Enough pessimism -- how about the good news

[Marco Zee]

My first post on this forum. ( I'm sure you all were missing me javascript:emoticon(':D') )

Let's review:

We have liberated 50 million people.
We are establishing democracies in a region of the world that has never known democracy.....remember the blue fingers.
We are fighting terrorists abroad instead of here in Foggy Bottom (not a Clinton reference LOL).
No further terrorist attacks in the past 4 years here at home.
Our military is doing a fabulous job under very difficult conditions....again.
Our economy is growing at 3-4%.
The deficit (we are spending toooo much) is shrinking.
Unemployment is down to 5%.
DC finally has a baseball team of its own again.
Home ownership is at an alltime high.
Bush is likely to appoint 3, or possibly 4 Supreme Court Justices.
Jeb Bush is likely to win the Presidency in 2008. ( you heard it here first ! )

On the downside, gas prices are a bit on the high side, but if we were to produce more domestic oil, which we have in Alaska and offshore, the prices would come down.

Not utopia, but overall, pretty darn good, IMHO. I can't think of any place better, can you?

I know summer is coming to an end. but there is more than enough reason for cheer and optimisim.

[brianvh]

Some of those I accept, but a few deserve rebuttal.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Marco Zee wrote:
>
> We are establishing democracies in a region of the world that has never known democracy.....remember the blue fingers.

In the late 19nth century a number of Arab countries started fledgeling
democracies in response to the European model. The European powers wanted
more control over the Arab states so basically stepped in and re-installed
dictatorships, all the while saying they were working to insure human
rights for the Arab citizens. This is why the Arabs have a deep distrust
of anyone who claims to be installing democracy. For a while America was on
the good boy list because of an overt policy of non-interference. This
changed after WW2. I have no doubts of our good intentions here, but the
Arab perceptions will not change until we've withdrawn and let Iraq do
things that are not in our best interest.

> We are fighting terrorists abroad instead of here in Foggy Bottom (not a Clinton reference LOL).
What we've done is basically walk into the enemy dugout with a 'kick me'
sign on our backs. Too good to resist. Some terrorist was quoted as
saying they couldn't ask for a better training ground. Again, I hope the
Bush team is right (since we're already committed), but I can't help but
have doubts...if you can draw me a picture to help me understand how the
war in Iraq decreases conventional terrorism (as opposed to WMD, see
below) I'd love to be enlightened.

> No further terrorist attacks in the past 4 years here at home.
The CIA and FBI has stopped a number of terrorist attacks at home, but did
Iraq really help? For the most part it's caused outrage throughout the
Arab world, which can only increase terrorism. I accept that before we
basically owned the country we had no way of knowing but every reason to
suspect that Iraq had WMD it could supply to the terrorists. But that's
different from saying that the war in Iraq has been responsible for
slowing down conventional terrorism in the last 4 years. Again, the
credit goes entirely to the CIA and FBI. Bush deserves credit for
respecting and strengthining the intelligence community, but only years of
history will say whether the Iraq war has gained us anything. Right now
it's definitely hurting us, and hurting us bad.

[mcelrah]

Thank you, Brian.
I would also add that the prospect of Bush packing the Supreme Court
is no cause for rejoicing.
A decidedly activist conservative judiciary - no strict
constitutionalism here
- will mean fewer protections for individuals against the overweening
power of the state and corporations.
The deficit is not coming down because of any fiscal discipline and
will rebound.
The balance of trade is way out of whack.
Stand by for a further drop in the value of the dollar.
Most of all, I decry the general debasement of popular culture.
A nation of TV-addled lardbutts has got the mendacious, pandering
government they deserve.
Members of the President's base - and in positions of authority in
the government -
believe that if things get worse in the Middle East, it will hasten
the Second Coming of the Messiah, which they devoutly await.
Having played the WMD card prematurely, the U.S. has fewer options
and less credibility on North Korea and Iran.
"What, me worry?"
As he enters his sixth year of on-the-job training, Bush remains a
national embarrassment before the world.
Global warming - just a theory. Ditto, evolution. The science isn't
really firm yet on the heliocentric theory of the planetary system...
And...he still can't pronounce "nuclear".

- Hugh

On 25 Aug 2005, at 10:56, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:

>
>
> Some of those I accept, but a few deserve rebuttal.
>
>
>
>

[Joe Schad]

One or two more thoughts abouts Marco's assessment.

The economy is growing at 3-4%. Well any ones economy will look good when you are running up serious debt on the national credit card. George has added over 2 Trillion to the national debt in four years. Making things look good by all the deficit spending is pure deceit.

"Our military is doing a fabulous job under very difficult conditions..." Conditions would not be nearly as difficult if Bush and the Republicans would provide the forces needed to finish the job they started. We needed every one of the 350,000 troop recommended for the post war period. We need a larger military. Bush is killing the Guard and Reserve with the continuously rotating year of combat duty. The Commander is suppose to provide the resources to do the job and Bush is not.

Our troop are doing a great job but they have been mislead, lied to, and are now getting screwed by the commander in chief.

"We have liberated 50 million people" I assume you are only talking about the male members of these countries.

By the way, who is the author of this post?

Joe Schad

[TQ]

Joe, you're letting facts cloud your judgment.

Lloyd Benson (1988 Democratic VP candidate) once said: "You know, if you let
me write $200 billion of hot checks every year, I could give you the
illusion of prosperity too."

It was true then and it's true now. How the GOP ever earned the mantle of
the 'fiscally responsible party' I'll never know.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Schad [mailto:jgs1942@shentel.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 09:15 p.m.
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news


One or two more thoughts abouts Marco's assessment.

The economy is growing at 3-4%. Well any ones economy will look good when
you are running up serious debt on the national credit card. George has
added over 2 Trillion to the national debt in four years. Making things look
good by all the deficit spending is pure deceit.

[Flying Lobster]

Welcome back Marco!

When we last left off, we were argueing the pros and cons of invading Iraq. You, as might be expected of someone who would not likely get within a thousand miles of the flying bullits, staunchly rattled your sword in favor of the invasion which the administration hoodwinked the public into.

1. You predicted the war would be over in 6 weeks. What has in fact happened?
2. You predicted the US forces would suffer minimal casualities. What has in fact happened?
3. You predicted the oil would flow freely (presumably under the stewardship of the new US "overseers") and prices would drop. What in fact has happened?
4. You predicted the Iraqis would rejoice in the freedom of newfound Democracy. What in fact has happened?

I challenge anybody in the world to definitively and convincingly argue what this war is really all about. The only arguement that even comes close to the truth, in my opinion, is when Bush said that to pull out would dishonor the sacrifices of those that have already died in his (foolish) cause. This only ensures that fine Americans will continue to be sent there to die--as well as thousands of innocent civilians caught in the mercurial political shifts that are harder to fathom than sand blown by the desert wind.

What is the real endgame here? It certainly isn't to prevent terrorism--that's for sure. We're not fighting Al Queda--we're being picked apart by local insurgents on the ground in Iraq.

Suppose for the moment some kind of shakey government does succeeed temporarily. How long will it be before one side or another tries to sieze absolute power again? What is the likelyhood that an Islamic extremeist--exactly the kind of real terrorist threat we're supposedly fighting to avenge 911--will eventually seize power?

