Phil Kane wrote:

On 30 Nov 2003 04:24:46 -0800, Brian wrote:


I never did see the pictures of Dr. Laura...


You didn't miss anything.

Ahh, she wans't bad looking. (actually she still is good looking) But
looks don't have anything to do with it. Anne Coulter is an attractive
woman too, but there is something seriously wrong with her. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:58:49 -0500, Brett wrote:

And it could very well delay a new artificial limb for my friend
who was on board the USS LIBERTY

The same USS LIBERTY about which the United States National
Security Agency told the Israeli Kirya (the equivalent of the
Pentagon) THREE TIMES "it's not ours" even after the second time
the Israelis warned the Pentagon that "if it isn't yours we are going
to blast it out of the water"?

The same USS LIBERTY that, when the Mirages came over to assess the
damage caused by the first strike, THEN showed the US flag and the
Mirages pulled back.

The same USS LIBERTY about which the US government has never come
clean about the cover-up with either the public or the troops that
were aboard, and even in the release of the formerly-classified
communications transcripts a few months ago never 'fessed up to
their part in getting the ship attacked?

You can find a good accounting of the USS Liberty in Chapter 7,
"Blood," in James Bamford's "Body of Secrets," Doubleday, 2001.

As to "coming clean," Bamford blew you out of the water on the
details over two years ago.

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

73 de Jim, N2EY

There you go, Jim. Your prayers and moral support is all that you can
give to those deployed. Tearing down their CIC hurts them, not helps
them, and won't bring them home any sooner for Thanksgiving or
anything else. There will always be deployed service people over
Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. That's just the way it works
when you raise your right hand and swear in. And all the people who
raise their right hands know it.

...he isn't aware of that "know," Brian.

It's one thing to know OF it, quite another to DO it.

I was away for four Thanksgivings and three Christmases.

salute

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
st.net...
On 29 Nov 2003 01:58:17 GMT, N2EY wrote:

And to our service people - spending next Thanksgiving with their
families at home.

Amen, brother.

Regardless of politics or policies, our prayers and thoughts are with
them.

73 de Jim, N2EY

There you go, Jim. Your prayers and moral support is all that you can
give to those deployed.

No, there's more.

Tearing down their CIC hurts them, not helps
them, and won't bring them home any sooner for Thanksgiving or
anything else.

So no one should criticize the president whenever there are troops deployed
anywhere? That's what you seem to be saying.

Who sent American military personnel to the Balkans? Should no one have
criticized him until they all came home?

There will always be deployed service people over
Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.

Why must it be that way?

I was told growing up that there would *always* be a need for more and more
nuclear weapons and delivery systems, because we had to counter the Soviet
threat, and they'd *never* agree to dismantling their weapons or even seriously
reducing their numbers. SAC bombers in the air, boomers on patrol under the
sea, ICBMs in silos all over the country - and there was serious talk of
development of space-based systems, hypersonic cruise missiles, and many other
systems.

How much threat is the the old Soviet Union now? The biggest threat they pose
is if some of their weapons wind up in a terrorist's hands.

Recall that Gorbachev proposed massive dismantling of nukes 20 years ago but
Reagan would not agree because Gorby tied a ban on serious SDI development to
it.

That's just the way it works
when you raise your right hand and swear in. And all the people who
raise their right hands know it.

A lot of things thought to be impossible have become reality, though.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Phil Kane wrote:

On 30 Nov 2003 04:24:46 -0800, Brian wrote:


I never did see the pictures of Dr. Laura...


You didn't miss anything.

Ahh, she wans't bad looking. (actually she still is good looking) But
looks don't have anything to do with it. Anne Coulter is an attractive
woman too, but there is something seriously wrong with her. 8^)

Well said, Mike!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 30 Nov 2003 08:39:47 -0800, N2EY wrote:

Hillary made a big show of going, so Dubya trumped her. Neat trick.

Another bozo.

Or bozoette?

It's accurate to call her that. I prefer the gender-neutral version ggg

See "I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus" (Firesign Theatre)

Point is, she got trumped soundly by Dubya's move.

Serves her right.

'zactly. Her attempt at free publicity got lost in the noise.

"Forgotten heroes of a forgotten war" (from the song "And The Band
Played Waltzing Matilda")

Yup.

And to our service people - spending next Thanksgiving with their
families at home.

Amen, brother.

Regardless of politics or policies, our prayers and thoughts are with
them.

Mine also.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in
ink.net:



Agreed

It is not the 'immigration policy' that is so bad. Its the wide open
borders that are a real problem.

Dan/W4NTI




Well, the border with Mexico seems to be almost impossible to close, from
what I've seen. Probably the only way to fix the problem is to try to help
fix the Mexican economy. Don't ask me how.

