We Are All Spaniards

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:ZQC8c.94326$po.724204@attbi_s52...
George, can you tunnel out of Jersey and jump the barbed wire fences
across
to another state?

I have family reasons to keep me in NJ for at least two more years and
probably
six more.

Sorry, George. I know how that goes. (I was stuck in Wisconsin for
decades
for the same reasons.)

Ditto. OTOH, back in '89, I left a good job in Colorado, which entailed
about 150-200 hours of flying annually, company equipment (T182RG, 340 and a
Conquest) and moved to Arizona to be closer to my in-laws as they were
getting on in years. Worst mistake I ever made!!

Last summer I had the opportunity to go back to the old company, and come
summmer, when I become (FINALLY) an empty-nester, we'll make it permanent.


Can you take your skills independent?

Good question -- can you, George?

(I imagine you've already tried, but here's hoping)

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/24/04 9:31 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
news:BC879450.CFBD3%
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...03%2F17%2Fwter
r317.xml

I wonder how many of those 29% were the ones who got bounced from
their
positions of power and privilege?

I wonder how many of those 29% have lost a loved one in the current
war?

How many of the 71% lost one BEFORE the war?

I think the point here is that perhaps we shouldn't dismiss someone's
opinion based on information that we simply don't have. Remember the
little
conversation we had about classifying opinions we disagree with as
"tantrums"?

Dismissing a difference of (well founded) opinion and dismissing a tantrum
are two VERY different things. Someone comes off as a whiney brat and one
really doesn't give a damn what they opinion is. Unsubstantiated claims,
logical fallacies are bad enough, but the tantrums come when someone starts
seeing they're LOSING..particularly a cherished belief (i.e., a security
blanket). You do know the difference, I'd imagine, so don't patronize, okay?

You're the one calling people "whiney brats", and you're accusing ME of
being patronizing?

For example, there's been a bunch of stories about people in Iraq that lost
loved ones in the war and are still grateful to see Saddam ousted.

Another example would be to look up the story of the farmer whose family
members were killed in an accidental bombing my Lt. George McGovern during
the later days of WW2. They managed to talk some 30 -35 years later and the
conversation is amazing. Look it up!

I'm aware of that story, thanks. Why do you think it would be of particular
interest to me?

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 3/24/04 9:34 PM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
What is it about the Spanish elections that confuses people so? Everyting
about them is perfectly rational.

The leaders of Spain, much like our own leaders, told their people that
sending troops to Iraq and defeating Saddam Hussein would help keep them
safe from Al Qaida.

Is that what they told them? If they did, they were patently NUTS! Anyone
who gets to the top of a country and spouts such drivel deserves to lose.

Well, that means President Bush deserves to lose, because that's exactly
what he told us.

After having sent troops to Iraq, and subsequently
suffering a terrorist attack from Al Qaida that was roughly equivalent to
the 9-11 attacks in terms of percentage of the population killed, the
Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?

Boy, those Spaniards must believe in the tooth fairy as well.

A bit over half of them have wised up, apparently.

How many decades hence will historians be saying the same thing about the
U.S? In our lifetimes? In a hundred years? Empires have never lasted, and
they never will. It's a simple and unavoidable fact.

Nice non-sequitur.

It's not a non-sequitur. Jay made a comment about a once-mighty empire
falling into mediocrity, and since we're on the subject of global hegemony,
I thought I'd point out what always happens to empires, that's all.

in article , Wdtabor at
ackatyu wrote on 3/25/04 5:32 AM:

In article , Philip Sondericker
writes:

Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?


A basic education in history?

Churchill warned that appeasement was feeding the crocodile in hopes he would
eat you last. He did not say that fighting the crocodile was a guarantee of
safety, just that appeasement was certain to get you eaten sooner or later.

Don

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Iraq is connected to either the
9-11 attacks or the Madrid bombings...

in article .net, Tony Cox
at wrote on 3/24/04 8:43 PM:

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

Spanish people have quite logically concluded that sending troops to Iraq
and defeating Saddam Hussein did absolutely nothing to keep them safe from
Al Qaida. Why would they conclude otherwise?

