Extracted from Thread

Tom Kunich said:

I consider John one of the more thoughtful people but over the last
several years he seems to have lost a great deal of the ability to
actually think about what he's writing. Too bad because he appears to be
throwing away his above normal intelligence.

Schwartzsoft, please rewrite the irony module before the world ends.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

What possible addition could balance the conclusion that Bushco lied about
Saddam and WMD? What is needed to "balance" that? What sort of ommission
is there possibly that coudl be added to that?

Nothing, but in the spirit of getting rid of Bushco you could play this
instead of solitaire:
http://code.google.com/p/bushsweeper/downloads/list

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

Howard Kveck said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Bill C said:

On Feb 12, 2:11 am, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
>  Bill C <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> > On Feb 11, 2:23 am, Howard Kveck <[email hidden]> wrote:
> There was a guy in the Sheldon Brown RIP thread who insulted Sheldon for his
> politics, calling them "extremist" and said that was typical of the "radical
> left." You let that slide on by with nary a peep, yet you had a conniption fit
> when two guys started in with some left-leaning talk.

Quoted message said:

D-y jumped in and made the comment I would've. I also thanked D-y for
doing it.

Well,Tom's comments are there, but you saying that you agreed with him doesn't
count for much unless you post it. As for a thanks, not that I remember or
can find.

I e-mailed it to him, as at that pint I was trying to stay out of
that thread other than a memorial statement about Sheldon.

Okay. But I'm sure you can understand that it seemed kind of fishy to me since it
wasn't online. You know what I mean?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>    So how about it, Bill. What was it they said that makes you believe
> they're so damned evil?

Still no answer? I thought you put your reasoning right up front and
owned your posted opinions.

I shouldn't answer because I can almost never get a straight one out
of you on the subject, but on reviewing the thread. I let my anger
over what I perceived as a disrespectful hijacking of the thread to
someone I had great respect for. The trigger was Tom Shermans
attitude, his usage of the standard class warfare [censored] and his sig. On
which, at that point my thought was "They're probably right", and
"you're proud of it".
TK can be his own worst enemy, but I was already stewing over the
purposeful misinterpretation of Tom's comments about Sheldon. Wrong
thread, wrong time.
No excuse for my going way over the top though I'm sure I made
Sherman's day.

Alright, that I can buy. Like I said earlier, it was overheated rhetoric. But the
point I'm trying to make is that you frequently fire off labels like "Stalinist" etc.
in the same manner. It just isn't warranted.

Quoted message said:

I can't get a staright answer out of you. I can't get you to say much
of anything negative towards people who hate us, have the support of
prominent leftists here in the US, yet you condemn anyone connected
with the US for lesser offenses in no uncertain terms.
The [censored] about running around condemning everyone is BS. I made
that very clear. Cuba, it's revolution, show trials, summary
executions, repressive and violent government are very much an issue
today. Ask Al Gore how those Cubans in Fla. voted after Janet Reno's
little excellent adventure with her stormtroopers down there.

Well, if the Florida Cubans had obeyed the law, there wouldn't have been any
"stormtroopers" in action. Anyway, the older generations of Cubans in Florida have
always voted Republican because they feel like the Dems failed them in the Bay of
Pigs disaster. That seems to be changing, though.

Quoted message said:

I get a half hearted condemnation of a long running brutal group
that's being supported by someone you like, and you do what you [censored]
at me for and throw in the Columbian government is bad. No [censored] I
admit those things freely and you slam me for it.

You're assuming that I like Chavez. I really don't have much of an opinion on him.
Anyway, I didn't mention the Columbian govt. - I was talking about the right wing
paramilitary groups. The reason I brought that up was because both FARC and the paras
were politically based operations at the start but they've evolved into crime
organizations. I don't see them as being much different than any of the other
organized crime groups in, say, Mexico. They're not going to topple the government.

Quoted message said:

I'm not going digging because the whole thing is more proof it's a
waste of time, but the Israeli war criminal remarks are from
discussions around Mubarak, and Sharon.

No, that wasn't me.

