The focus on crime, like the crime people commit when that commit act of terrorism, should be prevention; not a focus on buggymen in Iraq that distract from the job of fighting crime.
I want to be safe as much as anybody, but I would prefer to do it in a smart way, using intelligence agencies like NSA, CIA, FBI, etc, police and boarder patrol, and an aware American people; rather than being put in greater danger because the power that be drop the ball, because they are more interested in their own agenda and manipulating the American people to achieve it, than they are on keeping America safe. Regards, LelandJ Virgil Bierschwale wrote: > The last time I looked, terrorists or occupying armies did not ask for a > visa. > They simply came in however they could and accomplished their objective. > > Lets say you are right and nothing happens. > Hell, I'm all for that. > > Lets say you are wrong and everything bad that can happen, happens. > Sorry Charlie, not on our watch. > > In the final analysis, I'd rather be safe then sorry and you've already seen > what happened in new York in what I consider to be an unprovoked attack. > > Virgil Bierschwale > http://www.bierschwalesolutions.com > http://www.jobsforourfuture.com/index.php > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Leland F. Jackson, CPA > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:15 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: Re: [OT] An Inconvenient Poll > > President Bush is in a state of denial, because reality is > unacceptable. I heard Newt Gingrich recently on a Sunday morning TV > talk show. In one of his responses to a question, he began blabbering > about a world wide threat from Muslims. He said that twelve year old > children are being taught how to behead infidels, being taught how to > use sophisticated weaponry, etc. Newt Gingrich seems to think the world > is in the early stages of WW III. > > Newt Gingrich may not be a card carrying Neoconservative, but his > thinking is definitely along the lines of the Neoconservative ideology. > > Charles Rangel in responding to Newt Gingrich said he did not understand > what Newt was talking about with a world wide threat to the US from > Muslims. He comment "what is the US going to do, issue visas to an army > of terrorist and let them into our country?" He said "its ridiculous". > > Basically Newt, and the rest of the Neoconservative Bush Administration, > are just playing the fear card to maintain control of the American > people. They want to make the terrorist buggyman appear as threating > as possible, so the American people will forfeit more power to the > government for protection, but in the end, the government will use any > additionally acquired powers against the American people (eg power > corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). The Democratic form > of government can only work with a strict system of check and balances, > so as to make the government responsive to the American people, and to > prevent a single branch of government from acquiring absolute power. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > David Crooks wrote: > >> On Tuesday, May 15, 2007 4:22 PM Leland F. Jackson wrote: >> >> >> >>> I keep hearing the GOP harping on the Democrats for advocating defeat >>> >>> >> in Iraq, but defeat in Iraq >has never been clearly defined by the GOP >> or the Bush Administration. If defeat in Iraq is. >> >> >>> possible, then victory in Iraq must also be possible, yet the GOP has >>> >>> >> never clearly defined the >> >> >>> term Victory in Iraq either. I hear a lot about terrorism, but mostly >>> >>> >> terrorism has nothing to do >with Iraq anymore than terrorism has to do >> with other countries around the world. >> >> >> >>> The US won a victory in Iraq over Saddam Hussein and his army, even >>> >>> >> though the war was not >> >> >>> necessary and should never have been waged. The war only lasted days. >>> >>> >> Ever since the US won >> >> >>> victory in Iraq, the US mission seem to be a protection of an American >>> >>> >> support government created >in the image of US democracy, but that >> solution does not seem to make the Iraqi people happy, nor >> >> >>> is it in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Iraqi >>> >>> >> people. The US mission to >> >> >>> democratise the Iraqi people has destroyed the countries, caused many >>> >>> >> senseless and unnecessary >> >> >>> deaths, and destory the Iraqi culture and way of life. It has made the >>> >>> >> life of the Iraq people >> >> >>> miserable and bitter. Is the idea of forcing Democracy on the Iraqi >>> >>> >> people wrong. Probably