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"

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

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.
******

no I elect representatives to do what I want. I don't elect them to go
off and do as they see fit. This may not be what th eaverage American
does but if they wish to jump off a cliff then so be it. Even a
representative democracy can desolve into facism and dictatorship.
Remember Hitler was elected and he did not gain his dictatorship
untill after he was in office. Then he convinced the Congress and the
poeple of Gernamy that it was in the best interest that he and the
leadership rebuild Germany. He asked for their trust in the
leaderships work and not to worry that they had their best interest
at heart.

The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have
papers to travel around in the US. Members in Congress want even more
rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give
up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even
call the law the "Patriot Act".

IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In
fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One
more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil
liberties. I bet Jefferson is rolling in his grave at the blind sheep
the Americans have become.

james

On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:13:54 GMT, james wrote:

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

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.
******

no I elect representatives to do what I want.

Along with everyone else. The reality is that no one gets exactly what
THEY want. We settle for elected officials who share our basic
ideology, values, and character.


I don't elect them to go
off and do as they see fit.

But that's exactly what they do, within reason. When was the last time
someone you helped to elect did exactly what you wanted them to do?
When was the last time they asked you what you wanted?


This may not be what th eaverage American
does but if they wish to jump off a cliff then so be it. Even a
representative democracy can desolve into facism and dictatorship.
Remember Hitler was elected and he did not gain his dictatorship
untill after he was in office.

Actually Hitler gained his power after Paul Von Hindenburg died in
1934. Before that Hitler was just a chancellor and had been unable to
beat Hindenburg in the last election. So in many ways, fate was
responsible for Hilter's chance at power.


Then he convinced the Congress and the
poeple of Gernamy that it was in the best interest that he and the
leadership rebuild Germany.

Yes, and like Clinton, Hitler took the credit for many of the economic
improvements that had been occurring, and he was somewhat successful
in convincing the less educated into believing that the root of their
problems rested squarely on the shoulders of the Jews. Hitler used
this as a rallying cry to unify the people into following his
distorted views of how things should be.


He asked for their trust in the
leaderships work and not to worry that they had their best interest
at heart.

No, he basically told them that Germans were superior, gave them
someone else to blame (deflection) for their problems, and promised to
"fix" it. When you tell people what they want to hear, it's not hard
to gain their support.


The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have
papers to travel around in the US.

Surely you have to realize just how exaggeratedly absurd that is.
Besides, we already have "papers". It's called a driver's license.

Members in Congress want even more
rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give
up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even
call the law the "Patriot Act".

Well, here's the deal. If we have total freedom and civil liberties,
it becomes next to impossible to effectively protect us against
outside infiltrators. So you have to make a choice. Either certain
freedoms need to be modified or curtailed in order to make our borders
more secure, make living and travel throughout our country more
difficult for non-citizens, and obtaining forged documents by hostiles
much tougher, or we have to learn to accept that the price of our open
freedom might likely be a large scale terrorist attack.

You cannot realistically expect to have both total freedom and total
protection. If you do not want the government taking steps to protect
us from terrorists, then you have no right to complain when they
attack. As long as they use our own laws against us, we remain
vulnerable.

Most people are willing to give up some freedoms in order to gain
better security. But that does not mean that we are "becoming a
fascist state". As long as we can continue to elect our
representatives, that will not happen. GW Bush will not be the
president 4 years from now, and there will be a new leader for us to
blame for all the trouble we're having.

IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In
fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One
more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil
liberties.

I'd rather lose some civil liberties than worry that my family could
be wiped from the planet in one fell swoop. Besides, some people take
advantage of certain civil liberties in order to engage in activities
that are either illegal or immoral. A greater individual
accountability for those activities would not be a bad thing IMHO.


I bet Jefferson is rolling in his grave at the blind sheep
the Americans have become.

Yet, you would entrust these same blind sheep as worthy of knowing all
intelligence information on our foreign affairs?.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

David T. Hall Jr. wrote:
No, Hitler (Bush) basically told them that Germans (American
Christians) were

superior, gave them someone else to

blame (terrorists)

(deflection) for their problems, and promised

to "fix" it. When you tell people what they want
to hear, it's not hard to gain their support.


