Re: Iran Conflict, A Future Conflict?

[Guest guest]

Bush has done a lot of things I don't agree with, but the main reason he is so unpopular overseas is simply because he dared to strike back after we were attacked on 9/11. Europe is upset because their governments have played the appeasement hand since the 1960's toward the terrorists and their supporting nations. France let the Ayatolla Komani live in France all the while publishing about how he wanted to take over Iran and turn it into a fundamentalist state and spread that brand of Islam from there by any means necessary.

Bush was initially supported by most countries on going into Iraq. This was so because Sadaam was rfusing to comply with UN WMD inspectors and had refused to comply with more than a dozen previous "let the inspectors in or else" demands from the UN. Support was strong for the invasion. Sadaam could also have saved himself at the last hour by complying with UN mandates, but he didn't. A large measure for that was because he probably expected France, Russia and Germany, his under the table partners in the corrupt Oil for Food scheme, to block any real action as they had in the past.

Recently, tapes have been released. These are tapes of meetings held by Sadaam and his top advisors and captured by a UN arms inspector. In them, the group clearly discusses WMD. In one meeting they say that all the chemical and biological material is "gone" but that they still had the knowledge, scientists and records so they could pick up again once the sanctions were lifted. In another, they talk about a plasma research that was going on at the Iraqi nuclear research site. This site is known and was considered to be a purely academic location, however, these tapes refer to two secret projects that were being conducted there that the UN inspectors never learned about. Also, no defectors ever came from this program, so the Bush administration did not know about it either until these tapes were captured. BTW, this plasma research is advanced research into fusion type nuclear bombs, not the usual fission types.

Still, I didn't back the Iraq invasion anyway because of how fractious Iraqi society is and that our troop strength would be too bogged down over there, leaving little or nothing to handle crisis elsewhere. I preferred going to the UN and lifting the sanctions, but making it clear that Sadaam was from then on the responsibility of France, Germany and Russia. Since they were so keen on doing business with him that they corrupted a UN program and smuggled him weapons, they could bloody well use some of that ill gotten profit to keep him in line. If he developed nukes or other WMD, his use of them would be the fault of those countries.

As for Iran, they are indeed a danger. The country is on the edge of an internal revolt because half of the population has been born since the Iranian revolution that brought the current regime to power and they don't like the repressive laws and so forth. However, the rulers still control the army and the economy with a tight fist, and the Iraq war has hurt slowed the internal revolution somewhat.

If Iran does get nukes, I have little doubt that they will use them. The Iranian President believes that by provoking a major war with lots of death and destruction, that the Hidden Imam, a descedant of Mohammed who vanished over a thousand years ago when all the other Imams were murdered, will return and lead Islam in a conquest of the globe.

He will most likely try to spark this by nuking Israel. He knows that Israel would strike back in kind and is even on record many times as saying that "Israel could only hurt us while we will surely destroy them". In other words he is will to take a nuclear retaliatory strike which might kill half of his people if he can destroy Israel in one swoop. He believes that doing this will rally worldwide Islam into a great jihad against the unbelievers and, led by the Imam, the whole world will be under Sharia in a short time.

So yes, I do think Iran is a very dangerous country. What to do about them is another matter. The US is tied up in Iraq, Europe has no military capable of large offensive action, and Iran has scattered is muclear processing sites around the country in small, underground facilties making it all but impossible to knock them all out. Iran also had the advantage with the world press that if the US or Israel tried to take out its nuclear facilities, that those nations would be demonized for doing the right thing.

[Guest guest]

:

> Bush has done a lot of things I don't agree with, but the main reason he is so unpopular overseas is simply because he dared to strike back after we were attacked on 9/11.

I'd say the main reason he is unpopular is that he's clearly very dense and completely ruled by those who has vast economic interests in the weapons industry (such as Cheney, largest individual shareholder in Halliburton at the time, for example). I'm sure I'm not the only one who has from the very start seen Bush Jr as merely a puppet on a string; full of pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric that sounds so outdated to us Europeans that it would be hysterical if it wasn't for the frightening fact that millions seem to buy it.

There is also suspicion about the motives for the Afghan invasion. Not that anyone is lamenting the demise of the Taliban rule - which the US helped into power in the first place. But has Osama actually been PROVEN to have done it? What about Osama's and his brother's various business connections with the Bush family?

What about Brezizinski's admission in a French magzine inverview of the administration secretly funding opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul in 1979, knowing that such action would probably provoke a Soviet invasion? (Hm, didn't just get the Nobel Peace Prize or something, a couple of years ago?)

What about BBC showing a direct quote of one Bush's ministers (possibly Rumsfeld) saying that the US has to find a way of getting into Afghanistan at any cost, a several months BEFORE 9/11? Or BBC's Arney finding that Pakistan Foreign Secretary Niaz Niak was alerted by American officials in mid-July that action against Afghanistan would be launched by mid-October?

> Europe is upset because their governments have played the appeasement hand since the 1960's toward the terrorists and their supporting nations. France let the Ayatolla Komani live in France all the while publishing about how he wanted to take over Iran and turn it into a fundamentalist state and spread that brand of Islam from there by any means necessary.

Didn't the US bsck the Shah? What's the difference between a political dictator and a religious one? > Bush was initially supported by most countries on going into Iraq. This was so because Sadaam was rfusing to comply with UN WMD inspectors and had refused to comply with more than a dozen previous "let the inspectors in or else" demands from the UN. Support was strong for the invasion. Sadaam could also have saved himself at the last hour by complying with UN mandates, but he didn't. A large measure for that was because he probably expected France, Russia and Germany, his under the table partners in the corrupt Oil for Food scheme, to block any real action as they had in the past.

Right. And France, Russia and Germany didn't want anyone to find weapons with their name on it. > Recently, tapes have been released. These are tapes of meetings held by Sadaam and his top advisors and captured by a UN arms inspector. In them, the group clearly discusses WMD. In one meeting they say that all the chemical and biological material is "gone" but that they still had the knowledge, scientists and records so they could pick up again once the sanctions were lifted. In another, they talk about a plasma research that was going on at the Iraqi nuclear research site. This site is known and was considered to be a purely academic location, however, these tapes refer to two secret projects that were being conducted there that the UN inspectors never learned about. Also, no defectors ever came from this program, so the Bush administration did not know about it either until these tapes were captured. BTW, this plasma research is advanced research into fusion type nuclear bombs, not the usual fission types.

I don't actually see why ANY state should be permitted to have WMD. Why China if not North Korea? China is not exactly a democracy or haven of human rights either. Why France, Israel, Russia, US and not everyyone else too? What ensures sanity and democracy enough in any state to be permitted to own such dangerous weapons? Hitler won a democratic election. Bush won an undemocratic election. Any leader can go nuts, or be ruled by vested interests who care little for the spilling of human lives if it can line their pockets.

> Still, I didn't back the Iraq invasion anyway because of how fractious Iraqi society is and that our troop strength would be too bogged down over there, leaving little or nothing to handle crisis elsewhere. I preferred going to the UN and lifting the sanctions, but making it clear that Sadaam was from then on the responsibility of France, Germany and Russia. Since they were so keen on doing business with him that they corrupted a UN program and smuggled him weapons, they could bloody well use some of that ill gotten profit to keep him in line. If he developed nukes or other WMD, his use of them would be the fault of those countries.

Well, it was the US who put him in power in the first place. And gave him enough technology to become a threat.

> As for Iran, they are indeed a danger. The country is on the edge of an internal revolt because half of the population has been born since the Iranian revolution that brought the current regime to power and they don't like the repressive laws and so forth. However, the rulers still control the army and the economy with a tight fist, and the Iraq war has hurt slowed the internal revolution somewhat. > If Iran does get nukes, I have little doubt that they will use them. The Iranian President believes that by provoking a major war with lots of death and destruction, that the Hidden Imam, a descedant of Mohammed who vanished over a thousand years ago when all the other Imams were murdered, will return and lead Islam in a conquest of the globe.

Oh dear. That sounds almost as inane as some of the executives of leading world corporations (one of them being Exxon I think, though I could be misremembering) who has been recorded as saying they think they will be hurrying up the second coming of Christ if they ruin the environment and help bring on the Harmageddon a s a p.

> He will most likely try to spark this by nuking Israel. He knows that Israel would strike back in kind and is even on record many times as saying that "Israel could only hurt us while we will surely destroy them". In other words he is will to take a nuclear retaliatory strike which might kill half of his people if he can destroy Israel in one swoop. He believes that doing this will rally worldwide Islam into a great jihad against the unbelievers and, led by the Imam, the whole world will be under Sharia in a short time.

Instead of being under Mcs, Coca-Cola, Dutch Shell, Ely Lilly and Nike...? ;-) God help us!

> So yes, I do think Iran is a very dangerous country. What to do about them is another matter. The US is tied up in Iraq, Europe has no military capable of large offensive action, and Iran has scattered is muclear processing sites around the country in small, underground facilties making it all but impossible to knock them all out. Iran also had the advantage with the world press that if the US or Israel tried to take out its nuclear facilities, that those nations would be demonized for doing the right thing.

Why not let the UN deal with it? Isn't that their job?

Inger

[Guest guest]

:

> Bush has done a lot of things I don't agree with, but the main reason he is so unpopular overseas is simply because he dared to strike back after we were attacked on 9/11.

I'd say the main reason he is unpopular is that he's clearly very dense and completely ruled by those who has vast economic interests in the weapons industry (such as Cheney, largest individual shareholder in Halliburton at the time, for example). I'm sure I'm not the only one who has from the very start seen Bush Jr as merely a puppet on a string; full of pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric that sounds so outdated to us Europeans that it would be hysterical if it wasn't for the frightening fact that millions seem to buy it.

