OT - JFK vs BUSH

I thought you were clueless. Thanks for confirming it.

"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No of course not. And I need you to show me...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> [email protected]
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > What the hell are you talking about. Are you even aware of the world
around
> > you?
> >
>

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > So, the thrust of the argument is that the soldiers are being asked to
> > perform tasks outside their normal training, not that they're improperly
> > armed for combat?
> >
> > That seems a little disingenuous, to me.
> >
> > Kevin
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> > > > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > > Even in Iraq Bush does not support our soldiers. Half of those
> > > > > fighting in Iraq weren't even issued rifles and rely on 9mm
pistols
> > > > > or confiscated weapons.
> > > > >
> > > > Where'd you hear that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Washington Post. I don't remember the date. My impression from
> > > the article was that the problem largely is the result of personnel
> > > who would normally use weapon systems that are mounted on vehicles
> > > being required to seek or pursue beligerants on foot.
> > >
>
> No, the thrust of the argument is that the soldiers are not being
> properly armed for the sort of combat in which they are ordered
> to engage.
>
> This assumes the Washington Post article, and my understanding of
> that article was accurate.
\

Have you ever been in combat?

Theres never been a battle where every solder has
had the equipment he thought he should in the situation
they find themself in.

When in a small arms fight a solder wants a Tank or two
and when in a tank fight the wish for a few air strikes
pops into the head real fast.... When being pounded from
the air the wish that someone would nuke the enemy is
on the top of the wish list...

To top that off we went through 4 years of having the
military stripped of funds and equipment with the
espree di corp falling out the bottom because of
the way the military was castrated before the present
administration... Then add the delays and fights to get
the funds required to wage war by the democrates in
congress which caused delays in getting war time
production up to the limited levels its at now and
you have the situation we are in now.

With so many in congress that really do not understand
that this is a war that will be on the level of WW2 in
the near future I'm suprized we have been able to
supply the hardware we have now much less what
we really need.





>
> --
>
> FF

"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Am I missing something here?
> > >
> > > Yes, of course, you are.
> > >
> > > > Are we not the only superpower on earth?
> > >
> > > That didn't stop the attacks of September 11, 2001, did it?
> >
> > Yeah, but that's because your arrogant administration ignored
> > all the warnings coming from various security agencies
> > around the world.
> >
> ... and which administration would that be? Seems that many of those
> warnings were issued in the late 90's.

Dammit, stop confusing the issue with the facts ;^)

The previous admin did nothing to stop terrorists. They tried to handle the first Trade
Center attack and a violation of law thru the courts. See where that got us.

Just like WMD's. The Clinton made a far more compelling case for the existence of WMD's
than the Bush admin. Even launched an attack via cruise missiles. Suddenly, with a Republican
in the White House, the WMD's never existed and George Bush knew it.

It's all election year politics. Politics first, the country last!

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > Is John F Kerry going to be the democratic nominee?
> >
> > Or is there still a chance for John Edwards?
> >
> > Who would make a better candidate against Bush?
> >
> > Who should be the VP candidate? Gephardt? Dean? Clark? Gore? Hillary?
>
> ***
> Gee what a choice that will be for us USA voters. Lurch from the Adams
> Family, vs Frat Boy.
>
> On September 11th, GWBush had that Deer in the headlights look when they
> told him about the WTC plane crash. I wonder how Kerry would react:
>
> "Missssssterrrrrrrr Adamssssssssssss. Call the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We
> have a problem here.
> mmmheowseammmmmsoeswrrrrrgrrrrrrrrrrowllllllllllll. hahahahaha!
>
> So we have mr deer in the headlights vs a corpse. What a choice.
> ***
>
> +ocean+
>

Well, let's see, that "deer in the headlights" look (I've seen the
pictures and don't see it, but that's your opinion) turned into grim
resolve and even if we haven't caught OBL, he is on the run and unable
to muster or do much else with his troops. In the case of Lurch, I
suspect we would still be begging the Taliban in Afghanistan to "please,
please, turn over OBL and stop training terrorists in those camps or
we're going to go the UN again for another resolution"

Just as a data point, Lurch has voted in the past for significant fund
cuts in intelligence, against anti-terrorism funding (prior to 9/11),
against providing additional aid to our troops in Iraq. He either voted
or indicated he would have voted to cut funding for the F-15, the F-16,
the F-14, the B1-B, the B2, the Patriot missile, the Aegis missile
cruiser, the M-1 tank, the M-2 Bradley troop vehicle, and the Tomahawk
missile. i.e. Lurch has been against and would have been happy to have
killed every major weapon program that helped assure the victories that
have been achieved in the past 4 military actions in which we have been
involved. (A google search on "Kerry defense budget" will return
numerous results that provide the data for these statements, e.g.
<http://www.usorthem.org/current-events/election-2004-john-kerry.html>)

>
>

On 19 Feb 2004 07:38:23 -0500, Gregg Germain
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In rec.woodworking Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>: Back at ya: Bush has been a consistently and singularly hostile
>: president to both veterans and active-duty soldiers:
>
>
> Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
> cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
> loved it.
>

Now, have you actually been at these "rallys" and saw _all_ the
soldiers _all_ cheering, or is this something you saw on TV? Reason I
ask is cause you do know about the "exclusion zones", right?

Ya know, there's more tha a few explanations for what you see on
teevee. This is why you have a brain. Perhaps you shouild exercise
it. Dang! Now I see this Haah-vaahd address....

Renata


> He's just awful to them.
>
>sheesh
>
>
>--- Gregg
> "Improvise, adapt, overcome."
>[email protected]
>Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
>Phone: (617) 496-1558
>

> Let hope Bush in his 2nd term will invade North Korea and Iran the other two
> Aisles of Evils. With obedient Tony as a loyal ally I do not believe the US and
> UK could do what we pleases.
>
> We will rule the world as real super Power!
>
> Did I forget anything?

Heute Amerika, Morgens der Weld.
j4

You are correct, sir! You threw me off, when you interjected into the
conversation with this:

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Do we have the most aircraft carriers on earth?
>
> And, they provided no protection against the attacks of September 11,
2001,
> and were unable to determine whether Iraq was developing weapons of mass
> destruction.
>

I agree that aircraft carriers are only marginally useful for the
purpose of finding WMDs. But we do have other means to do so and
there is no evidence that those other methods failed to give the
US administartion an accurate understanding of the situation in Iraq.
Indeed, there is ample evidence that it did.

--

FF

So, remind me, again, what is your position?

Kevin
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > I agree that aircraft carriers are only marginally useful for the
> > > purpose of finding WMDs. But we do have other means to do so and
> > > there is no evidence that those other methods failed to give the
> > > US administartion an accurate understanding of the situation in Iraq.
> > > Indeed, there is ample evidence that it did.
> > >
> > So, why'd you even mention aircraft carriers, if they're not relevant?
>
> As you know, I did not. See:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OvWdnZ34PrWh26PdRVn-sA%40comcast.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
>
> > If
> > the US had an accurate understanding of the situation in Iraq, how'd the
UN
> > get bamboozled for over 10 years?
> >
>
> My impression is that he UMOVIC report of 2003 was pretty accurate.
>
> --
>
> FF

"Dan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat 21 Feb 2004 02:59:25p, "Courtney Mainord" <[email protected]>
> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> > Those WMD are in various countries just waiting for an appropiate
> > strike time and are in missiles guided by the latest guidance technology
> > given to the Chinese by terrorist Clinton for a campaign contribution.
>
> Y'know, the scary thing is that there are probably a lot of people out
> there who actually believe that.
>
> Dan

Ok, Dan, maybe you'd like to explain why the Clinton administration approved
the transfer of technology from Loral. I'm sure that it's just a
coincidence that the chairman and CEO of Loral, Bernard Schwarz, was the
largest personal donor to the DNC the year this transfer was made and to the
1996 Clinton campaign. And Charie Trie was just a nice Chinaman who just
liked to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton out of his love
for the US.

As long as we're off-topic, I was listening to my financial guy, Bob
Brinker, on the radio today. For those that don't know Bob, he is willing
to fire on Republicans or Democrats as he sees fit. Somehow, the topic of
the 2000 election came up and the caller ended up asking Bob if he would
rather have the Presidential election decided by the popular vote. Bob said
he would support that because people don't understand the Electoral College,
but they can understand one guy getting 500,000 more votes than someone
else. That got me thinking of something that I hadn't thought of before and
that I can't remember really being discussed. IMHO, the idea of even
talking about the popular vote is improper. Both sides are aware of the
rules, and the rule is the guy who gets the most electoral votes wins. It's
possible that both Bush and Gore might have run entirely different campaigns
if the goal was to garner the most popular votes. It's like two basketball
teams playing where one team makes 40 2-point shots and the other makes 30
3-point shots (amazingly, no fouls were called during the game). By the
rules, the second team won the game. The first team doesn't get to say "but
we made more baskets, therefore we should have won". If the goal was to
make the most baskets, the second team might have changed their strategy.

todd

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Am I missing something here?
> >
> > Yes, of course, you are.
> >
> > > Are we not the only superpower on earth?
> >
> > That didn't stop the attacks of September 11, 2001, did it?
>
> Yeah, but that's because your arrogant administration ignored
> all the warnings coming from various security agencies
> around the world.
>
... and which administration would that be? Seems that many of those
warnings were issued in the late 90's.

In article <[email protected]>, Fred the
Red Shirt <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Do we have the most aircraft carriers on earth?
> >
> > And, they provided no protection against the attacks of September 11, 2001,
> > and were unable to determine whether Iraq was developing weapons of mass
> > destruction.
> >
>
> I agree that aircraft carriers are only marginally useful for the
> purpose of finding WMDs. But we do have other means to do so and
> there is no evidence that those other methods failed to give the
> US administartion an accurate understanding of the situation in Iraq.
> Indeed, there is ample evidence that it did.

An aircraft carrier is a power projection tool and always has been.
It's not meant to sit and defend a coastline. Keep in mind power
projection does not have to mean the actual dropping of weapons just
the presence of that much offensive power just off a coast is useful to
aid diplomatic negotiations or influence a countries military
directions.

Allen
Former EA-6B Prowler ECMO, 485 traps on Saratoga, Kennedy, Kitty Hawk,
Nimitz, Lincoln, Constellation, Roosevelt, Stennis, Truman,
Independence, Ike, JFK.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:58:26 +0000, Mark wrote:


> Let's not forget why the Electoral College was created.

Same reason the Senate has two representatives from each state, regardless
of population - to prevent the tyranny of the majority. The electoral
college has basically the same representation for each state as the
number of Congressmen in the House of Representatives plus two Senators.
TWhomever gets the plurality of votes in any State gets all the
electoral votes from that State. This distribution was one compromise
needed to form the union of widely different sized (population) states in
the first place. The Senate representation gives each State equality,
regardless of population, and the House gives representative equality by
population.

BTW, I wonder why Hillary didn't make good on her Senate campaign promise
to try to eliminate the electoral college in favor of popular vote? Could
it be that she recognizes she is part of a system with the same
foundations as the electoral college?

-Doug

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > [email protected] says...
> > > >
> > > > "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > Am I missing something here?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, of course, you are.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Are we not the only superpower on earth?
> > > > >
> > > > > That didn't stop the attacks of September 11, 2001, did it?
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, but that's because your arrogant administration ignored
> > > > all the warnings coming from various security agencies
> > > > around the world.
> > > >
> > > ... and which administration would that be? Seems that many of those
> > > warnings were issued in the late 90's.
> >
> > Dammit, stop confusing the issue with the facts ;^)
> >
> > The previous admin did nothing to stop terrorists. They tried to handle the first Trade
> > Center attack and a violation of law thru the courts. See where that got us.
>
> Convictions, as you well know.
>

... of the perpetrators of that one, single attack. While those who
financed, trained, and harbored the planners of that attack were allowed
to continue financing, planning, and training for the next attacks.
Kind of like attempting to capture and press charges against the
Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor; would have gotten convictions
I'm sure, but ignored the root of the problem.

... rest of hate Bush, it's all Bush's fault rant snipped

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 06:16:49 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Oh yeah, and I forgot:
>
>a) the largest budgets deficits in world history, derived
>from a budget surplus handed to him by Bill Clinton.
>
>b) the rupturing of diplomatic relationships with several key allies.
>
>c) the characterization of massive moves of US jobs to
>overseas countries as a good thing.
>
> -- Andy Barss


I don't understand c). I am currently unemployed, err employed at
finding employment. That means NO paycheck, NO fica nor federal taxes
taken out, NO new car, no health insurance, no new eye glasses, no new
clothes, no dental work, less food, no shopping, and NO new shop
equipment nor wood. (I keep my ISP to send out hundreds of resumes
every week.) And the administration keeps spending and spending
money that don't have! Looking for jobs that not there is very
depressing. Personally, I need an alternative in the White House this
time around to improve my chances of getting back to work, instead we
got war monger who tries to convince us that terrorism is a big
concern. I say send him back to Texas.

Is there a difference between the NY Times and the National Enquirer?


"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Is that the UK version of the "National Enquirer"?
>
>
> Um, nope. More like the NY Times. And the report was issued by the
> Pentagon.
>
> This has been reported in the Miami Herald, and other mainstream papers.
> Here's one from Fortune magazine:
>
> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,582584,00.html
>
> This isn't fake, it's real, and scary.
>
> -- Andy Barss

Right on the first try. You get the prize.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No, it begins with "S"
>
> Slick Willie! LOL
>
>
>
> "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > And who it was that, when offered Osama, declined.
> >
> > Hehe...lemme guess.......does it start with a 'B' ???
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jez
> > "The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
> > of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
> > highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
> > and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
> > perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
> > R.D. Laing
> >
> >
>
>

I'm speechless!

"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not fair. They didn't know Osama was hiding
> WMDs back then...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> [email protected]
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Yes, Billy the Twit.
> >
> > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > And who it was that, when offered Osama, declined.
> > >
> > > Hehe...lemme guess.......does it start with a 'B' ???
>

In rec.woodworking Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
: Back at ya: Bush has been a consistently and singularly hostile
: president to both veterans and active-duty soldiers:


Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
loved it.

He's just awful to them.

sheesh


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."
[email protected]
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

what exactly did you expect
the folks to do: throw crap at him?
<sheesh indeed...>
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]
"Gregg Germain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
> cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
> loved it.
>
> He's just awful to them.
>
> sheesh
>

Noons <[email protected]> wrote:
: what exactly did you expect
: the folks to do: throw crap at him?
: <sheesh indeed...>
: --
: Cheers
: Nuno Souto
: [email protected]
: "Gregg Germain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
:> Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
:> cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
:> loved it.
:>
:> He's just awful to them.
:>
:> sheesh
:>

Were you ever in the military? Believe me, there are thousands of ways
the soldiers coudl register dissatisfaction - many without saying a
word.

In addition, they cheer WILDLY. With big smiles on their face. Believe
me when I tell yu that they wouldn't do that if they felt Bush was
awful to them.

They'd clap politely.

--


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."
[email protected]
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
: On 19 Feb 2004 07:38:23 -0500, Gregg Germain
: <[email protected]> wrote:

:>In rec.woodworking Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
:>: Back at ya: Bush has been a consistently and singularly hostile
:>: president to both veterans and active-duty soldiers:
:>
:>
:> Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
:> cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
:> loved it.
:>

: Now, have you actually been at these "rallys" and saw _all_ the
: soldiers _all_ cheering, or is this something you saw on TV? Reason I
: ask is cause you do know about the "exclusion zones", right?

I do indeed know about exclusion zones. Yet when the camera includes
groups both behind and in front of hte Presedent, full scanning left
to right, there's little left to the imagination.

: Ya know, there's more tha a few explanations for what you see on
: teevee. This is why you have a brain. Perhaps you shouild exercise
: it. Dang! Now I see this Haah-vaahd address....


Well not we're getting a touch personal are we not? It's funny how
people make assumptions about me based upon my email address. Some
thign it means I'm a rampant liberal (I am registered Indep and voted
for Bush. WIll do so again)- some think I actually Work at Harvard
(I do not). It would do them good to read the sig line. But they
probably cannot be bothered with that as they are too busy insulting.


Some lose temporary use of their minds and simply lash out - like
above.


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."
[email protected]
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

"Gregg Germain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Were you ever in the military?

Yes. And in a real war, not a made-for-TV one...
I was also a civilian in that country. During
that war.

> Believe me, there are thousands of ways
> the soldiers coudl register dissatisfaction - many without saying a
> word.

I believe you.


> In addition, they cheer WILDLY. With big smiles on their face. Believe
> me when I tell yu that they wouldn't do that if they felt Bush was
> awful to them.

That's what you see on TV. Quite frankly nowadays, ANYTHING
I see on TV about ANY war, I don't believe. And I don't give a rat's
arse who is the broadcaster. From all sides.


--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]

Renata <[email protected]> wrote:

: Now, have you actually been at these "rallys" and saw _all_ the
: soldiers _all_ cheering, or is this something you saw on TV?

p.s.. Have YOU been to these rallys and seen that the only cheering
soldiers were the ones on camera?

no?

Then why do you conclude it was an exclusion zone deal?


: Ya know, there's more tha a few explanations for what you see on
: teevee.

yes and ONE of those explanations is that you are seeing the real
deal.
I note your assumption that if you can't see it, the reaction MUST be
bad.

> This is why you have a brain.

Ditto.

: Perhaps you shouild exercise
: it.

Perhaps I did and you are too overwrought to see it.


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."
[email protected]
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:21:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of our
>nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
>targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person who
>has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
>major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
>commander in chief.

Let hope Bush in his 2nd term will invade North Korea and Iran the other two
Aisles of Evils. With obedient Tony as a loyal ally I do not believe the US and
UK could do what we pleases.

We will rule the world as real super Power!

Did I forget anything?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Yes: your pills.
:)
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> We will rule the world as real super Power!
>
> Did I forget anything?
>

Ah, but it makes for great TV, great "entertainment"...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> With George W. Bush as commander-in-chief we have concentrated our
> miltary forces in the one Arab country that has done the least to
> support or shelter Al Qaeda. That is not leadership, that it folly.

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Even in Iraq Bush does not support our soldiers. Half of those
> > fighting in Iraq weren't even issued rifles and rely on 9mm pistols
> > or confiscated weapons.
> >
> Where'd you hear that?

How about this one........?


Bullets claim stirs Iraq equipment row

Matthew Taylor
Wednesday February 25, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1155599,00.html

A serving soldier reignited the row about equipment shortages during the
Iraq war last night, claiming he and his men had been issued with just five
bullets each for the entire conflict.
The unnamed soldier, who said he came under fire several times on the
frontline in southern Iraq, told Channel 4 News: "We had five rounds each to
defend ourselves. I actually crossed the border with five rounds.

"The magazine held 30 separate bullets but I was issued with five separate
bullets to last the entire hostilities of the war. We came under fire in Um
Qasr three or four times. Not fire, it was more like ricochets."

The soldier's claims reopen the debate on equipment shortages in the army.
Last month, the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, faced calls to resign
following the death of Sergeant Steven Roberts, who was killed after being
ordered to hand his flak jacket to another unit because there were not
enough to go around.

The soldier making the latest complaints, who is reportedly based in Germany
and served in Um Qasr, Az Zubayr and Basra, risks losing his job and pension
if his identity becomes public.

As well as receiving just five bullets, he claimed the unit's camouflage
nets and many of their vehicles and uniforms were green, not desert brown.

The report said the men were also short of maps and body armour and instead
of radios, they were issued with a mobile phone and instructed to call if
they were attacked.

Last night, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said it was impossible
to comment on the specific allegations without knowing the soldier's unit
and role.