Is this situation worth even ONE American life? I don't think so.

One of my hang gliding students told me a revealing story last night. We were talking about challenges in life in general--and out of the blue he started talking about Iraq (I swear, I did not even mention it!). My student is an Air Force veteran himslf, and he told me that one of his best friends that he grew up with just returned from spending a year and a half on the ground in Iraq in the Army.

His friend is a 17 year veteran and is proud of his service to his country and to the Army. Although he is only a few years shy of retiring with a pension, he is so appaled by what is going on over there and what he's been asked to do that he's opting out rather than risking getting sent back--even at the cost of losing his benefits.

On the way home from our airfield I saw a great bumper sticker that said "Would somebody please find me a florist who will send 2 Bushes to Iraq."

marc

[Marco Zee]

Hey All,

Wow, what a fabulous response from my esteemed flying comrades !!! I have missed slugging it out with you guys (figuratively of course) !!!

I just got back into town, and I want to respond to each respondent, but let me start with Marc, since we are "resuming" an earlier conversation from "pre-invasion" times. Brian, Hugh, and Joe will have to wait a day or two for their responses.

Let me reply to Marc's four points first:

1. You predicted the war would be over in 6 weeks. What has in fact happened?
I said that Saddam and his henchmen would be defeated in 2-3 months, and they basically were "out of power" in less than two months. What we are fighting now is a coalition of mainly foreign terrorists, not Iraqi "insurgents", although some of the old Baathists are still around causing trouble and helping the foreign terrorists. Zarqawi, the terrorist leader, is from Jordan, and is NOT an Iraqi. There is almost NIL popular support for the terrorists, who are killing Iraqi civilians by the thousands.

2. You predicted the US forces would suffer minimal casualities. What has in fact happened?
Casualties for the initial invasion and overthrow were fairly minimal. The ongoing battle with the terrorists (from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc) are concerning, but certainly NOT overwhelming. Lets review our American History: We lost (battle deaths alone) 214,000 in the Civil War, 53,000 in WWI, 291,000 in WW2, 36,000 in Korea, and 47,000 in Vietnam. We lost 10,000 in the Normandy/D-Day invasion alone ! At the current rate in Iraq, it will take us 12.5 years to match our Normandy losses alone ( figuring 2K deaths in 2.5 years).

The war on terrorism won't be won without casualties, but IT MUST BE WON, at any cost if we are to survive as a nation. Get some PERSPECTIVE on these casaualties......they are painful, especially for the military families, but they are not indicative of an impending military defeat.....not even close.....and to suggest that the military is about to be defeated, overrun, or even seriously challenged is simply ridiculous.

3. You predicted the oil would flow freely (presumably under the stewardship of the new US "overseers") and prices would drop. What in fact has happened?
I said that if "I" were running the post-Saddam Iraq, I would increase the oil outputs AND give the USA "cut-rate" oil as a payback for our sacrifices, both in financial and human terms.....as should Kuwait. Both countries, as a gesture of thanks, should give us a "cut rate" for the next 50 years or so, to repay our sacrifices and investments. The current politicos, who don't want to look like the overthrow of Saddam was just an "oil grab" have not taken my advice. Oil production in Iraq is about 2 million barrels a day, about what was being produced before the war.

The price of oil has risen because..... surprise....... increased DEMAND from developing countries, esp China and India, IS EXCEEDING SUPPLY. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the cost of gas was highest during the Carter Administration, but that doesn't give me alot of solace when a fillup in my "Hummer" costs me $120.

4. You predicted the Iraqis would rejoice in the freedom of newfound Democracy. What in fact has happened?
Exactly as I said, .....the Kurds are loving life, the Shia are preparing to be the ruling majority,....even the Sunni's are registering to vote in droves prior to the vote on the Constitution, which is being argued and debated BY ALL PARTIES, just as we are doing on this forum. Sounds like Democracy to me. It is ultimately up to the Iraqi themselves to make democracy "work" for them, and they are making the necessary "first steps" towards this potentially glorious end.

So, in my view, I was right on 3 out of 4....#1, #2, and #4. I'll concede that gas prices are higher, but I don't think that the increase in cost can be directly attributed to the Iraqi situation.

I gotta get back to work....more spewing of right wing invective to follow shortly. Love you guys (and gals) !!!

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Hey All,

Wow, what a fabulous response from my esteemed flying comrades !!! I have missed slugging it out with you guys (figuratively of course) !!!

I just got back into town, and I want to respond to each respondent, but let me start with Marc, since we are "resuming" an earlier conversation from "pre-invasion" times. Brian, Hugh, and Joe will have to wait a day or two for their responses.

Let me reply to Marc's four points first:

1. You predicted the war would be over in 6 weeks. What has in fact happened?
I said that Saddam and his henchmen would be defeated in 2-3 months, and they basically were "out of power" in less than two months. What we are fighting now is a coalition of mainly foreign terrorists, not Iraqi "insurgents", although some of the old Baathists are still around causing trouble and helping the foreign terrorists. Zarqawi, the terrorist leader, is from Jordan, and is NOT an Iraqi. There is almost NIL popular support for the terrorists, who are killing Iraqi civilians by the thousands.

2. You predicted the US forces would suffer minimal casualities. What has in fact happened?
Casualties for the initial invasion and overthrow were fairly minimal. The ongoing battle with the terrorists (from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc) are concerning, but certainly NOT overwhelming. Lets review our American History: We lost (battle deaths alone) 214,000 in the Civil War, 53,000 in WWI, 291,000 in WW2, 36,000 in Korea, and 47,000 in Vietnam. We lost 10,000 in the Normandy/D-Day invasion alone ! At the current rate in Iraq, it will take us 12.5 years to match our Normandy losses alone ( figuring 2K deaths in 2.5 years).

The war on terrorism won't be won without casualties, but IT MUST BE WON, at any cost if we are to survive as a nation. Get some PERSPECTIVE on these casaualties......they are painful, especially for the military families, but they are not indicative of an impending military defeat.....not even close.....and to suggest that the military is about to be defeated, overrun, or even seriously challenged is simply ridiculous.

3. You predicted the oil would flow freely (presumably under the stewardship of the new US "overseers") and prices would drop. What in fact has happened?
I said that if "I" were running the post-Saddam Iraq, I would increase the oil outputs AND give the USA "cut-rate" oil as a payback for our sacrifices, both in financial and human terms.....as should Kuwait. Both countries, as a gesture of thanks, should give us a "cut rate" for the next 50 years or so, to repay our sacrifices and investments. The current politicos, who don't want to look like the overthrow of Saddam was just an "oil grab" have not taken my advice. Oil production in Iraq is about 2 million barrels a day, about what was being produced before the war.

The price of oil has risen because..... surprise....... increased DEMAND from developing countries, esp China and India, IS EXCEEDING SUPPLY. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the cost of gas was highest during the Carter Administration, but that doesn't give me alot of solace when a fillup in my "Hummer" costs me $120.

