 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / October 2004Bush in the Guard - ON Topic
Does anybody make decals for President Bush's F-102, either in 1/72 or 1/48?  SignatureJoe of Castle Jefferson http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp Site Updated November 25th, 2001 "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4 I saw some reviewed on eiher hyperscale or modelingmadness a few weeks ago.Someone did them on an ALPS and is selling them was the main idea I think.But sorry can't remember the name.A quick jog over there should set you in the right direction.HTH > I saw some reviewed on eiher hyperscale or modelingmadness a few weeks > ago.Someone did them on an ALPS and is selling them was the main idea I > think.But sorry can't remember the name.A quick jog over there should > set you in the right direction.HTH http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/decals/kedi48001.htm Thank you. Though I am not the original questioner I have wanted to do a father and son thing for a while. I have a couple different versions of Sr's plane, now I have W's. Thanks! Frank >Thank you. Though I am not the original questioner I have wanted to do a >father and son thing for a while. I have a couple different versions of >Sr's plane, now I have W's. Make certain you leave the cockpit empty... >>Thank you. Though I am not the original questioner I have wanted to do >>a father and son thing for a while. I have a couple different versions >>of Sr's plane, now I have W's. > > Make certain you leave the cockpit empty... Hey you're a funny guy. How many Mach Plus, nuclear capable interceptors did you learn to fly? You know pricks like you are really worthless. His Dad was the youngest pilot to fly off an aircraft carrier during WWII. The slimey f**kers denigrated that. Clinton ran away to Russia. The slimey f**kers cheered that. W volunteered to fly and devoted the time to learn to fly a very high performance military aircraft. The slimey f**kers denigrated that. Says more about the slimey f**kers than about the Bushes. > Hey you're a funny guy. How many Mach Plus, nuclear capable interceptors > did you learn to fly? > > You know . . . Jeez man lighten up. Couldn't you tell his statement was tongue in cheek? Kaliste Saloom #30703 IPMS/Acadiana Plastic Modelers Society Lafayette, LA (USA) >> Hey you're a funny guy. How many Mach Plus, nuclear capable interceptors >> did you learn to fly? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Jeez man lighten up. Couldn't you tell his statement was tongue in > cheek? Sorry but I am repulsed by the number of people who denigrate Bush for his effort and praise Clinton for his cowardice. It really isn't funny anymore. Frankly I would have loved to have done what he did, but my main hurdle has been my eyesight. > Kaliste Saloom #30703 > IPMS/Acadiana Plastic Modelers Society > Lafayette, LA (USA) SignatureUS Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability. > Frankly I would have loved to have done what he did, but my main hurdle has > been my eyesight. Me too. $( Kaliste Saloom kaliste@aol.com wrote: >> Hey you're a funny guy. How many Mach Plus, nuclear capable interceptors >> did you learn to fly? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >IPMS/Acadiana Plastic Modelers Society >Lafayette, LA (USA) In all honesty I didn't find it all that humorous a comment myself. I thought it was more childish than tongue-in-cheek. -- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon My home page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm >>Thank you. Though I am not the original questioner I have wanted to do a >>father and son thing for a while. I have a couple different versions of >>Sr's plane, now I have W's. > > Make certain you leave the cockpit empty... PS, I've seen pictures of Bush in the cockpit. And I've seen video lieing and hurting POWs. He should rot in Hell the disloyal f.ck. >>>Thank you. Though I am not the original questioner I have wanted to do a >>>father and son thing for a while. I have a couple different versions of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >And I've seen video lieing and hurting POWs. He should rot in Hell the >disloyal f.ck. You've got me confused. Are you calling Shrub disloyal? That doesn't sound like the rest of your posts... > >And I've seen video lieing and hurting POWs. He should rot in Hell the > >disloyal f.ck. > > You've got me confused. Are you calling Shrub disloyal? That doesn't > sound like the rest of your posts... FWIW I think he's referring to the crap that Kerry spewed before a couple of Senate committees and any reporter who would give him airtime back in the 70's. Bill Shuey >> >And I've seen video lieing and hurting POWs. He should rot in Hell the >> >disloyal f.ck. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >couple of Senate committees and any reporter who would give him airtime >back in the 70's. Oh. Whatever the politician, the slime is there. It's merely how well they hide it. > >And I've seen video lieing and hurting POWs. He should rot in Hell the >>> >disloyal f.ck. >>> >>> You've got me confused. Are you calling Shrub disloyal? That doesn't >>> sound like the rest of your I think he is referring to Shrub lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the torture at Abu Greib. Kim M royabulgaf@aol.com (Royabulgaf) wrote: >> >And I've seen video lieing and hurting POWs. He should rot in Hell the >>>> >disloyal f.ck. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I think he is referring to Shrub lying about weapons of mass destruction in >Iraq and the torture at Abu Greib. Kim M When did the President lie about Abu Guhraib? And you still have to get your facts straight about WMD. Repeat after me; President Bush did not lie about WMD; he was misled by the intelligence supplied by several countries and the UN (as was Kerry but he won't admit it). -- -- " In walks the village idiot and his face is all aglow; he's been up all night listening to Mohammad's radio" W. Zevon My home page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm <snippage> > And you still have to get your >facts straight about WMD. Repeat after me; President Bush did not lie about >WMD; he was misled by the intelligence supplied by several countries and the UN >(as was Kerry but he won't admit it). Norman Schwartzkopf said some words in Gulf War I that apply to that statement. I'm paraphrasing, but he called that kind of statement "bovine scatology". The "corporate culture" that infused the CIA flowed right down from the Commander-in-chief's office and infused the entire American Intelligence community. Shrub needed a bad guy and influenced his lackeys to invent one. > <snippage> > > And you still have to get your [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > entire American Intelligence community. Shrub needed a bad guy and > influenced his lackeys to invent one. Yep. And his network was so powerful that he was able to do this years before he even took office. It was Bush's fault that Senators John Kerry, Carl Levin, and Tom Daschle signed a letter in October of 1998 urging President Clinton to use military force against Iraq's mythical WMDs. It was Bush's fault that President Clinton actually did order air strikes (Operation Desert Fox) for that very purpose in December of the same year. And I have no doubt that the genocide in Rwanda, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Second World War, and the Crusades were also somehow Bush's fault. SignatureJoe of Castle Jefferson http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp Site Updated November 25th, 2001 "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4 >> <snippage> >> > And you still have to get your [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Missile Crisis, the Second World War, and the Crusades were also somehow >Bush's fault. Don't put words into my mouth. Sure the background was there, but you didn't see Daddy or Mr. Bill go into Iraq with guns blazing did you? They had endless opportunity, most especially in February of 1990, but did it happen? Shrub had himself a ready-made excuse and all he needed to do was to push a bit to turn Americans' legitimate worry over furthwer attacks int an all-out feeding frenzy. > >> <snippage> > >> > And you still have to get your [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Don't put words into my mouth. Sure the background was there, but you > didn't see Daddy or Mr. Bill go into Iraq with guns blazing did you? Did you miss the reference to Operation Desert Fox I gave above? President Clinton certainly did attack Iraq in December 1998 for the express purpose of destroying Saddam's WMD programs. > They had endless opportunity, most especially in February of 1990, but > did it happen? I'm not putting anything into your mouth. You claimed that Bush "needed a bad guy and influenced his lackeys to invent one." A claim that can only be true if Bush was influencing the intelligence years before he ever became President. SignatureJoe of Castle Jefferson http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp Site Updated November 25th, 2001 "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4 >I'm not putting anything into your mouth. You claimed that Bush "needed >a bad guy and influenced his lackeys to invent one." A claim that can >only be true if Bush was influencing the intelligence years before he >ever became President. No, he just used existing attitudes and inflamed them to a fever pitch. When The Boss wants something badly enough, it'll be found for him not matter how much selective interpretation needs to be done. > >I'm not putting anything into your mouth. You claimed that Bush "needed > >a bad guy and influenced his lackeys to invent one." A claim that can [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pitch. When The Boss wants something badly enough, it'll be found for > him not matter how much selective interpretation needs to be done The part that you keep missing is that Bush wasn't The Boss yet. He didn't become The Boss until 2001. SignatureJoe of Castle Jefferson http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp Site Updated November 25th, 2001 "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4 >The part that you keep missing is that Bush wasn't The Boss yet. He >didn't become The Boss until 2001. The part you keep missing is the USA didn't invade Iraq until after Shrub became the Boss. The "Critical Failures in the Intelligence Community" didn't happen until after Shrub became the Boss. Shrub needs an external Bad Guy in order to become an effective President and deflect attention away from his Domestic failures. When he couldn't fine the real oone, he had another (conveniently already suspect) created. > >The part that you keep missing is that Bush wasn't The Boss yet. He > >didn't become The Boss until 2001. > > The part you keep missing is the USA didn't invade Iraq until after > Shrub became the Boss. The "Critical Failures in the Intelligence > Community" didn't happen until after Shrub became the Boss. So your argument is that the invasion was based on "critical intelligence failures" but the 1998 air attacks somehow weren't? But if there was no "critical intelligence failure" in 1998, then Clinton must have known that there were no WMDs in Iraq, so he basically just ordered the murder of a bunch of innocent Iraqis. However, in the *real* world, the intelligence community's mistakes in Iraq stem directly from their 1991 realization that they had seriously underestimated Iraq's WMD capability to that point, compounded by an increasing reliance on the UN rather than their own sources for intelligence information. That's not my opinion BTW, that's the _Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligene Assessments on Iraq_ by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. > Shrub needs an external Bad Guy in order to become an effective > President and deflect attention away from his Domestic failures. When > he couldn't fine the real oone, he had another (conveniently already > suspect) created. Again from the Senate report: "Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities." But they're probably all taking orders from Bush too, right? SignatureJoe of Castle Jefferson http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp Site Updated November 25th, 2001 "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4 >> >The part that you keep missing is that Bush wasn't The Boss yet. He >> >didn't become The Boss until 2001. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So your argument is that the invasion was based on "critical >intelligence failures" but the 1998 air attacks somehow weren't? Mr. Bill didn't send in Ground troops to topple an unrelated Government did he? The situations are NOT parallel. >Again from the Senate report: "Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find >any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, >influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to >Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities." Don't twist my words. In all his speeches leading up to the invasion, Shrub harped on Saddam and his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" while the real Bad Guy that the whole US couldn't find walked away. The intelligence analyists had to come up with evidence to back up the boss' claims. >But they're probably >all taking orders from Bush too, right? Nope, but their jobs depend on being "right". When the paperwork gets above waist high their butts are covered, especially if they can deflect the blame away from where it truly belongs. > >> >The part that you keep missing is that Bush wasn't The Boss yet. He > >> >didn't become The Boss until 2001. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Mr. Bill didn't send in Ground troops to topple an unrelated > Government did he? The situations are NOT parallel. Because killing people from the air is morally and legally different than killing them from the ground? But you keep ignoring the fact that the air attacks and the invasion were both based on the SAME critical intelligence failures. Failures which took place years before George W. Bush was in any position to pressure the intelligence community. Your theory that President Bush coerced the intelligence community is contradicted by the evidence. > >Again from the Senate report: "Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find > >any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > intelligence analyists had to come up with evidence to back up the > boss' claims. Except that, in fact, they didn't come up with evidence to back up his claims. He made the claims based on what the analysts had been saying for years beforehand. That's is all made very clear in the Senate report. I say again, your theory is contradicted by the evidence. But, hey, when has evidence ever been allowed to stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory, right? > >But they're probably > >all taking orders from Bush too, right? > > Nope, but their jobs depend on being "right". When the paperwork gets > above waist high their butts are covered, especially if they can > deflect the blame away from where it truly belongs. Yeah, I can certainly see why Senator John Edwards - a member of the committee that produced that report - would want to deflect blame away from President Bush. Oh, wait. No I can't. SignatureJoe of Castle Jefferson http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp Site Updated November 25th, 2001 "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4 >Because killing people from the air is morally and legally different >than killing them from the ground? Do not try to deflect tht discussion away from one morally reprehensible action by introducing another and trying to get me to agree that the other is somehow "right" just because someone who wasn't Shrub ordered it. How is Shrub's invasion of Iraq morally different from Saddam's invasion of Kuwait fourteen years ago? > >Because killing people from the air is morally and legally different > >than killing them from the ground? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > agree that the other is somehow "right" just because someone who > wasn't Shrub ordered it. You're the one who is trying to deflect the discussion away from your bogus claim that Bush was responsible for the Iraq intelligence. > How is Shrub's invasion of Iraq morally different from Saddam's > invasion of Kuwait fourteen years ago? Ask the families of the people laying in the mass graves. SignatureJoe of Castle Jefferson http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp Site Updated November 25th, 2001 "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4 >>Because killing people from the air is morally and legally different >>than killing them from the ground? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >How is Shrub's invasion of Iraq morally different from Saddam's >invasion of Kuwait fourteen years ago? Let's see; Saddam invaded another country to claim it as his own 19th province, loot it of everything that could be carried out and in the process kill and rape as many Kuwaitis as possible vs. invading another country to get rid of an insufferable despot who was in a position to threaten the US and its interests and to deliver freedom to the Iraqi people. That's a start, anyway. -- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm >>How is Shrub's invasion of Iraq morally different from Saddam's >>invasion of Kuwait fourteen years ago? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >position to threaten the US and its interests and to deliver freedom to the >Iraqi people. That's a start, anyway. "You say tomato, I say tomahto". The only difference is that this time tue USA, for the first time in its history was the agressor. In each case a vastly more powerful country overran a smaller one and stayed there. >>>How is Shrub's invasion of Iraq morally different from Saddam's >>>invasion of Kuwait fourteen years ago? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >In each case a vastly more powerful country overran a smaller one and >stayed there. .......but for considerably DIFFERENT reasons. And, I do not agree with your "and stayed there." comment. I'll just mention that; in the case of Iraq Saddam stayed there until he was evicted and would have stayed there permanently if not evicted. We will remain in Iraq until the nerw Iraqi government is established stabilized. Oh, and I'll just mention in passing that Iraq invaded Kuwait to occupy Kuewait and absorb it into itself. We invaded Iraq ro restore it to its people. That's about all the time I intend to spend on this topic. -- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm > We invaded Iraq ro restore >it to its people. That's about all the time I intend to spend on this topic. Then why hasn't it happened yet? >> We invaded Iraq ro restore >>it to its people. That's about all the time I intend to spend on this >topic. > >Then why hasn't it happened yet? OK, you coaxed me back to make one more reply to you. Your comment is so typical of the me-firster spoiled and coddled "I want what I want and I want it right now" community. The thing you don't understand (nor want to understand, from what I gather) is that it takes time to bring a nation out of the political dark ages and into a 21st century democracy. Instead of stamping your feet and holding your breath until you get your way; how about trying a bit of patience and let the process work. Sheesh! -- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm >Instead of stamping your feet and holding your breath until you get your way; >how about trying a bit of patience and let the process work. Sheesh! In this day of 60 second sound bites and tv/video game induced attention deficit disorder,people don't seem to realize this is a process that could take years,if not decades.It can't be rushed and if we cut and run that just shows the bad guys they can do whatever they want. >> We invaded Iraq ro restore >> it to its people. That's about all the time I intend to spend on this >> topic. > > Then why hasn't it happened yet? Good point! Iraq was clearly ready to be left alone on 2 May 2003. The fact that we have stayed proves we only did for the oil. Or imperialism. Or revenge. Or arrogance. It took the United States four years to get their system of Government sorted out after independence, and another 78 years and a civil war to get *most* everybody thinking the same way about it. All in a country with a population that had a common history, religion, language, and ethnicity and had as a starting point 100+ years of a semi-independent democratic tradition. Surely Iraq should be able to go from a terrifying totalitarian kleptocracy to stability in a year or 18 months, eh? KL > Iraq was clearly ready to be left alone on 2 May 2003. The fact that we > have stayed proves we only did for the oil. Or imperialism. Or revenge. > Or arrogance. First, I keep hearing that we went for the oil. Please tell me where is this oil at the US gas pumps, and why cant I get it cheaper. (cheaper as in the deals the french had lined up to get Iraqi oil after they got sanctions lifted) Second, Imperialism ??? Really ? Would that be the european, or asiatic flavor of imperalism ? Something both cultures have a rich history of doing throught the world ! Thirs, Revenge ? hey, that works for me. After the oil for food scandal, the constant shooting at colation A/C I can understand this kind of revenge... Arrogance ?? Take a look at history sometime. This is the first time in human history that a nation state has had the economic power, and military power to really influance, and effect/take over the world, or at least try to, and has not ! Unlike all those other wonderfull eurotrashian countries have tried to do for the last 800 years................... How dare the USA act in it's own interests ! SignatureOnly A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will > "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Arrogance ?? Take a look at history sometime. . . I can only quote what one denizen of this board wrote me privately (long before AM posted his message): "Kurt: "Sarcasm is over the heads of some of these people." How true. KL > >> We invaded Iraq ro restore > >> it to its people. That's about all the time I intend to spend on this [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > KL Well, why not? The US, as the first example, was bound to be the test project for the world. The Filipinos managed to go to democracy and sustain it (more or less) after only 42 years or so (I don't count '41-'45) of democratic tutelage, and they are hardly an ethnic