--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:21:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

> Believe me, I really understand your frustration.

Am I missing something here?
Are we not the only superpower on earth?
Do we have the most aircraft carriers on earth?
Do we not have the largest stockpile of WMD's on earth? And the list goes on and
on.

We are arms to the teeth, and we are still afraid and need more arms. What and
who are we afraid of? Whom did we offend so badly that we need to arms so much
and to destroy everyone?

Since we have declared the right of self defense and first strikes, Pres. Bush
and Tony Blair should destroy anyone whom *THEY* think a danger to us, no?

Maybe, we too should strike France, Germany and other Old Europe including
China.. oops! maybe, Canada too, who did not share our views on Iraq?

Hope the above questions and trash will make us think a bit deeper?



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dipshit. That's the British military. Bush doesn't have any authority
over
> that. Pull your head out, man.

I wasn't refering to it from the USA point of veiw..being from the UK


--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Am I missing something here?
>
> Yes, of course, you are.
>
> > Are we not the only superpower on earth?
>
> That didn't stop the attacks of September 11, 2001, did it?

Yeah, but that's because your arrogant administration ignored
all the warnings coming from various security agencies
around the world.


--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> So, you wanted to start a new thread, but weren't sure how to go about it?

Nope, just pointing out you are not the only ones
with problems concerning military equipment.


--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Yeah, but that's because your arrogant administration ignored
> > all the warnings coming from various security agencies
> > around the world.
> >
> That's what I've been saying about the Clinton administration since the
> first Trade Center attacks.

Fucking idiot.
You blame Clinton for what happened under Bush ...

Great fucking logic.


--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:24:11 -0000, "Jez" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Fucking idiot.
>You blame Clinton for what happened under Bush ...

If you do not blame Clinton who do you blame for the recession, 3 millions plus
jobs' loss and started the huge budget defect!

Bush is the BEST Pres. we ever have. in just mere three years Pres. Bush brought
us to real prosperity. It would be nice to do away the constitution and make
Pres. Bush President for life. Like the late former Pres. Amin of Uganda, or
Marcos of the Philippines, No?

We will have world peace, no one will dare to mess with us, NO?
We will destroy any country that dare to disagree with us. We do not need any
environment laws, International Court, blah, blah, blah.....

Don't forget we are the most powerful Nation on earth and can do what we please.

<Another trash post>



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Reductio ad absurdum. Well done!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]
"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> If you do not blame Clinton who do you blame for the recession, 3 millions
plus
> jobs' loss and started the huge budget defect!
>
> Bush is the BEST Pres. we ever have. in just mere three years Pres. Bush
brought
> us to real prosperity. It would be nice to do away the constitution and make
> Pres. Bush President for life. Like the late former Pres. Amin of Uganda, or
> Marcos of the Philippines, No?
>
> We will have world peace, no one will dare to mess with us, NO?
> We will destroy any country that dare to disagree with us. We do not need any
> environment laws, International Court, blah, blah, blah.....
>
> Don't forget we are the most powerful Nation on earth and can do what we
please.
>
> <Another trash post>

"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:24:11 -0000, "Jez"
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Fucking idiot.
> >You blame Clinton for what happened under Bush ...
>
> If you do not blame Clinton who do you blame for the recession, 3 millions
plus
> jobs' loss and started the huge budget defect!
>
> Bush is the BEST Pres. we ever have. in just mere three years Pres. Bush
brought
> us to real prosperity.

Your so full of shit, I sure you must be a toilet !


--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> And who it was that, when offered Osama, declined.

Hehe...lemme guess.......does it start with a 'B' ???


--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing

Not fair. They didn't know Osama was hiding
WMDs back then...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes, Billy the Twit.
>
> "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > And who it was that, when offered Osama, declined.
> >
> > Hehe...lemme guess.......does it start with a 'B' ???

No of course not. And I need you to show me...

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What the hell are you talking about. Are you even aware of the world around
> you?
>

anytime. Always happy to help a small mind.

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email protected]
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I thought you were clueless. Thanks for confirming it.
>

Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Imagine someone wants to set you up with a woman (if you're female, please
> reverse genders here) who:
>
> a) charges huge purchases to your credit card with no plan to pay them
> off, other than vaguely implying your kids will take care of it;
>
> b) goes over to a neighbor's house and hits him in the head with an axe,
> based on an unsubstatiated rumour that the neighbor had been planning to
> buy an axe;
>
> c) decides your dad would be better off if we threw away some of his
> benefit checks, calling them "wasteful";
>
>
> d) pretended to have served a full term on the local PTA, when in
> fact she spent half her claimd PTA time doing her nails;
>
> e) decides she should have access to the complete records of what you,
> your family, and your neighbors have said on the phone, checked out of the
> library, and said in private, and that the content of that can and should
> be used to deter anyone suspicious in jail, without being charged, and
> without having access to an attourney.
>
>
> Would you marry her?
>
>
> -- Andy Barss


point by point:
a)while I agree that Bush has spent like a wild man and needs to
attempt a slow down in spending, please remember that a huge amount of
this spending has had to do with 911 and the resulting military
actions. War costs money, defense costs money. And congress had to
approve the spending. Before you say they had no choice, and that
democrats couldn't stop the majority, please take note that they were
certainly able to stop Bush's judicial appointments...

b)if that neighbor had a history of invading his other neighbors
houses, and a history of killing people in his own household, and if
there was undeniable evidence that he possessed axes, I really
wouldn't care what he was going to buy, I would fire bomb his house
purely as a safeguard.

c.) boy will this piss you off... it is a waste. If my dad would be
self responsible in the first place, he wouldn't need the government
teat. Social Security is a huge Ponzi scheme, and I am one of the
suckers who will be left holding the empty bag. So I say get rid of
the sorry socialist program, and let me invest my money rather than
have it stolen from me by the government, who never intends to pay it
back. I for one am tired of being used as a slave to people who fail
to plan, or don't want to work, or aren't even citizens of this
country. All people of my age group believe they will never see Social
Security benefits, and that is one of the biggest reasons liberals
(read socialists) are continually failing to impress us, let alone
getting our votes.

