|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Me: you're turning this into a political board, and it isn't. However, let me
respond to several of your points. The first point is that you immediately
accuse me of being a right-wing radical and so-called patriot. You know, Me,
that's a strategy that most LEFT WING liberals use when they're on the wrong
side of an argument -- NAME CALL WITH THE POPULAR PHRASE THE MEDIA JUST
CREATED. In fact, Me, I won't even answer the rest of your points (except
two) because all they boil down to is the same crap the media bends peoples'
minds with. The TWO points I will address are basic to the media
misinformation campaign to damage the Bushs and scare people so as not to
take any action.
Point One -- Bush senior flubbed the Iraq war because Hussein was left alive
and in control of Iraq. Why does this point have to be rehashed a thousand
times? Don't you remember the conditions the world agreed to before starting
that war? Also, and this isn't discussed too often, but should be repeated
again. Bush had intelligence that the Iraq rebels both in the south and north
would take out Hussein quickly after the war with some addition covert aid.
Well, if you remember, the media brought down Bush and pushed for Clinton to
take office shortly afterwards. When Clinton came into office he betrayed the
rebels and never provided them aid, which Hussein picked up immediately and
slaughtered them. To follow on that debacle, Clinton sent our troops in to
the Sudan and 21 more of our guys were slaughtered because they were denied
the fire power by Ramsey Clark (another great COMMUNIST American) that they
should have had (because we didn't want to make people angry at us). Anyway,
to protect Clinton, the media always seems to forget to remind the Americans
that Clinton was a disaster in foreign affairs, and we are paying for it now.
Point Two -- It's the favorite media pitch to say how tough the Afgans are
because the fought off the fierce Russians. What malarkey! They can't give
Ronald Reagan credit for us standing side by side with the Afgans to support
them, which is another reason Reagan deserves credit for the USSR
disintegration. By the way, it's the bonds we created then that are going to
work to help us now. You may have heard that our Special Forces units are
being deployed -- even though they didn't consult with you first (the master
world strategist)! Who do you think those Special Forces units will work
with? Guess. And why do you think they were sent there first? That area
happens to be a perfect region for them to operate in becasue they get
perfect satellite intelligence data, as well, which wasn't the case in
Vietnam. You are so presumption to think you know what clandestine forces do
and how they operate. . As for all the body bags, do you realize that bin
Laden only has about 400 devout followers surrounding him and he lives a
little more opulent than the hypocritical media would like us to believe,
which will make him very easy to find. He's not living in a cave, if that's
what you think, but to his great dismay, he better find one fast.
I'll end here because the rest of your tripe is all the same.
Ralph
Me wrote:
> >
> ==> Rah-rah, rah-rah, rah. I gave my opinion. I realized that
> although we live in a free country I fully expected to be attacked by
> the right-wing radical, so-called patriots. Such is life. My
> opinion of the positive spin on Bush's speech is that that the
> expectations for his performance in both the job and speaking have
> gotten so low that everyone was just happy he didn't flub any words.
> Does the ability to read and not making mistakes make a good speech?
> And yes, I would have liked to have voted for a Democrat. Now had
> the Democratic party not fielded that fool Gore...
> >
> > As for use of "I" and "we," the President was careful and smart
> enough to say
> > "I" when he was doing something; such as constructing a new cabinet
> position;
> > and "we" when all American were involved in getting a job done. The
> use of
> > "I" is not to brag but to assume responsibility. As for "we," some
> American
> > will be called on to go to Afghan to clean house and those of us
> who stay
> > behind will have to do whatever we do best to ensure the strength
> of our
> > economy.
>
> ==> I stick with my previous Tonto joke comment. "What you mean we,
> Lone Ranger?" Just as with out experiences in the Vietnam war, if
> the body bags start coming home, watch how the meaning of "we"
> changes. Why can't we learn from our past experiences or even the
> experiences of others like the British and Russians? They got into a
> ground war with the Afghans and not only lost their wars, they lost a
> lot of good people. It won't be any different this time if we commit
> the same mistake.
>
> > One major confusion you're also having is local terrorism vs. global
> > terrorism. What's going on in Israel and Ireland is local
> terrorism. What we
> > and the Europeans are experiencing is global terrorism. When the
> new Bush
> > administration attempted to put the lid on Israel, the hope was to
> contain
> > this barbarism and give the new administration time to develop
> workable
> > solutions. As we have seen, it is now too late for that -- the pit
> bull is no
> > longer fenced in. Terrorism has successfully gone global and now
> threatens
> > all freedom loving people.
>
> ==> Local vs. global terrorism? Pul-leeze. What Bush said was that
> we we're going to fight "global terrorism" He did not make any
> distinction between global and local. Was it just local when the IRA
> went over to Britain and detonated bombs, maiming and killing what,
> 20,000 people over time? Is it local when Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian
> based/supported terrorists come to Israel and blow up people there?
