On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:32:30 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:15:04 GMT, james wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:23:42 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Son I have a great deal of intreped feelings when a
President says to me trust me I am keeping the best interests of the
American People at heart and then proceeds to beat around the bush, no
pun intended, trying to justify a preemptive invasion.

There is a reason why we have a representative democracy and not a
direct democracy. We elect people who are supposedly trained in the
skills necessary to carry out our business.
*****

Go ahead and just believe that those elected have y our best
interests in mind. I hear the shears are being prepared for y ou
sheep.


Yea I know, our government has pledged it's true allegiance to the
"corporate machine", the free masons, Skull and bones, a "shadow
government" consisting of the descendants of Howard Hughes and the
"Old money" cronies of the industrial age and maybe even gray aliens
from Zeti-Reticuli.


Dave, you're a friggin' loon.


You complain about the motives of our elected officials, yet insist
that our form of government is the only way to go. That seems to be an
inconsistent position to take. If you don't like your elected
officials, then vote them out next term. But don't complain if the
majority of voters differ from your opinion and override your
selection. That's what majority rule is all about. For every one who
gets what they want, someone else will be unhappy. That's life.


Even after -MONTHS- of discussion on the topic you -STILL- don't get
it. I'll make this -really- simple so even -you- can understand it:

This is not a "majority rule" country -- it's a country based on the
recognition of individual rights and freedoms. You have the right to
think freely, to speak your opinions openly, to exercise religion as
you see fit, to make your own decisions without government influence,
etc, etc; and these rights and freedoms are guaranteed -REGARDLESS- of
the opinions of any special-interest group, EVEN IF they represent the
majority, and EVEN IF you are a member of that "majority".

The USA is NOT a democracy -- it's a country based on EQUAL RIGHTS and
FREEDOMS for EVERY citizen, the "Moral Majority" be damned. If you
don't like it, leave -- hell, I'll even buy your plane ticket! But if
you decide to stay, shut the **** up because you are effectively
undermining the integrity of this country with your lies, propoganda,
and warped interpretations of the Constitution; and I won't sit by and
let that happen because I took an oath to defend both the Constitution
and the country.

Either you are for the Constitution or you are against it. So it's
time for you to make a choice, Dave -- are you an American or not?









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 26 May 2005 07:57:10 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
So, here we have a double edged sword. We live in a world economy,
with companies from all over the world competing for market share. So,
what's a U.S. based corporation to do? Should it:

A. Keep its U.S. work force in order to altruistically keep the
American work force employed?

B. Outsource to a foreign country where labor and overhead is much
cheaper?


The answer is A because loyalty must be earned, and American's have a
very good long-term memory.


Considering that other countries have no objection to using cheap
foreign labor, and producing products cheaper, the U.S. company is now
at a competitive disadvantage with those products which they are in
direct competition from foreign companies.


American workers could be easily protected with import tariffs; but
Bush's butt has been kissed (and licked, sucked, wiped and powdered)
by corporations seeking cheap labor, so he is pushing for open-border
trade agreements with third-world countries.


Tell me, would you pay 50 - 100% more for a TV or some other product
just to keep the U.S. company here? Considering that the government is
squeezing more and more money out of us in the form of taxes, and the
costs of things like fuel are skyrocketing, we look for the best
bargains in everything we buy.


Because the taxes are on the Americans, not on the import corporations
(e.g, Walmart, aka 'China Inc.') where they should be.


And that doesn't cover the foreign market. Would a European pay more
for a U.S. made product over a foreign made product?


Depends on where that 'foreign' product was made.


What ultimately happens to a U.S. corporation who loses a competitive
edge?


Any US corp that chooses to cut American jobs instead of lobbying for
import tariffs against foreign competitors is, in the most tactful of
terms, economically nearsighted.


What happens when there are no more cheap labor countries like China?
Can you spell double digit inflation??? How about 20% per yr for about
ten yrs. Maybe even longer or higher inflation rates.

Yes, inflation is a very real fear.