You not only bought this bull**** lock, stock and barrel, you inhaled it
faster than Bush did cocaine at Yale.
-
(The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have
papers to travel around in the US. )

Surely you have to realize just how

exaggeratedly absurd that is.


Surely you don't realize how clueless you are. If you kept up to date on
your own parties activity, you will find the proposal of a national ID
card is not only very real, but a probability,,,all in the name of
protection.

Besides, we already have "papers". It's called

a driver's license.


He said "national".,,all across America, not issued by the state, but
issued by the feds.

(Members in Congress want even more
rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give
up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even call
the law the "Patriot Act". )

Well, here's the deal. If we have total freedom

and civil liberties, it becomes next to

impossible to effectively protect us against

outside infiltrators.



Exactly. And this country has always operated that way. Freedon does not
come without its price.

So you have to make a choice.


The choice has already been made. Bush seeks to change it.

Either certain freedoms need to be modified or

.curtailed in order to make our borders more

secure,

make living and travel throughout our

country more difficult for non-citizens, and

obtaining forged documents by hostiles much

tougher, or we have to learn to accept that the
.price of our open freedom might likely be a

large scale terrorist attack.




In the first place, that you attempt but fail to make a lucid connection
between cracking down on "terrorists" and curbing our rights is a highly
laughable offense. People like you actually believe this ****.

You cannot realistically expect to have both

total freedom and total protection.



Correct. This country chose total freedom. Bush is trying to do away
with it.

If you do not want the government taking

steps to protect us from terrorists,


The steps have proved fruitless. We lost rigts and attacks were still
not prevented,



have no right to complain when they attack.


Keeping with that incompetent mindset, if you are not serving in the
war, or have no family there, or have never served, you have no right to
complain about those who do and say the war in Iraq is wrong. Ludicrous.


As long as they use our own laws against us,

we remain vulnerable.



Open border policy and the freedom we enjoy has always made us
vulnerable. That's the price we pay for the freedom we enjoy, it's a
tradeoff risk we take.

Most people are willing to give up some

freedoms in order to gain better security.


Dead wrong. Most people still believe in our founding forefathers
statements and still apply them today. Franklin said "Those who would
sacrifice personal rights in order to obtain temporary security, deserve
neither"

But that does not mean that we are "becoming

.a fascist state". As long as we can continue to

elect our representatives, that will not happen.

GW Bush will not be the president 4 years

from now, and there will be a new leader for

us to blame for all the trouble we're having.



And since you know it's going to be a democrat, you are already speaking
of such blame 3 years away, but still suffer gastronomic pain when the
Bush failures are illustrated.



(IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In
fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One
more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil
liberties. )

I'd rather lose some civil liberties than worry

that my family could be wiped from the planet

.in one fell swoop.


As Franklin said, you deserve neither.


Besides, some people take advantage of

certain civil liberties in order to engage in

activities that are either illegal or immoral.



(snip)

Have at it, David. You're certified.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't... you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

Warmest regards,
John
"I AmnotGeorgeBush" wrote in message
...
David T. Hall Jr. wrote:
No, Hitler (Bush) basically told them that Germans (American
Christians) were

superior, gave them someone else to

blame (terrorists)

(deflection) for their problems, and promised

to "fix" it. When you tell people what they want
to hear, it's not hard to gain their support.


You not only bought this bull**** lock, stock and barrel, you inhaled it
faster than Bush did cocaine at Yale.
-
(The rate Congres s here is going in ten yrs we all will have to have
papers to travel around in the US. )

Surely you have to realize just how

exaggeratedly absurd that is.


Surely you don't realize how clueless you are. If you kept up to date on
your own parties activity, you will find the proposal of a national ID
card is not only very real, but a probability,,,all in the name of
protection.

Besides, we already have "papers". It's called

a driver's license.


He said "national".,,all across America, not issued by the state, but
issued by the feds.

(Members in Congress want even more
rigid Patriot Act enactment. I love that, they want the masses to give
up civl liberties and make them feel it is patriotic to do so! Even call
the law the "Patriot Act". )

Well, here's the deal. If we have total freedom

and civil liberties, it becomes next to

impossible to effectively protect us against

outside infiltrators.



Exactly. And this country has always operated that way. Freedon does not
come without its price.

So you have to make a choice.


The choice has already been made. Bush seeks to change it.

