Re: WHO AM I !

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) Name one war that the US or any other country ever got into that
was based on intelligence that was later proven to be 100% accurate.

Straw man. The real issue here is that the intelligence was
deliberately falsified to support a prior conclusion of going to war.
The decision was not a result of intelligence (in more ways than one).

You say that like it's a fact, yet it's a verifiable statement that
you're absolutely wrong. Bipartisan commissions (half of which would
have loved NOTHING more than to find a "smoking gun" relating to
falsified intel) came up with nothing... zip... nada.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) Where DID the WMD that Saddam admitted having go? There's no
record, so I thought maybe you'd know.

Claimed, not admitted. Hussein had nought in terms of WMD, having
wasted it against Iran and the Kurds. His posture of having WMDs was
clearly bluff, which you seem to have fallen for.

As did UNMOVIC. Ad did Clinton and Allbright. As did many other
intel agencies and sources. What's your point?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) Are you saying (for the record - heh - what a concept) that state
sponsorship of brutal anti-US dictatorships is not something we do
NOT have to end (ask Israel about the results of radical regimes
financing terrorist groups if you need some background info).

Whereas brutal pro-US dictatorships are fine? What a bunch of [censored],
Mark, not to mention incredibly amoral.

Who said that? You and JT seem to need to construct strawmen of your
own to claim that my position is wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4) If a democratic Iraq isn't going to be an effective deterrent to
the terrorists, why are they expending so much energy and money and
lives to fight it?

LOL. Nice try. There is no reason that democracy, in and of itself,
would be a deterrent to terrorism. A simple study of history shows the
flaw in the assumption that democracy is a threat to terrorism. Saddam
Hussein's brutal dictatorship was a much more effective deterrent.

I disagree - the Iraqis don't want violent thugs in charge of their
country (at least MOST of them don't, which is really what matters).

Quoted message said:

You seem to utterly fail to understand the world view of the terrorists,
opting instead for the facile generalizations promulgated by Bush and
his media shills e.g. "they hate us for our freedom." What a load of
[censored]. al Qaeda doesn't give a rat's ass about our freedom. They
hate us for our support of Israel. They hate us for our continued
presence in their Holy Land. They hate us for our prosperity and their
poverty, which they blame on us. They hate us for our pernicious
influence on their society and moral strictures.

I agree with most of that. Bottom line, they hate us for everything
about our culture and beliefs. And FWIW, they DO hate freedom. One
doesn't have to go further than to take a perfunctory look at the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan to come to that conclusion.

Quoted message said:

Our freedom is under threat from within, not from without. Our freedom
is under attack by the Bush Administration's disregard for the rule of
law, by its arrogation of powers,

Which specific laws are you concerned about? That if a known Al Qaeda
contact calls you, your call may be monitored? Or that if you wire
money to the Taliban that someone may track it?

Quoted message said:

by lying to Americans daily,

Nonsense. Saying things you disagree with? Absolutely.

Quoted message said:

by
pushing for ever more intrusive and punitive laws against individuals,

Which specific laws are you concerned about?

Quoted message said:

by favoring the wealthy over the poor.

The entire world "favors the wealthy over the poor". We have as level
a playing field as realistically possible. The whole "class warfare"
charges are wearing mighty thin, IMHO.

Quoted message said:

Our freedom is under attack by
American Christianists who want to impose their narrow and perverted
ideology on the law of the land.

One could be reminded that the freedoms in this country were based
entirely on the Judeo-Christian ethic... so any changes will be away
from that, not toward it (and in fact, it's quite easy to see that
you're absolutely upside-down here - we've moved further and further
from those ideals you seem to be so concerned about - you should be
thrilled rather than worried).

Quoted message said:

We have more threats to our freedom
inside this country than outside.

Tell that to the folks who were working in the WTC five years ago
Monday.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But it's OK JT - I'm sure there were people who thought like you in
the early years of WWII as well - that our involvement was making our
country less safe. And of course, they were right if you shorten the
event horizon sufficiently.

LOL. The lame comparison between the war in Iraq and WWII is
hilariously entertaining. Keep it up, I love that stuff. Of course,
that comparison also equates GWB with FDR, which is even funnier.

So you DON'T think that our involvement in WWII made the US LESS SAFE
during the hostilities, and MORE SAFE after? Really? I notice that
you and JT want to dodge the issue by pretending the comparison is
about something other than that.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Tim McNamara said:

Given
that both the 9/11 Commission and the CIA have publicly documented the
falsity of almost all of the Bush/Rumsfeld "reasons" for going to war,
your statement merely demonstrates the willing obliviousness to reality
favored by the few supporters that Bush has left.