I saw a documentary on TV about migrants moving to work in factories just
across the border on the Mexican side, and most of them seem to live in
conditions that are as bad as anything we had in the Victorian era, i.e.
during the original industrial revolution. What is interesting is that a
minority of enlightened factory owners have built nice houses for their
workers - exactly as happened over 100 years ago. However, most of the
factory workers seem to live in shanties, places where water is something
that is delivered by a truck.

It's no wonder that many of them would rather go a few miles further and
cross the border if they can.

At the probability of ticking off everyone again.....that is not our
problem. (USA).

It is the problem of and the fault of the corupt Mexican governments.
Notice I said governments.

They have oil, they have a beautiful tourist location. But the officials
are too busy pocketing the gringo dollars.

I say put up a fence like the Berlin wall. And issue orders to shoot to
kill. That will end it.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...

Excuse me Steve, but I don't remember the Jews of Europe, in the pre NAZI
days, sending in human bombs. Or shooting at soldiers, or declaring that
Isreal has no right to exist.

I think your compairison is flawed.

Israel has no choice but to fight. If they do not they will indeed cease to
exist.

Perhaps it was an unbalanced comparison, Dan, but there's several
things that rub me the wrong way.

The first is that the State of Israel was formed, for the most
part, by people who we not born there. They came, they saw, they took
what they wanted and the natives were just "S.O.L.". Yes...I know
this is the same way the US evolved, but it still doesn't make it
right.

Secondly, the State of Israel is no stranger to spreading a bit
of terror around itself. If you doubt me, do a bit of research on the
Likud Party and one of it's more famous members, Menachim Begin.
Before he got himself elected Prime Minister and invited to break
bread at Camp David, ole Menachim took some special pleasure in
dispatching Palestinians and British alike. Some of the "tactics" you
may recognize as those that the State of Isreal currently cries foul
over now...

Lastly, the Israelis, in my opinion anyway, still have a lot of
explaining to do for the way they do business with their "friends",
specifically us and the USS Liberty affair. Thier "misidentification"
story still doesn't wash.

My point is this...there's a circle of violence that is occuring
in the Middle East...it's been going on since prehistoric times and
will probably continue until the sun goes nova, so we ought to cut our
losses and leave them to thier lifestyle. They'd not know how to act
any other way.

Our only valid interest in that region is maintaining the
petroleum flow and free navigation via the Suez Canal. If geological
studies are correct, Russia has petroleum reserves that exceed
anything the Arabs have, so I think rather than sending arms to Israel
and money to the Arabs, we should be investing our engineering
resources farther north. The Arabs would go broke which would
relegate them back to bedouin tents in a generation. No money means
no guns, and the Israelis would no longer need OUR weapons.

Of course that would tick off the Germans who'd be selling a lot
fewer Mercedes and Audis, but they'd make up the slack on the back end
selling them in Moscow ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...

Excuse me Steve, but I don't remember the Jews of Europe, in the pre
NAZI
days, sending in human bombs. Or shooting at soldiers, or declaring
that
Isreal has no right to exist.

I think your compairison is flawed.

Israel has no choice but to fight. If they do not they will indeed
cease to
exist.

Perhaps it was an unbalanced comparison, Dan, but there's several
things that rub me the wrong way.

The first is that the State of Israel was formed, for the most
part, by people who we not born there. They came, they saw, they took
what they wanted and the natives were just "S.O.L.". Yes...I know
this is the same way the US evolved, but it still doesn't make it
right.

Your right, what you say don't make it right. However what really happened
was the UN, by RESOLUTION created the state of Israel. It was carved out
of Palestine which was being vacated by the British. This was about 1947.
Of course the fine ragheads were trying to kill all the Jews before that
happened.
Remember our fine friends over there now...the Jordanians? They were
marching on the Jews as the Brits left. And if the truth be known the
reason Jordan had the butt is they wanted to be in charge of the Jews, i.e.
part of the Kingdom of Jordan. And really didn't want the palestinians
anyway. Just like today. Except they don't want to be in charge, they
just hope the Jews don't get the arse and come over and kick theirs. Ah
how times have changed.



Secondly, the State of Israel is no stranger to spreading a bit
of terror around itself. If you doubt me, do a bit of research on the
Likud Party and one of it's more famous members, Menachim Begin.
Before he got himself elected Prime Minister and invited to break
bread at Camp David, ole Menachim took some special pleasure in
dispatching Palestinians and British alike. Some of the "tactics" you
may recognize as those that the State of Isreal currently cries foul
over now...

I never claimed the Isralies were sheep or Mr. Nice Guy. You fight fire
with fire, period. It must work....Israel is still here and stronger than
ever.


Lastly, the Israelis, in my opinion anyway, still have a lot of
explaining to do for the way they do business with their "friends",
specifically us and the USS Liberty affair. Thier "misidentification"
story still doesn't wash.

