Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > No matter how secure your police state becomes, terrorists will always > > find a > > way to get to the americans. The only way to protect yourself against > > terrorists is to erase the big target you have on yourself. > Impossible. The United States is the only superpower left in the world. > Therefore, it is the logical target of these maniacs. > You’re completely correct Jeff. Why some people seem to think that if we’d > just leave the terrorists alone to do whatever they want, they would then > leave us alone is beyond me. These same people think that the only reason > we have terrorists in the first place is because of US foreign policy. > These same people pretty much think that all the problems of the world are > the fault of the US. I guess we are supposed to be ashamed to be Americans, > not proud. In fact if you dare say you are proud to be an American you will > be attacked by these people for being arrogant.
And of course you fail to mention the fact that this "nobody" above is really JF Mezei, a frog canuck whose whole Usenet "career" has pretty much been centered around frothing – at – the – mouth hatred of the US… This man – child lives at home with mommy and doesn’t have a job so I guess he needs *some* kind of outlet for his frustrations, e.g. relentlessly trolling newsgroups with his anti – US tripe… In any case the moniker "nobody" fits him to a "t" 
— Best Greg
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>JF, stay out of our politics. >Then the USA should stay out of other country’s politics. As soon as the USa >startes to interfere with other countries, then oyher countries have a right >to criticise the USA’s policies. >> and (2) 50% of the country LIKES the President. (3) in the U.S. we don’t >> have a "regime" but rather an administration. >The day the USA began its illegal invasion of Iraq, it became a "regime". >The day the USA began to torture prisoners (both from afghanistan and Iraq), >it became a regime >The day the USA began to arrest and piut in prison humans residing legally in >the USA and detained then for long period without charghe or due legal >process, it became a regime. >And as long as the USA continues to abuse military power to attack/kill >civilians in Iraq, it is a regime. >Need I go on ? > Nah, just kill yourself and be done with it.
*lol* Poor JF fails to discern the difference between poor governing abilities, e.g. the Bush administration and totalitarianism. In JF’s eyes, both North Korea and the US are both on an equal footing as "rogue states", absolutely no diff between ‘em. Utter nonsense, of course…but this is the kind of feeble "reasoning" JF and his elk are reduced to…they’ve nothing but blind hatred and jealousy for the US. Heck, I consider Chicago poorly governed, Mayor Daley II is no better than Brezhnev, but that doesn’t mean 2004 Chicago can be likened to say, Magnitogorsk in 1966… [BTW, has JF trolled the circumcision groups lately...???] — Best Greg
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> stay out of our politics. > Then the USA should stay out of other country’s politics. As soon as the > USa > startes to interfere with other countries, then oyher countries have a > right > to criticise the USA’s policies. > and (2) 50% of the country LIKES the President. (3) in the U.S. we don’t > have a "regime" but rather an administration. > The day the USA began its illegal invasion of Iraq, it became a "regime". > The day the USA began to torture prisoners (both from afghanistan and > Iraq), > it became a regime > The day the USA began to arrest and piut in prison humans residing legally > in > the USA and detained then for long period without charghe or due legal > process, it became a regime. > And as long as the USA continues to abuse military power to attack/kill > civilians in Iraq, it is a regime. > Need I go on ?
I suggest a dictionary . . . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The USA has done the very things that it has been criticising other > countries > of doing in the past.
Response:
trolled: >In defiance to the Bush Regime, I have just tuned in to a satellite station >that is broadcasting a Cat Stevens song. >If US media were more awake, they would have been broadcasting Plenty of Cat >Stevens Songs the day he was arrested and put in jail overnight as a show of >support of Cat Stevens and defiance of the Bush Regime’s policies. >At least Cat Stevens (or whatever is name is this week) would have known that >he still has grass roots support from americans and that it is just the >government gone nuts.
As opposed to you going nuts?
Response:
> Aren’t there any other countries doing things that you > don’t approve of? > Sure – but they don’t use cruise missles or helicopter gunships.
One doesn’t need cruise missles or helicopter gunships to kill people. The only reason you care so much about the actions of the US is because we are the ones on CNN. There are many other wars going on in the world that are doing much more harm than what’s going on in Iraq. But they don’t get the news coverage so you don’t know they exist. Either that or you only care about the wars the US is involved with because of some personal bias. Matt
Response:
> What will you do in Gitmo? Let them go? More of the same? Turn them > over to the courts? UN? Home Countries? > What will you "change" about the Patriot Act? > How about CAPPS II or any similar systems? > No fly lists? > Arrest and detention of US citizens at home, abroad. > Visa and Passport requirements as well as entry restrictions and requirements. > The problem with these questions is that the intelligent choice for the above > answers will be portrayed as being "weak" by the Bush regime.
Actually, you are wrong, they will be seen as being "weak" by the voters. There are certain things that are political suicide. In the past it has been anything having to do with cutting Social Security benefits or raising taxes. It has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with politics. We all know Social Security will soon be bankrupt, but since it’s political suicide to do anything about it, it will not get fixed. Now you can add anything that can be portrayed as weakening homeland defense to the list. The Bush administration did not cause this, they have just reacted to it, they have just given the voters what they want. >Where the Kerry > campaign has failed is in underlying the fact that the Bush regime has made > many wrong decisions that may appear to be strong, but are still wrong, while > the right decisions may appear weak, but would yield better results.
Kind of hard for Kerry to do this, because him and Edwards agreed with Bush on most of the so called "mistakes". Kerry’s chief complaint seems to be that the war didn’t go exactly as planned, as if any war does. > Unfortunatly, no offense meant to americans, but the fact that 50% of > americans are still willing to vote for what is essentially a war criminal and > a liar means that discussions at that level of detail on actions would be way > over the heads of that 50% of americans that need to be convinced that voting > for a war criminal is a very bad thing for their country.
No offense to non-Americans, but you see a distorted view of America. Calling our President a war-criminal just makes us care even less about your opinion. > This is an interesting phenomena that happened after 9-11 (and lets not forget > the anthrax issue which as NOT been brought up ny any politician, probably > because it was a made-in-USA weapon probably done by americans which would > destroy the bosu argument of arab terrorists).
Or maybe because the Anthrax attacks is old news and appears to have been an isolated incident? > The problem is that nobody had the guts to stand up and tell americans that > they will need to be patient to ensure that the RIGHT decisions on security > would be made.
Changes in security has been an ongoing process. It’s been three years, and it is still evolving, as it will for the next 3 years and beyond. We didn’t expect everything to happen overnight. But some simple things, like securing cockpit doors, and stopping people from carrying knives on airplanes could be easily accomplished in a short time, and were. > If you’ve seen Farenheight 9-11
Refer back up to my previous comment about having a distorted view of America. > you’ll know that most politicians didn’t > bother reading te Patriot Act before voting on it. They were just told is was > an anti-terrorist bill and it would be highly unpatriotic to vote against it > (same with the auythorisation to deploy troups in Iraq)
And how is that President Bush’s fault? I suppose in your country, politicians don’t act like politicians. > And this is where a good president with the right leaderhsip would have been > able to talk to americans and calm them down and give them the right level of > confidence that the government would be doing things RIGHT.
Uhh….that’s exactly what Bush did. Maybe if you lived in the US instead of learning how things happened by watching Farenheight 9/11 you’d know that. > But history will show that he Bush regime took advantage of the state of shock > and tried to keep the USA in that state for as long as possible in order to > implement their agenda
Once again, US citizens don’t need the Bush administration to tell us that we should be worried about terrorists attacks on the US. You act like we are just stupid paranoid people and there really aren’t a bunch of crazy people out there in the world trying to attack us. We just think that way because Bush has tricked us into believing it. (or rather the rumsfeld,cheney,wolfowitz agenda, ….blah…blah…blah…. > However, Kerry missed a great opportunity to fix his biggest flip flop on > Iraq. He should have simply stated that at the time authorisation was voted, > the goal was simply to deploy troups in the vicinity of Iraq to put pressure > on Hussein and that the Bush regime had publicly stated that they would work > through the UN to unsure compliance to UN resolutions. (even tough many knew > his true intentions were to go ahead anyways).