There is also suspicion about the motives for the Afghan invasion. Not that anyone is lamenting the demise of the Taliban rule - which the US helped into power in the first place. But has Osama actually been PROVEN to have done it? What about Osama's and his brother's various business connections with the Bush family?

What about Brezizinski's admission in a French magzine inverview of the administration secretly funding opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul in 1979, knowing that such action would probably provoke a Soviet invasion? (Hm, didn't just get the Nobel Peace Prize or something, a couple of years ago?)

What about BBC showing a direct quote of one Bush's ministers (possibly Rumsfeld) saying that the US has to find a way of getting into Afghanistan at any cost, a several months BEFORE 9/11? Or BBC's Arney finding that Pakistan Foreign Secretary Niaz Niak was alerted by American officials in mid-July that action against Afghanistan would be launched by mid-October?

> Europe is upset because their governments have played the appeasement hand since the 1960's toward the terrorists and their supporting nations. France let the Ayatolla Komani live in France all the while publishing about how he wanted to take over Iran and turn it into a fundamentalist state and spread that brand of Islam from there by any means necessary.

Didn't the US bsck the Shah? What's the difference between a political dictator and a religious one? > Bush was initially supported by most countries on going into Iraq. This was so because Sadaam was rfusing to comply with UN WMD inspectors and had refused to comply with more than a dozen previous "let the inspectors in or else" demands from the UN. Support was strong for the invasion. Sadaam could also have saved himself at the last hour by complying with UN mandates, but he didn't. A large measure for that was because he probably expected France, Russia and Germany, his under the table partners in the corrupt Oil for Food scheme, to block any real action as they had in the past.

Right. And France, Russia and Germany didn't want anyone to find weapons with their name on it. > Recently, tapes have been released. These are tapes of meetings held by Sadaam and his top advisors and captured by a UN arms inspector. In them, the group clearly discusses WMD. In one meeting they say that all the chemical and biological material is "gone" but that they still had the knowledge, scientists and records so they could pick up again once the sanctions were lifted. In another, they talk about a plasma research that was going on at the Iraqi nuclear research site. This site is known and was considered to be a purely academic location, however, these tapes refer to two secret projects that were being conducted there that the UN inspectors never learned about. Also, no defectors ever came from this program, so the Bush administration did not know about it either until these tapes were captured. BTW, this plasma research is advanced research into fusion type nuclear bombs, not the usual fission types.

I don't actually see why ANY state should be permitted to have WMD. Why China if not North Korea? China is not exactly a democracy or haven of human rights either. Why France, Israel, Russia, US and not everyyone else too? What ensures sanity and democracy enough in any state to be permitted to own such dangerous weapons? Hitler won a democratic election. Bush won an undemocratic election. Any leader can go nuts, or be ruled by vested interests who care little for the spilling of human lives if it can line their pockets.

> Still, I didn't back the Iraq invasion anyway because of how fractious Iraqi society is and that our troop strength would be too bogged down over there, leaving little or nothing to handle crisis elsewhere. I preferred going to the UN and lifting the sanctions, but making it clear that Sadaam was from then on the responsibility of France, Germany and Russia. Since they were so keen on doing business with him that they corrupted a UN program and smuggled him weapons, they could bloody well use some of that ill gotten profit to keep him in line. If he developed nukes or other WMD, his use of them would be the fault of those countries.

Well, it was the US who put him in power in the first place. And gave him enough technology to become a threat.

> As for Iran, they are indeed a danger. The country is on the edge of an internal revolt because half of the population has been born since the Iranian revolution that brought the current regime to power and they don't like the repressive laws and so forth. However, the rulers still control the army and the economy with a tight fist, and the Iraq war has hurt slowed the internal revolution somewhat. > If Iran does get nukes, I have little doubt that they will use them. The Iranian President believes that by provoking a major war with lots of death and destruction, that the Hidden Imam, a descedant of Mohammed who vanished over a thousand years ago when all the other Imams were murdered, will return and lead Islam in a conquest of the globe.

Oh dear. That sounds almost as inane as some of the executives of leading world corporations (one of them being Exxon I think, though I could be misremembering) who has been recorded as saying they think they will be hurrying up the second coming of Christ if they ruin the environment and help bring on the Harmageddon a s a p.

> He will most likely try to spark this by nuking Israel. He knows that Israel would strike back in kind and is even on record many times as saying that "Israel could only hurt us while we will surely destroy them". In other words he is will to take a nuclear retaliatory strike which might kill half of his people if he can destroy Israel in one swoop. He believes that doing this will rally worldwide Islam into a great jihad against the unbelievers and, led by the Imam, the whole world will be under Sharia in a short time.

Instead of being under Mcs, Coca-Cola, Dutch Shell, Ely Lilly and Nike...? ;-) God help us!

> So yes, I do think Iran is a very dangerous country. What to do about them is another matter. The US is tied up in Iraq, Europe has no military capable of large offensive action, and Iran has scattered is muclear processing sites around the country in small, underground facilties making it all but impossible to knock them all out. Iran also had the advantage with the world press that if the US or Israel tried to take out its nuclear facilities, that those nations would be demonized for doing the right thing.

Why not let the UN deal with it? Isn't that their job?

Inger

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/2006 6:20:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

I'd say the main reason he is unpopular is that he's clearly very dense and completely ruled by those who has vast economic interests in the weapons industry (such as Cheney, largest individual shareholder in Halliburton at the time, for example). I'm sure I'm not the only one who has from the very start seen Bush Jr as merely a puppet on a string; full of pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric that sounds so outdated to us Europeans that it would be hysterical if it wasn't for the frightening fact that millions seem to buy it.

He's not that dense actually. That is just the typical slur trotted out against an unpopular president. Clinton on the other hand was said to be the smartest president we ever had, yet he was the most clearly corrupt since Grant in the 1870's. All presidents and politicians everywhere have people pulling their strings to an extent. You don't think the Swedish armament companies don't influence the government too? You did say that arms exports make a lot of money for Sweden. As for Hysterical emotional appeals, What about French and German politics for the last 5 years or so? About all they had to run on was bashing the US to distract the home populace from domestic problems. Time finally ran out on the Germans though and their leadership was changed. I've read plenty of what passes for political discourse over there and there is plenty of "pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric" in it.

The US did not put the Taliban in power. We helped the Afgan resistance against the Russians but there was a problem. The Islamic resistance groups would not accept aid from the US, not directly anyway. So, the US had to give its money and materials to the Pakistani Intelligence service and they in turn passed it on to whoever they chose in Afganistan. Unfortunately, most of the people they chose were the more radical elements as well as tribes closest to the border. We did send Stinger missiles, which helped turn the tide. After the Russians left, Afganistan fell back to its ages old tribalism. The various tribes fought for power and the Taliban and its coalition ended up winning. This was interesting because the Taliban was largely made up of foreign Muslims who had come to fight the Russians and they also tended to be the most radical. The US nor any European nation had any military there to do anything about it, not that they really could anyway. Also, as soon as the Russians were leaving, the US money and arms stopped flowing.

Bin Laudin most likely was behind 9/11. Not only did he take credit, but he was behind many attacks during the 1990's about which nothing was done. That would be the first Trade Center boming in 1993, the embassies in Kenya and other African countries, the USS Cole and others. We had a chance to get him, several actually, when the Sudanese government offered Bin Laudin to us around 1996. Clinton did nothing and Bin Laudin escaped to Afganistan where he was safer.

Yes got the Peace Prize, but that is a highly suspect award anyway. If you look at its history, the award usually goes to those espousing left wing ideas or who are bashing the US. At least one such award in the last couple of years fell into that category. I don't remember which ones, I'd have to look it up since I don't pay that much attention to the Nobel Committee. But was nothing to brag about. He came close to crashing the US economy, gave away the Panama Canal, and encouraged Russian militarism by cutting the US military and adopting a stance that we were going to lose the Cold War. It was largely because of his attitude that the Russians felt secure enough to overtly invade Afganistan. It is to my family's shame that one of our cousins gave speech lessons to help him mask his previously hick accent.

Actually Sadaam came to power on his own. We had supported the King who was running Iraq, but Sadaam and the Baathists staged a coup that overthrew him. That we didn't realize a coup was coming was due to CIA incompetance. Just like in Iran, they chose to rely on information coming from the local government's intelligence services rather than doing their own simple fieldwork at the risk of upsetting the government. So because of this, they only got the rosy reports the locals we giving their own government. In both cases the revolt came as a surprise, though it shouldn't have. We did Aid Sadaam for a time because he was viewed as the lesser of two evils as far as Iran was concerned. However, he was almost as bad as the Iranians. We did cut off funding to him well before the Europeans did, especially after he gasssed his own people.

All of that might sound inane, but it is what the Iranian president himself has said many times. It is also what the clerics who really are running the country also are saying. If virtually the entire leadership of Iran says it wants to provoke the Apacolyps, then its a fair guess they mean it. On the other hand, the oil industry has been cleaning over the last 30 years. Of course there is going to be some pollution, however, no one out there is trying to destroy the environment. If they were, there would be much easier ways to do it, like sinking big oil tankers off the coast (heavily ruptured so all the oil will spill very quickly), nuclear weapons, blowing up nuclear power plants, etc.

The difference with Christianity is that it states that we can't know or influence when the Return might happen. There are some prophecies that claim to say the signs of the times, but those have largely been fulfilled time and time again but it hasn't happened yet. Islam, on the other hand, seems to be much more specific, that it will take a world wide Jihad and much death and destruction to bring out the hidden Imam. So, the return of the Imam could be influenced more by the people than the return of Christ can be. The former seems to run on a human timetable while the latter a cosmic one.

