Discussion:
[Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 03:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Where Bush Got His Marching Orders to attack Iraq

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

["Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

["Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of
the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means
of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2000

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2000

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build
up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2000

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2000

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2000

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR
rbarreto
2004-10-27 10:28:05 UTC
Permalink
In short ,


Sen. John F. Kerry to win.


rene


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-27 18:31:14 UTC
Permalink
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.

Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.

This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.

Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.

The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.

Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-27 19:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Marlon: Are you suggesting that if Bush had handled the war/invasion of
Iraq (pick your term) in an "un-shabby" or more "competent" manner, then
you would have not have had a problem with his Presidency and his
politics?

Half-seriously, it's perhaps time for the rest of the globe to have a say
in the US elections, since the result has such far-reaching consequences
for all of us. Are you only looking at the impact on the US tax-payer?

You seem to suggest you would have been happier had the "allies" paid a
larger chunk of the war bill. But is this really the issue? Even if seen
only from a US perspective?

Do you see Republicanism as something different from Democrat politics, or
are these just two sides of the same coin? Would one necessarily have
different consequences for the planet?

In your concluding para (part of the text deleted for brevity), you seem
to suggest that India is a monolith, and that everyone views the US rather
uniformly from here. That this is untrue is clear from the fact that the
BJP was a pretty good ally of Bush, and vice versa. They seemed to
understand each other's conservatism. Since May 13, 2004, the equation has
changed, in part because people and parties like Bush and the BJP tend to
create a broad-based coalition of interests against what *they* stand
for. And I'm not talking about the politics of religion here. Had it not
been for the BJP in India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress
and the Communists in the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has
resulted in.

"Anti-Americanism" is a catchword that is insufficient to explain things.
I guess anyone sitting in the US, and getting the local media's view of
the world, would not appreciate the many issued involved. One doesn't need
to read Asterix comics to realise that the Romans weren't quite popular
in their days of Empire ;-) FN
Post by Marlon Menezes
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come....
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 21:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon Menezes" <marlon at goacom.com>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>; <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
##########################################################################
# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact goanet-admin at goanet.org #
# Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ #
# Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.
This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.
Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-27 19:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Marlon: Are you suggesting that if Bush had handled the war/invasion of
Iraq (pick your term) in an "un-shabby" or more "competent" manner, then
you would have not have had a problem with his Presidency and his
politics?

Half-seriously, it's perhaps time for the rest of the globe to have a say
in the US elections, since the result has such far-reaching consequences
for all of us. Are you only looking at the impact on the US tax-payer?

You seem to suggest you would have been happier had the "allies" paid a
larger chunk of the war bill. But is this really the issue? Even if seen
only from a US perspective?

Do you see Republicanism as something different from Democrat politics, or
are these just two sides of the same coin? Would one necessarily have
different consequences for the planet?

In your concluding para (part of the text deleted for brevity), you seem
to suggest that India is a monolith, and that everyone views the US rather
uniformly from here. That this is untrue is clear from the fact that the
BJP was a pretty good ally of Bush, and vice versa. They seemed to
understand each other's conservatism. Since May 13, 2004, the equation has
changed, in part because people and parties like Bush and the BJP tend to
create a broad-based coalition of interests against what *they* stand
for. And I'm not talking about the politics of religion here. Had it not
been for the BJP in India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress
and the Communists in the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has
resulted in.

"Anti-Americanism" is a catchword that is insufficient to explain things.
I guess anyone sitting in the US, and getting the local media's view of
the world, would not appreciate the many issued involved. One doesn't need
to read Asterix comics to realise that the Romans weren't quite popular
in their days of Empire ;-) FN
Post by Marlon Menezes
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come....
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 21:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon Menezes" <marlon at goacom.com>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>; <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
##########################################################################
# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact goanet-admin at goanet.org #
# Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ #
# Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.
This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.
Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-27 19:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Marlon: Are you suggesting that if Bush had handled the war/invasion of
Iraq (pick your term) in an "un-shabby" or more "competent" manner, then
you would have not have had a problem with his Presidency and his
politics?

Half-seriously, it's perhaps time for the rest of the globe to have a say
in the US elections, since the result has such far-reaching consequences
for all of us. Are you only looking at the impact on the US tax-payer?

You seem to suggest you would have been happier had the "allies" paid a
larger chunk of the war bill. But is this really the issue? Even if seen
only from a US perspective?

Do you see Republicanism as something different from Democrat politics, or
are these just two sides of the same coin? Would one necessarily have
different consequences for the planet?

In your concluding para (part of the text deleted for brevity), you seem
to suggest that India is a monolith, and that everyone views the US rather
uniformly from here. That this is untrue is clear from the fact that the
BJP was a pretty good ally of Bush, and vice versa. They seemed to
understand each other's conservatism. Since May 13, 2004, the equation has
changed, in part because people and parties like Bush and the BJP tend to
create a broad-based coalition of interests against what *they* stand
for. And I'm not talking about the politics of religion here. Had it not
been for the BJP in India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress
and the Communists in the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has
resulted in.

"Anti-Americanism" is a catchword that is insufficient to explain things.
I guess anyone sitting in the US, and getting the local media's view of
the world, would not appreciate the many issued involved. One doesn't need
to read Asterix comics to realise that the Romans weren't quite popular
in their days of Empire ;-) FN
Post by Marlon Menezes
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come....
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 21:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon Menezes" <marlon at goacom.com>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>; <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
##########################################################################
# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact goanet-admin at goanet.org #
# Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ #
# Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.
This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.
Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-27 19:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Marlon: Are you suggesting that if Bush had handled the war/invasion of
Iraq (pick your term) in an "un-shabby" or more "competent" manner, then
you would have not have had a problem with his Presidency and his
politics?

Half-seriously, it's perhaps time for the rest of the globe to have a say
in the US elections, since the result has such far-reaching consequences
for all of us. Are you only looking at the impact on the US tax-payer?

You seem to suggest you would have been happier had the "allies" paid a
larger chunk of the war bill. But is this really the issue? Even if seen
only from a US perspective?

Do you see Republicanism as something different from Democrat politics, or
are these just two sides of the same coin? Would one necessarily have
different consequences for the planet?

In your concluding para (part of the text deleted for brevity), you seem
to suggest that India is a monolith, and that everyone views the US rather
uniformly from here. That this is untrue is clear from the fact that the
BJP was a pretty good ally of Bush, and vice versa. They seemed to
understand each other's conservatism. Since May 13, 2004, the equation has
changed, in part because people and parties like Bush and the BJP tend to
create a broad-based coalition of interests against what *they* stand
for. And I'm not talking about the politics of religion here. Had it not
been for the BJP in India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress
and the Communists in the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has
resulted in.

"Anti-Americanism" is a catchword that is insufficient to explain things.
I guess anyone sitting in the US, and getting the local media's view of
the world, would not appreciate the many issued involved. One doesn't need
to read Asterix comics to realise that the Romans weren't quite popular
in their days of Empire ;-) FN
Post by Marlon Menezes
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come....
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 21:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon Menezes" <marlon at goacom.com>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>; <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
##########################################################################
# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact goanet-admin at goanet.org #
# Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ #
# Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.
This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.
Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-27 19:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Marlon: Are you suggesting that if Bush had handled the war/invasion of
Iraq (pick your term) in an "un-shabby" or more "competent" manner, then
you would have not have had a problem with his Presidency and his
politics?

Half-seriously, it's perhaps time for the rest of the globe to have a say
in the US elections, since the result has such far-reaching consequences
for all of us. Are you only looking at the impact on the US tax-payer?

You seem to suggest you would have been happier had the "allies" paid a
larger chunk of the war bill. But is this really the issue? Even if seen
only from a US perspective?

Do you see Republicanism as something different from Democrat politics, or
are these just two sides of the same coin? Would one necessarily have
different consequences for the planet?

In your concluding para (part of the text deleted for brevity), you seem
to suggest that India is a monolith, and that everyone views the US rather
uniformly from here. That this is untrue is clear from the fact that the
BJP was a pretty good ally of Bush, and vice versa. They seemed to
understand each other's conservatism. Since May 13, 2004, the equation has
changed, in part because people and parties like Bush and the BJP tend to
create a broad-based coalition of interests against what *they* stand
for. And I'm not talking about the politics of religion here. Had it not
been for the BJP in India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress
and the Communists in the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has
resulted in.

"Anti-Americanism" is a catchword that is insufficient to explain things.
I guess anyone sitting in the US, and getting the local media's view of
the world, would not appreciate the many issued involved. One doesn't need
to read Asterix comics to realise that the Romans weren't quite popular
in their days of Empire ;-) FN
Post by Marlon Menezes
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come....
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 21:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marlon Menezes" <marlon at goacom.com>
To: <goanet at goanet.org>; <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
##########################################################################
# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact goanet-admin at goanet.org #
# Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ #
# Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.
Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.
This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.
Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.
The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.
Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Tim de Mello
2004-10-28 02:21:38 UTC
Permalink
chrisvaz at verizon.net:

"We should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after
the technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade
with the pin pulled out."

By the same token we should not forget that Clinton inherited an economy
that was already devasted by the Bush Sr. but managed to turn it around in
four years.

Bush Jr. inherited a huge surplus (not a recession) - and yes there were
problems soon after he took over but he is no Clinton. Not even close. It
was just poor governance. Nobody called Clinton a "moron" or "stupid"
publicly. It is a very popular thing for the Republicans to dismiss eight
years of good governance because of a single personal misdeameanour in the
last few months of his presidency. I just feel sorry for all the Americans
who have lost their jobs because of this administration. A bad economy in
America negatively affects a large part of the world.

For those in India who may be not aware - being jobless in America is a very
miserable experience. Particularly in the cold months. For many the choice
is "to eat or to heat".

I hope the Americans do not vote Bush Jr. back into office.

Tim de Mello
timdemello2 at hotmail.com
CANADA

_________________________________________________________________
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft? SmartScreen
Technology.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 02:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marlon Menezes
The only positive with Bush from an Indian
perspective is that he has not spoken against
outsourcing. While this is painful for american
workers, it is great for India. It is not a
surprise therefore that most of India's
establishement supports Bush's relection.
Marlon,
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.


Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........