Agreed.


My point is this...there's a circle of violence that is occuring
in the Middle East...it's been going on since prehistoric times and
will probably continue until the sun goes nova, so we ought to cut our
losses and leave them to thier lifestyle. They'd not know how to act
any other way.

No arguement here.


Our only valid interest in that region is maintaining the
petroleum flow and free navigation via the Suez Canal. If geological
studies are correct, Russia has petroleum reserves that exceed
anything the Arabs have, so I think rather than sending arms to Israel
and money to the Arabs, we should be investing our engineering
resources farther north. The Arabs would go broke which would
relegate them back to bedouin tents in a generation. No money means
no guns, and the Israelis would no longer need OUR weapons.

Good theory.....but the Israelis don't need OUR weapons. They have their
own.


Of course that would tick off the Germans who'd be selling a lot
fewer Mercedes and Audis, but they'd make up the slack on the back end
selling them in Moscow ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...

Excuse me Steve, but I don't remember the Jews of Europe, in the pre
NAZI
days, sending in human bombs. Or shooting at soldiers, or declaring
that
Isreal has no right to exist.

I think your compairison is flawed.

Israel has no choice but to fight. If they do not they will indeed
cease to
exist.

Perhaps it was an unbalanced comparison, Dan, but there's several
things that rub me the wrong way.

The first is that the State of Israel was formed, for the most
part, by people who we not born there. They came, they saw, they took
what they wanted and the natives were just "S.O.L.". Yes...I know
this is the same way the US evolved, but it still doesn't make it
right.

Secondly, the State of Israel is no stranger to spreading a bit
of terror around itself. If you doubt me, do a bit of research on the
Likud Party and one of it's more famous members, Menachim Begin.
Before he got himself elected Prime Minister and invited to break
bread at Camp David, ole Menachim took some special pleasure in
dispatching Palestinians and British alike. Some of the "tactics" you
may recognize as those that the State of Isreal currently cries foul
over now...

Lastly, the Israelis, in my opinion anyway, still have a lot of
explaining to do for the way they do business with their "friends",
specifically us and the USS Liberty affair. Thier "misidentification"
story still doesn't wash.

My point is this...there's a circle of violence that is occuring
in the Middle East...it's been going on since prehistoric times and
will probably continue until the sun goes nova, so we ought to cut our
losses and leave them to thier lifestyle. They'd not know how to act
any other way.

Our only valid interest in that region is maintaining the
petroleum flow and free navigation via the Suez Canal. If geological
studies are correct, Russia has petroleum reserves that exceed
anything the Arabs have, so I think rather than sending arms to Israel
and money to the Arabs, we should be investing our engineering
resources farther north. The Arabs would go broke which would
relegate them back to bedouin tents in a generation. No money means
no guns, and the Israelis would no longer need OUR weapons.

Of course that would tick off the Germans who'd be selling a lot
fewer Mercedes and Audis, but they'd make up the slack on the back end
selling them in Moscow ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ


Man!!! Will you puhleeze run for President!? Not only *well* said, but
*damned* well said. I know I have never said that well, heard it said that
well, or will ever hear it said that well again, Steve.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
link.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...

Excuse me Steve, but I don't remember the Jews of Europe, in the
pre NAZI days, sending in human bombs. Or shooting at soldiers, or
declaring that Isreal has no right to exist.

I think your compairison is flawed.

Israel has no choice but to fight. If they do not they will indeed
cease to exist.

Perhaps it was an unbalanced comparison, Dan, but there's several
things that rub me the wrong way.

The first is that the State of Israel was formed, for the most
part, by people who we not born there. They came, they saw, they took
what they wanted and the natives were just "S.O.L.". Yes...I know
this is the same way the US evolved, but it still doesn't make it
right.

Secondly, the State of Israel is no stranger to spreading a bit
of terror around itself. If you doubt me, do a bit of research on the
Likud Party and one of it's more famous members, Menachim Begin.
Before he got himself elected Prime Minister and invited to break
bread at Camp David, ole Menachim took some special pleasure in
dispatching Palestinians and British alike. Some of the "tactics" you
may recognize as those that the State of Isreal currently cries foul
over now...

Lastly, the Israelis, in my opinion anyway, still have a lot of
explaining to do for the way they do business with their "friends",
specifically us and the USS Liberty affair. Thier "misidentification"
story still doesn't wash.

My point is this...there's a circle of violence that is occuring
in the Middle East...it's been going on since prehistoric times and
will probably continue until the sun goes nova, so we ought to cut our
losses and leave them to thier lifestyle. They'd not know how to act
any other way.

