Recent Political Change May Positively Affect GA

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:17:27 GMT, "Super Dave"
wrote:

We got into this war with attacks on NY and DC. What is your
evidence that Bush was responsible for those attacks?


No, we got into the Afghanistan war due to the attacks on NY and DC. Iraq
was the result of stupidity on the part of our fearless leaders, and the
stupidity of the populace that supports those leaders.


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?

Bush's big mistake was to not trust the American people with the truth
about this war from the beginning, choosing instead to tout a
simplistic justification for the war, the possibility of Saddam Husein
developing nuclear weapons, instead of laying out the real strategy
and trusting the people to understand.

We are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, we are at war with
Islamofascism. This is an asymmetric war, and the primary problem in
this sort of war is to get the enemy to engage on terms under which we
can win.

Their ultimate goal is to unify Islam under a restored Caliphate and
proceed on their god given mission of world domination. A bit
grandiose for a culture that represents 20% of the world's population
but couldn't produce a turbojet engine if their lives depended on it,
but none-the-less, that is where they eventually want to go.

Their short term goal is to unify the Arabian Peninsula and Central
Asia by driving the West out and leaving the Western friendly regimes
like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia open to conquest and future use as
economic weapons of intimidation.

Their strategy is to subject us to an endless sequence of 9/11 and
Madrid type attacks until we acquiesce and stand aside while they take
control of a large part of the world petroleum supply by force.

Simply driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan would do no good. The
leaders would simply relocate to Iran and Iraq and other havens while
their troops simply melted away into the tribal areas of Pakistan
until we left. Quite simply, they could afford to lose Afghanistan for
a decade or so, and they are patient.

So, we had to take the war some place they could not afford to lose.
Iraq filled that bill in both location and population. A capitalist,
secular and self-governing Iraq in the middle of the feudal Islamic
world was intolerable, and its success would have spread to
neighboring countries as the miracle of the rule of law and capitalism
raised the Iraqi standard of living beyond anything Islam has to
offer. They had to come out and fight or their strategy would be
defeated. That is why we went to Iraq, to make them meet us in the
kind of war we can win.

This war has not been well managed. We are simply too civilized to do
what is expected in that part of the world. Al-Sadr and his militia
should have been utterly wiped out at the first instance of resistance
early in the occupation. Likewise, Falujah should have been flattened.
Those would have seemed harsh initally, but in the long run, lives
would have been saved and the new government would have been
stabilized.

Now, if we leave in defeat, they are back on their game plan and we
can expect more 9/11's until we withdraw completely and let them have
Kuwait and SA. I don't think we have the unity now to prevail.

That is the price of underestimating the ability of the American
people to understand the big picture. Had bush laid all this out in
the first place, explained the stakes and the strategy from the
beginning instead of all the lawyer talk about UN resolutions and
other foolishness used to justify an unspoken strategic plan, I
believe the people would have stood by the plan as long as it takes.
No, I am afraid we will withdraw and let them build strength until my
children and grandchildren are forced to choose between Sharia and
nuclear war.

Don

I worked the polls all day on Nov 7. I've got to tell you
that a very large number of the voters [even in an up scale
educated area] are idiots. As an example, after explaining
a woman that there were four pages on the ballot and the
VOTE button would be in-active until she had looked at and
voted on each page and then that the machine would require
that she review all four pages and vote again and then
confirm that she had voted the way she wanted before the
machine would actually register her vote. I asked her if
she had any questions and she said "No." A few minutes
later I saw her standing at the machine with a perplexed
look. I went over and asked if she had a problem or a
question. She said "The machine didn't let me vote!"
She had just scrolled through all four pages, not made any
selections, pushed VOTE. Then she reviewed her blank ballot
and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question and
pressed the CONFIRM button.

We gave her a provisional ballot, which then had the reason
that she had voted a blank on the machine. I doubt that the
ballot will be counted, since there were no close races and
she did vote. I would have said that these new machines
would make a "Palm Beach" ballot impossible this woman
proved again that idiots can break any machine or system.



"Doug" wrote in message
ups.com...
| It doesn't matter what you believe or history or the
"facts" are. The
| majority of voters went into the voting booth and said
"lets send the
| president (and his supporters) a message". Kachung!
|

Don Tabor wrote:


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?


Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:58:15 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in
et:

We got into this war with attacks on NY and DC. What is your evidence that
Bush was responsible for those attacks?

With all due respect, please explicitly express (your version of) the
facts that lead you to believe that there is a link between the
attacks you mention and the botched vendetta Bush is executing in
Iraq.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:17:27 GMT, "Super Dave"
wrote in et:

Iraq was the result of stupidity on the part of our fearless leaders,

Never underestimate the influence of avarice on political decisions.

and the stupidity of the populace that supports those leaders.

That reminds me of a Bill Maher quote:

The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:45 -0700, Newps wrote:

Don Tabor wrote:


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?


Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?

A lot more sense than had we simply bombed the empty ocean where the
Japanese fleet was when it launched the attack, and then stopped.

When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
led us.

We fight the enemy where it is to our advantage to do so, not in some
place of their choosing.

Don

DonSideB

Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Martin Hotze wrote in :

"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Then she reviewed her blank ballot
and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question and
pressed the CONFIRM button.


So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?

Read carefully: That is exactly what she did but she did not know she was
doing that and she was complaining that the machine registered her
"white" vote even though she confirmed that is indeed what she wanted to
do.

She was given a provisional ballot because she wanted to change her vote.

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:45 -0700, Newps wrote:


Don Tabor wrote:


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?


Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?

A lot more sense than had we simply bombed the empty ocean where the
Japanese fleet was when it launched the attack, and then stopped.

When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
led us.

We fight the enemy where it is to our advantage to do so, not in some
place of their choosing.

Don

Martin Hotze wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote:


Then she reviewed her blank ballot
and voted it again. Then she "read" the last question and
pressed the CONFIRM button.



So it is not possible to vote "white" (as it is called here)?
means: a valid vote, but without voting anybody?

What is the purpose of that?

Matt

Don Tabor wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:26:45 -0700, Newps wrote:


Don Tabor wrote:


So, our attack on D-Day was unjustified because Normandy did not bomb
Pearl Harbor?


Any chance this is supposed to make any sense?


A lot more sense than had we simply bombed the empty ocean where the
Japanese fleet was when it launched the attack, and then stopped.

When fascism attacked us in WW2, we went to Normandy before going
after the Japanese directly because that is where the winning strategy
led us.

We fight the enemy where it is to our advantage to do so, not in some
place of their choosing.

Normandy is in France. Why would the French bomb Pearl Harbor? By the
way we attacked the Japanese at many locations before doing any serious
damage to the Germans. We agreed with our other Allies to defeat the
Germans first even though Japan was a much more dangerous enemy to us at
the time. The only way the Germans were going to be defeated was to
have the Russians do the lions share of the fighting and dying.