4. You predicted the Iraqis would rejoice in the freedom of newfound Democracy. What in fact has happened?
Exactly as I said, .....the Kurds are loving life, the Shia are preparing to be the ruling majority,....even the Sunni's are registering to vote in droves prior to the vote on the Constitution, which is being argued and debated BY ALL PARTIES, just as we are doing on this forum. Sounds like Democracy to me. It is ultimately up to the Iraqi themselves to make democracy "work" for them, and they are making the necessary "first steps" towards this potentially glorious end.

So, in my view, I was right on 3 out of 4....#1, #2, and #4. I'll concede that gas prices are higher, but I don't think that the increase in cost can be directly attributed to the Iraqi situation.

I gotta get back to work....more spewing of right wing invective to follow shortly. Love you guys (and gals) !!!

Marco

Wow! Is it possible that you can really be this disallusioned?

1. Oil--and hence all derivitive products--which ultimately affect the costs of EVERYTHING in our economy is at an ALL TIME HIGH--even accounting for inflation-adjusted dollars as compared to the early seventies. Jeez what a load of crap trying to use a slight of hand to cut Carter for today's administration's misleading policies. The only thing you said that is true is that China is emerging as a rival consumer to the US. Oil prices are determined by futures traders who take into account market conditions such as world stability, weather and anticipated demand. Instability in Iraq is a MAJOR factor in the drive up in oil prices, along with other factors, not the least of which the US has been operating fewer refineries at or near maximum capacity. Why invest billions in a new refinery when economically recoverable reserves may run out before the return on investment returns a profit? So what if supply runs short this winter--as it always does every winter? So what if consumers have to pay 2 to three times as much to keep their houses warm compared to just a few years ago? So what if ultimately these increased costs ultimately REMOVE income and production from the economy? SO what if just a few mega businesses and their friends MAKE MONEY at the price of hardship and misery for large segments of the population? OH--and I distincly remember you saying the oil would flow freely. Iraqi production is NOT at levels comparable to prewar Iraq (which was shut down by us anyway). Iraq possesses the world's fourth largest known reserves of economically producable oil in the world.

2. Glorious end via Iraqi democracy? Those kind, apple-pie loving, American flag waving Shias that are aligned with and backed by the religous clerics that rule Iran--that favor extreme Islamic interpretation are going to be whistling Dixie all the way to the ruler's palace? That already permit and encourage repression of women? That allow "honor killings" when a father or brother can legally kill a female member of their family and hack them to pieces if they feel their honor has been betrayed? This is a happy, contented society that is an exempolar of demoecracy? You must be taking the same brand of acid that the administration is!

3. Your flippant mathematical calculations of American fatalities displays the same disregard for the lives of our armed forces that the administration has. If this is such a glorious defense of the American homeland and our way of life--then why don't you or your kids sign up and get on over there? The only part of what you say that has any real relevance is the 12.5 year projection--for this conflict has no real planned end. The administration is stuck trying to promote the farce of a constitional and representative government--simply so they can pull out our forces and cut and run. But they don't want the world to see it that way--so we will continue to send our dedicated troops in to fight an endless battle against a foe that is difficult, if not impossible, to defeat because it is not a fixed hard target. The honest truth of the matter is the administration had no idea what it was getting into nor any real plan of getting out of it.

Its easy to wave the flag and rattle your sword--as long as someone else is doing the fighting and dieing.

marc

[mcelrah]

para 1 - Wrong! Lot's of Iraqi Sunni insurgents. Even if they are
foreign, insurgents keep OEF from being scored a success; we've just
traded one headache for another.

para 2 - Problem with "less than WW I level of casualties" is
twofold: goalposts have moved - 2k dead/15k wounded is no longer
acceptable; it's also young John Kerry's question; "how do you ask
a man to be the last to die for a mistake?" This President can't
articulate a reason to have gone (let's see - we're on reason #3
now...) in the first place, nor a reason to stay that passes the BS
test. Sure, our superb professional soldiers will do their jobs, but
they're not set up to deal with this enemy. The relevant skills for
nation-building (remember when W said "no nation-building" in the
2000 debate? what a numb-nuts!) are in the reserve force. I served
for over a decade each in both regular and reserve forces, and the
reservists are incredible, but they do have other responsibilities
and will not re-up for back-to-back Iraq tours.

para 3: Looting Iraqi oil as paybacks is also no longer acceptable
in civilized society. You are in the wrong century.
Yep, China and India are bidding up the price of oil - and short-
sighted Republican policies have painted us into a corner with a
fleet of fuel inefficient vehicles and insufficient public transport/
urban-suburban planning. This isn't just at the national policy
level, it goes right down to the local zoning board, where property
rights radicals use take-no-prisoners tactics to spike smart growth
efforts. Remember the ill-fated carbon tax of the early days of the
Clinton administration? Who do you think killed that?

para 4: Hmmmm...democracy with bombs? I devoutly hope the Iraqis
muddle through - but I wouldn't bet the ranch. Hoping for the best
is not a policy, but that seems to be all the administration has...

Hugh

On 29 Aug 2005, at 03:31, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Hey All,
>
> Wow, what a fabulous response from my esteemed flying comrades !!!
> I have missed slugging it out with you guys (figuratively of
> course) !!!
>
> I just got back into town, and I want to respond to each
> respondent, but let me start with Marc, since we are "resuming" an
> earlier conversation from "pre-invasion" times. Brian, Hugh, and
> Joe will have to wait a day or two for their responses.
>
> Let me reply to Marc's four points first:
>
> 1. You predicted the war would be over in 6 weeks. What has in fact
> happened?
> I said that Saddam and his henchmen would be defeated in 2-3
> months, and they basically were "out of power" in less than two
> months. What we are fighting now is a coalition of mainly foreign
> terrorists, not Iraqi "insurgents", although some of the old
> Baathists are still around causing trouble and helping the foreign
> terrorists. Zarqawi, the terrorist leader, is from Jordan, and is
> NOT an Iraqi. There is almost NIL popular support for the
> terrorists, who are killing Iraqi civilians by the thousands.
>
> 2. You predicted the US forces would suffer minimal casualities.
> What has in fact happened?
> Casualties for the initial invasion and overthrow were fairly
> minimal. The ongoing battle with the terrorists (from Syria,
> Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc) are concerning, but certainly NOT
> overwhelming. Lets review our American History: We lost (battle
> deaths alone) 214,000 in the Civil War, 53,000 in WWI, 291,000 in
> WW2, 36,000 in Korea, and 47,000 in Vietnam. We lost 10,000 in the
> Normandy/D-Day invasion alone ! At the current rate in Iraq, it
> will take us 12.5 years to match our Normandy losses alone
> ( figuring 2K deaths in 2.5 years).
>
> The war on terrorism won't be won without casualties, but IT MUST
> BE WON, at any cost if we are to survive as a nation. Get some
> PERSPECTIVE on these casaualties......they are painful, especially
> for the military families, but they are not indicative of an
> impending military defeat.....not even close.....and to suggest
> that the military is about to be defeated, overrun, or even
> seriously challenged is simply ridiculous.
>
> 3. You predicted the oil would flow freely (presumably under the
> stewardship of the new US "overseers") and prices would drop. What
> in fact has happened?
> I said that if "I" were running the post-Saddam Iraq, I would
> increase the oil outputs AND give the USA "cut-rate" oil as a
> payback for our sacrifices, both in financial and human
> terms.....as should Kuwait. Both countries, as a gesture of
> thanks, should give us a "cut rate" for the next 50 years or so,
> to repay our sacrifices and investments. The current politicos,
> who don't want to look like the overthrow of Saddam was just an
> "oil grab" have not taken my advice. Oil production in Iraq is
> about 2 million barrels a day, about what was being produced before
> the war.
>
> The price of oil has risen because..... surprise....... increased
> DEMAND from developing countries, esp China and India, IS EXCEEDING
> SUPPLY. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the cost of gas was highest
> during the Carter Administration, but that doesn't give me alot of
> solace when a fillup in my "Hummer" costs me $120.
>
> 4. You predicted the Iraqis would rejoice in the freedom of
> newfound Democracy. What in fact has happened?
> Exactly as I said, .....the Kurds are loving life, the Shia are
> preparing to be the ruling majority,....even the Sunni's are
> registering to vote in droves prior to the vote on the
> Constitution, which is being argued and debated BY ALL PARTIES,
> just as we are doing on this forum. Sounds like Democracy to me.
> It is ultimately up to the Iraqi themselves to make democracy
> "work" for them, and they are making the necessary "first steps"
> towards this potentially glorious end.
>
> So, in my view, I was right on 3 out of 4....#1, #2, and #4. I'll
> concede that gas prices are higher, but I don't think that the
> increase in cost can be directly attributed to the Iraqi situation.
>
> I gotta get back to work....more spewing of right wing invective to
> follow shortly. Love you guys (and gals) !!!
>
> Marco
>