Let's funnel this thing down to something workable...

Are you saying that the 9/11 Commission said "Bush Lied" or are you
just hoping that your weasel wording will convey that message without
forcing you to admit YOU were lying about the Commission's findings?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:37:09 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Hey, where'd all the stuff he wrote go? It's /LAME/ to only answer one
little part while deleting all the material that shot you down.

Thought you didn't /like/ LAME. So why so LAME?

{Just lettiong Mark know what he's in for with you.}

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:37:09 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

OK, I'll tell all those thousands of American families who've lost
relatives to the terrorist attacks on the US that there isn't anything
to worry about. They'll be SO relieved.

I emailed a friend about going riding the morning of the attack --
sent the email at about 7:30 in the morning. I never heard back --
she worked at Cantor Fitzgerald in the WTC and was killed.

I used to work at the WTC myself and live in a city that is known to
be a prime terrorist target. In fact, my city has been attached twice
by Al Queda-related groups. Iraq had nothing to do with any of that.
Though it sure does now, because the dopey war we're in has detracted
money, attention and lives from the pursuit of Al-Queda and useful
spending on real security in the US.

Just because something bad happened or even because we are threatened,
doesn't justify lashing out recklessly at people who weren't involved
and don't threaten us. If you genuinely had fear of Saddam Hussein --
a guy whose ass we kicked thoruoughly a few days, you're an idiot.

And the worst part is that more Americans (and Iraqis) are dying
because of that sort of nonsense. What do you tell them.

Your logic is like that of a stupid lynch mob. Some Mexican guy
killed someone -- let's kill a bunch of Nicaraguans! That'll make us
safe.

JT

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:54:11 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Everyone in the world knows the US wants nothing more than to leave
Iraq.

OK -- let's go down this line of reasoning. The US enters a country,
messes things up worse than they were before, and we're supposed to
support the guys who got us there because of what?

Vote for Bush&Co -- they've made the world so dangerous you can't
trust anyone else to protect you.

JT

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob Palermo said:

The "species" you mention has actually been quite uncommon to this
news group The news group has been extremely good at staying on
topic. It also has been good at quickly identifying and criticizing
spam and trolls. It suprises me that this OT discussion / flame war
has sprung up here, and further that no one else has complained about
it. There are some news groups that get ruined, totally overrun with
spam and OT discussions. I don't expect that to happen here, but you
never know.

You haven't been reading this newsgroup long, I take it. Political
flame fests between the knee-jerk right wingers and the accurate,
articulate and intelligent liberals such as myself (yeah, right. If you
believe that, do you want to buy some Gulf coast waterfront property?
Knees are jerking all around the place) are actually fairly common in
rec.bicycles.tech. The usual suspects tend to be about a round dozen.

I have been making a concerted effort to avoid those threads, but blew
it today. I've said enough, there's no point as minds are not going to
be changed by anything I write.

PS -- my club is holding a race tomorrow in honor of one of our
members who was killed on 9/11/2001. We did the memorial race for the
first time last year -- here's a report on it
http://www.crca.net/news/200510.htm#5

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Mark Hickey said:

...
OK, I'll tell all those thousands of American families who've lost
relatives to the terrorist attacks on the US that there isn't anything
to worry about. They'll be SO relieved.

A person in the US is much more likely to die from an accident while
working than from a terrorist attack, yet the response of most of the
political right is to weaken protection for workers.

Excessive use of alcohol and tobacco kills many more in the US than
terrorism, yet the political right for the most part supports
advertising of these products.

These policies, of course, have NOTHING to do with who lines the
campaign coffers of politicians with donations!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4) If a democratic Iraq isn't going to be an effective deterrent to
the terrorists, why are they expending so much energy and money and
lives to fight it?

Your question is a tautology.

Your answer is a dodge.

Where is this democratic Iraq?

If the Arab world was combined into one country, the winner of the
election for president would likely be Hassan Nasrallah, with Usama bin
Laden a close second.

Why are they so popular? Not for their religious extremism and
intolerance, but because they are seen as leaders who will stand up to
foreign countries and corporations that wish to interfere in the Arab
world in order to exploit the people.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
"We have just got to hope, that whatever retaliatory action the Bush
government undertakes to satisfy its own people for the twin towers
does the least possible damage to the struggle against terrorism." -
Sir Michael Howard

Bill Sornson said:

So why so LAME?

Maybe because I haven't been able to talk about my investment
portfolio, that I have a degree in English, that I took AP Math in
high school, that I know how usenet works so smoothly and that I know
lot's of odd insults that I can't spell out but can chuckly about
privately.