______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Bosco D'Mello
2004-10-28 03:20:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Oct 26 22:40:07 2004, "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR

RESPONSE: Chris......do I hear that familiar chant out of you.....4-more-years !
4-more-years ! 4-more-years ! 4-more-years !

It's less than a week.....electioneering has hit the crescendo !!

Best wishes - Bosco


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier mailing list is 10 years old
Mario Goveia
2004-10-28 03:21:47 UTC
Permalink
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and blind left-wing is truly
amazing.

1. They continue to say that we rushed to war with Iraq, whereas we waited for
12 long years while giving UN sanctions and 17 UN resolutions a chance to
work. Where were these ignorant critics while Saddam was brutalizing his own
people and thumbing his nose at the whole world and looting the oil-for-food
program, aided and abetted by the evil regimes in France, Russia and China,
who had apparently assured him that they would protect him with their UN
vetoes. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died as a result from a lack of
food and medicines, yet they shed crocodile tears for the 1100 brave American
who volunteered to shed their blood to liberate 50 million Afghans and
Iraqis. As usual, they give a pass to the glib, flim-flam artist who preceded
Bush, who was all talk and no action, failed to react to a series of attacks
against us, failed to apprehend Osama Bin Laden when he was offered up by the
Sudan, and succeeded only in emboldening Osama, leading directly to 9/11.

2. They continue to say that Iraq "had no WMDs" without the intellectual
integrity to ask what happened to the WMDs he admitted having in 1991 and has
never accounted for. This blindness requires a total ignorance of all the 16
UN resolutions on this topic since 1991, and of the 17th UN resolution 1441,
which threatened "serious consequences" not just continued sanctions, which
France, Russia and China were trying to eliminate.

4. They continue to praise John Kerry's "global test" with no cognizance of
the fact that Kerry failed his own global test when he voted against ejecting
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait met even Syria's criteria,
but not Kerry's. If he couldn't vote to defend an ally against an invasion,
when will he ever use force to defend anyone.

5. They continue to rail against the job losses in the US with no cognizance
of the recession that Bush inherited and the bursting of the phony dot.com
bubble, no cognizance of the CEO scandals that were germinating throughout the
Clinton 90's and were exposed and prosecuted under Bush, no recognition of the
economic losses caused by 9/11, all of which has been reversed by Bush in
record time. Had he not cut taxes when he did we would have had an economic
disaster on our hands by now.

5. And where are all the incredibly ignorant NRIs who seem completely blind to
the planned attack by John Kerry on free trade and outsourcing as a payoff to
his union supporters, all of which will severely impact emerging countries
like India. Kerry seems totally ignorant of the benefits to the US of
insourcing and talks of outsourcing as if it is a one-way street, showng his
callous disregard for the country as a whole.

6. Finally, think about two major national embarrassments if Kerry wins. One,
what kind of a message would it send to the Islamo-fascists, who will hail
this as a victory for their side. Second, imagine what a message it will send
to the world that the 44th US President (God forbid!) is a war hero - to the
Viet Cong, and has a special place of honor in the Ho Chi Minh War Museum for
his role in helping their cause.

Chris Vaz <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Santosh Helekar
2004-10-28 13:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and
blind left-wing is truly amazing.
Having read and heard ad nauseum mindless propaganda
such as the one posted above this past few weeks, both
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.

United States and the world have been seriously harmed
by the presidency of George W. Bush. It is frankly
hard to find a more incompetent, irresponsible and
unqualified president than this man in the entire
history of U.S.A. It would indeed be quite fitting if
he becomes the only unelected, one-term, failed U. S.
president. I hope on November the 2nd a convincing
majority of Americans bestows that dishonor on him.

Cheers,

Santosh
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-28 23:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.
Loony Left? Isn't that a figment of the imagination in the US? Ralph
Nader's not-quite-there-efforts notwithstanding.

I thought all politics in the US came in three variants -- Right, Far
Right, and Furthest Right. Much of what we hear as criticism of the
system seems to be anyway coming from people with a position right of
Genghis Khan ;-)

FN
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-28 23:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.
Loony Left? Isn't that a figment of the imagination in the US? Ralph
Nader's not-quite-there-efforts notwithstanding.

I thought all politics in the US came in three variants -- Right, Far
Right, and Furthest Right. Much of what we hear as criticism of the
system seems to be anyway coming from people with a position right of
Genghis Khan ;-)

FN
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-28 23:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.
Loony Left? Isn't that a figment of the imagination in the US? Ralph
Nader's not-quite-there-efforts notwithstanding.

I thought all politics in the US came in three variants -- Right, Far
Right, and Furthest Right. Much of what we hear as criticism of the
system seems to be anyway coming from people with a position right of
Genghis Khan ;-)

FN
Frederick Noronha(FN)
2004-10-28 23:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.
Loony Left? Isn't that a figment of the imagination in the US? Ralph
Nader's not-quite-there-efforts notwithstanding.

I thought all politics in the US came in three variants -- Right, Far
Right, and Furthest Right. Much of what we hear as criticism of the
system seems to be anyway coming from people with a position right of
Genghis Khan ;-)

FN
Ronald Albuquerque
2004-10-28 15:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Chris,

I completely disagree on the "Monday morning quarterbacking" comment.
Read Seymour Hersh's book 'Chain of Command'. It is really quite
frightening
what the administration chose to ignore.

Yes, after 9/11 things changed. However, "things changing" does not mean
that it is now OK to shoot from the hip, without completely thinking
through.

Unfortunately, that is what GWB and Co. did. And, spin aside - this was no
grand coalition.

If you look at what Bush's Dad did in 1991 - that was a GRAND coalition.
whether you
agree with that war or not, this fact is indisputable.

And let's not get started on W's economic "policies"...
The problem is that the GOP leadership has been taken over by right-wing
nuts.

I would LOVE to know why they suddenly dropped focus on al-Qaeda and
went after Saddam. It was like an obsession.

Again: go read Chain of Command.
Message: 12
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
To: <marlon at goacom.com>
Cc: <goanet at goanet.org>,
"Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>,
"Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:29:28 -0400
Organization: Premier
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
Marlon--
Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!
Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-28 20:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mervyn Lobo
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.
Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks
to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........
----
Mervyn,

Actually I do not have any issues with outsourcing. If
one can replace an overpaid worker with a cheaper, but
as efficient worker overseas, I believe it is the
right thing to do.

I would even go further and say that if one can get
cheaper, but as qualified labor from overseas,
employers should be given the right to import these
workers in order to replace their existing domestic
staff.

Kerry can BS as much as he wants to about protecting
US jobs. The fact is he cannot do much to stop
corporations from moving jobs overseas. Those of us
who live and work in the west are living in
potentially very turbulent economic times. With the
rise of a skilled and educated class of workers in the
developing world, there is no way we in the west can
continue to be complacent about the security of our
jobs. I guess if I were to lose my job, I'm heading to
a beach in Goa to enjoy an early retirement :)

Marlon
Neal Pinto
2004-10-28 23:23:46 UTC
Permalink
There's another choice in this year's elections:
http://www.badmash.org/dishoom.php

:)

Neal Pinto
pintomusic at gmail.com
http://www.pintomusic.com

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:31:19 -0700 (PDT), Marlon Menezes
<marlon at goacom.com> wrote:
Neal Pinto
2004-10-28 23:23:46 UTC
Permalink
There's another choice in this year's elections:
http://www.badmash.org/dishoom.php

:)

Neal Pinto
pintomusic at gmail.com
http://www.pintomusic.com

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:31:19 -0700 (PDT), Marlon Menezes
<marlon at goacom.com> wrote:
Neal Pinto
2004-10-28 23:23:46 UTC
Permalink
There's another choice in this year's elections:
http://www.badmash.org/dishoom.php

:)

Neal Pinto
pintomusic at gmail.com
http://www.pintomusic.com

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:31:19 -0700 (PDT), Marlon Menezes
<marlon at goacom.com> wrote:
Neal Pinto
2004-10-28 23:23:46 UTC
Permalink
There's another choice in this year's elections:
http://www.badmash.org/dishoom.php

:)

Neal Pinto
pintomusic at gmail.com
http://www.pintomusic.com

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:31:19 -0700 (PDT), Marlon Menezes
<marlon at goacom.com> wrote:
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 23:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
United States and the world have been seriously
harmed
by the presidency of George W. Bush. It is frankly
hard to find a more incompetent, irresponsible and
unqualified president than this man in the entire
history of U.S.A. It would indeed be quite fitting
if he becomes the only unelected, one-term, failed
U.S. president. I hope on November the 2nd a
convincing majority of Americans bestows that
dishonor on him.
Santosh,
What you are, perhaps, unable to see is that to his
backers, George W. as a fine Christian gentleman :-)

W. himself announced on TV that he "feels the prayers
of Americans."

There is an old saying in politics, "keep the message
so low that even goats can eat." Hey! if I needed to
get elected, I too would turn to the folks who are
easy to convince......

Mervyn2.0





______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 23:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marlon Menezes
Kerry can BS as much as he wants to about protecting
US jobs. The fact is he cannot do much to stop
corporations from moving jobs overseas. Those of us
who live and work in the west are living in
potentially very turbulent economic times. With the
rise of a skilled and educated class of workers in
the developing world, there is no way we in the
west can continue to be complacent about the
security of our jobs. I guess if I were to lose
my job, I'm heading to a beach in Goa to enjoy an
early retirement :)
Marlon,
The rest of the world has always had skilled and
educated people who were willing to work harder, for
less pay. Canada is a case in point.

The job outflow from the US went from a trickle to a
deluge when George W. and Co. passed laws that gave
huge tax breaks to companies exporting American jobs
:-) Just last week he passed another law giving the
multi-nationals further tax breaks. Hopefully, thats
the last law he passes.

Mervyn2.0
BTW, last month when I was in San Jose, I saw a bumper
sticker that said "Four more years for Bush. Four in
the State House and four in the State Penitentiary."















______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Gabriel de Figueiredo
2004-10-29 05:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Regarding outsourcing or Offshoring, here is an
interesting article from devx...

