"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

Yes... our country is more divided than I can remember in my 51 years.

Just because we are polarized during an election year is not indicative of the
current state of mind of the US. And even if 50% of the polled people in the US
think Bush is wrong, the unsaid part of the statement is that 50% either believe he
is right, or don't care. So if 50% actually vote, then maybe you will have a
change. And that we can change (peacefully I might add) a government leader, is
why this country is different than the ones we are currently expending military
resources on.

We spent boatloads during the late 70's and early 80's in case you forgot. We got
out from under that cliff by the Dot.Com boom and general technological advances.
Nothing is all that different, beyond that we have now started to act the way we
have talked for years. The fact that we acted openly and did what we said we were
going to do to the evil people in the world seems to tick off people a whole lot.
Perhaps a bit of diplomatic repair is in order, but it is nothing to worry about.

"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much
time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."
[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

And perhaps you failed to realized we have neutered his impact, and that he is or
probably is near death. Bush refocused to what the new targets of importance are.
But don't worry though, there are plenty of other evil types out and about who can
provide you with the terror you want.

--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:

Yes... our country is more divided than I can remember in my 51 years.

Just because we are polarized during an election year is not indicative of the
current state of mind of the US. And even if 50% of the polled people in the US
think Bush is wrong, the unsaid part of the statement is that 50% either believe he
is right, or don't care. So if 50% actually vote, then maybe you will have a
change. And that we can change (peacefully I might add) a government leader, is
why this country is different than the ones we are currently expending military
resources on.

We spent boatloads during the late 70's and early 80's in case you forgot. We got
out from under that cliff by the Dot.Com boom and general technological advances.
Nothing is all that different, beyond that we have now started to act the way we
have talked for years. The fact that we acted openly and did what we said we were
going to do to the evil people in the world seems to tick off people a whole lot.
Perhaps a bit of diplomatic repair is in order, but it is nothing to worry about.

"I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much
time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."
[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]

And perhaps you failed to realized we have neutered his impact, and that he is or
probably is near death. Bush refocused to what the new targets of importance are.
But don't worry though, there are plenty of other evil types out and about who can
provide you with the terror you want.

--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"

..being that my thinking is that technology will not be the savior
of
any countries economy anymore. Food and H2O will. Whomever controls those
commodities will rule the world.

I agree 100%
luckily I believe I can be self sufficent in both areas
Though I am not currently
George

..being that my thinking is that technology will not be the savior
of
any countries economy anymore. Food and H2O will. Whomever controls those
commodities will rule the world.

I agree 100%
luckily I believe I can be self sufficent in both areas
Though I am not currently
George

On 8 Sep 2004 09:18:21 -0700, wrote:

(WillStG) wrote in message ...
playon playonATcomcast.net

U.S. foreign policy has for years made citizens
of other countries feel humiliated... it's not defending terrorism to
point out that there are reasons for it blowing back to the USA.

So if a person feels humilated by you Dude, would you prosecute them if
they killed your family and burned down your house? Hey, they were embarassed,
poor baby! Every criminal has a story of why they did what they did. But
crime is crime, and if you step over the line *someone* has to bring you to
justice for it or evil people will dominate the World. Because we are the
strongest nation in the world, we have the responsibility to do it, the little
guys just can't bear the weight.

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

We needed to field test the weapon.

On 8 Sep 2004 09:18:21 -0700, wrote:

(WillStG) wrote in message ...
playon playonATcomcast.net

U.S. foreign policy has for years made citizens
of other countries feel humiliated... it's not defending terrorism to
point out that there are reasons for it blowing back to the USA.

So if a person feels humilated by you Dude, would you prosecute them if
they killed your family and burned down your house? Hey, they were embarassed,
poor baby! Every criminal has a story of why they did what they did. But
crime is crime, and if you step over the line *someone* has to bring you to
justice for it or evil people will dominate the World. Because we are the
strongest nation in the world, we have the responsibility to do it, the little
guys just can't bear the weight.

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

We needed to field test the weapon.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:57:00 -0500, John
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

it saved a lot of american lives from not having to do a massive
invasion of the japanese home islands, and it still took TWO nuclear
bombings before they capitulated.

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

You sir, know nothing about history, I suggest you do some reading
before posting your ignorance. The Japanese were ready to surrender
*before* the a-bombs were dropped.