The UN is a toothless tiger. It can't do much of anything without the US and Britain. The US alone provides about 25% of the general fund and 50% of its military budget. There are those, mostly Europeans, who are trying to turn the UN into a global government, one that would have a world tax, could tell nations how to govern themselves or even defend themselves and what policies they can and can't have. Given the UN's track record, such a thing would be disastrous for humanity. Still, it probably will happen, pushed on by a world jealous of American power and status. It has always been easier to tear someone else down than to build them up. If they succeed, then they will get what they deserve: an unelected, unaccountable central government that won't care about the Billions under it one bit. Then again, if the European masses have derailed the EU government for those same reasons, maybe there is some hope yet.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/2006 6:20:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

I'd say the main reason he is unpopular is that he's clearly very dense and completely ruled by those who has vast economic interests in the weapons industry (such as Cheney, largest individual shareholder in Halliburton at the time, for example). I'm sure I'm not the only one who has from the very start seen Bush Jr as merely a puppet on a string; full of pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric that sounds so outdated to us Europeans that it would be hysterical if it wasn't for the frightening fact that millions seem to buy it.

He's not that dense actually. That is just the typical slur trotted out against an unpopular president. Clinton on the other hand was said to be the smartest president we ever had, yet he was the most clearly corrupt since Grant in the 1870's. All presidents and politicians everywhere have people pulling their strings to an extent. You don't think the Swedish armament companies don't influence the government too? You did say that arms exports make a lot of money for Sweden. As for Hysterical emotional appeals, What about French and German politics for the last 5 years or so? About all they had to run on was bashing the US to distract the home populace from domestic problems. Time finally ran out on the Germans though and their leadership was changed. I've read plenty of what passes for political discourse over there and there is plenty of "pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric" in it.

The US did not put the Taliban in power. We helped the Afgan resistance against the Russians but there was a problem. The Islamic resistance groups would not accept aid from the US, not directly anyway. So, the US had to give its money and materials to the Pakistani Intelligence service and they in turn passed it on to whoever they chose in Afganistan. Unfortunately, most of the people they chose were the more radical elements as well as tribes closest to the border. We did send Stinger missiles, which helped turn the tide. After the Russians left, Afganistan fell back to its ages old tribalism. The various tribes fought for power and the Taliban and its coalition ended up winning. This was interesting because the Taliban was largely made up of foreign Muslims who had come to fight the Russians and they also tended to be the most radical. The US nor any European nation had any military there to do anything about it, not that they really could anyway. Also, as soon as the Russians were leaving, the US money and arms stopped flowing.

Bin Laudin most likely was behind 9/11. Not only did he take credit, but he was behind many attacks during the 1990's about which nothing was done. That would be the first Trade Center boming in 1993, the embassies in Kenya and other African countries, the USS Cole and others. We had a chance to get him, several actually, when the Sudanese government offered Bin Laudin to us around 1996. Clinton did nothing and Bin Laudin escaped to Afganistan where he was safer.

Yes got the Peace Prize, but that is a highly suspect award anyway. If you look at its history, the award usually goes to those espousing left wing ideas or who are bashing the US. At least one such award in the last couple of years fell into that category. I don't remember which ones, I'd have to look it up since I don't pay that much attention to the Nobel Committee. But was nothing to brag about. He came close to crashing the US economy, gave away the Panama Canal, and encouraged Russian militarism by cutting the US military and adopting a stance that we were going to lose the Cold War. It was largely because of his attitude that the Russians felt secure enough to overtly invade Afganistan. It is to my family's shame that one of our cousins gave speech lessons to help him mask his previously hick accent.

Actually Sadaam came to power on his own. We had supported the King who was running Iraq, but Sadaam and the Baathists staged a coup that overthrew him. That we didn't realize a coup was coming was due to CIA incompetance. Just like in Iran, they chose to rely on information coming from the local government's intelligence services rather than doing their own simple fieldwork at the risk of upsetting the government. So because of this, they only got the rosy reports the locals we giving their own government. In both cases the revolt came as a surprise, though it shouldn't have. We did Aid Sadaam for a time because he was viewed as the lesser of two evils as far as Iran was concerned. However, he was almost as bad as the Iranians. We did cut off funding to him well before the Europeans did, especially after he gasssed his own people.

All of that might sound inane, but it is what the Iranian president himself has said many times. It is also what the clerics who really are running the country also are saying. If virtually the entire leadership of Iran says it wants to provoke the Apacolyps, then its a fair guess they mean it. On the other hand, the oil industry has been cleaning over the last 30 years. Of course there is going to be some pollution, however, no one out there is trying to destroy the environment. If they were, there would be much easier ways to do it, like sinking big oil tankers off the coast (heavily ruptured so all the oil will spill very quickly), nuclear weapons, blowing up nuclear power plants, etc.

The difference with Christianity is that it states that we can't know or influence when the Return might happen. There are some prophecies that claim to say the signs of the times, but those have largely been fulfilled time and time again but it hasn't happened yet. Islam, on the other hand, seems to be much more specific, that it will take a world wide Jihad and much death and destruction to bring out the hidden Imam. So, the return of the Imam could be influenced more by the people than the return of Christ can be. The former seems to run on a human timetable while the latter a cosmic one.

The UN is a toothless tiger. It can't do much of anything without the US and Britain. The US alone provides about 25% of the general fund and 50% of its military budget. There are those, mostly Europeans, who are trying to turn the UN into a global government, one that would have a world tax, could tell nations how to govern themselves or even defend themselves and what policies they can and can't have. Given the UN's track record, such a thing would be disastrous for humanity. Still, it probably will happen, pushed on by a world jealous of American power and status. It has always been easier to tear someone else down than to build them up. If they succeed, then they will get what they deserve: an unelected, unaccountable central government that won't care about the Billions under it one bit. Then again, if the European masses have derailed the EU government for those same reasons, maybe there is some hope yet.

[Guest guest]

All the stuff I am reading is very worrying - it concerns me that

many in power do not really care about people - that much I believe

is true - but then it is so disheartening because I as one person -

what can I do? I am in no position of power or influence and lack the

skills to speak out clearly.

Also I always have to think what is truth and what is not? There is

way too much propoganda - on all sides likely. Untruths are put out

to confuse the masses and often people are manipulated into believing

things that are not true. I personally do not know what is true and

what is not - if only things were straight forward and those involved

would be truthfull - but I feel that is unlikely to happen :-( I find

it all so dis-heartening - it's hard to life in a world like this and

not have it get to you (my opinion anyway).

I feel as if I do not have enough correct information to take any

particular view - all I hear is upsetting though - I can't help put

think 'why does it have to be this way?' and then I feel totally

useless because it just is and I doubt it will change anytime soon.

I feel rather negative at mo' as the cloud of depression is

descending somewhat - but I do eternally hope as ever that I will

break free of it soon - and the sooner the better of course :-)

>

> :

> > Bush has done a lot of things I don't agree with, but the main

reason he is so unpopular overseas is simply because he dared to

strike back after we were attacked on 9/11.

>

> I'd say the main reason he is unpopular is that he's clearly very

dense and completely ruled by those who has vast economic interests

in the weapons industry (such as Cheney, largest individual

shareholder in Halliburton at the time, for example). I'm sure I'm

not the only one who has from the very start seen Bush Jr as merely a

puppet on a string; full of pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric

that sounds so outdated to us Europeans that it would be hysterical

if it wasn't for the frightening fact that millions seem to buy it.

>

> There is also suspicion about the motives for the Afghan invasion.

Not that anyone is lamenting the demise of the Taliban rule - which

the US helped into power in the first place. But has Osama actually

been PROVEN to have done it? What about Osama's and his brother's

various business connections with the Bush family?

>

> What about Brezizinski's admission in a French magzine inverview of

the administration secretly funding opponents of the pro-

Soviet regime in Kabul in 1979, knowing that such action would

probably provoke a Soviet invasion? (Hm, didn't just get the

Nobel Peace Prize or something, a couple of years ago?)

>

> What about BBC showing a direct quote of one Bush's ministers

(possibly Rumsfeld) saying that the US has to find a way of getting

into Afghanistan at any cost, a several months BEFORE 9/11? Or BBC's

Arney finding that Pakistan Foreign Secretary Niaz Niak was

alerted by American officials in mid-July that action against

Afghanistan would be launched by mid-October?

>

> > Europe is upset because their governments have played the

appeasement hand since the 1960's toward the terrorists and their

supporting nations. France let the Ayatolla Komani live in France all

the while publishing about how he wanted to take over Iran and turn

it into a fundamentalist state and spread that brand of Islam from

there by any means necessary.

>

> Didn't the US bsck the Shah? What's the difference between a

political dictator and a religious one?

>

> > Bush was initially supported by most countries on going into

Iraq. This was so because Sadaam was rfusing to comply with UN WMD

inspectors and had refused to comply with more than a dozen

previous " let the inspectors in or else " demands from the UN. Support

was strong for the invasion. Sadaam could also have saved himself at

the last hour by complying with UN mandates, but he didn't. A large

measure for that was because he probably expected France, Russia and

Germany, his under the table partners in the corrupt Oil for Food

scheme, to block any real action as they had in the past.

>

> Right. And France, Russia and Germany didn't want anyone to find

weapons with their name on it.

>

> > Recently, tapes have been released. These are tapes of meetings

held by Sadaam and his top advisors and captured by a UN arms

inspector. In them, the group clearly discusses WMD. In one meeting

they say that all the chemical and biological material is " gone " but

that they still had the knowledge, scientists and records so they

could pick up again once the sanctions were lifted. In another, they

talk about a plasma research that was going on at the Iraqi nuclear

research site. This site is known and was considered to be a purely

academic location, however, these tapes refer to two secret projects

that were being conducted there that the UN inspectors never learned

about. Also, no defectors ever came from this program, so the Bush

administration did not know about it either until these tapes were

captured. BTW, this plasma research is advanced research into fusion

type nuclear bombs, not the usual fission types.

