BUSH WINS!

[Daniel Haude]

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:50:59 -0800,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote
in Msg. <nogjo056b0la5m9nc7hii0fkou69ikknma@4ax.com>

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:53:34 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:


I hope it's not that bad. But it boggles the mind that the
(worldwide) most hated man get chosen *again*. The first time
was a mistake, okay, shit happens. But *again* !


This is interesting:

Anything that contains the phrase "Please God" already in the fifth
line can't be that interesting.

--Daniel

 

[Adam. Seychell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:55:21 +1100, "Adam. Seychell"
invald@invalid.com> wrote:




Well, I couldn't agree more. If robber were to rob a bank then he/she
wouldn't get very far going the passive approach, they'll need a big gun
or something. Similarly, if the Bush administration wants America to
have domination and prosperity at the expense of other nations then it
certainly cannot take the passive approach either.



Prosperity is not a zero-sum game, and the US does not need to be
prosperous at anyone's expense. The history of the world is exactly
opposite: the more that democracy, education, and health spread, the
better off everyone is. America's "hegemony" is the spread of
democracy; call that domination if you will. If the US wanted to be
the permanent, exclusive superpower, it would want the rest of the
world to stay sunk in poverty, communism, and religious
fundamentalism; that's not what's happening.

I was being sarcastic and not very accurate in my previous email. I used
the word domination when I should of said promoting "American Freedom".
The Heritage Foundation think tank believe they have the best system and
it should be spread (or enforced if necessary) across the rest of the
world. I am not convinced that this ideology will inhibit wars and human
and non-human suffering. History dictates that all great empires fall,
and one day it will be Americas turn, although maybe not in my life
time. In the end this great empire will only cause is lots of tears.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:50:59 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

This is interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/03/do0302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/02/ixopinion.html

The Telegraph is Britland's most extreme right-wing newspaper. Nothing
wrong with that in itself (provided there's a balance in the press as
a whole) but you need to see this article in that context.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:43:33 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

which looks like the obvious outcome: everyone will find a way to get
along with the big gorilla. Now if Arafat goes, maybe there could
finally be a peaceful Palestinian state, and at least some of the
reason for all this hassle could go away.

Arafat's a moderate! You better hope the Palestinians don't adopt
someone more hardline as his replacement! It looks like it won't be
long, either, since the venerable old statesman is now lying close to
death in a French hospital (must have been the food).
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Stefan Heinzmann]

Terry Pinnell wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:


On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:53:34 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:



I hope it's not that bad. But it boggles the mind that the
(worldwide) most hated man get chosen *again*. The first time
was a mistake, okay, shit happens. But *again* !


This is interesting:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/03/do0302.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/02/ixopinion.html


John



I zealously avoid political threads here, but that dangerously
ill-informed article spurs me to respond.

My recollection is that the BBC and all mainstream Press were solid in
their outrage and condemnation of the 9/11 terrorists. Grief and
sympathy did not however stop them (and intelligent people everywhere)
from rationally trying to analyse the underlying complex causes.

Indeed. I second that from my German perspective. The writer derives his
conclusions from a predistorted perception of what happened in Europe.
Garbage in - Garbage out.

He writes: "Bush was loathed by the British and European Left-liberals
before he had done anything in office." He then goes on to generalize
this to Europe as a whole, presumingly believing that Europe consists
largely of Left-liberals, whatever his definition may be. That is
polemic at best, more likely it is ignorant.

I still remember vividly what I thought and felt when I had heard of the
events of 9/11. There certainly was no such feeling as "America got what
it deserved". There most certainly were people in Europe who thought
that, but they formed a small minority. But solidarity with America and
the victims of the terrorist attacks (which were not all Americans btw.)
does not mean that one has to unconditionally support everything the US
government decides to do as a reaction. In fact I was deeply worried
that the anger would lead to a retaliation that would hit the wrong
people and make matters worse on an international scale. My fear on the
evening of 9/11 was that the thousands of casualties would be followed
by even more casualties caused by armed combat elsewhere. In one word, I
feared that the US would overreact.

Is that anti-americanism? Does that mean I hate Bush?

Maybe it is appropriate to point out what actually happened
internationally after the terrorist attacks: The US reaction to attack
the Taliban in Afghanistan who gave shelter to Osama and his gang met
with widespread and active support throughout Europe. Many European
countries, including my own, still keep armed forces there and try to
help Afghanistan become a peaceful and democratic nation. This was not
decided by governments against the will of the population. The vast
majority of the Europeans support this endeavor to this day, although
there are of course critics (would you expect anything else?).

The way this was handled internationally actually went a long way to
disperse my fears of US overreaction. The major black spot in my opinion
was the way the US treated their prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. This was
(and is) unworthy of a democratic model state, and I believe that the US
are betraying the values their nation was founded on. But criticising
this isn't anti-americanism either.

