Re: Joe Liebermans views...

while i question some of what he said, i do agree that there's something
wrong when people are so stubbornly grounded in their hatred for the
president that regardless of what he says, they make it their duty to say
or do the opposite. our current political polarism has profoundly weakened
our country. i think that, more than anything, would be our own downfall
if it's not corrected.

Maybe they are doing the opposite because the war in Iraq can't be won and

is destroying what little influence we have in the region.
Do you think that is a possibility, or must it be simple hatred for the
president.

"Geoff" <Geoff (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Maybe they are doing the opposite because the war in Iraq can't be won and
is destroying what little influence we have in the region.
Do you think that is a possibility, or must it be simple hatred for the
president.

Even if that were true... they never had a chance in Iraq. Democrats
immediately were pessimistic about the war and saying they supported the
troops was an over statement.

I recall one guy who said he wished for failure in Iraq because they didnt
support the war. The hardline democrats were immediately prepared to cause a
shift because they knew midterm elections were coming up.

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote

What about "state sponsors of terrorism"? Do they fall into the category
of enemies we should not "talk to"?


You mean like Syria and Iran - no, there is no point in talking to them.
They have made their position clear, made their choice, they are not about
changing their position, they already made this clear to the world.

Like China and NK, the only thing you will get is word games, to delay any
reaction, while they build against you.
Leythos

In that case, you need to write a little note to Lieberman and suggest that
if he wants to continue working in Washington, he should stay in touch with
what's happening in the real world. We are including Iran in "talks" yet
again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/wo...html?th&emc=th

BAGHDAD, April 29 - The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran
announced Sunday that it would attend a regional conference on Iraq later
this week, setting the stage for the first cabinet-level meeting between
Iran and the United States since the end of 2004.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:52:23 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote in message
news:1177937278_61705 (AT) sp6iad (DOT) superfeed.net...



What about "state sponsors of terrorism"? Do they fall into the category
of enemies we should not "talk to"?


You mean like Syria and Iran - no, there is no point in talking to them.
They have made their position clear, made their choice, they are not about
changing their position, they already made this clear to the world.

Like China and NK, the only thing you will get is word games, to delay any
reaction, while they build against you.
Leythos


In that case, you need to write a little note to Lieberman and suggest that
if he wants to continue working in Washington, he should stay in touch with
what's happening in the real world. We are including Iran in "talks" yet
again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/wo...html?th&emc=th

BAGHDAD, April 29 - The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran
announced Sunday that it would attend a regional conference on Iraq later
this week, setting the stage for the first cabinet-level meeting between
Iran and the United States since the end of 2004.

Did you miss the part about it won't lead to anything, that it's just
another delay tactic - if you follow all the meetings we've had, Iran, NK,
the leaders of those countries only use them as a delay tactic...

If we meet with them it's just a waste of time, everyone that is honest
knows that. I suppose we have to keep up the "Image" and meet with them,
but they've already said (Iran) that it's meaningless....

--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
spam999free (AT) rrohio (DOT) com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:52:23 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote in message
news:1177937278_61705 (AT) sp6iad (DOT) superfeed.net...



What about "state sponsors of terrorism"? Do they fall into the
category
of enemies we should not "talk to"?


You mean like Syria and Iran - no, there is no point in talking to them.
They have made their position clear, made their choice, they are not
about
changing their position, they already made this clear to the world.

Like China and NK, the only thing you will get is word games, to delay
any
reaction, while they build against you.
Leythos


In that case, you need to write a little note to Lieberman and suggest
that
if he wants to continue working in Washington, he should stay in touch
with
what's happening in the real world. We are including Iran in "talks" yet
again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/wo...html?th&emc=th

BAGHDAD, April 29 - The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of
Iran
announced Sunday that it would attend a regional conference on Iraq later
this week, setting the stage for the first cabinet-level meeting between
Iran and the United States since the end of 2004.

Did you miss the part about it won't lead to anything, that it's just
another delay tactic - if you follow all the meetings we've had, Iran, NK,
the leaders of those countries only use them as a delay tactic...

If we meet with them it's just a waste of time, everyone that is honest
knows that. I suppose we have to keep up the "Image" and meet with them,
but they've already said (Iran) that it's meaningless....
Leythos

I wonder why it seems to be working with N. Korea. What do your inside
sources tell you about that process?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:51:01 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote in message
news:1177940786_61939 (AT) sp6iad (DOT) superfeed.net...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:52:23 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote in message
news:1177937278_61705 (AT) sp6iad (DOT) superfeed.net...



What about "state sponsors of terrorism"? Do they fall into the
category
of enemies we should not "talk to"?


You mean like Syria and Iran - no, there is no point in talking to
them. They have made their position clear, made their choice, they
are not about
changing their position, they already made this clear to the world.

Like China and NK, the only thing you will get is word games, to
delay any
reaction, while they build against you. Leythos


In that case, you need to write a little note to Lieberman and suggest
that
if he wants to continue working in Washington, he should stay in touch
with
what's happening in the real world. We are including Iran in "talks"
yet again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/wo...html?th&emc=th

BAGHDAD, April 29 - The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of
Iran
announced Sunday that it would attend a regional conference on Iraq
later this week, setting the stage for the first cabinet-level meeting
between Iran and the United States since the end of 2004.