The typical programmer wears clothes made in Honduras.
He drives to work in a Korean car while he sips
Mexican coffee. He sits down at his Chinese-made desk,
and turns on his laptop that was assembled in
Indonesia with parts from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore,
Brazil, and a dozen other countries. Nearly every
second of his day, some product manufactured in some
other country makes his life easier or more agreeable
and his lifestyle more affordable. And all the while,
his 401k hums away inaudibly, growing in fits and
starts with the profits of a global marketplace.
He seems like a nice enough guy. Then he opens his
mouth and complains about the Indians and the Russians
and the Vietnamese and the Philippinos, all bent, it
seems, on taking American jobs.

My anonymous programmer is grumbling about
offshoring?or offshore outsourcing?of programming and
IT jobs. There's so much fear of outsourcing within
the software and IT community that we're losing our
good sense. And just for the record, I'm not an
economist; I'm a programmer. I've been laid off
before, and I know that it sucks. But I'm also a
shareholder and a consumer; you probably are too.

This will be a tough crowd, I know. Last week, DevX
Executive Editor Russell Jones wrote a commentary
"Offshoring: It's Not Too Late to Change," which
accurately reflects many of the issues, fears, and
concerns of the anti-offshoring faction. Reading it, I
was reminded of a commentary I wrote several weeks ago
that only just touched on outsourcing. In response, I
received a slew of misinformed emails from irate
programmers criticizing my failure to unambiguously
condemn outsourcing, offshoring, and developing
nations in general.

Well, I won't. In fact, I believe the opposite: The
available evidence indicates that offshoring creates
American wealth while giving a leg up to some of the
most desperately poor countries on earth, creating new
markets and more American jobs in the process. But I
suspect that you already know that. You might even
call yourself a "fiscal conservative" (that seems to
be a popular identification among programmers) but
you're hoping for some kind of special exception for
you own industry.

Connect to http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/22284
if you wish to read more...

Cheers,

Gabriel.

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Sachin Phadte
2004-10-29 05:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Fred makes an interesting observation: "Had it not been for the BJP in
India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress and the Communists in
the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has resulted in."

A few points. Is the unthinkable good for the nation? If yes, how is it
that the two are fighting against each other in West Bengal, Tripura and
Kerala?

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Strike the perfect match on BharatMatrimony.com.
http://www.bharatmatrimony.com/cgi-bin/bmclicks1.cgi?74 Join FREE
Alfred de Tavares
2004-10-29 17:17:33 UTC
Permalink
From: "Frederick Noronha(FN)" <fredericknoronha at vsnl.net>
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
To: goanet at goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet]Re: A Must Read before you Vote
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:40:04 +0530 (IST)
Post by Santosh Helekar
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.
Loony Left? Isn't that a figment of the imagination in the US? Ralph
Nader's not-quite-there-efforts notwithstanding.
I thought all politics in the US came in three variants -- Right, Far
Right, and Furthest Right. Much of what we hear as criticism of the system
seems to be anyway coming from people with a position right of Genghis Khan
;-)
FN
Rico,

I feel old Santosh has used the term affectionately: I don't believe he
hates himself, you or I.
AT

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.com/
Peter D'Souza
2004-10-29 21:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Marlon Menezes <marlon at goacom.com> wrote:

The anti-science stance of [the Bush] adminstration is well established.

Huh? They've spent more money on stem-cell research than, say, Bill
Clinton did. They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research, and
have been talking about space travel to Mars, continuing the space
shuttle program (despite much popular opposition). You must be getting
your news from Dan it's-fake-but-true Rather.

Sincerely,
Peter D'Souza
George Pinto
2004-10-29 23:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Instead of the Republican propaganda machine and smear campaign, for real news about Bush's
"science" from Nobel Prize scientists, see links below.

Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381

Scientists horrified by Bush's Bad Science
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/

John Ashcroft believes dancing is sinful, other nuts in the Bush administration don't want
evolution taught in schools. Imagine what the science curriculum would like look if they had
their way - it would look like the RSS's idea of education!

Regards,
George
Post by Peter D'Souza
They've spent more money on stem-cell research than, say, Bill
Clinton did. They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research, and
have been talking about space travel to Mars, continuing the space
shuttle program (despite much popular opposition). You must be getting
your news from Dan it's-fake-but-true Rather.
Sincerely,
Peter D'Souza
Santosh Helekar
2004-10-30 04:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D'Souza
Huh? They've spent more money on stem-cell research
than, say, Bill Clinton did.
The above statement is misleading. The technology
needed for embryonic stem cell research was not fully
developed until the very end of the Clinton
presidency. Bush has done diddly squat for it. He is
still lying that he is funding research on 60 already
existing stem cell lines, which even if true, would be
laughably inadequate besides being deceptive. The
truth is that these are actually 12 worthless cell
lines that are horribly contaminated with mouse cells
and mouse genes.
Post by Peter D'Souza
They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research,
and have been talking about space travel to Mars,
continuing the space shuttle program (despite much
popular opposition).
Nonsense on all counts. AIDS and cancer research
funding increase was due to the customary yearly
increase in the annual budget of the National
Institutes of Health. Such increases happened under
every President since Nixon (cancer) and Reagan
(AIDS).

Bush's promise to give 15 million dollars for
eliminating AIDS in Africa has not yet been fully met.


The Mars space mission announcement was a photo
opportunity which took advantage of NASA's preplanned
long-term agenda. The wisdom of continuing the space
shuttle program in its current form has actually been
questioned by many prominent scientists. It is hardly
a statement of support for science.

I was about to post the Union of Concerned Scientists'
major indictment of the Bush misadministration's
science policy when I saw George's post on the
subject. Thanks, George. That statement says it all.

In fact, a couple of weeks back one of the world's
most prestigious scientific journals - Science -
devoted their cover page and several prominent pages
to highlight the significance of this year's
presidential election to the future of science.

Folks, a vote for Bush is a vote for anti-science.

Cheers,

Santosh
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 03:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Where Bush Got His Marching Orders to attack Iraq

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

["Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

["Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of
the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means
of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2000

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2000

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build
up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2000

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2000

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2000

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR
rbarreto
2004-10-27 10:28:05 UTC
Permalink
In short ,


Sen. John F. Kerry to win.


rene


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-27 18:31:14 UTC
Permalink
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.

Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.

This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.

Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.

The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.

Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Tim de Mello
2004-10-28 02:21:38 UTC
Permalink
chrisvaz at verizon.net:

"We should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after
the technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade
with the pin pulled out."

By the same token we should not forget that Clinton inherited an economy
that was already devasted by the Bush Sr. but managed to turn it around in
four years.

Bush Jr. inherited a huge surplus (not a recession) - and yes there were
problems soon after he took over but he is no Clinton. Not even close. It
was just poor governance. Nobody called Clinton a "moron" or "stupid"
publicly. It is a very popular thing for the Republicans to dismiss eight
years of good governance because of a single personal misdeameanour in the
last few months of his presidency. I just feel sorry for all the Americans
who have lost their jobs because of this administration. A bad economy in
America negatively affects a large part of the world.

For those in India who may be not aware - being jobless in America is a very
miserable experience. Particularly in the cold months. For many the choice
is "to eat or to heat".

I hope the Americans do not vote Bush Jr. back into office.

Tim de Mello
timdemello2 at hotmail.com
CANADA

_________________________________________________________________
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft? SmartScreen
Technology.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 02:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marlon Menezes
The only positive with Bush from an Indian
perspective is that he has not spoken against
outsourcing. While this is painful for american
workers, it is great for India. It is not a
surprise therefore that most of India's
establishement supports Bush's relection.
Marlon,
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.


Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........







______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Bosco D'Mello
2004-10-28 03:20:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Oct 26 22:40:07 2004, "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR

RESPONSE: Chris......do I hear that familiar chant out of you.....4-more-years !
4-more-years ! 4-more-years ! 4-more-years !

It's less than a week.....electioneering has hit the crescendo !!

Best wishes - Bosco


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier mailing list is 10 years old
Mario Goveia
2004-10-28 03:21:47 UTC
Permalink
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and blind left-wing is truly
amazing.

1. They continue to say that we rushed to war with Iraq, whereas we waited for
12 long years while giving UN sanctions and 17 UN resolutions a chance to
work. Where were these ignorant critics while Saddam was brutalizing his own
people and thumbing his nose at the whole world and looting the oil-for-food
program, aided and abetted by the evil regimes in France, Russia and China,
who had apparently assured him that they would protect him with their UN
vetoes. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died as a result from a lack of
food and medicines, yet they shed crocodile tears for the 1100 brave American
who volunteered to shed their blood to liberate 50 million Afghans and
Iraqis. As usual, they give a pass to the glib, flim-flam artist who preceded
Bush, who was all talk and no action, failed to react to a series of attacks
against us, failed to apprehend Osama Bin Laden when he was offered up by the
Sudan, and succeeded only in emboldening Osama, leading directly to 9/11.

2. They continue to say that Iraq "had no WMDs" without the intellectual
integrity to ask what happened to the WMDs he admitted having in 1991 and has
never accounted for. This blindness requires a total ignorance of all the 16
UN resolutions on this topic since 1991, and of the 17th UN resolution 1441,
which threatened "serious consequences" not just continued sanctions, which
France, Russia and China were trying to eliminate.

4. They continue to praise John Kerry's "global test" with no cognizance of
the fact that Kerry failed his own global test when he voted against ejecting
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait met even Syria's criteria,
but not Kerry's. If he couldn't vote to defend an ally against an invasion,
when will he ever use force to defend anyone.

5. They continue to rail against the job losses in the US with no cognizance
of the recession that Bush inherited and the bursting of the phony dot.com
bubble, no cognizance of the CEO scandals that were germinating throughout the
Clinton 90's and were exposed and prosecuted under Bush, no recognition of the
economic losses caused by 9/11, all of which has been reversed by Bush in
record time. Had he not cut taxes when he did we would have had an economic
disaster on our hands by now.

5. And where are all the incredibly ignorant NRIs who seem completely blind to
the planned attack by John Kerry on free trade and outsourcing as a payoff to
his union supporters, all of which will severely impact emerging countries
like India. Kerry seems totally ignorant of the benefits to the US of
insourcing and talks of outsourcing as if it is a one-way street, showng his
callous disregard for the country as a whole.

6. Finally, think about two major national embarrassments if Kerry wins. One,
what kind of a message would it send to the Islamo-fascists, who will hail
this as a victory for their side. Second, imagine what a message it will send
to the world that the 44th US President (God forbid!) is a war hero - to the
Viet Cong, and has a special place of honor in the Ho Chi Minh War Museum for
his role in helping their cause.