d.)Regardless of what was done while in the NG, he has all he needs.
It is called and honorable discharge, and they are not given away.
BTW, Clinton received his draft notice and ran. Kerry, though he may
have served honorably (maybe) turned Hanoi Jane on us upon his return,
which is also known as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Let him
push this issue, more of the truth will come out. Did you know that
some soldiers have refused their 3rd Purple Heart, because they know
it will take them out of the field. Kerry put in his own requests for
those purple hearts, and immediately requested to be reassigned after
his 3rd purple heart (officers can do such things). Tours in Nam
lasted 1 year, Kerry was there slightly more or less than 4 months.
His first two purple hearts were for wounds that were fixed literally
with band-aids. His last purple heart was also minor and kept him from
his duties for less than 2 days. This could be viewed as cowardice,
but I would prefer it not be. It is only because Kerry and his cronies
took it upon themselves to attack Bush's service, that people have
looked more closely at Kerry's service and called it into question. I
served my country the first time around against Saddam, and my service
to my country, no matter how small is something I am most proud of,
and no one, AND I MEAN NO ONE, can belittle it, or take it away from
me, or make me feel bad about it. And I am sure Kerry and Bush feel
the same way. In 1992, Kerry stood on the senate floor and defended
Bill Clinton's lack of service, saying in effect, that it was a low
thing to resort to questioning the actions of people during the
Vietnam War. Kerry has apparently decided that the same standards do
not apply to Bush.

e)if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? If slight invasions of
my privacy are made to keep another 3,000 Americans from dying, I'm OK
with that. I have nothing to hide.

Do not let my calm exterior belie my inner turmoil,

David

>

> Germany, France, Russia. That's not an inconsiderable
> group of countries to have alienated, especially given that the population
> of Iraq is about that of Mexico City.

And those other 40 countries don't count? Germany, Russia, and France
all had nice big oil agreements with Iraq. This doesn't indicate that
we didn't or never had similar agreements. Really, we don't need a
permission slip to protect ourselves.
>
>
> : c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't that
> : the responsibility of employers?
>
> That's a pathetic dodge.
>
> If three million US jobs had been lost under a Democratic administration,
> the mainstream press as well as GOP flacks would have been all over it for
> months.
>
Oh yeah, like the way they reported Hilary's racially bigoted remark
about Ghandi.
Or Senator Bird's use of "nigger" in front of the camera. Or Michael
Moore calling Bush a deserter, while stumping for Clark in NH. Face
it, the democrats get a pass on everything. But if a Republican, like
say Trent Lott says something nice like "perhaps things would have
been better if Strom had been President" at a 99 year old man's
birthday party, he is automatically a racist in the eyes of the press.

One thing about this whole three million jobs lost nonsense... we
never hear how many jobs have been created. You can't tell me they
haven't been created. And in fact they have, but that is never
reported. Because that would make Bush look good. Those 3 million
jobs, are jobs that were going to go anyway, and it is oh so
convenient to use them to smear Bush, like he had any control over
them. The government does not own those jobs, employers do. The last
time I checked, employers can do what they want with their jobs.
Anybody reading all of this stuff, how many people do you know who do
not have a job. Really think about it? Now, how many of them want a
job? And if they want a job, how many of them are too lazy to go get
one. Or how many of them are trying to max out their unemployment
benefits, before they are forced to get one.
> What really amazes me is that Bush's economic report of last week
> describes this massive loss of US jobs as a good thing.
BUSH NEVER SAID THIS...LIE!
And the
> mainstream press has been pretty silent on that.

BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER SAID!
>
>
> : It seems your anger is misdirected, Andy. How sad.
>
> My feeling isn't anger, it's amazement. I'm genuinely amazed that
> people who seem smart and sensible can think Bush and his administration
> are anything other than a complete disaster.

Andy, we know what you are really mad about. Andy, let go of Florida.
He was elected fairly. How many ways do the votes have to be counted
for you to realize that Bush won? They even set up scenarios where
Gore cheated, and Bush still won. For any one reading, this is what is
at the root of all the anger against Bush by Democrats. Florida 2000.
Get over it. Thank God he will be reelected!

David

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > I think he does better than half. I'm not sure public speaking is the most
> > important skill for the leader of the free world, but, then, I'm not a
> > Democrat, am I?
> >
> As long as the present system continues as is, we'll continue to
> see the best candidates, not the best leaders.

Oh how trite. Oh how profound. Oh what a crock of BS.

> Soldier Smith goes on duty March 2003. She goes to Iraq.
>
> President Bush cuts bennies for both active-duty and veteran soldiers, in July 2003.
> This is given limited coverage in the US, by the conservative media,
> and no coverage in then US Army media.
>
> Bush presses himself inyto a gonad-highlighting flight suit

This says it all... Andy takes notice of Bush's gonads. So where do
you fall on the gay marriage issue, Andy?

, and asks for
> applause on a flight deck. Smith knows nothing other than
> that she has been told -- she's doing a great job. She's no independent
> news of the war for 6 months.
>
> She cheers Bush.
>
> It's meaningless.

Right. So typical of the socialists to paint those in the military as
brainless, uninformed lemmings. GET A CLUE. They understand America
better than you.
>
> -- Andy Barss

[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >
> > Believe me, I really understand your frustration. As one pundit put
> > it, Bush gets an A+ for his efforts following 9/11,...
> >
>
> Perhaps it has espaced your attention that pundits tell jokes.
>
> > My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of our
> > nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
> > targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person who
> > has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
> > major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
> > commander in chief.
>
> With George W. Bush as commander-in-chief we have concentrated our
> miltary forces in the one Arab country that has done the least to
> support or shelter Al Qaeda. That is not leadership, that it folly.
>
> It is equivalent to invading China to retaliate for Pearl Harbor.
> But of course, we did not invade Iraq in response to the attack on
> September 11, 2001. That attack resulted in a one year delay of
> the invasion of Iraq.
>
> The rationalization for the invasion was based on a campaign of
> lies and deceipt that has cost us the aid and support of most of
> the nations who had stood by us after the attacks of September 11.
>
> Even in Iraq Bush does not support our soldiers. Half of those
> fighting in Iraq weren't even issued rifles and rely on 9mm pistols
> or confiscated weapons.

FF.....Fucking Fool? This is the most ridiculous crap I have ever
heard, find a better news source than Miss Cleo. BTW, deceipt is
spelled deceit. Try to spend less time riding the short bus, you'll be
better off.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<KWg%[email protected]>...
> Is that the UK version of the "National Enquirer"?
>
>
That rag is as liberal as the New York Times. I have renewed my
stance... they would be better off getting their information from
their fellow riders on the short bus.

"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yeah, but that's because your arrogant administration ignored
> all the warnings coming from various security agencies
> around the world.
>
That's what I've been saying about the Clinton administration since the
first Trade Center attacks.

Kevin

David wrote:

> point by point:
> a)while I agree that Bush has spent like a wild man and needs to
> attempt a slow down in spending, please remember that a huge amount of
> this spending has had to do with 911 and the resulting military
> actions.


And bailing out his Buddies.


