"Don Lancaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ronald McDonald wrote:
>> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>> failure in Iraq.
>>
>> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>
>> RM
>
> The solution that makes by far the most sense is US immediate
> unconditional surrender.
>
When did they import FROGS to AZ?
Ronald McDonald wrote:
> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
> failure in Iraq.
>
> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>
> RM
George W. is not available. Let's ask his father.
"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush, "A World Transformed", 1998
"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human
and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We
would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq
...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another
of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to
set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world.
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United
Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international
response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the
invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an
occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
-George H. W. Bush, "A World Transformed", 1998
Here he is...
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
- George W. Bush, Houston Chronicle 4/9/99, criticizing President
Clinton's administration for the Kosovo military action.
"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to
destabilize their country."
- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 5, 2004
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>From President Antichrist's televised ravings tonight:
"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."
So he's going to Leavenworth for Abu Ghraib?
"Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch
attacks on the American people."
I think they already have one, in the District of Columbia.
"... there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed
to this effort - along with local police. These Iraqi forces will
operate from local police stations - conducting patrols and setting
up checkpoints and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad
residents."
Yeah, a lot of trust is gained by parading firepower through the
streets, hassling people at every street corner, and knocking on (or
down) doors uninvited.
"If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it
will lose the support of the American people - and it will lose the
support of the Iraqi people."
Slow reader, isn't he?
God, I'm only up to page 2 of 5 in the transcript and I can't stand it
any longer!
Glen wrote:
> Don Lancaster wrote:
> > Ronald McDonald wrote:
> >> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
> >> failure in Iraq.
> >>
> >> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
> >> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
> >>
> >> RM
> >
> > The solution that makes by far the most sense is US immediate
> > unconditional surrender.
> >
> >
> I never knew that Ted Kennedy lurked on this site.
>
> Glen
Nah, it's not him, he keeps spilling Scotch on the keyboard and it
doesn't work anymore.
Maybe we could get him to give Osama a ride...
-jtpr
Steve Downey wrote:
> <"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message > PROVE
> that Bush and Cheney profit from each death. If you're not joking,
> > you're a liar.
> >
>
> Prove that man walked on the moon.
http://viral.lycos.co.uk/attachments/1103/moontruth.mpg
http://www.realidadeoculta.com/moontruth.mpeg
--
FF
Louie wrote:
>>My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>>Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>
>
> Did you think of said consequences when you cross-posted your idiot
> liberal spam?
Liberal spam? When most of the country thinks that invading Iraq was a
mistake? Even if half of them are still convinced Iraq was behind 9/11,
which it wasn't.
I think you're blindly following the far right party line - try to break free
and analyze the issue.
--
It's turtles, all the way down
Gunner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:06:25 -0500, gamer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
<snip of long series of quotes from Democrats supporting the Iraq policy>
OK, you've now proven that ALL politicians are a bunch of <insert expletive
here>, SO? I thought we all knew that.
No system of government where people are elected based on the amount of money
they can raise and where they spend their time in office raising more money
for their re-election will ever give any result other than the one we have
now.
Not to mention that "Nobody who wants to be elected should be" was one of Will
Rogers wisest statements.
So what's the answer?
I don't know, but I suspect pulling names out of a hat and making it a duty to
serve (for one term only) if your name is pulled could only be an
improvement. :-).
--
It's turtles, all the way down
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:54:58 -0800, Steve Downey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Great post Stuart! The sand baboons must be led by a strong ruthless
> dictator because if they were free, they would become lost and confused.
> They are fucking animals.
The notion of "liberation of Iraq", then, becomes a little specious...
i
> "Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ronald McDonald wrote:
>> > President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>> > failure in Iraq.
>> >
>> > My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>> > Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>> >
>> > RM
>>
>> He apparently thought that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms,
>> and be kissing our feet because we removed Sadam and gave them a
>> republic. Any sane, western person would do that.
>>
>> Of course, he's igorant about anthropology. These people are primitives
>> who live in the 7th century with flush toilets: they just LOVE a good
>> dictatorship and killing each other. The entire idea of a republic and
>> fair play is totally alien to them. They think the entire effort is very
>> stupid, and they can't wait until we're gone so they can slaughter each
>> other.
>>
>> Now, what they WOULD understand if we killed them, and let them know we
>> were willing to kill them all if they didn't behave. That is the
>> principle that every Arab government works under, indeed, every MOSLEM
>> government. THAT they know, respect and can understand; it makes them
>> feel secure because it is familiar to them. Voting? Purple fingers? HA!
>> They think that's a damned joke.
>>
>> Check it out, I said that you couldn't bring a democracy to these
>> man-beasts when Bush began to talk about nation building. Once again, I
>> was proven right.
>>
>> If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy. 2)
>> Install a dictator friendly to the US.
>
>
Ronald McDonald wrote:
> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
> failure in Iraq.
>
> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>
> RM
Iraq is a staging ground for invasion of Iran.