No, it's not. It's a hope. Inflation, in a free market economy, is an
'equalizer' -- it's an effect of a surplus of cash in circulation,
which usually ends up in the hands of those who need it the most.
Historically, inflation hurts the rich and benefits the poor, which is
something you never hear from the "left-wing, liberally biased media".


But when the standard of living
equalizes, then there will be no further incentive to manufacture
overseas. Then factors such as shipping costs will make domestic
manufacturing attractive again for the U.S. market. Inflation may also
be mitigated by market pressures. If people cannot afford to buy as
much, demand goes down. When demand goes down, so does the price.
That's free market 101.


You obviously failed Economics 101, and probably never took Macro- or
Micro-Economics.


Yes as the world's standard of living increases, so will inflation. I
forsee 10 to 20% annual inflation rates somewhere in the 2030 to 2040
time frame. By then the world will dream of 4% inflation rates.


Out sourcing is eventually going to drag the US' standard of living
down to the rest of the world's as their's rises towards.

That's what I meant when I said equalize the world's standard of
living. Not only will the 3rd world catch up, but we will fall
somewhat. That is the price we pay for living in a world market. 50
years ago, when most of our goods were made here, we controlled the
market. Now we're just one of many players.


Cheap labor will always be available in any country that's poor in
natural resources. There are many, and that's not going to change
anytime soon. The fact that Iraq's new "government" refused to allow
labor unions (a law imposed by Saddam) should be a good indication as
to where the next market for cheap labor will be found.


You can't get something for nothing.

You don't know just how much truth there is in that statement.


Damn straight. Freedom isn't free. Other people paid for your
freedoms, Dave. Maybe you should take the time to try and understand
why.


In time the US will suffer. Prepare for
China owning more an dmore of teh US debt and consequently the US'
economy .

Ok, We pretty much agree that the road ahead will be a bit bumpy. So
what do we do about it? Can we do anything about it?


Push your elected officials to do their job -- make them understand
that they are lobbyists for their constituents, not the constituents
of lobbyists for special interest groups or corporations.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:12:35 GMT, "Jim Hampton"
wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 May 2005 10:37:09 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
How many links do you need, Dave?

Just one good and accurate one would be

nice, but you haven't posted any.


You've been given several and like it has been correctly observed, you
dismiss all of them as a conspiracy of the left.

Just snippets of your own out of context

interpretations of some biased, agenda-driven

news report.

There were no interpretations, only cut and pastes, but the content so
vehemently opposed what you say, it is perfectly understandable that
soneone of your intellect level would take such as being rewritten in
order to preserve your almost always wrong positions.


Post the whole link, you know, something that

begins with "http://", so we can all read it.


I already did. Your **** poor memory is stringing you along and forcing
you to wear the "kick me" sign again.

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

(Hello, Dave
Since being in contact with a few friends who are so severely on the
extreme right, I have found the best way to get news is *outside* of the
United States. Whatever article is written here, it is dismissed as work
of the demonic liberal left.)

There is a great deal of truth in that.



Yep,,and it's you doing all the dismissing.

The major news media has been infiltrated, as
have much of academia,


And the WH merely makes up junk and presents it as news, an issue you
know you can not touch, as it defeats your position and ilustrates your
hypocrisy, as you accept such behavior when commited by your party.
Frank defeated your position and illustrated your hypocrisy by astutely
showing several key areas where you refuse to apply your own set of
standards when the outcome is not favorable to your personal views.

with the followers of left leaning politics. This

has been going on in ernest since the 60's and
the Vietnam war, when it was realized that the
only way for a small political minority to win

their objective of large scale governmental

reform, was from within through slow, careful

indoctrination and propaganda.



That was called "Trcikle down" and it failed miserably.

The two best places to achieve that goal are in
the agencies which bring us the news, and the
institutions which educate our impressionable

young.



LMAO,,,now you have a problem with the educational system in that they
have a secret agenda with "indoctrination of the young" and
"propaganda". You should write for Dr. Who, but onlyafter you go to
college and learn a few things.

It had been working fairly well,


For example...

until the advent

of the internet, talk radio, and independent

news services such as Fox News.