Quoted message said:

You do the tap dance about 'Well they elected Hamas" and try to
ditch the subject with a snide remark about now someone will bring up
[censored].

No, I explained a few reasons why the Palestinians elected Hamas. No tap dancing
involved.

Quoted message said:

No group can do anything without at least the tacit support of a
decent portion of the people, ask the Soviets about their trip into
Afghanastan.

No, that's not really true in situations like in Palestine. Those people really
don't have that much influence over the various factions that are at the top of the
food chain there.

Quoted message said:

The people are only responsible when you disagree with the actions taken by their
leaders. IE the bashing of everyone who voted for Bush and holding them all
responsible.

I hold people responsible when they are actively campaigning to support bad Bush
policies, like the war or domestic spying. If they re-elect him even knowing what
he's been up to, then those people share some blame too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> How are they related, Bill? Huckabee, in an act of pure political calculation,
> released a guy to rape and murder (and we can see how the "liberal media" has
> jumped all over that); Kucinich did what?

Opposes three stikes for career criminals, excuses "98%" of criminals, that's
his rhetorical number, because they're poor, etc...

That wasn't just "criminals" - it was death penalty cases. Slight difference.

Quoted message said:

The man is totally soft on violent criminals.

Mebbe you should look into it a little closer:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm

From your link:

Quoted message said:

Rated 50% by the NCJA, indicating a "soft-on-crime" stance. (Dec 2005)

Yeah, I got that - nonetheless there's a huge difference between him seeming soft
on crime and Huck actually ignoring the parole board and refusing to listen to the
pleas of Dumond's earlier victims before he released a killer. In the positions vs.
actions battle, Huck is in another galaxy. Besides, Kucinich is out of the race while
Huck is winning caucuses and primaries. There's no comparison, to me.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah my agenda is to wlk down the middle and call otu the folks
pulling us way out to both sides.

Except you're not in the middle.

Every general election since Jimmy Carter says the middle is about
where I think it is. Bill Clinton knew where it was, Hillary is aiming
for it, after watching the previous failures. I believe you said that
the mistakes were they didn't go far enough left to find the support
they needed. I'd have to dig for that too and I'm not going to bother.
The Democrats managed to lose an election to one of the worst 5
presidents in history who was not well liked by the public either by
scaring the hell out of middle America.

Kerry lost by a pretty small margin. The Bushies main campaign tool was fear of
the big bad menace of "islamofascism" (a stupid concept if ever there was one) and
Kerry did a [censored] jobb of countering that.

Quoted message said:

How'd the let's RAM gay marriage down their throat strategy work out? Set the cause
back decades at least I'd bet. You ridiculed my go slow approach because
the Country was in your camp except for some extremists. Looks like
they were where I thought they were.

Huh, I didn't ridicule your position on that. I'd prefer it go faster but I think
that doing nothing allows people to get stuff into state constitutions to prevent it
from ever happening.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't see a problem with Chavez behavior, then you have made my point
for me. Chavex is an extremist, Lula is not. That's what you wont do.

It always gets down to me having to condemn whichever 'despot of the week'
you're railing against at the moment. I don't like everything Chavez does - so
what? I'll point out (again) that he's democratically elected (twice) and has
pretty widespread support in Venezuela. And I'll expect the instant reaction about
"[censored] was elected too!" To which I say, "So what?"

[censored] Howard

While you rail about the US and our friends human rights records, the
closest you come to saying anything negative about any leftist group
is that FARC with their kidnappings, bombings, murders, extortion,
etc... are kinda [censored]... By that logic Gitmo is a country club and
noone should ever [censored].

See what I said about FARC above.

Quoted message said:

You still won't go near Castro, and his support from the left here.
You built yet another strawman, "I don't like that source"

My rejection of that source isn't a strawman - I didn't create an argument and
attribute it to you. Bozell *is* an extremist.

Quoted message said:

Back off the Howard treadmill.

Whatev...

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Fred Fredburger said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Explain why Gitmo is "wrong or bad policy". We roughly treat prisoners who
are holding extremely important information and you're [censored]. Castro
murders 10,000 people in his prisons because he doesn't like their politics
and you're perfectly OK with that.