monolith. The Israelis hit the ground running, even though a lot of the Jews who came there had never lived in democratic conditions, and while their religion was a broadly unifying force, the specific strains of Judaism and the ethnic issues were nothing to sneeze at. I think it mostly has to do with education, will, and how egalitarian culturally the people are in the first place, Iraqis are some of the best-educated in the Arab world, and there's no question they have a will for self-rule. Their sense of egalitarianism is problematic, but with a heritage as a secular republic (even if otherwise repressive), they are again a leg up on most of the Arabs. The ethnic strife is certainly severe; if they cannot rise above that, all bets are off. Beyond that, I don't see why democracy couldn't work very quickly. And it's going to have to, because the surrounding regimes are all hostile to the concept to varying degrees, if you don't count Turkey. I agree that once Saddam was put in custody, there was very little reason for us to remain. Bush has said that there are a hundred thousand Iraqis ready to defend the country. All we'd have to do to even the odds is heavily cordon Fallujah, drop leaflets into the town advising everyone to evacuate in 24 hours, do a saturation bombing of about a quarter of the town, drop another set of leaflets saying, "okay, last warning," flatten the rest of the town with about a six-day saturation campaign, declare victory, give the Iraqis a few billion to rebuild, and leave. Forever. Don't expect either Bush or Kerry to do such a thing. One is too principled and the other is too gutless--I'll leave it the rest of you to sort out which is which. Mark Schynert "Mark Schynert" <mass22@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:mass22- > One is too principled and the other is too gutless--I'll leave it the > rest of you to sort out which is which. > > Mark Schynert Well that rules out Nader - he's too principled AND gutless ;-) WmB To reply, get the HECK out of there HELLinhock@earthlink.net >All we'd have to do to even the odds >is heavily cordon Fallujah, drop leaflets into the town advising [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >One is too principled and the other is too gutless--I'll leave it the >rest of you to sort out which is which. And if either of them did such a foolish thing, it would teach every remaining Iraqui and many other Arabs to hate the US even more and ask themselves "They wiped out Fallujah, which city will they wipe out next? Will they whipe out Mecca?" You think you've seen a Jihad to date? >>All we'd have to do to even the odds >>is heavily cordon Fallujah, drop leaflets into the town advising [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > next? Will they whipe out Mecca?" You think you've seen a Jihad to > date? I keep hearing about this Arab street deal. How we don't want to anger them. Well they flew civilian airliners into civilian occupied buildings, cheered mightily when it happened and are now happily beheading people on TV for thier version of prime time. I really don't think the issue is we might piss them off. They already seem a mite upset. Then again a burned out city and lots of dead a.sholes and peace and quiet might also send a message. After a while they are gonna catch on about this dieing for Allah bullshit. SignatureUS Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability. >I keep hearing about this Arab street deal. How we don't want to anger >them. Well they flew civilian airliners into civilian occupied buildings, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >After a while they are gonna catch on about this dieing for Allah >bullshit. That's all quite true. Were not going after peaceful Iraqis or any other peaceful Muslims. The Islam-o-terrorists are the ones who have the the choice of whether they want to live in peace in Iraq or die in a smoking hole; not us. They can either quit attacking our troops, Iraqi government officials, and the NGOs and others who have come to Iraq to help get it back on its feet and they can live in peace. Or, they can continue pulling the sh.t they're pulling and end up dead in the smoking ruins of their home or hiding place. It's a simple choice but they are the ones who have to make it and we will gladly oblige them one way or the other. -- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm > They can either quit attacking our troops, Iraqi government officials, and > the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's a simple choice but they are the ones who have to make it and we will > gladly oblige them one way or the other. They *are* amazingly stupid. If they had just sat on their hands for a year, we would've said "our work here is done" and left this last May. THEN they could've come screaming out of their holes and it would have been nearly impossible to send us back. The dumbshits don't realize that the easiest way to get us out is make it look like we're winning. Then again, it seems to be part of their culture. If the Palestinians would've pulled a Ghandi or King and just sat down singing "We shall overcome" in front of Israeli tanks, they would've had their own country by 1980. Oh well, we're more than happy to kill them all. KL > >All we'd have to do to even the odds > >is heavily cordon Fallujah, drop leaflets into the town advising [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > next? Will they whipe out Mecca?" You think you've seen a Jihad to > date? Look, I know this is not a serious option, but it illustrates the problem of going into a place like Iraq without first figuring out how to get out again. It's pretty likely mor Americans, aloies and (relatively) innocent Iraqis will die with what we're doing now. Mark Schynert > All we'd have to do to even the odds > is heavily cordon Fallujah, drop leaflets into the town advising [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > campaign, declare victory, give the Iraqis a few billion to rebuild, and > leave. Forever. I agree that would be quite satisfying, but ultimately problematic. Consider instead what I suggested a while ago: Hold the elections in January as planned, full national control or not (We conducted our 1864 election with half the country in revolt. I don't hear anyone claiming that Lincoln's second term was illegitimate.). Wait a little bit, like the until the next attack, and get Allawi to declare "Iraq's problems must be solved by Iraqis." We can be out in 90 days. Then just put a cordon around the country until things burn out. This would affect world oil prices - negatively. The problem really is demand exceeding supply, especially in the PRC. A judicious application of SARS virus on the mainland would help cool down their economy and ease the supply issues. The Islamic "problem" would still be out there, however. A heartless soul - like me - might suggest that statements in increasing numbers and ferocity, attributed al Qaeda, be "released" criticizing the Saudi royalty and its stewardship of the Holy Sites. The gist would be that the Saudis have let them be defiled to the extent that they no longer represent the True Spirit of Islam. Then, in the middle of the Hajj, a very dirty nuclear device is detonated at the Ka'aba, completely obliterating it. This would be claimed as a "purification rite" and proof of the Saudi failure to protect them. Analysis of the fallout would indicate an isotope distribution identical to that seen after the Pakistani nuclear test, and connections with the A.Q. Khan organization revealed. That would shake things up