Why Iran Wants Four More Years
Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:53:20 GMT

--------
This guy says basically what I'd say if I weren't too tired to type it
all out.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1023-24.htm


Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:55:07 -0400

--------
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:53:20 +0000, Cardinal Vertigo wrote:

> This guy says basically what I'd say if I weren't too tired to type it
> all out.
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1023-24.htm

I didn't bother to read that because the only opinion that
I'm interested in is my own, but I wanted to mention that the
Right is saying lately that if Kerry gets into office that we
can expect more terrorist attacks here. Well excuse me, but
didn't Tom Ridge tell us all, long before the Dem Primaries,
that additional terrorist attacks were "Not a matter of 'if',
but a matter of 'when'", meaning that he guaranteed us that
sooner or later the terrorists would try another 9/11 scale
attack? That they were effectively unpreventable, even by the
Bush administration? If so, and it IS SO, then how can they
turn around on their heels and say that we won't get hit again
UNLESS Kerry gets into office, and have anyone take them
seriously?

I'm done. Fuck off. Cosby.




Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:32:25 -0700

--------
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 04:55:07 -0400, Artemia Salina
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:53:20 +0000, Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
>> This guy says basically what I'd say if I weren't too tired to type it
>> all out.
>>
>> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1023-24.htm
>
>I didn't bother to read that because the only opinion that
>I'm interested in is my own, but I wanted to mention that the
>Right is saying lately that if Kerry gets into office that we
>can expect more terrorist attacks here. Well excuse me, but
>didn't Tom Ridge tell us all, long before the Dem Primaries,
>that additional terrorist attacks were "Not a matter of 'if',
>but a matter of 'when'", meaning that he guaranteed us that
>sooner or later the terrorists would try another 9/11 scale
>attack? That they were effectively unpreventable, even by the
>Bush administration? If so, and it IS SO, then how can they
>turn around on their heels and say that we won't get hit again
>UNLESS Kerry gets into office, and have anyone take them
>seriously?
>
>I'm done. Fuck off. Cosby.
>

WAHT DID I DO AGAIN THIS TIME?

I would think though an effective response to their dire doom
prediction might be to point out that the Color-Coded Dire Terror
Alert Warning System has been stuck at five minutes to red for the
last three years so predicting that the terrorists are going to attack
five minutes after the Democrats get in office qualifies as crying
"wolf".


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
It only rains straight down. God doesn't do windows.
-- Steven Wright



Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:54:13 GMT

--------
Zapanaz wrote:

> WAHT DID I DO AGAIN THIS TIME?
>
> I would think though an effective response to their dire doom
> prediction might be to point out that the Color-Coded Dire Terror
> Alert Warning System has been stuck at five minutes to red for the
> last three years so predicting that the terrorists are going to attack
> five minutes after the Democrats get in office qualifies as crying
> "wolf".

Kerry's promising to do away with the Color-Coded Dire Terror Alert
Warning System, you know.


Correspondent:: Artemia Salina
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:18:21 -0400

--------
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:54:13 +0000, Cardinal Vertigo wrote:

> Kerry's promising to do away with the Color-Coded Dire Terror Alert
> Warning System, you know.

So you're saying that David Horowitz is correct about the American Left
being in league with Radical Islam?



Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:23:23 -0700

--------
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:18:21 -0400, Artemia Salina
wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:54:13 +0000, Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
>> Kerry's promising to do away with the Color-Coded Dire Terror Alert
>> Warning System, you know.
>
>So you're saying that David Horowitz is correct about the American Left
>being in league with Radical Islam?

Hell in a handbasket, I tell ya.


--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
You know how dumb the average guy is? Well by definition, half of them are
even dumber than that."
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs



Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:35:19 -0700

--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
> This guy says basically what I'd say if I
> weren't too tired to type it all out.
>

Personally, I look at it as too complex to fit
into the democrat-republican concept. For
example:

Israel has just launched a preemptive strike
against Iran. It told everybody it was going
to do it, unless Iran stopped trying to make
nukes. Iran has told everybody that they have
a right to have nukes so they aren't going to
stop. So Israel attacked them.

Assume Bush is still in office. What is he
going to do about it?

Assume Kerry has been elected and has taken
office. What is he going to do about it?

The bottom line is that it just doesn't *fit*
into the democratic-republican paradigm. What
either of them decide is their own decision.
At that point, their political party and its
doctrines become the dog's tail, no longer
directing their candidate or controlling what
they do.