Our only valid interest in that region is maintaining the
petroleum flow and free navigation via the Suez Canal. If geological
studies are correct, Russia has petroleum reserves that exceed
anything the Arabs have, so I think rather than sending arms to Israel
and money to the Arabs, we should be investing our engineering
resources farther north. The Arabs would go broke which would
relegate them back to bedouin tents in a generation. No money means
no guns, and the Israelis would no longer need OUR weapons.

Of course that would tick off the Germans who'd be selling a lot
fewer Mercedes and Audis, but they'd make up the slack on the back end
selling them in Moscow ! ! !

73

Steve, K4YZ


Man!!! Will you puhleeze run for President!? Not only *well* said,
but *damned* well said. I know I have never said that well, heard it
said that well, or will ever hear it said that well again, Steve.

Kim W5TIT




Everything Steve said is true. That alone probably disqualifies him from
being a politician.

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Our only valid interest in that region is maintaining the
petroleum flow and free navigation via the Suez Canal. If geological
studies are correct, Russia has petroleum reserves that exceed
anything the Arabs have, so I think rather than sending arms to Israel
and money to the Arabs, we should be investing our engineering
resources farther north. The Arabs would go broke which would
relegate them back to bedouin tents in a generation. No money means
no guns, and the Israelis would no longer need OUR weapons.

Steve:

The problem with Russian vs. Arab oil is that the Arabian oil is a whole
lot easier to get at. You poke a hole in the sand, stick a pipe in it,
and out it comes. Moreover, the oil fields are located close to accessible
sea ports, meaning relatively short and inexpensive transport of the oil
to the ships that will carry it away to the customers. I'm not at all
certain, but I'm pretty sure you'd find that Russian oil is not only a
whole lot further away from sea ports, but also a lot harder to drill
for. A hot, arid climate, while not particularly comfortable, is still a
whole lot easier to deal with than a frigid one when it comes to
crude oil production. If Russia's oil were, in fact, economically feasible
to produce, I have no doubt that those resources would be being
exploited to the greatest extent possible.

Of course that would tick off the Germans who'd be selling a lot
fewer Mercedes and Audis, but they'd make up the slack on the back end
selling them in Moscow ! ! !

They'd be better off sending their oil to Japan, which would then oblige
by spewing out Toyotas, Honda's, and Nissans for the Russian market.


73 de Larry, K3LT

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message nk.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message

Your right, what you say don't make it right. However what really happened
was the UN, by RESOLUTION created the state of Israel. It was carved out
of Palestine which was being vacated by the British. This was about 1947.

Understood. But what right did the United Nations have to create
a new "state" when the people who were already living on that land,
and had for centuries, were not party to that act? That would be like
my state's legislature re-zoning YOUR neighborhood!

Of course the fine ragheads were trying to kill all the Jews before that
happened.

And vice-versa. It's a love-hate relationship...Both sides
"love" hating the other side. Made for some sandskrit stories then
and CNN footage now. =)

Remember our fine friends over there now...the Jordanians? They were
marching on the Jews as the Brits left. And if the truth be known the
reason Jordan had the butt is they wanted to be in charge of the Jews, i.e.
part of the Kingdom of Jordan. And really didn't want the palestinians
anyway. Just like today. Except they don't want to be in charge, they
just hope the Jews don't get the arse and come over and kick theirs. Ah
how times have changed.

Interesting bit of history.

Secondly, the State of Israel is no stranger to spreading a bit
of terror around itself. If you doubt me, do a bit of research on the
Likud Party and one of it's more famous members, Menachim Begin.
Before he got himself elected Prime Minister and invited to break
bread at Camp David, ole Menachim took some special pleasure in
dispatching Palestinians and British alike. Some of the "tactics" you
may recognize as those that the State of Isreal currently cries foul
over now...

I never claimed the Isralies were sheep or Mr. Nice Guy. You fight fire
with fire, period. It must work....Israel is still here and stronger than
ever.

But this is my point...where do the Israeli's get off making scuh
a big ta-doo about Palestinian "terrorists" when they are/have been
just as quick to do a bit of artful manipulation of fear themselves?

And they are still around because Uncle Sam has made it his
business to keep Carrier Battle Groups in the Med!

Rest of stuff we agreed on snipped.

Our only valid interest in that region is maintaining the
petroleum flow and free navigation via the Suez Canal. If geological
studies are correct, Russia has petroleum reserves that exceed
anything the Arabs have, so I think rather than sending arms to Israel
and money to the Arabs, we should be investing our engineering
resources farther north. The Arabs would go broke which would
relegate them back to bedouin tents in a generation. No money means
no guns, and the Israelis would no longer need OUR weapons.

Good theory.....but the Israelis don't need OUR weapons. They have their
own.

True...and danged good ones too...However they what they DO need
is the threat of any one of the aforementioned Carrier Battle Groups
showing up to back up Isael's play...

Yes, the Israeli's have one of the finest Armed Forces in the
world, an intellegence agency that is second to none, and some
seriously big cajones to use them all...But if we weren't propping
them up, I doubt that they'd make it a year.