Bull****. Reagan was elected for eight years during that time span,
illustrating just the opposite of your warblings.


The ability to cross check the news and parse

out the spin, essentially put the spotlight on

the mainstream news media, and people like

Dan Rather and Jayson Blair.




But those WH deliberate false press releases
are perfectly acceptable. What a card!

Exposure of such radical leftists in teaching

roles such as Ward Churchill,


Or Tom Delay on the right.

and countless others,


..like the majority.

is slowly revealing the true intentions of these

seemingly unconnected (except for ideology)

people.


Hahaha....watch the little green men, Dave, when you're out there.

The rise of conservative groups and

watchdog organizations to balance the

prejudice of the left on university campuses,

will hopefully slow and eventually correct

much of the damage that the left has done in

the last 30 years.



You're just sore because the filibuster wasn't done away with,
illustrating you are at war with the laws and safety nets the government
put in place to protect the majority from angry radical loonies like
yourself.


(I have found the U.K., Canada, and Australia
to be pretty nifty places.)





Of course, the world

is just loaded with the liberal left ... )




People with paranoia issues tend to feel like everyone else is against
them.

You have to understand that in much of the

world, especially in the socialist-leaning

countries like France and Germany, there is a

decidedly anti-capitalist, anti-US slant.


Bush made it that way. In addition, in countries around the world, it is
extremely unsafe for Americans to travel abroad. It was never like that
until Bush took office and the only thing he made safer was the bet that
he was going to take this country into debt and get a bunch of our
people killed for reasons that even you can't seem to place in proper
context.

So if you think you will get an objective news

piece from any of them, you are seriously

naive.


There's that arrogance. No Dave, I am fairly comfortable when I say the
majority would claim Jimbo, at almost 20 years your senior,
is not naive in the ways of the world and their news. In fact, I would
hedge that his experience abroad in the military exposed him to much
more than yourself regarding worldwide knowledge and news, and
therefore, it is your claim, if any, that is "naive".
You again are claiming the news is biased to the left. Since the news is
all biased to the left, (you have been asked this before), what source
is it from which you get your misinformation?

As for the U.K., Canada, and Australia, they

are more balanced but depending on which

factions are backing the "news", you could be

reading either left or right wing slant.



LMAO,,you know jack ****t!!! Name two "factions" for each.

It helps to dig deeply into who backs these

groups in order to determine just how

"objective" they may or may not be.



And since you are talking **** again, you would have no problem
illustrating two factions for each..you know,,,since you had to "dig
deeply" for these factions.......

(Hitler did a pretty good job convincing his
people as to what was right and wrong. )

Yes, and just like Hitler blamed all or most of

Germany's problems on the Jews, so to are

the operatives on the left trying to blame most

of America's problems on rich, God

respecting, white people.




Oh, but you have problems. You have always neatly presented you hold
other views (such as an American political party other than yours) in
contempt, but to publicly claim the democrats
are akin to nazis really illustrates your magnified ignorance. It is the
Bush admin that has paraphrased Stalin and invoked the exact same
rhetoric. When Bush-the-ignorant was informed that he paraphrased Stalin
in one of his speeches, he never repeated it again and that was the end
of it. The utterance? "You are either with us or against us". So now we
have YOUR party not only employing the rhetoric and behavior of those
oppressive murderous thugs, but people like you telling any one who
dares illustrate the misdeeds of your party they are "naive".


(I am not so easily persuaded.)

Neither am I.


You're not easily taught, either.

David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

On Wed, 25 May 2005 07:45:33 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 24 May 2005 18:30:56 GMT, james wrote:


There are more links. You can also start at www.fas.org. Look not for
just what supports ones belief but look at all the facts presented. In
between the two extremes will really lie the truth. IF you start to
dig further into the past, you may starrtt to derive some other
conclusions. I came to an understanding in late 2002 that Iraq and any
invasion was not about WMD or OIL. It is far more deeper. The true
paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large
Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq,
Saudia Arabia and a few others.