>

> I don't actually see why ANY state should be permitted to have WMD.

Why China if not North Korea? China is not exactly a democracy or

haven of human rights either. Why France, Israel, Russia, US and not

everyyone else too? What ensures sanity and democracy enough in any

state to be permitted to own such dangerous weapons? Hitler won a

democratic election. Bush won an undemocratic election. Any leader

can go nuts, or be ruled by vested interests who care little for the

spilling of human lives if it can line their pockets.

>

> > Still, I didn't back the Iraq invasion anyway because of how

fractious Iraqi society is and that our troop strength would be too

bogged down over there, leaving little or nothing to handle crisis

elsewhere. I preferred going to the UN and lifting the sanctions, but

making it clear that Sadaam was from then on the responsibility of

France, Germany and Russia. Since they were so keen on doing business

with him that they corrupted a UN program and smuggled him weapons,

they could bloody well use some of that ill gotten profit to keep him

in line. If he developed nukes or other WMD, his use of them would be

the fault of those countries.

>

> Well, it was the US who put him in power in the first place. And

gave him enough technology to become a threat.

>

> > As for Iran, they are indeed a danger. The country is on the edge

of an internal revolt because half of the population has been born

since the Iranian revolution that brought the current regime to power

and they don't like the repressive laws and so forth. However, the

rulers still control the army and the economy with a tight fist, and

the Iraq war has hurt slowed the internal revolution somewhat.

>

> > If Iran does get nukes, I have little doubt that they will use

them. The Iranian President believes that by provoking a major war

with lots of death and destruction, that the Hidden Imam, a descedant

of Mohammed who vanished over a thousand years ago when all the other

Imams were murdered, will return and lead Islam in a conquest of the

globe.

>

> Oh dear. That sounds almost as inane as some of the executives of

leading world corporations (one of them being Exxon I think, though I

could be misremembering) who has been recorded as saying they think

they will be hurrying up the second coming of Christ if they ruin the

environment and help bring on the Harmageddon a s a p.

>

> > He will most likely try to spark this by nuking Israel. He knows

that Israel would strike back in kind and is even on record many

times as saying that " Israel could only hurt us while we will surely

destroy them " . In other words he is will to take a nuclear

retaliatory strike which might kill half of his people if he can

destroy Israel in one swoop. He believes that doing this will rally

worldwide Islam into a great jihad against the unbelievers and, led

by the Imam, the whole world will be under Sharia in a short time.

>

> Instead of being under Mcs, Coca-Cola, Dutch Shell, Ely Lilly

and Nike...? ;-) God help us!

>

> > So yes, I do think Iran is a very dangerous country. What to do

about them is another matter. The US is tied up in Iraq, Europe has

no military capable of large offensive action, and Iran has scattered

is muclear processing sites around the country in small, underground

facilties making it all but impossible to knock them all out. Iran

also had the advantage with the world press that if the US or Israel

tried to take out its nuclear facilities, that those nations would be

demonized for doing the right thing.

>

> Why not let the UN deal with it? Isn't that their job?

>

> Inger

>

[Guest guest]

I like to hear different sides to things, I'm glad people are putting

it out there. I think that no matter what facts we believe we have

they are going to be colored by our beliefs. What we learn and what

we see makes an ever so slight shift to our perspective. If I listen

to a left-winger or a right-winger solely I can't be sure of what

they're saying, especially if they are 100% adamant that their side

is right. They might keep a fact that corresponds to their beliefs

and throw out a fact that doesn't. I also don't think any of us

really know what's going on. There are a lot of secrets kept from the

people for good intentions or bad intentions.

I don't see how a president can be the sole ruler, he's just one man.

Cheney tries very hard to be in the background but it's possible he

is involved. Who really holds the power? (I know this may mean

nothing but Bush's face when he found out he had been reelected

showed fear. Plain, all-out bare-to-the-world fear.) Clinton was one

of the most excellent speakers I've ever heard, and very intelligent.

Bush is not a good speaker and the only president I've been alive to

see that is not a smooth-talker. Maybe he's letting things slip that

he shouldn't or maybe he's saying things the wrong way. First,

Americans criticize the smooth-talkers because they're not saying

anything, then they criticize the poor speaker because he's not

smooth enough. There was that candidate that yelled out something

very strongly and he was criticized harshly for it and that was the

end of his chances. He was being real at least. And what if the

leaders in the world don't know what they're doing, or don't know in

every case? The people are so demanding--they feel that the

government better let them keep their standard of living, or else,

and I think in many ways it becomes all about that. On the one side

you could say the leaders try to keep the people happy so they won't

care or see what's really going on. On the other side the leaders

could be saying that the people have to be happy or we're out, or we

need to keep them ignorant because they would really screw things up,

not understanding the complexity of how it is. If a president is only

in office 4 or maybe 8 years the focus is short-term, although they

do want to be remembered as a great president. And wouldn't there be

more chaos if only one person was responsible yet he left and was

replaced by someone with different views, so soon?

>

> In a message dated 2/23/2006 6:20:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> inglori@... writes:

>

>

> > I'd say the main reason he is unpopular is that he's clearly very

dense and

> > completely ruled by those who has vast economic interests in the

weapons

> > industry (such as Cheney, largest individual shareholder in

Halliburton at the

> > time, for example). I'm sure I'm not the only one who has from

the very start

> > seen Bush Jr as merely a puppet on a string; full of pompous,

simplistic,

> > emotional rhetoric that sounds so outdated to us Europeans that

it would be

> > hysterical if it wasn't for the frightening fact that millions

seem to buy it.

> >

>

> He's not that dense actually. That is just the typical slur trotted

out

> against an unpopular president. Clinton on the other hand was said

to be the

> smartest president we ever had, yet he was the most clearly corrupt

since Grant in

> the 1870's. All presidents and politicians everywhere have people

pulling their

> strings to an extent. You don't think the Swedish armament

companies don't

> influence the government too? You did say that arms exports make a

lot of money

> for Sweden. As for Hysterical emotional appeals, What about French

and German

> politics for the last 5 years or so? About all they had to run on

was bashing

> the US to distract the home populace from domestic problems. Time

finally ran

> out on the Germans though and their leadership was changed. I've

read plenty

> of what passes for political discourse over there and there is

plenty of "

> pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric " in it.

>

> The US did not put the Taliban in power. We helped the Afgan

resistance

> against the Russians but there was a problem. The Islamic

resistance groups would

> not accept aid from the US, not directly anyway. So, the US had to

give its

> money and materials to the Pakistani Intelligence service and they

in turn passed

> it on to whoever they chose in Afganistan. Unfortunately, most of

the people

> they chose were the more radical elements as well as tribes closest

to the

> border. We did send Stinger missiles, which helped turn the tide.

After the

> Russians left, Afganistan fell back to its ages old tribalism. The

various tribes

> fought for power and the Taliban and its coalition ended up

winning. This was

> interesting because the Taliban was largely made up of foreign

Muslims who had

> come to fight the Russians and they also tended to be the most

radical. The US

> nor any European nation had any military there to do anything about

it, not

> that they really could anyway. Also, as soon as the Russians were

leaving, the

> US money and arms stopped flowing.

>

> Bin Laudin most likely was behind 9/11. Not only did he take

credit, but he

> was behind many attacks during the 1990's about which nothing was

done. That

> would be the first Trade Center boming in 1993, the embassies in

Kenya and other

> African countries, the USS Cole and others. We had a chance to get

him,

> several actually, when the Sudanese government offered Bin Laudin

to us around

> 1996. Clinton did nothing and Bin Laudin escaped to Afganistan

where he was safer.

>

>

> Yes got the Peace Prize, but that is a highly suspect award

anyway. If

> you look at its history, the award usually goes to those espousing

left wing

> ideas or who are bashing the US. At least one such award in the

last couple of

> years fell into that category. I don't remember which ones, I'd

have to look

> it up since I don't pay that much attention to the Nobel Committee.

But

> was nothing to brag about. He came close to crashing the US

economy, gave

> away the Panama Canal, and encouraged Russian militarism by cutting

the US

> military and adopting a stance that we were going to lose the Cold

War. It was

> largely because of his attitude that the Russians felt secure

enough to overtly

> invade Afganistan. It is to my family's shame that one of our

cousins gave

> speech lessons to help him mask his previously hick accent.

>

> Actually Sadaam came to power on his own. We had supported the King

who was

> running Iraq, but Sadaam and the Baathists staged a coup that

overthrew him.

> That we didn't realize a coup was coming was due to CIA

incompetance. Just like

> in Iran, they chose to rely on information coming from the local

government's

> intelligence services rather than doing their own simple fieldwork

at the risk

> of upsetting the government. So because of this, they only got the

rosy

> reports the locals we giving their own government. In both cases

the revolt came as

> a surprise, though it shouldn't have. We did Aid Sadaam for a time

because he

> was viewed as the lesser of two evils as far as Iran was concerned.

However,

> he was almost as bad as the Iranians. We did cut off funding to him

well

> before the Europeans did, especially after he gasssed his own

people.

>

> All of that might sound inane, but it is what the Iranian president

himself

> has said many times. It is also what the clerics who really are

running the

> country also are saying. If virtually the entire leadership of Iran

says it wants

> to provoke the Apacolyps, then its a fair guess they mean it. On

the other

> hand, the oil industry has been cleaning over the last 30 years. Of

course there

> is going to be some pollution, however, no one out there is trying

to destroy

> the environment. If they were, there would be much easier ways to

do it, like

> sinking big oil tankers off the coast (heavily ruptured so all the

oil will

> spill very quickly), nuclear weapons, blowing up nuclear power

plants, etc.