73

Steve, K4YZ

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ...

Man!!! Will you puhleeze run for President!? Not only *well* said, but
*damned* well said. I know I have never said that well, heard it said that
well, or will ever hear it said that well again, Steve.

Be careful, Kim...Brain insists that no one likes my "posting style"

Thanks, though!

88

Steve, K4YZ

Alun wrote in message .. .

Everything Steve said is true. That alone probably disqualifies him from
being a politician.

Thank-you, Sir!

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message
...

The problem with Russian vs. Arab oil is that the Arabian oil is a whole
lot easier to get at. You poke a hole in the sand, stick a pipe in it,
and out it comes. Moreover, the oil fields are located close to accessible
sea ports, meaning relatively short and inexpensive transport of the oil
to the ships that will carry it away to the customers. I'm not at all
certain, but I'm pretty sure you'd find that Russian oil is not only a
whole lot further away from sea ports, but also a lot harder to drill
for. A hot, arid climate, while not particularly comfortable, is still a
whole lot easier to deal with than a frigid one when it comes to
crude oil production. If Russia's oil were, in fact, economically feasible
to produce, I have no doubt that those resources would be being
exploited to the greatest extent possible.

All too true...but then too, the geography lends itself to long
pipelines, and once they were laid in, that existing infrastructure
alone would drop the price of oil.

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

I don't look upon the country formerly known as the Soviet Union ("Russia"
is actually just a part of it) as being a place which is particularly stable,
from a political standpoint. They now claim to be our allies, but are they
really our friends? Keep in mind the civil strife which continues between
the Russians and the Chechnyans (sp?). How do we know that other
ethnic shredout groups wouldn't try to assert themselves, should they begin
to feel as though they're not getting a fair share of the hegemony?
Keep in mind that there is also a large Islamic population over there,
and that is always going to mean trouble, from a political standpoint.

Of course that would tick off the Germans who'd be selling a lot
fewer Mercedes and Audis, but they'd make up the slack on the back end
selling them in Moscow ! ! !

They'd be better off sending their oil to Japan, which would then oblige
by spewing out Toyotas, Honda's, and Nissans for the Russian market.

Just as long as Central Europe keeps it's Tribants!

That's Traubant, which means "grape." While stationed in Germany, I used
to see them occasionally. Traubant drivers were usually experts in the
navigation of the many back roads of Germany, since they dared not to
venture out on the Autobahns. Their wheezing little 2-cycle engine only
put out about 24 horsepower, the thing simply couldn't accelerate at all.
I've never driven a "Trubby," but I'm told it's a very lawnmower-like
experience.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote

That's Traubant, which means "grape." While stationed in Germany, I used
to see them occasionally. Traubant drivers were usually experts in the
navigation of the many back roads of Germany, since they dared not to
venture out on the Autobahns. Their wheezing little 2-cycle engine only
put out about 24 horsepower, the thing simply couldn't accelerate at all.
I've never driven a "Trubby," but I'm told it's a very lawnmower-like
experience.

I spent a month in DL last spring and noticed a few of those still on the
roads. Most of my time was in "previously West Germany", so they may be
more prevalent in other parts of the country. The current
'econo-box-of-choice' seems to be the "SmartCar", a joint effort between
Mercedes and Swatch (yes, the watch company who wanted to launch a ham-radio
satelite with commercial messages a few years ago).

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
nk.net...
"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message

Your right, what you say don't make it right. However what really
happened
was the UN, by RESOLUTION created the state of Israel. It was carved
out
of Palestine which was being vacated by the British. This was about
1947.

Understood. But what right did the United Nations have to create
a new "state" when the people who were already living on that land,
and had for centuries, were not party to that act? That would be like
my state's legislature re-zoning YOUR neighborhood!

The right of being the United Nations. No other. Apparantly most of the
then member nations agreed. I didn't say it was right.


Of course the fine ragheads were trying to kill all the Jews before that
happened.

And vice-versa. It's a love-hate relationship...Both sides
"love" hating the other side. Made for some sandskrit stories then
and CNN footage now. =)

Remember our fine friends over there now...the Jordanians? They were
marching on the Jews as the Brits left. And if the truth be known the
reason Jordan had the butt is they wanted to be in charge of the Jews,
i.e.
part of the Kingdom of Jordan. And really didn't want the palestinians
anyway. Just like today. Except they don't want to be in charge, they
just hope the Jews don't get the arse and come over and kick theirs.
Ah
how times have changed.

Interesting bit of history.

Secondly, the State of Israel is no stranger to spreading a bit
of terror around itself. If you doubt me, do a bit of research on the
Likud Party and one of it's more famous members, Menachim Begin.
Before he got himself elected Prime Minister and invited to break
bread at Camp David, ole Menachim took some special pleasure in
dispatching Palestinians and British alike. Some of the "tactics" you
may recognize as those that the State of Isreal currently cries foul
over now...