That would not be a good thing, and our efforts in trying to prevent
it from happening is probably a good thing.

Just think what if Radical Islam controlled over half the oil
production in the world?

So if that is the case, are we not justified in trying to prevent it
from happening?

*****

No I think Iraq is means of gaining bases in a region that we can
better monitor and track the goings on of the Radical Islamic
Fundamentalist, both Shia and Suni.

Do we have to wait until the "west" (Which includes more than just the
U.S,) is brought to its knees economically before we act?

****

That is a tough decision. If you act to early on intelligence and it
is bad then you done things in bad faith. Wait to long and you have
dead people. The better question and also the most difficult to answer
is how many lives are expendable? If none is your answer then Bush
did well.


How much bloodshed could have been averted if Hitler had been taken
out of the picture in the 1920's?

*****

We can play that game back to Babylonian Kings of the third millenium
BC. That is really a poor argument. The case for preemption is just
that. In 2002 Bush never made a good case for preemption. Most of what
I conclude was never presented to teh world population. Yes the Senate
and the House knew of it, but the average American Public per se was
not kept informed of these potentials.

Does the average citizen need to know, or have the capacity to
understand, the complete truth assuming we can definitively identify
it amongst all the free flowing propaganda?

********

Duh! Last time I reviewed my civics and political science notes, I
thought the American People were the government. You may find it
acceptable to blindly follow your elected officials like those in
Hitler Germany! Son I have a great deal of intreped feelings when a
President says to me trust me I am keeping the best interests of the
American People at heart and then proceeds to beat around the bush, no
pun intended, trying to justify a preemptive invasion.

Hell yes the American People need to know. Secrecy is the death toll
of a democracy and a republican form of government. This
administrtation has been the most secret since Reagan's first term.
Then I look and see who is advising GW Bush and then it all become to
clearly now. Bush's advisors are out of the Cold War Era and need an
enemy. I wonder if there is not one then have they created one?


james

Let's get real, there are two of our VERY LARGE, VERY expensive buildings
missing in New York. Thousands of Americans died in those buildings. There
was a large hole in our pentagon, site of our most holy protection for this
land. One plane was headed towards the Whitehouse, another of our most holy
political sites--before it was downed. There are a few airplanes of ours
which were destroyed in these attacts--and American lives lost on each and
everyone of these aircraft.

Anyone who does not want to go after those who did THAT, with every resource
at our disposal, is either a coward, terrorist themselves, or an idiot.
And, the radical muslims will point blank tell you that you have three
choices--join them, be enslaved by them or die. Any rational person would
choose a fourth--they die!

We simply don't have a choice in this matter...

Warmest regards,
John

"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
How many links do you need, Dave?

Here are a few more, just to keep you entertained.


From the Times wires:

Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq
possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear
weapons. Officials also allege Iraq was working on prohibited long-range
missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents. The
presidential intelligene commison examined each of the US intelligence
community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
reached these conclusions:


Nuclear Weapons: Wrong
Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried
to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they
were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with
more than one potential use were also similarily misinterpreted.


Biological Weapons: Wrong
Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring
inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these
defectors were providing false information.


Chemical Weapons: WRONG
The intelligence committe drew its conclusions
from satellite photos of trucks and buildings and other sources that
were suspicious but ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who
made claims that Hussein had accomplished things that are technically
impossiible.


WMD-Armed Drones: Wrong
Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information;
Iraq;s drones turned out to be for reconnaissance.


Hussein's Intentions: Wrong
Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Hussein could have
given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although
several intel sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any
WMD, US analysts have regarded this as disinformation.


End of Times wire report.
--
Want more, Dave? The list is endless but these should have you spinning
your wheels a bit more than usual since your first knee-jerk reaction
was to deny any Bush failures, then
beg for examples.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 15:37:52 GMT, james wrote:
The true
paranoia that this administration has is a great fear of a large
Islamic state existing from Pakistan to Syria. Including Iran, Iraq,
Saudia Arabia and a few others.

That would not be a good thing, and our efforts in trying to prevent
it from happening is probably a good thing.