But then something entirely different happened: The US government was
turning against Iraq. It was obvious from the start that this had little
to do with Osama bin Laden, and that the US government was trying to
employ national and international sentiments for an entirely different
agenda. Is it such a surprise that this move had serious consequences
for the relationship between Europe and the US? Bush and his government
tried to abuse the sympathy they had for a project that was neither well
justified nor well prepared nor effective against terrorism nor in the
interest of a large part of the international community. And they used
rather bullyish methods to get what they wanted.

So is it any wonder that there's a high level of Bush opposition in
Europe and elsewhere in the world? And most of it is indeed opposition,
not hate, even if the opposition should be rather bitter. And this
opposition is not rooted in a deep old sentiment, it is founded on an
observable track record. And yes, most of us Europeans are able to
distinguish between the people and their government.

I'm not against patriotism either. The US as I understand it was founded
on a form of patriotism that I wholeheartedly support. Its values of
religious liberty (of which separation of church and state is a
precondition), democracy (which demands participation), freedom (which
needs to be defended continuously) and justice (which must be accessible
equally for everybody) have inspired many democracies in Europe, too.
But there are other forms of patriotism. When the patriotism of a nation
leads to a form of national egoism that disregards the interests of
other countries to the point where they are treated as vassal states and
their people treated as second class, I assert the right of criticising it.

So the author of the Telegraph article tries to convince us that our
opposition (or hate) of Bush is irrational and rooted in old sentiments.
For some people that may be true. They are few enough, I am convinced,
and they don't matter much. The large majority has rather more objective
reasons to oppose Bush, and ignoring this isn't going to help.

--
Cheers
Stefan

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Stefan Heinzmann" <stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:cmd4vo$8pc$05$1@news.t-online.com...

So is it any wonder that there's a high level of Bush opposition in
Europe and elsewhere in the world? And most of it is indeed opposition,
not hate, even if the opposition should be rather bitter. And this
opposition is not rooted in a deep old sentiment, it is founded on an
observable track record. And yes, most of us Europeans are able to
distinguish between the people and their government.

The first 4 years of Bush can't be blamed on the American people, indeed
I make a distinction there. But *now* that he is re-elected... half that
nation is either ignorant, hypnotised or plain stupid peasants.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Frank Bemelman wrote:

"Stefan Heinzmann" <stefan_heinzmann@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:cmd4vo$8pc$05$1@news.t-online.com...


So is it any wonder that there's a high level of Bush opposition in
Europe and elsewhere in the world? And most of it is indeed opposition,
not hate, even if the opposition should be rather bitter. And this
opposition is not rooted in a deep old sentiment, it is founded on an
observable track record. And yes, most of us Europeans are able to
distinguish between the people and their government.


The first 4 years of Bush can't be blamed on the American people, indeed
I make a distinction there. But *now* that he is re-elected... half that
nation is either ignorant, hypnotised or plain stupid peasants.

The elections were rigged! They are null and void.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:40:03 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

OK, if you're just talking about John Larkin vs. Rich Grise, then you and
I are merely having a pissing contest. Personally, in the twin towers
scenario, I'd have gone for surgical assassination, although given the context,
the taking down of the financial nexus could very well have been intended
as a surgical strike, from the POV of the "terrorists."

---
Did you know that when you place "terrorists" in quotes you diminish
the perceived severity of their offense?

--
John Fields

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 08:14:27 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote:

One scenario is civil war and total chaos on Palestine, because Arafat
was a master at playing off factions but established no stable
structure or succession. It could indeed get nasty. But it would never
change as long as he's in control.

Which equates to saying it won't get any worse as long as he's in
control.

I think "statesman" is overly generous.

You're right there. He's been denied a state by Sharon and his
predecessors.

Now I see he's had to issue a statement claiming not to be dead, since
the Israelis announced same during their lunchtime news! Bastards!
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Paul Burridge]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:20:36 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:40:03 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:


OK, if you're just talking about John Larkin vs. Rich Grise, then you and
I are merely having a pissing contest. Personally, in the twin towers
scenario, I'd have gone for surgical assassination, although given the context,
the taking down of the financial nexus could very well have been intended
as a surgical strike, from the POV of the "terrorists."

---
Did you know that when you place "terrorists" in quotes you diminish
the perceived severity of their offense?

Not the way I read it. Their deeds remain the same whatever you call
them.

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 20:52:20 +1100, "Adam. Seychell"
<invald@invalid.com> wrote:

I was being sarcastic and not very accurate in my previous email. I used
the word domination when I should of said promoting "American Freedom".
The Heritage Foundation think tank believe they have the best system and
it should be spread (or enforced if necessary) across the rest of the
world. I am not convinced that this ideology will inhibit wars and human
and non-human suffering. History dictates that all great empires fall,
and one day it will be Americas turn, although maybe not in my life
time. In the end this great empire will only cause is lots of tears.

