Glider Pilot Running for US President

RHWOODY wrote:
And you probably propose we
"hug these terrorists to death"???
Sorry pal, that does not work!
See it as it is - war!


The idea behind meeting force with nothing is that force falls on its
face. We tried to hug Sadam to death in the 80s. See how well that worked?
http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/000265.php

RHWOODY wrote:
I believe what is meant here is that all
of us in the USA were drawn into war
by the events of 9/11 - including W -
we know what war is and we have had
experience in war - this war is still in
progress - and until the terrorists are
captured or killed, this war continues.

Absolutely! After all of those Afghans and Iraqis hijacked those planes
and turned them into weapons of mass destruction, we were reluctantly
forced to invade their countries, so they would never be tempted to mess
with us again. We needed to make these people behave properly, like our
good friends, the Saudi Arabians. What is it with you America haters?

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:
...
Absolutely! After all of those Afghans and Iraqis hijacked those planes
and turned them into weapons of mass destruction, we were reluctantly
forced to invade their countries, so they would never be tempted to mess
with us again. We needed to make these people behave properly, like our
good friends, the Saudi Arabians. What is it with you America haters?


But IIRC they were neither Afghans not Iraqis, although they may have been
sponsored and trained by Al Quaida which is (or was) mainly in Afghanistan,
they were ... Saudi Arabians !

Robert Ehrlich wrote:

Marc Ramsey wrote:

...
Absolutely! After all of those Afghans and Iraqis hijacked those planes
and turned them into weapons of mass destruction, we were reluctantly
forced to invade their countries, so they would never be tempted to mess
with us again. We needed to make these people behave properly, like our
good friends, the Saudi Arabians. What is it with you America haters?



But IIRC they were neither Afghans not Iraqis, although they may have been
sponsored and trained by Al Quaida which is (or was) mainly in Afghanistan,
they were ... Saudi Arabians !

Marc was being sarcastic.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

When one responds to an attack like
9/11, it is not "starting" a war - that
war was started by the 9/11 terrorists -
regarding the Gulf War 2 - that war
was brought on by Saddam refusing
to abide by the agreements of the
surrender following Gulf War 1 - since
the UN could not agree to enforce
the existing agreements of the surrender,
the US took on that task with the help
of several other countries. Now Saddam
is removed from power, Kahn has
admitted his bad deeds in the past,
Lybia has given up its nuclear actions,
and IMHO the world is better off.
Before anyone points the finger at someone for "starting" a war - they
should look at what preceded the so-called starting of war. Of course
everyone has their own version based
on their own bias. You are entitled
to your own opinion - just like I am.
The true facts remain the same - only
the interpretation is different.

....and how far back you look for context.
A brief history of the US's flip-flopping Mid-East interventions can be
found he
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

Saddam was our boy against Iran. When he asked what the US would do if he
invaded Kuwait, the US ambassador to Iraq said, 'nothing, we won't intervene
in an inter-Arab dispute'. A week later he invades Kuwait and walks into
history's biggest sucker punch. But at the end of that war we flip-flop
again, turning a blind eye as Saddam solves his Kurdish problem with
chemical weapons (after we'd encouraged the Kurds to rise up against
Saddam).
Then, we invade again because he doesn't turn over the WMD that the UN
couldn't find but that Shrub insisted existed (CIA evidence to the
contrary). Turns out he couldn't turn them over because they didn't exist.
But hey, no apologies required--we'll stick around until you voluntarily put
in place a government we can control, er, I mean one that we agree with, er,
is democratic, er, as we define it...

The Taliban were our pawns against the Soviet Union. In the summer of 2001,
just months before 9-11, we paid the Taliban $43 million (
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html ).

Sorry.... I'll stop now. Wayyyyy off topic.

but it's sooo cloudy and drizzly here --weather reference = on topic

"RHWOODY" wrote in message
...
When one responds to an attack like
9/11, it is not "starting" a war - that
war was started by the 9/11 terrorists -
regarding the Gulf War 2 - that war
was brought on by Saddam refusing
to abide by the agreements of the
surrender following Gulf War 1 - since
the UN could not agree to enforce
the existing agreements of the surrender,
the US took on that task with the help
of several other countries. Now Saddam
is removed from power, Kahn has
admitted his bad deeds in the past,
Lybia has given up its nuclear actions,
and IMHO the world is better off.
Before anyone points the finger at someone for "starting" a war - they
should look at what preceded the so-called starting of war. Of course
everyone has their own version based
on their own bias. You are entitled
to your own opinion - just like I am.
The true facts remain the same - only
the interpretation is different.

At 20:06 25 February 2004, Marc Ramsey wrote:
RHWOODY wrote:
I believe what is meant here is that all
of us in the USA were drawn into war
by the events of 9/11 - including W -
we know what war is and we have had
experience in war - this war is still in
progress - and until the terrorists are
captured or killed, this war continues.

Absolutely! After all of those Afghans and Iraqis
hijacked those planes
and turned them into weapons of mass destruction, we
were reluctantly
forced to invade their countries, so they would never
be tempted to mess
with us again. We needed to make these people behave
properly, like our
good friends, the Saudi Arabians. What is it with
you America haters?

Marc


Now, Marc!

Next you'll be saying that everyone who doesn't toe
YOUR line hates America. Some people love it by beating
its drum; others love it by trying to improve it.


Did you ever look at a piece of coal under a single
point source of light? It looks absolutely white;
add a second source of light and it is immediately
looks black. All parties to this discussion should
take this into account.

Even before George W. Bush was elected, his likely strategy seemed to
be that he'd take the US into a war with Iraq to reap the political
benefits in 2004 (and for some other bad reasons that you probably
know about). Recent revelations show that preparations to invade Iraq
did, in fact, start only a few days after inaguration day.

Then 9-11 came along and created an opportunity for Bush to make his
(non-sequitor) arguments that an invasion of Iraq would:
1) make the US more secure from the threat of terrorism AND
2) be a positive step against world wide nuclear proliferation.

IMHO, the sad truths are;
1) Bush's actions in Iraq have created the perfect conditions for a
new generation of America hating people in the Islamic world. How
much better it would have been for the US to be on a course of energy
independence from the middle east and, therefore, much more able to
constructively engage that region to lift itself out of the middle
ages. There's little doubt that we're now, and for a long time to
come, *less* secure than before;
AND
2) the best way to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons is
through the vigilance of strong international bodies and individual
nations cooperating to pursue compliance with the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Unfortunately, George Bush's behavior has damaged the
viability of these international bodies and the US's credibility to
lead these efforts within the international community... again we've
become *less* secure and I'm just hoping the a WMD doesn't come
floating into the US in a shipping container.

I just logged on to learn more about the best CG position for my
glider. But, I just couldn't resist pointing out that the emperor
wears no clothes!

Eric wrote:

I just logged on to learn more about the best CG position for my
glider. But, I just couldn't resist pointing out that the emperor
wears no clothes!

The best CG of the world for W must be in the White House
(or is it in Texas ? ;-) )

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

Christian Husvik wrote:

But seriously: I think you should vote for a president who actually
knows what war is and has experienced one.


That's just what W. did last year, didn't he ?


I don't know. He did start one or two, but he didn't actively take part
himself, did he?

Right (if you except his 2 hours visit to Baghdad !).

What I meant is he "experienced" war just like a scientist trying an
"experience" on mice - if it fails, no problem, he'll try on other mice
(who's next : Iran ?)

[back on topic] the pity is that Afghanistan, Iraq, Arabia and most of
this region have very good soaring conditions... and that W's
experiences make enjoying soaring there even less likely than before :-(