| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pete Dimsman wrote: Ture. But Bush has created a climate for them to rally against us. More than ever. Terrorist were attacking the US long before Bush. Two Examples: The Cole and the WTC in the early 90's. It is hardly a phenomenon developed by his policies. They are psychotics with evil intent bent on destroying life for reasons archaic as their actions. -- Nathan "Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations" |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Nathan West wrote: Pete Dimsman wrote: Ture. But Bush has created a climate for them to rally against us. More than ever. Terrorist were attacking the US long before Bush. Two Examples: The Cole and the WTC in the early 90's. It is hardly a phenomenon developed by his policies. They are psychotics with evil intent bent on destroying life for reasons archaic as their actions. You are correct BUSH did not invent terrorism, the USA has been creating terrorist for eons He just altered the world political climate to conditions were terrorists thrive and multiply He VASTLY increased the threat of terrorsism George |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 00:24:45 GMT, Nathan West
wrote: Pete Dimsman wrote: Ture. But Bush has created a climate for them to rally against us. More than ever. Terrorist were attacking the US long before Bush. Two Examples: The Cole and the WTC in the early 90's. It is hardly a phenomenon developed by his policies. They are psychotics with evil intent bent on destroying life for reasons archaic as their actions. You have little understanding of world history, and you are typical of most Americans who have little understanding of the rest of the world outside our borders. 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. Al |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. People like you are too paralyzed by your intellectual rationalizations to protect anybody, let alone the American people. Bob Cain has now actually recomended surrender and giving the terrorists whatever they demand. Roger Norman says we cannot win militarily or ideologically - their brutal inhumanity is our fault anyway! If such views prevail this world will slip into great darkness and many many people will die in terrible ways before things get pulled back. You guys really need to learn how to stand up. Will Miho NY Music & TV Audio Guy Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
WillStG wrote: Bob Cain has now actually recomended surrender and giving the terrorists whatever they demand. Remind me to never let this guy speak for me. He puts the strangest words in my mouth. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:40:25 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: WillStG wrote: Bob Cain has now actually recomended surrender and giving the terrorists whatever they demand. Remind me to never let this guy speak for me. He puts the strangest words in my mouth. It's his style, because he has no real argument or facts to back them up. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
WillStG wrote: Bob Cain WillStG wrote: Bob Cain has now actually recomended surrender and giving the terrorists whatever they demand. Remind me to never let this guy speak for me. He puts the strangest words in my mouth. Ok, surrender and *negotiate* with the terrorists, because they will still be reasonable at this point you said. Hmmm, I can't find the word terrorist in what you quoted of mine. Where, was that again? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:31:01 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: Hmmm, I can't find the word terrorist in what you quoted of mine. Where, was that again? It's in the same part where we all throw up our hands and surrender to the forces of evil. Almost nothing interesting can be digested into a newsgroup posting. A'course they said that about movin' pitchers. Folks who claim to have a privileged viewpoint are about a century out of date. But in human experience a century isn't so much. Chris Hornbeck |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 22:31:01 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: Hmmm, I can't find the word terrorist in what you quoted of mine. Where, was that again? It's in the same part where we all throw up our hands and surrender to the forces of evil. Almost nothing interesting can be digested into a newsgroup posting. A'course they said that about movin' pitchers. Folks who claim to have a privileged viewpoint are about a century out of date. But in human experience a century isn't so much. Chris Hornbeck |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
WillStG wrote: Bob Cain WillStG wrote: Bob Cain has now actually recomended surrender and giving the terrorists whatever they demand. Remind me to never let this guy speak for me. He puts the strangest words in my mouth. Ok, surrender and *negotiate* with the terrorists, because they will still be reasonable at this point you said. Hmmm, I can't find the word terrorist in what you quoted of mine. Where, was that again? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 17:40:25 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote: WillStG wrote: Bob Cain has now actually recomended surrender and giving the terrorists whatever they demand. Remind me to never let this guy speak for me. He puts the strangest words in my mouth. It's his style, because he has no real argument or facts to back them up. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
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. 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 George |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
John wrote: [snip] it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it. As long as people have your attitude, we're doomed to war after war. The consequences of modern warfare are very persistent and eventually will render the planet uninhabitable. How do you plan to deal with that? -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Jay Kadis wrote: In article , John wrote: [snip] it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it. its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal with it george |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Jay Kadis wrote: In article , John wrote: [snip] it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it. its called Peace and every one gets to live happily ever after, Deal with it george |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
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. 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 George |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
John wrote: [snip] it's called "war".. people get killed, deal with it. As long as people have your attitude, we're doomed to war after war. The consequences of modern warfare are very persistent and eventually will render the planet uninhabitable. How do you plan to deal with that? -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote: It was believed that dropping "The Bomb" would end the war more quickly with fewer losses--but it relied on Japan believing we had enough of them to do the job, which we didn't. Do you suppose it might have had anything to do with sending a message to the Soviet Union? It of course did have something to do with the Japanese surrender. The terms that were close to being worked out when it was dropped weren't unconditional. The bomb's intent with respect to the Japanese was to remove any basis for our needing to accept any conditions whatsoever so that we could rebuild the country entirely the way _we_ wanted it allowing as little traditional culture to remain as we saw fit. That wasn't much. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote: It was believed that dropping "The Bomb" would end the war more quickly with fewer losses--but it relied on Japan believing we had enough of them to do the job, which we didn't. Do you suppose it might have had anything to do with sending a message to the Soviet Union? It of course did have something to do with the Japanese surrender. The terms that were close to being worked out when it was dropped weren't unconditional. The bomb's intent with respect to the Japanese was to remove any basis for our needing to accept any conditions whatsoever so that we could rebuild the country entirely the way _we_ wanted it allowing as little traditional culture to remain as we saw fit. That wasn't much. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote: Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than vindictive, hateful, annihilation. So the new strategy for the "Anybody But Bush" Presidential Campaign is to refight *World War II* now? Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well for Senator Swiftboat. 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 George |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
WillStG wrote: Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than vindictive, hateful, annihilation. So the new strategy for the "Anybody But Bush" Presidential Campaign is to refight *World War II* now? Umm, how did YOU connect the two? Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well for Senator Swiftboat. Oh, I see. Standard Bushthink. Polly want a cracker? |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote: Like we did in Hiroshima? Tell me there was a reason, other than vindictive, hateful, annihilation. So the new strategy for the "Anybody But Bush" Presidential Campaign is to refight *World War II* now? Gee, and refighting Vietnam was going so well for Senator Swiftboat. 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 George |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Richman's ethical lapses | Audio Opinions | |||
Hybrid Mode
