is restraint about to end?

http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,560778,00.html

--- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,560778,00.html

Restraint was just temporary anyhow. The politicians in charge know
thay have to attack and kill someone, and do it succesfully if they
want to get elected next term. Make no mistake about it, the course of
this conflict will be, at least in small part, designed to win
elections. Same as it ever was.

John Starrett

John,

--- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> Make no mistake about it, the course of this conflict will be, at
> least in small part, designed to win elections.

You got it.

> Same as it ever was.

A phrase that is chilling, now.

Jon

In a message dated 9/30/01 2:00:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
jstarret@... writes:

>

More likely the present administration feels lucky that they got the election
at this particular time. You'd have to see (read: experience) the
devastation to change your opinion that this is only for the next elections.

Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/30/01 2:00:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jstarret@c... writes:
<snip>
> More likely the present administration feels lucky that they got the
> election at this particular time. You'd have to see (read:
> experience) the devastation to change your opinion that this is only
> for the next elections.
>
> Johnny Reinhard
<snip>

You misunderstood my post. I did not say only. If you think men in
these positions do not factor re-election into wartime decisions, you
are mistaken. I read a quote from a senior administration official
that we would have to engage in at least limited strikes to satisfy a
portion of the American public that was crying out for blood. If I can
find the article I will reference it. Remember the Vietnam war? Many
decisions were made with election and re-election in mind. Public
perception drove policy during the last years of the war.

John Starrett

I understood. I wrote "more likely" what they were thinking completely
overshadowed any issues of reelection. I do realize that there are different
responses from different people from all over the globe on this. From a
political point of view, this looks like same-old, same-old.

What I would add is that a war has been declared on U.S. interests, and
civilians. It has been going on for years and now is sophisticated enough to
have a global network. Using the Koran as a cover, Bin Laden has positioned
himself as the "ideal" Moslem to a significant number of people. With
intentions clear as of 9/11 I believe "benefit of the doubt" is the least we
should give as to the "whys" of what is going on. From 9/11 until the
present, there is more terrorism aimed at Central Asia, which adds to the
amount these people have already been suffering. There is a new appraisal of
what leads the individual, the state or the religion. Extremists have
recognized that religion can win out from those with little self-esteem,
trusting blindly to what religious leaders tell them. (sort of like music
critics telling readers what to believe, but with more sinister results)

Best, Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> I understood. I wrote "more likely" what they were thinking
> completely overshadowed any issues of reelection. I do realize
> that there are different responses from different people from all
> over the globe on this. From a political point of view, this looks
> like same-old, same-old.
<snip>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard

OK. I was responding in particular to the part where you said "You'd
have to see (read: experience) the devastation to change your opinion
that this is only for the next elections." I must have misunderstood
what you meant by "this".

John Starrett

In a message dated 9/30/01 2:12:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
jstarret@... writes:

> OK. I was responding in particular to the part where you said "You'd
> have to see (read: experience) the devastation to change your opinion
> that this is only for the next elections." I must have misunderstood
> what you meant by "this".
>
> John Starrett
>

> "This" is the prosecution of a war. If you lived in a war-zone, then you
> might feel differently. The ease with which the terrorists achieved their
> destruction...more like the Mongols under Ghengis Khan...foretell much more
> to come. This includes biological and chemical weapons, if only because it
> is all the better for terror. There is no time to spare, and thankfully,
> the world has responded favorably. Money has stopped moving toward the
> extremists (not an ideal term). Terror cells are being uncovered all over
> the globe. And for the FIRST time, the U.S. is a sheep ready for
> slaughter. Sorry, guys. This is a time that has not come before in our
> lifetimes. It's hard to recognize for this reason. Would anyone like to
> ?

Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
<snip>
> I must have misunderstood what you meant by "this".
<snip>

Thanks for the clarification, Johnny

John Starrett

--- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> >
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,560778,00.html
>
> Restraint was just temporary anyhow. The politicians in charge know
> thay have to attack and kill someone, and do it succesfully if they
> want to get elected next term. Make no mistake about it, the course
of
> this conflict will be, at least in small part, designed to win
> elections. Same as it ever was.
>
> John Starrett

John, are you the most honest Republican alive?

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@y..., "Rosati" <dante.interport@r...> wrote:
> > >
> http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,560778,00.html
> >
> > Restraint was just temporary anyhow. The politicians in charge
> > know they have to attack and kill someone, and do it succesfully
> > if they want to get elected next term. Make no mistake about it,
> > the course of this conflict will be, at least in small part,
> > designed to win elections. Same as it ever was.
> >
> > John Starrett
>
> John, are you the most honest Republican alive?

I don't get it. I am independent.

John Starrett

--- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> > John, are you the most honest Republican alive?
>
> I don't get it. I am independent.
>
> John Starrett

Sorry -- I thought you were a Republican because you provide a link
to the Republican party from your website.

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> > --- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > > John, are you the most honest Republican alive?
> >
> > I don't get it. I am independent.
> >
> > John Starrett
>
> Sorry -- I thought you were a Republican because you provide a link
> to the Republican party from your website.

I do? I will check, but I sure don't remember putting that up. Just
checked and can't find it. Are you kidding me?

John Starrett

--- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:

> I do? I will check, but I sure don't remember putting that up. Just
> checked and can't find it. Are you kidding me?
>
> John Starrett

I'm sure there used to be a "Republican Party" link under "Nerdy
Sites". But maybe your implication was that Republicans are nerdy? I
don't know . . . I just always assumed you were a Republican. That'll
show me!

--- In metatuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
>
> > I do? I will check, but I sure don't remember putting that up.
Just
> > checked and can't find it. Are you kidding me?
> >
> > John Starrett
>
> I'm sure there used to be a "Republican Party" link under "Nerdy
> Sites". But maybe your implication was that Republicans are nerdy? I
> don't know . . . I just always assumed you were a Republican.
> That'll show me!

You are right, but only because the site was nerdy. Well, actually it
was dweeby, but I did have a disclaimer. No offense taken, as some of
my best friends are Republican, and good people at the same time.
But for one brief shining moment, I was almost the most *something* in
the world. Wasn't even fifteen minutes, though.

John Starrett