You have a very bad memory. We spent 10 years working with the UN to get Saddam to comply with the UN resolutions. The UN gave him ultimatum after ultimatum, most of which he never complied with. Finally Bush told Saddam he had one more chance to comply with the UN resolutions or be removed. Saddam still did not comply, so Bush did what Kerry and the rest of the US congress AND the UN authorized him to do. Also, the goal was never to simply deploy troops in the vicinity of Iraq, the goal was from the very beginning to remove Saddam. That is what Kerry authorized Bush to do. So for him to say now that he misunderstood and never though Bush would actually attack Iraq would be a pretty stupid thing to say. That is why the ONLY thing Kerry can complain about is what happened after the war started. > He could then easily accuse the bush regime of deception and lying to congress > and to the american pulic since it is clear that he had no intentions of > letting the UN inspectors complete their work and show that Hussein had > complied with UN resolutions and had no WMDs left (which would have removed > any justification for military action).
Kerry would be an idiot to say that. To say that Kerry would have to presume that Saddam would have fully complied with the inspectors, which everyone knows that Saddam would never do that. Matt
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>JF, stay out of our politics. >Then the USA should stay out of other country’s politics. As soon as the USa >startes to interfere with other countries, then oyher countries have a right >to criticise the USA’s policies. >> and (2) 50% of the country LIKES the President. (3) in the U.S. we don’t >> have a "regime" but rather an administration. >The day the USA began its illegal invasion of Iraq, it became a "regime". >The day the USA began to torture prisoners (both from afghanistan and Iraq), >it became a regime >The day the USA began to arrest and piut in prison humans residing legally in >the USA and detained then for long period without charghe or due legal >process, it became a regime. >And as long as the USA continues to abuse military power to attack/kill >civilians in Iraq, it is a regime. >Need I go on ? > Nah, just kill yourself and be done with it.
So that’s not United Space Alliance then…
Response:
> > Then the USA should stay out of other country’s politics. > Every country in the world is involved with the politics of > other countries?
Are you asking a question or making an incorrect statement? > Your idiotic posts are just your feeble attempt to get > involved with our politics.
As opposed to the idiotic attempts by your gov’t to get "involved" with the politics of Iraq? > Aren’t there any other countries doing things that you > don’t approve of?
Sure – but they don’t use cruise missles or helicopter gunships. > Unless you’re an Iraqi then why aren’t you bringing up bad > things the US had done to your own country?
Good to hear you admit that the US has done bad things to Iraq. And it doesn’t take an Iraqi to point that out.
Response:
"I have just tuned in to a satellite station that is broadcasting a Cat Stevens song." That would be a US based satellite system, I suppose? One that the Canadian government will not allow you to subscribe to? Nonetheless, whatever sins (real or imagined) Americans have committed, subjecting anyone to Cat Stevens music is cruel and unusual punishment. Why would anyone support that?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > message > > > Can you cite a source where John Kerry has said he will get > > rid of the no > > > fly list? > > Kerry has pointed out that much of this is window dressing, > > completely pointless if you’re not going to stop the 3 > million > > people crossing the US-Mexico border every year, and you > aren’t > > going to check 99% of the containers coming into the USA. > Ok, but like all of Kerry’s other issues, he points out the > obvious problem, > but offers no solution. > Whereas Bush simply refuses to amit that there’s a problem. > You really think that Kerry will get rid of the no-fly list, > or check every > cargo container coming into the US, or build a wall on the US- > Mexico border? > The first step to a solution is admitting that there’s a problem.