Chris Vaz <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Santosh Helekar
2004-10-28 13:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and
blind left-wing is truly amazing.
Having read and heard ad nauseum mindless propaganda
such as the one posted above this past few weeks, both
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.

United States and the world have been seriously harmed
by the presidency of George W. Bush. It is frankly
hard to find a more incompetent, irresponsible and
unqualified president than this man in the entire
history of U.S.A. It would indeed be quite fitting if
he becomes the only unelected, one-term, failed U. S.
president. I hope on November the 2nd a convincing
majority of Americans bestows that dishonor on him.

Cheers,

Santosh
Ronald Albuquerque
2004-10-28 15:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Chris,

I completely disagree on the "Monday morning quarterbacking" comment.
Read Seymour Hersh's book 'Chain of Command'. It is really quite
frightening
what the administration chose to ignore.

Yes, after 9/11 things changed. However, "things changing" does not mean
that it is now OK to shoot from the hip, without completely thinking
through.

Unfortunately, that is what GWB and Co. did. And, spin aside - this was no
grand coalition.

If you look at what Bush's Dad did in 1991 - that was a GRAND coalition.
whether you
agree with that war or not, this fact is indisputable.

And let's not get started on W's economic "policies"...
The problem is that the GOP leadership has been taken over by right-wing
nuts.

I would LOVE to know why they suddenly dropped focus on al-Qaeda and
went after Saddam. It was like an obsession.

Again: go read Chain of Command.
Message: 12
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
To: <marlon at goacom.com>
Cc: <goanet at goanet.org>,
"Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>,
"Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:29:28 -0400
Organization: Premier
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
Marlon--
Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!
Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-28 20:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mervyn Lobo
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.
Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks
to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........
----
Mervyn,

Actually I do not have any issues with outsourcing. If
one can replace an overpaid worker with a cheaper, but
as efficient worker overseas, I believe it is the
right thing to do.

I would even go further and say that if one can get
cheaper, but as qualified labor from overseas,
employers should be given the right to import these
workers in order to replace their existing domestic
staff.

Kerry can BS as much as he wants to about protecting
US jobs. The fact is he cannot do much to stop
corporations from moving jobs overseas. Those of us
who live and work in the west are living in
potentially very turbulent economic times. With the
rise of a skilled and educated class of workers in the
developing world, there is no way we in the west can
continue to be complacent about the security of our
jobs. I guess if I were to lose my job, I'm heading to
a beach in Goa to enjoy an early retirement :)

Marlon
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 23:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
United States and the world have been seriously
harmed
by the presidency of George W. Bush. It is frankly
hard to find a more incompetent, irresponsible and
unqualified president than this man in the entire
history of U.S.A. It would indeed be quite fitting
if he becomes the only unelected, one-term, failed
U.S. president. I hope on November the 2nd a
convincing majority of Americans bestows that
dishonor on him.
Santosh,
What you are, perhaps, unable to see is that to his
backers, George W. as a fine Christian gentleman :-)

W. himself announced on TV that he "feels the prayers
of Americans."

There is an old saying in politics, "keep the message
so low that even goats can eat." Hey! if I needed to
get elected, I too would turn to the folks who are
easy to convince......

Mervyn2.0





______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 23:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marlon Menezes
Kerry can BS as much as he wants to about protecting
US jobs. The fact is he cannot do much to stop
corporations from moving jobs overseas. Those of us
who live and work in the west are living in
potentially very turbulent economic times. With the
rise of a skilled and educated class of workers in
the developing world, there is no way we in the
west can continue to be complacent about the
security of our jobs. I guess if I were to lose
my job, I'm heading to a beach in Goa to enjoy an
early retirement :)
Marlon,
The rest of the world has always had skilled and
educated people who were willing to work harder, for
less pay. Canada is a case in point.

The job outflow from the US went from a trickle to a
deluge when George W. and Co. passed laws that gave
huge tax breaks to companies exporting American jobs
:-) Just last week he passed another law giving the
multi-nationals further tax breaks. Hopefully, thats
the last law he passes.

Mervyn2.0
BTW, last month when I was in San Jose, I saw a bumper
sticker that said "Four more years for Bush. Four in
the State House and four in the State Penitentiary."















______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Gabriel de Figueiredo
2004-10-29 05:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Regarding outsourcing or Offshoring, here is an
interesting article from devx...

The typical programmer wears clothes made in Honduras.
He drives to work in a Korean car while he sips
Mexican coffee. He sits down at his Chinese-made desk,
and turns on his laptop that was assembled in
Indonesia with parts from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore,
Brazil, and a dozen other countries. Nearly every
second of his day, some product manufactured in some
other country makes his life easier or more agreeable
and his lifestyle more affordable. And all the while,
his 401k hums away inaudibly, growing in fits and
starts with the profits of a global marketplace.
He seems like a nice enough guy. Then he opens his
mouth and complains about the Indians and the Russians
and the Vietnamese and the Philippinos, all bent, it
seems, on taking American jobs.

My anonymous programmer is grumbling about
offshoring?or offshore outsourcing?of programming and
IT jobs. There's so much fear of outsourcing within
the software and IT community that we're losing our
good sense. And just for the record, I'm not an
economist; I'm a programmer. I've been laid off
before, and I know that it sucks. But I'm also a
shareholder and a consumer; you probably are too.

This will be a tough crowd, I know. Last week, DevX
Executive Editor Russell Jones wrote a commentary
"Offshoring: It's Not Too Late to Change," which
accurately reflects many of the issues, fears, and
concerns of the anti-offshoring faction. Reading it, I
was reminded of a commentary I wrote several weeks ago
that only just touched on outsourcing. In response, I
received a slew of misinformed emails from irate
programmers criticizing my failure to unambiguously
condemn outsourcing, offshoring, and developing
nations in general.

Well, I won't. In fact, I believe the opposite: The
available evidence indicates that offshoring creates
American wealth while giving a leg up to some of the
most desperately poor countries on earth, creating new
markets and more American jobs in the process. But I
suspect that you already know that. You might even
call yourself a "fiscal conservative" (that seems to
be a popular identification among programmers) but
you're hoping for some kind of special exception for
you own industry.

Connect to http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/22284
if you wish to read more...

Cheers,

Gabriel.

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Sachin Phadte
2004-10-29 05:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Fred makes an interesting observation: "Had it not been for the BJP in
India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress and the Communists in
the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has resulted in."

A few points. Is the unthinkable good for the nation? If yes, how is it
that the two are fighting against each other in West Bengal, Tripura and
Kerala?

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Strike the perfect match on BharatMatrimony.com.
http://www.bharatmatrimony.com/cgi-bin/bmclicks1.cgi?74 Join FREE
Alfred de Tavares
2004-10-29 17:17:33 UTC
Permalink
From: "Frederick Noronha(FN)" <fredericknoronha at vsnl.net>
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
To: goanet at goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet]Re: A Must Read before you Vote
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:40:04 +0530 (IST)
Post by Santosh Helekar
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.
Loony Left? Isn't that a figment of the imagination in the US? Ralph
Nader's not-quite-there-efforts notwithstanding.
I thought all politics in the US came in three variants -- Right, Far
Right, and Furthest Right. Much of what we hear as criticism of the system
seems to be anyway coming from people with a position right of Genghis Khan
;-)
FN
Rico,

I feel old Santosh has used the term affectionately: I don't believe he
hates himself, you or I.
AT

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.com/
Peter D'Souza
2004-10-29 21:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Marlon Menezes <marlon at goacom.com> wrote:

The anti-science stance of [the Bush] adminstration is well established.

Huh? They've spent more money on stem-cell research than, say, Bill
Clinton did. They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research, and
have been talking about space travel to Mars, continuing the space
shuttle program (despite much popular opposition). You must be getting
your news from Dan it's-fake-but-true Rather.

Sincerely,
Peter D'Souza
George Pinto
2004-10-29 23:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Instead of the Republican propaganda machine and smear campaign, for real news about Bush's
"science" from Nobel Prize scientists, see links below.

Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381

Scientists horrified by Bush's Bad Science
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/

John Ashcroft believes dancing is sinful, other nuts in the Bush administration don't want
evolution taught in schools. Imagine what the science curriculum would like look if they had
their way - it would look like the RSS's idea of education!

Regards,
George
Post by Peter D'Souza
They've spent more money on stem-cell research than, say, Bill
Clinton did. They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research, and
have been talking about space travel to Mars, continuing the space
shuttle program (despite much popular opposition). You must be getting
your news from Dan it's-fake-but-true Rather.
Sincerely,
Peter D'Souza
Santosh Helekar
2004-10-30 04:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D'Souza
Huh? They've spent more money on stem-cell research
than, say, Bill Clinton did.
The above statement is misleading. The technology
needed for embryonic stem cell research was not fully
developed until the very end of the Clinton
presidency. Bush has done diddly squat for it. He is
still lying that he is funding research on 60 already
existing stem cell lines, which even if true, would be
laughably inadequate besides being deceptive. The
truth is that these are actually 12 worthless cell
lines that are horribly contaminated with mouse cells
and mouse genes.
Post by Peter D'Souza
They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research,
and have been talking about space travel to Mars,
continuing the space shuttle program (despite much
popular opposition).
Nonsense on all counts. AIDS and cancer research
funding increase was due to the customary yearly
increase in the annual budget of the National
Institutes of Health. Such increases happened under
every President since Nixon (cancer) and Reagan
(AIDS).

Bush's promise to give 15 million dollars for
eliminating AIDS in Africa has not yet been fully met.


The Mars space mission announcement was a photo
opportunity which took advantage of NASA's preplanned
long-term agenda. The wisdom of continuing the space
shuttle program in its current form has actually been
questioned by many prominent scientists. It is hardly
a statement of support for science.

I was about to post the Union of Concerned Scientists'
major indictment of the Bush misadministration's
science policy when I saw George's post on the
subject. Thanks, George. That statement says it all.

In fact, a couple of weeks back one of the world's
most prestigious scientific journals - Science -
devoted their cover page and several prominent pages
to highlight the significance of this year's
presidential election to the future of science.