I never claimed the Isralies were sheep or Mr. Nice Guy. You fight fire
with fire, period. It must work....Israel is still here and stronger
than
ever.

But this is my point...where do the Israeli's get off making scuh
a big ta-doo about Palestinian "terrorists" when they are/have been
just as quick to do a bit of artful manipulation of fear themselves?

And they are still around because Uncle Sam has made it his
business to keep Carrier Battle Groups in the Med!

Rest of stuff we agreed on snipped.

Our only valid interest in that region is maintaining the
petroleum flow and free navigation via the Suez Canal. If geological
studies are correct, Russia has petroleum reserves that exceed
anything the Arabs have, so I think rather than sending arms to Israel
and money to the Arabs, we should be investing our engineering
resources farther north. The Arabs would go broke which would
relegate them back to bedouin tents in a generation. No money means
no guns, and the Israelis would no longer need OUR weapons.

Good theory.....but the Israelis don't need OUR weapons. They have
their
own.

True...and danged good ones too...However they what they DO need
is the threat of any one of the aforementioned Carrier Battle Groups
showing up to back up Isael's play...

Yes, the Israeli's have one of the finest Armed Forces in the
world, an intellegence agency that is second to none, and some
seriously big cajones to use them all...But if we weren't propping
them up, I doubt that they'd make it a year.


No arguement here ... however I feel we must continue to support Israel. If
for no other (better) reason then for religious issues. I am not a real hot
to trot bible thumper, btw. This country has a lot in common with the
Isralies. As for their right to call the Palestinians terrorists...why not?
Their leader...Arafat is the founder of the terrorist movement. He is the
one that unleashed it upon the world. So the Israelies and the REST OF THE
WORLD have the right to call them terrorists...because that is exactly what
they are.

Dan/W4NTI

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in message
...

The problem with Russian vs. Arab oil is that the Arabian oil is a whole
lot easier to get at. You poke a hole in the sand, stick a pipe in it,
and out it comes. Moreover, the oil fields are located close to accessible
sea ports, meaning relatively short and inexpensive transport of the oil
to the ships that will carry it away to the customers. I'm not at all
certain, but I'm pretty sure you'd find that Russian oil is not only a
whole lot further away from sea ports, but also a lot harder to drill
for. A hot, arid climate, while not particularly comfortable, is still a
whole lot easier to deal with than a frigid one when it comes to
crude oil production. If Russia's oil were, in fact, economically feasible
to produce, I have no doubt that those resources would be being
exploited to the greatest extent possible.

All too true...but then too, the geography lends itself to long
pipelines, and once they were laid in, that existing infrastructure
alone would drop the price of oil.

Maybe.

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping, infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

Remember that much of Russia's oil is in places as inhospitable and undeveloped
as Alaska. And there's the added problem that the folks there don't necessarily
play by American rules....

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...

In other words, we should trust the Russians?

So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Sure.

But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
Alun wrote in message
.. .

Everything Steve said is true. That alone probably disqualifies him from
being a politician.

Thank-you, Sir!

Steve, K4YZ

Don't get all head inflated boys....Twit is ignored by most of us. Except
possibly Howard McGovern....whoops.....Dean.

Dan/W4NTI

N2EY wrote:


But perhaps we should also consider reducing our dependence on imported energy.

Here is one that gets me into some trouble. I'm a firm believer that we
should:

1. develop as much alternative energy as possible. Although we will
never run out of oil, there are some real limits to it's inexpensive
production.

2. In the interim, use as *much* imported oil as possible.

3. Our own oil resources should be husbanded very carefully, so we will
still have oil in emergencies. We should use only as much as it takes to
operate the wells and search for new sources.


It is one of those reasons why I don't believe that we should open that
range in Alaska at this time. There may come a time that that oil is
needed desparately.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote

Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...So let's spend our money where it's appreciated.

Hey, our competition is spending money there!!!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1002205.asp?0cl=c3

I say either take them *all* out, or bring our young warriors home to their
families and ignore the whole damned cesspool or use it as a test range.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , Alun
writes:

The USA's open-door policies are one reason terror groups were able
at come here and operate the way they did on Sept 11.

Actually, US immigration is amongst the toughest in the world. I can't
help but smile to see it called 'open door'.

I don't mean immigration policies. I mean the the way the USA allows
people in on visas, and doesn't control those who stay illegally.

The main strategy to control this is the I-9 form that everyone fills in
to get a job, even US citizens. The easiest way around that is probably to
work "off the books" for cash. I'm not sure how this could ever be
stopped.

One way to reduce it is high penalties for employers found to be doing such
things, and high rewards and protection for whistle-blowers.