[mcelrah]

Marc F's para 1: Inflation adjusted high was $3.11/gal in 1981.
We're not there yet - maybe next week... Anyway the Europeans have
had $6/gal gas for years. Otherwise, I concur with Marc F. - Hugh

On 29 Aug 2005, at 06:59, Flying Lobster wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Wow! Is it possible that you can really be this disallusioned?
>
> 1. Oil--and hence all derivitive products--which ultimately affect
> the costs of EVERYTHING in our economy is at an ALL TIME HIGH--even
> accounting for inflation-adjusted dollars as compared to the early
> seventies. Jeez what a load of crap trying to use a slight of hand
> to cut Carter for today's administration's misleading policies. The
> only thing you said that is true is that China is emerging as a
> rival consumer to the US. Oil prices are determined by futures
> traders who take into account market conditions such as world
> stability, weather and anticipated demand. Instability in Iraq is a
> MAJOR factor in the drive up in oil prices, along with other
> factors, not the least of which the US has been operating fewer
> refineries at or near maximum capacity. Why invest billions in a
> new refinery when economically recoverable reserves may run out
> before the return on investment returns a profit? So what if supply
> runs short this winter--as it always does every winter? So what if
> consumers have
> to pay 2 to three times as much to keep their houses warm compared
> to just a few years ago? So what if ultimately these increased
> costs ultimately REMOVE income and production from the economy? SO
> what if just a few mega businesses and their friends MAKE MONEY at
> the price of hardship and misery for large segments of the
> population? OH--and I distincly remember you saying the oil would
> flow freely. Iraqi production is NOT at levels comparable to prewar
> Iraq (which was shut down by us anyway). Iraq possesses the world's
> fourth largest known reserves of economically producable oil in the
> world.
>
> 2. Glorious end via Iraqi democracy? Those kind, apple-pie loving,
> American flag waving Shias that are aligned with and backed by the
> religous clerics that rule Iran--that favor extreme Islamic
> interpretation are going to be whistling Dixie all the way to the
> ruler's palace? That already permit and encourage repression of
> women? That allow "honor killings" when a father or brother can
> legally kill a female member of their family and hack them to
> pieces if they feel their honor has been betrayed? This is a happy,
> contented society that is an exempolar of demoecracy? You must be
> taking the same brand of acid that the administration is!
>
> 3. Your flippant mathematical calculations of American fatalities
> displays the same disregard for the lives of our armed forces that
> the administration has. If this is such a glorious defense of the
> American homeland and our way of life--then why don't you or your
> kids sign up and get on over there? The only part of what you say
> that has any real relevance is the 12.5 year projection--for this
> conflict has no real planned end. The administration is stuck
> trying to promote the farce of a constitional and representative
> government--simply so they can pull out our forces and cut and run.
> But they don't want the world to see it that way--so we will
> continue to send our dedicated troops in to fight an endless battle
> against a foe that is difficult, if not impossible, to defeat
> because it is not a fixed hard target. The honest truth of the
> matter is the administration had no idea what it was getting into
> nor any real plan of getting out of it.
>
> Its easy to wave the flag and rattle your sword--as long as someone
> else is doing the fighting and dieing.
>
> marcgot art?
> http://www.marcfink.com/
> wanna fly?
> http://www.downeastairsports.com/
>

[Flying Lobster]

Hugh asked:

"Remember the ill-fated carbon tax of the early days of the
Clinton administration? Who do you think killed that?"

The carbon tax, which was intended to reduce demand for carbon-based fuels and thereby reduce CO2 and greehouse gas emmissions, was soundly defeated by the oil special interest lobbies.

The special interest groups, backed by the millions of the oil companies, were specifically mandated to take down Clinton and any notion of gasoline consumption standards. The special interest groups mobilized all-out campaigns of carefully-coordinated mass publicity that decieved lawmakers and the public as to the economic armegeddon that would result if the carbon tax passed. Among them--that the down-trodden masses would suffer terribly at the resultant $1.50 a gallon pump prices!

In just a few months the special interest groups succeeded in dealing Clinton a major defeat--while the oil companies continued to reap huge tax write-offs at the expense of the taxpayers.

Now you may just dismiss this as pure rhetoric, but I know these are the facts. How? Because I was an analyst at a major industry lobby group at the time and helped write some of the talking point and press releases that were used to defeat the carbon tax. I can tell you also that the subsequent rewards, dinners, and cash bonuses paid by the industry were quite lavish. This is how big business works.

marc

[Marco Zee]

<<TQ wrote
Joe, you're letting facts cloud your judgment.

Lloyd Benson (1988 Democratic VP candidate) once said: "You know, if you let
me write $200 billion of hot checks every year, I could give you the
illusion of prosperity too."

It was true then and it's true now. How the GOP ever earned the mantle of
the 'fiscally responsible party' I'll never know.>>

TQ
The Dems controlled the House for 40 consecutive years, and ran a deficit the entire time, except by accident in 1969 when unexpected high growth caused increased revenues, and a small surplus. The Republicans believed in smaller government and less spending, and thereby got the reputation of being fiscally responsible. It was not until the Republicans recaptured the House in 1994 that the budget became balanced again a few years later, due to restrictions on spending and a growing economy.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are in serious jeopardy of losing this reputation given the growth and spending of Congress the past four years. But neither major party apparently has the interest in controlling the growth of government spending. Likewise, neither party has a desire to properly secure the borders.