>

> The difference with Christianity is that it states that we can't

know or

> influence when the Return might happen. There are some prophecies

that claim to

> say the signs of the times, but those have largely been fulfilled

time and time

> again but it hasn't happened yet. Islam, on the other hand, seems

to be much

> more specific, that it will take a world wide Jihad and much death

and

> destruction to bring out the hidden Imam. So, the return of the

Imam could be

> influenced more by the people than the return of Christ can be. The

former seems to

> run on a human timetable while the latter a cosmic one.

>

> The UN is a toothless tiger. It can't do much of anything without

the US and

> Britain. The US alone provides about 25% of the general fund and

50% of its

> military budget. There are those, mostly Europeans, who are trying

to turn the

> UN into a global government, one that would have a world tax, could

tell

> nations how to govern themselves or even defend themselves and what

policies they

> can and can't have. Given the UN's track record, such a thing would

be

> disastrous for humanity. Still, it probably will happen, pushed on

by a world jealous

> of American power and status. It has always been easier to tear

someone else

> down than to build them up. If they succeed, then they will get

what they

> deserve: an unelected, unaccountable central government that won't

care about the

> Billions under it one bit. Then again, if the European masses have

derailed the

> EU government for those same reasons, maybe there is some hope yet.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I like to hear different sides to things, I'm glad people are putting

it out there. I think that no matter what facts we believe we have

they are going to be colored by our beliefs. What we learn and what

we see makes an ever so slight shift to our perspective. If I listen

to a left-winger or a right-winger solely I can't be sure of what

they're saying, especially if they are 100% adamant that their side

is right. They might keep a fact that corresponds to their beliefs

and throw out a fact that doesn't. I also don't think any of us

really know what's going on. There are a lot of secrets kept from the

people for good intentions or bad intentions.

I don't see how a president can be the sole ruler, he's just one man.

Cheney tries very hard to be in the background but it's possible he

is involved. Who really holds the power? (I know this may mean

nothing but Bush's face when he found out he had been reelected

showed fear. Plain, all-out bare-to-the-world fear.) Clinton was one

of the most excellent speakers I've ever heard, and very intelligent.

Bush is not a good speaker and the only president I've been alive to

see that is not a smooth-talker. Maybe he's letting things slip that

he shouldn't or maybe he's saying things the wrong way. First,

Americans criticize the smooth-talkers because they're not saying

anything, then they criticize the poor speaker because he's not

smooth enough. There was that candidate that yelled out something

very strongly and he was criticized harshly for it and that was the

end of his chances. He was being real at least. And what if the

leaders in the world don't know what they're doing, or don't know in

every case? The people are so demanding--they feel that the

government better let them keep their standard of living, or else,

and I think in many ways it becomes all about that. On the one side

you could say the leaders try to keep the people happy so they won't

care or see what's really going on. On the other side the leaders

could be saying that the people have to be happy or we're out, or we

need to keep them ignorant because they would really screw things up,

not understanding the complexity of how it is. If a president is only

in office 4 or maybe 8 years the focus is short-term, although they

do want to be remembered as a great president. And wouldn't there be

more chaos if only one person was responsible yet he left and was

replaced by someone with different views, so soon?

>

> In a message dated 2/23/2006 6:20:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> inglori@... writes:

>

>

> > I'd say the main reason he is unpopular is that he's clearly very

dense and

> > completely ruled by those who has vast economic interests in the

weapons

> > industry (such as Cheney, largest individual shareholder in

Halliburton at the

> > time, for example). I'm sure I'm not the only one who has from

the very start

> > seen Bush Jr as merely a puppet on a string; full of pompous,

simplistic,

> > emotional rhetoric that sounds so outdated to us Europeans that

it would be

> > hysterical if it wasn't for the frightening fact that millions

seem to buy it.

> >

>

> He's not that dense actually. That is just the typical slur trotted

out

> against an unpopular president. Clinton on the other hand was said

to be the

> smartest president we ever had, yet he was the most clearly corrupt

since Grant in

> the 1870's. All presidents and politicians everywhere have people

pulling their

> strings to an extent. You don't think the Swedish armament

companies don't

> influence the government too? You did say that arms exports make a

lot of money

> for Sweden. As for Hysterical emotional appeals, What about French

and German

> politics for the last 5 years or so? About all they had to run on

was bashing

> the US to distract the home populace from domestic problems. Time

finally ran

> out on the Germans though and their leadership was changed. I've

read plenty

> of what passes for political discourse over there and there is

plenty of "

> pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric " in it.

>

> The US did not put the Taliban in power. We helped the Afgan

resistance

> against the Russians but there was a problem. The Islamic

resistance groups would

> not accept aid from the US, not directly anyway. So, the US had to

give its

> money and materials to the Pakistani Intelligence service and they

in turn passed

> it on to whoever they chose in Afganistan. Unfortunately, most of

the people

> they chose were the more radical elements as well as tribes closest

to the

> border. We did send Stinger missiles, which helped turn the tide.

After the

> Russians left, Afganistan fell back to its ages old tribalism. The

various tribes

> fought for power and the Taliban and its coalition ended up

winning. This was

> interesting because the Taliban was largely made up of foreign

Muslims who had

> come to fight the Russians and they also tended to be the most

radical. The US

> nor any European nation had any military there to do anything about

it, not

> that they really could anyway. Also, as soon as the Russians were

leaving, the

> US money and arms stopped flowing.

>

> Bin Laudin most likely was behind 9/11. Not only did he take

credit, but he

> was behind many attacks during the 1990's about which nothing was

done. That

> would be the first Trade Center boming in 1993, the embassies in

Kenya and other

> African countries, the USS Cole and others. We had a chance to get

him,

> several actually, when the Sudanese government offered Bin Laudin

to us around

> 1996. Clinton did nothing and Bin Laudin escaped to Afganistan

where he was safer.

>

>

> Yes got the Peace Prize, but that is a highly suspect award

anyway. If

> you look at its history, the award usually goes to those espousing

left wing

> ideas or who are bashing the US. At least one such award in the

last couple of

> years fell into that category. I don't remember which ones, I'd

have to look

> it up since I don't pay that much attention to the Nobel Committee.

But

> was nothing to brag about. He came close to crashing the US

economy, gave

> away the Panama Canal, and encouraged Russian militarism by cutting

the US

> military and adopting a stance that we were going to lose the Cold

War. It was

> largely because of his attitude that the Russians felt secure

enough to overtly

> invade Afganistan. It is to my family's shame that one of our

cousins gave

> speech lessons to help him mask his previously hick accent.

>

> Actually Sadaam came to power on his own. We had supported the King

who was

> running Iraq, but Sadaam and the Baathists staged a coup that

overthrew him.

> That we didn't realize a coup was coming was due to CIA

incompetance. Just like

> in Iran, they chose to rely on information coming from the local

government's

> intelligence services rather than doing their own simple fieldwork

at the risk

> of upsetting the government. So because of this, they only got the

rosy

> reports the locals we giving their own government. In both cases

the revolt came as

> a surprise, though it shouldn't have. We did Aid Sadaam for a time

because he

> was viewed as the lesser of two evils as far as Iran was concerned.

However,

> he was almost as bad as the Iranians. We did cut off funding to him

well

> before the Europeans did, especially after he gasssed his own

people.

>

> All of that might sound inane, but it is what the Iranian president

himself

> has said many times. It is also what the clerics who really are

running the

> country also are saying. If virtually the entire leadership of Iran

says it wants

> to provoke the Apacolyps, then its a fair guess they mean it. On

the other

> hand, the oil industry has been cleaning over the last 30 years. Of

course there

> is going to be some pollution, however, no one out there is trying

to destroy

> the environment. If they were, there would be much easier ways to

do it, like

> sinking big oil tankers off the coast (heavily ruptured so all the

oil will

> spill very quickly), nuclear weapons, blowing up nuclear power

plants, etc.

>

> The difference with Christianity is that it states that we can't

know or

> influence when the Return might happen. There are some prophecies

that claim to

> say the signs of the times, but those have largely been fulfilled

time and time

> again but it hasn't happened yet. Islam, on the other hand, seems

to be much

> more specific, that it will take a world wide Jihad and much death

and

> destruction to bring out the hidden Imam. So, the return of the

Imam could be

> influenced more by the people than the return of Christ can be. The

former seems to

> run on a human timetable while the latter a cosmic one.

>

> The UN is a toothless tiger. It can't do much of anything without

the US and

> Britain. The US alone provides about 25% of the general fund and

50% of its

> military budget. There are those, mostly Europeans, who are trying

to turn the

> UN into a global government, one that would have a world tax, could

tell

> nations how to govern themselves or even defend themselves and what

policies they

> can and can't have. Given the UN's track record, such a thing would

be

> disastrous for humanity. Still, it probably will happen, pushed on

by a world jealous

> of American power and status. It has always been easier to tear

someone else

> down than to build them up. If they succeed, then they will get

what they

> deserve: an unelected, unaccountable central government that won't

care about the

> Billions under it one bit. Then again, if the European masses have

derailed the

> EU government for those same reasons, maybe there is some hope yet.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You got that right.

Before the election he said he smoked pot but never inhaled.

I didn't vote for him, and it had nothing to do with his smoking pot,

but had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he was willing to blur the

lines between good and bad in order to promote himself.

After the election people were SHOCKED when Clinton said " I did not

have sexual relations with that woman " and then claimed later posited

oral sex wasn't sex.

Then, during his impeachment trial when democrats rushed to his defense

to keep this inspid morally confused liar in office, he bombed Iraq

with tomohawk missiles, issuing the order only an hour or two before

the verdict was being read, as if to prove to everyone that he could be

a competent president by bombing people while he was being impeached.

