funny things to do on a bike

In article .net,
says...

"David Kerber" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
Eric S. Sande writes:

We are the driving force behind Al Qaeda.

That's deep, Jobst. I have no argument with it other than to
suggest that we need to come to terms with our enemy and end the
killing.

Negotiation with "terrorists" is not our way.

This is not a negotiation situation. 9-11 was a response to the USA
financing of demeaning and humiliation of primarily Palestinians and
secondarily support of dictators like the Shah Pahlavi and Saddam

Actually, no. 9-11 was primarily because of the continued US military
presence in Saudi Arabia (at the request of the Saudi government, BTW).
The Palestinian issue was an after-the-fact add-on to OBL's
pronouncements.


Whatever. AQ and bin Loser will use any excuse to fuel their hatred of the
west.

Yep. He just latched onto the Palestinian issue as a convenient add-on
excuse, just like any politician.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

On Mon, 17 May 2004 14:22:54 -0400, Top Sirloin
wrote in message
:

Don't bother Mark. The liberals are only
interested in spewing lies, hatred and confusion
so they can get back in power and go back to doing
nothing about terrorism,

That will be why America was subjected to its worst terrorist attack
shortly after that notorious liberal George W Bush's foreign policy
started to take effect, then.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Bob Yates wrote in message ...
Thanks to all for the information that Kerry was lying when he said the
war was not about oil.

Looks like I will vote for Bush, at least he didn't shoot kill wounded
prisoners.

I think you are talking about former Senator Bob Kerrey, no relation
to Senator John Kerry.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ju...kerr-j06.shtml

Get it straight so you don't wind up coming off as a jackass. G. W.
Bush is the only war criminal involved in the race for the presidency
in 2004.

Chalo Colina

wrote:
Eric S. Sande writes:


We are the driving force behind Al Qaeda.


That's deep, Jobst. I have no argument with it other than to
suggest that we need to come to terms with our enemy and end the
killing.


Negotiation with "terrorists" is not our way.


This is not a negotiation situation. 9-11 was a response to the USA
financing of demeaning and humiliation of primarily Palestinians and
secondarily support of dictators like the Shah Pahlavi and Saddam
Hussein just as we supported Fulgencio Battista in Cuba and Trujillo
and Manuel Noriega in Panama and the assassination of Salvador Allende
to be replaced by Augusto Pinochet:

http://www.neravt.com/left/allende.htm
http://tinyurl.com/2np65

Bush43 was still getting drunk and snorting coke when that stuff happened.

"In his first message to Congress, Allende announced his intention of
amending the constitution to create the popular assembly as well as to
destroy the legal basis of capitalism. The government and its supporters
began to implement the program."

Scary stuff. Bascically the piece shows Allende was a robber/crook.

And I'm not a spokesman for Ariel Sharon.

I am not either but our enemies in the middle east know that Sharon is
nothing without support from Washington.

Say that is so... You think it is "new" in the last 3.5 years?

You will be aware that Al Qaeda offered negotiation with the EU after
the Madrid train station bombing, it was rejected.

What is there to negotiate?

Nothing.

The USA needs to back of world domination
under the guise of liberating people from their government and
religion, when actually business interests are the driving force. In
Vietnam it was suspected offshore oil.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/vietnam.html

It must be true because you say it is so.

It is possible that a dialogue could be established with these people.
That would be a good first step.

You see what sort of dialog would ensue, considering the cover-up
about the prisoner treatment where "pfc guilty" is being brought to
trial.

The "cover-up" is in the news everyday.

When a ship runs aground in port the captain is relieved of
duty. When this sort of interrogation occurs in prison, officers
fairly high in the chain of command are guilty along with the top man
who denies knowing anything about it. Liar liar pants on fire, is
about all people outside the USA can say. This is in face of
international Red Cross detailed reports.

As the saying goes "**** rolls downhill." There is nothing new about
that. High ranking officers, executives, and managers, are just as much
blamers (or perhaps more so) as everyone else. Maybe they just get away
with it more often.

The situation has reached a state that is difficult to recover. To me
it is apparent that the Bush administration cannot resolve the crisis
without admitting huge errors in judgment and diplomacy and lies that
got us into the situation.

That this is "politics," and the fact that it is an election year
certainly makes any admission of error improbable. That practice is
hardly constrained to Bush in the current time or any time. It is for
the others who wish to gain power to sufficiently make the case about
characterizations like "huge" and "lies." Writing about Vietnam and
Allende probably isn't the strongest attack, just so you know.

That alone means we must change leaders in
November if not sooner, ...

I rather felt this was one of those discombobulated election politics
arguments.

...but that still does not get us out of where we
are. There is no military solution.

One can only wonder what that could mean.

That should be clear to anyone
who can read history and project the course we are on.

We have dismantled the Iraqi military, police and other government
functions, and cannot turn the nation over to anyone to run it if we
pull out. What would follow is mayhem worse than what occurred after
the defeat of the army. There was destruction and looting in
magnitudes not seen even in WWII. This was allowed to occur by
Mr. Rumsfeld to "punish the Iraqis" as if they had a hand in the
causing anything that affected the USA.

