We Are All Spaniards

Apologies to Kenny Rogers, and also to the original author of this piece
whose name I don't know.


Everyone considered him the coward of the country
He never went to Vietnam though he thought it a just war
His mamma named him Georgie, the folks just called him Dubya
But something always told me he was looking for a war


He spent Vietnam safely hidden in the air guard
Life looked after Dubya, cause he was his father's son
I still recall the fateful words when his Daddy lost to Clinton
"Son, my career's over, but yours is just begun

Promise me son, not to do the things I've done
Walk away from danger if you can
They can't call you weak if you slaughter men like sheep
I hope you're smart enough to understand
If lots of others die you'll be a man"

There's some war for everyone and Dubya's was bin Laden
As commander in chief they'd have to treat him like a man
No matter how hard he tried he just couldn't get bin Laden
But he'd bomb other countries ...there was lots of them!

Dubya watched the TV and he saw his soldiers dyin'
The crying wives, civilian lives, a devastated land
He reached above the fireplace and took down his daddy's picture
As his pride grew on his smiling face, he heard these words again

"Promise me son, not to do the things I've done
Walk away from danger if you can
They can't call you weak, if you slaughter men like sheep
I hope you're smart enough to understand
If lots of others die you'll be a man"

The other leaders laughed at him when he gave up diplomacy
Even his allies said they wouldn't support him no more
When Dubya he gave up they said, "Hey, look old Dubya's failing."
But you could have heard a bomb drop when Dubya started a new war

Fifty years of failure, was bottled up inside him
He wasn't holdin nothin back, he let 'em have it all
When Dubya finished bombing, not a country was left standing
He said, "I've a big penis" as he watched the last bomb fall
And I heard him say,

"I promised you Dad, not to the things you done
I walk away from danger when I can
Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't try diplomacy
And Papa I sure hope you understand
When lots of others die you are a man

Everyone considered him the coward of the country


"

C J Campbell wrote:

(Of course, me ancestors were orange...)

And, as I once told a third generation Irish-American friend of mine, "Kevin,
you forget. *My* ancestors *took* Ireland for the British in the first place."

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

"S Green" wrote in message
...

They are fighting to secure a fundamental muslim homeland in a
muslim world corrupted or stolen by the west.

They are fighting to reestablish the Caliphate, last seen in the
11th century. They believe that any lands once conquered by
Muslims should be included in this part of this Caliphate. This
encompasses present day Spain, southern France, and
south-eastern Europe up as far as Vienna. The more loony
branches include the US in this too, since they believe that the
new world was discovered by Arab sailors in the 13th century.

They already have a fundamentalist Muslim homeland. It is called
Saudi Arabia. The west actually assured its creation; the British
and French defeating the invading Egyptians in the early 19th
century & the British aiding the Saud family in the Hijaz during WWI
against the Ottomans. Their corruption is a home grown affair.

What's wrong with that. Except that it does not fit in with American
interests.

Nothing, if you feel like living in the 7th century again.

Whereas because of the Irish lobby in the US, support for the British
fighting Irish terrorists who did the majority of their bombing on the
mainland NOT Ireland was halfhearted.

It was never the official policy of the US government to support IRA
terrorists, although it did influence thinking in the 30's (when JFKs
father was ambassador). Jack Kennedy, an ardent Irish Nationalist
supporter, counseled Roosevelt to keep out of the war by sending
reports back that the UK was on the verge of collapse prior to
WW2. Thanks Jack. Who knows how many millions died because
of his bias and stupidity.


A clear case of double standards.

I really can't see any similarities, except perhaps that you
seem to have a rather superficial understanding about both.

Had a great flight yesterday here in Las Vegas. A warm spring
day without the spring winds for a change. Managed to get routed
straight over the Strip, for an excellent view of the Bellagio and
Paris hotels, much to the excitement of my passengers.

You're totally missing it, man!

It's not my choice to make. Do you think the Al Queda terrorists think
that what they are doing is morally irreprehensible? Is that why they
call it a Holy War?