a bit. KL >> All we'd have to do to even the odds >> is heavily cordon Fallujah, drop leaflets into the town advising [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > KL Machivelli? Is that you. I like it. SignatureUS Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability. > The Islamic "problem" would still be out there, however. A heartless soul > - like me - might suggest that statements in increasing numbers and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > KL Applause! Applause! You, sir, are an evil genius of staggering proportions. I'm glad you're on our side. Ummm... you *are* on our side, aren't you? SignatureQuidvis recte factum, quanvis humile, praeclarum: Whatever is well done, however humble, is praiseworthy. Si factum non sit, noli id reficere: If it isn't broken, don't fix it. > Applause! Applause! You, sir, are an evil genius of staggering proportions. > I'm glad you're on our side. > > Ummm... you *are* on our side, aren't you? He is, just send him a Sherman in 1/35 now and then to keep him placated..... > Applause! Applause! You, sir, are an evil genius of staggering > proportions. > I'm glad you're on our side. > > Ummm... you *are* on our side, aren't you? Don't worry where I am. Be concerned about where you are. KL > > Applause! Applause! You, sir, are an evil genius of staggering > > proportions. I'm glad you're on our side. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > KL That's good advice, and I will take it in the serious-minded way it is presented. SignatureQuidvis recte factum, quanvis humile, praeclarum: Whatever is well done, however humble, is praiseworthy. Si factum non sit, noli id reficere: If it isn't broken, don't fix it. >I agree that would be quite satisfying, but ultimately problematic. ......... But without the Sauds, who would the Bushes cozy up to? Kim M > >I agree that would be quite satisfying, but ultimately problematic. > >......... > > But without the Sauds, who would the Bushes cozy up to? Kim M Putin. KL >>Because killing people from the air is morally and legally different >>than killing them from the ground? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How is Shrub's invasion of Iraq morally different from Saddam's > invasion of Kuwait fourteen years ago? I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the Nazi's? You were interesting up to this point but you are clearly a mind numbed Kool-Aide drinker. Don't worry the DNC talking points will be out in the morning so you'll know how to reply. SignatureUS Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability. "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the Nazi's? Sweet. Of course one difference is - John Kerry was against D-Day... until the Allies crushed the Nazis into the Falaise Gap. Then he was for it. Then the Allies ran into a wall at the Huertgen Forest, with the Ardennes offensive close on its heels. Things looked bleak to some. Troops were not issued adequate winter clothing from stocks in Paris, of which Senator Kerry made much political hay. So once more, the winds shifted and along with them Senator Kerry's position yet again. "The invasion of Europe was a costly and unwise mistake said he, A complete dereliction of duty on the part of SHAEF, not me. What would you expect from this pack of old farts, Who failed in their day to win THREE - COUNT 'EM - THREE PURPLE HEARTS!" Well as the fortunes of war would have it, Hitler's last gasp in the West sped up the ultimate demise of the Third Reich. As the Allies began to smell the breeze coming off the Rhine valley, Senator Kerry found himself yet again in support of the Great Crusade . Kerry: "As a steadfast supporter ... blah blah blah... vote for me .... blah blah blah... I've got your back .... blah blah blah.... reporting for duty... blah blah blah... eat more ketchup... blah blah blah... Go Red Sox, I just love that blue wall at Wriggley field... blah blah blah.... it's Roosevelt's fault... blah blah blah It's a damn shame for some we didn't fight WWII the way we fight 'em now. Luft '48 anyone? ;-) WmB To reply, get the HECK out of there HELLinhock@earthlink.net He'd make "Fatherland" a non fiction tale...heh >"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the Nazi's? [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >To reply, get the HECK out of there >HELLinhock@earthlink.net > "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the Nazi's? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > made much political hay. So once more, the winds shifted and along with them > Senator Kerry's position yet again. But Kerry actually did vote for sending the troops that clothing, before he voted against it. SignatureJoe of Castle Jefferson http://www.mindspring.com/~jjstrshp Site Updated November 25th, 2001 "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4 >> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > But Kerry actually did vote for sending the troops that clothing, before > he voted against it. Damn, I forgot about that. I never did buy his explanation that it was a protest vote against the wool industry and the imhumane practice of sheep shearing. [NOTE} Imagine some kid or another history-challeneged type stumbling across these notes trying to make heads or tales out of it: DAN RATHER: Breaking story, exclusively on CBS News... After the break. Did George Bush's Nazi sympathizing grandfather lead a secret and unethical plan in WWII to draft sheep into the US military. And is that an idea his Saudi partnered garndson may have plans to press into service if re-elected. More on that and Senator Kerry's 90 minute uninterrupted response following the commercial break. WmB To reply, get the HECK out of there HELLinhock@earthlink.net WmB To reply, get the HECK out of there HELLinhock@earthlink.net While we've all sitting here kicking around the whethere and whether nots, of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, etc, I got an e-mail the other day and I'd like to share part of it with you all (appended below). It's no big deal; just a little something to think about while you munch on a snack and read through RMS. -------------------------------------------------------------- A Guy Like Seitz "Seitz." He always answered the phone by providing only his last name. Nothing more would come until you identified yourself. He wasn't brusque or distrustful. He was busy. Always busy. Always into something. The nature of his work required rapid and efficient communication. Upon identifying the caller to his satisfaction, there would come a torrent of greetings, salutations, and his distinctive laughter. His accent was unmistakable. He would always begin with "Harry! How ya' dooin'? How are things in D.C.? Listen, Harry. I need you to do me a favor." That's when I would always brace myself. It was never ordinary with Ed Seitz. It was never routine. It was always some prickly investigation. There were always feathers to be smoothed, and skids to be greased. Buckle your seat belts, everybody. Ed's working another hot one. He always made the day go fast. Never a dull moment with Seitz. We would always end our conversations with talk of baseball. "Listen, Harry. We gotta' get you out here for a Cubs game. I got tickets. We'll get a couple of 'dogs and a brew. Have a great time. Wadda' ya' say?" I would always promise to come out and see the Cubs, but time and circumstance would always prevent. Another season would pass without the promised pilgrimage to Wrigley Field. During our last conversation, Ed told me of his decision to volunteer for assignment to Baghdad. Having