I could see through that man like I could through a pane of glass, and

if Hillary runs for election, I will not vote for her either for

similar reasons.

I'd vote for Coni Rice if she ran against Hillary for sure.

Tom

Administrator

Clinton on the other hand was said to be the smartest president we

ever had, yet he was the most clearly corrupt since Grant in the 1870's.

[Guest guest]

I am tired of the political parties, there need be an indipendent that focuses on the important issues, not abortion or other volitile issues that hamper the more important. Often people vote for someone to vote against something.environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: You got that right. Before the election he said he smoked pot but never inhaled. I didn't vote for him, and it had nothing to do with his smoking pot, but had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he was willing to blur the lines between good and bad in order to promote himself. After the election people were SHOCKED when Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and then claimed later posited oral sex wasn't sex. Then, during his impeachment trial when democrats

rushed to his defense to keep this inspid morally confused liar in office, he bombed Iraq with tomohawk missiles, issuing the order only an hour or two before the verdict was being read, as if to prove to everyone that he could be a competent president by bombing people while he was being impeached. I could see through that man like I could through a pane of glass, and if Hillary runs for election, I will not vote for her either for similar reasons. I'd vote for Coni Rice if she ran against Hillary for sure. Tom Administrator

Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

[Guest guest]

:

> He's not that dense actually. That is just the typical slur trotted out against an unpopular president.

I don't read papers anymore and rarely watch the news. I go by what I see with my own eyes, hear with my ears and feel with my clairsentient ability when I see him speaking. If there was really some IQ in there, I'm sure I'd detect it.

> Clinton on the other hand was said to be the smartest president we ever had, yet he was the most clearly corrupt since Grant in the 1870's.

What does that have to do with Bush being dense? I'm not a fan of Clinton either. I happen to think his wife is smarter, but I get bad vibes from her. Bush Jr strikes me as dense AND controlled by others. I wouldn't call it corrupt since I don't think he has had a choice about that. I feel more sorry for him than anything. Bush Sr and Cheney on the other hand, appear to me to be truly cunning and ruthless, with a look in their eyes that gives me the chills.

> All presidents and politicians everywhere have people pulling their strings to an extent.

Of course. But to varying degrees. Bush Jr feels to me like the most non-independent president I've ever seen. Practically mind-controlled. Clinton did too actually, though not this much. I get a bad vibe from Blair as well. And from most heads of state actually, but to varying degrees. Some are such obvious crooks, others just a bit buffly, boring or generally annoying. The few I get really good vibes from are Mandela and Corazon Aquino. She didn't want to be president of the Philipines; she just felt it her duty when her husband was killed by (the US-supported) General Marcos.

> You don't think the Swedish armament companies don't influence the government too?

Of course they try to get as much influence as they can get - and if I'm not misremembering, some substantial aid to South Africa after the abolishment of apartheid was tied to a direct condition of them ordering a bunch of useless Swedish JAS planes worth a fortune. :-(

> You did say that arms exports make a lot of money for Sweden.

Yes, regrettably. They always come up with a good excuse for it. But we're not talking of anything near the astronomical sums that the US Defence has at its disposal. And they're certainly not powerful enough to get Sweden to go to war just to line their own pockets.

> As for Hysterical emotional appeals, What about French and German politics for the last 5 years or so?

Haven't actually watched any of them.

> About all they had to run on was bashing the US to distract the home populace from domestic problems.

Doesn't everyone? (Try to distract their populace from domestic problems.)

> Time finally ran out on the Germans though and their leadership was changed.

Yes. To a woman. :-)

> I've read plenty of what passes for political discourse over there and there is plenty of "pompous, simplistic, emotional rhetoric" in it.

I'm sure. Didn't say Bush was the only one doing it. Though I do think Europeans need the speeches to be just a tad more sophisticated than what's acceptable in the US.

> The US did not put the Taliban in power. We helped the Afgan resistance against the Russians but there was a problem.

We? You're in the CIA now? ;-) What about that bit where Brezinzki admitted to - or rather bragged about - PROVOKING the Russian invasion in the first place?

> The Islamic resistance groups would not accept aid from the US, not directly anyway. So, the US had to give its money and materials to the Pakistani Intelligence service and they in turn passed it on to whoever they chose in Afganistan. Unfortunately, most of the people they chose were the more radical elements as well as tribes closest to the border. We did send Stinger missiles, which helped turn the tide. After the Russians left, Afganistan fell back to its ages old tribalism. The various tribes fought for power and the Taliban and its coalition ended up winning. This was interesting because the Taliban was largely made up of foreign Muslims who had come to fight the Russians and they also tended to be the most radical. The US nor any European nation had any military there to do anything about it, not that they really could anyway. Also, as soon as the Russians were leaving, the US money and arms stopped flowing.

So the US is completely innocent of having any responsibility for what ensued, despite its extensive meddling? > Bin Laudin most likely was behind 9/11. Not only did he take credit, but he was behind many attacks during the 1990's about which nothing was done. That would be the first Trade Center boming in 1993, the embassies in Kenya and other African countries, the USS Cole and others. We had a chance to get him, several actually, when the Sudanese government offered Bin Laudin to us around 1996. Clinton did nothing and Bin Laudin escaped to Afganistan where he was safer.

Haven't they caught him yet? > Yes got the Peace Prize, but that is a highly suspect award anyway. If you look at its history, the award usually goes to those espousing left wing ideas or who are bashing the US. At least one such award in the last couple of years fell into that category. I don't remember which ones, I'd have to look it up since I don't pay that much attention to the Nobel Committee.

One does not make a crowd. It usually goes to people working for humanity, peace and unity, or fighting against injustice. and Kissinger being a few of the exceptions (how Kissinger could get it is truly a mystery). Doctors Without Borders got it 1999. Mandela 1993. Aung San Suu Kui from Burma 1991. Elie Wiesel 1984. Desmond Tutu 1986. Lech Walesa 1983. Mother 1979. Luther King 1964. Albert Sweitzer 1952. Complete list: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/index.html

> But was nothing to brag about. He came close to crashing the US economy, gave away the Panama Canal, and encouraged Russian militarism by cutting the US military and adopting a stance that we were going to lose the Cold War. It was largely because of his attitude that the Russians felt secure enough to overtly invade Afganistan.

According to Jim Marrs (who bothered keeping an eye on things like that at the time) the Russians were debating doing so "to twart American aggression in Afghanistan." The point being that they were ALREADY THERE, meddling and plotting against Russia, as always.

> It is to my family's shame that one of our cousins gave speech lessons to help him mask his previously hick accent.

I'm sure no one will hold it against you personally. :-)

> Actually Sadaam came to power on his own. We had supported the King who was running Iraq, but Sadaam and the Baathists staged a coup that overthrew him. That we didn't realize a coup was coming was due to CIA incompetance. Just like in Iran, they chose to rely on information coming from the local government's intelligence services rather than doing their own simple fieldwork at the risk of upsetting the government. So because of this, they only got the rosy reports the locals we giving their own government. In both cases the revolt came as a surprise, though it shouldn't have. We did Aid Sadaam for a time because he was viewed as the lesser of two evils as far as Iran was concerned. However, he was almost as bad as the Iranians. We did cut off funding to him well before the Europeans did, especially after he gasssed his own people.

OK.

> All of that might sound inane, but it is what the Iranian president himself has said many times. It is also what the clerics who really are running the country also are saying. If virtually the entire leadership of Iran says it wants to provoke the Apacolypse, then its a fair guess they mean it. On the other hand, the oil industry has been cleaning over the last 30 years. Of course there is going to be some pollution, however, no one out there is trying to destroy the environment. If they were, there would be much easier ways to do it, like sinking big oil tankers off the coast (heavily ruptured so all the oil will spill very quickly), nuclear weapons, blowing up nuclear power plants, etc.

, why are you defending people who have made direct statements to the contrary? Of course you can't just go and sink oil tankers without there being an uproar - well, unless you're Exxon, of course. ;-) Better to do things slow enough for no one to notice. Or to stimulate a war. A LOT of pollution was caused when Saddam put a torch to those oil wells in Kuwait. Let us pray that the person who uttered such a statement was a "lone nutter" and not part of a bigger crowd. > The difference with Christianity is that it states that we can't know or influence when the Return might happen. There are some prophecies that claim to say the signs of the times, but those have largely been fulfilled time and time again but it hasn't happened yet. Islam, on the other hand, seems to be much more specific, that it will take a world wide Jihad and much death and destruction to bring out the hidden Imam. So, the return of the Imam could be influenced more by the people than the return of Christ can be. The former seems to run on a human timetable while the latter a cosmic one.

Some seem to have a differing opinion on that. I think it might be advisable to realize that twisted minds can exist both in one's own country and religion, as well as in foreign ones.

> The UN is a toothless tiger. It can't do much of anything without the US and Britain. The US alone provides about 25% of the general fund and 50% of its military budget. There are those, mostly Europeans, who are trying to turn the UN into a global government, one that would have a world tax, could tell nations how to govern themselves or even defend themselves and what policies they can and can't have. Given the UN's track record, such a thing would be disastrous for humanity.

I agree, at least at this stage of development. I think in a few hundred years we might be mature enough to have a one world government, but right now those at the head of it would most likely only abuse that power. (I don't see Kofi n as overly independent either, btw.)

> Still, it probably will happen, pushed on by a world jealous of American power and status.

Some may be. Others dislike US policy for other reasons (mainly its covert and overt meddling everywhere). Most of us have nothing whatsovever against America as a country, nor its people, only against this endless string of one president worse than the previous. Just like we're still waiting for a good Prime Minister over here too. I'm currently very annoyed with just about every party in Sweden and wish one could abolish them all and start over. And if a Prime Minister of my country does something stupid - which has happened repeatedly - I'm certainly not going to defend him just because we both happen to be born in the same country. A booboo is a booboo, whichever way you look at it.