Just think what if Radical Islam controlled over half the oil
production in the world?

So if that is the case, are we not justified in trying to prevent it
from happening?

*****

No I think Iraq is means of gaining bases in a region that we can
better monitor and track the goings on of the Radical Islamic
Fundamentalist, both Shia and Suni.

I would not disagree with that assessment. It is one that I also share
to some extent. It's also consistent with the Project for a new
American Century plan.

Do we have to wait until the "west" (Which includes more than just the
U.S,) is brought to its knees economically before we act?

****

That is a tough decision. If you act to early on intelligence and it
is bad then you done things in bad faith. Wait too long and you have
dead people. The better question and also the most difficult to answer
is how many lives are expendable? If none is your answer then Bush
did well.

In theory, no lives should be expendable. Reality paints a different
picture. As long as the radical Islamists are willing to sacrifice
their own lives in order to take out "infidels", the dynamics of that
equation changes somewhat. When the value of human life differs from
one side to the other, our "leverage" becomes limited.

In the cold war, we managed to keep "the evil empire" at bay due to
the concept of mutually assured destruction. When your new enemy
consists of people who are not afraid to die (and their reward
received in Heaven) to advance their cause, a concept such as M.A.D.
starts to crumble.

How much bloodshed could have been averted if Hitler had been taken
out of the picture in the 1920's?

*****

We can play that game back to Babylonian Kings of the third millenium
BC. That is really a poor argument.

No, it's just placing a current situation against a backdrop of
historical perspective.


The case for preemption is just
that. In 2002 Bush never made a good case for preemption. Most of what
I conclude was never presented to teh world population. Yes the Senate
and the House knew of it, but the average American Public per se was
not kept informed of these potentials.

For good reason I suspect.


Does the average citizen need to know, or have the capacity to
understand, the complete truth assuming we can definitively identify
it amongst all the free flowing propaganda?

********

Duh! Last time I reviewed my civics and political science notes, I
thought the American People were the government. You may find it
acceptable to blindly follow your elected officials like those in
Hitler Germany!

Woah! Back up and drop the Hitler metaphors. This is not about
dictatorship, but about the ineptitude, indifference, and general lack
of understanding of "big picture" politics by the average American. We
elect representatives to carry out America's business in our best
interests so that "we the people" do not have to. If the government
had to disclose each and every piece of intelligence with the
population at large, they would, at the very least, create a national
security issue, and at the worst create confusion and panic as the
average citizen tries to come to grips with what they've just been
told.


Son I have a great deal of intreped feelings when a
President says to me trust me I am keeping the best interests of the
American People at heart and then proceeds to beat around the bush, no
pun intended, trying to justify a preemptive invasion.

There is a reason why we have a representative democracy and not a
direct democracy. We elect people who are supposedly trained in the
skills necessary to carry out our business. The last thing we need to
do is second guess the motives of our leaders without concrete proof
that such questioning is warranted. Perpetuating the distrust of our
leaders, are the minions of the news media, many of which are
(consciously or not) furthering the agendas of people who would like
nothing more than the fall of the democratic way of life in this
country. What better way to incite an overthrow of a government than
to create the impression that the leaders are "up to no good"? There
are all sorts of conspiracies and supposed "reports" telling of all
kinds of "dirty deals" done by our government for many years. They're
freely available to anyone with the drive to research them. But not
many of those stories are verifiable with hard facts. When you look
into the backgrounds of those who print these stories, it becomes
clear what their agendas are.


Hell yes the American People need to know. Secrecy is the death toll
of a democracy and a republican form of government.

There is such a thing as "need to know".

This
administrtation has been the most secret since Reagan's first term.

We are also the first since Vietnam, except for the brief Gulf war in
1991, to be actively engaged in long term military operations. That
necessitates a certain amount of secrecy. Do you think our government
was completely forthcoming with all intel during WWII or Vietnam?


Then I look and see who is advising GW Bush and then it all become to
clearly now. Bush's advisors are out of the Cold War Era and need an
enemy. I wonder if there is not one then have they created one?

