canada and Europe are no friends of the US).
Let's send Canada and Europe a few million Mexicans and see what kind of 'tude
they cop then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists carried-out 9-11 under Bush |
27 May 2004 02:58:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 May 2004 02:35:04 -0500, Porker wrote:
Let's send Canada and Europe a few million Mexicans and see what kind of
'tude they cop then.
Sunday, May 31, 1998 € The Vicksburg Post, Vicksburg, Miss. €
Business € D3
INS raids shake up $90M Vidalia onion industry
Conflict underscores farmers' dependence on migrant workers
LYONS, Ga. (AP) - With two quick pumps of the clippers in his
calloused hand, Juan Cano cuts the stalk from an onion the size
of his fist, then plunks it into his bucket.
Hunched over, he moves backward down the row picking, clipping,
plunking. After 10 minutes, he straightens only long enough to
dump his bucket into a 50-pound bag, then starts again.
It's 90-plus degrees in the shadeless. brreeezeless dusty fileld.
The only sound is the "click-click" of the clippers, as dozens of
workers scuttle wordlessly down the rows' filling bags with the
sweet Vidalia onions that are the region's trademarkr
All the workers are Mexicans. Many, like Cano, are here
illegally.
The $90 million Vidalia industry was shaken two weeks ago by an
Immigration and Naturalization Service sweep code-named Southern
Denial. The INS halted the raids after less than a week, under a
hastily negotiated truce with onion farmers who said their
harvest would be ruined without the 4,000 to 5,000 Mexicans they
hire each season.
The conflict underscored the farmers' dependence on migrant
workers, legal or illegal. In this era of low unemployment - 4
percent in Georgia - American workers can be picky. And they
don't pick onions.
"They are not taking away jobs from American workers," said Sam
Hall, a spokesman for Georgia's labor department. "In today's
world, most Americans do not want to do field work. The domestic
labor pool is not there."
Cano, 63, has been at it since 7 a.m., eight hours ago. He
skipped lunch, and will put in another hour or two before
stopping. He'll have some 90 bags, for 70 cents each. He makes
more here in one day than he would in a week in Mexico, he says.
Cano snorts when asked why no Americans are toiling here.
"Look!" he exclaims in Spanish. "The work is too hard!"
Five miles away, Misty Sorrow, 27, looks after two young
children, buys groceries with food stamps and complains she can't
find a decent job. She lost a job as restaurant cook a month ago.
She grumbles about the growing Mexican presence in her hometown.
"Everything has changed," she says. "This is supposed to be OUR
country."
She and her children stay in a two-story rental house that Joe
Costa, 33, maintains for the owner in return for free housing.
Costa says health problems and the fact that "I'm not a
nationality" keep him from getting full-time work.
Sorrow complains that employers prefer the Mexicans because they
do grueling work for low pay.
"I ain't working like a dog for that little money," she says. "lf
they want to, let 'em have at it."
She says she sought work at an onion packing house but was turned
away.
Brian Stanley, whose family has a Vidalia onion farm and packing
house, smiles at a suggestion they reject American workers.
"We try everybody. They quit at lunchtime," he says.
Inside David Clark's small grocery near McRae in onion country,
retired machinist Eugene Harrelson sits on a tattered sofa and
talks about local news as Clark keeps an ear to the police
scanner behind him. The INS raids might hurt the business he does
with Mexican workers who come in to spend some of their wages on
sodas, food and "odds and ends," Clark says.
Harrelson laments the dependence upon alien workers.
"If they cut off the damn welfare, they'd be able to get people
to work," snaps the 67-year-old father of nine.
Georgia welfare and labor officials say they can't force
unemployed people to take such jobs if they are actively pursuing
other work. More than 60 people who were getting state assistance
have gone to work for oniorm farmers this season, according to
state figures.
But the work is seasonal, not a permanent escape from welfare,
and the harvest is intense, lasting less than two months and
requiring long hours. At the Stanley packing house one day last
week, some Mexican workers stayed on the job from 8 a.m. to 2
a.m.
At his farm near Helena, W.J. Grimes frowns when he notices that
teams of three, instead of the normal eight, are working the
conveyor belts carrying onions from trucks to boxes.
