Rude replies

[Alias]

"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In
order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many
compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes
indistinguishable from a streetwalker." H.L. Mencken

Alias

 

[David Candy]

A major role in the information/indoctrination work is played by mass media, including military media. Owing to their sense of immediacy and their targeted impact, they are especially effective in building up morale in the troops. To this end, the United States uses a diversified network of radio and television stations and communication channels. There are 9,200 commercial and 1,700 government controlled radio stations (400 of them are ground based stations used for purely military purposes or leased from civilian agencies) and there is a great number of television channels (both government-controlled and commercial). The radio and television network for U.S. troops in Europe alone includes nine radio stations and four TV studios. In addition, there is also cable television. Radio broadcasting for military servicemen is conducted 20 hours a day; importantly, the beginning and end of television programming begins and ends with the raising (lowering) of the U.S. national flag, respectively.

According to media experts, brief video footage produces a far more effective impact on servicemen's consciousness than a long article or speech. In this connection, some states set up special units to prepare military radio and video materials. Thus, the audiovisual systems department of the French Armed Forces Information and Public Relations Service annually produces, independently or in collaboration with civilian organizations, about 30 films, more than 20 video materials, 70 video clips, several video reports, 700 photo reports, and 12,000 video cassettes with various news and entertainment material. In wartime, joint commands of the U.S. Armed Forces are to deploy special PR centers.

In addition to television and radio, the U.S. military leadership gives special priority to the press. An appropriate agency in the U.S. Armed Forces provides material to more than 2,500 newspapers published in the country, with a total circulation of more than 102 million copies. The Defense Department itself publishes more than 20 journals and there are about 80 journals in the various branches of service. Realizing the importance of the "material" element in the American value system, heads of U.S. military media devote considerable attention to publication of materials on compensation packages, privileges, exemptions, and perks for military servicemen with up to 50 percent of space given over to this subject.

Military Thought, Jan, 2001 by M. Yu. ZELENKOV

 

[kurttrail]

All Politics/Parties are inherently self-serving. Arguing the virtues of
any group is pointless. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are just as full of
it as Janeane Garofolo and Al Franken.

More so, Janeane & Al are arguably comedians that have used their fame to
espouse their personal opinions. Rush and Sean are professional talking
heads that made their fame by being paid to espouse a certain opinion.

While they all get paid now, I know that Al and Janeane believe their
rhetoric. Sean & Rush are just paid shills hawking the conservative
product that they have been paid spokesmen for.

The overriding principal of this country is "For the Common Good".

Sounds suspiciously like Communism. I'm more for individual rights myself.

Unfortunately, Today the US is made up of factions who align themselves
with one party or the other. There is no Common Voice because only the
zealots have a forum.

Moderates are basically comprised of those that really don't care about
the what is going on around them until it effects their fat lazy asses.

When people argue the minutia, the larger issues get lost in all the
"Smoke & Mirrors". Nothing gets done, because everyone gets caught up
discussing Oval Office sex(?) and IQ levels and motives.

Two out of those three do matter, and I ain't talking about OO sex, except
that thank God their are no male horses to milk at the White House!

http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000018.php

Listen to this collage of Bush torturing the English language.

Here's an example of Political BS.
Eleven years ago, our House Rep came to our company. They made all
Engineers and Mgrs attend a meeting on the Company Political Action
committee. Essentially he "Blackmailed" us to contribute so the company
could fund his re-election campaigns. With this, we would get his
"Protection" and keep our jobs.
Today, that House member serves on the "India Caucus". The
company in question is now just a shell of it's former self. But the Rep
now works on behalf of Indian Outsourcing. Politicians go where the money
is.

Yep, I agree. Besides the corporate fatcat lobby, there is nothing worse
than professional politicians.

My advice is don't believe that any "Party" speaks for you. They will
tell you what you want to hear and do what's best for them.

Was I speaking for a particular party?