Why is it that when I hear "logically" and "people" in the same
sentence I have to repress a snort? Oh well. The questions that
the "Spanish people" should have asked themselves a-

1) Will withdrawal from the coalition make us safer from Al Qaida
blackmail or not, especially since we have outposts in Morocco
and OBL has claimed us as the lost Moorish land of Andalusia?

No, they should ask why staying in Iraq will help them with any of the
above.

2) If everyone withdrew from the coalition, what will happen to
Iraq?

Actually, I think it's up to the leader of said coalition to explain exactly
what they intend to do in Iraq, and for how long.

3) Why should Britain and the US lift a finger in future to help
us if we pull out of the coalition and insult them at the same time?

Someone should have explained to them exactly what they were
voting for.

Amazingly patronizing. Speaking of "insulting" an entire country...

Jay Honeck wrote:

Can you take your skills independent?

Not really. The SE work is pretty specific to telecom and that industry continues
to go downhill. Most of the outfits here are still laying off. The various pieces
of AT&T are laying off the most skilled individuals and then trying to hire them
back as consultants at reduced salaries and/or no benefits. Since this is skilled,
compartmentalized work, those jobs are not available to anyone else. My former
employer is not hiring back, even on a consultant basis. They're down to something
under half the size they were in 2001, and just had yet another layoff. I've seen
ads by companies in other fields (such as pharmaceuticals) that state they will not
hire former telecom people.

As a C coder, I'm obsolete here. Everything is C++, Java, Perl, etc., and it's
not unusual for the skills list in an ad to require experience in over ten specific
systems and languages. They also want that to be experience - more schooling only
wastes your money. My database experience is Informix and INGRES. They want Oracle.
With employers getting literally thousands of resumes for every position, they take
only people who are a perfect match for the job.

The point is, this is typical of the situation in the NY/NJ area. Unemployment is
about 7%, most of it is white collar, and it really grates to have someone try to
tell the world that anyone who wants a job can have one in the U.S.. Even Home
Depot will refuse to hire someone with a Master's degree, 'cause they're
overqualified.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article .net, Tony
Cox
at wrote on 3/24/04 8:43 PM:

Someone should have explained to them exactly what they were
voting for.

Amazingly patronizing. Speaking of "insulting" an entire country...

It is not "amazingly patronizing" to expect an ally to consider the
impact on its partners. Especially Spain, which has benefited
handsomely from the EU and the security provided by the western
powers over the last 20 years.

In article , Philip Sondericker
writes:


I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Iraq is connected to either the
9-11 attacks or the Madrid bombings...



The same way that Normandy was connected to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

In WW2, we fought the fascist axis. We did not choose to land our forces in
Europe at Berlin, tactics and strategy determined where our attack would be
launched.

Now, we are fighting Islamofascism and again, strategy and tactics determine
where we will attack them. Look at a map. Anywhere other than Iraq that we
might have chosen as a starting point would have left us fighting a unified
Moslem world, probably under the leadership of Saddam. But by taking Saddam out
first, the possiblilty of unification is eliminated and we can now address the
problem areas in Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia individually and in whatever way
is appropriate.

Hopefully, it has become apparent to them that their situation, with Iraq and
Afghanistan occupied, is militarily untenable, and they will see the light and
eject the Islamofascist elements within their countries without further miltary
action on our part.

Even as far away as Lybia, Kadahfi has seen the error of his ways and decided
that having nukes to share with terrorists is not so good an idea as he
thought. If Iran makes the same choice, great, the days of the mullahs there
are numbered anyway as their young population transforms the country.

But one way or another, Bush intends to be done with Islamofascist terrorism
and is on track to get it done. He, or his staff, is a LOT smarter than his
critics would like to believe. Being underestimated by his opponents has been
part of his political strategery for a long time.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message ...

Then why do these folks keep calling themselves Palestinians?

I believe the UN declared a Palestinian refugee to be anyone who had lived
in Palestine for two years or more prior to the Arab attack on the new
state of Israel in 1948 and had lost their homes and livelihood as a
result of
that conflict. Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees. The Arab states
refused to absorb the Arab refugees so they were left in camps in what
would have been the new Arab state in Palestine.

What was all that negotiating borders for?

Which negotiations?


Pick one. Both sides periodically get together and come up with some new
agreement. Then both sides go home and figure out a way to screw it up. The
point is that both sides have acknowledged that each has a claim.