spent time in conflict zones throughout the world during the course of my own career, I knew it was going to be rough. Very rough. There would be no Cubs games for a long time. I was grateful, ever so grateful that guys like Seitz were willing and able to fill the breach and serve overseas. This Sunday began with the soft patter of an Autumn rain on leaves of rust and gold. The furnace kicked on and warmed the house as my family lay sleeping. I made coffee for my wife, and turned on the television set. The family cat tangled my feet insisting on her breakfast first. Thankfully, at this stage of my career, work now kept me stateside. I maintained the daily routine of long commutes to D.C., and lazy weekends with the wife and kids. Then came the dreadful announcement over the television. A Diplomatic Security agent "killed in Baghdad." "Ed Seitz." The room grew dark and cold, and I was suddenly alone. Very much alone, and feeling the pangs of survivor's guilt. Why did it have to happen? Why are we in that God-forsaken place? Why Ed? Why had it not happened to me? I'll tell you why. It's because we have an enemy that hates us for being different, and fears us for being free. It's because our enemy insists that women should remain in bondage, and that school children are legitimate targets in their reign of terror. It's because they view the knife and gun as an acceptable response to dissenting opinion. It's because our enemy cloaks itself in the mantel of religion, while its sympathizers engage in moral relativism. It's because no one else could do more. We could do no less. We are Americans. Guys like Seitz will always be there to confront them. Ed Seitz didn't go to Baghdad for the big oil companies, or to ensure Bush's reelection, or all the other such nonsense uttered by news casters and political pundits these days. He went there for you and for me. Don't anybody dare to use that tired old anti-war refrain "not in my name" with me. Because when the time came, and it would have, everybody would have asked on their hands and knees. By that time, it would have been too late. Guys like Seitz make it possible for front office types like me to push the paper, answer the phones, scribble policy in the comfort of our little cubicles, and generally make life complicated for guys like Seitz. He made it possible for guys like me to gripe about D.C. traffic, see the kids off to safe and secure schools, mow the lawn, feed the cat on quiet Sunday mornings, and have dinner with the family. Every night. Never forget that. I'll go to that Cubs game some day. I'll watch them play under a broad and blue Midwestern sky, and I'll listen to rustle and snap of Old Glory on a rising breeze as the 'Ump shouts "Play ball!" And maybe for a moment, just one quiet moment, Ed and I will finally get to share that 'dog and a brew while we cheer the Cubs, in a world finally at peace. Thanks, Ed. God bless. See you at Wrigley Field. ---Name removed for privacy reasons--- Special Agent Diplomatic Security Service International Programs Office -------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm > It's no big deal; It is a big deal, thanx for sharing. I was on the liberty ship John W. Brown a few weeks ago, and they had a ceremony for sailors who were still at sea. When they played taps, I started fidgiting, and looking around for my soda, anything but paying attention to it. Because you see, I've never served, never will be able to, but have had to listen to taps being played for relitaves, and friends enough times, I never want to hear it again. I live in a VERY liberal area of No VA, and I wish I could make some of these spinless, whining liberal yuppies understand trhe feelings that I feel every time I see/read/hear about another casuality. If these people only knew the true cost of their being able to bitch moan and whine about their mundane, usless little lives, they wouldnt complain soo much !! They take for granted the security they have, to do what they want, mindless of their fellow Americans who go out and do all their little dirty work for them !!!!!! Physical reality is far different from the lofty ideals they believe in, yet they cant seem to see, much less be able to tell the difference..................... SignatureOnly A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will "Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like Liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now." -- Ann Coulter "Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful." "At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke "What the liberals fear is *privately* owned guns, not guns owned by the government. The liberal position on privately owned guns is entirely consistent with the liberal position on all private property: there shouldn't be any; all private property should be controlled, regulated, or confiscated by the omnipotent state. The liberals have no objection to guns - only to guns they do not control. They are seeking a legal monopoly on guns... in order to eliminate any final opposition to a socialist government. This is the purpose of the gun control lobby - not the reduction of crime, which could be easily achieved by harsher penalties for criminals - but the elimination of citizen opposition to their socialist plans." -- Congressman Earl Landgrebe (R-IN) 1973 "A liberal believes everyone has the right to be happy and prosperous, beginning with himself. A liberal believes in the power of government because he is afraid of his neighbors. That is why he is at heart a totalitarian who uses great ingenuity to convince them to vote for governments by which he can control them. A liberal is generous with other people's money, as long as it is being spent by him for their own good. A liberal believes people like himself should be placed in positions where they can discourage all forms of elitism, forcibly if necessary." -- S. M. Hutchens "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy SignatureQuidvis recte factum, quanvis humile, praeclarum: Whatever is well done, however humble, is praiseworthy. Si factum non sit, noli id reficere: If it isn't broken, don't fix it. > "Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, > they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt > he proposes to pay off with your money." -- G. Gordon Liddy When a bunch of rabid reactionaries defines what it means to be a liberal, you can expect the definitions to be inaccurate and meaningless. The same is true if you get a bunch of rabid leftisits defining conservatives--they will make them all out to be lying, greedy, evil reactionaries. Your post would make a better point if you quoted William Safire, Pat Buchanan and George Will instead of this collection of maniacs. Mark Schynert What is Ann Coulter's problem anyway. Wouldn't Bill CLinton screw her? Maybe he just doesn't have a thing for post-op trannies. Kim M > What is Ann Coulter's problem anyway. Wouldn't Bill CLinton screw her? > Maybe > he just doesn't have a thing for post-op trannies. More like he doesn't like women whose height exceeds their waistline, or who can walk past a clock without stopping it. KL > > What is Ann Coulter's problem anyway. Wouldn't Bill CLinton screw her? > > Maybe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > KL Personal opinion here but, Monica has it all over that ugly hag Coulter. It has an Adam's Apple fully as large as mine which is usually how one can spot a non-biological female. Bill Banaszak, MFE > When a bunch of rabid reactionaries defines what it means to be a > liberal, you can expect the