That is very tasteless, Rich.  I am having a thoughtful dialogue
with Kurtz and your contribution is to debase my words.  I would
like you to delete the part where you change my words.

Shelley

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lee"
<mikelee.home@c...> wrote:
<Re an article about U.S. Troops killed and wounded this year in Iraq>

> So, how much fun did you have today, handing out anti-Bush flyers
>at all their funerals?

Funny you mention that Mikey: Your "Just give him another chance"
President, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United
States, doesn't attend the funerals of those he sends to die in Iraq.
Cheers,
JFW

Bush Ignores Soldiers' Burials
By Christopher Scheer, AlterNet
October 30, 2003

On Monday and Tuesday, amid the suicide bombing carnage that left at
least 34 Iraqis dead, three more U.S. servicemen were killed in
combat in Iraq. In the coming days their bodies will be boxed up and
sent home for burial. While en route, the coffins will be
deliberately shielded from view, lest the media capture on film the
dark image of this ultimate sacrifice. It is almost certain, as well,
that like all of the hundreds of U.S. troops killed in this war to
date, these dead soldiers will be interred or memorialized without
the solemn presence of the President of the United States.


Increasingly, this proclivity on the part of President Bush to avoid
the normal duty of a commander-in-chief to honor dead soldiers is
causing rising irritation among some veterans and their families who
have noticed what appears to be a historically anomalous slight.


"This country has a lot of history where commanders visit wounded
soldiers and commanders talked to families of deceased soldiers and
commanders attend funerals. It's just one of these understood
traditions," says Seth Pollack, an 8-year veteran who served in the
First Armored Division in both the first Gulf War and the Bosnia
operation. "At the company level, the division level ... the general
tradition is to honor the soldier, and the way you honor these
soldiers is to have high-ranking officials attend the funeral. For
the President not to have attended any is simply disrespectful."


Repeated questions on the matter posed to the White House over the
past week earned only a series of "We'll call you back" and "Let me
get back to you on that" comments from press officer Jimmy Orr.


Soldiers in the field, say veterans who have been there, have a lot
more on their mind than whether or not the President has been
photographed with a flag-draped coffin. But for those vets' rights
activists who have not only noticed but begun to demand answers from
the Bush Administration, the President lost the benefit of their
doubt by his actions over the past six months. "I was really shocked
that the president wouldn't attend a funeral for a soldier he sent to
die," said Pollack, who is board president of Veterans for Common
Sense. "But at the same time I'm not surprised in the least. This
Administration has consistently shown a great deal of hypocrisy
between their talk about supporting the troops and what they've
actually done," he added.


"From the cuts in the VA budget, reductions in various pays for
soldiers deployed . . . to the most recent things like those we've
seen at Fort Stewart, where soldiers who are wounded are not being
treated well, the Administration has shown a blatant disregard for
the needs of the soldiers." Pollack was referring to 600 wounded, ill
and injured soldiers at a base in Georgia who were recently reported
to be suffering from terrible living conditions, poor medical
treatment and bureaucratic indifference. During a recent stop at Fort
Stewart, President Bush visited returning soldiers but bypassed the
wounded next door.


"Bush's inaction is a national disgrace," said one Gulf War I vet,
speaking off the record. "I'm distressed at the lack of coverage
–
amounting to government censorship – of the funerals of returning
U.S. service members.


"Bush loves to go to military bases near fundraisers," he
continued. "The taxpayers pay for his trip, then he rakes in the
cash. Soldiers are ordered to behave and be quiet at Bush events.
What a way to get a friendly crowd! The bottom line is that if Bush
attended a funeral now, it would highlight a few things: 1) There's a
war going on, stupid; 2) There are bodies flying home in coffins
censored by the Pentagon; and 3) Bush is insensitive to families and
veterans."


Even as a propaganda strategy hatched by a PR flak, Bush's absence at
funerals or memorial services – or even being photographed
greeting
the wounded – is starting to look less savvy. On September 8,
Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy wrote of one D.C. family's
outrage that the President had not only been unable to attend the
funeral of Spec. Darryl T. Dent, 21, killed in Iraq while serving in
the District of Columbia's National Guard, but hadn't sent his
condolences either.


"We haven't heard from him or the White House, not a word," Marion
Bruce, Dent's aunt and family spokeswoman, told Milloy. "I don't want
to speak for the whole family, but I am not pleased." A month later,
after it was revealed by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post that the
Pentagon was for the first time enforcing a ban on all media
photographs of coffins and body bags leaving the war zone or arriving
in America, more critics came to believe in their heart what their
guts had been telling them for some time: that the White House was
doggedly intent on not associating the President with slain American
troops, lest it harm the already tarnished image of the Iraq
occupation as a nearly bloodless "cakewalk" for the United States.
(One official told Milbank that only individual graveside services,
open to cameras at the discretion of relatives, give "the full
context" of a soldier's sacrifice: "To do it at several stops along
the way doesn't tell the full story and isn't representative.")


"I'm appalled," said Gulf War I vet Charles Sheehan-Miles, when asked
about the lack of attention paid the dead and wounded. "The impact of
the president not talking about [casualties] is huge – it goes
back
to the whole question of morale of the troops back in Iraq; they're
fighting a war that the president says is not a war anymore but still
is ... they haven't restored democracy, nor did they find any
weapons – and they are being shot at every day."


"It goes back to the reasons behind this war in the first place,"
continued Sheehan-Miles, executive director of the Nuclear Policy
Research Institute. "We've got this constant rhetoric that supporting
the troops is the equivalent of supporting the President's policies.
If you're against the war then you're not for the troops. And this is
one of the key things that show the lie of that. The President, the
Pentagon and, to a lesser extent, the Congress has shown that they
don't have any regard for the people who are fighting the war on
their behalf."


Sheehan-Miles noted that the Bush Administration has in recent months
sought, and in many cases received, major cuts or elimination of
funding set aside for school districts that host military bases
(since the troops are exempt from paying the taxes to support these
schools), combat pay, Veterans Administration per capita
expenditures, life insurance benefits and base housing modernization,
all the while dramatically lengthening deployment periods. Soldiers
are so badly paid their incomes are usually too low to receive Bush's
ballyhooed per-child tax credit, Sheehan-Miles adds; while living
conditions in Iraq are considered grim even for a war zone.


"I correspond with people in the military," says Sheehan-Miles. "One
of my friends was in a combat battalion who just came back; they were
basically just hunkered down there trying to stay alive. He's not
going to talk about it though; he's a 20-year vet with a career on
the line."