If you are implying that we cannot have prosperity if we are running a deficit, then were the 40 years from 1957 to 1997 properous, or were they an illusion?

I would contend that the private sector and the public sector are distinct, and that it is historically demonstrable that the economy can be doing well simultaneously as the government is being fiscally irresponsible, and vice versa.

By the way, Lloyd Benson had so much faith in that statement and in his VP candidacy, that he ran for Texas Senator simultaneously as he ran for VP.....I guess he knew that he was gonna lose 40 out of 50 states to Bush 41, and he didn't want to lose his Senate seat while going down in flames with Michael "the tank driver" Dukakis.

[mcelrah]

I would submit that the last half of the 20th century was a different
time than now. We got away with running a deficit when the U.S. was
a manufacturing powerhouse and the dollar was the only game in town
as a reserve currency. As hang-glider pilots, we know we can defy
gravity - temporarily. Same thing goes for the public sector. Sure,
private sector goes great guns when you've got both feet on the
fiscal accelerator, pumping an extra 1/3 to 1/2 a trillion dollars
into the economy. I can maintain a great lifestyle on credit card
debt for quite awhile. Wanta lend me $5k for a new glider? (This
last is just a rhetorical question - Steve Wendt called and said my
U2 can be repaired.) The difference between the Republicans and the
Democrats is that the Dems were willing to use taxation to fund their
spending. The Republicans just want to cut taxes, but aren't
prepared to cut anything and actually spend a lot more. "How can I
be overdrawn? - I still have more checks!" - Hugh

On 29 Aug 2005, at 10:50, Marco Zee wrote:

>
>
>
> TQ
> The Dems controlled the House for 40 consecutive years, and ran a
> deficit the entire time, except by accident in 1969 when unexpected
> high growth caused increased revenues, and a small surplus. The
> Republicans believed in smaller government and less spending, and
> thereby got the reputation of being fiscally responsible. It was
> not until the Republicans recaptured the House in 1994 that the
> budget became balanced again a few years later, due to restrictions
> on spending and a growing economy.
>
> Unfortunately, the Republicans are in serious jeopardy of losing
> this reputation given the growth and spending of Congress the past
> four years. But neither major party apparently has the interest
> in controlling the growth of government spending. Likewise,
> neither party has a desire to properly secure the borders.
>
> If you are implying that we cannot have prosperity if we are
> running a deficit, then were the 40 years from 1957 to 1997
> properous, or were they an illusion?
>
> I would contend that the private sector and the public sector are
> distinct, and that it is historically demonstrable that the economy
> can be doing well simultaneously as the government is being
> fiscally irresponsible, and vice versa.
>
> By the way, Lloyd Benson had so much faith in that statement and in
> his VP candidacy, that he ran for Texas Senator simultaneously as
> he ran for VP.....I guess he knew that he was gonna lose 40 out of
> 50 states to Bush 41, and he didn't want to lose his Senate seat
> while going down in flames with Michael "the tank driver" Dukakis.
>

[Marco Zee]

<< In just a few months the special interest groups succeeded in dealing Clinton a major defeat--while the oil companies continued to reap huge tax write-offs at the expense of the taxpayers. >>

The Dems held the Presidency, the House and the Senate during the first two years of Clinton....why don't you blame them for this collassal legislative failure? They had the numbers to pass it without a single Republican vote. Why didn't Bill use his "infamous political skills" and persuasion to repulse the evil oil companies and their nefarious lobbyists?

Bill failed on the Carbon Tax, HillaryCare, and in his response to eight separate terrorist attacks on the US during his Presidency.....the only thing that kept him afloat was "the economy, Stupid".

According to Dick Morris, Clinton's advisor, Bill didn't even like to discuss terrorism.....what a brilliant, foresightful leader !!!

Anyways, thanks in large part to the Clintons and their multitude of failures, the Republicans have regained the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

Yes, these are good times indeed.

Keep supporting those troops guys, and the mission too.

More to come.....Marco

[mcelrah]

Why didn't the Clinton administration have more legislative success
when they had both houses of Congress? "Blue dog" Democrats, those
from districts in the south which are now mostly Republican. Not to
mention spectacular hubris and incompetence in this green (meaning
unseasoned) Clinton crew: there are more employees in the federal
government than there are inhabitants of Arkansas. But Clinton
seems to have learned from his political mistakes - triangulated the
Republicans right out of the '96 election. Bush doesn't seem to
learn - too macho (insecure) to admit a mistake. Clinton always got
away with previous sexual escapades, so learned the wrong lesson
(that you can always weasel out of it). As they say, the Democrats
can't keep their flies zipped - and the Republicans can't keep their
hands out of the till and their eyes away from the keyhole of your
bedroom door. On balance, I prefer the former. - Hugh
P.S. What mission? What are the troops accomplishing besides trying
to protect themselves while providing target services to the insurgents?

On 29 Aug 2005, at 11:18, Marco Zee wrote:

>
>
>>
>>
>
> The Dems held the Presidency, the House and the Senate during the
> first two years of Clinton....why don't you blame them for this
> collassal legislative failure? They had the numbers to pass it
> without a single Republican vote. Why didn't Bill use his
> "infamous political skills" and persuasion to repulse the evil oil
> companies and their nefarious lobbyists?
>
> Bill failed on the Carbon Tax, HillaryCare, and in his response to
> eight separate terrorist attacks on the US during his
> Presidency.....the only thing that kept him afloat was "the
> economy, Stupid".
>
> According to Dick Morris, Clinton's advisor, Bill didn't even like
> to discuss terrorism.....what a brilliant, foresightful leader !!!
>
> Anyways, thanks in large part to the Clintons and their multitude
> of failures, the Republicans have regained the House, the Senate,
> and the Presidency.
>
> Yes, these are good times indeed.
>
> Keep supporting those troops guys, and the mission too.
>
> More to come.....Marco
>

[Marco Zee]

para 1 - Wrong! Lot's of Iraqi Sunni insurgents. Even if they are
foreign, insurgents keep OEF from being scored a success; we've just
traded one headache for another.

para 2 - Problem with "less than WW I level of casualties" is
twofold: goalposts have moved - 2k dead/15k wounded is no longer
acceptable; it's also young John Kerry's question; "how do you ask
a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"

Hugh,
I do not understand what you mean that "2k dead/ 15k wounded is no longer acceptable". Acceptable to whom, or by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.

As for OEF, I think that Saddam and his henchmen, by any objective measure, have been routed and defeated. I score that a clear and decisive victory. You are welcome to disagree. I disagree that a "mistake" has been made, or that any American has been asked to die for a mistake.

Now another menace has stepped into the power void, not unlike the Russians after the defeat of Germany in WW2, or the Chinese sending one million troops into Korea to aid the Korean Communists during the Korean war, ....namely the foreign terrorists. And they have entered Iraq and attacked the Iraqi's and the coalition forces with some success, but they do not control even one square foot of the country and they have been unable to stop the democratic processes underway in Iraq. I expect more than 8 million voters in the next two elections later this year. To quote John Kerry, they are a "nuisance" who are hoping that their evil deeds will convince the American people to withdraw.