For that to be true then you would have to somewhat support the
conspiracy theory which claims that 9/11/01 was orchestrated by our
own government. Our enemy attacked us first. What happened afterward
was just a succession of events placed into motion as a result of
9/11.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (John=A0Smith)
Let's get real, there are two of our VERY

LARGE, VERY expensive buildings missing in
New York.

In part because of the Bush admins failures. The failures listed below
all came after 911 and are independent of the acts against the US.

Thousands of Americans died in those

buildings.

See above.

There was a large hole in our pentagon, site

.of our most holy protection for this land.


Holy? Duuuuude,,,,

One plane was headed towards the

Whitehouse, another of our most holy political

sites--




"Holy political"?

before it was downed. There are a few

airplanes of ours which were destroyed in

these attacts--and American lives lost on each
and everyone of these aircraft.

Anyone who does not want to go after those

who did THAT, with every resource at our

disposal, is either a coward, terrorist

themselves, or an idiot.


And only an idiot would believe BL is in Iraq, or that Iraq had anything
to do with what you described above.
But what you did here is what Bush often does, he uses the term "Iraq"
when speaking of 911 and BL, but I will admit, he has stopped doing this
since the 911 Report. Now if only his legions of sheople can manage to
emulate him in this regard.....

And, the radical muslims will point blank tell

you that you have three choices--join them, be
enslaved by them or die.


Muslims don't run this country, and the oppression you speak of is not
limited to just the Muslim world or Iraq .

Any rational person would choose a

fourth--they die!


Fortunately, we were never in such a position.

We simply don't have a choice in this matter...

What matter is that? Going after BL and those responsible for 911, or
the war in Iraq? Even Bush no longer tries to employ such long ago
defeated rhetoric.

Warmest regards,

John



From the Times wires:
Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq
possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear
weapons. Officials also allege Iraq was working on prohibited long-range
missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents. The
presidential intelligene commison examined each of the US intelligence
community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
reached these conclusions:


Nuclear Weapons: Wrong
Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried
to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they
were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with
more than one potential use were also similarily misinterpreted.



Biological Weapons: Wrong
Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring
inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these
defectors were providing false information.



Chemical Weapons: WRONG
The intelligence committe drew its conclusions from satellite photos of
trucks and buildings and other sources that were suspicious but
ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who made claims that
Hussein had accomplished things that are technically impossiible.



WMD-Armed Drones: Wrong
Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information;
Iraq;s drones turned out to be for reconnaissance.


Hussein's Intentions: Wrong
Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Hussein could have
given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although
several intel sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any
WMD, US analysts have regarded this as disinformation.
End of Times wire report.
--

George:

So then, Bush is our enemy--it is our fault radical muslims wish to destroy
American property--and kill Americans.

You want to tie our militaries hands over the fact that they didn't have
these weapons--which we got there first and stopped them from getting them.
Your suggestion it that we should have waited until they had them--then
instead of smashing our own planes into those buildings they could have been
much more successful with those weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear.)
And then, we would have a right to stop them...

You argument that Iraq and Sadam were not Bin Laden is shallow--they have
the oil money which financed him, they hold the same radical ideas--this is
enough for them to die... I am not pleased with Saudi Arabia...

I am one would support our LARGEST nuclear bomb dropped square in the middle
of Iran--if they even threaten to be a threat to us... and if it would only
save one innocent American life...

Warmest regards,
John

"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
From: (John Smith)
Let's get real, there are two of our VERY

LARGE, VERY expensive buildings missing in
New York.

In part because of the Bush admins failures. The failures listed below
all came after 911 and are independent of the acts against the US.

Thousands of Americans died in those

buildings.

See above.

There was a large hole in our pentagon, site

.of our most holy protection for this land.


Holy? Duuuuude,,,,

One plane was headed towards the

Whitehouse, another of our most holy political

sites--




"Holy political"?

before it was downed. There are a few

airplanes of ours which were destroyed in

these attacts--and American lives lost on each
and everyone of these aircraft.