What are you talking about? Do you really think Bush doesn’t realize that protecting our borders and ports is a problem? Bush has requested a 600 percent increase in port security since 2001 and 70 percent increase in funding for border protection since 2001. http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20040206-15.html I’ll admit the no fly list has it’s problems, but I haven’t heard Bush or Kerry discuss ending it so I can only assume they both support the no fly list. Matt
Response:
> No matter how secure your police state becomes, terrorists will always > find a > way to get to the americans. The only way to protect yourself against > terrorists is to erase the big target you have on yourself. > Impossible. The United States is the only superpower left in the world. > Therefore, it is the logical target of these maniacs.
You’re completely correct Jeff. Why some people seem to think that if we’d just leave the terrorists alone to do whatever they want, they would then leave us alone is beyond me. These same people think that the only reason we have terrorists in the first place is because of US foreign policy. These same people pretty much think that all the problems of the world are the fault of the US. I guess we are supposed to be ashamed to be Americans, not proud. In fact if you dare say you are proud to be an American you will be attacked by these people for being arrogant. One thing that does bring a smile to my face when I think about these people is the fact that I was able to cast my vote for Bush and every other Republican candidate and Republican issue yesterday (absentee) and all they can do is sit in front of their computer and cry because most of them are not even Americans and all they can do is spew their hatred of America in the newsgroups, which as we all know, will never actually change someone’s mind on who to vote for…….hahahahaha…..ohhh I’m laughing so hard right now Matt
Response:
> > > stay out of our politics. > Then the USA should stay out of other country’s politics. > Every country in the world is involved with the politics of other countries? > Your idiotic posts are just your feeble attempt to get involved with our > politics. But it’s ok for you? > Aren’t there any other countries doing things that you don’t approve of? > Why are you so obsessed with the US?
See my post above, Matt… > What country are you from anyway? Unless you’re an Iraqi then why aren’t > you bringing up bad things the US had done to your own country?
Poor JF Mezei aka "nobody" is a francophone Canadien – prolly just about the most "unloved" group of people around, *lol*… — Best Greg
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->JF, stay out of our politics. >Then the USA should stay out of other country’s politics. As soon as the USa >startes to interfere with other countries, then oyher countries have a right >to criticise the USA’s policies. > and (2) 50% of the country LIKES the President. (3) in the U.S. we don’t > have a "regime" but rather an administration. >The day the USA began its illegal invasion of Iraq, it became a "regime". >The day the USA began to torture prisoners (both from afghanistan and Iraq), >it became a regime >The day the USA began to arrest and piut in prison humans residing legally in >the USA and detained then for long period without charghe or due legal >process, it became a regime. >And as long as the USA continues to abuse military power to attack/kill >civilians in Iraq, it is a regime. >Need I go on ?
Nah, just kill yourself and be done with it.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You really think that Kerry will get rid of the no-fly list, or check every > cargo container coming into the US, or build a wall on the US-Mexico border? > Not going to happen under Kerry, or anyone else. > OK, lets pretend that Kerry doesn’t undo any of the silly stuff done by Bush, > and doesn’t implement cargo inspections from ships. > Status quo is still better than allowing the Bush Regime to keep on adding > more measures that will make travel even more difficult, and will make > import/exports more difficult and more costly and further hurt the US > international trade and travel industries.