That's why I'm lame -- I can't do any of those things. Why are you so
lame?

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson said:

...
(And hey, Japan attacked us, not Germany!...

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, not the
other way around.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Bob Palermo TOP POSTED:

Quoted message said:

The "species" you mention has actually been quite uncommon to this news
group The news group has been extremely good at staying on topic. It also
has been good at quickly identifying and criticizing spam and trolls. It
suprises me that this OT discussion / flame war has sprung up here, and
further that no one else has complained about it. There are some news groups
that get ruined, totally overrun with spam and OT discussions. I don't
expect that to happen here, but you never know.

And complaining about off-topic discussions merely leads to complaints
about the complaints. Put on your fire-proof underwear and join in, or
ignore such threads.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Post Free or Die!

Mark Hickey said:

...
I'm trying to imagine what you'd be typing when the US DOES suffer our
next attack. No doubt something about the POTUS not doing enough to
protect the US and fight the terrorists. Just like the NY Times
immediately after 9/11 - whinge that we need to track the terrorist
funding and monitor them, then less than five years later, suggest
that doing so is a crime against humanity....

We can not go after terrorist funding too hard, since the same banking
systems terrorist organizations use to hide funds in places like the
Cayman Islands and the Isle of Man are also used by the extremely rich
to cheat on their taxes.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Mark Hickey said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey said:

...
4) If a democratic Iraq isn't going to be an effective deterrent to
the terrorists, why are they expending so much energy and money and
lives to fight it?...

Parroting propaganda again? I see Mark Hickey is unable to distinguish
between resistance to foreign occupation and opposing collaborative
puppet governments (legal by international law and legitimate by
convention) and terrorism.

Uh huh - that explains why the vast majority of the attacks are
against Iraqis (and many are carried out by non-Iraqis).

See if you can follow the obvious logic here...

That Mark Hickey is combining two different things, and misstating what
I wrote, is what we have here.

Those who collaborate with a foreign occupation are as legitimate
targets as the occupying forces. How did the French deal with the
members of the Vichy regime and the Norwegians with the Quisling regime
after WW2?

Quoted message said:

Everyone in the world knows the US wants nothing more than to leave
Iraq. Everyone knows that the US will leave Iraq when the Iraqi
forces can deal with the situation. Everyone knows that if the
insurgency just quit "insurging" the "occupation" would end very, very
quickly.

If the US wants to leave Iraq so badly, why is the US embassy complex
under construction way out of proportion to the population of Iraq,
compared to other US embassies?

Why are four (4) huge, PERMANENT US/UK military bases being established
in Iraq if the US wants to leave so badly?

Why does Bush REFUSE to commit to all US forces leaving Iraq once the
conditions of internal political stability are met? Why does the US run
the ministries of the Iraqi government behind the scenes? Why does the
US refuse to let the much touted (by the Bush administration) new Iraqi
military have heavy weapons, helicopters, aircraft, naval vessels,
etc., unless it is to maintain dependence on the US military?

Quoted message said:

And perhaps you can explain how a democratically elected government
(elected by a huge percentage of the Iraqis turning out to vote in
defiance of death threats by the insurgents) is a "puppet government".

Many of the members of the Iraqi "government" hide in the "Green Zone",
protected by US troops. Why is that, if they actually represent their
people?

It takes more than an election to have a democracy, as events in
Afghanistan and Iraq make clear.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The goal of the real terrorists in Iraq was to start a Shia/Sunni civil
war. It looks like Zaqwari's epitaph could be "Mission Accomplished".

Wait - I thought you said they were fighting foreign occupation and
puppet governments. Make up your mind.

The groups that limit their activities to fighting the US/UK occupation
are NOT TERRORISTS, by international law and convention (much of which
was established by the US in the post WW1 and WW2 eras). DUH!

Zaqwari/al Qaeda in Iraq et al are not legitimate occupation resistance
(and they are mainly foreigners). I NEVER said they were the SAME as
the legitimate Iraqi resistance, and to claim otherwise is a LIE.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
"We have just got to hope, that whatever retaliatory action the Bush
government undertakes to satisfy its own people for the twin towers
does the least possible damage to the struggle against terrorism." -
Sir Michael Howard

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1) Name one war that the US or any other country ever got into that
was based on intelligence that was later proven to be 100% accurate.

Quoted message said:

Straw man. The real issue here is that the intelligence was
deliberately falsified to support a prior conclusion of going to war.

Prove it. (And include the Brits, Russians, French, etc. as well as US
agencies.)

Quoted message said:

The decision was not a result of intelligence (in more ways than one).