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

Quoted message said:

It has to do with what you want to be as a natioh.

Quoted message said:

One that rationalizes compromising one's ideals because the other guy
does it?

Quoted message said:

<rhetorical question> If your neighbor molests his kids does that make
it OK for you to do it too? </rhetorical question>

Quoted message said:

All the great war theorists, from Sun Tzu to Lidell Hart, put morality
first. It's the #1 rule of grand strategy because it maximizes your
friends and minimizes your enemies, before a battle is ever begun.

The noted gutless pansy liberal George Washington agreed with you:

"Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of
our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of
our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,"

http://tinyurl.com/2nplum

Just to throw some gasoline on the fire here Lafferty and I in
discussions way back at the beginning of this mess agreed on the
colossal blunder that Gitmo is, and the blown opportunity to highlight
the differences between us and them by doing it right, and setting up
a POW camp that met international law standards with access by the red
cross, human rights folks, etc...in open cooperation with our European
allies. They may very well have prevented a few attacks with info
gained from Gitmo, and the way they worked things, but they've incited
countless times more, and poisoned the well completely. I don't think
anything we could've done would've satified quite a few people, but at
least we could've come up with something reasonably defensible and
Gitmo aint it folks.

Quoted message said:

It's also worth noting that there is no record of George Washington EVER
expressing disapproval of Fidel Castro. So we can safely dismiss his
opinions on this and everything else.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill C
Castro is the fount of all that bedevils freedom and democracy - Ben
Franklin

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

It's a great thing to raise those issues, but it needs to be done in
a transparent, objective manner,

What possible addition could balance the conclusion that Bushco lied
about Saddam and WMD? What is needed to "balance" that? What sort of
ommission is there possibly that coudl be added to that?

There is nothing wrong with a subjective point of view if one is
right.

John, I'm beginning to think that you have a serious problem:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D,
CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe
Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

Do you want more? I have many, many more quotes from the Democrats.

Why is Bush a liar and your Democrats honest and pure as the driven rain?

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just to throw some gasoline on the fire here Lafferty and I in
discussions way back at the beginning of this mess agreed on the
colossal blunder that Gitmo is, and the blown opportunity to highlight
the differences between us and them by doing it right, and setting up
a POW camp that met international law standards with access by the red
cross, human rights folks, etc...in open cooperation with our European
allies.

It's a really good thing that you and Lafferty know who they're keeping in
there and what is actually going on.

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When the US violates human rights, that's a bigger deal to me because I
expect more from us. We're capable of better. Castro, not so much.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us how those rights have been broken?

<snip>

The comparison between Gitmo and Castro is not mine. It was Bill's. I'm
suggesting that the comparison obscures more than it illuminates.

It sounds as though you're agreeing with me that it's not a helpful
comparison.

Indeed. The problem is that Bill appears to want to treat international
criminals like he'd treat a naughty child.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> When the US violates human rights, that's a bigger deal to me because I
> expect more from us. We're capable of better. Castro, not so much.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us how those rights have been broken?

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The comparison between Gitmo and Castro is not mine. It was Bill's. I'm
suggesting that the comparison obscures more than it illuminates.

Quoted message said:

It sounds as though you're agreeing with me that it's not a helpful
comparison.

Indeed. The problem is that Bill appears to want to treat international
criminals like he'd treat a naughty child.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tom they could've easily run a graduated camp to paralell our prison
system with security ranging from minimum, like the camps for Nazi
prisoners here in the States, to supermax standards for high value
captives. If there was sharedoversight it would have kept a lot more
of the support we DID have.
I wouldn't lock a kid in a supermax.
Bill C

Bill C said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> When the US violates human rights, that's a bigger deal to me because I
>> expect more from us. We're capable of better. Castro, not so much.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Perhaps you'd like to explain to us how those rights have been broken?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The comparison between Gitmo and Castro is not mine. It was Bill's. I'm
suggesting that the comparison obscures more than it illuminates.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It sounds as though you're agreeing with me that it's not a helpful
comparison.