Clearly this "second front" has not been won.... yet,.... and the only way it can win is if leftists, the liberal press, and pacifists in this country can convince enough of the American people to leave Iraq prematurely. They ( the terrorists) certainly are NOT "winning" on the ground in Iraq. President Bush is resolute, and will not leave prematurely. Conversely, It is the Liberal Left who advocating a "cut and run" stategy, not the conservatives.

So, while the US Army is battling terrorists in Iraq, President Bush has to battle the left wing media, the liberal left, and the Bush-haters here at home to convince the American people to keep their resolve and finish the job properly by defeating the terrorists and supporting a fledgling democracy until such time that it can support itself. We must be victorious in this endeavor, as any other option is at best "very undesirable" ie surrendering to Islamic terrorists.

So, I want a direct answer from you guys.

IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU ORDER:

A) AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS
B) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS STARTING NOW
C) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOOPS STARTING IN A FEW MONTHS
D) AN INCREASE IN TROOPS-- I think Joe mentioned something like this.
E) Some other option.

And don't wimp out and say we never should have been here to begin with. Answer the question: What should we do NOW !!!!! Pretend that Kerry won, and you are his advisor, what's your sage advice NOW?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Lastly, I didn't say to loot Iraqi oil, only to derive a special benefit in cost in response to our special sacrifice that we have made for the Iraqi people.

Marco

[mcelrah]

(B) This is the course of action which the administration has
already determined, but will not admit to. If keeping the troops
there were doing any good, I might be for it, but it's just not.

The mistake to which I refer is the pig-headed refusal to plan
realistically for what would happen after Saddam and his henchmen
were defeated. Military officers know how to do this, there is a
methodology and large staffs whose job it is (planning for the post-
conflict phase). They were forbidden by the political appointees at
DoD (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.) to do so, probably because a
realistic consideration of the costs, time requirements, troop
requirements etc might have jeopardized the decision to go at all.
Result, too few troops with no clear direction on V+1 day, looting in
the streets, and a display of incompetence which encouraged the
insurgency to emerge. If we had had a squad at every intersection
in Baghdad and the other cities, we could have nipped this in the
bud. The "power void" was left by...us! Remember how long it took
Rumsfeld to acknowledge that he actually had a problem? That we were
in fact an occupying force under international law? I'll give you
many square feet the insurgents control - how about anywhere in Iraq
outside: the Green Zone, large parts of the Kurdish autonomous
region (de facto) and the Shi'i cities in the south. The road to the
Baghdad airport is basically a shooting gallery with U.S. convoys in
the role of bright yellow rubber duckies. Just the word "convoy"
tells you we don't have control.

If the nation commits itself to a conflict in which sacrifices are
broadly shared - rationing, large levies of conscription reaching
into the middle and upper socio-economic classes, foregoing of
unnecessary and deleterious tax cuts - then one gets the impression
that there might be a good reason to accept large numbers of
casualties . If life is good and the pigs are feeding at the public
trough while the war gets fought by the professionals without much
impact on the nation at large, then the reason is more likely a
management preference than a major national goal for which a strong
case has been made. It is immoral to sacrifice lives in an ill-
conceived effort for which there is near zero likelihood of success
without a plan and too few troops. 2000 is too many because they are
wasted sacrifices. 500,000 dead in WW II was acceptable because
everyone could understand the purpose. The fact we are having this
conversation shows that that douche-bag in the White House can't make
a convincing case that he has a plan that will work.

Hugh

On 29 Aug 2005, at 12:17, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> para 1 - Wrong! Lot's of Iraqi Sunni insurgents. Even if they are
> foreign, insurgents keep OEF from being scored a success; we've just
> traded one headache for another.
>
> para 2 - Problem with "less than WW I level of casualties" is
> twofold: goalposts have moved - 2k dead/15k wounded is no longer
> acceptable; it's also young John Kerry's question; "how do you ask
> a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"
>
> Hugh,
> I do not understand what you mean that "2k dead/ 15k wounded is no
> longer acceptable". Acceptable to whom, or by what standard do you
> make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can
> understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.
>
> As for OEF, I think that Saddam and his henchmen, by any objective
> measure, have been routed and defeated. I score that a clear and
> decisive victory. You are welcome to disagree. I disagree that a
> "mistake" has been made, or that any American has been asked to die
> for a mistake.
>
> Now another menace has stepped into the power void, not unlike the
> Russians after the defeat of Germany in WW2, or the Chinese sending
> one million troops into Korea to aid the Korean Communists during
> the Korean war, ....namely the foreign terrorists. And they have
> entered Iraq and attacked the Iraqi's and the coalition forces with
> some success, but they do not control even one square foot of the
> country and they have been unable to stop the democratic processes
> underway in Iraq. I expect more than 8 million voters in the next
> two elections later this year. To quote John Kerry, they are a
> "nuisance" who are hoping that their evil deeds will convince the
> American people to withdraw.
>
> Clearly this "second front" has not been won.... yet,.... and the
> only way it can win is if leftists, the liberal press, and
> pacifists in this country can convince enough of the American
> people to leave Iraq prematurely. They ( the terrorists) certainly
> are NOT "winning" on the ground in Iraq. President Bush is
> resolute, and will not leave prematurely. Conversely, It is the
> Liberal Left who advocating a "cut and run" stategy, not the
> conservatives.
>
> So, while the US Army is battling terrorists in Iraq, President
> Bush has to battle the left wing media, the liberal left, and the
> Bush-haters here at home to convince the American people to keep
> their resolve and finish the job properly by defeating the
> terrorists and supporting a fledgling democracy until such time
> that it can support itself. We must be victorious in this
> endeavor, as any other option is at best "very undesirable" ie
> surrendering to Islamic terrorists.
>
> So, I want a direct answer from you guys.
>
> IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU ORDER:
>
> A) AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS
> B) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS STARTING NOW
> C) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOOPS STARTING IN A FEW MONTHS
> D) AN INCREASE IN TROOPS-- I think Joe mentioned something like this.
> E) Some other option.
>
> And don't wimp out and say we never should have been here to begin
> with. Answer the question: What should we do NOW !!!!! Pretend
> that Kerry won, and you are his advisor, what's your sage advice NOW?
>
> I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Lastly, I didn't say to loot Iraqi oil, only to derive a special
> benefit in cost in response to our special sacrifice that we have
> made for the Iraqi people.
>
> Marco
>

[deveil]

OKAY I'LL TAKE THE BAIT.

para 1 - Wrong! Lot's of Iraqi Sunni insurgents. Even if they are
foreign, insurgents keep OEF from being scored a success; we've just
traded one headache for another.

para 2 - Problem with "less than WW I level of casualties" is
twofold: goalposts have moved - 2k dead/15k wounded is no longer
acceptable; it's also young John Kerry's question; "how do you ask
a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"

Hugh,
I do not understand what you mean that "2k dead/ 15k wounded is no longer acceptable". Acceptable to whom, or by what standard do you make this assertion? Could you expound on this so that I can understand where you are coming from and give you a coherent response.