--
-The Smoke is Strong with this One-
,--'_`--.
,/( \ / )\.
// \ \_/ / \\
|/___/ \___\|
((___ ___))
|\ \ _ / /|
\\ / / \ \ //
`\(_/___\_)/'
`--._.--'
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:39:35 -0500, Mike M wrote:
> "Don Lancaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ronald McDonald wrote:
>>> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>>> failure in Iraq.
>>>
>>> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>>> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>>
>>> RM
>>
>> The solution that makes by far the most sense is US immediate
>> unconditional surrender.
>>
>>
> When did they import FROGS to AZ?
When it became necessary to control the population explosion of nasty
insects.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://osuny.co.uk/forum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:32:58 -0800, Stuart Grey wrote:
> If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy.
Hey, you've convinced me! When does Bush depart?
> 2) Install a dictator friendly to the US.
Naah, his daddy did that and junior used it as an excuse to invade.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://osuny.co.uk/forum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>> Ignoramus26157 wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:29:32 -0800, Stuart Grey
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ignoramus 3975 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:54:58 -0800, Steve Downey <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Great post Stuart! The sand baboons must be led by a strong ruthless
>>>>>> dictator because if they were free, they would become lost and
>>>>>> confused.
>>>>>> They are fucking animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The notion of "liberation of Iraq", then, becomes a little specious...
>>>>>
>>>>> i
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated"
>>>> Germany in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we
>>>> defeated them. WE didn't let them have a vote to put another Hitler
>>>> in office.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if Iraqis are the enemy, then no wonder Iraqis are killing us in
>>> droves!
>>>
>>> If some country invaded the USA, I would take my sniper rifle and kill
>>> their soldiers as well.
>>
>>
>> You might, and President Bush would let you live, and try and get you
>> to vote and color your finger purple.
>>
>> After World War II, lots of good Germans did just that after the
>> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>>
>> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
>> was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
>> until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
>> course.
>
>
> Interesting fiction.
>
> Dan
I guess your history books feature Bill CLinton going back in time to
save the world from fascism and Nazis. He was also hung on a cross for
our sins as well.
--
¯`The Smoke is Strong with this one.´¯
,--'_`--.
,/( \ / )\.
// \ \_/ / \\
|/___/ \___\|
((___ ___))
|\ \ _ / /|
\\ / / \ \ //
`\(_/___\_)/'
`--._.--'
Ignoramus26157 wrote:
> Try getting a little bit detached from your partisan politics and ask
> yourselves "what is really going on". The lame whining about
> "democrats vs. republicans" is boring.
>
> i
Whoz whining? I think Time travel is possible for presidents. George
Bush travelled back in time and caused Krakatoa to blow up and thus
cause the dark ages.
--
¯`The Smoke is Strong with this one.´¯
,--'_`--.
,/( \ / )\.
// \ \_/ / \\
|/___/ \___\|
((___ ___))
|\ \ _ / /|
\\ / / \ \ //
`\(_/___\_)/'
`--._.--'
<"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message > PROVE
that Bush and Cheney profit from each death. If you're not joking,
> you're a liar.
>
Prove that man walked on the moon.
Ronald McDonald wrote:
> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
> failure in Iraq.
>
> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>
> RM
The solution that makes by far the most sense is US immediate
unconditional surrender.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: [email protected]
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Stuart Grey wrote:
>>> Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated"
>>> Germany in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we
>>> defeated them. WE didn't let them have a vote to put another Hitler
>>> in office.
>>
>>
>> Well, if Iraqis are the enemy, then no wonder Iraqis are killing us in
>> droves!
>>
>> If some country invaded the USA, I would take my sniper rifle and kill
>> their soldiers as well.
>
> You might, and President Bush would let you live, and try and get you to
> vote and color your finger purple.
>
> After World War II, lots of good Germans did just that after the
> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>
> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
> was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
> until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
> course.
What a load of BS!
Salty
Stuart Grey wrote:
> Salty wrote:
>> Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated"
>>>>> Germany in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we
>>>>> defeated them. WE didn't let them have a vote to put another Hitler
>>>>> in office.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, if Iraqis are the enemy, then no wonder Iraqis are killing us in
>>>> droves!
>>>>
>>>> If some country invaded the USA, I would take my sniper rifle and kill
>>>> their soldiers as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> You might, and President Bush would let you live, and try and get you
>>> to vote and color your finger purple.
>>>
>>> After World War II, lots of good Germans did just that after the
>>> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>>>
>>> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
>>> was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
>>> until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
>>> course.
>>
>>
>> What a load of BS!
>>
>> Salty
>
> You can't try and educate people without some ignorant asshole claiming
> you're wrong, but the same asshole is too ignorant to say why they think
> you're wrong about it; if they could say why, they would be logical
> thinkers and not gibbering assholes.
>
> Begin Quote -
No, how about *I* begin *your* quote.
****
*After World War II*, lots of good Germans did just that after the
American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
course.