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 11:57:00 -0500, John
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

it saved a lot of american lives from not having to do a massive
invasion of the japanese home islands, and it still took TWO nuclear
bombings before they capitulated.

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

You sir, know nothing about history, I suggest you do some reading
before posting your ignorance. The Japanese were ready to surrender
*before* the a-bombs were dropped.

The future control and privatization of the world's water supplies by
large corporations is a given, and is very scary scenario. Wars are
definietly going to be fought over this.

Al

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:53:06 GMT, George
wrote:

.being that my thinking is that technology will not be the savior
of
any countries economy anymore. Food and H2O will. Whomever controls those
commodities will rule the world.

I agree 100%
luckily I believe I can be self sufficent in both areas
Though I am not currently
George

The future control and privatization of the world's water supplies by
large corporations is a given, and is very scary scenario. Wars are
definietly going to be fought over this.

Al

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:53:06 GMT, George
wrote:

.being that my thinking is that technology will not be the savior
of
any countries economy anymore. Food and H2O will. Whomever controls those
commodities will rule the world.

I agree 100%
luckily I believe I can be self sufficent in both areas
Though I am not currently
George

Nathan West wrote:



And even if 50% of the polled people in the US
think Bush is wrong, the unsaid part of the statement is that 50% either believe he
is right, or don't care. So if 50% actually vote, then maybe you will have a
change. And that we can change (peacefully I might add) a government leader, is


Interesting. From what hat are you pulling these numbers out of?

Nathan West wrote:



And even if 50% of the polled people in the US
think Bush is wrong, the unsaid part of the statement is that 50% either believe he
is right, or don't care. So if 50% actually vote, then maybe you will have a
change. And that we can change (peacefully I might add) a government leader, is


Interesting. From what hat are you pulling these numbers out of?

In article , Pete Dimsman
wrote:

Nathan West wrote:



And even if 50% of the polled people in the US
think Bush is wrong, the unsaid part of the statement is that 50% either
believe he
is right, or don't care. So if 50% actually vote, then maybe you will have
a
change. And that we can change (peacefully I might add) a government
leader, is


Interesting. From what hat are you pulling these numbers out of?


He clearly stated "IF" this means it is not a stat but rather a "if"
george

In article , Pete Dimsman
wrote:

Nathan West wrote:



And even if 50% of the polled people in the US
think Bush is wrong, the unsaid part of the statement is that 50% either
believe he
is right, or don't care. So if 50% actually vote, then maybe you will have
a
change. And that we can change (peacefully I might add) a government
leader, is


Interesting. From what hat are you pulling these numbers out of?


He clearly stated "IF" this means it is not a stat but rather a "if"
george

WillStG wrote:


Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well for
Senator Swiftboat.


Right now I would be more concerned about your man signing up and going
awol.

-------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Lawsuit uncovers Bush Guard records

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Months after insisting it could find no more records
of President Bush's Air National Guard service, the Defense Department
has released more than two dozen pages of files, including Bush's report
card for flight training and dates of his flights.

The Pentagon and Bush's campaign have claimed for months that all
records detailing his fighter pilot career have been made public, but
defense officials acknowledged Tuesday they had found two dozen new
records detailing his training and flight logs after the AP sued and
submitted new requests under the public records law.

--------------

And even Fox has to admit, in their own sneaky way, blaming it on Texans
for Truth (of course not on Bush, himself):

-----------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131789,00.html

'Texans for Truth' Target Bush's Guard Record

WASHINGTON — After weeks of John Kerry's military record being dogged by
a group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (search), President
Bush's National Guard record is now under assault by a group calling
itself Texans for Truth

Report: Bush Didn't Meet Service Obligations

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reported Wednesday that twice during Bush's
Guard service — first when he joined in May 1968 and again before he
transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business
School — he signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or
face a punitive call-up to active duty.

But the Globe reports that Bush didn't meet those commitments nor did he
face punishment. Bush had 60 days after signing the document to find a
new unit but he never signed up with one in the Boston area, the
newspaper reported.

Bush also didn't serve at all for six months in 1972 or for three months
in 1973, the records show, as examined by the Globe, despite the fact
that Bush's attendance was required. Yet he received no punishment for
that, either, but his unit certified in late 1973 that his service was
"satisfactory."

Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett said Bush wouldn't have been honorable
discharged if he hasn't met his requirements and later told the Globe:
"And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, would have called
him up for active duty for two years."