I wasn't disagreeing that we have the Dims to thank for the expansion of
the power of the executive branch of gov't. As a matter of fact I agree,
but I also believe that is the Republicans that have abused that
expanded power. I'm a firm believer, given our present political system,
in the merits of gridlock. Given a choice of only two parties, one party
should be in control of the legislative branch, and the other in charge of
the executive.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

"A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In
order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises
and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from
a streetwalker." H.L. Mencken

Amen!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Jone Doe]

"Considering there were no WMDs, yes, he lied."

Where did you make that up? You surely didn't get it from any legitimate
source.
<Rest of the nonsense clipped to give electrons a break>

 

[Jonathan L S]

U R quite right, particularly as it pertains to the liberals.


| All Politics/Parties are inherently self-serving. Arguing the virtues of
| any group is pointless. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are just as
| full of it as Janeane Garofolo and Al Franken.
|
| The overriding principal of this country is "For the Common Good".
| Unfortunately, Today the US is made up of factions who align themselves
| with one party or the other. There is no Common Voice because
| only the zealots have a forum.
|
| When people argue the minutia, the larger issues get lost in all the
| "Smoke & Mirrors". Nothing gets done, because everyone gets
| caught up discussing Oval Office sex(?) and IQ levels and motives.
|
| Here's an example of Political BS.
| Eleven years ago, our House Rep came to our company. They made
| all Engineers and Mgrs attend a meeting on the Company Political
| Action committee. Essentially he "Blackmailed" us to contribute so the
| company could fund his re-election campaigns. With this, we would
| get his "Protection" and keep our jobs.
| Today, that House member serves on the "India Caucus". The
| company in question is now just a shell of it's former self. But the Rep
| now works on behalf of Indian Outsourcing. Politicians go where the
| money is.
|
| My advice is don't believe that any "Party" speaks for you. They will
| tell you what you want to hear and do what's best for them.
|
|
| | > NoNoBadDog! wrote:
| >
| > <snip>
| >
| >> Perhaps you should do a little more study on the limits of Presidential
| >> authority. You can thank the Democratic party for giving the sitting
| >> president more power over the 50 years.
| >
| > And the Republicans for abusing it!
| >
| > --
| > Peace!
| > Kurt
| > Self-anointed Moderator
| > microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
| > http://microscum.com/mscommunity
| > "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
| > "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
|
|
|

 

[kurttrail]

U R quite right, particularly as it pertains to the liberals.

LOL! I didn't know there was a Liberal Party of any consequence.

I thought to 2 Parties were the Rips & the Dims.

And their only ideology is political expedience.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

"Considering there were no WMDs, yes, he lied."

Where did you make that up? You surely didn't get it from any legitimate
source.
<Rest of the nonsense clipped to give electrons a break>

The Duelfer Report isn't legitimate enough for you? According to GWB's
hand-picked WMD inspector, Saddam didn't have any WMD's since the mid
1990's at the latest.

Add to that the Downing Street Memo where the Brits were of the opinion
that the intelligence alone on WMDs didn't justify invading Iraq, and that
the Bush Administration was already committed to invading Iraq, before
going to the UN, and that going to the UN was only ploy try to give
legitimacy to the Iraq invasion, not a serious attempt to resolve the
situation diplomatically, and that pretty much convinces me that Bush and
his Administration pretty much manufactured the justification to invade
Iraq.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

During the 30 days warning, where we were unable to do anything due to
the UN asking us to wait, ...

I don't quite understand... I don't think the US administration did
anything because "the UN asking" for it. If they did listen to the UN, they
wouldn't have started a war against Iraq.

... there were many convoys to Syria, since there were no inspectors
permitted (or even there) it's only speculation as to what came out of
those suspected sites.

Ah, now it's "only speculation". I guess I can agree to that. Let's just
keep this in mind

The moving of trucks does not mean that all items were moved, how much
was moved, or the exact contents, but it sure (to me) seemed like a
great indication of what was suspected.

Ok. Let's look at satellite images of the US and the UK. I see /lots/ of
trucks being moved around. According to you, that's then highly suspect
activity, no? Unless, of course, it can be confirmed what exactly is being
moved. Which is not possible...

How would you and others have reacted if we had attacked Syria too? What
if we found all those nasties in Syria, would you have said GOOD JOB?

Probably not, as I don't think such attitudes do a "GOOD JOB" to solve the
problem. But your argumentation would be a bit more consistent.

Where did I say they knew EVERYTHING was moved out?

Nowhere. But since they didn't find so much as a single WMD in Iraq, and
you said you knew that they had been moved before the war, the one logical
conclusion is that all of them have been moved. If not, either they should
have found some by now, or there weren't any to start with...

All we have is images of trucks (lots) being loaded with something and
taken to Syria, not the specific contents, and we can make some
reasonable assumptions.

Ok, let's hold that thought ("being loaded with /something/" and combine
it with the above (the one about it all being "speculation"). So we
"speculate" that there are trucks loaded with "something" and then say that
WMDs have been moved to Syria. Hey, this is a classic

It was still assumed that there were reasons to continue with the plan
for Iraq. Don't forget, WMD's include biologicals which can be stored
in very small places.

Hm... "assumed that there were reasons" is a bit weak, don't you think?
That weren't the exact words of the administration, IIRC. They said they
/knew/ there was hot stuff in Iraq; they did not say that they "assumed
there were reasons" to attack Iraq.

I don't think the public would have gone far with the administration if
they had said "we assume that there are reasons to invade Iraq, so let's do
it!" So that's probably the reason they didn't say it that way -- even
though it seems, according to you, that this would have been the correct
description of the situation. Where does that leave the administration?

You seem to have confused the idea that Trucks took masses of WMD's to
other countries with the idea that we believed ...

This "we believed" sounds strange... were you involved with the decision?

... that they took EVERYTHING to other countries - that would have been a
stupid assumption. Nowhere have I suggested that it was all moved, that
there are not still WMD's in Iraq,

If I say "I know there is crack in warehouse 15" and a cop gets a warrant
based on that and gives me access to warehouse 15, I better make sure I go
straight to the place that crack is and find it. If I can't find it, he
sure is going to ask me about the reliability of my knowledge -- and he
probably starts fearing about his job.

If there still are WMDs in Iraq, that's really pure luck. Because based on
knowledge it is not. If there was any suspicion about WMD places in Iraq,
all that suspicion was wrong, because of course those places have been
searched and found not to contain any.

You say Saddam has trucked those WMDs somewhere else or hidden them in
desert sand. Heh... why would he do that? If he had some, during the
invasion would have been the last time he could hope to make use of them.
Why hide them, or truck them out? If he would win, he wouldn't have to hide
them, and if he would lose, he wouldn't have to hide them either.

... that it was the only reason we went into Iraq.

Not sure whether this is correct -- I suspect you're right that it wasn't
the only reason (I even suspect that it wasn't a reason at all, more
something of a pretext). But this (that it was /the/ reason) is what the
administration said (before they realized they couldn't find any). So it's
you who's calling the administration deceptive (at least).

I don't know if you noticed the buried jet-fighters in sand or other
places in the middle of nothing where things were buried in sand....

Oh yes, I know, they cleverly hid them during the invasion, so that they
could use them right afterwards, in the victory parade they expected to get
to hold without even using jet fighters in their defense

Gerhard

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

One of the first things we rebuilt, other than utilities, were their
schools, then brought in supplies for them, etc.... There is more money
spent rebuilding the country (by the time we're done) than the combat
phase.

I meant to recover from 50 years of disastrously failed foreign policy.
That's not done with doing some good things in a country that was invaded
based on deceptive arguments and by showing a severe lack of understanding
of the world outside the USA.

Gerhard

 

[Gerhard Fiedler]

You took it wrong again - Peace is first in my goals,

"An eye for an eye" is /not/ a good policy to create peace, in any form.
(Unless, of course, you mean the "peaceful" state of universal death...)

So in my understanding you have to choose: either peace is your goal, or
"an eye for an eye" is your goal. You said you're an adept of the latter...
Where am I wrong?

You should hear what's being said in private in mosques,

How exactly do /you/ know what's being said in private in mosques?

have you forgot that they've said ALL AMERICANS NEED TO DIE?

"They" -- who? Some Muslim radicals, possibly, yes. I don't want to bother
you with what some radical Caucasians (or Protestants, or US citizens, or
whatever -- pick your group say, and I don't think I should claim that
they have any connection to you.

I choose to look at it like a rabid dog - you can't cure it, you can't
reason with it, it acts in a manner we consider irrational, and 99% of
the time you deal with it by killing it before it hurts/kills you.

Again -- "it" what?

In this case we have a group of peoples that have sworn, in public, to
kill every American and they believe they will be rewarded for doing it
- that their GOD will reward them for each American they kill. How do
you reason with someone like that?

Not sure it is possible to reason with those people. But I'm pretty
positive that you don't make a good case for your cause by killing
thousands of people that don't have the slightest connection with those
people.

Again, for me the effectiveness against terrorism is one important
measurement for the actions. Killing people not related with terrorism and
run the risk of making their relatives new terrorists is not effective.

Again, how do you reason with someone that believes they must kill you
in order to get their highest religious rewards?

Again, possibly you don't reason with them. But you can make sure that the
others, the reasonable people, are on your side. Of course, that would mean
that you'd have to act reasonable yourself. Which seems to be hard on
some...


Read what you write with a fresh mind, if that's possible. Try to reverse
the situation. Try to distinguish between what you know and what you assume
(or believe, or ...). Check what is fact (in news reports, commentaries
etc.) and what is interpretation, possible distortion, possible propaganda
for a party, a point of view, a personal agenda, whatever. Stay with what's
left and try to see how that could look from the other side. Put some
historic background to that, some information about social and economic and
politic situations in the regions we're talking about. Put that in a fresh
mind, and we might actually get somewhere with this conversation.

Gerhard

 

[Jonathan L S]

| On 6/11/05 10:43:03, Leythos wrote:
|
| > You took it wrong again - Peace is first in my goals,
|
| "An eye for an eye" is /not/ a good policy to create peace, in any form.
| (Unless, of course, you mean the "peaceful" state of universal death...)
|
| So in my understanding you have to choose: either peace is your goal, or
| "an eye for an eye" is your goal. You said you're an adept of the
latter...
| Where am I wrong?
|
| > You should hear what's being said in private in mosques,
|
| How exactly do /you/ know what's being said in private in mosques?
|
| > have you forgot that they've said ALL AMERICANS NEED TO DIE?
|
| "They" -- who? Some Muslim radicals, possibly, yes. I don't want to bother
| you with what some radical Caucasians (or Protestants, or US citizens, or
| whatever -- pick your group say, and I don't think I should claim that
| they have any connection to you.
|
| > I choose to look at it like a rabid dog - you can't cure it, you can't
| > reason with it, it acts in a manner we consider irrational, and 99% of
| > the time you deal with it by killing it before it hurts/kills you.
|
| Again -- "it" what?
|
| > In this case we have a group of peoples that have sworn, in public, to
| > kill every American and they believe they will be rewarded for doing it
| > - that their GOD will reward them for each American they kill. How do
| > you reason with someone like that?
|
| Not sure it is possible to reason with those people. But I'm pretty
| positive that you don't make a good case for your cause by killing
| thousands of people that don't have the slightest connection with those
| people.
|
| Again, for me the effectiveness against terrorism is one important
| measurement for the actions. Killing people not related with terrorism and
| run the risk of making their relatives new terrorists is not effective.
|
| > Again, how do you reason with someone that believes they must kill you
| > in order to get their highest religious rewards?
|
| Again, possibly you don't reason with them. But you can make sure that the
| others, the reasonable people, are on your side. Of course, that would
mean
| that you'd have to act reasonable yourself. Which seems to be hard on
| some...
|
|
| Read what you write with a fresh mind, if that's possible. Try to reverse
| the situation. Try to distinguish between what you know and what you
assume
| (or believe, or ...). Check what is fact (in news reports, commentaries
| etc.) and what is interpretation, possible distortion, possible propaganda
| for a party, a point of view, a personal agenda, whatever. Stay with
what's
| left and try to see how that could look from the other side. Put some
| historic background to that, some information about social and economic
and
| politic situations in the regions we're talking about. Put that in a fresh
| mind, and we might actually get somewhere with this conversation.
|
| Gerhard

I knew you all could do it if you just kept piling on the BS.
Do what you ask? Get this thread over 200 replies, that's what.
Now that's something to be proud of, eh?

 

[Leythos]

Most of the over one hundred thousand of people that Bush has killed with
his WMDs do not believe that. Just curious, how many muslim Arabs do you
know? I know quite a few and none of them, nor any of their friends, hate
the American public. The *do* hate what Bush is doing to the Arab world and
to its own soldiers and I can't blame them.

I know about 30 that I can count as knowing their names, their kids
names. What makes you think I was talking about Muslims? I was talking
about Terrorists and people that are zealots - of any race/religion.

Fact is, the colonization of the Arab world and the subsequent support for
dictator governments like Saudi Arabia gave rise to the poverty and
hopelessness of most of the Arab people and that is the reason it is easy to
recruit suicide bombers, not their religion.

Who said anything about supporting SA or any other Arab country?

 

[Leythos]

Since Bush believes he is doing his God's work, I as you the same
question!

The difference is that if real conversation were to be directed at the
US parties, that a peace could be worked out, but if the US directs a
conversation at the "terrorist factions", it will not beget peace, it
will get lies and be used to build stronger enemy forces - they even say
as much.

 

[Leythos]

Again, possibly you don't reason with them. But you can make sure that the
others, the reasonable people, are on your side. Of course, that would mean
that you'd have to act reasonable yourself. Which seems to be hard on
some...

So, it comes down to this - you don't reason with them? What do you do
with a group of people (terrorists/religious zealots) that only live to
see you killed? How do you ignore them while they are entering your home
to kill you?

 

[Leythos]

Which is why Bush lied to congress and the the UN for that matter. Remember
the portable WMDs that Powell described at the UN that turned out to be,
well, lies.

Bush didn't lie to anyone you dufus - his intel was provided TOO HIM. He
only repeated the information that all of the advisors provided to him.
You can't really think that he made it all up and then convinced the
military and others of something that was just in his head?

 

[kurttrail]

So, it comes down to this - you don't reason with them? What do you do
with a group of people (terrorists/religious zealots) that only live to
see you killed? How do you ignore them while they are entering your home
to kill you?

Dude, the detainees are a lot closer to my home now, than they were when
they were initially taken into custody!

Charge them and give them a trial, or ship them back to where they came
from. Just because you or the government CLAIMS that a certain individual
can't be reasoned with, doesn't make it so. That's why we have a judicial
system for. To decide whether the accusations of the government or other
individual stand up to reasonable doubt.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

I knew you all could do it if you just kept piling on the BS. Do what you
ask? Get this thread over 200 replies, that's what. Now that's something
to be proud of, eh?

Not bright enough to reply to his quite reasonable post, eh?!

I'm surprised you can count as high as 200, so do you have your mommy
helping you out?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[kurttrail]

The difference is that if real conversation were to be directed at the US
parties, that a peace could be worked out,

And you base that on what? Different countries' leaders tried to reason
with Bush prior to invading the WMD-less Iraq, that had absolutely no
connection to 911, but the "peace" could NOT be worked out!

but if the US directs a
conversation at the "terrorist factions", it will not beget peace, it will
get lies and be used to build stronger enemy forces - they even say as
much.

What lies have the terrorists told? Hell, after 911, Osama predicted that
the US would invade a Muslim country that had no connection to 911. He
said years before hand, that if the US didn't leave Saudi Arabia, that he
would attack us! And we left Saudi Arabia after 911!

As much as I want to see all involved with 911 brought to justice, I
really can't think of a lie that they have told. The Bush Administration,
I know they don't value the truth when it stands in their way! And the
Clinton Administration wasn't the most truthful either. But while the
scum that were behind 911, should be hunted to the ends of the Earth, what
actual lies have they told?


--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

 

[Leythos]

@anywhereintheknownuniverse.us>,
(e-mail address removed) says...

Dude, the detainees are a lot closer to my home now, than they were when
they were initially taken into custody!

Any you are more protected from ANY of their actions than you were
before they were taken into custody, but I would have expected you to
already know that.