Quoted message said:

Indeed. The problem is that Bill appears to want to treat international
criminals like he'd treat a naughty child.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

Tom they could've easily run a graduated camp to paralell our prison
system with security ranging from minimum, like the camps for Nazi
prisoners here in the States, to supermax standards for high value
captives. If there was sharedoversight it would have kept a lot more
of the support we DID have.
 I wouldn't lock a kid in a supermax.
Bill C- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If we could do this 60 years ago why do we need Gitmo as it is?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_POW_camps_in_the_United_States

In the United States, at the end of World War II there were 175 Branch
Camps serving 511 Area Camps containing over 425,000 prisoners of war.
The camps were located all over the US but were mostly in the South
because of the expense of heating the barracks. Eventually, every
state with the exception of Nevada, North Dakota, and Vermont had POW
camps.

This is the argument against though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner-of-war_camp

U.N. camps
The International Red Cross visited U.N. POW camps, often unannounced,
noting prisoner hygiene, quality of medical care, variety of diet and
weight gain. They talked to the prisoners and asked for their comments
on conditions, as well as providing them with copies of the Geneva
Convention. The IRC delegates dispersed boots, soap and other
requested goods.

Koje-do Island - a prison camp where over 170,000 communist and non-
communist prisoners were held from December 1950 until June 1952.
Throughout 1951 and early 1952, upper-level communist agents
infiltrated and conquered much of Koje section-by-section by uniting
fellow communists, bending dissenters to their will through staged
trials and public executions, and exporting allegations of abuse to
the international community to benefit the communist negotiation team.
In May 1952, Chinese and North Korean prisoners at Koje Island rioted
and took Brigadier General Francis T. Dodd captive.[1]

This is one of the things DOD say they are trying to prevent. They
claim many prisoners live in fear of the hardcore captives and that
there have been attacks.
Bill C

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Since they don't exist, it's not about WMD anymore. It's about
democracy!

Democracy is flowering along the banks of the Euphrates!

And these flowers will be tossed to the troops when they're mature, I'm
sure.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover ofa
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe
Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

Do you want more? I have many, many more quotes from the Democrats.

Why is Bush a liar and your Democrats honest and pure as the driven rain?

Jackass -

The big difference is in their actions:

Clinton practiced containment.
W. Bush invaded.

Containment worked for the Soviet Union. It was working on Saddamm.

Bush Sr. refrained from invading in Gulf War 1, for very good reasons.
Unlike his son, his foreign policy was excellent.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe
Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

Do you want more? I have many, many more quotes from the Democrats.

Why is Bush a liar and your Democrats honest and pure as the driven rain?

Jackass -

The big difference is in their actions:

Clinton practiced containment.
W. Bush invaded.

Containment worked for the Soviet Union. It was working on Saddamm.

Bush Sr. refrained from invading in Gulf War 1, for very good reasons.
Unlike his son, his foreign policy was excellent.

Your problem is that you are insufficiently fearful.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The big difference is in their actions:
Clinton practiced containment.
W. Bush invaded.

On the smartest day of your life you were a moron. And this wasn't your
smartest day. In case you missed it, Clinton only did something to pull
attention away from the Lewinsky affair.

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. The problem is that Bill appears to want to treat international
criminals like he'd treat a naughty child.- Hide quoted text -

Tom they could've easily run a graduated camp to paralell our prison
system with security ranging from minimum, like the camps for Nazi
prisoners here in the States, to supermax standards for high value
captives. If there was sharedoversight it would have kept a lot more
of the support we DID have.

Bill, Cuba WAS max security. The "best" prisoners there were known
terrorists. Pretending that because they released a bunch of them without
pressing charges against them somehow means that "we made a mistake" is the
sort of thing that would have given great joy to Joseph Goebbels.

Quoted message said:

I wouldn't lock a kid in a supermax.

What "kid" was that?

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The big difference is in their actions:
Clinton practiced containment.
W. Bush invaded.

On the smartest day of your life you were a moron. And this wasn't your
smartest day. In case you missed it, Clinton only did something to pull
attention away from the Lewinsky affair.

Jackass -

Containment was practiced for the entire post-91 Gulf War period of
the Bush Sr. Administration and the entirety of the Clinton
Administration.