Grimes figures the brief INS sweep scared away more than 100 of
the Mexican workers he was counting on for the harvest. Although
only 21 Mexicans were detained for return to their homeland,
Grimes says hundreds more fled, "which makes us wonder if their
papers were real."
He says he has 106 workers harvesting his 500 acres of onions and
wishes he had 250.
Grimes, 65, switched to onions as his main crop two decades ago.
In the early 80s, as the local workers he used began retiring, he
had to start hiring Mexican migrants.
"Believe me, if I had Americans to do it, that's exactly who I'd
hire," Grimes says.
With intervention by Georgia politicians, the onion farmers and
INS are working out an agreement. They have pledged better
exchanges of information, and the farmers promised to try harder
to hire only legal labor.
State offlcials say it's difficult to say just how many alien
workers there are in Georgia, but their numbers are definitely
growing.
"It's creating tension among the non-Hispanics," says Debra Sabia
a Georgia Southern University political science professor
referring to the added strains on schools, health and social
services, besides job competition. "It's going to become a major
issue."
Cano, who's been coming to the United States most of his life,
picking produce from California to Florida to New York, says it
took four tries to get across the border this year. Once, he
says, a Border Patrol agent took his shoes.
He says he told the agent off, pointing out that he loses some of
his pay to taxes and also buys food and goods while working here.
"I said, 'Why are you so mean to us?' " Cano recounts. "We come
in and work hard and leave money to help support all the lazy
people."
--------------------------------------------------------
If and when President Bush chooses to eliminate illegals, it will
take about 20 minutes.
But - mebbe - our President believes in laissez-faire capitalism.
Isn't that a "good thing" (tm)?
Or maybe his campaign supporters want and need those "illegal"
workers.
Bush is rapidly replacing Cthulhu.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."
- Jubal Harshaw
(Channeled through RAH)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "elmer swanson" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
27 May 2004 06:52:56 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote in message news:<2aab65fe.0405260614.3a347aae@posting.google.com>...
Democrats have been passively pushing the belief that terrorists are
only striking us due to Bush being President. They suggest that if we
had another President, the terrorists wouldn't hit us.
Consider that the only major attack on the USA mainland was planned
under Clinton. Every expert says that 9-11 was planned for at least 2
years in advance. That means, it started developing in Sept 1999
under Bill Clinton. Since Bush has been President, apprently, every
attack has been foiled under George Bush.
There seem to be quite a few terrorist attacks going on right now in
Iraq against American soldiers, contractors and those poor fools from
other countries who thought America could provide security there and
took Bush up on his plea to come Iraq and help.
I put it to you the level of terrorism in Iraq would far, far less if
a certain halfwit had the foresight to plan for "the day after" the
invasion of Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "K C" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
28 May 2004 02:46:51 PM |
|
|
(elmer swanson) wrote in message news:<3fade24c.0405271552.1dafa7ec@posting.google.com>...
kands00@hotmail.com (K C) wrote in message news:<2aab65fe.0405260614.3a347aae@posting.google.com>...
Democrats have been passively pushing the belief that terrorists are
only striking us due to Bush being President. They suggest that if we
had another President, the terrorists wouldn't hit us.
Consider that the only major attack on the USA mainland was planned
under Clinton. Every expert says that 9-11 was planned for at least 2
years in advance. That means, it started developing in Sept 1999
under Bill Clinton. Since Bush has been President, apprently, every
attack has been foiled under George Bush.
There seem to be quite a few terrorist attacks going on right now in
Iraq against American soldiers, contractors and those poor fools from
other countries who thought America could provide security there and
took Bush up on his plea to come Iraq and help.
I put it to you the level of terrorism in Iraq would far, far less if
a certain halfwit had the foresight to plan for "the day after" the
invasion of Iraq.
Do you think Iraq is better under the Provisional Government than it
was under Saddam? I think that question would reveal our
difference...or your cowardice.
http://beingone.20m.com/troopsupport.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
28 May 2004 04:40:17 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
Do you think Iraq is better under the Provisional Government than it
was under Saddam?
There is no Provisional Government yet.
And it doesn't matter what we think; it's THEIR country.