In the case of student visas, as were used in the 911 attacks, it does
seem that immigration ought to check with colleges to see if the students
are still there.

Exactly! That's what I mean by "open-door" - they let lots of folks in and then
don;t check to see what they're really doing.

How did the 9/11 terrorists get into the USA?

On student visas

See above.

This also illustrates one of the conflicts in the way the US economy operates.
Colleges and universities *love* student visas, because foreigners studying in
the USA usually pay cash and help with the institution's need for "diversity".
Such students also help the trade deficit - and considering what a US degree
costs, we're talking serious hard currency per student. So there's pressure to
admit as many cash-paying foreign students as possible.

And the vast majority of them are hard-working, intelligent students whose
purpose in the USA is exactly what they say it is: to get an education.

How much trouble was it
for them to get past INS and set up shop here?

Not much, as it happens. Doing it legally is much more difficult.

There's the problem. It should be easy to do legally and tough to do illegally.

As for tough immigration, check out what is required to immigrate to
New Zealand.

Two words: "Bring money"

73 de Jim, N2EY

Brian wrote:

Yep, national security is hard to do with alternatives. For example,
it would be difficult for the DoD to build stealth fighters that run
on nicads, charged by the sun.

But the rest of us could get along fine with alternatives.

Bingo!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
. com...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and how
long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts crude
from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping,
infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

So, rather than spend the bucks and get it done, we continue to
hang our hats on the Arab's bedposts until all of THAT oil is gone,
THEN go looking?

Not at all! If nothing else, economic development of that area will
help stabilize their political situation.


As well as the rest of the world's.


But we must dispel ourselves of the idea that there's a quick, cheap
and easy fix.


Uh, any fix at all...don't think there is one--the Middle East is the
never-ending problem.


And you might want to look up just how much oil the USA imports from
the Middle East. It's not as much as many people think.


That's a part of the never-ending problem.


Besides...Russians and Americans are closer in social and
geopolitical ideologies than Americans and those folks in the Middle
East and SW Asia...

In other words, we should trust the Russians?

I trust them more. I never did foresee a nuclear war between us.

I always thought that the biggest danger was that a war would start by
mistake rather than intent.


Absolutely.


That doesn't mean the Soviets never wanted to take over, just that
they never wanted to take over a burnt out radioactive cinder of a
world.

The true threat has been from some upstart trying to be the new kid
on the block or someone looking to drive a wedge between us and the
Russians.

Or somebody who didn't really care if they or their society survived
or not.


And that threat will nearly never go away. Despite prophecies to the
contrary.


Then there's Ploesti.....


And I'm reading business books...Oi!


In the end, I say we need to focus on being self-sufficient for basic
necessities - and *all* of the changes needed to bring that about.
Energy supply is a basic necessity for an industrial society.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I believe this will happen...*someday*...and probably much longer than a few
of our lifetimes from now...

Kim W5TIT

"Steve Robeson, K4CAP" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote in message
. com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message
. com...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...

Does anyone have a realistic estimate of how much it will cost and
how long it
will take to develop Russian oil to the point where it undercuts
crude from the
Middle East in total production cost? (drilling, pumping,
infrastructure,
transportation, refining)?

So, rather than spend the bucks and get it done, we continue to
hang our hats on the Arab's bedposts until all of THAT oil is gone,
THEN go looking?

Not at all! If nothing else, economic development of that area will
help stabilize their political situation.

But we must dispel ourselves of the idea that there's a quick, cheap
and easy fix.

I don't think any way is cheap or easy, Jim. It's jsut a matter
of idealogy...I'd rather my money went to Russians than to people who
think it's OK to treat women like property and use children as "human
shields".

73

Steve, K4YZ


Damn. I'd rather a majority of "our money" (it's really the government's)
go right here...in the United States...to rebuild and repair our
infrastructure, to all education levels, to assist in the social and civil
disasters that are taking place right here within the boundaries of our 50
states. : |

Kim W5TIT

"Kim" wrote in message ...

I'd rather a majority of "our money" (it's really the government's)
go right here...in the United States...to rebuild and repair our
infrastructure, to all education levels, to assist in the social and civil
disasters that are taking place right here within the boundaries of our 50
states. : |

So would I, Kim. Plus a balanced budget.

But it's easy to say that. The hard part is deciding how much you're
willing to give up to make it happen. By "give up", I mean things like
higher taxes, higher prices on many things, lifestyle changes, a
redeining of the USA's role in world politics, etc.

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to
come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU
would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the
prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for
the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated
to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands for,
and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be
different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and
economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

I'd rather a majority of "our money" (it's really the government's)
go right here...in the United States...to rebuild and repair our
infrastructure, to all education levels, to assist in the social and
civil
disasters that are taking place right here within the boundaries of our
50
states. : |

So would I, Kim. Plus a balanced budget.