To add more fuel to the fire, former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes (search),
a Democrat, is scheduled to appear on "60 Minutes II" Wednesday night,
bemoaning his role in placing Bush in the National Guard.

Barnes apparently told close friends that he recommended Bush for a
pilot's slot in the during the Vietnam War because he was eager to
"collect chits" from an influential political family. There's been a
long-running stink over how Bush got a slot in an outfit known as the
"Champagne Unit" because it included so many sons of prominent Texans.

WillStG wrote:


Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well for
Senator Swiftboat.


Right now I would be more concerned about your man signing up and going
awol.

-------------------------------
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Lawsuit uncovers Bush Guard records

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Months after insisting it could find no more records
of President Bush's Air National Guard service, the Defense Department
has released more than two dozen pages of files, including Bush's report
card for flight training and dates of his flights.

The Pentagon and Bush's campaign have claimed for months that all
records detailing his fighter pilot career have been made public, but
defense officials acknowledged Tuesday they had found two dozen new
records detailing his training and flight logs after the AP sued and
submitted new requests under the public records law.

--------------

And even Fox has to admit, in their own sneaky way, blaming it on Texans
for Truth (of course not on Bush, himself):

-----------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131789,00.html

'Texans for Truth' Target Bush's Guard Record

WASHINGTON — After weeks of John Kerry's military record being dogged by
a group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (search), President
Bush's National Guard record is now under assault by a group calling
itself Texans for Truth

Report: Bush Didn't Meet Service Obligations

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reported Wednesday that twice during Bush's
Guard service — first when he joined in May 1968 and again before he
transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business
School — he signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or
face a punitive call-up to active duty.

But the Globe reports that Bush didn't meet those commitments nor did he
face punishment. Bush had 60 days after signing the document to find a
new unit but he never signed up with one in the Boston area, the
newspaper reported.

Bush also didn't serve at all for six months in 1972 or for three months
in 1973, the records show, as examined by the Globe, despite the fact
that Bush's attendance was required. Yet he received no punishment for
that, either, but his unit certified in late 1973 that his service was
"satisfactory."

Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett said Bush wouldn't have been honorable
discharged if he hasn't met his requirements and later told the Globe:
"And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, would have called
him up for active duty for two years."

To add more fuel to the fire, former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes (search),
a Democrat, is scheduled to appear on "60 Minutes II" Wednesday night,
bemoaning his role in placing Bush in the National Guard.

Barnes apparently told close friends that he recommended Bush for a
pilot's slot in the during the Vietnam War because he was eager to
"collect chits" from an influential political family. There's been a
long-running stink over how Bush got a slot in an outfit known as the
"Champagne Unit" because it included so many sons of prominent Texans.

Actually, the WTC truck bomb was 1993, so the answer is "no".

Is there a statute of limitations on terrorist bombing?

Actually, the WTC truck bomb was 1993, so the answer is "no".

Is there a statute of limitations on terrorist bombing?

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

To end the war quickly instead of having to go in and kill everyone. It
worked.

Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than
vindictive, hateful, annihilation.

To end the war quickly instead of having to go in and kill everyone. It
worked.

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

Japan had already made plans(and shared them with the USA) to surrender
before the bombs flew
They were arranging when and where the surrender was to take place
the bombing did not save even dozens of america lives
get your facts straight before posting crap like this

I'm calling bull**** on that one George. Prove it. What is certain is that
Japan was preparing the bloodiest reception ever for the Allies if they had
invaded Honshu. They would have burned Truman at the stake if he had a
weapon that could have saved hundreds of thousands of american lives and
didn't use it. This doesn't sound like a surrender, does it? As a matter of
fact even after the first bomb, they still didn't surrender, it took two and
the biggest bluff in history (that we had hundreds of them) before they
finally gave up. Now, there is the matter of East Germany. Russia was
getting a little too big for their britches, too. Truman didn't want ****
with the Soviets, he had to show them he was unafraid to use a weapon of
mass destruction, especially one that only the United States possessed at
that time. The use of the atomic bomb not only saved us lives from invading
Japan, but it made the Soviets shake in their shoes, they were having
thoughts about war with the US so they could take over the rest of Europe.
Most likely we avoided another war with a much bigger opponent. This is also
what started the cold war, which in the end after years of both countries
suffering economic woes from the military spending, went our way and we were
left as the lone super power. There are a lot of things that were factors in
the dropping of an atomic bomb on Horoshima and Nagasaki, true... but Japan
surrendering wasn't one of them. Get your facts straight, George.

