From: AntEGM111@aol.com   
      
   On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 04:30:48 GMT, Mike  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >   
   >"Antonio E. Gonzalez" wrote:   
   >>   
   >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:18:40 GMT, Mike  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >> >   
   >> >>   
   >> >>    Funny, I'm yet to hear about Congress declaring war . . .   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> >On that I agree. They should declare war although this war is not with   
   >> >any one nation but a group of Islamist fascists.   
   >> >   
   >>   
   >>    The term you're looking for is "police action," and not like it was   
   >> pathetically used with the Korean War.  I have a major problem giving   
   >> that scum the benefit of something as big as a war declared on them .   
   >> . .   
   >>   
   >>    Yeah, getting permission from other countries, co-operating,   
   >> gathering information, covert missions and surgical strikes, all   
   >> boring, but it actually gets the job done . . .   
   >   
   >If it got the job done Iraq would've never been a problem after the Gulf   
   >war.   
   >   
      
   Oooh boy, where to start . . .:   
      
   - It wasn't a problem, until we made it one again.   
   - Yes, that actually *did* get the job done, hence the lack of WMD's,   
   and a central government so weak it basically let Kurdistan for in the   
   north.   
   - This has . . . *what* to do with fighting terrorism?!   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>    Frankly kid, I'm amazed at how naive you are that you think you can   
   >> give your government that much benefit of doubt, and not expect it to   
   >> backfire on you.  Is the concept of abuse of power really that foreign   
   >> to you?!   Getting a tax audit because you pissed off someone in high   
   >> places is bad enough, now we have to deal with being declared "enemy   
   >> combatants" . . .   
   >   
   >No it is not, I had good view of it in the 90's. But I tell you, if all   
   >the Bush haters out there are so worried about being delcared "enemy   
   >combatants" they sure aren't acting like it.   
   >   
      
     It's called "bravery"; doing something you know is right in the face   
   of potential danger.  Plainly, they actually *have* a pair!   
      
      
   >As a matter of fact, I always found it's a strange definition of Fascism   
   >that tolerates so much utter and naked hostility towards the supposed   
   >Fascist without consequences.   
   >   
      
     Funny, I never used the word "Fascist" . . .   
      
      
   >I don't know about you personally, but I don't believe most of Bush's   
   >detractors really believe they will be dragged off the street and   
   >declared an "enemy combatant" because if they really believed it and if   
   >it was really happening it would shut them up and they are louder then   
   >ever.   
   >   
      
      Sorry, but shutting up is for people who have *given* up . . .   
      
      
   >It takes little to no courage to report on the flaws of decent   
   >societies. It only gives one a sense of self satisfaction and psuedo   
   >bravery.   
   >   
      
      See above . . .   ; )   
      
      
   >They can conduct a "brave" protest march against the "evil" Bush (who is   
   >somehow usurping thier freedom even though they are obviously exercising   
   >it)...but clearly they don't dare protest real terror or terrorist acts   
   >the way that the Jordanians or the Lebanese did, for example.   
   >   
      
      There's no need to protest what is so obviously evil; it's the   
   subtle things people easily ignore you have to raise your voice about   
   . . .   
      
      
   >If you truely believe this recent law will be used to drag people like   
   >you off the street. Please, relax a spell, and realize Bush cannot even   
   >detain real terrorists without catching tons of shit.   
   >   
      
      Catch "real terrorists," then there won't be a reason to catch tons   
   of shit . . .   
      
      
   >   
   >   
   >> >   
   >> >Not putting words in their mouths, just looking at how they conducted   
   >> >the Revolutionary War.   
   >>   
   >>    Oooh, do give some specific examples!  Do be careful what you say   
   >> though, this is what my living's about . . .   
   >   
   >Ahh well, you got me. The fighters in the revolutionary war made   
   >absolutely sure that the British they were fighting were accorded the   
   >rights of a country the British refused to recognize.   
   >   
   >And the British POW's were given Lawyers and ten chances to contest   
   >their imprisonment. It's all true!   
   >   
      
      So, now you're *admitting* you were wrong?!  If they granted   
   British POW's such rights, the *damn right* they'd do the same for   
   "enemy combatants"!   Of couse, there was also gaining leverage for   
   the treason trials in the event the Revolution failed, a big   
   possibility when facing the full might of the British Empire, but   
   that's another story . . .   
      
      
   >So long Mr. Gonzalez and I leave you with this thought. You're life will   
   >continue basically uninterupted or impeded by Bush.   
      
       Well, for now, but don't thing I'm gonna let naive little punks   
   who don't have a fucking clue about reality let this country become   
   something out of a certain Ray Bradbury novel, much less the George   
   Orwell one . . .   
      
      
      
   --   
                       - ReFlex76   
      
   - "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot   
   girl-on-girl action!"   
      
   - "The difference between young and old is the difference between   
   looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"   
      
   - Jesus Christ - The original hippie!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)