Add to all this the fact that the rate of U.S. military casualties is
rising rather than falling, and it becomes understandable why some
veterans' advocates are so frustrated with the president's lack of
attention to decorum. And for some military families, anger at the
war in general is driving otherwise private people to go public with
their concerns.


"With any military family, most of them feel very isolated and afraid
to speak out," Paul Vogel, whose son Aaron is posted in Iraq, told
the Barrington (IL.) Courier-Review. "It's a very frustrating thing
for a military family to realize they're paying the price for a war
that, at least for military families, is really hard to get all
patriotic about. It seems to be unwinnable and unending, and those
are the worst words anyone in a military family could hear.


"Our feeling is Bush needs to be as noble and as contrite as he can
be to say, 'Hey, we made a mistake, and we need help.'"


Perhaps a funeral would be a good place to start.

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Kneisler"
<chris@s...> wrote:
> Kurtz101 wrote:
> Arrogant Neocons like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and
Paul
> Wolfowitz need humbling, but not at the expense of our troops, or
ordinary
> hard-working citizens.
> ---
> JFW,
> You don't seem to get it.  You are more interested in pointing out
>the flaws of our current leaders. Why?  Because it is easy to do and
>you are free to do so.

I get it quite well. Let me spell it out for you one more time: 800+
Americans dead in Iraq, nearly 5000 wounded.
Saddam was not an imminent threat to this country.
Saddam was not in league with Al Qaeda- bin Laden considers him
an "infidel".


>You don't seem interested in trying to understand the cost of
> freedom.  You probably have a nice job, drive a nice car, don't
>worry about
> your electricity being shut off -- so that you can run your
> air-conditioning, computer, TV, and surround sound.

And how do you think this is relevant to Iraq?
Again: Saddam was not an imminent threat to the U.S.
It is not the job of the American military to "free" oppressed
people- it is to defend the U.S. and its interests. Here, the
interests were: Oil; Bush family revenge.

> It is a fact that the media is 90% liberal.

LOL! Where's this? American media is controlled and run mostly
by conglomerates and Republican donors.

> So you must read between the
> lines when reading articles about our leaders.  This was a UN
>sectioned
> event.  This was was voted and approved by congress and the senate.

Based upon falsified and skewed evidence.

>Of course you can bash our leaders,  it is your right to do so.  But
>I don't  think you have a clue that freedom is not free.

You clearly haven't thought any of this through. Suggestion: Stick
with what you know, or become more educated in these matters.


> It has to be fought for.  I
> don't want people flying planes into our buildings.  A statement
> neded to be made on this topic and it takes a leader to make it.
> President Bush is leader and he has put his foot down on terrorism.

Actually, he put other people's feet down.

<snip>

> But the ruthless bashing of our
> leaders is a bit childish, don't you think?

No bashing here, Bubba; merely continual, Constitutionally encouraged
dissent. Childish is parroting what they tell you down in Texas. How
many people in your family have been killed or wounded in war? A
bunch in mine.

> I think your agenda is to follow the Democratic party on this issue
>and that makes you a follower and not a leader.
> -Chris

Ahh, the "I know you are, but what am I" strategy. Pretty easy when
you're past draft age, huh?

> In order for a human to grow they need water, food, energy, and
>freedom.

Leeme guess- Dr. Phil?
Regards,
JFW

So, how much fun did you have today, handing out anti-Bush flyers at all
their funerals?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: kurtz101 [mailto:kurtz@...]
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 8:18 AM
> To: nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [nathaniel_branden] Memorial Day 2004
>
>
>
> More Than 200 Troops Killed in April, May
>
> By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
>
> WASHINGTON - American troops in Iraq (news - web sites) died
> in May at a rate of more than two per day, pushing the
> combined death count for April and May beyond 200, according
> to Pentagon (news - web
> sites) figures.
>
> For the National Guard and Reserve, whose part-time soldiers
> make up at least one-third of the 135,000 American troops in
> Iraq, the trend in casualties during May was especially troubling.
>
>
> At least 22 citizen soldiers died, nearly one-third of all U.S.
> losses in May. As a percentage of the month's death toll,
> that is about double what it had been in most previous months
> of the war. It also shows that the Guard and Reserve are
> bearing an increasing combat load.
>
>
> Three states - Arkansas, North Carolina and Washington - now
> have an Army National Guard combat brigade in Iraq. In the
> next rotation of troops that will begin late this summer,
> there will be at least three others, and probably a fourth,
> plus a National Guard division headquarters.
>
>
> The most persistent killer, more than a year after President
> Bush (news - web sites) declared major combat over, is the
> homemade roadside bomb. The military calls it an improvised
> explosive device.
> This month, they have killed least 19 soldiers, seven of them
> National Guardsmen.
>
>
> "Our biggest menace now is the improvised explosive device," Maj.
> Gen. John Sattler, director of operations for the U.S.
> Central Command, said in a telephone interview with Pentagon
> reporters Friday.
>
>
> He said multiple agencies of the U.S. government are
> searching for technological solutions, including electronic
> jammers that can stop the detonation of hidden bombs.
>
>
> "The laws of physics conspire to keep these things hidden
> once they're emplaced, so unless you figure out through other
> means where they got put down, you're in trouble," says
> Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings
> Institution, a Washington think tank.
>
>
> Months ago the Army sent a team of experts to Iraq to solve
> the problem, but to little apparent avail.
>
>
> This kind of bomb took the life of the youngest female soldier to die
> in Iraq so far - Pfc. Leslie D. Jackson, 18, of Richmond, Va. She
> was
> killed in Baghdad on May 20 when her military vehicle was hit.
>
>
> Others have been killed by snipers and suicide bombers, as well as
> mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons. Accidents,
> including two electrocutions, also have taken a toll.
>
>
> At least 69 American troops died in May, according to the Pentagon's
> published tally. That figure does not include three Marines who died
> in action Saturday in western Iraq.
>
>
> Their hometowns reach across America. Maple Valley, Wash., Ayden,
> N.C., and Lisbon, Maine. Chicago, New Orleans and Miami. California
> and Texas. Vermont and Delaware. Mississippi and Missouri.
>
>
> May was deadlier than most previous months, but far less so than
> April, when the death toll was 136. That was by far the highest for
> any month since U.S. forces invaded in March 2003. The bloody fight
> for the city of Fallujah raged throughout April but has calmed down
> in the past few weeks.
>
>
> In total, the Iraq conflict has taken the lives of more than 800
> American troops so far, and last week the Pentagon reported that the
> number wounded in action is approaching 4,700.
>
>
> The military says it continues to make progress in stabilizing Iraq,
> but the steadily rising death toll has become a political burden for
> a White House that also is focused on re-election.
>
>
> Especially troubling, O'Hanlon says, is the continued reluctance of
> ordinary Iraqis to throw their support behind the American effort.
>
>
>
>
>
> The Marine Corps in March stopped reporting the circumstances of its
> casualties in Iraq, so the actual number of deaths by the homemade
> bombs this month is likely higher than the 19 reported by the Army.
>
> Among the 22 citizen soldiers killed in May was Staff Sgt. William D.
> Chaney, of the Illinois Army National Guard. At age 59, he was the
> oldest soldier to die in Iraq since the invasion began.
>
> Chaney, of Schaumburg, Ill., died May 18 at a U.S. military hospital
> in Germany of complications following surgery for a noncombat related
> condition that he developed while in Iraq.
>
> National Guardsmen often are older than their active-duty
> counterparts, and May's death toll reflects that. A 50-year-old Army
> Reserve soldier from Shreveport, La., died May 14; a 44-year-old
> Reserve soldier from Owensboro, Ky., was killed by a suicide car
> bomber that same day.
>
> Two Vermont National Guard members were killed in a mortar attack May
> 25. They were the first Guardsmen from that state to be killed in
> action since at least the Korean War, half a century ago.
>
> A Navy Reserve unit, the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14,
> based in Jacksonville, Fla., suffered extensive losses in May. Five
> of its men were killed and 28 were wounded in a mortar attack on a
> Marine base near the city of Ramadi in western Iraq on May 2. Two
> days earlier, two other members of that unit were killed when their
> vehicle convoy was hit by a homemade bomb
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GuSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~->
>
> Visit Nathaniel Branden's web site at:
> http://www.nathanielbranden.com/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Kneisler"
<chris@s...> wrote:
> I think deeper reflection on the bigger picture is needed and less
personal
> attacks on our leaders.

