Re: Another Sterling Massachusetts Alum

On 19 May 2006 01:12:10 -0700, "BadgerBC"
<neilrichardson3819@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

lanman wrote:
On 18 May 2006 10:02:33 -0700, "BadgerBC"
<neilrichardson3819@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


lanman wrote:
On 18 May 2006 06:38:34 -0700, "BadgerBC"
<neilrichardson3819@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


lanman wrote:
On 17 May 2006 15:00:02 -0700, "smacdo"
<not_your_grandfathers_email@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I think you're being just a bit dramatic. I've read that suspects are
screened *before* they go to Gitmo by Combatant Status Review
Tribunals. If they are categorized as enemy combatants, they end up a
Gitmo or other detention centers. Although possible, I highly doubt
you'll find anyone at Gitmo who is entirely innocent of any connection
to terrorist groups. And when you're talking about individuals who
seek wmd with the intent of murdering my family, I demand my
government err on the side of security.

Another question is if a German national or a British national doesn't
speak Arabic, Urdu or Pashtu, how is he going to pick up translation
errors by himself when the evidence is presented? Just look at this
and let me know how fair the procedure is when everyone who works in
the national security bureaucracy knows that there's an incredible
shortage of translators in these languages. Do you really believe
these people are capable of speaking on their behalf? As an Afghan
would tell you they don't understand Arabic and vice versa (Dari or
Pashtu). It's this sort of embarrassment (when you let Al Jazeera
people spot the obvious translation mistakes) that creates the public
opinion that we are not abiding by our own sense of fairness.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1186240.htm

Of course there are going to be errors. There are innocent people put
in jail every day. Our own criminal justice system routinely makes
mistakes, even to the point of accidentally executing innocent people.
Do you think we should react when enemy propaganda mills like
al-Arabiya or al-Jazeera publish articles about our unfairness. (After
1400 years, thousands of Islamic scholars and religious leaders can't
even agree on how to interpret the Koran.) Do you think our military
should jump through hoops when our own self-serving politicians are
being partisans? Should we respond to critics whose own treatment of
prisoners and violations of civil rights are appalling, and who only
cast aspersions because they are our enemies. Do you think those
suspected of being illegal combatants deserve legal Dream Teams and
more priviledges than we would give to citizens or actual POW's? You
do see the impossibility of affording enemy combatants those same
rights, don't you.

I assume from your posts you are an ex-military officer, and I
personally find your position on some of these issues disturbing.
Now tell me how you're exercising your free speech and how patriotic
you feel by dissenting against the government and protecting the
rights of illegal combatants.


Now are you questioning my loyalty?

Since I don't know you personally, I can only form an opinion based
upon what you write. To date, your posts are overwhelmingly anti-Bush,

Uh huh. What are his unfavorables now? I don't pay much attention to
poll numbers unlike the President. Since you must be like a Bourbon
monarchist (since you're among the most ignorant I've come across in
the usenet, Louis the XIV apocryphally uttered "I am the state.") who
equates the President (you know in this country's it's not an office
for life) with the country then you probably should move to a
totalitarian state as you would feel rather home. You were in Germany
studying for three years right? Do you remember what every German
student preparing for the Abitur studies on Die Widerstand und die
Tagesgeschichte im Dritten Riech?


Ah, eloquent ad hominens noted. It's one of the things you do well.


anti-goverment,

I served 5 years active duty, 3 1/2 reserve,

Good man.


1 1/2 year working for
USAID.

Were you able to accomplish anything significant? USAID has a pretty
bad rep these days for waste and incompetence. Maybe things were
better during your time.


I understand you're just the poster child for the failures of
the American educational system (and I sincerely hope you don't have a
passport just like Quiggy), but how am I anti-government when it's
relatively clear to anyone who has known my views over the years even
here and asbb-rs know that I generally give the government the benefit?

I haven't been a regular in this ng for years, so maybe my statistical
sampling of your posts is too small. I haven't seen you give your
government the benefit of the doubt much in the last couple of months.

Just not this administration and certainly not the Nixon
administration. The regs who've argued with me from the left certainly
know what I think. If you're accusing me of being anti-government in
terms of economic analysis I plead guilty as I'm distrustful having
seen the excesses of the stagflation years. If you're that
simpleminded not to see the differences in my criticisms of certain
individuals like Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Cheney, Addington
and ultimately the President (himself as the buck stops with him) from
my praise of Gen. Wayne Downing, Gen. John McKiernan, Gen. Shinseki,
Gen. Newbold, Gen.Swannock, Gen.Eaton, Col.Lawrence Wilkerson among the
former uniformed officers who served the administration (and I'd add
John McLaughlin, Richard Clarke, Flynt Leverett, Richard Haass, and
others who've served at the CIA, NSC and the State), then you're too
damn stupid to understand what "anti-government" means let alone
democracy.