"S Green" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...
Not in the eyes of the IRA. In the eyes of the IRA they are fighting
for the British to give back their land.

If they win, history will write that they were warriors and
bravehearts...

Thats the way, just pick and chose who you want to be terrorists and
who are not.

With your logic, the Al Quida probably dont think they are terrorists
either. They are fighting to secure a fundamental muslim homeland in a
muslim world corrupted or stolen by the west.
What's wrong with that. Except that it does not fit in with American
interests.
Whereas because of the Irish lobby in the US, support for the British
fighting Irish terrorists who did the majority of their bombing on the
mainland NOT Ireland was halfhearted.

A clear case of double standards.

So what do you suggest?

I think if we draw the line for countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and
Morroco, it will be clear that they support the terrorists...


"Dan Luke" wrote in
:

"Judah" wrote:
Sure it is.

The way to do it is to show them that the families they left
behind will not be rewarded for their actions. The way to
do it is to show that the punishment for suicide bombing is, for
example, the destruction of their home and the exile of their
families.

No. That is precisely what the terrorists are attempting to goad us
into doing. Their goal is the radicalization of the whole Ialamic
world. The destruction of their homes and the exile of their families
would be an immense propaganda victory for them.

Indiscriminate vengeance and retaliation are their game; we'd be fools
to play it.

That's what worked in Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Not analagous. For one thing, no one is in a position to "surrender"
for the terrorists. If Bin Laden, for instance, were to reach an
accomodation with the U. S., he would be denounced as a sellout and
replaced by other radicals eager to assume the title of Supreme
Defender of Islam.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:ev85c.13233$Cb.306915@attbi_s51...
The socialists have just won the election & Zapatero has
pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq. Looks like it's
down to the US, Britain, Australia and Poland. Rather
like last time.

With this election the Spanish have actually legitimized the very attackers
they supposedly revile, and endangered us all in the process.

This election will encourage the terrorists like nothing else has.

What does this have to do with flying (rec.aviation.piloting, to be
specific), except the very tenuous connection ANY political,
especially international, issue does?

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 02:30:15 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


Your question seems to presume that the behavior of those who commit
irrational acts is guided by successful results. I'm not so sure that
is the case. Terrorists are obviously not constrained by rationality,
so expecting a rational response seems unwarranted.

Larry, please don't take this as an attack because I don't intend it
that way, but you should not assume that because the Islamic
terrorists have had a series of successful attacks against civilian
targets that they are not rational.

To them, the attacks are extremely rational. It's literally the only
attack they can be successful at. It doesn't matter if western
thinking cannot comprehend the point of such attacks. THEY think they
are useful, or they would not be making them.

You've got a pretty strange definition of "rational". Don't confuse it with
the verb "rationalize", which is pseudo rationality (i.e., making excuses).

"S Green" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:GT75c.14199$po.186891@attbi_s52...
The Uk gave the land to Israel following a war with Jewish terrorists.
People like Golda Meyer, Begin were all terrorists(freedomfighters).

Again, you're confusing terrorists with rebels.

Rebels fight for territory. Terrorists kill indiscriminately.

The jews in 1948 were indiscriminate killers.

That's a BS myth -- they were most definitely NOT indiscriminante.

But by your definition the
Palestinians are rebels too and what they are doing is legitimate,
fighting
for their native soil.

Nice (but damn lame) attempt at word games.

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Hi Dan,

Of course the socialists might well have won without the bombing, and
would certainly have pulled out their troops, but nobody is going to
think of that. What they are going to think is this:

1) Spain joined the invasion of Iraq.

2) Spain got bombed by what seem to have been Islamic terrorists.

3) Spain pulled out of Iraq.

4) Bombing works, Q.E.D.

As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in terms
of the war on terror,

And an effective alternative is...what?

terrorism is not a tactic, its a mindset.

I have been to the middle east (1990-1991), its a **** hole.

Rosspilot wrote:

you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.


Why not?

Because it is a TACTIC, not an ENTITY.
There is nothing to "wipe out".



www.Rosspilot.com