--
"I can imagine a LOT when it comes
to unimaginable power."
-- nu-monet


Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:38:48 GMT

--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>>
>> This guy says basically what I'd say if I
>> weren't too tired to type it all out.
>
> Personally, I look at it as too complex to fit
> into the democrat-republican concept. For
> example:
>
> Israel has just launched a preemptive strike
> against Iran. It told everybody it was going
> to do it, unless Iran stopped trying to make
> nukes. Iran has told everybody that they have
> a right to have nukes so they aren't going to
> stop. So Israel attacked them.
>
> Assume Bush is still in office. What is he
> going to do about it?
>
> Assume Kerry has been elected and has taken
> office. What is he going to do about it?
>
> The bottom line is that it just doesn't *fit*
> into the democratic-republican paradigm. What
> either of them decide is their own decision.
> At that point, their political party and its
> doctrines become the dog's tail, no longer
> directing their candidate or controlling what
> they do.

Then why do *you* think Iran endorsed Bush-Cheney?


Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:51:26 -0700

--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
> Then why do *you* think Iran endorsed Bush-Cheney?

For the same reason the Saudis did. And
the Saudis said why. Money.

It is their longstanding policy to support
incumbants as being better for the oil market.
For this reason, before Bush II, the Saudis
were split between Gore, for continuity, and
the Texas oilman, for knowing the business;
but then supported Clinton's 2nd, then Bush I for
his 2nd-that-never-was, then Bush I as a hold over
from Reagan, then Reagan, then Carter, etc.

This may or may not be the "real" motive of
Iran, too, but could be.

All of that hot-bloodedness in the middle east,
even of the worst kind, is instantly forgotten
when *large* amounts of money are involved.
Plus there is the feeling that "the devil you
know is better than the devil you don't know."

And that idea is widespread far beyond the
middle east.

--
"Slaughter the Infidels!"
--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
"laughter the Infidels!"
--"Bob"


Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:56:29 GMT

--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>>
>> Then why do *you* think Iran endorsed Bush-Cheney?
>
> For the same reason the Saudis did. And
> the Saudis said why. Money.
>
> It is their longstanding policy to support
> incumbants as being better for the oil market.
> For this reason, before Bush II, the Saudis
> were split between Gore, for continuity, and
> the Texas oilman, for knowing the business;
> but then supported Clinton's 2nd, then Bush I for
> his 2nd-that-never-was, then Bush I as a hold over
> from Reagan, then Reagan, then Carter, etc.
>
> This may or may not be the "real" motive of
> Iran, too, but could be.
>
> All of that hot-bloodedness in the middle east,
> even of the worst kind, is instantly forgotten
> when *large* amounts of money are involved.
> Plus there is the feeling that "the devil you
> know is better than the devil you don't know."
>
> And that idea is widespread far beyond the
> middle east.

True.

The thing is, this is the first time in quite a while that they've made
any sort of public endorsement of an American presidential candidate.

I'll grant that the Common Dreams article had a whiff of paranoia to it,
but there's no denying Chalabi was passing American secrets to Tehran.


Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:56:50 -0700

--------
Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
> The thing is, this is the first time in
> quite a while that they've made any sort
> of public endorsement of an American
> presidential candidate.
>

Actually, I recall that some journalists make it
a point to ask "hostile" foreign leaders before
US elections. It's good for a cheap headline no
matter what they say. It's also a gimmee, because
*somebody* you can claim is an "unofficial gov't
source", with promise of anonymity and liquor,
will give you a good, quotable snarl.

Otherwise, I just stumbled on an item about Arab
nervousness about political change. They really
do get apprehensive when someone rocks the boat.

http://tinyurl.com/698bg


--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"

--Kino Beman, brand name


Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 15:58:34 -0500

--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> Cardinal Vertigo wrote:
>
>>The thing is, this is the first time in
>>quite a while that they've made any sort
>>of public endorsement of an American
>>presidential candidate.
>
> Actually, I recall that some journalists make it
> a point to ask "hostile" foreign leaders before
> US elections. It's good for a cheap headline no
> matter what they say.

Iran hasn't endorsed anyone in decades.

> It's also a gimmee, because
> *somebody* you can claim is an "unofficial gov't
> source", with promise of anonymity and liquor,
> will give you a good, quotable snarl.

The source is official, I believe.


Correspondent:: "Rev. Simian"
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:34:39 +0100

--------
In message <417D6892.400D@succeeds.com>, nu-monet v7.0
writes
>Otherwise, I just stumbled on an item about Arab nervousness about
>political change. They really do get apprehensive when someone rocks
>the boat.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/698bg

'Arab News' is a Saudi owned and controlled newspaper designed to
present a 'moderate' front to the outside world, or rather those who buy
their oil. So like you said, again it's about money.

I don't know if it's true that, as M. Moore claims, Saudi Arabia 'owns'
7% of Wall Street. If it is, that would seem to be a relevant factor
too.

--
Rev. Simian