****
Notice how you initially claimed this took place after the war ended,
then you try to rebut with more BS about supposed happenings in the
closing stages of the war.
Ever considered making up your mind? Might be a novel experience for you.
Salty
Steve Downey wrote:
> <"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message > PROVE
> that Bush and Cheney profit from each death. If you're not joking,
>
>>you're a liar.
>>
>
>
> Prove that man walked on the moon.
>
>
Trivial.
The cover of Science Magazine where two retroreflected laser dots were
bounced off it.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: [email protected]
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Stuart Grey wrote:
> Steve Downey wrote:
>
>> <Prove there is more money in a war torn Iraq than in an peaceful one
>> <where they can pump oil.
>>
>> Prove that somebody loved their dead parents.
>
>
> So, basically, what you're saying is that you feel free to lie and spew
> all kinds of things, because you don't accept anything as proof.
>
> The description of such a person is "has his head up his ass".
The clinically correct term is "rectocranial inversion"
Which, curiously, can be both chronic and acute at the same time.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: [email protected]
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
"Louie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:41:34 -0600, Ronald McDonald
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>>failure in Iraq.
>>
>>My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>>Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>
>>RM
>
>
> Did you think of said consequences when you cross-posted your idiot
> liberal spam?
>
> *PLONK*
I blame your name.
Ignoramus 3975 wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:54:58 -0800, Steve Downey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Great post Stuart! The sand baboons must be led by a strong ruthless
>>dictator because if they were free, they would become lost and confused.
>>They are fucking animals.
>
>
> The notion of "liberation of Iraq", then, becomes a little specious...
>
> i
Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated" Germany
in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we defeated them.
WE didn't let them have a vote to put another Hitler in office.
Even so, the Germans were ready for a republic, they had a western
culture. It can't be done with the people of the middle east unless you
do massive culture changes. That would take generations and the utter
destruction of Islam, so it isn't going to happen.
The best we can hope for is to install a somewhat benevolent dictator
who is brutal with his opposition and friendly to the US. We had one
like that in Iran at one time, but that uber-idiot, President Carter got
him out of power and the Iranians replaced him with some Islamic Goat
fucking (Literally!) perverted religious leader named "ayatollah
khomeini" who was utterly brutal, oppressive, and hated the US. Way to
go, Carter, that's MUCH better. Lots more people killed and the threat
of another Jewish Genocide.
>>"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Ronald McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>>>>failure in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>>My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>>>>Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>>>
>>>>RM
>>>
>>>He apparently thought that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms,
>>>and be kissing our feet because we removed Sadam and gave them a
>>>republic. Any sane, western person would do that.
>>>
>>>Of course, he's igorant about anthropology. These people are primitives
>>>who live in the 7th century with flush toilets: they just LOVE a good
>>>dictatorship and killing each other. The entire idea of a republic and
>>>fair play is totally alien to them. They think the entire effort is very
>>>stupid, and they can't wait until we're gone so they can slaughter each
>>>other.
>>>
>>>Now, what they WOULD understand if we killed them, and let them know we
>>>were willing to kill them all if they didn't behave. That is the
>>>principle that every Arab government works under, indeed, every MOSLEM
>>>government. THAT they know, respect and can understand; it makes them
>>>feel secure because it is familiar to them. Voting? Purple fingers? HA!
>>>They think that's a damned joke.
>>>
>>>Check it out, I said that you couldn't bring a democracy to these
>>>man-beasts when Bush began to talk about nation building. Once again, I
>>>was proven right.
>>>
>>>If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy. 2)
>>>Install a dictator friendly to the US.
>>
>>
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:22:25 -0800, Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Not to mention that "Nobody who wants to be elected should be" was one of Will
>Rogers wisest statements.
>
>So what's the answer?
>
>I don't know, but I suspect pulling names out of a hat and making it a duty to
>serve (for one term only) if your name is pulled could only be an
>improvement. :-).
See:
Phillip K. Dick, "Solar Lottery"
Tue, Jan 9, 2007, 1:41pm (EST-1) [email protected]
(Ronald=A0McDonald) doth burble some usual troll BS which is snipped.
Ah. A cross-posting clown troll. Or, would that more properly be
a troll clown?
JOAT
To listen is an effort, and just to hear is no merit. A duck hears
also.
- Igor Stravinsky
"Curly Surmudgeon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 20:39:35 -0500, Mike M wrote:
>
>> "Don Lancaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Ronald McDonald wrote:
>>>> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>>>> failure in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>>>> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>>>
>>>> RM
>>>
>>> The solution that makes by far the most sense is US immediate
>>> unconditional surrender.
>>>
>>>
>> When did they import FROGS to AZ?
>
> When it became necessary to control the population explosion of nasty
> insects.
Insects are afraid of white flags?
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:29:32 -0800, Stuart Grey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ignoramus 3975 wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:54:58 -0800, Steve Downey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Great post Stuart! The sand baboons must be led by a strong ruthless
>>>dictator because if they were free, they would become lost and confused.