Anyone who does not want to go after those

who did THAT, with every resource at our

disposal, is either a coward, terrorist

themselves, or an idiot.


And only an idiot would believe BL is in Iraq, or that Iraq had anything
to do with what you described above.
But what you did here is what Bush often does, he uses the term "Iraq"
when speaking of 911 and BL, but I will admit, he has stopped doing this
since the 911 Report. Now if only his legions of sheople can manage to
emulate him in this regard.....

And, the radical muslims will point blank tell

you that you have three choices--join them, be
enslaved by them or die.


Muslims don't run this country, and the oppression you speak of is not
limited to just the Muslim world or Iraq .

Any rational person would choose a

fourth--they die!


Fortunately, we were never in such a position.

We simply don't have a choice in this matter...

What matter is that? Going after BL and those responsible for 911, or
the war in Iraq? Even Bush no longer tries to employ such long ago
defeated rhetoric.

Warmest regards,

John



From the Times wires:
Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq
possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear
weapons. Officials also allege Iraq was working on prohibited long-range
missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents. The
presidential intelligene commison examined each of the US intelligence
community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
reached these conclusions:


Nuclear Weapons: Wrong
Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried
to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they
were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with
more than one potential use were also similarily misinterpreted.



Biological Weapons: Wrong
Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring
inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these
defectors were providing false information.



Chemical Weapons: WRONG
The intelligence committe drew its conclusions from satellite photos of
trucks and buildings and other sources that were suspicious but
ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who made claims that
Hussein had accomplished things that are technically impossiible.



WMD-Armed Drones: Wrong
Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information;
Iraq;s drones turned out to be for reconnaissance.


Hussein's Intentions: Wrong
Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Hussein could have
given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although
several intel sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any
WMD, US analysts have regarded this as disinformation.
End of Times wire report.
--

On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:39:42 -0400, I AmnotGeorgeBush wrote:

And, the radical muslims will point blank tell

you that you have three choices--join them, be
enslaved by them or die.


Muslims don't run this country, and the oppression you speak of is not
limited to just the Muslim world or Iraq .

This sounds just like the crusades all over again. If you haven't seen the
new movie "Kingdom of Heaven" I suggest that you do. It will remind you of
what is happening in the middle east now, even if it wasn't the intent of
the movie.

Regards,

Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

On Wed, 25 May 2005 09:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:


"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
How many links do you need, Dave?

Here are a few more, just to keep you entertained.


Holy ****, he still didn't post links.



From the Times wires:

Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration asserted that Iraq
possessed chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear
weapons. Officials also allege Iraq was working on prohibited long-range
missiles and drones that could disperse biological agents. The
presidential intelligene commison examined each of the US intelligence
community's prewar assertions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
reached these conclusions:


Nuclear Weapons: Wrong
Analysts wrongly interpreted the purpose of some metal tubes Iraq tried
to import, arguing they were for centrifuges to enrich uranium when they
were for conventional artillery rockets. Other imports of materials with
more than one potential use were also similarily misinterpreted.


Biological Weapons: Wrong
Agencies trusted several Iraqi defectors who were lying, ignoring
inconsistencies in their statements and other warning signs that these
defectors were providing false information.


Chemical Weapons: WRONG
The intelligence committe drew its conclusions
from satellite photos of trucks and buildings and other sources that
were suspicious but ultimately ambiguous, and trusted human sources who
made claims that Hussein had accomplished things that are technically
impossiible.


WMD-Armed Drones: Wrong
Analysts concluded the drones were for WMD based on limited information;
Iraq;s drones turned out to be for reconnaissance.


Hussein's Intentions: Wrong
Intelligence agencies did not seriously consider Hussein could have
given up his WMD ambitions and destroyed his stockpiles. Although
several intel sources asserted before the war that Iraq did not have any
WMD, US analysts have regarded this as disinformation.


End of Times wire report.
--
Want more, Dave? The list is endless but these should have you spinning
your wheels a bit more than usual since your first knee-jerk reaction
was to deny any Bush failures, then
beg for examples.




Vinnie S.