>
> b)if that neighbor had a history of invading his other neighbors
> houses, and a history of killing people in his own household, and if
> there was undeniable evidence that he possessed axes, I really
> wouldn't care what he was going to buy, I would fire bomb his house
> purely as a safeguard.



Agreed. IF he were MY neighbor.




>
> c.) boy will this piss you off... it is a waste. If my dad would be
> self responsible in the first place, he wouldn't need the government
> teat. Social Security is a huge Ponzi scheme, and I am one of the
> suckers who will be left holding the empty bag. ...



You don't like it? Go live in another country. Your kind aren't needed here.

You are aware there are people who saved and planned and now have nothing?


> d.)Regardless of what was done while in the NG, he has all he needs.
> It is called and honorable discharge, and they are not given away.


Except to well connected peoples.


> e)if you have nothing to hide, why do you care? If slight invasions of
> my privacy are made to keep another 3,000 Americans from dying, I'm OK
> with that. I have nothing to hide.


Cool, I'll be over your place tonight and go through everything you own.

Maybe I'll just stop you on the street and go through your wallet before letting
you pass.

This section E is the biggest piece of bullshit I have read.

Section E is proof the terrorists are winning.


Your supporting their victory.




--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> > Well, let's see, that "deer in the headlights" look (I've seen the
> > pictures and don't see it, but that's your opinion) turned into grim
> > resolve and even if we haven't caught OBL, he is on the run and unable
> > to muster or do much else with his troops. In the case of Lurch, I
> > suspect we would still be begging the Taliban in Afghanistan to "please,
> > please, turn over OBL and stop training terrorists in those camps or
> > we're going to go the UN again for another resolution"
> >
>
> ---Perhaps Lurch would still be begging, but Bush should have armed every
> pilot before returning the planes to service. I think arming train operators
> too would have been a good move. Imagine a freight train with tons of hasmat
> making a 15 mph turn at 40 mph. What a mess huh? Perhaps truck drivers with
> hazmat should be trained and armed, many are already with or without a carry
> permit. In addition to the homeland defense issues, Bush also signed
> Campaign Finance Reform which squelches free speech before an election. So I
> have many issues with Bush. I am not saying I like Gore or Kerry better, I
> just feel there are no choices on the ballot for me this term.---
>
>

Believe me, I really understand your frustration. As one pundit put
it, Bush gets an A+ for his efforts following 9/11, an A for his tax
policies, but a D- for his domestic policies like campaign finance
reform (what part of "congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech" don't they understand?), his support of the steel
protectionism, letting Kennedy write the education bill, and numerous
other positions.

My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of our
nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person who
has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
commander in chief.

"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Fabbl sayeth:
> : "I have first hand knowledge that this garbage being posted is
coordinated -
> : a friend of mine, in the Dean campaign, told me so and showed me a trail
of
> : similar messages. The source is leftist hacks working under
www.moveon.org.
> : They actually have paid, full time activist trolling these newsgroups
and
> : internet message boards (particularly on Yahoo!). It's pretty well
> : coordinated. What I found interesting is some of these people are even
from
> : Europe."
>
> : Hey, Andy:
> : How much they paying in those liberal boiler rooms? I'm looking for
extra
> : cash for a miter saw.
>
>
>
> As far as I can recall, I've never even logged into moveon.org.
>
> The facts are publicly available, at least to those who aren't so
> wedded to the GOP party line that they can't do anything for themelves.
> Like, say, the much hindered Bob.
>
>
>
> -- Andy Barss

Sorry Andy, but I ain't no Republican, nor am I hindered. My post was in
jest.

Bob Schmall

1) Don't believe everything you see on tee vee. (<- see the period?)

2) Really not intending a personal attack, just can't understand how
anyone with more than 2 brain cells can't see thru the lies and deceit
this admin continually doles out. (Harvard, whether associated w/the
University or the CFAstrophysics would seem to indicate you might have
a few more than 2, though there are other possibilities)

3) assigning labels like "liberal" or "conservative" or whatever is
not really of interest to me.

Renata

On 19 Feb 2004 08:56:50 -0500, Gregg Germain
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Renata <[email protected]> wrote:
>: On 19 Feb 2004 07:38:23 -0500, Gregg Germain
>: <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>:>In rec.woodworking Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>:>: Back at ya: Bush has been a consistently and singularly hostile
>:>: president to both veterans and active-duty soldiers:
>:>
>:>
>:> Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
>:> cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
>:> loved it.
>:>
>
>: Now, have you actually been at these "rallys" and saw _all_ the
>: soldiers _all_ cheering, or is this something you saw on TV? Reason I
>: ask is cause you do know about the "exclusion zones", right?
>
> I do indeed know about exclusion zones. Yet when the camera includes
> groups both behind and in front of hte Presedent, full scanning left
> to right, there's little left to the imagination.
>
>: Ya know, there's more tha a few explanations for what you see on
>: teevee. This is why you have a brain. Perhaps you shouild exercise
>: it. Dang! Now I see this Haah-vaahd address....
>
>
> Well not we're getting a touch personal are we not? It's funny how
> people make assumptions about me based upon my email address. Some
> thign it means I'm a rampant liberal (I am registered Indep and voted
> for Bush. WIll do so again)- some think I actually Work at Harvard
> (I do not). It would do them good to read the sig line. But they
> probably cannot be bothered with that as they are too busy insulting.
>
>
> Some lose temporary use of their minds and simply lash out - like
> above.
>
>
>--- Gregg
> "Improvise, adapt, overcome."
>[email protected]
>Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
>Phone: (617) 496-1558
>

15th Century Spain?


Schweet, I'd get to meet Columbus and hide under big poofy dresses!



"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> : LOL! You guys are cracking me up!
>
>
> : I've seen some great replies to these liberals in here.
>
> : I'm trying to stay as silent as I can. I get pretty worked up sometimes.
>
> : I honestly think most of these people would LOVE to live in China.
>
> And I'm sure you'd love to live in 15th Century Spain.
>
> -- Andy Barss, wondering if you'll even get the reference

> Is John F Kerry going to be the democratic nominee?
>
> Or is there still a chance for John Edwards?
>
> Who would make a better candidate against Bush?
>
> Who should be the VP candidate? Gephardt? Dean? Clark? Gore? Hillary?

***
Gee what a choice that will be for us USA voters. Lurch from the Adams
Family, vs Frat Boy.

On September 11th, GWBush had that Deer in the headlights look when they
told him about the WTC plane crash. I wonder how Kerry would react:

"Missssssterrrrrrrr Adamssssssssssss. Call the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We
have a problem here.
mmmheowseammmmmsoeswrrrrrgrrrrrrrrrrowllllllllllll. hahahahaha!