>>>They are fucking animals.
>>
>>
>> The notion of "liberation of Iraq", then, becomes a little specious...
>>
>> i
>
> Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated" Germany
> in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we defeated them.
> WE didn't let them have a vote to put another Hitler in office.
Well, if Iraqis are the enemy, then no wonder Iraqis are killing us in
droves!
If some country invaded the USA, I would take my sniper rifle and kill
their soldiers as well.
> Even so, the Germans were ready for a republic, they had a western
> culture. It can't be done with the people of the middle east unless you
> do massive culture changes. That would take generations and the utter
> destruction of Islam, so it isn't going to happen.
It surely seems like it is not going to happen.
> The best we can hope for is to install a somewhat benevolent
> dictator who is brutal with his opposition and friendly to the
> US. We had one like that in Iran at one time, but that uber-idiot,
> President Carter got him out of power and the Iranians replaced him
> with some Islamic Goat fucking (Literally!) perverted religious
> leader named "ayatollah khomeini" who was utterly brutal,
> oppressive, and hated the US. Way to go, Carter, that's MUCH
> better. Lots more people killed and the threat of another Jewish
> Genocide.
Sounds like you are very upset with Carter.
I am not sure what is going on with Iraq, despite following news
closely. I think that we do not have the whole story of who is behind
whom. There is a decent chance that we'll see one brutal, goat fucking
dictator there who is beholden to Iran, and another one who is
beholden to Sunni extremists.
i
Grave Consequences means :
Bush is going to put as many innocent Americans and Iraqis in the grave as
possible,
he and Cheney have done the math and they know exactly how much money
Halliburton makes from each dead soldier and each dead Iraqi,
they are going to split the profits with Blair,Limbaugh, Rove, O'Reilly,
along with Murdoch and his
Faux Nazi news service,
this is not a joke
"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ronald McDonald wrote:
>> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>> failure in Iraq.
>>
>> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>
>> RM
>
> He apparently thought that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, and
> be kissing our feet because we removed Sadam and gave them a republic. Any
> sane, western person would do that.
>
> Of course, he's igorant about anthropology. These people are primitives
> who live in the 7th century with flush toilets: they just LOVE a good
> dictatorship and killing each other. The entire idea of a republic and
> fair play is totally alien to them. They think the entire effort is very
> stupid, and they can't wait until we're gone so they can slaughter each
> other.
>
> Now, what they WOULD understand if we killed them, and let them know we
> were willing to kill them all if they didn't behave. That is the principle
> that every Arab government works under, indeed, every MOSLEM government.
> THAT they know, respect and can understand; it makes them feel secure
> because it is familiar to them. Voting? Purple fingers? HA! They think
> that's a damned joke.
>
> Check it out, I said that you couldn't bring a democracy to these
> man-beasts when Bush began to talk about nation building. Once again, I
> was proven right.
>
> If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy. 2) Install
> a dictator friendly to the US.
Stuart Grey wrote:
> Ignoramus26157 wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:29:32 -0800, Stuart Grey
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Ignoramus 3975 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:54:58 -0800, Steve Downey <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Great post Stuart! The sand baboons must be led by a strong ruthless
>>>>> dictator because if they were free, they would become lost and
>>>>> confused.
>>>>> They are fucking animals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The notion of "liberation of Iraq", then, becomes a little specious...
>>>>
>>>> i
>>>
>>> Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated"
>>> Germany in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we
>>> defeated them. WE didn't let them have a vote to put another Hitler
>>> in office.
>>
>>
>> Well, if Iraqis are the enemy, then no wonder Iraqis are killing us in
>> droves!
>>
>> If some country invaded the USA, I would take my sniper rifle and kill
>> their soldiers as well.
>
> You might, and President Bush would let you live, and try and get you to
> vote and color your finger purple.
>
> After World War II, lots of good Germans did just that after the
> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>
> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
> was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
> until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
> course.
Interesting fiction.
Dan
Ignoramus26157 wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:29:32 -0800, Stuart Grey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ignoramus 3975 wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:54:58 -0800, Steve Downey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Great post Stuart! The sand baboons must be led by a strong ruthless
>>>>dictator because if they were free, they would become lost and confused.
>>>>They are fucking animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>The notion of "liberation of Iraq", then, becomes a little specious...
>>>
>>>i
>>
>>Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated" Germany
>>in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we defeated them.
>>WE didn't let them have a vote to put another Hitler in office.
>
>
> Well, if Iraqis are the enemy, then no wonder Iraqis are killing us in
> droves!
>
> If some country invaded the USA, I would take my sniper rifle and kill
> their soldiers as well.
You might, and President Bush would let you live, and try and get you to
vote and color your finger purple.
After World War II, lots of good Germans did just that after the
American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
course.
Pretty soon, the German people themselves were turning the snipers over
to the Americans to be hanged as war criminals, or the Germans just kill
the snipers themselves.