Right, wrong or indifferent there are a lot
of people that feel they have a claim to something there. Even Israel
agrees with that in priniciple.

The Arabs claim all of the land, including the state of Israel.


Not all Arabs, specifically the ones that are interested in peace do not.
Hamas' support dries up as soon as this new state is created and the people
no longer have to pass thru Israeli checkpoints to get to work.




I don't know, but it's my understanding that the people in the camps
and in the disputed areas aren't on either the Jordanian or the Israeli
voting roles.


Well of course they're not on Israeli voting rolls. Why would they be?
They're not citizens of Israel. Those that had property in Israel would
be on Israeli voting rolls if they hadn't abandoned their land.

I don't know if there are any Jordanian voting rolls.


But if there are then these other would be on them? (That's a real question
btw). This discussion started about a question of whether one is a
terrorist or a freedom fighter. To me a large part of that issue can be
clarified by whether or not people in these refugee camps have the right to
vote somewhere.


They consider themselves Palestinians and they, apparently, have
various treaties/accords/agreements to support that notion.


They consider themselves Palestinians because they either lived in the
Palestine region before the war or are descendents of someone that lived
there. They are not citizens of Palestine, there is no nation of
Palestine and there never was one.


But there supposedly is one coming if agreement can be reached, right?



If I am wrong
and they _were_ able to vote for or against Sharon last election then I
will be suprised that they haven't been able to put up numbers that would
infuence the election.


Did you vote in the last Israeli election? If not, why not?


My point/question is that if the Arabs in question are not citizens of
Israel and they are not citizens of Jordan and they have some legitimate
(by agreement) claim on the land then that would support the "freedom
fighter" label.



Israel has agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state, although they
certainly aren't happy about it.


Israel agreed to the creation of an Arab state in Palestine 57 years ago!
That is, the Jews in Palestine agreed to the partition plan that would
have created a second Arab state from the Palestine Mandate.


Has it been that long? You'd think they could've made more progress.

But you seem to be saying that there is a basis for these people to believe
they are Palestinians, unless this second Arab state the Jews agreed to is
to be called something else. In which case they would be
something-else-ians.



Understandable in that no one want's to
give up land. But they are in the driver's seat when it comes to the
peace process and dragging this out just causes too much pain and
suffering on both sides.

The Israelis aren't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. The
sooner Israel gives up trying to avoid actually handing over the promised
territory the better.

Arafat was offered over 90% of the "occupied territories" and control of
most of Jerusalem four years ago as a STARTING point in negotiations. He
turned it down. The Arabs aren't interested in peace, they're only
interested in the destruction of Israel.


What Arafat turned down was a Swiss cheese map that didn't have a continuous
border to be found. Kinda like saying Chicago and St. Louis are one country
but everything in between is something else.

You describe it as a starting point. Maybe it was. If so, it strikes me as
not a very good one. To me it looks like a way for Israel to appear to
offer something and then be able say it was the other sides fault for not
taking it. Even though it was a deal they themselves would never agree to
were the situations reversed.

Either way, Israel has shown it is no more interested in peace than the
Arabs. It is definitely in Sharon's interest to keep provoking more
attacks. His power comes from NOT giving up any land. It's a shame groups
like Hamas play right into his hands. But ultimately Israel has more
opportunity to resolve this.

What I find so ironic about this whole mess is that of all the peoples of
the world, Jews should understand what it means to be displaced, occupied,
and otherwise oppressed.

--
Frank....H

Tony Cox wrote:

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article .net, Tony
Cox
at wrote on 3/24/04 8:43 PM:

Someone should have explained to them exactly what they were
voting for.

Amazingly patronizing. Speaking of "insulting" an entire country...

It is not "amazingly patronizing" to expect an ally to consider the
impact on its partners. Especially Spain, which has benefited
handsomely from the EU and the security provided by the western
powers over the last 20 years.

I agree with your idea, but we have hardly treated anyone as partners. And
it seems to me that even you don't think so either. "We provided" doesn't
imply much of a partnership role for the "providee".

And of course if you consider the United States to be just one of the
"partners" then we would, by the above, have to consider their position
just as much as you expect them to see it our way.

--
Frank....H