So we have mr deer in the headlights vs a corpse. What a choice.
***

+ocean+

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> No, the thrust of the argument is that the soldiers are not being
> properly armed for the sort of combat in which they are ordered
> to engage.
>
Ok. Although, to be sure, I've yet to view a report from "the front" where
the soldiers engaged in combat weren't armed to the teeth.

> This assumes the Washington Post article, and my understanding of
> that article was accurate.
>
Maybe that's where it all breaks down, eh?

Kevin

Number of pages.


"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2gu%[email protected]...

> Is there a difference between the NY Times and the National Enquirer?
>
>

Dipshit. That's the British military. Bush doesn't have any authority over
that. Pull your head out, man.

Kevin
"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Even in Iraq Bush does not support our soldiers. Half of those
> > > fighting in Iraq weren't even issued rifles and rely on 9mm pistols
> > > or confiscated weapons.
> > >
> > Where'd you hear that?
>
> How about this one........?
>
>
> Bullets claim stirs Iraq equipment row
>
> Matthew Taylor
> Wednesday February 25, 2004
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1155599,00.html
>
> A serving soldier reignited the row about equipment shortages during the
> Iraq war last night, claiming he and his men had been issued with just
five
> bullets each for the entire conflict.
> The unnamed soldier, who said he came under fire several times on the
> frontline in southern Iraq, told Channel 4 News: "We had five rounds each
to
> defend ourselves. I actually crossed the border with five rounds.
>
> "The magazine held 30 separate bullets but I was issued with five separate
> bullets to last the entire hostilities of the war. We came under fire in
Um
> Qasr three or four times. Not fire, it was more like ricochets."
>
> The soldier's claims reopen the debate on equipment shortages in the army.
> Last month, the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, faced calls to resign
> following the death of Sergeant Steven Roberts, who was killed after being
> ordered to hand his flak jacket to another unit because there were not
> enough to go around.
>
> The soldier making the latest complaints, who is reportedly based in
Germany
> and served in Um Qasr, Az Zubayr and Basra, risks losing his job and
pension
> if his identity becomes public.
>
> As well as receiving just five bullets, he claimed the unit's camouflage
> nets and many of their vehicles and uniforms were green, not desert brown.
>
> The report said the men were also short of maps and body armour and
instead
> of radios, they were issued with a mobile phone and instructed to call if
> they were attacked.
>
> Last night, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said it was impossible
> to comment on the specific allegations without knowing the soldier's unit
> and role.
>
> --
> Jez
> "The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
> of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
> highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
> and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
> perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
> R.D. Laing
>
>
>

And who it was that, when offered Osama, declined.

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Perhaps you should try and identify which administration ignored which
> warning, before we continue.
>
> Kevin
> "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Fucking idiot.
> > You blame Clinton for what happened under Bush ...
> >
> > Great fucking logic.
>
>

a) A federal "surplus" means that the people are overtaxed. How is that
good for us?
b) "Key allies"? The French? Does this mean we won't have to rescue them,
next time? How is that bad for us?
c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't that
the responsibility of employers?

It seems your anger is misdirected, Andy. How sad.

Kevin
"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Oh yeah, and I forgot:
>
> a) the largest budgets deficits in world history, derived
> from a budget surplus handed to him by Bill Clinton.
>
> b) the rupturing of diplomatic relationships with several key allies.
>
> c) the characterization of massive moves of US jobs to
> overseas countries as a good thing.
>
> -- Andy Barss

> Believe me, I really understand your frustration. As one pundit put
> it, Bush gets an A+ for his efforts following 9/11, an A for his tax
> policies, but a D- for his domestic policies like campaign finance
> reform (what part of "congress shall make no law ... abridging the
> freedom of speech" don't they understand?), his support of the steel
> protectionism, letting Kennedy write the education bill, and numerous
> other positions.
>
> My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of our
> nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
> targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person who
> has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
> major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
> commander in chief.

***
Perhaps that is the path I will take. Better a luke warm pro-firearm
candidate than someone who is dead set against firearm ownership at all.
Plus the national defense issue is to be considered as well.
***

+ocean+

Is that the UK version of the "National Enquirer"?


"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George <[email protected]> wrote:
> : On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:21:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> :> My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of our
> :>nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
> :>targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person who
> :>has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
> :>major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
> :>commander in chief.
>
> According to the Pentagon, Bush is dangerously and deliberately clueless:
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html
>
> -- Andy Barss

For a couple of days, then they'd figure it out.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:lFD%[email protected]...

> I honestly think most of these people would LOVE to live in China.
>
>

"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Even in Iraq Bush does not support our soldiers. Half of those
> fighting in Iraq weren't even issued rifles and rely on 9mm pistols
> or confiscated weapons.
>
Where'd you hear that?

Kevin

You're right, I'm sure. How would you change the system, Larry?

Kevin
"Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > I think he does better than half. I'm not sure public speaking is the
most
> > important skill for the leader of the free world, but, then, I'm not a
> > Democrat, am I?
> >
> As long as the present system continues as is, we'll continue to
> see the best candidates, not the best leaders.
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

and still dieing!!
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > > Is John F Kerry going to be the democratic nominee?
> > >
> > > Or is there still a chance for John Edwards?
> > >
> > > Who would make a better candidate against Bush?
> > >
> > > Who should be the VP candidate? Gephardt? Dean? Clark? Gore? Hillary?
> >
> > ***
> > Gee what a choice that will be for us USA voters. Lurch from the Adams
> > Family, vs Frat Boy.
> >
> > On September 11th, GWBush had that Deer in the headlights look when they
> > told him about the WTC plane crash. I wonder how Kerry would react:
> >
> > "Missssssterrrrrrrr Adamssssssssssss. Call the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We
> > have a problem here.
> > mmmheowseammmmmsoeswrrrrrgrrrrrrrrrrowllllllllllll. hahahahaha!
> >
> > So we have mr deer in the headlights vs a corpse. What a choice.
> > ***
> >
> > +ocean+
> >
>
> Well, let's see, that "deer in the headlights" look (I've seen the
> pictures and don't see it, but that's your opinion) turned into grim
> resolve and even if we haven't caught OBL, he is on the run and unable
> to muster or do much else with his troops. In the case of Lurch, I
> suspect we would still be begging the Taliban in Afghanistan to "please,
> please, turn over OBL and stop training terrorists in those camps or
> we're going to go the UN again for another resolution"
>
> Just as a data point, Lurch has voted in the past for significant fund
> cuts in intelligence, against anti-terrorism funding (prior to 9/11),
> against providing additional aid to our troops in Iraq. He either voted
> or indicated he would have voted to cut funding for the F-15, the F-16,
> the F-14, the B1-B, the B2, the Patriot missile, the Aegis missile
> cruiser, the M-1 tank, the M-2 Bradley troop vehicle, and the Tomahawk
> missile. i.e. Lurch has been against and would have been happy to have
> killed every major weapon program that helped assure the victories that
> have been achieved in the past 4 military actions in which we have been
> involved. (A google search on "Kerry defense budget" will return
> numerous results that provide the data for these statements, e.g.
> <http://www.usorthem.org/current-events/election-2004-john-kerry.html>)
>
> >
> >