Make up your mind…….first you critize Bush because he is not checking every cargo container coming into the US or watching the US-Mexico border well enough and say that Kerry would do a better job of that. Then when I point out that is a silly arguement, you criticize Bush because he might actually try to do those things. If Bush found a cure for AIDS you’d criticize him for causing an overpopulation problem in Africa. This is exactly the kind of thinking that has made me not care what people in other countries think about the actions of America. For whatever reason you have a bug up your butt about us, and nothing we do will ever change that. > What the bush regime is doing is transforming the USA into an island. > If the bush regime is re-selected by americans, I would not be surprised to > see Oil priced in euros before the end of the 4 years. Continued volatility of > the USA dollar will force the world to seek a more stable currency with which > to make trades. > Americans who continue to support the Bush regime have absolutely no clue of > the damage Bush is inflicting on the USA. They don’t care able international > issues since they wrongly think that the USA doesn’t need any exports to
survive. blah blah blah….what does that have to do with the presidential election? > Can Boeing survive just be selling 737s to Southwest ? If it can’t export its > planes, then it will only have one active customer still buying planes in
the USA. That’s ok, because Boeing can still get defense contracts creating weapons that will allow us to go around the world and indiscriminately kill women and children. That’s all we really want to do. Matt
Response:
J F M e z e i aka "nobody", "John Doe", etc., etc., etc. trolled: >In defiance to the Bush Regime, I have just tuned in to a satellite station >that is broadcasting a Cat Stevens song. >If US media were more awake, they would have been broadcasting Plenty of Cat >Stevens Songs the day he was arrested and put in jail overnight as a show of >support of Cat Stevens and defiance of the Bush Regime’s policies. >At least Cat Stevens (or whatever is name is this week) would have known that >he still has grass roots support from americans and that it is just the >government gone nuts.
As opposed to you going nuts?
Response:
> stay out of our politics.
Then the USA should stay out of other country’s politics. As soon as the USa startes to interfere with other countries, then oyher countries have a right to criticise the USA’s policies. > and (2) 50% of the country LIKES the President. (3) in the U.S. we don’t > have a "regime" but rather an administration.
The day the USA began its illegal invasion of Iraq, it became a "regime". The day the USA began to torture prisoners (both from afghanistan and Iraq), it became a regime The day the USA began to arrest and piut in prison humans residing legally in the USA and detained then for long period without charghe or due legal process, it became a regime. And as long as the USA continues to abuse military power to attack/kill civilians in Iraq, it is a regime. Need I go on ? The USA has done the very things that it has been criticising other countries of doing in the past.
Response:
> A few tough questions no one has asked Kerry are: > What will you do in Gitmo? Let them go? More of the same? Turn them > over to the courts? UN? Home Countries? > What will you "change" about the Patriot Act? > How about CAPPS II or any similar systems? > No fly lists? > Arrest and detention of US citizens at home, abroad. > Visa and Passport requirements as well as entry restrictions and
requirements. I wouldn’t expect Kerry to change any of the above, if elected. You can pretty much expect more similar tactics to be implemented over the next 10 or 20 years because politicians have to be able to say they are tough on terrorism. Only way to do that is to enact new security programs. > But the Bush regime instituted many policies > not to actually add security, but rather to be seen as prortecting americans > by adding very visible measures. This was needed because the Bush regime is a > one trick poney: scare the population into wanting a tough military government > to protect them.
Americans have always wanted a tough military, NOT a "military government". Why shouldn’t we be scared? There are thousands of crazy arabs out there plotting to kill us. Or is that just something Bush has made up? Are the homeland security tactics implemented by Bush perfect? No of course not, there is no perfect way to balance strong homeland security in an open society. > Remove the political need to **appear** tough, and real experts may be able > setup the real airport security.
You can’t take the politics out of political decisions. What would the "real experts" do differently? Sure some of the security measures only "cosmetic", but they are still needed. A lot of the new security measures will make a big difference. > What you’re really saying is that if you take away the political need not > to "change your mind" or approach in any way for fear of looking uncertian, > we can learn from the past. That is true of every administration and it > is the most dangerous part about the "flip flop/waffle" charge we hear > in alot of campaigns. It causes positions to harden, instead of being > flexible to change.
Changing positions because of a specific event or new evidence is one thing. Changing positions on a whim because of a poll, or changing positions so often that no one can figure out what your position even is, or changing positions that are based on moral issues, are completely different. I’m voting for a person based upon what they tell me about themselves before the election. I don’t want that person changing their mind about their positions unless they have a very good reason. If you’re pro-choice you wouldn’t want to elect a candidate that is pro-choice and then have them change their mind to being pro-life would you? Matt
Response:
> > I haven’t heard anything that would indicate John Kerry would weaken airport > security or dump the no-fly list. On the contrary, he speaks of increasing > homeland security. Obviously you think he’s a flip-flopper and will weaken > homeland security anyway…..I agree. > Not sure what Kerry would do.