At least that's per the Geneva conventions. The damned communist and
British were not nearly as nice and didn't follow the conventions.
>>Even so, the Germans were ready for a republic, they had a western
>>culture. It can't be done with the people of the middle east unless you
>>do massive culture changes. That would take generations and the utter
>>destruction of Islam, so it isn't going to happen.
>
>
> It surely seems like it is not going to happen.
>
>
>>The best we can hope for is to install a somewhat benevolent
>>dictator who is brutal with his opposition and friendly to the
>>US. We had one like that in Iran at one time, but that uber-idiot,
>>President Carter got him out of power and the Iranians replaced him
>>with some Islamic Goat fucking (Literally!) perverted religious
>>leader named "ayatollah khomeini" who was utterly brutal,
>>oppressive, and hated the US. Way to go, Carter, that's MUCH
>>better. Lots more people killed and the threat of another Jewish
>>Genocide.
>
>
> Sounds like you are very upset with Carter.
>
> I am not sure what is going on with Iraq, despite following news
> closely. I think that we do not have the whole story of who is behind
> whom. There is a decent chance that we'll see one brutal, goat fucking
> dictator there who is beholden to Iran, and another one who is
> beholden to Sunni extremists.
>
> i
Great post Stuart! The sand baboons must be led by a strong ruthless
dictator because if they were free, they would become lost and confused.
They are fucking animals.
"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ronald McDonald wrote:
> > President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
> > failure in Iraq.
> >
> > My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
> > Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
> >
> > RM
>
> He apparently thought that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms,
> and be kissing our feet because we removed Sadam and gave them a
> republic. Any sane, western person would do that.
>
> Of course, he's igorant about anthropology. These people are primitives
> who live in the 7th century with flush toilets: they just LOVE a good
> dictatorship and killing each other. The entire idea of a republic and
> fair play is totally alien to them. They think the entire effort is very
> stupid, and they can't wait until we're gone so they can slaughter each
> other.
>
> Now, what they WOULD understand if we killed them, and let them know we
> were willing to kill them all if they didn't behave. That is the
> principle that every Arab government works under, indeed, every MOSLEM
> government. THAT they know, respect and can understand; it makes them
> feel secure because it is familiar to them. Voting? Purple fingers? HA!
> They think that's a damned joke.
>
> Check it out, I said that you couldn't bring a democracy to these
> man-beasts when Bush began to talk about nation building. Once again, I
> was proven right.
>
> If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy. 2)
> Install a dictator friendly to the US.
Ronald McDonald wrote:
> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
> failure in Iraq.
>
> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>
> RM
He apparently thought that the Iraqis would welcome us with open arms,
and be kissing our feet because we removed Sadam and gave them a
republic. Any sane, western person would do that.
Of course, he's igorant about anthropology. These people are primitives
who live in the 7th century with flush toilets: they just LOVE a good
dictatorship and killing each other. The entire idea of a republic and
fair play is totally alien to them. They think the entire effort is very
stupid, and they can't wait until we're gone so they can slaughter each
other.
Now, what they WOULD understand if we killed them, and let them know we
were willing to kill them all if they didn't behave. That is the
principle that every Arab government works under, indeed, every MOSLEM
government. THAT they know, respect and can understand; it makes them
feel secure because it is familiar to them. Voting? Purple fingers? HA!
They think that's a damned joke.
Check it out, I said that you couldn't bring a democracy to these
man-beasts when Bush began to talk about nation building. Once again, I
was proven right.
If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy. 2)
Install a dictator friendly to the US.
The whole problem is that George Bush needs to get into woodworking. Then
he can worry about the difference between the Unisaw and Grizzly 1023z and
the Jet cabinet saw. Needs to get his priorities straight. He could also
met Norm.
"Don Lancaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ronald McDonald wrote:
>> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>> failure in Iraq.
>>
>> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>
>> RM
>
> The solution that makes by far the most sense is US immediate
> unconditional surrender.
>
>
> --
> Many thanks,
>
> Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
> Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
> rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: [email protected]
>
> Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Tell cheeseburger he is going to get pimples on his face and may go blind if
he doesn't stop playing with himself and stay out of the woodworking group
with his spam.
"Miles Loghry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I would love to know why you think political crap should be in the
> wood working section?.... thanks for spamming us
>
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:41:34 -0600, Ronald McDonald
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>>failure in Iraq.
>>
>>My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>>Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>
>>RM
gamer wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Stuart Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy. 2)
>>>> Install a dictator friendly to the US.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> He might pass himself off as viable candidate if no one checks his
>>> references too closely.
>>>
>>> But why would President Antichrist want a peaceful Iraq? Ain't no money
>>> in dat.
>>
>>
>>
>> Prove there is more money in a war torn Iraq than in an peaceful one
>> where they can pump oil.
>>
>>
> You are fully correct - the whole Bush invasion was entirely due to his
> incompetence.