Yawn.

Considering how you've been repeatedly exposed as an
igorant fool who is devoid of knowledge and logic, I'm not surprised
you made this leap. (How many times have I had to correct you not only
factually but in pointing out numerous logical flaws in your arguments?

What I've seen you do mostly is twist facts to support your
conclusions, sling insults, and try to present your interpretations of
history as absolute truth. Hardly any two historians agree on
anything, so you posturing yourself as an expert with definitive
answers is laughable.


<snip flatulence>


Since you've never spent a day in uniform (well maybe a cub scout but
whatever), every one of us who had ever served in uniform has uttered
that "I solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the Constitution of the United States of America and will defend it
against all enemies foreign and domestic, and will obey the orders of
the President and the officers appointed over me, so help me God." I
know you just don't read carefully nor pay attention to detail, but as
anyone who'd gone through the indoc course on the UCMJ could tell you,
the wise leaders of the War Department and later DOD placed the order
of priority in terms of our allegiance as 1. the Constitution, 2.
defending "it" against all enemies foreign and domestic and then 3. to
obey the lawful leadership of the country (political-military). Now if
you'll carefully note, the leadership purposefully chose that order of
priority and made sure the military didn't have to pledge an allegiance
to the United States. They were fearful of fools like you who'd equate
a President or certain segments of the government with the United
States. That is why there has been an extraordinarily public dissent
among uniformed generals who had fought in Vietnam and were part of the
leadership group who had seen the administration at work firsthand.

Thank-you Captain Obvious.


You on the hand are a chickenhawk neocon and represent the domestic
enemies to the Constitution of the United States which I once swore an
oath to protect.


Funny. I was thinking the same about you. For the record, I was on
active duty in the US Army for 12 years - six years in Air Defense
Artillery and six years in Computer Systems.



If you
don't want casual readers to think you're an unpatriotic left-wing
loon, you shouldn't frequently write like one.

Well you certain are a very "casual" reader but I think you presume to
speak for those who read this NG infrequently. I think at this point
most people probably think you're a traitorous neocon who placed the
fate of the nation on some very strange set of parochial belief system
and who probably didn't think about the good of this country. Since
you seem to hold dissent as the equivalent with patriotism,

You're twisting in the wind again. What I do support is a sitting
president during a time of war. Not blindly, not uncritically, but
also not sniping about everything that goes wrong. I expect things to
go wrong during the "fog of war". If a Democrat is elected as our next
President and we're still in Iraq or elsewhere, I'll support that
person too in the effort to contain global terrorism.


I think
you're a supporter of totalitarianism and a dangerously ignorant one
at that.

I think you're funny.

<snip>




But since you say you
don't give a rat's ass, why even mention it?


Because I wanted to know if I should even accord you a modicum of
respect (even Quiggy was a squid) whether you did anything for this
country other than paying taxes while you doubt the loyalty of anyone
who presumes to disagree with you.

I love disagreement. I love debate. You, on the other hand, appear to
be one of those assholes who always has to be right. I'll bet you're a
real people person. LOL.



Others and I correct you factually
and analytically. Then you post claims that seem fishy and when we ask
for citations, you drop the subthread and post something else. Now
I've been far more patient with you than I probably should've
considering how ignorant you really are and logically challenged you've
been throughout these two threads. You think I frame the arguments
unfairly regarding the national security matters and military in
particular, call me on them. I've provided facts, analysis and if
required citations which is far more than you who had the nerve to
write "You are dangerously misinformed...from the Washington Times"
without trying to be funny. You've cited the American Patrol Report in
arguing about the merits of legal immigration. You make some laughably
creative revisionist historical interpretations (I shudder to think how
you might've done in history classes) regarding American foreign
policy. You don't know much about history (and since you've made fun
of me for paying attention to it, you certainly don't care for it
either) so don't give me this crap about painting my government and
military in the worst possible terms in wartime. You know about as
much about loyalty and sacrifice as any of these chickenhawk neocons.
Smedley Butler tried to return his two Congressional Medals of Honor.
Hackworth returned his decorations after he left the Army. I could go
on and on if I thought you were minimally capable of independent
thought but as the good book says...why bother?


As mentioned above, what you often times do is present your opinion as
fact or interpretation of facts or historical events as the only
correct one. To say you are pompous and arrogant would be quite an
understatement - no offense of course.