RESPONSE:
NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE AS THE PRICE OF A LIE, OF DECEPTIONS, OF A MISTAKE. THIS WOULD SEEM ALMOST A PURPOSEFUL 'NOT UNDERSTANDING'. A NON UNDERSTANDING THAT APPEARS AS A CONVENIENT DODGE BUT IS CONSISTENT WITH REPUBLICAN-WIDE METHODS OF CASTING AND RECASTING THE ARGUMENTS OF OTHERS SO AS TO DISPARAGE THEM AND TO MAKE THE WHOLE CONVERSATION EASIER FOR THEMSELVES. DISAGREEING AND TAKING ISSUE WITH WHETHER SOMETHING IS A MISTAKE WOULD SEEM TO BE YOUR ISSUE.


As for OEF, I think that Saddam and his henchmen, by any objective measure, have been routed and defeated. I score that a clear and decisive victory. You are welcome to disagree. I disagree that a "mistake" has been made, or that any American has been asked to die for a mistake.

RESPONSE:
DITTO- SET UP A FALSE TARGET AND SHOOT IT DOWN. IF NOTHING ELSE IT MAKES IT APPEAR AS THOUGH YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY AND APPEAR UNASSAILABLY CORRECT AND RIGHTEOUS.

Now another menace has stepped into the power void, not unlike the Russians after the defeat of Germany in WW2, or the Chinese sending one million troops into Korea to aid the Korean Communists during the Korean war, ....namely the foreign terrorists. And they have entered Iraq and attacked the Iraqi's and the coalition forces with some success, but they do not control even one square foot of the country and they have been unable to stop the democratic processes underway in Iraq. I expect more than 8 million voters in the next two elections later this year. To quote John Kerry, they are a "nuisance" who are hoping that their evil deeds will convince the American people to withdraw.

Clearly this "second front" has not been won.... yet,.... and the only way it can win is if leftists, the liberal press, and pacifists in this country can convince enough of the American people to leave Iraq prematurely. They ( the terrorists) certainly are NOT "winning" on the ground in Iraq. President Bush is resolute, and will not leave prematurely. Conversely, It is the Liberal Left who advocating a "cut and run" stategy, not the conservatives.

RESPONSE:
AND HOW DO YOU CATEGORIZE THAT LARGE % OF AMERICANS WHO USED TO SUPPORT BUSH IN IRAQ BUT NO LONGER DO? DO THEY, BY DEFINITION, NOW BECOME PAINTED AS "the liberal left, and the Bush-haters" "and pacifists". DOES ANYONE WHO DISAGREES BECOME AUTOMATICALLY DISMISSED AND BANNED FROM ANY PUBLIC GATHERING WITH GW?
"Bush has to battle the left wing" IS A VEILED CHARGE OF BEING UNPATRIOTIC AND AIDING THE ENEMY. IT IS A VICIOUS AND SELF-SERVING THING TO SAY AS AN ATTEMPT TO PAINT YOURSELVES AS PATRIOTS AND ANY ONE WHO DISAGREES AS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE. THIS HAS BEEN DISGUSTINGLY ATTEMPTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN. CAN ONE NOT,TO PARAPHRASE, HATE THE SIN BUT MERELY DISLIKE THE ARROGANCE OF GW AND THOSE WHO USE THESE TACTICS? DOES ANY QUESTION OF POLICY AND LEADERSHIP RENDER ONE A COWARD? I.E. "surrendering to Islamic terrorists." TERRORISM IS A TACTIC. HOW DOES ONE ERADICATE A TACTIC? IS THAT WHY WE ARE NOW FIGHTING WORLD EXTREMISM? THIS IS SEMANTICS, BUT THAT'S ALL WE SEEM TO BE GIVEN, SEMANTICS AND RHETORIC. THIS IS THE BASIS OF THE DISGUST YOU HEAR. AND PLEASE, 'WHAT IS THE MEANING OF 'IS" IS TIRED AND NOT RELEVANT AND NOT THE HERE AND NOW, USED ONLY FOR DIVERSION.

So, while the US Army is battling terrorists in Iraq, President Bush has to battle the left wing media, the liberal left, and the Bush-haters here at home to convince the American people to keep their resolve and finish the job properly by defeating the terrorists and supporting a fledgling democracy until such time that it can support itself. We must be victorious in this endeavor, as any other option is at best "very undesirable" ie surrendering to Islamic terrorists.

So, I want a direct answer from you guys.

IF YOU WERE PRESIDENT, WOULD YOU ORDER:

A) AN IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS
B) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOPS STARTING NOW
C) A GRADUAL WITHDRAWAL OF ALL TROOOPS STARTING IN A FEW MONTHS
D) AN INCREASE IN TROOPS-- I think Joe mentioned something like this.
E) Some other option.

And don't wimp out and say we never should have been here to begin with. Answer the question: What should we do NOW !!!!! Pretend that Kerry won, and you are his advisor, what's your sage advice NOW?

RESPONSE:
A DIRECT ANSWER WOULD BE TO STOP USING THESE DESPICABLE TACTICS AND SMEARS SO THAT HONEST AIRING OF VIEWS AND HONEST DISCUSSION OF IDEAS CAN TAKE PLACE. ONCE AGAIN THE APPALLING THING IS THAT YOU FEEL THE USE OF THESE TACTICS GRANTS YOU THE HIGH GROUND! OR WAS THAT GRANTED BY GOD!? AND THOSE OF US WHO DISAGREE WITH THIS PERSONS METHODS (I WOULDN'T GIVE THEM THE RESPECT OF CALLING THEM POINTS OF VIEW) SHOULD TAKE CARE TO STOP BEING DRAWN IN TO THESE DIVERSIONS! ME INCLUDED. CALL MY MOTHER NAMES IF YOU MUST. YOUR 'POINTS' AREN'T WORTH ADDRESSING FURTHER. THE SO CALLED LEFT ALLOWED THEMSELVES TO BE THUS PAINTED DURING THE 70'S. IF WE ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN AGAIN, SHAME ON 'US'. I PROBABLY MISSED A FEW POINTS...BUT DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Lastly, I didn't say to loot Iraqi oil, only to derive a special benefit in cost in response to our special sacrifice that we have made for the Iraqi people.
Marco


RESPONSE:
WHAT BENEFIT WOULD LOWER PRICES BRING TO THE OIL COMPANIES AND THOSE WITH VESTED INTERESTS IN THEIR INTERESTS? THERE IS NO AMERICAN COMPANY THAT IS BEING HURT BY THIS WAR, CONVERSELY, THEY ARE DOING QUITE FINE IN THEIR PATRIOTIC UNDERTAKINGS. YES, THIS STATEMENT IS IMPLYING WHAT YOU THINK IT IMPLIES, BUT FEEL FREE TO RECAST IT! THE 'LITTLE GUYS' ARE THE ONLY ONES PAYING A PRICE, MAKING A SACRIFICE. FOR NO BENEFIT (AT BEST!). THAT IS THE POINT. THAT IS THE POINT TO DISAGREE WITH IF YOU LIKE. YOU ISSUED A CHALLENGE? HERE'S ONE FOR YOU. RATHER THAN BLAST AWAY, ACTUALLY REFLECT ON THESE POINTS...OR NOT.
I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN VERY RESPECTFUL...BUT THEN THAT'S THE POINT, ISN'T IT!! HAVE A NICE DAY, GARY

[Joe Schad]

I agree with Gary one hundred percent.