The reason for the war was valid:
http://home.comcast.net/~stuart.grey/Why_We_are_In_Iraq.htm
Bush's incompetence was only that he doesn't understand anthropology and
the Moslem Arab culture and mindset. Bush also lacked the guts to win
the war, believing in some comic book 'Superman' like ending that is
childish and immature.
> To claim there was money for him would only prove he
> did anything other than shoot from the hip in a pissing contest.
That is a very simplistic view. You must not have thought about this
very much.
> Problem is, baby bush screwed up so royally (he's so far over his head)
> that no one is going to be able to bail him out his time (unlike a dozen
> other times throughout his lifetime failures.
>
>
> Cheney, other the other hand, likely believed his Halliburton stock
> would soar as a result of business ventures securing the oil lines.
> However, he never understood / thought through / wanted to believe the
> (obvious to most) outcome that has materialized.
>
> Bottom line - It's been a combination of greed & incompetence.
Salty wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>>>> Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated"
>>>> Germany in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we
>>>> defeated them. WE didn't let them have a vote to put another Hitler
>>>> in office.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if Iraqis are the enemy, then no wonder Iraqis are killing us in
>>> droves!
>>>
>>> If some country invaded the USA, I would take my sniper rifle and kill
>>> their soldiers as well.
>>
>>
>> You might, and President Bush would let you live, and try and get you
>> to vote and color your finger purple.
>>
>> After World War II, lots of good Germans did just that after the
>> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>>
>> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
>> was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
>> until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
>> course.
>
>
> What a load of BS!
>
> Salty
You can't try and educate people without some ignorant asshole claiming
you're wrong, but the same asshole is too ignorant to say why they think
you're wrong about it; if they could say why, they would be logical
thinkers and not gibbering assholes.
Begin Quote -
The 80th Division began what Patton dubbed the "Third Army War Memorial
Project." Approaching an unsecured town, a unit would fire several
projectiles containing a proclamation to the effect that the town must
surrender. The burgermeister was directed to appear by a certain hour
with a white flag, to offer his guarantee that there were no German
troops inside to resist -- OR ELSE. "The object", wrote Patton after the
war, "was to let the inhabitants have something to show to future
generations of Germans by way of proof that the Third Army had passed
that way". ... When Gay was sniped at one night while walking outside
his caravan, Patton ordered the closest two houses burned.
In April Col. Robert S. Allen and several other members of the Third
Army staff were ambushed and captured. Part of Allen's army had to be
amputated in a German hospital, and when he was liberated a short time
later, Patton learned that the attack had been carried out by civilians.
His diary recorded simply: "The town where it took place has been
removed, together with, I hope, a number of the civilians". After
Ohrdruhf and Buchenwald neither Patton nor anyone else who had seen the
grisly death camps was in any mood to spare a moments concern over the
fate of the towns or cities that spawned the butchers...."
"Patton: A Genius for War", Carlo D'Este
Steve Downey wrote:
> <"Stuart Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message > PROVE
> that Bush and Cheney profit from each death. If you're not joking,
>
>>you're a liar.
>>
>
>
> Prove that man walked on the moon.
Ah. You are one of those wackjobs who think that it was all a NASA sound
stage.
My error was mistaking a conspiracy nut for a sane person.
Stuart Grey wrote:
> Salty wrote:
>> Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>>> Salty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stuart Grey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated"
>>>>>>> Germany in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we
>>>>>>> defeated them. WE didn't let them have a vote to put another
>>>>>>> Hitler in office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if Iraqis are the enemy, then no wonder Iraqis are killing
>>>>>> us in
>>>>>> droves!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If some country invaded the USA, I would take my sniper rifle and
>>>>>> kill
>>>>>> their soldiers as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You might, and President Bush would let you live, and try and get
>>>>> you to vote and color your finger purple.
>>>>>
>>>>> After World War II, lots of good Germans did just that after the
>>>>> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the
>>>>> sniper was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill
>>>>> everyone in it until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were
>>>>> "incidental", of course.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What a load of BS!
>>>>
>>>> Salty
>>>
>>>
>>> You can't try and educate people without some ignorant asshole
>>> claiming you're wrong, but the same asshole is too ignorant to say
>>> why they think you're wrong about it; if they could say why, they
>>> would be logical thinkers and not gibbering assholes.
>>>
>>> Begin Quote -
>>
>>
>> No, how about *I* begin *your* quote.
>>
>> ****
>>
>> *After World War II*, lots of good Germans did just that after the
>> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>>
>> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
>> was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
>> until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
>> course.
>>
>> ****
>>
>> Notice how you initially claimed this took place after the war ended,
>> then you try to rebut with more BS about supposed happenings in the
>> closing stages of the war.
>>
>> Ever considered making up your mind? Might be a novel experience for you.
>
> What are you gibbering about now, you idiot? Pulling more shit from your
> ass and calling it a fact?