Prove it. (See above. All it takes is a suitcase full of stuff given to
the wrong nutjob. You think Hussein was above that somehow?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) Where DID the WMD that Saddam admitted having go? There's no
record, so I thought maybe you'd know.

Claimed, not admitted. Hussein had nought in terms of WMD, having
wasted it against Iran and the Kurds. His posture of having WMDs was
clearly bluff, which you seem to have fallen for.

So the 500-800 [chemical munitions] found so far are...imaginary?

No, just so old and degraded (not to mention that this is a collection
of items found singularly or in small groups) that to consider them an
effective arsenal is laughable.

Heck, the US Army can not even keep track of all its armored vehicles,
not to mention discovering forgotten biological weapons at Fort
Detrick, Maryland, or the several US thermo-nuclear weapons that are
sitting on the ocean floor. And the US and it military forces were
never subject to the type of destruction, disorganization and resulting
loss of records and confusion that happened in Iraq during the 1991
Gulf War. Should we expect more from the Iraqis than the US?

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Mark Hickey said:

...
OK, I'll tell all those thousands of American families who've lost
relatives to the terrorist attacks on the US that there isn't anything
to worry about. They'll be SO relieved.

A person in the US is much more likely to die from an accident while
working than from a terrorist attack, yet the response of most of the
political right is to weaken protection for workers.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3-5.pdf

JT
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

Bill Sornson said:

...
(And hey, Japan attacked us, not Germany!...

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941,

Thank heavens they did, or the pacifistic liberal head-in-the-sand
types like me back then would have kept the US out of the war and let
them roll over the world.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 06:58:42 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:33:31 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> results of bipartisan committees showing no tampering
> with the intelligence.

Sweet. Say it. Say it.

Can you also say the Iraq war has made the US safer? Say that too. I
just want you fully on record for that.

I'll answer your question if you answer these.

1) Name one war that the US or any other country ever got into that
was based on intelligence that was later proven to be 100% accurate.

100% is an absurdly high standard so the real answer is "I don't
know." But the pacific war with Japan comes close insofar as the
declaration of war with Japan was in response to the bombing of Pearl
Harbor.

So we invaded Tunisia and Italy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) Where DID the WMD that Saddam admitted having go? There's no
record, so I thought maybe you'd know.

I don't know -- I just know they don't exist now. If they existed
they'd have been used by now. If you do you're in a fairy tale land.

Many tons assorted chemical agents were were captured in Jordan before Zarqawi's
group could use them. Where do you suppose he got them?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) Are you saying (for the record - heh - what a concept) that state
sponsorship of brutal anti-US dictatorships is not something we do NOT
have to end

If the threat to use is remote, or far in the future, or unformed, of
course we don't have to end it. By the standard of belief that we
have to attack any country that is a dictatorships and says it is
against the US, we'd be in war constantly. And that would provoke
more anti-US sentiment and more war. The concept is idiotic and
undermines US security.

Most of those anti-American dictators never went so far as to send a bomb
builder.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(ask Israel about the results of radical regimes financing
terrorist groups if you need some background info).

Here's a bonus answer for you: to equate the security situation of
Israel -- a tiny country with many countries in tacit or open hostily
to it on it's border -- with the US, one of the largest countries in
the world with close allies on both border -- is simplistic at best.

The geographic borders are seen as less significant in the past, say five years.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

4) If a democratic Iraq isn't going to be an effective deterrent to
the terrorists, why are they expending so much energy and money and
lives to fight it?

Your question is a tautology.

This is one they feel they cannot afford to lose. That's important.

Ron

Mark Hickey said:

...
I disagree - the Iraqis don't want violent thugs in charge of their
country (at least MOST of them don't, which is really what matters).

The Iraqis would prefer a home-grown violent thug to foreign rule.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You seem to utterly fail to understand the world view of the terrorists,
opting instead for the facile generalizations promulgated by Bush and
his media shills e.g. "they hate us for our freedom." What a load of
[censored]. al Qaeda doesn't give a rat's ass about our freedom. They
hate us for our support of Israel. They hate us for our continued
presence in their Holy Land. They hate us for our prosperity and their
poverty, which they blame on us. They hate us for our pernicious
influence on their society and moral strictures.

I agree with most of that. Bottom line, they hate us for everything
about our culture and beliefs. And FWIW, they DO hate freedom. One
doesn't have to go further than to take a perfunctory look at the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan to come to that conclusion.