*I was hoping the leaders would cover us on that. But that's just me
and my tax dollars at work.*
>
> You can take anybodies life and put it under a microscope and find
their
> flaws.  I am sure you have some too.  But the ruthless bashing of
our
> leaders is a bit childish, don't you think?

*We need to cut down more trees: we're running out of whips. I keep
whipping them harder, then the whips break, and I need new ones. *

I didn't see any personal attacks out of kurz. Well, at least no
more ones than what I was throwing out. I don't rally around
Amerrikun leaders just out of flag waving faith and charisma.
McCarthy made me "trust, but verify-(Kissinger)" but Nixon (who I
loved, in a strange sick way) definitely cured me of that.

Personal attacks, my butt. Seems to me that's what's BEING attacked,
by the very folks you mention. At least, by proxy. You gotta check
their vital signs daily; it might've been a communication screwup.

rde

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "kurtz101" <kurtz@f...>
wrote:
> Hmmm... I'll take you at your word that you're not anti-American,
but
> I'm disturbed at your notion that "Americans need to eat some
humble
> pie." 800 plus dead, and nearly 5000 wounded is quite enough. I
doubt
> that many of those people needed "humbling". Nor do I believe that
> the majority of American citizens need humbling. Arrogant Neocons
> like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz
need
> humbling, but not at the expense of our troops, or ordinary hard-
> working citizens.
> -JFW

I'm disturbed that anyone makes generalizations, in general. That
was a joke, Beavis.

Here, let's do a little exercise in writing, and logic. Let's
substitute something a little hotter for "Americans."


>
>
>
> In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "sandaracyellow"
> <sandaracyellow@y...> wrote (after post-rape by rde)
> > I am not picking on niggers, Mr. Kurtz.  And I don't think there
> > is any significant difference between niggers and Canadians.
> >
> > I am quite aware of your opposition to the Bush administration.
> You
> > have made yourself very clear on that.  But what I am trying to
get
> > at is the American self-concept.  Regardless of the
administration,
> > be it Democrat or Republican, Niggers act as if they are the
> > conscience of the world.  This is the impression many Canadians
and
> > Europeans (I am also Belgian) have of Niggers and it gets under
> > our skin.  One of the lessons of Iraq is that Nigger actions
> there
> > have pulled the rug from under that self-concept.  And what is
> > ironic is that Niggers have done it to themselves.
> >
> > I am not anti-Nigger.  I want to see Niggerdom succeed in its
fight
> > against terrorism.  But I would like it to be smarter and more
> > realistic about it.  Before it can do that, though, I think
> > Niggers need to eat some humble pie.  Iraq is a great
opportunity
> > to do so.
> >
Is Nigger culture more violent than that of other countries?  In
> > some ways, it is.  Your crime rate, for example, is higher than
> that
> > of Canada and Western European countries.
> >
> > Shelley

Hey, look on the bright side: I could've swapped in stuff for
Europe, Belgium, Canada, and so forth. It coulda been worse.

Enjoy.
rde
(Ugly American, but sadly, not a nigger)

Kurtz101 wrote:
Arrogant Neocons like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul
Wolfowitz need humbling, but not at the expense of our troops, or ordinary
hard-working citizens.
---
JFW,

You don't seem to get it.  You are more interested in pointing out the flaws
of our current leaders. Why?  Because it is easy to do and you are free to
do so.  You don't seem interested in trying to understand the cost of
freedom.  You probably have a nice job, drive a nice car, don't worry about
your electricity being shut off -- so that you can run your
air-conditioning, computer, TV, and surround sound.

It is a fact that the media is 90% liberal.  So you must read between the
lines when reading articles about our leaders.  This was a UN sectioned
event.  This was was voted and approved by congress and the senate.  Of
course you can bash our leaders,  it is your right to do so.  But I don't
think you have a clue that freedom is not free.  It has to be fought for.  I
don't want people flying planes into our buildings.  A statement needed to
be made on this topic and it takes a leader to make it.  President Bush is a
leader and he has put his foot down on terrorism.

Now Iraqi minds are becoming more free.  They are free to create their own
world now.  They will lead.  It is human nature to want to survive.  It is
not human nature to want to destroy each other (I at least have my fingers
crossed on that one.)

I just ask you to reflect on everything you want.  Do you respect freedom?
Do you believe that you are mainly a secure person because of the freedoms
given to you because you were born in this country?

I think deeper reflection on the bigger picture is needed and less personal
attacks on our leaders.