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

Japan had already made plans(and shared them with the USA) to surrender
before the bombs flew
They were arranging when and where the surrender was to take place
the bombing did not save even dozens of america lives
get your facts straight before posting crap like this

I'm calling bull**** on that one George. Prove it. What is certain is that
Japan was preparing the bloodiest reception ever for the Allies if they had
invaded Honshu. They would have burned Truman at the stake if he had a
weapon that could have saved hundreds of thousands of american lives and
didn't use it. This doesn't sound like a surrender, does it? As a matter of
fact even after the first bomb, they still didn't surrender, it took two and
the biggest bluff in history (that we had hundreds of them) before they
finally gave up. Now, there is the matter of East Germany. Russia was
getting a little too big for their britches, too. Truman didn't want ****
with the Soviets, he had to show them he was unafraid to use a weapon of
mass destruction, especially one that only the United States possessed at
that time. The use of the atomic bomb not only saved us lives from invading
Japan, but it made the Soviets shake in their shoes, they were having
thoughts about war with the US so they could take over the rest of Europe.
Most likely we avoided another war with a much bigger opponent. This is also
what started the cold war, which in the end after years of both countries
suffering economic woes from the military spending, went our way and we were
left as the lone super power. There are a lot of things that were factors in
the dropping of an atomic bomb on Horoshima and Nagasaki, true... but Japan
surrendering wasn't one of them. Get your facts straight, George.

its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it

Actually George, I'm all for peace. I totally agree with you. Now, if you
could make the terrorists feel this way, I'd vote for ya! :-) Oh, while your
at it, I'd like to win the lottery and never pay taxes again.

its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal
with it

Actually George, I'm all for peace. I totally agree with you. Now, if you
could make the terrorists feel this way, I'd vote for ya! :-) Oh, while your
at it, I'd like to win the lottery and never pay taxes again.

fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity

Great line, George! Is it yours? It belongs on a bumper sticker. Seriously.

fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity

Great line, George! Is it yours? It belongs on a bumper sticker. Seriously.

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

You sir, know nothing about history, I suggest you do some reading
before posting your ignorance. The Japanese were ready to surrender
*before* the a-bombs were dropped.

WRONG-O!

it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it.

You sir, know nothing about history, I suggest you do some reading
before posting your ignorance. The Japanese were ready to surrender
*before* the a-bombs were dropped.

WRONG-O!

playon wrote:
Actually it's a non-issue, the whole assault rifle ban was a big, fake
bandaid from the start. The only difference between what they are
calling an "assault weapon" and the automatic weapons that are now
legal, is a silencer and (I think) a night scope... otherwise, it's
the same gun.


Al, read this article:

http://tinyurl.com/3hwvy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Police officials from across the country on
Wednesday warned that dangerous assault weapons will flood U.S. streets
if the ban on those guns expires next week but Republican congressional
leaders expressed no concerns about letting the restriction lapse.

"I think the will of the American is consistent with letting it expire,
and so it will expire," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee
Republican, told reporters.

Asked why Congress wanted to legalize the military-style weapons again
when public opinion polls found broad public support for keeping them
illegal, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican said, "We
don't do things by polls."

The politically powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby has made
killing the ban a top priority, and some lawmakers are fearful of
crossing the NRA weeks before congressional elections.

The Consumer Federation of America released a report this week, based in
part on manufacturer catalogs and Web sites, that concluded that
"assault weapons will be more lethal and less expensive... Prices will
drop as supply dramatically increases."

Under the 10-year ban enacted in 1994, weapons such as AK-47s, TEC-9s,
and Uzis were outlawed, as were high capacity ammunition magazines
holding more than 10 rounds. That law expires next Monday and Congress
does not plan to extend it.

The Senate did vote earlier this year to renew the ban but that measure
was part of a larger gun bill that was defeated at the NRA's behest. The
House leaders have not allowed a vote on the ban this year.

Even groups that back renewing the law acknowledge the gun industry
found loopholes and that dangerous weapons do remain on U.S. streets.
But they argue that without the ban, the problem will grow worse.

playon wrote:
Actually it's a non-issue, the whole assault rifle ban was a big, fake
bandaid from the start. The only difference between what they are
calling an "assault weapon" and the automatic weapons that are now
legal, is a silencer and (I think) a night scope... otherwise, it's
the same gun.