The Taliban cares about social behavior IN AFGHANISTAN, not the United
States. If you think that they cared about "Western degeneracy" in
western countries, and not western interference in primarily countries,
you are seriously misinformed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Our freedom is under threat from within, not from without. Our freedom
is under attack by the Bush Administration's disregard for the rule of
law, by its arrogation of powers,

Which specific laws are you concerned about? That if a known Al Qaeda
contact calls you, your call may be monitored? Or that if you wire
money to the Taliban that someone may track it?

Who knows who the Bush administration is spying on and for what
purpose, since there is no effective oversight? They also use too wide
of a brush in determining what organizations are "terrorist". Many, in
fact are legitimate social service organization, which Muslims have a
religious duty to contribute to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by lying to Americans daily,

Nonsense. Saying things you disagree with? Absolutely.

Bush lied about the NSA violating the FISA law. Oh well, it is not like
he lied about having oral sex with an intern.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by
pushing for ever more intrusive and punitive laws against individuals,

Which specific laws are you concerned about?

Quoted message said:

by favoring the wealthy over the poor.

The entire world "favors the wealthy over the poor". We have as level
a playing field as realistically possible. The whole "class warfare"
charges are wearing mighty thin, IMHO.

We know what Mr. Hickey's opinion is worth, as it appears to be based
primarily on partisanship. The 0.1% elite conduct class warfare, while
their lackeys in the press silence debate by charging others with class
warfare whenever this is brought up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Our freedom is under attack by
American Christianists who want to impose their narrow and perverted
ideology on the law of the land.

One could be reminded that the freedoms in this country were based
entirely on the Judeo-Christian ethic... so any changes will be away
from that, not toward it (and in fact, it's quite easy to see that
you're absolutely upside-down here - we've moved further and further
from those ideals you seem to be so concerned about - you should be
thrilled rather than worried).

More revisionism on the philosophical basis the "founding fathers" used
when writing the US Constitution. Much is based on old English common
law, which predates the arrival of Christianity to the British Isles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We have more threats to our freedom
inside this country than outside.

Tell that to the folks who were working in the WTC five years ago
Monday.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But it's OK JT - I'm sure there were people who thought like you in
the early years of WWII as well - that our involvement was making our
country less safe. And of course, they were right if you shorten the
event horizon sufficiently.

LOL. The lame comparison between the war in Iraq and WWII is
hilariously entertaining. Keep it up, I love that stuff. Of course,
that comparison also equates GWB with FDR, which is even funnier.

So you DON'T think that our involvement in WWII made the US LESS SAFE
during the hostilities, and MORE SAFE after? Really? I notice that
you and JT want to dodge the issue by pretending the comparison is
about something other than that.

What was the chance of Saddam Hussein militarily defeating the western
industrialized world? Approximately zero.

What was the chance of the Axis nations defeating the rest of the
industrial world in WW2? Pretty good, and likely would have happened
were it not for the sacrifice of 10 million+ Soviet soldiers who died
on the "Eastern Front".

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain
"We have just got to hope, that whatever retaliatory action the Bush
government undertakes to satisfy its own people for the twin towers
does the least possible damage to the struggle against terrorism." -
Sir Michael Howard

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

RonSonic said:

...
It's pretty well understood that Saddam needed his ass kicked and that the rest
of the evil dictator club be thereby put on notice....

Unless those evil dictators support exploitation of their people by
multi-national corporations, in which case they are friends of the US,
e.g. Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, Carlos Castillos Armas, Anastasio
Somoza Debayle, Fulgencio Battista, Augusto Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos,
Haji Mohammad Soeharto (General Suharto), etc.

Didn't Donald Rumsfeld go to Iraq in 1983 to greet Saddam Hussein as a
friend of the US and offer assistance in Iraq's war with Iran?

But, but, but but. well Hillary Clinton voted for the war! So there!

Hillary Clinton is a political opportunist, who guessed wrong on the
ultimate popularity of the US invasion of Iraq.

--
Tom Sherman - Behind the Cheddar Curtain

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On 9 Sep 2006 14:38:06 -0700, "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941,

Quoted message said:

Thank heavens they did, or the pacifistic liberal head-in-the-sand
types like me back then would have kept the US out of the war and let
them roll over the world.

You said you're against the war in Afghanistan.

Then you wrote that (paraphrasing) "sadly, the war in Iraq is compromising
the effort in Afghanistan".

You contradicted your own position and beliefs, revealing either sloppy
thinking/arguing OR a lack of integrity. Or both. (I'll point out the post
next time I see it.)

BTW, the US gave the Taliban every chance to avoid war by giving up OBL and
AQ strongholds. They refused. So what would you, who lost one or more
friends in the WTC on 9-11-1, suggest be done about or to those responsible?