You can take anybodies life and put it under a microscope and find their
flaws.  I am sure you have some too.  But the ruthless bashing of our
leaders is a bit childish, don't you think?

I think your agenda is to follow the Democratic party on this issue and that
makes you a follower and not a leader.

-Chris

In order for a human to grow they need water, food, energy, and freedom.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hmmm... I'll take you at your word that you're not anti-American, but
I'm disturbed at your notion that "Americans need to eat some humble
pie." 800 plus dead, and nearly 5000 wounded is quite enough. I doubt
that many of those people needed "humbling". Nor do I believe that
the majority of American citizens need humbling. Arrogant Neocons
like GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz need
humbling, but not at the expense of our troops, or ordinary hard-
working citizens.
-JFW



In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "sandaracyellow"
<sandaracyellow@y...> wrote:
> I am not picking on Americans, Mr. Kurtz.  And I don't think there
> is any significant difference between Americans and Canadians.
>
> I am quite aware of your opposition to the Bush administration.
You
> have made yourself very clear on that.  But what I am trying to get
> at is the American self-concept.  Regardless of the administration,
> be it Democrat or Republican, Americans act as if they are the
> conscience of the world.  This is the impression many Canadians and
> Europeans (I am also Belgian) have of Americans and it gets under
> our skin.  One of the lessons of Iraq is that American actions
there
> have pulled the rug from under that self-concept.  And what is
> ironic is that Americans have done it to themselves.
>
> I am not anti-American.  I want to see America succeed in its fight
> against terrorism.  But I would like it to be smarter and more
> realistic about it.  Before it can do that, though, I think
> Americans need to eat some humble pie.  Iraq is a great opportunity
> to do so.
>
> Is American culture more violent than that of other countries.  In
> some ways, it is.  Your crime rate, for example, is higher than
that
> of Canada and Western European countries.
>
> Shelley

...the "continue to message" advertisement?

It looks like what you'd get if you cloned the guy from the Ernest
movies with Kevin Spacey, then smacked him around for a little bit.

I don't want to look at that guy anymore. I find it...disturbing.

rde

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lee"
<mikelee.home@c...> wrote:
> Rich pointing out that when you have a hammer everything looks
like a nail:

Maybe. Usually.
> There's an implicit assumption about the "intelligence failure"
with Iraq:

No, it was not. We had all the best gear. I'm not talking about
telemetry. I think what I was referring to was somewhere over in the
area of ethics, morality, and above all, emotional intelligence.

  >If we had been smarter, done a better job, watched the monitors
> closer, we would have had better intelligence. I don't think
that's true.

Oh, we could have. Or had less. But that's in the
woulda/shoulda/coulda category. I have no interest in that, as it's
after the action thinking. I leave that to think tanks and stuff.

Q: How many drummers does it take to screw in a light bulb? A:1,
plus as many more as you want. One goes up on the ladder to do it,
the rest stand around and talk about how they could've done it
better. I wasn't talking about that. Being an armchair quarterback
can make for a reasonable hobby, at best. But not in command
positions, be it military or business. I find no purpose in it.

> Perhaps because of various science fiction and spy movies, the
meme has
> become entrenched that the government can see anything it really
wants to
> anywhere in the world

Agree. It sounds like you might've heard the same radio interview I
did on NPR? I'm glad someone came out and said that, although I (and
I think quite a few others) found it obvious in the first
place. "Learn everthing, then forget it."- Charlie Parker. That's
what I'm talking about.

> Now, was our intelligence wrong about Iraq's WMD? Or did we just
not detect
> Saddam destroying, hiding or moving most of what he had? There's
no question
> he was in possession of things he wasn't supposed to have (like
billions of
> dollars of UN-laundered money) or that he was hiding stuff
(including
> billions of dollars of UN-laundered money). The only question is,
how much.<

That was bad enough. The only reason I supported the war was that he
was a monster, a butcher. He was another Idi Amin, Hitler, Stalin,
(pick barbarian psycho of your choice). He needed a good, down-home,
backyard ass whupping put on him. He was doing genocide and
torture;that's always enough to get most reasonable folks motivated.
I wish I could say it would've been better to make it more
scaleable, but we had apprently already tried that and were'nt
getting anywhere. I wanted him dead from the beginning.

> The only reasonable conclusion is that we must rely on them not
wanting to
> attack us anymore, rather than detecting all their intended
attacks, and
> there are really only two plausible ways to accomplish that: we
can appease
> & apologize till they accept it as enough, or we can get medieval
on their
> asses until they get it through their thick heads that retribution
will be
> so terrible that it's just not worth it.

I'm with you on that one, bro. There is never any question about the
best time to attack: first. Bruce Lee proved that. The deeper thing
is why you choose to attack in the first place. And you don't have
much time to figure it out. Gotta have your values in place.
>
> Well, there is a third option, a risky one for both Muslims and
Americans
> that GWB is implementing right now: we can try to use the minimum
necessary
> force to spread democracy in the Middle East which will presumably
get them
> all to spend their discretionary income on extra HBO channels
instead of
> suicide belts.

That's why capitalism is the ultimate tool. And while we're at it,
make sure they have all the porno channels and beer they want. Then,
they'll relax a little- stop being so fixated on going to heaven and
banging their 20 virgins or whatever the hell that pitch is. Take
young, hormonally raging men (and we're all the same in that way
then), cut them off, and then give them an option involving having
their families covered financially, they go to heaven and get all
the pussy they want, custom designed for them. Where do I sign up?

> The whining about Bush's "shifting" public justifications for
attacking Iraq
> misses the point. Just because Bush makes Argument A one day and
Argument B
> the next doesn't mean he's changed his mind.

I'm not sure that he's got one to change in the first place. All
that stuff about talking to Jesus makes me ginchy.




France
> had any chance.

Their ambassador was here in Cleveland a couple of weeks ago
addressing the City Club Forum (old/venerable). I found him concise,
a warm, competent speaker,  he really ran the issues down. Also, I
like that he was doing just the right amount of butt-kissing, which
they owed us bigtime.

> Bush is in a race against time, hoping he can keep another large
scale
> attack on America from happening before the Middle East
modernizes. So far,
> so good. But I don't think Americans are going to sit back and
watch 9/11
> The Sequel without demanding their money back.

Yeah, well if he's feeling that much of a time crunch, he ought to
cut down his vacation schedule, and while he's at it stop throwing
so much at the freedom of speech thing, which he's strangling the
shit out of. Not exactly rallying the troops. And, he's starting to
look like Max Headroom when he goes on.

