traitorous SOB

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Shirley writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
illegal immigrants today. BSEG



Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."
That's absolutely true. We gave the Phillipines back but kept the rest
of the stuff we took before the turn of the 20th. I know a lot of
Filipinos who often state that they wish the US had kept them but they
were way to much trouble to govern as the majority wanted freedom. The
Puerto Ricans can't seem to make up their minds what they want and the
Pacific Islands we are on seem happy with the status quo

That's not quite true - We turned Cuba loose in 1912, IIRC.

And let's not forget the Philippines, which we got from Spain after the
Spanish-American War in 1898. The Tydings-McDuffie Act, enacted in 1934, while
ostensibly providing for their independence, merely formalized their
relationship with the United States in what appeared to be a colonial
relationship. They finally got their independence from us after WWII,
presumably as a reward for being a good, well-behaved colony for a half century
or so.

George Z.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

The US can break governments quite effectively. And that's all the
US really requires.

Really? I wonder why it's taken us so long to break the government that
replaced the Shah in Iran. They're still there, doing their fundamentalist
thing regardless of our displeasure, some 30+ years after they took over.
What
you're suggesting is merely blowing hard.....much more easily said than
done.

More like 25 years.

I'm not aware that the US has *really tried* to break the Islamic
Republic of Iran.

You should be, unless you have some other reason for us to cozy up to that Iraqi
thug, Sadaam Hussein, in his 8 year long war with Iran. You do realize that we
furnished Sadaam with technical military support (on the most efficacious
methods of using chemical weapons in tactical situations, for instance) as well
as military intelligence of value to him that we had picked up in the course of
our normal intelligence work.

We didn't do those things with the expectation that they would have no effect on
the Ayatollah's hold on the Iranian government and people. We were trying to
help Sadaam win his war and bring down the Ayatollah and his government.

George Z.

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...

In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to 1898


Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their independence

from us

post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until we

turned

them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).


I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.


Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
as States.
We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.

Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
a "commonwealth".

Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
Not a state. Not independent.

If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states, what are
they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous definitions
to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...

In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:


I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to
1898


Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their
independence

from us

post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until
we

turned

them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).


I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.


Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
as States.
We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.

Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
a "commonwealth".

Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
Not a state. Not independent.

If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states, what
are
they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous
definitions
to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.

George exhibiting reading comprehension problems again? He must have missed
the "in this context" bit...and yes George, in the case of those states
mentioned, they are indeed also "commonwealths"--but as the poster noted,
somewhat different context.

Brooks


George Z.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Peter Stickney wrote:


In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:


"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...


In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:



I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to

1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their

independence

from us

post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until

we

turned


them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).


I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.


Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
as States.
We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.

Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
a "commonwealth".

Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
Not a state. Not independent.

If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states, what are
they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous definitions
to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.

George exhibiting reading comprehension problems again? He must have missed
the "in this context" bit...and yes George, in the case of those states
mentioned, they are indeed also "commonwealths"--but as the poster noted,
somewhat different context.

George is on a roll!

Probably not worth trying to rein him at this time.


Stephen "Still Not Embarrassed" Harding

George Z. Bush wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

I'm not aware that the US has *really tried* to break the Islamic
Republic of Iran.

You should be, unless you have some other reason for us to cozy up to that Iraqi
thug, Sadaam Hussein, in his 8 year long war with Iran. You do realize that we
furnished Sadaam with technical military support (on the most efficacious
methods of using chemical weapons in tactical situations, for instance) as well
as military intelligence of value to him that we had picked up in the course of
our normal intelligence work.

I'd like a cite for your "US helped Saddam in the 'most efficacious' use
of his chem weapons claim.

US certainly helped the guy because we didn't like Iran. Part of an
"engagement" policy that failed, although I'd have thought liberal
minded folks would favor such an attempt to "get along". Of course
it failed.

We didn't do those things with the expectation that they would have no effect on
the Ayatollah's hold on the Iranian government and people. We were trying to
help Sadaam win his war and bring down the Ayatollah and his government.

Having "an effect" on the Ayatollah isn't quite the same as breaking
his government. We've had "effects" on about every government of the
world. Sometimes positive and sometimes negative.

Did Saddam even expect to break the Iranian government? Think he was
primarily after control of the Shat al-Arab waterway and got more than
he bargained for.