I think that question would reveal our difference...or your cowardice.
Are you serving in Iraq? Then don't talk of cowardice.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
26 May 2004 02:37:35 PM |
|
|
(K C) wrote:
Democrats have been passively pushing the belief that terrorists are
only striking us due to Bush being President.
Cite. please.
They suggest that if we had another President, the terrorists wouldn't hit us.
Kerry has said that if we had another President then MAYBE that new
president would have a chance to restore trust with the nations of the
world that distrust or even hate us because of Bush.
I don't think anyone has said or suggested that terrorists would give
a damn who was president.
That means, it started developing in Sept 1999
under Bill Clinton. Since Bush has been President, apprently, every
attack has been foiled under George Bush.
9/11 was NOT foiled. It was an attack under George Bush.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "eric blair" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
27 May 2004 03:28:19 AM |
|
|
It's much worse than that, actually. While the terrorists planned 9-11,
the Clintons invited the Taliban to come to America. The Taliban were
escorted to Houston, where they negotiated with Enron in support of a
bombastic scheme to build a pipeline from Afghanistan, through Pakistan,
into India. Incredibly, the Bush team continued this "policy" in a
grasping attempt to save Enron from it's inevitable demise. (see the
excellent summary at the web site of John Loftus, I think it's
John_Loftus.com)
This MAY explain the unwillingness of individuals like David Frasca, the
FBI point man on Islamic terror, to pursue evidence like agent Colleen
Rowley's memos on the obvious terror connections of the Minneapolis
suspect, Massoui. (ie don't mess up the Taliban-Enron deal). The
alternative explanation is a deliberate "let it happen" plan that must
have gone into the heart of the FBI and CIA--across the responsibilities
of BOTH administrations.
What, the 9-11 commission didn't have this Frasca guy testify? Leslie
Stahl didn't chase him down the street poking a microphone at him?
Satellite trucks not parked in front of his house with network newsies
speaking in provocative tones (like they did to: Ollie North, Linda Tripp,
and Timothy McVeigh's little sister). Welcome to the one-party state. For
"some" reason, the individual whose decision not to absolutely panic when
presented with overt evidence of an imminent threat did in fact "cause"
9/11--was never pursued by the "liberal news media". You never saw his
picture. Never will; he's being protected. BTW, Frasca claims he never
even read the equally alarming memos from the Phoenix office about
terrorists in training--in which case he is incompetent and should be
fired. Apparently he actually got A BONUS and PROMOTION. (Just like the
perpetrators of the Waco massacre). You won't find this anywhere in the
"major media"; I read it on the so-called "right wing" worldnetdaily.com.
You can read about the suppressed evidence in the McVeigh case there too.
K C wrote:
Democrats have been passively pushing the belief that terrorists are
only striking us due to Bush being President. They suggest that if we
had another President, the terrorists wouldn't hit us.
Consider that the only major attack on the USA mainland was planned
under Clinton. Every expert says that 9-11 was planned for at least 2
years in advance. That means, it started developing in Sept 1999
under Bill Clinton. Since Bush has been President, apprently, every
attack has been foiled under George Bush.
Electing a Dem President wouldn't stop the terrorists from attacking
us. It would only lower our ability to respond.
http://beingone.20m.com/troopsupport.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: terrorists planned 9-11 under Clinton |
26 May 2004 01:14:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 May 2004 09:31:38 -0500, K C wrote
(in article <2aab65fe.0405260614.3a347aae@posting.google.com>):
Democrats have been passively pushing the belief that terrorists are
only striking us due to Bush being President. They suggest that if we
had another President, the terrorists wouldn't hit us.
Consider that the only major attack on the USA mainland was planned
under Clinton. Every expert says that 9-11 was planned for at least 2
years in advance. That means, it started developing in Sept 1999
under Bill Clinton. Since Bush has been President, apprently, every
attack has been foiled under George Bush.
You're leaving out 9-11.
And you're leaving out the terrorism at Abu Ghraib Prison.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."
- Jubal Harshaw
(Channeled through RAH)
Electing a Dem President wouldn't stop the terrorists from attacking
us. It would only lower our ability to respond.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