Did you miss the part about it won't lead to anything, that it's just
another delay tactic - if you follow all the meetings we've had, Iran,
NK, the leaders of those countries only use them as a delay tactic...

If we meet with them it's just a waste of time, everyone that is honest
knows that. I suppose we have to keep up the "Image" and meet with
them, but they've already said (Iran) that it's meaningless.... Leythos


I wonder why it seems to be working with N. Korea. What do your inside
sources tell you about that process?

Nothing is working - what productive thing has come from NK in the last
year?

--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
spam999free (AT) rrohio (DOT) com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:51:01 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote in message
news:1177940786_61939 (AT) sp6iad (DOT) superfeed.net...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:52:23 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote in message
news:1177937278_61705 (AT) sp6iad (DOT) superfeed.net...



What about "state sponsors of terrorism"? Do they fall into the
category
of enemies we should not "talk to"?


You mean like Syria and Iran - no, there is no point in talking to
them. They have made their position clear, made their choice, they
are not about
changing their position, they already made this clear to the world.

Like China and NK, the only thing you will get is word games, to
delay any
reaction, while they build against you. Leythos


In that case, you need to write a little note to Lieberman and suggest
that
if he wants to continue working in Washington, he should stay in touch
with
what's happening in the real world. We are including Iran in "talks"
yet again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/wo...html?th&emc=th

BAGHDAD, April 29 - The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of
Iran
announced Sunday that it would attend a regional conference on Iraq
later this week, setting the stage for the first cabinet-level meeting
between Iran and the United States since the end of 2004.

Did you miss the part about it won't lead to anything, that it's just
another delay tactic - if you follow all the meetings we've had, Iran,
NK, the leaders of those countries only use them as a delay tactic...

If we meet with them it's just a waste of time, everyone that is honest
knows that. I suppose we have to keep up the "Image" and meet with
them, but they've already said (Iran) that it's meaningless.... Leythos


I wonder why it seems to be working with N. Korea. What do your inside
sources tell you about that process?

Nothing is working - what productive thing has come from NK in the last
year?
Leythos

What are your 3 favorite news sources?

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:56:44 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

What are your 3 favorite news sources?

I have several paths for news, some I take with little value, others I
take with a good amount of value, and none of them I believe more than 50%
of the time.

I monitor CNN, Fox, BBC World News for the MSM (Main Stream Media) view.

I monitor radical faction sites for news related to specific groups.

I monitor a couple message boards related to intel.

The only news I put much faith in is that which I get 1'st person, from a
person that was there. I have family in the Military to give me 1st person
view from that area....

--
Leythos
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
spam999free (AT) rrohio (DOT) com (remove 999 for proper email address)

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:56:44 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

What are your 3 favorite news sources?

I have several paths for news, some I take with little value, others I
take with a good amount of value, and none of them I believe more than 50%
of the time.

I monitor CNN, Fox, BBC World News for the MSM (Main Stream Media) view.

I monitor radical faction sites for news related to specific groups.

I monitor a couple message boards related to intel.

The only news I put much faith in is that which I get 1'st person, from a
person that was there. I have family in the Military to give me 1st person
view from that area....
Leythos

If you only trust first person sources, that eliminates 99% of the
information available to you. Good luck. Hope the cave is comfortable.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:51:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
<dishborealis (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote in message
news:1177940786_61939 (AT) sp6iad (DOT) superfeed.net...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:52:23 +0000, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Leythos" <Void (AT) nowhere (DOT) lan> wrote in message
news:1177937278_61705 (AT) sp6iad (DOT) superfeed.net...



What about "state sponsors of terrorism"? Do they fall into the
category
of enemies we should not "talk to"?


You mean like Syria and Iran - no, there is no point in talking to them.
They have made their position clear, made their choice, they are not
about
changing their position, they already made this clear to the world.

Like China and NK, the only thing you will get is word games, to delay
any
reaction, while they build against you.
Leythos


In that case, you need to write a little note to Lieberman and suggest
that
if he wants to continue working in Washington, he should stay in touch
with
what's happening in the real world. We are including Iran in "talks" yet
again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/wo...html?th&emc=th

BAGHDAD, April 29 - The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of
Iran
announced Sunday that it would attend a regional conference on Iraq later
this week, setting the stage for the first cabinet-level meeting between
Iran and the United States since the end of 2004.

Did you miss the part about it won't lead to anything, that it's just
another delay tactic - if you follow all the meetings we've had, Iran, NK,
the leaders of those countries only use them as a delay tactic...

If we meet with them it's just a waste of time, everyone that is honest
knows that. I suppose we have to keep up the "Image" and meet with them,
but they've already said (Iran) that it's meaningless....
Leythos


I wonder why it seems to be working with N. Korea. What do your inside
sources tell you about that process?

It is NOT working with NK.....

The only reason they are 'talking' is we have cut off a big source of
money....




--

Scott in Florida