US efforts were primarily to preserve Saddam as a counterbalance to
the Iranians; not a back door method of destroying the Islamic Republic.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Peter Stickney wrote:


In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:


"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...


In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:



I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to

1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their

independence

from us

post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and until

we

turned


them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).


I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.


Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their status
as States.
We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.

Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
a "commonwealth".

Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
Not a state. Not independent.

If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states, what
are they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous
definitions to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.

George exhibiting reading comprehension problems again? He must have missed
the "in this context" bit...and yes George, in the case of those states
mentioned, they are indeed also "commonwealths"--but as the poster noted,
somewhat different context.

George is on a roll!
Probably not worth trying to rein him at this time.

Probably not. I confess to suffering from a brain fart at the time which led me
astray. In any case, I did a bit more reading on the subject and learned that
the previous comment about incorporated and unincorporated areas was indeed
accurate. Apparently, those incorporated areas acquired by whatever means are
areas that are destined for eventual statehood, whereas the unincorporated areas
are merely territories that will never become states.

That leaves unexplained the existence of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, not to mention Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands.
In each of those cases, their population is so small compared that that of the
smallest state, that granting statehood would involve giving those entities
overrepresentation in our Congress, and it's not likely to happen any time soon.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may be destined for statehood, what with its
population exceeding that of more than half of the 50 states and it being larger
in area than Rhode Island and Delaware.

Anyway, getting away from the trees and getting back to the forest that we
seemed to have lost sight of, the subject under discussion was someone's claim
that we never kept land we acquired by right of military conquest, which is
patently false even without going back to our formative years when we helped
ourselves to substantial portions of Mexico that we've never returned. Of the
lands we acquired from our victory in the Spanish-American War at the end of the
19th century, I believe the only land we subsequently surrendered were Cuba and,
a half century later, the Philippine Islands.

Never is a long long time. One shouldn't make that kind of claim unless one is
certain that it's true. In this case, it obviously isn't.

George Z.

Stephen Harding wrote:
George Z. Bush wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

I'm not aware that the US has *really tried* to break the Islamic
Republic of Iran.

You should be, unless you have some other reason for us to cozy up to that
Iraqi thug, Sadaam Hussein, in his 8 year long war with Iran. You do
realize that we furnished Sadaam with technical military support (on the
most efficacious methods of using chemical weapons in tactical situations,
for instance) as well as military intelligence of value to him that we had
picked up in the course of our normal intelligence work.

I'd like a cite for your "US helped Saddam in the 'most efficacious' use
of his chem weapons claim.

Just go to Google and punch in what you're looking for and you'll find it, just
as I did.

US certainly helped the guy because we didn't like Iran. Part of an
"engagement" policy that failed, although I'd have thought liberal
minded folks would favor such an attempt to "get along". Of course
it failed.

We didn't do those things with the expectation that they would have no
effect on the Ayatollah's hold on the Iranian government and people. We
were trying to help Sadaam win his war and bring down the Ayatollah and his
government.

Having "an effect" on the Ayatollah isn't quite the same as breaking
his government.

Apparently you are having a problem with understanding what I said. I'll put it
another way.....we didn't help Sadaam because we loved him or his government, we
helped him because he was fighting people we despised and we hoped he would
grind them into the dust. No altruism...merely self-interest.

.....We've had "effects" on about every government of the
world. Sometimes positive and sometimes negative.

Talk about belaboring the obvious.

Did Saddam even expect to break the Iranian government? Think he was
primarily after control of the Shat al-Arab waterway and got more than
he bargained for.

How the hell am I supposed to know what Sadaam expected or wanted? And what
does it matter anyway? He became "the enemy of my enemy" and, in that way,
earned our support.

US efforts were primarily to preserve Saddam as a counterbalance to
the Iranians; not a back door method of destroying the Islamic Republic.

That was the Middle Eastern version of the Texas Two Step, and nowhere near the
truth of the matter.

I said that I believed that we supported SH because we wanted to see the
Ayatollah brought down. Let's not play word games with what I said.....we
wanted the Ayatollah's government replaced by a secular one with whom we could
do business. Why? Because we owed the old goat for what they did to our
Embassy and its people, and we didn't mind who dished out the pay back.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

Peter Stickney wrote:


In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" writes:


"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...