definitions to be inaccurate and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > William Safire, Pat Buchanan and George Will instead of this collection > of maniacs. "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -- Barry Goldwater The point is that *I* am a rabid, reactionary maniac. :-D SignatureQuidvis recte factum, quanvis humile, praeclarum: Whatever is well done, however humble, is praiseworthy. Si factum non sit, noli id reficere: If it isn't broken, don't fix it. That Goldwater quote would sound like crap rhetoric said by any extremist anywhere. Unless we remain reasonable and civil with each other by consent, then society is lost. That entails mutual co-operation for mutual benefit. All models of political imposition without consent are essentially immature and prone to failure. Perhaps rabid brainless mania of any kind is a luxury we can't afford in a shrinking world. Chek SignatureChange' boos' to 'bos' in address to email directly > > > When a bunch of rabid reactionaries defines what it means to be a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The point is that *I* am a rabid, reactionary maniac. :-D > That Goldwater quote would sound like crap rhetoric said by > any extremist anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Chek No offense bro, but if whatever you're trying to say is in the same ballpark as the Goldwater quote - he said it more eloquently and more clearly. WmB To reply, get the HECK out of there HELLinhock@earthlink.net > That Goldwater quote would sound like crap rhetoric said by > any extremist anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Chek Amen, sir. We already have enough rabid reactionaries out there trying to pitch the world over the event horizon of endless killing and blood. We need to be reasoned people to deal with them. Bill Banaszak > Unless we remain reasonable and civil with each other by consent, then > society is lost. Society has been around for a long time, through times far less "reasonable and civil" than these. > That entails mutual co-operation for mutual benefit. Sounds good to me; try preaching this to people who fly airliners into skyscrapers and cut heads off with dull knives because Allah told them to and see what they tell you. > All models of political imposition without consent are essentially > immature and prone to failure. Nolo contendre, but again, go tell the Muslims. > Perhaps rabid brainless mania of any kind is a luxury we can't afford in a > shrinking world. And implying that I am brainless is "civil"? Btw, how have the rabid maniacal Muslim extremists who want to kill you and your family for being infidels responded to your "Can't we all just get along?" bumper-sticker sermons? SignatureQuidvis recte factum, quanvis humile, praeclarum: Whatever is well done, however humble, is praiseworthy. Si factum non sit, noli id reficere: If it isn't broken, don't fix it. >Sounds good to me; try preaching this to people who fly airliners into >skyscrapers and cut heads off with dull knives because Allah told them to >and see what they tell you. What, don't you like faith based initiatives? Kim M >I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the Nazi's? The allied invasion of France was part of a larger war designed to drive an agressor out. Nice attempt at a non-sequitor. >You were interesting up to this point but you are clearly a mind numbed >Kool-Aide drinker. Sure. When you can't address the discussion you turn to persnal insults. > Don't worry the DNC talking points will be out in the >morning so you'll know how to reply. So you assume I'm a democrat just because I don't agree with you. Must be nice to have a life so categorised. >>I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the Nazi's? > > The allied invasion of France was part of a larger war designed to > drive an agressor out. Nice attempt at a non-sequitor. Just like the Iraq war to oust Saddam Hussein is a part of a larger war on terrorists. WmB To reply, get the HECK out of there HELLinhock@earthlink.net >>>I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the Nazi's? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Just like the Iraq war to oust Saddam Hussein is a part of a larger war on >terrorists. Nice non-sequitor part two. Why hasn't the real Bad Guy been caught yet? It's been proven that Saddam had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. Why is Shrub ignoring him? Why hasn't "the most powerful country on Earth" caught one raghead running around in the mountains? >>>>I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the >>>>Nazi's? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Laden. Why is Shrub ignoring him? Why hasn't "the most powerful > country on Earth" caught one raghead running around in the mountains? Your apparent ignorance of history makes this rather difficult. You do realize that it took what 50 years to bring down the Soviet Union. I guess since we weren't doing to well against the Japanese for 6 months and since Coral Sea wasn't a decisive victory we should have sued for peace in late May of 1942. And why is there never any consideration of the horrific crimes commiteed by Saddam. You think all the horror stories of rape, torture, mutilation and murder were just made up? At what point so you say, well all thing considered the guy was a scumbag good riddance? How about the message it sends that we aren't the faltering fool we've been with these idiots for the last 30 years. And I include Reagan and Bush the !st in my denunciations. My God man where have you been for the last 40 years? These animals of one stripe or another have been killing us for years. And what about other costs? My Dad and I both worked for Pan Am. Ya think maybe the fact that Pan Am was targeted like it was (Flight 103) wasn't part of the reason Pan Am failed. Kinda hard to keep 'em flying if noone wantsd to board. Leon Klinghoffer, an old man in a wheelchair for God's Sake and the Italians to thier everlasting shame let the bastards go! History lesson. This is a very large problem. And our weakness in not dealing with it made it worse. It seems to me that killing bad actors in wholesale lots means there are fewer to badly act. Just what would make you sit up and fight back? Or are you so worthless, so without any value that you would not fight back no matter what the cost. If that's the case just go sit in the corner while men and women better than you keep you safe and shut the f.ck up with your incessant mewling that is stabbing your betters in the back. My dad has told me stories from back when he was a kid in the 40's. You didn't talk the kinda trash you slacker fuckwits talk today without coughing up teeth. Maybe sometimes the old ways are better. SignatureUS Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 3 No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability. > Just what would make you sit up and fight back? Or are you so worthless, > so without any value that you would not fight back no matter what the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than you keep you safe and shut the f.ck up with your incessant mewling > that is stabbing your betters in the back. "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill "Guy N. LaFrance" gnlafrance64@yahoo.com wrote: >"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and >degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is >worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to >fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a >miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so >by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill I was gonna' post that quote this evening myself but you beat me to in ;~) -- -- -- -- -- "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." George Orwell My Home Page: http://www.bill-woodier.com/home.htm >Your apparent ignorance of history makes this rather difficult. You do >realize that it took what 50 years to bring down the Soviet Union. And that has exactly what to do with this conversation? >I guess since we weren't doing to well against the Japanese for 6 months >and since Coral Sea wasn't a decisive victory we should have sued for >peace in late May of 1942. And that also has exactly what to do with this conversation? >And why is there never any consideration of the horrific crimes commiteed >by Saddam. You think all the horror stories of rape, torture, mutilation >and murder were just made up? All true, and all the Iraquis' problem. Look how they're thanking you for solving it for them. Who died and made the US the King of the World? And if the US is the King of the World, why have they ignored all the other trouble spots? It's not as if there's a lack of opportunity. >At what point so you say, well all thing >considered the guy was a scumbag good riddance? How about the message it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >reason Pan Am failed. Kinda hard to keep 'em flying if noone wantsd to >board. Yes? And exactly what does this have with the conversation at hand? Stop trying to twist the discussion away from the fact that the US invaded a soverign country for no good reason. >Leon Klinghoffer, an old man in a wheelchair for God's Sake and the >Italians to thier everlasting shame let the bastards go! That's the Italians' fault. Why didn't the US invade italy? They obviously weren't doing their prt in the "War Against Terror", were they? >History lesson. This is a very large problem. And our weakness in not >dealing with it made it worse. It seems to me that killing bad actors in >wholesale lots means there are fewer to badly act. And for every one you kill, you teach ten others to hate you even more. Good plan. Here's a radical idea: how abou teaching people to like you instead? >Just what would make you sit up and fight back? Or are you so worthless, >so without any value that you would not fight back no matter what the >cost. Catch and punish the guilty, not their neighbours. >If that's the case just go sit in the corner while men and women better >than you keep you safe and shut the f.ck up with your incessant mewling >that is stabbing your betters in the back. For certain values of "better". If you think that that's what being better means than I'm glad that I'm not. >My dad has told me stories from back when he was a kid in the 40's. You >didn't talk the kinda trash you slacker fuckwits talk today without >coughing up teeth. Maybe sometimes the old ways are better. Perhaps is't because today we have minds of our own and we're not afraid to tell someone that they're wrong when we see that they're wrong. If you can't handle that without wanting to make me spit teeth then you should sit down and think long and hard about what being civilised means. Point two: If being disghusted and revolted that the US invaded a soverign country without any more cause than trumped-up excuses makes me a slacker then I'm proud to be so labeled. > Who died and made the US the King of the The eurotrashians who spent the last 800+ years trying to conqure the world, and in the end turning on themselves, allowed the relitively new nation state called the USA to become the worlds only superpower. If it hadnt been for WW I and WW II dragging the US into the modern intercontenental political, military, and economic market, the US would still be an isolationist minded country. > And if the US is the King of the World, why have they ignored > all the other trouble spots? It's not as if there's a lack of > opportunity. Because when you are the worlds only superpower, you can pick and choose when where and how you will strike. In terms of military conflict in the air, sea, or at land, US forces dictate the combat enviroment, and force levels, not the other way around. The USA is the only nation state to reach this level of power in history, and NOT tried to take over the world. Unlike said eurotrashians. BTW, look at all the rape, looting, and torture, murder, and plundering the europeans did over the past said 800+ years. (and are still doing......) Dosnt that bother you ? SignatureOnly A Gentleman Can Insult Me And A True Gentleman Never Will >>>>I dunni. How was the Allied invasion of France different than the >>>>Nazi's? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nice non-sequitor part two. You throw that around a lot, it's probably what you would have said in 1943 when the Allies took on N Africa and Italy before going into France. Let me lay it out for you the way I see it if we can take Bush at his word: 1) Iraq - 1st option - Diplomacy first. Tried it, but the Russians, French and Germans refused to cooperate and put Saddam's toes to the fire. We're now finding out why. 2nd Option - Rattle sabres and threaten action. See above. None of the so called European "leaders" aside from Britain and Spain would stand shoulder to shoulder with the US. If they had, who knows Saddam might have caved in. We'll never know. 3rd and final option - Take him out. 2) Iran, Syria, et al 1st option - Diplomacy first... um, you get the idea yet? 3) North Korea - Trickier situation than the rest due to the clusterfuck nuclear nightmare created by bl.wj.b Bill Clinton and Jumpin' Jimmy the Appeaser Carter in the gold rush '90s. Iran will follow suit if Kerry is elected. Appeasement and chickenshit speeches and empty promises while Iran levels nuclear tipped missiles our way. The Bush team plan is the correct approach - multilateral talks and keep them pinned down by their own diatribe. North Korea isn't going to go nuke on us or anyone we love in Asia. That being said the NK stalemate can't go on forever. To break it, at some point the whiny a.s liberals in the Senate and House are going to have to drop their fifth column support for the enemies of the US with their backstabbing attacks on Bush and get on board - in his second term. Yeah I know, wishful thinking that the leftists socialists in this country will abandon their communist friends in Asia anytime soon to support the US. WmB To reply, get the HECK out of there HELLinhock@earthlink.net > Iran will follow suit if Kerry is > elected. Appeasement and chickenshit speeches and empty promises while Iran > levels nuclear tipped missiles our way. I doubt this. The Israeli's just took delivery of the first batch of a buy of 500 of our latest type "Bunker Buster" bombs. Just the type of thing for cracking through the containment dome over a reactor. Write "Osirak, chapter II" 100 times. Seriously, my fear is that Kerry will get elected, do a bunk on the Iraq stage which will send the wrong message to all the not quite so fanatic Muslims sitting on the fence watching the game. They decide the U.S. is on the run and it's time to go after the Israelis and any moderate Governments in the Middle East and in the end the Israelis will have to use some of those nuclear bombs they claim they do not have. End result, chaos in the Middle East, major clog in energy flow and a major world energy shortage leading to a major world economic crash. It's a scary scenario and his history suggests that Mr. Kerry is quite capable of starting just this kind of f.ck up. Bill Shuey |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message