Al, read this article:

http://tinyurl.com/3hwvy

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Police officials from across the country on
Wednesday warned that dangerous assault weapons will flood U.S. streets
if the ban on those guns expires next week but Republican congressional
leaders expressed no concerns about letting the restriction lapse.

"I think the will of the American is consistent with letting it expire,
and so it will expire," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee
Republican, told reporters.

Asked why Congress wanted to legalize the military-style weapons again
when public opinion polls found broad public support for keeping them
illegal, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican said, "We
don't do things by polls."

The politically powerful National Rifle Association gun lobby has made
killing the ban a top priority, and some lawmakers are fearful of
crossing the NRA weeks before congressional elections.

The Consumer Federation of America released a report this week, based in
part on manufacturer catalogs and Web sites, that concluded that
"assault weapons will be more lethal and less expensive... Prices will
drop as supply dramatically increases."

Under the 10-year ban enacted in 1994, weapons such as AK-47s, TEC-9s,
and Uzis were outlawed, as were high capacity ammunition magazines
holding more than 10 rounds. That law expires next Monday and Congress
does not plan to extend it.

The Senate did vote earlier this year to renew the ban but that measure
was part of a larger gun bill that was defeated at the NRA's behest. The
House leaders have not allowed a vote on the ban this year.

Even groups that back renewing the law acknowledge the gun industry
found loopholes and that dangerous weapons do remain on U.S. streets.
But they argue that without the ban, the problem will grow worse.

I guess I too would have opted for 6 years of stateside drugging and
boozing over incountry, in harms way, service
you see Me and GW do have something in common

Well, that and the fact that you both have the same name. And you're both
equally bad with words. On the other hand, he's the president.

I guess I too would have opted for 6 years of stateside drugging and
boozing over incountry, in harms way, service
you see Me and GW do have something in common

Well, that and the fact that you both have the same name. And you're both
equally bad with words. On the other hand, he's the president.

Not me - I have way too much fun being alive and causing trouble. But I've
spent many hours counseling those who have been in that frame of mind -
the
thought processes that lead to suicidal ideas generally take months or
years
to reach the stage of actually attempting suicide..

You right about that one, Dave. But the last few seconds is where they
really fall off the edge.

Not me - I have way too much fun being alive and causing trouble. But I've
spent many hours counseling those who have been in that frame of mind -
the
thought processes that lead to suicidal ideas generally take months or
years
to reach the stage of actually attempting suicide..

You right about that one, Dave. But the last few seconds is where they
really fall off the edge.

What are you suggesting, Nathan? That one has to be a psychotic
murderer in order to resist an infidel western occupying force?
Admittedly, that has been a popular belief among invading armies
throughout history, but I'm surprised to hear it from you.

Psychotic? Do you know what that means? How does it apply here?

What are you suggesting, Nathan? That one has to be a psychotic
murderer in order to resist an infidel western occupying force?
Admittedly, that has been a popular belief among invading armies
throughout history, but I'm surprised to hear it from you.

Psychotic? Do you know what that means? How does it apply here?

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
om...
Nathan West wrote in message
...
We no longer have the luxury of choice as to whether
we deal with the world or not.


Really? America has chosen *not* to deal with the dozens of violent
socio-political upheavals that have plagued African nations for the
past couple decades. It would seem America has the luxury [sic] of
picking and choosing our global dealings.

America doesn't deal with these types of situations unless they threaten us.
It's called defense.

"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
om...
Nathan West wrote in message
...
We no longer have the luxury of choice as to whether
we deal with the world or not.


Really? America has chosen *not* to deal with the dozens of violent
socio-political upheavals that have plagued African nations for the
past couple decades. It would seem America has the luxury [sic] of
picking and choosing our global dealings.

America doesn't deal with these types of situations unless they threaten us.
It's called defense.

That is a unknown
but voteing for Bush will not bring peace or security
this has been proven by his "work" over his term
so vote for hope or vote for more of the same

I'll take more of the same, thank you.

That is a unknown
but voteing for Bush will not bring peace or security
this has been proven by his "work" over his term
so vote for hope or vote for more of the same

I'll take more of the same, thank you.