>
> I gave you a quote where Patton did JUST THAT. Being the lying dumb ass
> who shoots his mouth off in igorance, you clip that out, and quote my
> true statement again!
>
> Man, you're not just a jackass, but BOLDLY a jackass.
My offer still stands!
However, I DO NOT give odds...
Dan
"Ronald McDonald" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
> failure in Iraq.
>
> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>
> RM
LOL! You typed "Predident Bush" and "think" in the same post!
Stuart Grey wrote:
> Salty wrote:
>> Stuart Grey wrote:
>>> After World War II, lots of good Germans did just that after the
>>> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>>>
>>> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
>>> was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
>>> until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
>>> course.
>>
>>
>> What a load of BS!
>>
>> Salty
>
> You can't try and educate people without some ignorant asshole claiming
> you're wrong, but the same asshole is too ignorant to say why they think
> you're wrong about it; if they could say why, they would be logical
> thinkers and not gibbering assholes.
>
> Begin Quote -
>
> The 80th Division began what Patton dubbed the "Third Army War Memorial
> Project." Approaching an unsecured town, a unit would fire several
> projectiles containing a proclamation to the effect that the town must
> surrender. The burgermeister was directed to appear by a certain hour
> with a white flag, to offer his guarantee that there were no German
> troops inside to resist -- OR ELSE. "The object", wrote Patton after the
> war, "was to let the inhabitants have something to show to future
> generations of Germans by way of proof that the Third Army had passed
> that way". ... When Gay was sniped at one night while walking outside
> his caravan, Patton ordered the closest two houses burned.
>
> In April Col. Robert S. Allen and several other members of the Third
> Army staff were ambushed and captured. Part of Allen's army had to be
> amputated in a German hospital, and when he was liberated a short time
> later, Patton learned that the attack had been carried out by civilians.
> His diary recorded simply: "The town where it took place has been
> removed, together with, I hope, a number of the civilians". After
> Ohrdruhf and Buchenwald neither Patton nor anyone else who had seen the
> grisly death camps was in any mood to spare a moments concern over the
> fate of the towns or cities that spawned the butchers...."
>
> "Patton: A Genius for War", Carlo D'Este
>
OK, Stuey. Here is your assignment. Figure out why more than one
person has called your statement above BS, based entirely on YOUR quoted
section on Patton.
Any takers who think he will (can) figure it out? I could use some easy
pocket change!
Anyone?
Buhler?
Anyone?
Dan
In article <[email protected]>,
Stuart Grey <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Stuart Grey wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy. 2)
> >>Install a dictator friendly to the US.
> >
> >
> > He might pass himself off as viable candidate if no one checks his
> > references too closely.
> >
> > But why would President Antichrist want a peaceful Iraq? Ain't no money
> > in dat.
>
> Prove there is more money in a war torn Iraq than in an peaceful one
> where they can pump oil.
>
> You commies need to get your story straight. First you guys said we're
> there to steal the oil, now you're saying that we're there because war
> is profitable. Which is it? It can't be both, it's hard to steal the
> oil while there are people shooting at you.
The hired contracting business is good.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:06:25 -0500, gamer <[email protected]>
wrote:
> You are fully correct - the whole Bush invasion was entirely due to his
>incompetence. To claim there was money for him would only prove he
>did anything other than shoot from the hip in a pissing contest.
"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 Bill 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 Bill 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
"[W]e 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:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 reinvigorated 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, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
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 th! e 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, 2002
"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, 2002
"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, 2002
"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, 2002
"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 weapons 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, 2002
"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
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton
Salty wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>> Salty wrote:
>>
>>> Stuart Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Yes. It is a BAD IDEA. It's propaganda, like how we "liberated"
>>>>>> Germany in WW II. The Germans were the enemy, we killed them, we
>>>>>> defeated them. WE didn't let them have a vote to put another
>>>>>> Hitler in office.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, if Iraqis are the enemy, then no wonder Iraqis are killing us in
>>>>> droves!
>>>>>
>>>>> If some country invaded the USA, I would take my sniper rifle and kill
>>>>> their soldiers as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You might, and President Bush would let you live, and try and get
>>>> you to vote and color your finger purple.
>>>>
>>>> After World War II, lots of good Germans did just that after the
>>>> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>>>>
>>>> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the
>>>> sniper was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill
>>>> everyone in it until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were
>>>> "incidental", of course.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What a load of BS!
>>>
>>> Salty
>>
>>
>> You can't try and educate people without some ignorant asshole
>> claiming you're wrong, but the same asshole is too ignorant to say why
>> they think you're wrong about it; if they could say why, they would be
>> logical thinkers and not gibbering assholes.
>>
>> Begin Quote -
>
>
> No, how about *I* begin *your* quote.
>
> ****
>
> *After World War II*, lots of good Germans did just that after the
> American invasion, took their sniper rifles and shot at Americans.
>
> General Patton's rule was to destroy not just the building the sniper
> was in, but to bombard the entire city block and kill everyone in it
> until the sniper was dead. The civilian losses were "incidental", of
> course.