This following quote really tells me quite a bit though about what your
political leanings are: "I feel the US should create new laws or
modify old laws which will govern our military's conduct as quickly as
possible. This should be done, imo, either unilaterally or in
cooperation with our closest, trusted allies." Since in all likelihood
even Britain will not go along with your vision of what these new laws
of warfare regime you think is proper (heck not even uniformed JAGs
probably will oppose it), we likely will have to go alone on this.
Since we need all the help we can get from countries abroad in our
"war", this very strange idea of the New World Order will probably
cost the international support and force us on a unilateralist path not
unlike what Charles Krauthammer proposed. I think you are deliberate
trying to undermine the sixty years of multilateralism that has been
the foundation of the American foreign policy and a source of our
national power (if you have no idea what I'm talking about read Joseph
Nye or E.H. Carr). In other words you are deliberately trying to
sabotage our "war on terror." That is why I think you are a traitor to
my country as many of us have spent years of our young lives trying to
defend it internationally are beginning to realize (especially those
who served in Vietnam). Not only do you propose that we bring down
secular regimes in the Middle East that at least currently bend to our
will by enabling the rising Islamic fundamentalists to power (Hamas
anyone?), but you'd like my country to send over expeditionary force to
carry those ill-defined and ill-executed goals while you don't make the
sacrifice yourself. You've already demonstrated that you're a
hypocrite in terms of usenet etiquette before but I didn't think you'd
be a traitorous neocon who'd like to undermine every fiber of the US
foreign policy foundations that have served us so well for more than
sixty years.

LOL. You're hysterical. Firstly, I'm not even remotely involved in
politics, and my opinions, like yours, have zero influence on anything
the government does. What I do know, is that our enemies have learned
how to manipulate our freedoms and liberties and use their knowledge
of the system against us. They are enabled, imo, by well meaning
liberals, left-wing extremists, anti-war pacifists, college
intellectuals, Hollywood elitists, Marxists-socialists,
anti-capitalists, and possibly others.

Since 911, I am particularly concerned with the spread of Islamic
fundamentalism and the way democratic countries knowingly or
unwittingly assist our enemies. I am particularly worried about:

1.) Mainstream liberal media - who place political correctness and
support for multi-culturalism above the rights and needs of the
American public to know and understand the threats they face. The MSM
is comprised of far too many anti-Bush, anti-military, anti-Republican
elitists who frequently disparage our sons and daughters in uniform
for the world to see while speaking about the enemy in euphemisms such
as insurgents, freedom fighters, or resistance rather than the
civilian murdering terrorists which they are.

2.) Left-wing campus bias - With an overwhelming liberal to left-wing
bias on the college campus, professors (particularly those teaching
middle eastern studies) are white-washing the violent history of
Islam, and are calling the so-called Palestinians freedom fighters
while demonizing Israel as a terrorist state - 2nd behind the Great
Satan of course. Many college professors are also anti-capitalists who
praise Marxist theory while condemning the free enterprise economic
system. Islamic disinformation and propaganda is being spread by
Islamic extremist groups, and they have a willing partner found in the
professorships of our colleges. We have college professors such as
Ward Churchill claiming that "amoral money-changers who worked at the
WTC were materialistic purveyors of third-world exploitation and
genocide--or little Eichmanns who got what they deserved. You have
Nicholas De Genova from Columbia telling his students that he hopes
the US is defeated in Iraq and suffers"a million Mogadishus". Nice.


3.) Ignorance - Fundamental Islam requires this most of all to spread
amongst us. When Bush refers to Islam as a religion of peace, I
understand he does so in hopes that so-called moderate Muslims will
demonstrate there is such a thing; however, anyone who has read the
Koran would suspect there are no moderate Muslims, only Muslims that
feel the time is not yet right to begin holy jihad. Consider racist
Arab Muslims in Sudan who regularly commit genocide not only against
Christians and Animists, but also against their fellow Muslims. Why?
Because they aren't Muslim enough. Liberal Democrats due to their
hatred of Bush, their love of self and party, and their lust for
power, regularly support the Islamist agendas which harm our country.
The NY ACLU not too long ago presented a court challenge to New York's
new law to randomly seach back-packs for riders boarding the trains
and subways. The motivation was to help thwart a suicide bombing as
was done in Madrid and London. We can always count on the ACLU to make
America less safe aid and abet terrorism under the guise of protecting
our liberty. Although I reject the arguments of those groups who are
knowing or unwitting pawns in the war on terror, at least I can
understand their motivation. With someone like you, however, an
ex-military officer who believes himself to be a patriot, and I'm sure
you are, I cannot comprehend why you present yourself at times as a
useful idiot and a tool of the left-wing.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.