yes. >> >> >> >>> An insurrection of the Iraqi people against an occupation of their >>> >>> >> country by foreign force, couple >> >> >>> with an internal civil struggle for power and control of the country, >>> >>> >> does not constitute war >> >> >>> against the US, and where their is no war, there is no possibility of >>> >>> >> victory or defeat. The >> >> >>> civil strife in Iraq has been going on for centuries, and is not >>> >>> >> something that America can fix in >a few years. It is time for America >> to disengage from Iraq, because only the Iraqi people can >> >> >>> decide what they want for a country so far as society, religion, and >>> >>> >> government is concerned. >> >> >> >>> The American people, and all her armies cannot force the Iraqi people >>> >>> >> to love an imposed government >> >> >>> fashioned after US Democracy, any more than the American people, and >>> >>> >> all her armies, can force the >Iraqi people lover a US God as opposed to >> a God of the Iraqi people's own understanding. >> >> Here are some interesting quotes from Dubyaspeak.com about this issue: >> >> And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. >> Success is not no violence. There are parts of our own country that have >> got a certain level of violence to it. >> -- Despite Dubya's puzzling comments, I'm pretty sure that the number of >> random executions and car bombings in Detroit (or Houston, or Seattle, >> or Washington, D.C.) is significantly lower than anywhere in Baghdad... >> Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007 >> >> This is an interesting, different type of war. >> -- I'm astounded by the level of detachment that permits him to term a >> war of his making "interesting", Washington, D.C., May 2, 2007 >> >> The Iraqis are fully staffed, and -- and they've got their team in >> there, but we don't. And so, what Gen. Petraeus is saying -- some early >> signs, still dangerous, but give me -- give my chance a plan to work. >> -- Truer accidental words are seldom heard, Interview with PBS' Charlie >> Rose, Apr. 24, 2007 >> >> I've chosen a path that says we will go overseas and defeat them there. >> I also know full well that it's important for us if we're facing an >> ideology, if we're facing ideologues, if we're confronting people who >> believe something, that we have got to defeat their belief system with a >> better belief system. Forms of government matter, in my opinion. It >> matters how -- the nature of the government in which people live. And >> therefore, I have put as part of our foreign policy not only an >> aggressive plan to find extremists and radicals and bring them to >> justice before they hurt us, but also to help people live in liberty -- >> free societies, as the great alternative to people living under a >> tyrant, for example. >> -- I'm confused. What tyrant is the U.S. going against? And how does >> Dubya explain the lack of liberty in nations friendly to the U.S. like >> Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Tipp City, Ohio, Apr. 19, 2007 >> >> Iran is influential inside of Iraq. They are influential by providing >> advanced weaponry. They are influential by dealing with some militias, >> tend to be Shia militias, all aiming to create discomfort, all aiming to >> kind of -- according to some -- to create enough discomfort for the >> United States, but in doing so, they're making it harder for this young >> democracy to emerge. Isn't it interesting, when you really take a step >> back and think about what I just said, that al Qaeda is making serious >> moves in Iraq, as is surrogates for Iran? >> -- It's more frightening than interesting, given that what he just said >> makes no sense. Tipp City, Ohio, Apr. 19, 2007 >> >> If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide bombers, >> we'll never be successful. We will have handed al Qaeda -- that's what >> it takes in order to determine whether or not these young democracies, >> for example, can survive. Think about that: if our definition is no more >> suiciders, you've just basically said to the suiciders, go ahead. >> ...Yesterday's bombing -- we don't have the intel on it. I suspect it's >> al Qaeda. Al Qaeda convinces the suiciders to show up. Al Qaeda >> understands the effects of this kind of warfare on the minds of not only >> people in Iraq, but here -- and elsewhere in the world. >> -- Even though he gets the term right at the beginning (suicide >> bombers), he goes right back to using his favorite made-up word: >> suiciders. Tipp City, Ohio, Apr. 19, 2007 >> >> >> David L. Crooks >> >> >> >> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