Let me see if I know you. You are a 757 pilot, evangelical who is all about faith. You have accepted two saviors, Jesus and George and the Republican party. It is all about faith, not facts. You listen to Rush Limbaugh, G.Gordan Liddy and Dobson along with the host of others who give you all the facts you need. Everything is black and white. Everything Republican is White. Everything Democratic is Black.

Now Who would Jesus Bomb or invade?

You accept no opposing views. I will add you to my junk mail file.

Good bye.

Joe

[rs54263]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it..."

Please guys, let's try to remember that, black or white, republican or
democratic, we are all still Americans; we are also all pilots, who
share a love for the sky. The next time I'm on launch, I'd like to
know that the person holding my flying wires is a friend who will be
focused on my welfare, and not someone who might just let me fall off
the edge because he disagrees with my politics.

~Ralph


================================================================
from: Joe Schad (08/29/2005 17:47)
================================================================

I agree with Gary one hundred percent.

Let me see if I know you. You are a 757 pilot, evangelical who is all
about faith. You have accepted two saviors, Jesus and George and the
Republican party. It is all about faith, not facts. You listen to
Rush Limbaugh, G.Gordan Liddy and Dobson along with the host of others
who give you all the facts you need. Everything is black and white.
Everything Republican is White. Everything Democratic is Black.

Now Who would Jesus Bomb or invade?

You accept no opposing views. I will add you to my junk mail file.

Good bye.

Joe

[deveil]

yeah...what he said. gary



"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it..."

Please guys, let's try to remember that, black or white, republican or
democratic, we are all still Americans; we are also all pilots, who
share a love for the sky. The next time I'm on launch, I'd like to
know that the person holding my flying wires is a friend who will be
focused on my welfare, and not someone who might just let me fall off
the edge because he disagrees with my politics.

~Ralph

[Joe Schad]

It appears that I have offended some of my fellow pilots with my last comments. My apology to you all.

I am a liberal, non believer who is extremely concerned for my country because of the policies of this administration. It seems to me that the republicans in charge are destorying our great country in nearly every avenue available: Personal freedoms iaw the Constitution, arrogance in world affairs, polution, fiscal irresponsiblity, imposing their religious views via our tax dollars and laws of the land and on and on. My mother died on election day and I was deeply sorry but I found that I was even more saddened by the results of the election.

As a veteran of a past war build on deceit, and bad policy I see no reason to continue for five minutes another war built on deceit and bad policy. The 57,000 death of Vietnam were in vain. It was a civil war from the start.

None of my comments are aimed pedrsonally at the people in power. It is the policies that are bad to the core. It is not personal.

I believe in liberty, the constitution, and freedom. I believe we should support and defend the constitution not subvert it under the guise of terrorism and fear. I believe our elected leaders should do the same. The all took an oath of office to do just that. Too bad they don't uphold that oath.

Joe

[deveil]

i realized after i had posted that i had misspoken when i used the term 'republican-wide'. it was an unfair, inaccurate, inconsistent and unintentioned slurr that would in fact make me subject to my own rant. i apologize.
what i meant to say was...hmmm...uh... wide republicans...yeah, that's it, wide republicans! and and wide democrats too!:shock: all them fat bast -whoops, best stop! and furthermore (this will be obtuse) if anyone claims they heard me say he should be 'taken out' what i meant was he should be taken out for a safe, i'm with you 100%, great launch and not a push him over the edge, assassination type launch!
again, humble apologies, gary

yeah...what he said. gary



"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it..."

Please guys, let's try to remember that, black or white, republican or
democratic, we are all still Americans; we are also all pilots, who
share a love for the sky. The next time I'm on launch, I'd like to
know that the person holding my flying wires is a friend who will be
focused on my welfare, and not someone who might just let me fall off
the edge because he disagrees with my politics.

~Ralph

[Flying Lobster]

In response to Marco's "what would I do if I were in command" question (totally absurd of course) but since I kinda like the idea of being king for a day, I'll give you my answer.

Option one: Pull out all American forces immediately. Make sure the last aircraft to depart Iraqi airspace can leave a skywriting message saying "Have a nice day, love, G.W."

OPtion two: Begin a massive neutron/tactical nuke bombing mission around the entire periphery of Iraq's borders, thereby sealing them off, say , for the next 50 thousand years or so. This will likely finally stop the inflow of insurgents. Declare the entire country an internment camp and arrest everyone. Don't forget to throw a party on the deck of the good ship lollipop and declare mission accomplished. (note: since it was my idea first I FORBID the administration to use this idea, since it occurs to me that it might in fact appeal to them).

Option three: Legalize pot. Why not? Makes about as much sense as anything else about this war!

marc

[mcelrah]

"Die Republican pig! " Of course not, Ralph. I actually thought it
was a pretty civilized discourse. Although I agree in principle with
Gary, it's considered polite in e-mail to refrain from "shouting"
with all caps. I suppose I shouldn't have called George a douche-
bag... I don't really hate him - it's more like contempt... When I
was in college 35 years ago, a douche-bag connoted a person lacking
in dignity, a sap, rube, nerd, dweeb. To give him credit, he has
grown in the office - who wouldn't given 5 years of on-the-job-
training - but he remains a pygmy in a job that could accommodate a
giant. For all his faults, Clinton at least had the intellectual
furniture for statesmanship. Bush has the mind of a sports franchise
owner, full of the ephemera of sky boxes and hot dog sales. This is
no captain of industry. A baseball team is to a Microsoft or a
Toyota as a yacht is to a warship - it's a rich man's plaything. I
will stipulate that W is not a stupid man - he is a shrewd politician
and liar - and his Ivy League education has to have soaked in
somehow. I think his good old boy persona is a reaction against
being the less gifted son - Jeb was supposed to be president. 911
was God's gift to Shrub and his banty rooster swagger made for a
couple of good speeches promising revenge. Now the people cry to
heaven "enough", but the skies are as brass... - Hugh

On 29 Aug 2005, at 18:33, Ralph Sickinger (R2) wrote:

>
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
> right to say it..."
>
> Please guys, let's try to remember that, black or white, republican or
> democratic, we are all still Americans; we are also all pilots, who
> share a love for the sky. The next time I'm on launch, I'd like to
> know that the person holding my flying wires is a friend who will be
> focused on my welfare, and not someone who might just let me fall off
> the edge because he disagrees with my politics.
>
> ~Ralph
>
>
> ================================================================
> from: Joe Schad (08/29/2005 17:47)
> ================================================================
>
> I agree with Gary one hundred percent.
>
> Let me see if I know you. You are a 757 pilot, evangelical who is all
> about faith. You have accepted two saviors, Jesus and George and the
> Republican party. It is all about faith, not facts. You listen to
> Rush Limbaugh, G.Gordan Liddy and Dobson along with the host of others
> who give you all the facts you need. Everything is black and white.
> Everything Republican is White. Everything Democratic is Black.
>
> Now Who would Jesus Bomb or invade?
>
> You accept no opposing views. I will add you to my junk mail file.
>
> Good bye.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>