> Is it local when terrorists blow up the Israel embassy in Argentina,
> etc., etc. etc.... No, all you are saying is that little of this
> "global" terrorism mattered to the average American until it happened
> here. Try taking off your blinders. You might see something.
>
> > Let me also educate you on some history. Reagan did fight terrorism
> even
> > thought the gang of Dems in Congress did everything they could to
> stop him.
> > Don't you remember the Cuban zealots who were setting up terrorist
> cells all
> > over South America? Don't you remember the Sandinista guerrillas?
> Reagan kept
> > South American free and should largely get credit for the collapse
> of the
> > USSR. As for Bush senior, he was only in for four years, but don't
> you
> > remember the Iraq war? My, what a short memory you have? That was
> a major
> > intervention to curtail an overt terrorist nation. Do you remember
> how the
> > Dems in Congress first fought Bush senior and refused to vote in
> support of
> > intervention? Do you remember how he had to get world opinion to
> twist the
> > Dems arms in Congress to finally get approval to do what was
> needed? I'm
> > sorry to say, you don't have your facts straight on these issues.
>
> ==> Thanks for the education <bg>. This isn't the place and I don't
> have the time to rationally address all your statements. Of course I
> remember the Gulf war. And? Hussein is still in power, still raping
> the country, still rattling his saber, still has his army, is still a
> threat. Yes, Kuwait is free and safe but we did half a job because
> Bush's dad wouldn't release the military to do what had to be done,
> which was to take over the country and find Hussein. He knew if did
> so and dead bodies started returning to America that the coalition
> would fall apart and his chances for reelection would be nil. But
> not only did GHB screw up the Gulf war, he took the economy down
> also. And you can't even blame the Democrats in that one because
> remember, there was a Republican in office before him.
>
> > As for taking action now in light of the WTC destruction, it has
> nothing to
> > do with patriotism, as you have said. To the point, it has
> everything to do
> > with protecting freedom, free trade, and to secure our safety.
> These are all
> > essential factors to improve the plight of people worldwide, which
> is not
> > what these fanatics have in mind. As for invading Afghan and
> bombing it to
> > hell -- I don't think so. Have you seen the videos of the Afghan
> people? They
> > are really primitive and destitute. Let me provide an analogy of
> our action,
> > as I see it. If there's a criminal in the ghetto, do we bomb the
> hell out of a
> > ghetto to get him? No! We just go in with some force and take him
> out! That's
> > all!
>
> ==> Oh yes, it has everything to with rah-rah patriotism. I'm as
> patriotic as anyone but I don't want to see this country return to
> the diverseness of the Vietnam war. I have a real problem with the
> recent rash of unthinking, blinded by the light of the moment, fair
> weather patriots. Although terrorism has been running rampant
> throughout the world for so long, the USA is suddenly going to protect
> "freedom, free trade and secure our safety"? Umm, why weren't we
> doing that before the tragedy last week? Why weren't our airports
> made safe before the event? Why were so few concerned enough with
> terrorism occurring in the rest of the world to adequately protect
> our own shores? Why did we have to suffer more than 12,000 dead and
> injured before we took this threat seriously? Because we didn't have
> and didn't want to spend the money that's why.
>
> As I said, every thinking person supports the end of terrorism, but
> eliminating critical thought and speech while having everyone march
> in lockstep will not be the path to success.
>
> > On a final note, it isn't Bush's plan to go after every terrorist.
> You didn't
> > listen to his wording. He said he would go after those terrorists
> with global
> > ambitions. If they can be taken out, then the local thugs my
> atrophy without
> > international support -- as we can all hope.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> ==> We really don't have the money to support this war. With our
> economy already in tatters, unable to raise taxes in a poor economy,
> our only choice to fund this war, bailouts and loan guarantees will
> be to dig into the Social Security fund. So much for that lockbox,
> huh? Say good-bye to retirement. We should acknowledge that this
> mission is merely a thirst for revenge and has little chance of real
> success. We don't have "God On Our Side" (see below) and we are not
> going to succeed in knocking out worldwide terrorism. Even if we
> (hopefully) have some short-term successes, terrorism will only
> spring up somewhere else. We are going to face the same reality, the
> same waste of money that we have with our supposed war on drugs.
> I submit that beefing up our own security would be a better way to
> spend a portion of the massive dollars we are committing to this war
> while fielding select assignation squads to track down the worst of
> the terrorists?
>
> Finally, I suggest the following references.
>
> http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/June/Afghan/index.html
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck
Monitoring Service trial
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MDsVHB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|