Folks, a vote for Bush is a vote for anti-science.

Cheers,

Santosh
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 03:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Where Bush Got His Marching Orders to attack Iraq

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

["Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

["Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of
the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means
of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2000

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2000

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build
up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2000

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2000

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2000

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR
rbarreto
2004-10-27 10:28:05 UTC
Permalink
In short ,


Sen. John F. Kerry to win.


rene


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-27 18:31:14 UTC
Permalink
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.

Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.

This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.

Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.

The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.

Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Tim de Mello
2004-10-28 02:21:38 UTC
Permalink
chrisvaz at verizon.net:

"We should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after
the technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade
with the pin pulled out."

By the same token we should not forget that Clinton inherited an economy
that was already devasted by the Bush Sr. but managed to turn it around in
four years.

Bush Jr. inherited a huge surplus (not a recession) - and yes there were
problems soon after he took over but he is no Clinton. Not even close. It
was just poor governance. Nobody called Clinton a "moron" or "stupid"
publicly. It is a very popular thing for the Republicans to dismiss eight
years of good governance because of a single personal misdeameanour in the
last few months of his presidency. I just feel sorry for all the Americans
who have lost their jobs because of this administration. A bad economy in
America negatively affects a large part of the world.

For those in India who may be not aware - being jobless in America is a very
miserable experience. Particularly in the cold months. For many the choice
is "to eat or to heat".

I hope the Americans do not vote Bush Jr. back into office.

Tim de Mello
timdemello2 at hotmail.com
CANADA

_________________________________________________________________
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft? SmartScreen
Technology.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 02:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marlon Menezes
The only positive with Bush from an Indian
perspective is that he has not spoken against
outsourcing. While this is painful for american
workers, it is great for India. It is not a
surprise therefore that most of India's
establishement supports Bush's relection.
Marlon,
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.


Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........







______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Bosco D'Mello
2004-10-28 03:20:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Oct 26 22:40:07 2004, "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR

RESPONSE: Chris......do I hear that familiar chant out of you.....4-more-years !
4-more-years ! 4-more-years ! 4-more-years !

It's less than a week.....electioneering has hit the crescendo !!

Best wishes - Bosco


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier mailing list is 10 years old
Mario Goveia
2004-10-28 03:21:47 UTC
Permalink
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and blind left-wing is truly
amazing.

1. They continue to say that we rushed to war with Iraq, whereas we waited for
12 long years while giving UN sanctions and 17 UN resolutions a chance to
work. Where were these ignorant critics while Saddam was brutalizing his own
people and thumbing his nose at the whole world and looting the oil-for-food
program, aided and abetted by the evil regimes in France, Russia and China,
who had apparently assured him that they would protect him with their UN
vetoes. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died as a result from a lack of
food and medicines, yet they shed crocodile tears for the 1100 brave American
who volunteered to shed their blood to liberate 50 million Afghans and
Iraqis. As usual, they give a pass to the glib, flim-flam artist who preceded
Bush, who was all talk and no action, failed to react to a series of attacks
against us, failed to apprehend Osama Bin Laden when he was offered up by the
Sudan, and succeeded only in emboldening Osama, leading directly to 9/11.

2. They continue to say that Iraq "had no WMDs" without the intellectual
integrity to ask what happened to the WMDs he admitted having in 1991 and has
never accounted for. This blindness requires a total ignorance of all the 16
UN resolutions on this topic since 1991, and of the 17th UN resolution 1441,
which threatened "serious consequences" not just continued sanctions, which
France, Russia and China were trying to eliminate.

4. They continue to praise John Kerry's "global test" with no cognizance of
the fact that Kerry failed his own global test when he voted against ejecting
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait met even Syria's criteria,
but not Kerry's. If he couldn't vote to defend an ally against an invasion,
when will he ever use force to defend anyone.

5. They continue to rail against the job losses in the US with no cognizance
of the recession that Bush inherited and the bursting of the phony dot.com
bubble, no cognizance of the CEO scandals that were germinating throughout the
Clinton 90's and were exposed and prosecuted under Bush, no recognition of the
economic losses caused by 9/11, all of which has been reversed by Bush in
record time. Had he not cut taxes when he did we would have had an economic
disaster on our hands by now.

5. And where are all the incredibly ignorant NRIs who seem completely blind to
the planned attack by John Kerry on free trade and outsourcing as a payoff to
his union supporters, all of which will severely impact emerging countries
like India. Kerry seems totally ignorant of the benefits to the US of
insourcing and talks of outsourcing as if it is a one-way street, showng his
callous disregard for the country as a whole.

6. Finally, think about two major national embarrassments if Kerry wins. One,
what kind of a message would it send to the Islamo-fascists, who will hail
this as a victory for their side. Second, imagine what a message it will send
to the world that the 44th US President (God forbid!) is a war hero - to the
Viet Cong, and has a special place of honor in the Ho Chi Minh War Museum for
his role in helping their cause.

Chris Vaz <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Santosh Helekar
2004-10-28 13:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and
blind left-wing is truly amazing.
Having read and heard ad nauseum mindless propaganda
such as the one posted above this past few weeks, both
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.

United States and the world have been seriously harmed
by the presidency of George W. Bush. It is frankly
hard to find a more incompetent, irresponsible and
unqualified president than this man in the entire
history of U.S.A. It would indeed be quite fitting if
he becomes the only unelected, one-term, failed U. S.
president. I hope on November the 2nd a convincing
majority of Americans bestows that dishonor on him.

Cheers,

Santosh
Ronald Albuquerque
2004-10-28 15:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Chris,

I completely disagree on the "Monday morning quarterbacking" comment.
Read Seymour Hersh's book 'Chain of Command'. It is really quite
frightening
what the administration chose to ignore.

Yes, after 9/11 things changed. However, "things changing" does not mean
that it is now OK to shoot from the hip, without completely thinking
through.

Unfortunately, that is what GWB and Co. did. And, spin aside - this was no
grand coalition.

If you look at what Bush's Dad did in 1991 - that was a GRAND coalition.
whether you
agree with that war or not, this fact is indisputable.

And let's not get started on W's economic "policies"...
The problem is that the GOP leadership has been taken over by right-wing
nuts.

I would LOVE to know why they suddenly dropped focus on al-Qaeda and
went after Saddam. It was like an obsession.

Again: go read Chain of Command.
Message: 12
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
To: <marlon at goacom.com>
Cc: <goanet at goanet.org>,
"Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>,
"Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:29:28 -0400
Organization: Premier
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
Marlon--
Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!
Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-28 20:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mervyn Lobo
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.
Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks
to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........
----
Mervyn,

Actually I do not have any issues with outsourcing. If
one can replace an overpaid worker with a cheaper, but
as efficient worker overseas, I believe it is the
right thing to do.

I would even go further and say that if one can get
cheaper, but as qualified labor from overseas,
employers should be given the right to import these
workers in order to replace their existing domestic
staff.

Kerry can BS as much as he wants to about protecting
US jobs. The fact is he cannot do much to stop
corporations from moving jobs overseas. Those of us
who live and work in the west are living in
potentially very turbulent economic times. With the
rise of a skilled and educated class of workers in the
developing world, there is no way we in the west can
continue to be complacent about the security of our
jobs. I guess if I were to lose my job, I'm heading to
a beach in Goa to enjoy an early retirement :)

Marlon
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 23:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
United States and the world have been seriously
harmed
by the presidency of George W. Bush. It is frankly
hard to find a more incompetent, irresponsible and
unqualified president than this man in the entire
history of U.S.A. It would indeed be quite fitting
if he becomes the only unelected, one-term, failed
U.S. president. I hope on November the 2nd a
convincing majority of Americans bestows that
dishonor on him.
Santosh,
What you are, perhaps, unable to see is that to his
backers, George W. as a fine Christian gentleman :-)

W. himself announced on TV that he "feels the prayers
of Americans."

There is an old saying in politics, "keep the message
so low that even goats can eat." Hey! if I needed to
get elected, I too would turn to the folks who are
easy to convince......

Mervyn2.0





______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 23:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marlon Menezes
Kerry can BS as much as he wants to about protecting
US jobs. The fact is he cannot do much to stop
corporations from moving jobs overseas. Those of us
who live and work in the west are living in
potentially very turbulent economic times. With the
rise of a skilled and educated class of workers in
the developing world, there is no way we in the
west can continue to be complacent about the
security of our jobs. I guess if I were to lose
my job, I'm heading to a beach in Goa to enjoy an
early retirement :)
Marlon,
The rest of the world has always had skilled and
educated people who were willing to work harder, for
less pay. Canada is a case in point.

The job outflow from the US went from a trickle to a
deluge when George W. and Co. passed laws that gave
huge tax breaks to companies exporting American jobs
:-) Just last week he passed another law giving the
multi-nationals further tax breaks. Hopefully, thats
the last law he passes.

Mervyn2.0
BTW, last month when I was in San Jose, I saw a bumper
sticker that said "Four more years for Bush. Four in
the State House and four in the State Penitentiary."















______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Gabriel de Figueiredo
2004-10-29 05:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Regarding outsourcing or Offshoring, here is an
interesting article from devx...

The typical programmer wears clothes made in Honduras.
He drives to work in a Korean car while he sips
Mexican coffee. He sits down at his Chinese-made desk,
and turns on his laptop that was assembled in
Indonesia with parts from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore,
Brazil, and a dozen other countries. Nearly every
second of his day, some product manufactured in some
other country makes his life easier or more agreeable
and his lifestyle more affordable. And all the while,
his 401k hums away inaudibly, growing in fits and
starts with the profits of a global marketplace.
He seems like a nice enough guy. Then he opens his
mouth and complains about the Indians and the Russians
and the Vietnamese and the Philippinos, all bent, it
seems, on taking American jobs.

My anonymous programmer is grumbling about
offshoring?or offshore outsourcing?of programming and
IT jobs. There's so much fear of outsourcing within
the software and IT community that we're losing our
good sense. And just for the record, I'm not an
economist; I'm a programmer. I've been laid off
before, and I know that it sucks. But I'm also a
shareholder and a consumer; you probably are too.

This will be a tough crowd, I know. Last week, DevX
Executive Editor Russell Jones wrote a commentary
"Offshoring: It's Not Too Late to Change," which
accurately reflects many of the issues, fears, and
concerns of the anti-offshoring faction. Reading it, I
was reminded of a commentary I wrote several weeks ago
that only just touched on outsourcing. In response, I
received a slew of misinformed emails from irate
programmers criticizing my failure to unambiguously
condemn outsourcing, offshoring, and developing
nations in general.

Well, I won't. In fact, I believe the opposite: The
available evidence indicates that offshoring creates
American wealth while giving a leg up to some of the
most desperately poor countries on earth, creating new
markets and more American jobs in the process. But I
suspect that you already know that. You might even
call yourself a "fiscal conservative" (that seems to
be a popular identification among programmers) but
you're hoping for some kind of special exception for
you own industry.

Connect to http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/22284
if you wish to read more...

Cheers,

Gabriel.

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Sachin Phadte
2004-10-29 05:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Fred makes an interesting observation: "Had it not been for the BJP in
India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress and the Communists in
the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has resulted in."

A few points. Is the unthinkable good for the nation? If yes, how is it
that the two are fighting against each other in West Bengal, Tripura and
Kerala?

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Strike the perfect match on BharatMatrimony.com.
http://www.bharatmatrimony.com/cgi-bin/bmclicks1.cgi?74 Join FREE
Alfred de Tavares
2004-10-29 17:17:33 UTC
Permalink
From: "Frederick Noronha(FN)" <fredericknoronha at vsnl.net>
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
To: goanet at goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet]Re: A Must Read before you Vote
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:40:04 +0530 (IST)
Post by Santosh Helekar
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.
Loony Left? Isn't that a figment of the imagination in the US? Ralph
Nader's not-quite-there-efforts notwithstanding.
I thought all politics in the US came in three variants -- Right, Far
Right, and Furthest Right. Much of what we hear as criticism of the system
seems to be anyway coming from people with a position right of Genghis Khan
;-)
FN
Rico,

I feel old Santosh has used the term affectionately: I don't believe he
hates himself, you or I.
AT

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.com/
Peter D'Souza
2004-10-29 21:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Marlon Menezes <marlon at goacom.com> wrote:

The anti-science stance of [the Bush] adminstration is well established.

Huh? They've spent more money on stem-cell research than, say, Bill
Clinton did. They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research, and
have been talking about space travel to Mars, continuing the space
shuttle program (despite much popular opposition). You must be getting
your news from Dan it's-fake-but-true Rather.

Sincerely,
Peter D'Souza
George Pinto
2004-10-29 23:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Instead of the Republican propaganda machine and smear campaign, for real news about Bush's
"science" from Nobel Prize scientists, see links below.

Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381

Scientists horrified by Bush's Bad Science
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/

John Ashcroft believes dancing is sinful, other nuts in the Bush administration don't want
evolution taught in schools. Imagine what the science curriculum would like look if they had
their way - it would look like the RSS's idea of education!

Regards,
George
Post by Peter D'Souza
They've spent more money on stem-cell research than, say, Bill
Clinton did. They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research, and
have been talking about space travel to Mars, continuing the space
shuttle program (despite much popular opposition). You must be getting
your news from Dan it's-fake-but-true Rather.
Sincerely,
Peter D'Souza
Santosh Helekar
2004-10-30 04:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D'Souza
Huh? They've spent more money on stem-cell research
than, say, Bill Clinton did.
The above statement is misleading. The technology
needed for embryonic stem cell research was not fully
developed until the very end of the Clinton
presidency. Bush has done diddly squat for it. He is
still lying that he is funding research on 60 already
existing stem cell lines, which even if true, would be
laughably inadequate besides being deceptive. The
truth is that these are actually 12 worthless cell
lines that are horribly contaminated with mouse cells
and mouse genes.
Post by Peter D'Souza
They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research,
and have been talking about space travel to Mars,
continuing the space shuttle program (despite much
popular opposition).
Nonsense on all counts. AIDS and cancer research
funding increase was due to the customary yearly
increase in the annual budget of the National
Institutes of Health. Such increases happened under
every President since Nixon (cancer) and Reagan
(AIDS).

Bush's promise to give 15 million dollars for
eliminating AIDS in Africa has not yet been fully met.


The Mars space mission announcement was a photo
opportunity which took advantage of NASA's preplanned
long-term agenda. The wisdom of continuing the space
shuttle program in its current form has actually been
questioned by many prominent scientists. It is hardly
a statement of support for science.

I was about to post the Union of Concerned Scientists'
major indictment of the Bush misadministration's
science policy when I saw George's post on the
subject. Thanks, George. That statement says it all.

In fact, a couple of weeks back one of the world's
most prestigious scientific journals - Science -
devoted their cover page and several prominent pages
to highlight the significance of this year's
presidential election to the future of science.

Folks, a vote for Bush is a vote for anti-science.

Cheers,

Santosh
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 03:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Where Bush Got His Marching Orders to attack Iraq

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

["Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

["Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of
the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means
of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2000

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2000

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build
up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2000

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2000

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2000

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR
rbarreto
2004-10-27 10:28:05 UTC
Permalink
In short ,


Sen. John F. Kerry to win.


rene


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-27 18:31:14 UTC
Permalink
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.

Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.

This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.

Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.

The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.

Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Tim de Mello
2004-10-28 02:21:38 UTC
Permalink
chrisvaz at verizon.net:

"We should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after
the technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade
with the pin pulled out."

By the same token we should not forget that Clinton inherited an economy
that was already devasted by the Bush Sr. but managed to turn it around in
four years.

Bush Jr. inherited a huge surplus (not a recession) - and yes there were
problems soon after he took over but he is no Clinton. Not even close. It
was just poor governance. Nobody called Clinton a "moron" or "stupid"
publicly. It is a very popular thing for the Republicans to dismiss eight
years of good governance because of a single personal misdeameanour in the
last few months of his presidency. I just feel sorry for all the Americans
who have lost their jobs because of this administration. A bad economy in
America negatively affects a large part of the world.

For those in India who may be not aware - being jobless in America is a very
miserable experience. Particularly in the cold months. For many the choice
is "to eat or to heat".

I hope the Americans do not vote Bush Jr. back into office.

Tim de Mello
timdemello2 at hotmail.com
CANADA

_________________________________________________________________
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft? SmartScreen
Technology.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 02:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marlon Menezes
The only positive with Bush from an Indian
perspective is that he has not spoken against
outsourcing. While this is painful for american
workers, it is great for India. It is not a
surprise therefore that most of India's
establishement supports Bush's relection.
Marlon,
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.


Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........







______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Bosco D'Mello
2004-10-28 03:20:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Oct 26 22:40:07 2004, "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR

RESPONSE: Chris......do I hear that familiar chant out of you.....4-more-years !
4-more-years ! 4-more-years ! 4-more-years !

It's less than a week.....electioneering has hit the crescendo !!

Best wishes - Bosco


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier mailing list is 10 years old
Mario Goveia
2004-10-28 03:21:47 UTC
Permalink
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and blind left-wing is truly
amazing.

1. They continue to say that we rushed to war with Iraq, whereas we waited for
12 long years while giving UN sanctions and 17 UN resolutions a chance to
work. Where were these ignorant critics while Saddam was brutalizing his own
people and thumbing his nose at the whole world and looting the oil-for-food
program, aided and abetted by the evil regimes in France, Russia and China,
who had apparently assured him that they would protect him with their UN
vetoes. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died as a result from a lack of
food and medicines, yet they shed crocodile tears for the 1100 brave American
who volunteered to shed their blood to liberate 50 million Afghans and
Iraqis. As usual, they give a pass to the glib, flim-flam artist who preceded
Bush, who was all talk and no action, failed to react to a series of attacks
against us, failed to apprehend Osama Bin Laden when he was offered up by the
Sudan, and succeeded only in emboldening Osama, leading directly to 9/11.

2. They continue to say that Iraq "had no WMDs" without the intellectual
integrity to ask what happened to the WMDs he admitted having in 1991 and has
never accounted for. This blindness requires a total ignorance of all the 16
UN resolutions on this topic since 1991, and of the 17th UN resolution 1441,
which threatened "serious consequences" not just continued sanctions, which
France, Russia and China were trying to eliminate.

4. They continue to praise John Kerry's "global test" with no cognizance of
the fact that Kerry failed his own global test when he voted against ejecting
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait met even Syria's criteria,
but not Kerry's. If he couldn't vote to defend an ally against an invasion,
when will he ever use force to defend anyone.

5. They continue to rail against the job losses in the US with no cognizance
of the recession that Bush inherited and the bursting of the phony dot.com
bubble, no cognizance of the CEO scandals that were germinating throughout the
Clinton 90's and were exposed and prosecuted under Bush, no recognition of the
economic losses caused by 9/11, all of which has been reversed by Bush in
record time. Had he not cut taxes when he did we would have had an economic
disaster on our hands by now.

5. And where are all the incredibly ignorant NRIs who seem completely blind to
the planned attack by John Kerry on free trade and outsourcing as a payoff to
his union supporters, all of which will severely impact emerging countries
like India. Kerry seems totally ignorant of the benefits to the US of
insourcing and talks of outsourcing as if it is a one-way street, showng his
callous disregard for the country as a whole.

6. Finally, think about two major national embarrassments if Kerry wins. One,
what kind of a message would it send to the Islamo-fascists, who will hail
this as a victory for their side. Second, imagine what a message it will send
to the world that the 44th US President (God forbid!) is a war hero - to the
Viet Cong, and has a special place of honor in the Ho Chi Minh War Museum for
his role in helping their cause.

Chris Vaz <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Santosh Helekar
2004-10-28 13:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and
blind left-wing is truly amazing.
Having read and heard ad nauseum mindless propaganda
such as the one posted above this past few weeks, both
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.

United States and the world have been seriously harmed
by the presidency of George W. Bush. It is frankly
hard to find a more incompetent, irresponsible and
unqualified president than this man in the entire
history of U.S.A. It would indeed be quite fitting if
he becomes the only unelected, one-term, failed U. S.
president. I hope on November the 2nd a convincing
majority of Americans bestows that dishonor on him.

Cheers,

Santosh
Ronald Albuquerque
2004-10-28 15:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Chris,

I completely disagree on the "Monday morning quarterbacking" comment.
Read Seymour Hersh's book 'Chain of Command'. It is really quite
frightening
what the administration chose to ignore.