But it's easy to say that. The hard part is deciding how much you're
willing to give up to make it happen. By "give up", I mean things like
higher taxes, higher prices on many things, lifestyle changes, a
redeining of the USA's role in world politics, etc.

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY


You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I
am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the
Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our
country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? It goes on,
I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning: oh yeah,
not-so-smart subsidies, grants, etc. Salaries on superfluous government
personnel *and* programs. I mean, a real mowing down of all the debt that
is incurred each year, against what really, really needs to be spent.
Pretty quick, and I doubt your dipping into peoples' pockets much at
all...really.

But, if it meant a) one tax for all--no tax breaks for any, at about 10-14%
per person and entity, b) taxing even religious institutions--anything
outside of actual *church* and parish properties, c) cutting the fat from
the equation, both in terms of programs and personnel; and there was still a
need for higher taxes, I'd be willing to pay my *fair* share.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...

I'd rather a majority of "our money" (it's really the government's)
go right here...in the United States...to rebuild and repair our
infrastructure, to all education levels, to assist in the social and
civil
disasters that are taking place right here within the boundaries of
our
50
states. : |

So would I, Kim. Plus a balanced budget.

But it's easy to say that. The hard part is deciding how much you're
willing to give up to make it happen. By "give up", I mean things like
higher taxes, higher prices on many things, lifestyle changes, a
redeining of the USA's role in world politics, etc.

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY


You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I
am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of
the
Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our
country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year? It goes
on,
I was thinking about this on the way to work this morning: oh yeah,
not-so-smart subsidies, grants, etc. Salaries on superfluous government
personnel *and* programs. I mean, a real mowing down of all the debt that
is incurred each year, against what really, really needs to be spent.
Pretty quick, and I doubt your dipping into peoples' pockets much at
all...really.

But, if it meant a) one tax for all--no tax breaks for any, at about
10-14%
per person and entity, b) taxing even religious institutions--anything
outside of actual *church* and parish properties, c) cutting the fat from
the equation, both in terms of programs and personnel; and there was still
a
need for higher taxes, I'd be willing to pay my *fair* share.

Kim W5TIT



The average person is already paying nearly half their income in taxes if
you include all taxes plus the ones you pay indirectly. This is hardly
reasonable nor would it be reasonable for anyone to pay even more.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to
come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU
would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the
prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for
the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated
to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands for,
and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be
different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and
economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would
encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all
the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more
vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a
good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems
that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride
mass transit.

Kim W5TIT wrote:




You know what? I am not so sure that it would take all that much, Jim. I
am not even going to pretend to be a financier, but I wonder how much of the
Federal Budget, i.e. your and my tax dollars, get spent away from our
country. Then, how much foreign debt is "forgiven" each year?

I would wager we could cut the foreigh aid we send to support those
little ****ant dictators in some of those ****ant countries and have
more than enough to provide good health care for every citizen.

JJ wrote in
:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning
light rail systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good
in big cities, but the USA has too many wide open spaces and too much
suburban sprawl -- making long commutes necessary for the majority of
the workforce. This means we're going to be dependent on personal,
self-driven vehicles for a long time to come. Moreover, I don't think
that adapting our public transit systems to be as accessible and
accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU would
cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart
on their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also
have a higher level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU
families have never owned an automobile, simply because there was no
need (not to mention the prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to
work and go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline
prices impossible for the average person to afford. Our economy
depends on cheap, abundant energy, available at present-day market
rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The liberal, socialist
Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type energy prices,
but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated to the
EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a
totally agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that
America stands for, and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However,
since most of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states,
America must be different. We must consume a larger share of the
world's energy simply because we have a lot further to go in order to
make our own individual social and economic contributions. I agree
that mass transit should be exploited to the greatest extent possible,
but it will never replace the need for individual, personal mobility
-- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The
would encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was
available, all the while they were expanding the freeway system to
accomodate more vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you
have to 1) build a good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive
freeway systems that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles
to work than ride
mass transit.



I think you should build the freeways, but mass transit should be
developped much more as well. I used to commute 23 miles each way into
London by train. I am now 27 miles by road from downtown Washington DC,
but I am 15 miles from the nearest station!!

As long as I have to drive half way there to get to the station I'm going
to drive all the way there. A system where the trains only run about 15
miles out from the middle of downtown is basically hopelessly crippled by
European standards, and doesn't really count as 'available' to most
people.

When most of the commuters live way, way beyond the end of the line it can
never live up to it's potential. Sure, we are more spread out in America,
but all that should mean is that I may have to drive across town to the
station. It should never mean that I have to drive to another town 15
miles away to catch a commuter train, but that's how it is now, and
needless to say, I don't do it.