Either certain freedoms need to be modified or

.curtailed in order to make our borders more

secure,

make living and travel throughout our

country more difficult for non-citizens, and

obtaining forged documents by hostiles much

tougher, or we have to learn to accept that the
.price of our open freedom might likely be a

large scale terrorist attack.




In the first place, that you attempt but fail to make a lucid connection
between cracking down on "terrorists" and curbing our rights is a highly
laughable offense. People like you actually believe this ****.

You cannot realistically expect to have both

total freedom and total protection.



Correct. This country chose total freedom. Bush is trying to do away
with it.

If you do not want the government taking

steps to protect us from terrorists,


The steps have proved fruitless. We lost rigts and attacks were still
not prevented,



have no right to complain when they attack.


Keeping with that incompetent mindset, if you are not serving in the
war, or have no family there, or have never served, you have no right to
complain about those who do and say the war in Iraq is wrong. Ludicrous.


As long as they use our own laws against us,

we remain vulnerable.



Open border policy and the freedom we enjoy has always made us
vulnerable. That's the price we pay for the freedom we enjoy, it's a
tradeoff risk we take.

Most people are willing to give up some

freedoms in order to gain better security.


Dead wrong. Most people still believe in our founding forefathers
statements and still apply them today. Franklin said "Those who would
sacrifice personal rights in order to obtain temporary security, deserve
neither"

But that does not mean that we are "becoming

.a fascist state". As long as we can continue to

elect our representatives, that will not happen.

GW Bush will not be the president 4 years

from now, and there will be a new leader for

us to blame for all the trouble we're having.



And since you know it's going to be a democrat, you are already speaking
of such blame 3 years away, but still suffer gastronomic pain when the
Bush failures are illustrated.



(IF Americans don't wake up to the big picture it will be to late. In
fact so many things are no win place that it may now be to late. One
more 9/11 event and that may spell the end of most of our civil
liberties. )

I'd rather lose some civil liberties than worry

that my family could be wiped from the planet

.in one fell swoop.


As Franklin said, you deserve neither.


Besides, some people take advantage of

certain civil liberties in order to engage in

activities that are either illegal or immoral.



(snip)

Have at it, David. You're certified.


David T. Hall Jr.

"Sandbagger"

N3CVJ

On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave:

No, gov't flows from the citizens to the gov't--wouldn't create any more
gov't... we need citizens in control of a home militia...

Warmest regards,
John

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:03:07 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:

We need a good strong militia here, something on a national level to
oversee
and watchdog our gov't--and have a basic plan if there ever arises a
need to
rise up and take control back from our gov't...

So you want to create a shadow government? Who in this organization
would be accountable to the people? How would they be chosen? Who
would determine when the government had "overstepped its bounds". How
would this vigilante shadow governmental oversight group institute its
"takeover" of the government? Do you think a bunch of unorganized
citizens with rifles and shotguns would be able to defeat the U.S.
military?


you would think someone in
the right position with enough money would already have something
started,
anyone know of a good group... nothing radical, just a group which
swears to
uphold the constitution, but will resort to force if necessary?

I think the communist party is looking for new recruits......

Dave
"Sandbagger"

Dave Hall Said:
"Actually Hitler gained his power after Paul Von Hindenburg died in
1934. Before that Hitler was just a chancellor and had been unable to
beat Hindenburg in the last election. So in many ways, fate was
responsible for Hilter's chance at power. "


Wrongo. Hitler's "emergency" powers were granted by Hindenburg in 1933
as a response to the Reichstag fire.

The German parliment building was torched and the Nazi's blamed
communist agitators, said that the country needed stronger leadership
to beat off attempts by the communists to take it over, etc.

Actually, the Nazis themselves did the torching, specifically to
agitate public opinion in favor of Nazi policies by blaming
anti-government forces for the deed.

Hitler said that Germany was being threatened, the people saw the
Reichstag fire as proof. Hindenburg gave in and let the Nazis run the
show.

Hitler would have blown a goat at the Berlin Zoo to get that power...a
little arson was definitely only the beginning if he had not gotten it.

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.

james

James:

There is much truth in your words. The forefathers intended the least gov't
is the best gov't--gov't should only serve the people and provide for their
best interests and well being--down to the very last, one, single,
citizen...

It is quite obvious this gov't has much bigger plans...

Warmest regards,
John

"james" wrote in message
...
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.

james