Yes, after 9/11 things changed. However, "things changing" does not mean
that it is now OK to shoot from the hip, without completely thinking
through.

Unfortunately, that is what GWB and Co. did. And, spin aside - this was no
grand coalition.

If you look at what Bush's Dad did in 1991 - that was a GRAND coalition.
whether you
agree with that war or not, this fact is indisputable.

And let's not get started on W's economic "policies"...
The problem is that the GOP leadership has been taken over by right-wing
nuts.

I would LOVE to know why they suddenly dropped focus on al-Qaeda and
went after Saddam. It was like an obsession.

Again: go read Chain of Command.
Message: 12
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
To: <marlon at goacom.com>
Cc: <goanet at goanet.org>,
"Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>,
"Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:29:28 -0400
Organization: Premier
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
Marlon--
Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!
Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-28 20:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mervyn Lobo
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.
Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks
to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........
----
Mervyn,

Actually I do not have any issues with outsourcing. If
one can replace an overpaid worker with a cheaper, but
as efficient worker overseas, I believe it is the
right thing to do.

I would even go further and say that if one can get
cheaper, but as qualified labor from overseas,
employers should be given the right to import these
workers in order to replace their existing domestic
staff.

Kerry can BS as much as he wants to about protecting
US jobs. The fact is he cannot do much to stop
corporations from moving jobs overseas. Those of us
who live and work in the west are living in
potentially very turbulent economic times. With the
rise of a skilled and educated class of workers in the
developing world, there is no way we in the west can
continue to be complacent about the security of our
jobs. I guess if I were to lose my job, I'm heading to
a beach in Goa to enjoy an early retirement :)

Marlon
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 23:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
United States and the world have been seriously
harmed
by the presidency of George W. Bush. It is frankly
hard to find a more incompetent, irresponsible and
unqualified president than this man in the entire
history of U.S.A. It would indeed be quite fitting
if he becomes the only unelected, one-term, failed
U.S. president. I hope on November the 2nd a
convincing majority of Americans bestows that
dishonor on him.
Santosh,
What you are, perhaps, unable to see is that to his
backers, George W. as a fine Christian gentleman :-)

W. himself announced on TV that he "feels the prayers
of Americans."

There is an old saying in politics, "keep the message
so low that even goats can eat." Hey! if I needed to
get elected, I too would turn to the folks who are
easy to convince......

Mervyn2.0





______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 23:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marlon Menezes
Kerry can BS as much as he wants to about protecting
US jobs. The fact is he cannot do much to stop
corporations from moving jobs overseas. Those of us
who live and work in the west are living in
potentially very turbulent economic times. With the
rise of a skilled and educated class of workers in
the developing world, there is no way we in the
west can continue to be complacent about the
security of our jobs. I guess if I were to lose
my job, I'm heading to a beach in Goa to enjoy an
early retirement :)
Marlon,
The rest of the world has always had skilled and
educated people who were willing to work harder, for
less pay. Canada is a case in point.

The job outflow from the US went from a trickle to a
deluge when George W. and Co. passed laws that gave
huge tax breaks to companies exporting American jobs
:-) Just last week he passed another law giving the
multi-nationals further tax breaks. Hopefully, thats
the last law he passes.

Mervyn2.0
BTW, last month when I was in San Jose, I saw a bumper
sticker that said "Four more years for Bush. Four in
the State House and four in the State Penitentiary."















______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Gabriel de Figueiredo
2004-10-29 05:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Regarding outsourcing or Offshoring, here is an
interesting article from devx...

The typical programmer wears clothes made in Honduras.
He drives to work in a Korean car while he sips
Mexican coffee. He sits down at his Chinese-made desk,
and turns on his laptop that was assembled in
Indonesia with parts from Japan, Taiwan, Singapore,
Brazil, and a dozen other countries. Nearly every
second of his day, some product manufactured in some
other country makes his life easier or more agreeable
and his lifestyle more affordable. And all the while,
his 401k hums away inaudibly, growing in fits and
starts with the profits of a global marketplace.
He seems like a nice enough guy. Then he opens his
mouth and complains about the Indians and the Russians
and the Vietnamese and the Philippinos, all bent, it
seems, on taking American jobs.

My anonymous programmer is grumbling about
offshoring?or offshore outsourcing?of programming and
IT jobs. There's so much fear of outsourcing within
the software and IT community that we're losing our
good sense. And just for the record, I'm not an
economist; I'm a programmer. I've been laid off
before, and I know that it sucks. But I'm also a
shareholder and a consumer; you probably are too.

This will be a tough crowd, I know. Last week, DevX
Executive Editor Russell Jones wrote a commentary
"Offshoring: It's Not Too Late to Change," which
accurately reflects many of the issues, fears, and
concerns of the anti-offshoring faction. Reading it, I
was reminded of a commentary I wrote several weeks ago
that only just touched on outsourcing. In response, I
received a slew of misinformed emails from irate
programmers criticizing my failure to unambiguously
condemn outsourcing, offshoring, and developing
nations in general.

Well, I won't. In fact, I believe the opposite: The
available evidence indicates that offshoring creates
American wealth while giving a leg up to some of the
most desperately poor countries on earth, creating new
markets and more American jobs in the process. But I
suspect that you already know that. You might even
call yourself a "fiscal conservative" (that seems to
be a popular identification among programmers) but
you're hoping for some kind of special exception for
you own industry.

Connect to http://www.devx.com/opinion/Article/22284
if you wish to read more...

Cheers,

Gabriel.

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Sachin Phadte
2004-10-29 05:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Fred makes an interesting observation: "Had it not been for the BJP in
India, it would have been unthinkable of the Congress and the Communists in
the same boat, a situation the polarisation now has resulted in."

A few points. Is the unthinkable good for the nation? If yes, how is it
that the two are fighting against each other in West Bengal, Tripura and
Kerala?

Sachin Phadte

_________________________________________________________________
Strike the perfect match on BharatMatrimony.com.
http://www.bharatmatrimony.com/cgi-bin/bmclicks1.cgi?74 Join FREE
Alfred de Tavares
2004-10-29 17:17:33 UTC
Permalink
From: "Frederick Noronha(FN)" <fredericknoronha at vsnl.net>
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
To: goanet at goanet.org
Subject: Re: [Goanet]Re: A Must Read before you Vote
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:40:04 +0530 (IST)
Post by Santosh Helekar
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.
Loony Left? Isn't that a figment of the imagination in the US? Ralph
Nader's not-quite-there-efforts notwithstanding.
I thought all politics in the US came in three variants -- Right, Far
Right, and Furthest Right. Much of what we hear as criticism of the system
seems to be anyway coming from people with a position right of Genghis Khan
;-)
FN
Rico,

I feel old Santosh has used the term affectionately: I don't believe he
hates himself, you or I.
AT

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.com/
Peter D'Souza
2004-10-29 21:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Marlon Menezes <marlon at goacom.com> wrote:

The anti-science stance of [the Bush] adminstration is well established.

Huh? They've spent more money on stem-cell research than, say, Bill
Clinton did. They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research, and
have been talking about space travel to Mars, continuing the space
shuttle program (despite much popular opposition). You must be getting
your news from Dan it's-fake-but-true Rather.

Sincerely,
Peter D'Souza
George Pinto
2004-10-29 23:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Instead of the Republican propaganda machine and smear campaign, for real news about Bush's
"science" from Nobel Prize scientists, see links below.

Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381

Scientists horrified by Bush's Bad Science
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/12/bush_bad_science/

John Ashcroft believes dancing is sinful, other nuts in the Bush administration don't want
evolution taught in schools. Imagine what the science curriculum would like look if they had
their way - it would look like the RSS's idea of education!

Regards,
George
Post by Peter D'Souza
They've spent more money on stem-cell research than, say, Bill
Clinton did. They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research, and
have been talking about space travel to Mars, continuing the space
shuttle program (despite much popular opposition). You must be getting
your news from Dan it's-fake-but-true Rather.
Sincerely,
Peter D'Souza
Santosh Helekar
2004-10-30 04:53:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter D'Souza
Huh? They've spent more money on stem-cell research
than, say, Bill Clinton did.
The above statement is misleading. The technology
needed for embryonic stem cell research was not fully
developed until the very end of the Clinton
presidency. Bush has done diddly squat for it. He is
still lying that he is funding research on 60 already
existing stem cell lines, which even if true, would be
laughably inadequate besides being deceptive. The
truth is that these are actually 12 worthless cell
lines that are horribly contaminated with mouse cells
and mouse genes.
Post by Peter D'Souza
They've also spent more on AIDS and cancer research,
and have been talking about space travel to Mars,
continuing the space shuttle program (despite much
popular opposition).
Nonsense on all counts. AIDS and cancer research
funding increase was due to the customary yearly
increase in the annual budget of the National
Institutes of Health. Such increases happened under
every President since Nixon (cancer) and Reagan
(AIDS).

Bush's promise to give 15 million dollars for
eliminating AIDS in Africa has not yet been fully met.


The Mars space mission announcement was a photo
opportunity which took advantage of NASA's preplanned
long-term agenda. The wisdom of continuing the space
shuttle program in its current form has actually been
questioned by many prominent scientists. It is hardly
a statement of support for science.

I was about to post the Union of Concerned Scientists'
major indictment of the Bush misadministration's
science policy when I saw George's post on the
subject. Thanks, George. That statement says it all.

In fact, a couple of weeks back one of the world's
most prestigious scientific journals - Science -
devoted their cover page and several prominent pages
to highlight the significance of this year's
presidential election to the future of science.

Folks, a vote for Bush is a vote for anti-science.

Cheers,

Santosh
Chris Vaz
2004-10-27 03:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Where Bush Got His Marching Orders to attack Iraq

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

["Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom
Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has
made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

["Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop
longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our
allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of
the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means
of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2000

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2000

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build
up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports
indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2000

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass
destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2000

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy
his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to
increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2000

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity
for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR
rbarreto
2004-10-27 10:28:05 UTC
Permalink
In short ,


Sen. John F. Kerry to win.


rene


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-27 18:31:14 UTC
Permalink
The issue is not necessarily the war itself, but
rather the shabby way it has been conducted by this
administration. The incompetance is stunning and US
tax payers like me are now paying for this stupidity.