Trade sanctions, no flyover zones and the continuing destruction of
his air defense system.

Here are some remarks about it by General Anthony Zinni at a speech in
2003 at the Center for Defense Information. Gen. Zinni was Franks/
Casey/Petraeus' predecessor at CENTCOM.

The entire article is worth reading, I just included a few of the
passages salient to this subthread: that on containment.

From:
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208

<snip>

I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of
containment. I heard the president say, not too long ago, I believe
it was with the interview with Tim Russert that ... I'm not sure ...
but at some point I heard him say that "containment did not work."
That's not true.

I was responsible, along with everybody from General Schwarzkopf to
his two successors, that were my predecessors, myself, and my
successor, General Franks, up until the war, we were responsible for
containment. And I would like to explain a little bit about that
containment, because I thought we did it pretty well, given the
circumstances. And it began with Bush 41 accepting the UN resolution
to conduct the war, staying within the framework of the UN resolution,
and not after the war, going to Baghdad, breaking the coalition,
ending up inheriting a country that I think he clearly saw would be a
burden on us, our military, our treasure, and would break relations
around the region, and would put him outside what he considered his
international legitimacy for doing this - the resolution by which he
operated and conducted the war, and the resolution by which we
established the sanctions.

Administering those sanctions was done pretty effectively I thought.

<snip>

So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the
experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind
of military our troops faced when we went in there. It disintegrated
in front of us. It didn't have the capabilities, that were pumped up,
that were supposedly possessed by this military. And I think that
will be the first mistake that will be recorded in history, the belief
that containment as a policy doesn't work. It certainly worked
against the Soviet Union, has worked with North Korea and others.
It's not a pleasant thing to have to administer, it requires troops
full-time, there are moments when there ... there are periods of
violence, but containment is a lot cheaper than the alternative, as
we're finding out now. So I think that will be mistake number one:
discounting the effectiveness of the containment.

<snip><end>

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the
experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind
of military our troops faced when we went in there.

You still don't get it and plainly you never will. It just doesn't occur to
you the absolutely reversed case for middle eastern war now.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the
experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind
of military our troops faced when we went in there.

You still don't get it and plainly you never will. It just doesn't occur to
you the absolutely reversed case for middle eastern war now.

Dumbass -

General Zinni is the one who said that and he said it w/ regards to
containment.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

You still don't get it and plainly you never will. It just doesn't occur
to you the absolutely reversed case for middle eastern war now.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

General Zinni is the one who said that and he said it w/ regards to
containment.

Dumbass,
Kunich used to be Field Marshall Kunich in one of his previous careers so
he knows best.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When the US violates human rights, that's a bigger deal to me because I
expect more from us. We're capable of better. Castro, not so much.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us how those rights have been broken? #1
They are not Americans. #2 Americans are being seriously endangered by the
actions of these criminals. Without the information they are carrying
possibly millions of lives are being threatened. Anyone that is willing to
give these criminals the chance to quietly murder like that doesn't seem to
have understood the responsibility of a citizen. #3 If you understood this
to be a direct threat to YOUR family my guess is that you'd be all for a lot
worse.

After some thought I've come to the inescapable conclusion that Tom Kunich
believes that '24' is a documentary.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. The problem is that Bill appears to want to treat international
criminals like he'd treat a naughty child.- Hide quoted text -

Tom they could've easily run a graduated camp to paralell our prison
system with security ranging from minimum, like the camps for Nazi
prisoners here in the States, to supermax standards for high value
captives. If there was sharedoversight it would have kept a lot more
of the support we DID have.

Bill, Cuba WAS max security. The "best" prisoners there were known
terrorists. Pretending that because they released a bunch of them without
pressing charges against them somehow means that "we made a mistake" is the
sort of thing that would have given great joy to Joseph Goebbels.

So why'd hey release them, if not because they didn't have enough evidence to
prove anything? If you weren't so damn sure that W is doing the right thing, you'd
know (and acknowledge) that many of the guys in Guantanamo were simply sold to the US
for the reward and that was due to, among other things, settling old scores or simple
greed.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?