Which has been a real failure of the election system in this country. No one has really asked these tough questions. It’s for a variety of reasons of course, but amongst them is that the Bush supporters don’t really want them brought up either. A few tough questions no one has asked Kerry are: What will you do in Gitmo? Let them go? More of the same? Turn them over to the courts? UN? Home Countries? What will you "change" about the Patriot Act? How about CAPPS II or any similar systems? No fly lists? Arrest and detention of US citizens at home, abroad. Visa and Passport requirements as well as entry restrictions and requirements. > But the Bush regime instituted many policies > not to actually add security, but rather to be seen as prortecting americans > by adding very visible measures. This was needed because the Bush regime is a > one trick poney: scare the population into wanting a tough military government > to protect them.
It didn’t happen in a vacuum. The US Congress pushed much of this stuff hard to satisfy their constituents. The airlines were screaming to have the headache taken away from them. > Remove the political need to **appear** tough, and real experts may be able > setup the real airport security.
[snip] What you’re really saying is that if you take away the political need not to "change your mind" or approach in any way for fear of looking uncertian, we can learn from the past. That is true of every administration and it is the most dangerous part about the "flip flop/waffle" charge we hear in alot of campaigns. It causes positions to harden, instead of being flexible to change.
Response:
> Not sure what Kerry would do.
Exactly. Matt
Response:
>I haven’t heard anything that would indicate John Kerry would weaken airport >security or dump the no-fly list. On the contrary, he speaks of increasing >homeland security > Yup. And putting some sanity behind it, so that people don’t get grounded with > no recourse just because some OTHER John Smith might be under suspicion > — Kimbis
Can you cite a source where John Kerry has said he will get rid of the no fly list? Matt
Response:
> I haven’t heard anything that would indicate John Kerry would weaken airport > security or dump the no-fly list. On the contrary, he speaks of increasing > homeland security. Obviously you think he’s a flip-flopper and will weaken > homeland security anyway…..I agree.
Not sure what Kerry would do. But the Bush regime instituted many policies not to actually add security, but rather to be seen as prortecting americans by adding very visible measures. This was needed because the Bush regime is a one trick poney: scar the population into wanting a tough military government to protect them. Remove the political need to **appear** tough, and real experts may be able setup the real airport security. It isn’t enough to have money, power and military. One needs to know how to use those. The Bush reguime has abused its powers and not used them smartly.
Response:
>I haven’t heard anything that would indicate John Kerry would weaken airport >security or dump the no-fly list. On the contrary, he speaks of increasing >homeland security
Yup. And putting some sanity behind it, so that people don’t get grounded with no recourse just because some OTHER John Smith might be under suspicion — Kimbis
Response:
Air travellers across the USA have had to put up with increasing humiliation and inconvenience. Thankfully, this is likely to come to an end: the insanity of the USA’s current head of state is becoming increasingly apparent, and ‘regime change’ is in the air. For further details, read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/markosmoulitsas/story/0,151…
Response:
> Air travellers across the USA have had to put up with increasing > humiliation and inconvenience. Thankfully, this is likely to come to > an end: the insanity of the USA’s current head of state is becoming > increasingly apparent, and ‘regime change’ is in the air. For further > details, read:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/markosmoulitsas/story/0,151… I haven’t heard anything that would indicate John Kerry would weaken airport security or dump the no-fly list. On the contrary, he speaks of increasing homeland security. Obviously you think he’s a flip-flopper and will weaken homeland security anyway…..I agree. Matt
Response:
. I can’t believe *anybody* actually voted for this bigot. Nevermind 51% Personally I would hope that the UK government would cut all ties with the USA. But that’s not going to happen