> It has always been easier to tear someone else down than to build them up. If they succeed, then they will get what they deserve: an unelected, unaccountable central government that won't care about the Billions under it one bit. Then again, if the European masses have derailed the EU government for those same reasons, maybe there is some hope yet.

Mayhap. More and more people are getting fed up with the EU micromanaging their internal affairs. But possibly not enough before we wake up in the Federation that they planned right from the start but kept assuring us would not happen. I remember one of our ministers before our first EU parliament election saying straight into the camera "There are NO such plans. You don't think I'd stand here and lie right into your faces, do you?" I said aloud to the TV: "Yes, Pierre, that's EXACTLY what I think you would do." And lo and behold - I was right.

Inger

[Guest guest]

Hi Inger,

Just wanted to address some of the things you wrote. I have no

problem with your opinions. It was HOW they were expressed:

" If there was really some IQ in there, I'm sure I'd detect it. "

I have a hard time believing Bush's IQ is zero. But it seems to me

that what you have a problem with is his policies for which THEY

ought to be criticized if you have a problem with them. And yes, I

suppose Bush ought to be criticized for making such policies, but

your verbiage could be better.

" Bush Sr. and Cheney on the other hand, appear to me to be truly

cunning and ruthless, with a look in their eyes that gives me the

chills. "

This was a more appropriately stated comment. Incidentally, Bush

Senior was heavily involved in the CIA and Cheney had once been the

secretary of defense. Both look serious, calculating, and cunning,

and I do believe that the reason the rest of us can all criticize

them for looking that way is because their seriousness, their ability

to calculate, and their cunning has saved Americans much death and

much grief and preserved our ability to speak freely. We can ask

ourselves if killing others in wars is worth it to keep America safe,

but then again, if other countires weren't threating still other

countries with missiles and gassing their own citizens, we would not

see them as a threat. Thus it is THESE countries and THESE peoples

that cause us to have a preventative strategy.

If Iran, for example, wants to avoid war, then all it needs to do is

say " We recognize Israel " and let the Russians supply raw nuclear

material and remove the expended portion from Iranian nuclear

reactors. But Iran would rather threaten Israel and America, and

challenge the UN and risk war and the death of its own citizens

instead of being accepted into the international community by getting

a " free ride " from the Russians and by recognizing Israel's right to

exist.

Will anyone in the rest of the world do anything if Iran DOES build

nuclear weapons? Maybe...AFTER they have emptied the holes against

Israel.

" Bush Jr feels to me like the most non-independent president I've

ever seen. Practically mind-controlled. Clinton did too actually,

though not this much. "

Bush does not spend his press conferences bantering with the press

and reminding the voters how great he is all the time. This is why

people don't like him. He's not as good a schmoozer as Clinton was.

Clinton, on the other hand, was a lawyer and manipulated the American

public like a lawyer manipulates a clueless and ignorant jury. Most

Americans think he was the best President since Kennedy even though

he lied about smoking pot, lied about Lewinski, lied about

Whitewater, bombed Iraqis with phallic missiles during his

impeachment trial to hide his political impotence, and refused to

bomb terrorists who needed to be bombed.

Clinton was like cotton candy. He looked big, but all he was at his

core is one small packet of pink sugar.

said...

" Time finally ran out on the Germans though and their leadership was

changed. "

You replied...

" Yes. To a woman. :-) "

Margaret Thatcher happens to be my favorite Prime Minister, and like

I said, I'd vote for Condi Rice if she ran for President.

But your smile on the end of your sentence implies that women make

better leaders than men. It is a backhanded slap at 's manly

opinions.

said...

" The US did not put the Taliban in power. We helped the Afgan

resistance against the Russians but there was a problem. "

You replied...

" We? You're in the CIA now? ;-) "

That was unnecessary. All you had to say was..

" What about that bit where Brezinzki admitted to - or rather bragged

about - PROVOKING the Russian invasion in the first place? "

said...

" Clinton did nothing and Bin Laudin escaped to Afganistan where he

was safer. "

You replied...

" Haven't they caught him yet? "

A nice jab. The reason the US can't find him is because Clinton let

him get away and hide. Bush invaded Afghanistan to TRY to find him

which is more than the meek as a mouse and dreadfully fearful

insecure Clinton did.

Maybe when Bin Laden bombs Stockholm, the Swedes will quit whining

about American agression and start looking for him too, in which case

I am sure some other country will start criticizing Sweden because

they tried to defend themselves and protect the rest of the world

into the bargain. Then you will have an appreciation for 's

persistence in defending the American point of view.

I just have to put my two cents in here regarding something

said:

" But was nothing to brag about. He came close to crashing the

US economy... "

I agree with the bit about the economy.

" [G]ave away the Panama Canal... "

He was right to give it back to the Panamanians. The fact that they

are already letting it fall into decrepitude is their problem. You

might say it's OUR problem because every ship in the world that wants

to go through it will have to travel an extra few thousand miles if

they cannot go through it, but maybe we shouldn't be shipping so much

junk back and forth. Maybe we should save fuel and put people in our

own countries back to work again.

If Panama should have another tinpot dictator rise up and start

perstering ships going through its canal, people can go the long way

around and deny them any booty. I don't see the problem with them

having the canal. I think we should have left Noriega in power. He

could have been a poster child for how NOT to run a central American

country that has the biggest possible source of wealth in that region.

And , you left out the peace accord established between

Israel and Egypt. That was perhaps the biggest political triumph of

the latter half of the last century for which should be highly

acclaimed. (Keep in mind, I am not a Democrat either). To this day, I

do not know how pulled that off.

said:

" It is to my family's shame that one of our cousins gave

speech lessons to help him mask his previously hick accent. "

My reply: All presidents get similar coaching.

Inger's reply:

" I'm sure no one will hold it against you personally. :-) "

Not sure what to make of this. Is this a backhanded way of saying

that only sees 's faults?

The rest of your response Inger, was okay. Now perhaps none of what

was written was MEANT to be seen the way I interpreted it, but I am

sure you can see that it CAN be interpreted the way I have.

So try to keep your language more neutral when you post. You too

.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/2006 3:45:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

It has also made them filthy rich and powerful in the process and some independent investigative writers have linked them to seriously shady affairs, including massive drug smuggling.

This was Clinton's department, not Bush. Try reading up on Mena Arkansas. Their was an airfield there that drug smugglers would operate openly from. Clinton and his judges stymied even the FBI investigations into that airfield. Several people, including a few children, ended up dead for getting too close to that airfield. Clinton's brother had parties where cocaine was out in open dishes where people could help themselves, even the underage girls who were frequently brought to those parties. Let's also not forget the various state programs, like one supposedly buying bibles for schools and libraries, but never delivered a single one in spite of millions of dollars passing through it. Not much research to do on that though since the records room burned the day before the FBI was going to raid the place.

If Iran is a serious threat, the UN should deal with it.

The UN can't do anything about it. 10 years of sanctions on Sadaam did nothing, particularly since so many UN members were violating the agreements. The UN couldn't do anything about Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, etc, etc. UN peacekeepers have proven notoriously corrupt abusing the very people they are supposed to be protecting doing things from prostitution, rape and even trafficking in sex slaves. The UN is too corrupt and incompetent to do anything but bloviate, bash the US for things most of the other members are also doing, and trying to impose a world socialist government.

No we haven't caught bin Laudin yet. The reason for that is largely because the tribes along the Afghanistan and Pakistan border are very radical and supported him. It is believed that they helped smuggle him out of the Tora Bora area where US troops almost had him. This was partly a failure of the military planners as well. It had been decided to have the ground troops rely on air support rather than field artillery, aside from mortars. This often meant the troops, who were too few at Tora Bora to begin with, often had to wait several hours for aircraft to arrive and drop bombs. This allowed the enemy to move around relatively freely and to hold up allied troops. Helicopters also proved less useful than hoped because of the altitude and ease with which they could be shot down or driven off. There was also the odd atmospheric condition that exists over most of the country, hard to explain, but suffice it to say the atmosphere doesn't handle artillery and bombs like it should, making it less accurate. Meteorologists, which the military has but did not send to Afghanistan, could have helped compensate for this to a degree.

P.S. Not having agents out in the world "causing trouble" will be no protection against the terrorists. Spain conceded to terrorist demands and still got attacked. Many neutral countries have been attacked, as have opponents of the US lead war on terrorists, like France. Indeed France has been targeted many times since the 1990's. Around 1996, there was also a very nearly successful attempt to poison gas the EU parliament in Belgium. That Sweden hasn't been hit yet is probably more due to active intelligence than the terrorists not being interested in the country.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/25/2006 3:45:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

It has also made them filthy rich and powerful in the process and some independent investigative writers have linked them to seriously shady affairs, including massive drug smuggling.

This was Clinton's department, not Bush. Try reading up on Mena Arkansas. Their was an airfield there that drug smugglers would operate openly from. Clinton and his judges stymied even the FBI investigations into that airfield. Several people, including a few children, ended up dead for getting too close to that airfield. Clinton's brother had parties where cocaine was out in open dishes where people could help themselves, even the underage girls who were frequently brought to those parties. Let's also not forget the various state programs, like one supposedly buying bibles for schools and libraries, but never delivered a single one in spite of millions of dollars passing through it. Not much research to do on that though since the records room burned the day before the FBI was going to raid the place.

If Iran is a serious threat, the UN should deal with it.

The UN can't do anything about it. 10 years of sanctions on Sadaam did nothing, particularly since so many UN members were violating the agreements. The UN couldn't do anything about Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, etc, etc. UN peacekeepers have proven notoriously corrupt abusing the very people they are supposed to be protecting doing things from prostitution, rape and even trafficking in sex slaves. The UN is too corrupt and incompetent to do anything but bloviate, bash the US for things most of the other members are also doing, and trying to impose a world socialist government.

No we haven't caught bin Laudin yet. The reason for that is largely because the tribes along the Afghanistan and Pakistan border are very radical and supported him. It is believed that they helped smuggle him out of the Tora Bora area where US troops almost had him. This was partly a failure of the military planners as well. It had been decided to have the ground troops rely on air support rather than field artillery, aside from mortars. This often meant the troops, who were too few at Tora Bora to begin with, often had to wait several hours for aircraft to arrive and drop bombs. This allowed the enemy to move around relatively freely and to hold up allied troops. Helicopters also proved less useful than hoped because of the altitude and ease with which they could be shot down or driven off. There was also the odd atmospheric condition that exists over most of the country, hard to explain, but suffice it to say the atmosphere doesn't handle artillery and bombs like it should, making it less accurate. Meteorologists, which the military has but did not send to Afghanistan, could have helped compensate for this to a degree.

P.S. Not having agents out in the world "causing trouble" will be no protection against the terrorists. Spain conceded to terrorist demands and still got attacked. Many neutral countries have been attacked, as have opponents of the US lead war on terrorists, like France. Indeed France has been targeted many times since the 1990's. Around 1996, there was also a very nearly successful attempt to poison gas the EU parliament in Belgium. That Sweden hasn't been hit yet is probably more due to active intelligence than the terrorists not being interested in the country.

[Guest guest]

Tom wrote:

> Just wanted to address some of the things you wrote. I have no

problem with your opinions. It was HOW they were expressed:

>

> " If there was really some IQ in there, I'm sure I'd detect it. "

>

> I have a hard time believing Bush's IQ is zero.

OK, that was perhaps a slight exaggeration on my part. But you know what I

mean. Of course he does not have zero IQ, but he truly does strike me as

mentally limited AND controlled by someone else.

> But it seems to me that what you have a problem with is his policies for

> which THEY ought to be criticized if you have a problem with them.

I do have a problem with his actions, but I ALSO have a problem with his

person, since that is part of what is causing the problems.

> And yes, I suppose Bush ought to be criticized for making such policies,

> but your verbiage could be better.

I'll go back to being boringly Swedish again, then.

> " Bush Sr. and Cheney on the other hand, appear to me to be truly

cunning and ruthless, with a look in their eyes that gives me the

chills. "

>

> This was a more appropriately stated comment. Incidentally, Bush

Senior was heavily involved in the CIA and Cheney had once been the

secretary of defense. Both look serious, calculating, and cunning,

and I do believe that the reason the rest of us can all criticize

them for looking that way is because their seriousness, their ability

to calculate, and their cunning has saved Americans much death and

much grief and preserved our ability to speak freely.

It has also made them filthy rich and powerful in the process and some

independent investigative writers have linked them to seriously shady

affairs, including massive drug smuggling.

> We can ask ourselves if killing others in wars is worth it to keep America

> safe, but then again, if other countires weren't threating still other

> countries with missiles and gassing their own citizens, we would not see

> them as a threat. Thus it is THESE countries and THESE peoples that cause

> us to have a preventative strategy.

I've always been curious why the US is so keen and quick to defend SOME

countries and not others (e.g. Kuwait and and not Tibet) and overthrow SOME

dictators but not others (e.g. in Iraq but not in Burma)? A former friend in

the know said it's mainly a logistics issue (how easy or difficult a country

is to physically get into) but I somehow doubt that being the real reason.

> If Iran, for example, wants to avoid war, then all it needs to do is

say " We recognize Israel " and let the Russians supply raw nuclear

material and remove the expended portion from Iranian nuclear

reactors. But Iran would rather threaten Israel and America, and

challenge the UN and risk war and the death of its own citizens

instead of being accepted into the international community by getting

a " free ride " from the Russians and by recognizing Israel's right to

exist.

> Will anyone in the rest of the world do anything if Iran DOES build

nuclear weapons? Maybe...AFTER they have emptied the holes against

Israel.

If Iran is a serious threat, the UN should deal with it.

> " Bush Jr feels to me like the most non-independent president I've

ever seen. Practically mind-controlled. Clinton did too actually,

though not this much. "

> Bush does not spend his press conferences bantering with the press

and reminding the voters how great he is all the time. This is why

people don't like him. He's not as good a schmoozer as Clinton was.

That's not why *I* don't like him. I just go by my direct impression and I

don't like either of them. I had Clinton down as an unreliable opportunist

the very first time I layed eyes on him and wasn't charmed at all by his

sax-playing. Bush gives off such unbalanced vibes that I can't stand

watching him for long. I feel sorry for both of them, but for different

reasons.

> Clinton, on the other hand, was a lawyer and manipulated the American

> public like a lawyer manipulates a clueless and ignorant jury.

I agree. Bush's manipulating style is a lot less refined.

> Most Americans think he was the best President since Kennedy

No offense, but I really don't understand what was so special about Kennedy,

apart from being more charming than Nixon (not very hard per se). Perhaps

someone can inform me?

> ...even though he lied about smoking pot, lied about Lewinski, lied

> about Whitewater, bombed Iraqis with phallic missiles during his

> impeachment trial to hide his political impotence, and refused to

bomb terrorists who needed to be bombed.

Right.

> Clinton was like cotton candy. He looked big, but all he was at his core

> is one small packet of pink sugar.

My impression is similar. But what does Clinton have to do with Bush? Does

it somehow make Bush better if Clinton was like cotton candy?

> said...

> " Time finally ran out on the Germans though and their leadership was

changed. "

>

> You replied...

> " Yes. To a woman. :-) "

>

> Margaret Thatcher happens to be my favorite Prime Minister, and like I

> said, I'd vote for Condi Rice if she ran for President.

Margret Thatcher was one of my un-favorite Primie Ministers. Don't know

enough about Rice to have an opion. I got semi-bad vibes from Albreight.

> But your smile on the end of your sentence implies that women make

better leaders than men. It is a backhanded slap at 's manly

opinions.

Nothing of the sort. I just thought it might be nice with this change in

THAT particular country because of its tradition of male bulldozer-type

predidents. (Would be nice to have a change of bulldozer in my country too.

The best candidate as his successor was Lindh who got murdered.) :-(

> said...

>

> " The US did not put the Taliban in power. We helped the Afgan

resistance against the Russians but there was a problem. "

>

> You replied...

>

> " We? You're in the CIA now? ;-) "

>

> That was unnecessary.

I didn't mean any offense, I just find it genuinely amusing when anyone

identifies so with the actions of one's government or intelligence agency

that one starts talking in " we " terms and defending their actions as one's

own and wanted to bring awareness to that cultural or linguistic habit.

(Leif has always said that only non-Aspies are capable of identifying to

such an extent with a country of cultural group, but he is clearly incorrect

on that point.)

> All you had to say was..

>

> " What about that bit where Brezinzki admitted to - or rather bragged

about - PROVOKING the Russian invasion in the first place? "

>

> said...

>

> " Clinton did nothing and Bin Laudin escaped to Afganistan where he

was safer. "

>

>You replied...

>

> " Haven't they caught him yet? "

>

> A nice jab.

It was also a question. Because I so rarely follow the news I might have

missed it if he had been caught. Was he ever really in Afghanistan at all?

> The reason the US can't find him is because Clinton let him get away and

> hide. Bush invaded Afghanistan to TRY to find him

How do you or explain the evidence that the US had planned to get

into Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11 happened? Why do my two most pertinent

questions in this discussion get completely ignored?

> ....which is more than the meek as a mouse and dreadfully fearful insecure

> Clinton did.

I suppose Clinton ought to be criticized for making such policies, but your

verbiage could be better. ;-))

> Maybe when Bin Laden bombs Stockholm, the Swedes will quit whining

about American agression and start looking for him too, in which case

I am sure some other country will start criticizing Sweden because

they tried to defend themselves and protect the rest of the world

into the bargain. Then you will have an appreciation for 's

persistence in defending the American point of view.

To my knowledge, Sweden does not have intelligence agencies constantly

manipulating the rest of the world this way or that so as to provoke new

excuses to go to war.

> said:

> " It is to my family's shame that one of our cousins gave

> speech lessons to help him mask his previously hick accent. "

>

> My reply: All presidents get similar coaching.

>

> Inger's reply:

> " I'm sure no one will hold it against you personally. :-) "

>

> Not sure what to make of this. Is this a backhanded way of saying

that only sees 's faults?

I don't know how you can read anything backhanded into this. I was just

being friendly.

I also clearly wrote of my distrust for who, according to Brezinzki,

may well have been the one to provoke the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in

the first place and I therefore questioned how he could get the Peace Prize.

It seems that you ASSUME that I think in terms of Democrat and Republican

and that I would automatically defend anyone who is Democrat and villify

anyone Republican, when the fact is that I see VERY little difference

between them in regards to foreign politics. A good person is a good person,

regardless of which party he or she represents. A corrupt person is a

corrupt person, regardless of which party he or she represents. And between

the two are many shades of grey.

> The rest of your response Inger, was okay. Now perhaps none of what

was written was MEANT to be seen the way I interpreted it, but I am

sure you can see that it CAN be interpreted the way I have.

You can interpret my post anyway you like. I was just giving my personal

impressions of Bush, Cheney and and unless they are members of this

list and might take offense, I don't see the problem.

> So try to keep your language more neutral when you post.

More neutral than what? Than your description of Clinton? ;-)

Don't worry. I actually hadn't planned on saying anything more on the topic

at all. Political discussions rarely lead anywhere anyway.

Inger