In article , "George Z. Bush"
wrote:



I also seem to recall Puerto Rico was a Spanish Colony prior to

1898

Now that you mention it, didn't the Philippines get their

independence

from us

post WWII? What were they after we took them from Spain and
until

we

turned


them loose?

A protectorate.
As Puerto Rico still is (at their own decision).


I think you'll find it's a commonwealth.


Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky are all called
"Commonwealths" as well, but that's got little to do with their
status
as States.
We don't have a specific definition of Commonwealth in this context.

Yet that's what the official status of PR (and Northern Marianas) is:
a "commonwealth".

Just means (in this context) it's an unincorporated part of the US.
Not a state. Not independent.

If Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Kentucky are not states,
what
are they doing in our Electoral College? Methinks you need a better
definition.....do pick up a dictionary before you attach outrageous
definitions to words. They can save you a heap of embarrassment.

George exhibiting reading comprehension problems again? He must have
missed
the "in this context" bit...and yes George, in the case of those states
mentioned, they are indeed also "commonwealths"--but as the poster
noted,
somewhat different context.

George is on a roll!
Probably not worth trying to rein him at this time.

Probably not. I confess to suffering from a brain fart at the time which
led me
astray. In any case, I did a bit more reading on the subject and learned
that
the previous comment about incorporated and unincorporated areas was
indeed
accurate. Apparently, those incorporated areas acquired by whatever means
are
areas that are destined for eventual statehood, whereas the unincorporated
areas
are merely territories that will never become states.

That leaves unexplained the existence of the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, not to mention Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin
Islands.
In each of those cases, their population is so small compared that that of
the
smallest state, that granting statehood would involve giving those
entities
overrepresentation in our Congress, and it's not likely to happen any time
soon.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico may be destined for statehood, what with
its
population exceeding that of more than half of the 50 states and it being
larger
in area than Rhode Island and Delaware.

You continue to miss the "big picture". Which is the very opposite of some
kind of imperialist US policy restraining these protectorates in their
current status. They actually *want* to continue under the current status
quo--they get lots of advantages, and few of the attendant responsibilities.
Puerto Rico enjoys significant self-government, while still taking advantage
of most federal programs--without its inhabitants having to pay federal
income tax while they reside in Puerto Rico. Hence they have had no less
than *three* plebiscites regarding the choice of independence, statehood, or
continuing under the status quo (two were held in the 1990's)...and each and
every time they have chosen the latter option.


Anyway, getting away from the trees and getting back to the forest that we
seemed to have lost sight of, the subject under discussion was someone's
claim
that we never kept land we acquired by right of military conquest, which
is
patently false even without going back to our formative years when we
helped
ourselves to substantial portions of Mexico that we've never returned. Of
the
lands we acquired from our victory in the Spanish-American War at the end
of the
19th century, I believe the only land we subsequently surrendered were
Cuba and,
a half century later, the Philippine Islands.

Guam has been trying to negotiate a similar commonwealth status with the USG
since the late 1980's. They don't *want* independence. We gave the RMI
(Republic of the Marshall Islands) independence when we approved the Compact
of Free Association with that government in 1986, though the RMI had been
self-governing since 1979. I don't believe *any* of the possessions gained
during the Spanish American War have been prevented from exercising their
right to independence if they so desired it.


Never is a long long time. One shouldn't make that kind of claim unless
one is
certain that it's true. In this case, it obviously isn't.

And it is a long way from being any form of permanent territorial gain
without the express permission of those terrotories' citizens. Big
difference from imperialist expansion.

Brooks


George Z.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


Kerry came home from Vietnam a hero and then called those he left behind,
"murderers".

Ummm...No.

He quoted what other veterans had testified to before
congress.
--
Matthew Saroff | Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
For law enforcement officials monitoring the net: abortion, marijuana,
cocaine, CIA, plutonium, ammonium nitrate, militia, DEA, NSA, PGP, hacker,
assassinate, Osama, Al Queida, Palestinian, Daisy Cutter, 911, suicide
bomber, Taliban, George Bush is a Twinkie, Anthrax, Uranium, Thorium.

Send suggestions for new and interesting words to:
. (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page