>
> ****
>
> Notice how you initially claimed this took place after the war ended,
> then you try to rebut with more BS about supposed happenings in the
> closing stages of the war.
>
> Ever considered making up your mind? Might be a novel experience for you.
What are you gibbering about now, you idiot? Pulling more shit from your
ass and calling it a fact?
I gave you a quote where Patton did JUST THAT. Being the lying dumb ass
who shoots his mouth off in igorance, you clip that out, and quote my
true statement again!
Man, you're not just a jackass, but BOLDLY a jackass.
I would love to know why you think political crap should be in the
wood working section?.... thanks for spamming us
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:41:34 -0600, Ronald McDonald
<[email protected]> wrote:
>President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>failure in Iraq.
>
>My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>
>RM
"Mike M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Don Lancaster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Ronald McDonald wrote:
>>> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>>> failure in Iraq.
>>>
>>> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>>> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>>
>>> RM
>>
>> The solution that makes by far the most sense is US immediate
>> unconditional surrender.
>>
>
> When did they import FROGS to AZ?
Early 1900's, seems it's an environmental disaster now.
Z
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:41:34 -0600, Ronald McDonald
<[email protected]> wrote:
>President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>failure in Iraq.
>
>My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>
>RM
Did you think of said consequences when you cross-posted your idiot
liberal spam?
*PLONK*
Steve Downey wrote:
> <Prove there is more money in a war torn Iraq than in an peaceful one
> <where they can pump oil.
>
> Prove that somebody loved their dead parents.
So, basically, what you're saying is that you feel free to lie and spew
all kinds of things, because you don't accept anything as proof.
The description of such a person is "has his head up his ass".
David R wrote:
> Grave Consequences means :
>
> Bush is going to put as many innocent Americans and Iraqis in the grave as
> possible,
>
> he and Cheney have done the math and they know exactly how much money
> Halliburton makes from each dead soldier and each dead Iraqi,
>
> they are going to split the profits with Blair,Limbaugh, Rove, O'Reilly,
> along with Murdoch and his
> Faux Nazi news service,
>
> this is not a joke
sure it is.
PROVE that Bush and Cheney profit from each death. If you're not joking,
you're a liar.
PROVE they are going to split the profits with all these radio talk show
hosts.
PROVE that Murdoch runs a Nazi news service. Hell, Murdoch is a Democrat
who supported both Gore and Kerry.
I'd be more than happy to take that back if you could prove it, but you
and I know you're just a hateful little liar.
[email protected] wrote:
> Stuart Grey wrote:
>
>
>>If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy. 2)
>>Install a dictator friendly to the US.
>
>
> He might pass himself off as viable candidate if no one checks his
> references too closely.
>
> But why would President Antichrist want a peaceful Iraq? Ain't no money
> in dat.
Prove there is more money in a war torn Iraq than in an peaceful one
where they can pump oil.
You commies need to get your story straight. First you guys said we're
there to steal the oil, now you're saying that we're there because war
is profitable. Which is it? It can't be both, it's hard to steal the
oil while there are people shooting at you.
Stuart Grey wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Stuart Grey wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If Bush wants a peaceful Iraq, he needs to: 1) Kill the enemy. 2)
>>> Install a dictator friendly to the US.
>>
>>
>>
>> He might pass himself off as viable candidate if no one checks his
>> references too closely.
>>
>> But why would President Antichrist want a peaceful Iraq? Ain't no money
>> in dat.
>
>
> Prove there is more money in a war torn Iraq than in an peaceful one
> where they can pump oil.
>
>
You are fully correct - the whole Bush invasion was entirely due to his
incompetence. To claim there was money for him would only prove he
did anything other than shoot from the hip in a pissing contest.
Problem is, baby bush screwed up so royally (he's so far over his head)
that no one is going to be able to bail him out his time (unlike a dozen
other times throughout his lifetime failures.
Cheney, other the other hand, likely believed his Halliburton stock
would soar as a result of business ventures securing the oil lines.
However, he never understood / thought through / wanted to believe the
(obvious to most) outcome that has materialized.
Bottom line - It's been a combination of greed & incompetence.
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Ronald McDonald wrote:
>> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>> failure in Iraq.
>>
>> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>
>> RM
>
> The solution that makes by far the most sense is US immediate
> unconditional surrender.
>
>
I never knew that Ted Kennedy lurked on this site.
Glen
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:50:58 -0700, Don Lancaster <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Ronald McDonald wrote:
>> President Bush mentioned something about grave consequences of our
>> failure in Iraq.
>>
>> My question is, did he think about said consequences when he invaded
>> Iraq. Or is that an afterthought?
>>
>> RM
>
>The solution that makes by far the most sense is US immediate
>unconditional surrender.
Do you suppose we would get foreign aid then? Perhaps we could take
it as free oil.
--
W§ mostly in m.s - http://www.1stconnect.com/anozira/