> All I am saying, is give Bush a chance.

I voted for him over that Jerry Mahoney ventriloquist dummy they had
up against him. Dubya did OK until about the last year or so. His
true colors are out. Orwellian nightmare meets just plain stupid.

I gave him his chance. I'd rather go bland, and I never say that.

At least the competition has real combat experience. That's a big
damn deal when you're making military decisions. Read your Sun Tzu.

Best to all,
rde

A note to Canada:

Don't worry Canada, we will protect you if any harm should come to you.
Just sit back and keep complaining where you see fit.

-America

P.S.  Stay warm.

P.P.S.S.  Thank you for providing the following entertainment:
Dan Aykroyd
John Candy
Jim Carrey
Michael J. Fox
Mike Myers
Matthew Perry
Keanu Reeves
David Foley

and other
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~terning/Canadians/actors.html



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

More Than 200 Troops Killed in April, May

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - American troops in Iraq (news - web sites) died in May
at a rate of more than two per day, pushing the combined death count
for April and May beyond 200, according to Pentagon (news - web
sites) figures.

For the National Guard and Reserve, whose part-time soldiers make up
at least one-third of the 135,000 American troops in Iraq, the trend
in casualties during May was especially troubling.


At least 22 citizen soldiers died, nearly one-third of all U.S.
losses in May. As a percentage of the month's death toll, that is
about double what it had been in most previous months of the war. It
also shows that the Guard and Reserve are bearing an increasing
combat load.


Three states — Arkansas, North Carolina and Washington — now
have an
Army National Guard combat brigade in Iraq. In the next rotation of
troops that will begin late this summer, there will be at least three
others, and probably a fourth, plus a National Guard division
headquarters.


The most persistent killer, more than a year after President Bush
(news - web sites) declared major combat over, is the homemade
roadside bomb. The military calls it an improvised explosive device.
This month, they have killed least 19 soldiers, seven of them
National Guardsmen.


"Our biggest menace now is the improvised explosive device," Maj.
Gen. John Sattler, director of operations for the U.S. Central
Command, said in a telephone interview with Pentagon reporters
Friday.


He said multiple agencies of the U.S. government are searching for
technological solutions, including electronic jammers that can stop
the detonation of hidden bombs.


"The laws of physics conspire to keep these things hidden once
they're emplaced, so unless you figure out through other means where
they got put down, you're in trouble," says Michael O'Hanlon, a
defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think
tank.


Months ago the Army sent a team of experts to Iraq to solve the
problem, but to little apparent avail.


This kind of bomb took the life of the youngest female soldier to die
in Iraq so far — Pfc. Leslie D. Jackson, 18, of Richmond, Va. She
was
killed in Baghdad on May 20 when her military vehicle was hit.


Others have been killed by snipers and suicide bombers, as well as
mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and other weapons. Accidents,
including two electrocutions, also have taken a toll.


At least 69 American troops died in May, according to the Pentagon's
published tally. That figure does not include three Marines who died
in action Saturday in western Iraq.


Their hometowns reach across America. Maple Valley, Wash., Ayden,
N.C., and Lisbon, Maine. Chicago, New Orleans and Miami. California
and Texas. Vermont and Delaware. Mississippi and Missouri.


May was deadlier than most previous months, but far less so than
April, when the death toll was 136. That was by far the highest for
any month since U.S. forces invaded in March 2003. The bloody fight
for the city of Fallujah raged throughout April but has calmed down
in the past few weeks.


In total, the Iraq conflict has taken the lives of more than 800
American troops so far, and last week the Pentagon reported that the
number wounded in action is approaching 4,700.


The military says it continues to make progress in stabilizing Iraq,
but the steadily rising death toll has become a political burden for
a White House that also is focused on re-election.


Especially troubling, O'Hanlon says, is the continued reluctance of
ordinary Iraqis to throw their support behind the American effort.





The Marine Corps in March stopped reporting the circumstances of its
casualties in Iraq, so the actual number of deaths by the homemade
bombs this month is likely higher than the 19 reported by the Army.

Among the 22 citizen soldiers killed in May was Staff Sgt. William D.
Chaney, of the Illinois Army National Guard. At age 59, he was the
oldest soldier to die in Iraq since the invasion began.

Chaney, of Schaumburg, Ill., died May 18 at a U.S. military hospital
in Germany of complications following surgery for a noncombat related
condition that he developed while in Iraq.

National Guardsmen often are older than their active-duty
counterparts, and May's death toll reflects that. A 50-year-old Army
Reserve soldier from Shreveport, La., died May 14; a 44-year-old
Reserve soldier from Owensboro, Ky., was killed by a suicide car
bomber that same day.

Two Vermont National Guard members were killed in a mortar attack May
25. They were the first Guardsmen from that state to be killed in
action since at least the Korean War, half a century ago.

A Navy Reserve unit, the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14,
based in Jacksonville, Fla., suffered extensive losses in May. Five
of its men were killed and 28 were wounded in a mortar attack on a
Marine base near the city of Ramadi in western Iraq on May 2. Two
days earlier, two other members of that unit were killed when their
vehicle convoy was hit by a homemade bomb

I am not picking on Americans, Mr. Kurtz.  And I don't think there
is any significant difference between Americans and Canadians.

I am quite aware of your opposition to the Bush administration.  You
have made yourself very clear on that.  But what I am trying to get
at is the American self-concept.  Regardless of the administration,
be it Democrat or Republican, Americans act as if they are the
conscience of the world.  This is the impression many Canadians and
Europeans (I am also Belgian) have of Americans and it gets under
our skin.  One of the lessons of Iraq is that American actions there
have pulled the rug from under that self-concept.  And what is
ironic is that Americans have done it to themselves.

I am not anti-American.  I want to see America succeed in its fight
against terrorism.  But I would like it to be smarter and more
realistic about it.  Before it can do that, though, I think
Americans need to eat some humble pie.  Iraq is a great opportunity
to do so.

Is American culture more violent than that of other countries.  In
some ways, it is.  Your crime rate, for example, is higher than that
of Canada and Western European countries.

Shelley

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com:
Shelley in previous post:
> There is also another reason for highlighting Americans. When
> Americans do good, they are "Americans," but when they do bad they
> are "only human."

JFW:
Says who? Evidence, citation?

Shelley:
> Hey Mr. Kurtz,
> I don't have any study to quote from.  That was a general
> impression, of which you are a case in point by the way.


JFW:

OK, but why are you picking on Americans? How are we different from
Canadians in the ways you refer to? Go ahead, don't hold back- we
might all learn something.


Shelley:
> Milgram and Sanford thing that you raised is an attempt, I think,
> to put a human face on the despicable

JFW:

If you're implying that I would bring up such things in an attempt to
rationalize/excuse/ratify torture by American individuals or as
American governmental policy, then you are confused. My opposition to
much of the admninistration's policy in Iraq is well known.

Shelley:
> By "disowning something" I mean "denying its reality."

JFW:
Your prerogative. When I disown something, I'm saying it's not me or
part of me. As a human being, I accept that I have the capacity to do
great wrong or evil like the soldiers at Abu Ghraib did. The fact
that I don't do such things does not change that. This has nothing to
do with being American.

Now, if you'd like to make an argument that American CULTURE is more
violent than that of other countries, go ahead.
-JFW

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/433481.html

I've always wondered about the psychopathology of those chicks who get all
romantic and swoony about convicted serial killers. While I still don't
understand those broads, I now see there's no difference between them and
high ranking Christian officials.

Read the above link, and then notice, for RCR's benefit, how the olive
branch was offered by a Muslim cleric. Notice, for RCR's benefit, how it was
swatted out of his hand by a mainstream Muslim cleric. Notice, for
everyone's benefit, how the mainstream Christians trampled each other in
their frenzy to lick mainstream Muslim boots. Notice that the
representatives of Christianity ratified anti-Semitism, and nobody much
noticed.

This is why the Islamists think they have a chance to win. Punks and
prelates in the West cater to them, appease them, and give them hope. They
think we're decadent because the Catholic Church is decadent. They think
what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq is an aberration, an angry response,
something we won't sustain, and every dipshit Libertarian and peace
protestor gives them comfort and joy.

Here's the thing most of you people who hate George Bush with a hatred
strong and true don't get: the Islamofascists still think they're winning,
and mostly it's because of you. Shut up or you're going to get a lot of
people killed. This is a war, and you're on the other side.


Mike Lee
Santa Claus






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

For me, anxiety usually means i skipped breakfast and my blood sugar
is low, or i drank too much coffee, or i've worked too long without a
break.  I find that when i stay in a parasympathetic state, lay off
the coffee, and dont skip meals, i dont get nervous.

Mike


--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Kneisler"
<chris@s...> wrote:
> Four states of mind:
>
> Pride is 'I did', self-esteem is 'I will'.
>
> vs..
>
> Depression is 'bad things have happened', anxiety is 'bad things will
> happen'.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey Mr. Kurtz,

I don't have any study to quote from.  That was a general
impression, of which you are a case in point by the way.  The
Milgram and Sanford thing that you raised is an attempt, I think, to
put a human face on the despicable.

By "disowning something" I mean "denying its reality."

People have the capacity for doing abuse and violence and most
people do abuse and violence in their lives.  Sure, for many it does
not take the form of what took place at Abhu Ghraib.

At the risk of sounding trite, I think people are both good and
bad.  I also think that no amount of rational philosophy is going to
change that.  However we might try, I don't think we can make
ourselves all "good."

Shelley

RCR, raising the white flag, in typical doctrinaire Objectivist fashion
(meaning: flinging verbal feces and running away while declaring victory):

> I am not going to bother with the rest of Mike's
> collectivist, racist, and blood-thirsty genocidal screed.  I
> will say, as a final statement on the matter, that no human
> being has any conceivable right to propose murdering another
> human being simply because of thoughts in their head.

By the way, I'm not advocating genocide, I'm *predicting* it if we don't do
something soon to dissuade Islam from its suicide mission. And I'm
supporting George Bush who's trying hard to avoid genocide. I'm not
optimistic he'll succeed, especially with people like you nipping at his
heels, but it makes me proud to be an American that he's staking his career
and our lives on trying.



RCR considers the real genocide in the Sudan and the murder of hundreds in
Nigeria, along with various other Islamic atrocities in Iraq to be no big
shakes:

> All small, disconnected and isolated incidents--each with
> their own set of causes and roots--none of which are anywhere
> close to what Al-Qaeda is looking to achieve.

Sharia. That's the missing link you're looking for.

Next thing you'll be telling us that those guys burning crosses and wearing
white sheets aren't the *real* KKK, just a disaffected minority who give the
rest of the Klan a bad name. And, really, there is no proof that the KKK and
the Aryan Nations have anything to do with each other. Hell, I heard the
Reverend Butler has said that David Duke is a secular poofter.

And, yes, I used the KKK analogy to Islam very deliberately: the KKK is less
racist, violent, homophobic, misogynist and repressive than mainstream
Islam. I know it shocks people when I say that. But, on reflection, people
go, Oh, yeah, I never thought of it that way, but he's right.

If you think I'm not right, post some quotes from mainstream Islamic clerics
advocating tolerance, democracy, equal rights for women, the right of
homosexuals to live their lives openly, etc. Hell, make up some quotes of
your own and take them down to your local mosque and ask to read them out
next Friday. And, for a real good time, ask for the women to be able to sit
wherever the hell they please too while you do it.

Mike Lee
Easter Bunny

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "sandaracyellow"
<sandaracyellow@y...> wrote:
<snip>
> (I ride a bicycle and haven't been laid in years.)
> Shelley

You need to get something with a back seat...
-JFW

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "sandaracyellow"
<sandaracyellow@y...> wrote:
<snip>
> There is also another reason for highlighting Americans.  When
> Americans do good, they are "Americans," but when they do bad they
> are "only human."

Says who? Evidence, citation?

>This business of melding one's identity into the
> human pot is a form of disowning in my opinion.  In this context it
> is much better for Americans to own up to all actions
> as "Americans."

It is proper to "disown" governmental action when it is wrongful.


> In answer to your other questions, I think people, all people, are
> generally abusive of others and violent.  Thank God we do have the
> wisdom to set up limits to our actions: laws, constitutions, police
> forces and the like.
> Shelley

Do you mean all people are generally abusive of others and violent,
or do you believe all people have the capacity to be abusive and
violent? If the latter, then I agree. If the former, I'm interested
in why you believe that.
-JFW

Brant wrote:

<I think almost all people are generally not violent and abusive of
others.>

I agree.




RCR

Mike Lee:

<What in the world are you talking about? Have you checked out Nigeria or Sudan
lately? Looked at film from Palestinian controlled areas? Noticed what went on
in Fallujah? Does the name Muktaba al-Sadr ring a bell? Noticed what's going on
in French Muslim ghettoes?>

All small, disconnected and isolated incidents--each with their own set of
causes and roots--none of which are anywhere close to what Al-Qaeda is looking
to achieve.  You have little perspective on the matter.  Maybe this will help,
though, I doubt it.


<<

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY
18 March 2004

Counterattack

[snip]

Since December 2003, the United States has been squeezing back al
Qaeda and jihadists throughout the Islamic world. Al Qaeda's goal
has proven elusive -- there has not been a rising in the Islamic
world to topple Islamic governments. To the contrary, Islamic
countries have moved to accommodate themselves to the United
States. As the strategic balance shifted in favor of the United
States, the U.S. focus was on an offensive into Pakistan designed
to capture Osama bin Laden and liquidate al Qaeda. In short, the
United States was looking at the beginning of the endgame.

The fundamental question has been: Is al Qaeda still there -- and
is it capable of carrying out further operations? It was obvious
that if al Qaeda could carry out operations, it would have to do
so now. Its viability was in doubt, and therefore its credibility
-- particularly in the Islamic world -- was in decline. It was
not a question of support or popularity, but a growing sense that
al Qaeda, rather than triggering an Islamic renaissance, had led
the Islamic world into a disaster of toppled regimes, regimes
cooperating with the United States and a massive foreign military
presence casting a shadow over the region. If al Qaeda did not
act quickly and decisively, it was going to lose the war. More
important than any single action, al Qaeda had to demonstrate
that it had a strategy for reversing its fortunes.

The March 11  attack [in Spain] indicates that al Qaeda still exists. It also
indicates that al Qaeda has a strategy -- one that strikes at the
soft underbelly of the U.S. strategy in the war. The Iraq war
succeeded in shifting the behavior of the Saudis and Iranians,
albeit by very different routes. The U.S. position in the Islamic
world is stronger than before. But the same war created a fault
line within nations that worked with the United States in Iraq,
as well as between those nations and the United States. Al Qaeda
appears to be focusing on that fault line.

[snip]>>

I am not going to bother with the rest of Mike's collectivist, racist, and
blood-thirsty genocidal screed.  I will say, as a final statement on the matter,
that no human being has any conceivable right to propose murdering another human
being simply because of thoughts in their head.

George Orwell wrote a little book about what the world might look like were we
to follow Mike's...prescribed path.



RCR
Rational_American

Shelly wrote:
I think people, all people, are generally abusive of others and violent.

---
My views are the opposite.  I believe most people are loving, kind, and play
fair.  I guess you would say that my view of people is more optimistic and
your view is more pessimistic.

But the other side of the story is -- if you are more positive, kind, and
loving you are more likely to meet and be attracted to people who are
positive, kind, and loving.

If you are hostile, violent, and negative you are more likely to meet and be
attracted to people who are hostile, violent, and negative.

Sincerely,
-Chris

You teach people how to treat you.

Your view of the world is also a reflection of yourself.


From dictionary.com

op.ti.mist


1. One who usually expects a favorable outcome.

2. A believer in philosophical optimism.

pes.si.mism

1. A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the
gloomiest possible view: "We have seen too much defeatism, too much
pessimism, too much of a negative approach" (Margo Jones).

2. The doctrine or belief that this is the worst of all possible worlds
and that all things ultimately tend toward evil.

3. The doctrine or belief that the evil in the world outweighs the
good.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

PORSCHE OWNERS MORE DRIVEN TO BE UNFAITHFUL: GERMAN POLL
Wed May 12, 1:09 PM ET

HAMBURG, Germany (AFP) - Drivers of high-performance Porsche sports
cars are more likely to play fast and loose by having extra-marital
sex, according to a poll in the May edition of German motoring
magazine Men's Car.

The survey found that nearly one in two (49 percent) Porsche male
drivers were unfaithful to their partners, compared to 37 percent of
women who get behind the wheel of the German car.

BMW drivers were not far behind, with 46 percent of men who cruise
the roads in the Bavarian luxury cars admitting to having slept
around, found the study conducted on 2,253 auto owners aged between
20 and 50.

Among women, Audi drivers were the least faithful with 41 percent
saying they had veered off the straight and narrow.

Drivers of Opels were considered to be the most faithful.

Source: Yahoo! News


Question:  What do you drive and how faithful are you to your
partner?

(I ride a bicycle and haven't been laid in years.)

Shelley

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "sandaracyellow"
<sandaracyellow@y...> wrote:
>
> In answer to your other questions, I think people, all people, are
> generally abusive of others and violent.  Thank God we do have the
> wisdom to set up limits to our actions: laws, constitutions, police
> forces and the like.
>
> Shelley

I think almost all people are generally not violent and abusive of
others.

--Brant

Good thoughts


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Mr. Kurtz,

My comments were in response to Christian's question, which was
about Americans.  Hence the specific focus on Americans.

There is also another reason for highlighting Americans.  When
Americans do good, they are "Americans," but when they do bad they
are "only human."  This business of melding one's identity into the
human pot is a form of disowning in my opinion.  In this context it
is much better for Americans to own up to all actions as "Americans."

In answer to your other questions, I think people, all people, are
generally abusive of others and violent.  Thank God we do have the
wisdom to set up limits to our actions: laws, constitutions, police
forces and the like.

Shelley

Four states of mind:

Pride is 'I did', self-esteem is 'I will'.

vs..

Depression is 'bad things have happened', anxiety is 'bad things will
happen'.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RCR doesn't have a clue what I could possibly be talking about:

> <What percentage of "the Muslim world" do you think supports
> terrorism, whether passively or actively?>
>
> I have no earthly idea what "passive support" could possibly
> mean in the context of war.

It means you aren't going to enlist, and you hope your own kids won't get
drafted, but you cheer the boys on.

> In relation to the "Muslim
> world" (which numbers in the *billions*), but the percentage
> of *active* support is excruciatingly small.

Yeah, that's one of the problems when you don't have a draft. But they have
all that they need anyway.

> There has
> been no uprising in the Muslim world.  In fact the movement
> has gone in the opposite direction, with official governments
> altering their traditional behavior to suit the U.S. and not Al_Qaeda.

What in the world are you talking about? Have you checked out Nigeria or
Sudan lately? Looked at film from Palestinian controlled areas? Noticed what
went on in Fallujah? Does the name Muktaba al-Sadr ring a bell? Noticed
what's going on in French Muslim ghettoes?

> continue to attempt to inspire this faith-based uprising
> aimed at creating a militant Islamic empire in the Middle East.