Unlike his father, Bush rushed into this war with no
allies worth mentioning (except for the UK). In the
first war, the coalition provided over 200,000 troops
and around 70% of the funding for the war (roughly 20
times more what it got this time around). The war is
currently costing the US tax payers around $100
billion per year and if the present administration
remains in power, it is unlikely to get any
significant help from any of the nations that can
really help. Stated in other words, if Bush wins, the
US tax payer and the US armed forces will have to
continue to sustain the Iraq burden for several more
years to come.

This incompetance is linked to the fact that this
administration is governed by its christian right wing
ideology, rather than factual/knowledge based decision
making. The anti-science stance of this adminstration
is well established.

Besides the above, the other big negative with regards
to Bush is the lack of financial accountability of his
administration. Despite having his party in control of
both houses as well as the white house, federal
government spending has grown at the fastest rate for
almost half a century. In this age of large deficits,
last thing we need is a money grabbing larger
government.

The only positive with Bush from an Indian perspective
is that he has not spoken against outsourcing. While
this is painful for american workers, it is great for
India. It is not a surprise therefore that most of
India's establishement supports Bush's relection. Bush
has used these "improvements" in America's relations
with India as an example of his foreign policy
successes. The reality is that anti-americanism is
very high in India (as it is in much of the world) and
that Indians are only playing ball because they love
American money more than they hate this American
adminstration.

Marlon
Post by Chris Vaz
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ...
He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to
miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for
weapons
of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam
Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH
LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE
TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US
TO WAR
Tim de Mello
2004-10-28 02:21:38 UTC
Permalink
chrisvaz at verizon.net:

"We should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after
the technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade
with the pin pulled out."

By the same token we should not forget that Clinton inherited an economy
that was already devasted by the Bush Sr. but managed to turn it around in
four years.

Bush Jr. inherited a huge surplus (not a recession) - and yes there were
problems soon after he took over but he is no Clinton. Not even close. It
was just poor governance. Nobody called Clinton a "moron" or "stupid"
publicly. It is a very popular thing for the Republicans to dismiss eight
years of good governance because of a single personal misdeameanour in the
last few months of his presidency. I just feel sorry for all the Americans
who have lost their jobs because of this administration. A bad economy in
America negatively affects a large part of the world.

For those in India who may be not aware - being jobless in America is a very
miserable experience. Particularly in the cold months. For many the choice
is "to eat or to heat".

I hope the Americans do not vote Bush Jr. back into office.

Tim de Mello
timdemello2 at hotmail.com
CANADA

_________________________________________________________________
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft? SmartScreen
Technology.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN? Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
Mervyn Lobo
2004-10-28 02:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marlon Menezes
The only positive with Bush from an Indian
perspective is that he has not spoken against
outsourcing. While this is painful for american
workers, it is great for India. It is not a
surprise therefore that most of India's
establishement supports Bush's relection.
Marlon,
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.


Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........







______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Bosco D'Mello
2004-10-28 03:20:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Oct 26 22:40:07 2004, "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:

SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER
WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNECESSARILY !

TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR

RESPONSE: Chris......do I hear that familiar chant out of you.....4-more-years !
4-more-years ! 4-more-years ! 4-more-years !

It's less than a week.....electioneering has hit the crescendo !!

Best wishes - Bosco


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goanet - http://www.goanet.org - Goa's premier mailing list is 10 years old
Mario Goveia
2004-10-28 03:21:47 UTC
Permalink
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and blind left-wing is truly
amazing.

1. They continue to say that we rushed to war with Iraq, whereas we waited for
12 long years while giving UN sanctions and 17 UN resolutions a chance to
work. Where were these ignorant critics while Saddam was brutalizing his own
people and thumbing his nose at the whole world and looting the oil-for-food
program, aided and abetted by the evil regimes in France, Russia and China,
who had apparently assured him that they would protect him with their UN
vetoes. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died as a result from a lack of
food and medicines, yet they shed crocodile tears for the 1100 brave American
who volunteered to shed their blood to liberate 50 million Afghans and
Iraqis. As usual, they give a pass to the glib, flim-flam artist who preceded
Bush, who was all talk and no action, failed to react to a series of attacks
against us, failed to apprehend Osama Bin Laden when he was offered up by the
Sudan, and succeeded only in emboldening Osama, leading directly to 9/11.

2. They continue to say that Iraq "had no WMDs" without the intellectual
integrity to ask what happened to the WMDs he admitted having in 1991 and has
never accounted for. This blindness requires a total ignorance of all the 16
UN resolutions on this topic since 1991, and of the 17th UN resolution 1441,
which threatened "serious consequences" not just continued sanctions, which
France, Russia and China were trying to eliminate.

4. They continue to praise John Kerry's "global test" with no cognizance of
the fact that Kerry failed his own global test when he voted against ejecting
Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait met even Syria's criteria,
but not Kerry's. If he couldn't vote to defend an ally against an invasion,
when will he ever use force to defend anyone.

5. They continue to rail against the job losses in the US with no cognizance
of the recession that Bush inherited and the bursting of the phony dot.com
bubble, no cognizance of the CEO scandals that were germinating throughout the
Clinton 90's and were exposed and prosecuted under Bush, no recognition of the
economic losses caused by 9/11, all of which has been reversed by Bush in
record time. Had he not cut taxes when he did we would have had an economic
disaster on our hands by now.

5. And where are all the incredibly ignorant NRIs who seem completely blind to
the planned attack by John Kerry on free trade and outsourcing as a payoff to
his union supporters, all of which will severely impact emerging countries
like India. Kerry seems totally ignorant of the benefits to the US of
insourcing and talks of outsourcing as if it is a one-way street, showng his
callous disregard for the country as a whole.

6. Finally, think about two major national embarrassments if Kerry wins. One,
what kind of a message would it send to the Islamo-fascists, who will hail
this as a victory for their side. Second, imagine what a message it will send
to the world that the 44th US President (God forbid!) is a war hero - to the
Viet Cong, and has a special place of honor in the Ho Chi Minh War Museum for
his role in helping their cause.

Chris Vaz <chrisvaz at verizon.net> wrote:
Marlon--

Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!

Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Santosh Helekar
2004-10-28 13:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mario Goveia
The ignorance that is "bliss" on the deaf, dumb and
blind left-wing is truly amazing.
Having read and heard ad nauseum mindless propaganda
such as the one posted above this past few weeks, both
on the rabid right and the loony left, the loony left
seems more appealing to me this year, and not just
because I am a proud liberal.

United States and the world have been seriously harmed
by the presidency of George W. Bush. It is frankly
hard to find a more incompetent, irresponsible and
unqualified president than this man in the entire
history of U.S.A. It would indeed be quite fitting if
he becomes the only unelected, one-term, failed U. S.
president. I hope on November the 2nd a convincing
majority of Americans bestows that dishonor on him.

Cheers,

Santosh
Ronald Albuquerque
2004-10-28 15:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Chris,

I completely disagree on the "Monday morning quarterbacking" comment.
Read Seymour Hersh's book 'Chain of Command'. It is really quite
frightening
what the administration chose to ignore.

Yes, after 9/11 things changed. However, "things changing" does not mean
that it is now OK to shoot from the hip, without completely thinking
through.

Unfortunately, that is what GWB and Co. did. And, spin aside - this was no
grand coalition.

If you look at what Bush's Dad did in 1991 - that was a GRAND coalition.
whether you
agree with that war or not, this fact is indisputable.

And let's not get started on W's economic "policies"...
The problem is that the GOP leadership has been taken over by right-wing
nuts.

I would LOVE to know why they suddenly dropped focus on al-Qaeda and
went after Saddam. It was like an obsession.

Again: go read Chain of Command.
Message: 12
From: "Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>
To: <marlon at goacom.com>
Cc: <goanet at goanet.org>,
"Chris Vaz" <chrisvaz at verizon.net>,
"Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet]A Must Read before you Vote
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:29:28 -0400
Organization: Premier
Reply-To: goanet at goanet.org
Marlon--
Your response is too simplistic. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback,
but after 9/11 we had no option but preempt any future possibility of attack
on us. It is insulting to say we had only the UK in our coalition and snub
New Europe who have lost personnel, and older countries like Italy, Spain
(didn't have the endurance unfortunately), Australians, et al. GWB did all
he could to persuade, short of going down on his knees, the French, Germans
and the Russians but they adamantly refused to join. As recently as a few
days ago, both France and Germany have reiterated that they would not join
us in Iraq even if a new Kerry administration comes in. The reason, now
being revealed, is that these countries profited considerably under the Oil
for Food program and didn't want to let go of the gravy train!
Yes, wars are never cheap, and the cost to preserve freedom can be high. We
should not forget that this administration inherited a recession after the
technology bubble had burst and it was like handing Bush a hand grenade with
the pin pulled out.. In the long run it is far cheaper to fight the war on
terrorist terrain than fight it on our soil just as the consequences of 9/11
proved. Unfortunately, it does take a degree of spending to bring a country
out of recession and recent economic indicators suggest that the country is
on the right track. We must persevere if we are to win...
Marlon Menezes
2004-10-28 20:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mervyn Lobo
Many thought that Billy Bob Clinton was America's
first "black" President. Personally, I think that
George W. is America's first "Indian" President.
Mervyn2.0
On the other hand, may be he is America's first
"Chinese" President :-) Anyone who gives tax breaks
to
companies sending American jobs to foreign countries
deserves some recognition........
----
Mervyn,

Actually I do not have any issues with outsourcing. If
one can replace an overpaid worker with a cheaper, but
as efficient worker overseas, I believe it is the
right thing to do.

I would even go further and say that if one can get
cheaper, but as qualified labor from overseas,
employers should be given the right to import these
workers in order to replace their existing domestic
staff.

Kerry can BS as much as he wants to about protecting
US jobs. The fact is he cannot do much to stop
corporations from moving jobs overseas. Those of us
who live and work in the west are living in
potentially very turbulent economic times. With the
rise of a skilled and educated class of workers in the
developing world, there is no way we in the west can
continue to be complacent about the security of our
jobs. I guess if I were to lose my job, I'm heading to
a beach in Goa to enjoy an early retirement :)

Marlon

Loading...