---
If we fall, there _will_ be tears. And no one to come to for a
hankerchief.

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:57:18 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

Is it only 'interesting' or do you agree with the author? Or
is it just another smoke-screen of yours (I know you can't help it).
Please take a position - posting links with a label 'interesting'
is meaningless.

Oh dear, you didn't find it interesting?

Sorry.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:57:30 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

half that
nation is either ignorant, hypnotised or plain stupid peasants.

Who design the best weapons in the world.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:56:22 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Frank Bemelman wrote:
"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:418A3651.1090701@nospam.com...

The elections were rigged! They are null and void.


That is indeed a fourth possibility, and more likely than the
others I gave..


I am telling you- the reaction around here is one of physical illness
and shock- no one believes this. Something is very wrong.

---
Maybe the GOP bought the electors?^)

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:45:04 +0000, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:20:36 -0600, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:40:03 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:


OK, if you're just talking about John Larkin vs. Rich Grise, then you and
I are merely having a pissing contest. Personally, in the twin towers
scenario, I'd have gone for surgical assassination, although given the context,
the taking down of the financial nexus could very well have been intended
as a surgical strike, from the POV of the "terrorists."

---
Did you know that when you place "terrorists" in quotes you diminish
the perceived severity of their offense?

Not the way I read it. Their deeds remain the same whatever you call
them.

---
You obviously have problems with reading.

I mentioned nothing about their deeds changing, I mentioned the quotes
around "terrorist" and their effect on the perception of the severity
of the offenses of the terrorists.



--
John Fields

 

[Rolavine]

And the truth is defeated, hurrah, I feel much safer.

Bushit for four more years, eat deeply my little neocons!

Rocky

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:03:41 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> schreef in
bericht news:qgsko0tuce5t7fp2quq68nrocl7bnn056r@4ax.com...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:57:30 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:


half that
nation is either ignorant, hypnotised or plain stupid peasants.


Who design the best weapons in the world.

You mean a 747 aimed at a skyscraper?

Best planes, too.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 20:53:40 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht
news5rko059p7e3ufurdtao9mv9rhlv3mdst8@4ax.com...

We'll do the best we can and what we damned well want to and have to
in order to survive and prosper, and we'll struggle with the results
of _our_ decisions regardless of whether the rest of the stupid,
suicidal world around us gives us permission or thinks it's right or
not.

Do whatever it takes to keep surviving, but please do it within
your own borders.

---
Unfortunately, we can't do that any more.

Once upon a time we were neutral and isolationist but, under duress,
we got involved in our friends' wars and have had to maintain a
physical, international presence ever since.
---

Okay, the USA lost 2 towers and the unlucky folks
that were in it. A *very* unfortunate event.

---
"Fortune" had nothing to do with it. An "unfortunate" event is a
Richter "9" earthquake which wipes out thousands of people. Striking
the towers was a premeditated act of murder planned and carried out by
deranged animals against defenseless men, women, and children.
---

How much lives have been (violently) terminated since ? Pakistan AND Iraq?

---
I don't know.
---

Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? What version of the 'Good Book'
does Bush read?

---
Probably the one that says that, ultimately, he'll be judged and held
accountable for his actions during his time here on Earth.

The eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth thing is a little more
difficult to address, but here's something I found on the web:

"The phrase an "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" comes from
Exodus 21:23-25, so it is part of the Christian Bible as well as the
Jewish Torah. The school of Hillel (an ancient Jewish rabbi) opposed
the use of this verse to justify private vengeance. It is probably
best understood as an instruction to make the punishment fit the crime
and not succumb to the temptation to "one-uppance." Left to their own
devices, people are inclined to answer bad with worse (e.g., "If you
poke out my eye I’ll poke out both of yours."). The Torah (the Five
Books of Moses) tell us here that we are not entitled to any more than
has been taken from us. To refrain from responding to evil with
greater evil is only the beginning of righteousness. Jesus showed the
way to more positive righteousness when he admonished us to return
good for evil. (Matthew 5:38)."
---

Tell me, dear John, tell me. If you know the answer. I'd like to know.

---
The answer is to stop trying to fix the blame and to start trying to
fix the mistakes.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:02:07 +0100, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

Ah, the good old 'relay' pot How much is in there? I've forgot
how much I donated.

---
ISTR that you put in $100 and I put in $50...

It's all there archived somewhere in Google if anyone (not me!) cares
to look it up.

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:35:39 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

Has anyone ever asked what it is these "terrorists" are trying to
accomplish?

---
Ultimately, the elimination of the Jews.

A necessary first step is the destruction of America since they know
we'll never let the Jews be eliminated.

--
John Fields