Uh...earth to RCR...they've already got a militant Islamic empire in the
Middle East. It's a dirty, smelly, poor and incompetent one, but it's
militant and Islamic.

> And then I'll say that Mike's statement above, with its
> genocidal implications, is just as much (if not more)based on
> faith as most of Islam's doctrines.  There is no evidence
> what-so-ever that a "majority" of Islamic individuals support
> the actions or even goals of Al_Qaeda.

There's tons of evidence, most saliently the silence from the imaginary
moderates that you like to think are a majority.

Here's one poll, courtesy of Jihad Watch from a few months ago. In Pakistan,
a country supposed to be our ally, 65% think Osama's too sexy for his
suicide belt. Every time anyone does one of these "Arab street" polls the
numbers are similar. Go do your own research and find one where a majority
in an Arab country aren't open fans of terrorists. The burden of proof is on
you now, cowering infidel.

I just love in this one how Musharraf gets even higher marks than Osama. Not
quite as high as Saddam's last electoral results, but high enough to tell
you who wears the panty hose in Pakistan.

March 28, 2004
Tiny minority of extremists update: 65% Pakistanis support Osama

A popular man

An interesting report on polling in Pakistan, from Mid Day:

Nearly two thirds of people in Pakistan hold favourable views of al-Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden and 86 per cent approve of President Pervez
Musharraf, according to a survey by a major American organisation.
Nearly half of those interviewed said suicide bombings against Israelis and,
in Iraq, against Americans and other Westerners are justified.

The report by the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project survey found
that 65 per cent favoured Osama and that pluralities of 47 per cent believed
Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified. Forty-six per cent
thought attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.

The Pew Research Centre is a non-profit and non-governmental organisation,
which specialises in opinion surveys. Its reports are widely respected in
Washingtons academic circles.

Pakistan was one of four Muslim-majority countries in the survey, which also
included Turkey, Jordan and Morocco, the governments of all of which have
strong ties with the US.

Pew, the polling organisation questioned 1220 people in Pakistans urban
areas, 1000 nationwide in four Moroccan cities and about 1000 each
nationwide in Turkey and Jordan between February 19 and March 3.

The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Pew also conducted polls during the same period in the United States,
Britain, France, Germany and Russia.

Posted at March 28, 2004 09:04 PM

>  In fact, most of what
> Mike has been writing about the problem of "Islam" sounds a
> lot like those "good"  *Christians* who wandered around
> Europe slaughtering all those pesky "enemies" of Christ.

Here's the difference: Christianity grew up and hasn't been a problem like
this for a few hundred years. Then, now. Now, then. See?

> Finally, in general response to Mike's rather blood-thirsty
> attitudes toward the "evil" of Islam, I'd like to post a few
> relevant comments from over on A2 from author George H. Smith.

Right, exactly. These days, you have Jerry Falwell and a few Christian kooks
saying crap like what Pope Urban said 900 years ago. No argument,
Christianity 900 years ago sucked (almost) as bad as Islam does today. Mea
culpa, mea maxima 900 years ago culpa. So you ready now to deal with what's
going on today?

Here's what's going on today:

In every Christian nation, gays can live openly as gay with only a slightly
higher chance of getting the crap kicked out of them than straights. What's
it like to be gay in any Muslim nation?

In every Christian nation, you can be Christian or atheist or Muslim or
Hindu or Freaking Hare Krishna, and the worst that will happen to you
is...well, basically, nothing. You can even change religions like you change
your underwear, and people just think you're flaky or trying to draw
attention to yourself. What's it like to be Jewish or Christian in any
Muslim nation? (Can you say, at best, it's waiting for the other shoe to
drop?) What's it like to be Muslim in any Muslim nation and renounce the
faith?

In every Christian nation, a girl can grow up, marry who she wants, fuck who
she wants, and the last thing on her mind is the possibility that her dad or
her brothers might kill her for it. What's it like to be a rebellious
teenage girl in any Muslim nation?

I could go on and on and on and on with example after example after example
after example of how Islam is a repressive, totalitarian horror show for
everyone living under it.

In America, we despise the Aryan Nations and the David Dukies and even the
parents from Footloose who wouldn't let their kids dance. The typical
mainstream Muslim is more racist, xenophobic, repressive, authoritarian and
anti-American than any of our homegrown wackos. Yet you give them a pass
because of some politically correct notion that no matter how evil what they
say is, if they label it religious, we're all supposed to suspend our
critical faculties.

With all due respect to George Smith, what a crock of shit to dig up a 900
year old quote and suggest that the West hasn't progressed since then, so
how dare we have the hubris to clean out the stables? This is why I have
quit giving money to Reason and Cato since 9/11. All that money, and more,
now goes to Chief Wiggles and Spirit of America. Go thou and do likewise.

I have a lot more in common with Tony Blair than I do with the editors of
Reason these days. Tony and I can argue later about the welfare state and
such, but right now, we have bigger fish to fry, and the Libertarians have
totally missed the boat. They've become one more kvetching, snarling pack of
whining brats, indistinguishable from the ANSWER people in the end,
undermining our efforts to defend ourselves from a threat more deadly than
Communism.

When you say crap like you've been saying, RCR, you make Osama chuckle in
his sleep.

Mike Lee
Islamic Moderate

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "R. Christian Ross"
<reason_on@h...> wrote:
> JFW wrote:
> <Chuckle>... Listings on a single site isn't my idea of real
> evidence, but I'll go ahead and amend my response from "No
Evidence" to "No
> evidence given by Chris in his post."
> Interestingly, your cite/site lists 16 assertions from an email
> saying how much improved things are now in Iraq. Of the 16 listed,
your
> cite/site debunks 8.

RCR:
> Yes, I noticed that, and have no problem with it at all. Chris was
still more
> correct than you on this particular matter.
> "Better means "better", not "perfect" or "ideal".  The fact of the
matter is
> there is plenty of "evidence" that a variety of non-trivial factors
>have improved in Iraq since Saddam Hussein's departure.
> Unfortunately, none of this matters much in the context of the real
issues.

JFW:
Like anything else, debatable and arguable. Here's a sample:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_assessment_
031102.html

The water, food,and freedom elements are not settled.
The true issue for me:
Assuming that there have been substantial improvements in the lives of
Iraqis since the fall of Saddam, were they worth the cost in
Americans killed and wounded? I say no. What if another 800 American
deaths could improve Iraq even more? Anybody here in favor of same?

Some are keeping track of Jr. on the reasons we went to war in Iraq.
See if you can recite all 27...

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html

-JFW