I find your choice of words "interesting," but unconvincing. It is not
so much "what happened," as it is your claims about intent.

I spent time in the US Army and the subject of civil order after
military victory was high priority. Highly important after defeating
an enemy force in cities was re-establishing to law and order. What
happened in Iraq is outlined in military texts in detail. If Rummy
says he didn't know or expect that, then he is unbelievably uneducated
or lying.

The story goes that the military victory happened more quickly than
anyone expected and that they were unprepared. Perhaps you are correct,
but maybe not. The old saying about "history repeating itself" was
created because someone repeated it. He might have simply thought he
could get away with less troops and planning during post-conquest than
others. In any case, there has been for months criticism that Rumsfield
has not had sufficient numbers of troops in Iraq. From what I have
heard in the news, the military is trying to establish law and order.
One can certainly argue about the effectiveness. You are the first
person I've heard stating that Rumsfield intended lawlessness. Did you
figure that out yourself or did you have help?

gwhite wrote:

You are the first
person I've heard stating that Rumsfield intended lawlessness. Did
you figure that out yourself or did you have help?

You must be asleep. For a start:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

Matt O.

"James Calivar" wrote:

wrote:

Maybe you haven't followed the news but Al Qaeda is stronger, has more
allies, and is a larger threat today than before the onset of the
Iraqi war. You cannot destroy Al Qaeda with military action.

Wrong.

I think what Jobst is saying is that using murderous military methods
to destroy Al Qaeda wil inevitably result in a lot more of the same
sort of organizations and activities typefied by Al Qaeda. It's a
vicious circle that nets the opposite of the intended effect, unless
it culminates in the complete genocide of the weaker opponent.

Witness the situation in the Americas. In the United States, the
native peoples were exterminated completely enough that there was no
remaining nation, per se, with whom to settle matters. Therefore the
United States has a lasting "peace" with its native people. In
Central and South America, not all the native societies were
eradicated completely, so there is violent conflict in Chiapas and
elsewhere some 500 years after the "defeat" of the native people.

If you think that a small handful of wealthy and powerful societies
can exterminate the entire Muslim world to the degree that the USA
exterminated the American Indians, you are simply mistaken. The
penalty for trying and failing will be endless war and violence which
will be the fault of those with the hubris to act as aggressive
invaders.

Chalo Colina

wrote:
In rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara writes:


The very fact that Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft (I
don't think Bush has any real foreign affairs understanding beyond
good-guy bad-guy) truly seem to believe that we could easily impose
our system of gov't on a dictatorship and have it go well staggers
the mind.


Well, don't forget that Congress is implicated as well. This seems
to have escaped many of the pundits in their haste to blame BushCo
for all things stupid in public policy. Congress is charged with
oversight responsibilities and has shirked these and failed the
American and world public.


You don't seem to realize what coercion and ridicule showered on
congressmen and senators who did not agree. Just look at the
unbelievable favorable response to "Freedom fries" and cancellation of
contracts with France that occurred when the Bushmen took it upon
themselves to encourage other nations to sign on to this bizarre war.
You should listen to foreign press the USA is getting. We have no
friends on this one and those who are involved are looking for a way
out. The English are not amused but don't know how to exit either.


We are most certainly not amused. I've just finished
listening to Parliament on the radio and amongst the usual
rhubarb the current Government is being attacked by both the
right and the middle (A perculiar state of affairs has
occured here whereby the middle party is to the left of the
the left party.) Of course we don't want to relabel are
Hotdogs to Frankfurters and our Belgium Fries to ahem
Freedom fries, especially when we have chips. Well at least
your Government had the "Vast Overwhelming Majority behind
it when it embarked on this escapade, Mr Blair had a "Huge
Majority" in the olde first past the post system when he
colluded and embarked, ********.

Of course the right attacking our Government is a cause for
concern especially as iit smacks of cheap shots, please
don't take our missiles back!

This has all the hallmarks of a cluster****.

Vote. And then ride.

Bob Yates wrote:

...
Looks like I will vote for Bush, at least he didn't shoot kill wounded
prisoners.

Yes, it would have been hard for G. W. Bush to shoot wounded Vietnamese
prisoners while he was dodging the draft in the National Guard position
"Daddy" Bush obtained for him. Unless of course, that is what he was
doing while he was AWOL from his National Guard duty.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities

Tim McTeague wrote:

...And I don't let the American people off the hook for not really paying
attention. Many, if not most, still think Iraq had something to do with
9/11!

There is quite likely a connection between Iraq and the terrorist
attacks of 9-11-01 (or 11-9-01 by the European system). Anger over the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis indirectly caused by
the US targeting of Iraqi infrastructure (such as water and waste water
treatment plants) during the 1991 Gulf War followed by the US led
economic sanctions was likely part of the motivation for the attacks on
9-11-01.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities

Mark Hickey wrote:

The Iraqi insurgents use civilians as shields...

The Iraqis attacking the occupying forces are not insurgents, but a
legitimate (by international law and convention) resistance opposing a
foreign occupation.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities