HP3000-L Archives

August 2004, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Paul Christidis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:20:00 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1 lines)












HP-3000 Systems Discussion <[log in to unmask]> wrote on 08/10/2004

02:05:17 PM:



> After a lengthy diatribe Wirt quoted President Bush, probably in the

> hope of underlining what he thought of the President.  The quote is:

>

> "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never

> stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and

> neither do we."

>

>      --George W. Bush  2004/08/05

<< snip >>



> The quote from President Bush shows that his administration knows we are

> at war with these terrorists.  His administration is on a war footing,

> trying to think of any and all ways in which terrorists could inflict

> damage to our country and work to prevent it.  His administration is not

> lacking in imagination.  The Right, if you want it simply, knows we are

> at war and we are fighting it.  The Right wants to defeat the terrorists

> and their sponsors, far from our shores.  They want to prevent acts of

> terrorism before they occur.





Oh great priest of the Oracle of Bush! Thanks for explaining what our

president meant in his above mentioned quote.  The White House spokesman,

however, admitted that Mr. Bush 'misspoke':

      White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush’s misstatement “just

shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak.”



It's interesting, you explaining what he meant, since not too long ago, you

were demanding that someone would provide the exact quote where Mr. Bush or

his administration had said that Iraq 'had' links to 9/11,etc..   I mean,

back then almost 70% of the US public took his/their statements to "mean"

that a link existed and the war was a response to the 9/11 attack, and you

were saying he 'never' said that, and on this case you're saying 'THIS is

what he meant'.



While I'm sure some people would say, perhaps its a 'Freudian slip'

revealing the real intentions of the Patriot/II bill, the majority of

people will take it as just another "Bushism".  Could you, however,

indicate what your reaction would have been if that statement was said by

Kerry?



>

> The Left, as represented by Wirt's attempt at castigating the president,

> refuses to believe we are at war.  The Left just wants to get along with

> everybody, no matter what they do to us.



I don't think any previous administration, and even Bush's until 9/11, took

terrorism seriously.  After all our castle has this huge mote around it

that should keep us safe.  Our country was thought to be like a 'gated'

community, we'd go out every day to 'fend' for short term gains, without

considering the 'long term' consequences, and then return to the safety

behind the 'gates'. At the same time our rhetoric convinced almost everyone

inside the gates that we are moral, democratic, just, virtuous, and that

even our actions outside the gates were adhering to the same values.  Well,

guess what, that is simply not true and our myopic foreign policies have

come home to 'roost'...



I don't think that we'll 'get along' with everybody, but I also don't think

that we've developed this magic cookie cutter and we can 'form' everyone

else in our image.  We have to LEAD by example and encourage, not coarse,

others to adopt the better aspects of our culture.



> Teresa Kerry admonishes the

> country and tells us we need to get used to terrorist bombings, just

> like they are used to it in Europe.



That's a new one for me.  I have not heard that. (Where is your famous URL)



> The Left would treat every

> terrorist attack as a law enforcement problem and would just try to

> arrest the perpetrators AFTER THE FACT.

>

> This is the bottom line of this election.  If you believe we need to

> preempt the terrorists and prevent further attacks, you vote to reelect

> President Bush.

>

> If you believe that we should try to get along with the terrorists and

> try to appease them and only punish them after the fact, as long as we

> have the blessings of France, Germany, Russia and China and the UN, then

> you vote for John Kerry.



Borrowing on someone else's analogy:

One treats terrorism the same way you treat malaria.  You don't eliminate

malaria by killing all the mosquitoes, you try to eliminate their

'breeding' grounds, you don't 'preempt' malaria, your try to 'prevent' it.

If you truly want to defeat terrorism then the emphasis MUST be shifted in

eliminating its root causes.  Stop propping up and supporting oppressive

governments, eliminate despair, respect and recognize the achievements of

other cultures, support global environmental/health/judicial initiatives,

stop demanding preferential treatment, stop marginalizing huge swaths of

people. In short; give people back their dignity, for its that loss of

dignity that fertilizes the 'breeding' grounds of terrorism.



Also establish AND adhere to a consistent (not a consistently bad) foreign

policy, nurture and maintain alliances because we cannot succeed alone (We

NEED the help of our allies, NOT their blessing).



>

> It is as simple as that.  All the rest is bunk and inconsequential

> compared to this issue.



It IS as simple as that.



Regards

Paul Christidis



>

>

>

> Denys

>

> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *

> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *:"^j+-j!܆+/܅bzb0zey?ڽ꿺yۿj!wMm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2