Those WMD are in various countries just waiting for an appropiate
strike time and are in missiles guided by the latest guidance technology
given to the Chinese by terrorist Clinton for a campaign contribution.
"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You're right, I'm sure. How would you change the system, Larry?
>
> Kevin
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > > I think he does better than half. I'm not sure public speaking is the
> most
> > > important skill for the leader of the free world, but, then, I'm not a
> > > Democrat, am I?
> > >
> > As long as the present system continues as is, we'll continue to
> > see the best candidates, not the best leaders.
> >
> > --
> > Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
>
>

"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Am I missing something here?

Yes, of course, you are.

> Are we not the only superpower on earth?

That didn't stop the attacks of September 11, 2001, did it?

> Do we have the most aircraft carriers on earth?

And, they provided no protection against the attacks of September 11, 2001,
and were unable to determine whether Iraq was developing weapons of mass
destruction.

> Do we not have the largest stockpile of WMD's on earth? And the list goes
on and
> on.

Perhaps. It could be that Russia and China have more. Who's counting?
It's about how they're intended to be used that matters.

>
> We are arms to the teeth, and we are still afraid and need more arms.
What and
> who are we afraid of? Whom did we offend so badly that we need to arms so
much
> and to destroy everyone?
>
We're not afraid of nations. We're afraid of rogues and terrorists. It's
not whether we've offended anyone. It's that some people hate us,
regardless what we've done, and would see us destroyed, for whatever reasons
they'd decided.

> Since we have declared the right of self defense and first strikes, Pres.
Bush
> and Tony Blair should destroy anyone whom *THEY* think a danger to us, no?
>
Individually? No. With the consent of Congress? Have at you!

> Maybe, we too should strike France, Germany and other Old Europe including
> China.. oops! maybe, Canada too, who did not share our views on Iraq?
>
How did China get into Old Europe? Or Canada? Are they stockpiling weapons
that could potentially be used against us by terrorists?

> Hope the above questions and trash will make us think a bit deeper?
>
I'm glad you identified that as trash. I thought, for a second, that you
were serious.

Kevin

What the hell are you talking about. Are you even aware of the world around
you?

"Noons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not fair. They didn't know Osama was hiding
> WMDs back then...
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> [email protected]
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Yes, Billy the Twit.
> >
> > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > And who it was that, when offered Osama, declined.
> > >
> > > Hehe...lemme guess.......does it start with a 'B' ???
>

"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Unlike those, uh, scientists.
>
You mean the "if", "may", and "possibly could" crowd?

OK


"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> : LOL!
>
> : Seems to me the Global warming would cancel out the global cooling.
>
> : Or is it vice versa.
>
> Please read some of the science behind these reports. It isn't a choice
> or conflict between cooling and warming. It's that increases in
> greenhouse gases destabilize the world climate, bringing it to a tipping
> point where extremes of both cold and warm occur.
>
>
> By the Pentagon's estimates, northwestern Europe will be extremely cold
> -- England having winters like Siberia does now -- while
> other areas, including equatorial areas of Africa, southern Europe, and
> Central and South America will experience extreme increaes in heat.
>
> Let's see: the Pentagon, trying to calculate risks to national security,
> says climate change in the next 15 years is a far greater threat than
> terrorism is.
>
> The White House, with deep ties to the oil industry, buries the report for
> four months until it's leaked to the press, then dismisses it as
> speculation.
>
> Gee, I guess I better believe Cheney and Bush -- they're really on top of
> the science. Unlike those, uh, scientists.
>
> -- Andy Barss
>

And again....

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html


"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:KWg%[email protected]...
> Is that the UK version of the "National Enquirer"?
>
>
> "Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > George <[email protected]> wrote:
> > : On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:21:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > :> My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of
our
> > :>nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
> > :>targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person
who
> > :>has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
> > :>major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
> > :>commander in chief.
> >
> > According to the Pentagon, Bush is dangerously and deliberately
clueless:
> >
> >
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html
> >
> > -- Andy Barss
>
>

Yes, Billy the Twit.

"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > And who it was that, when offered Osama, declined.
>
> Hehe...lemme guess.......does it start with a 'B' ???
>
>
> --
> Jez
> "The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
> of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
> highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
> and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
> perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
> R.D. Laing
>
>

On Sat 21 Feb 2004 02:59:25p, "Courtney Mainord" <[email protected]>
wrote in news:[email protected]:

> Those WMD are in various countries just waiting for an appropiate
> strike time and are in missiles guided by the latest guidance technology
> given to the Chinese by terrorist Clinton for a campaign contribution.

Y'know, the scary thing is that there are probably a lot of people out
there who actually believe that.

Dan

On Sun 22 Feb 2004 01:41:12a, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Ok, Dan, maybe you'd like to explain why the Clinton administration
> approved the transfer of technology from Loral. I'm sure that it's
> just a coincidence that the chairman and CEO of Loral, Bernard
> Schwarz, was the largest personal donor to the DNC the year this
> transfer was made and to the 1996 Clinton campaign. And Charie Trie
> was just a nice Chinaman who just liked to donate hundreds of
> thousands of dollars to Clinton out of his love for the US.
>

Can't. But I believe the conclsion reached was a little more than that. Let
me see if I follow the reasoning. The original poster said:
>From: "Courtney Mainord" <[email protected]>
>Those WMD are in various countries just waiting for an appropiate
>strike time and are in missiles guided by the latest guidance technology
>given to the Chinese by terrorist Clinton for a campaign contribution.

So, the reasoning is
1. Clinton transferred tech to china.
2. Tech is needed to shoot missiles.
3. The WMD's can't be found.
4. Other countries don't like us.
5. Therefore the WMD's are in Chinese missiles located in other countries,
pointed at us.

So, you wanted to start a new thread, but weren't sure how to go about it?

Kevin
"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Dipshit. That's the British military. Bush doesn't have any authority
> over
> > that. Pull your head out, man.
>
> I wasn't refering to it from the USA point of veiw..being from the UK
>
>
> --
> Jez
> "The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
> of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
> highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
> and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
> perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
> R.D. Laing
>
>

So, the thrust of the argument is that the soldiers are being asked to
perform tasks outside their normal training, not that they're improperly
armed for combat?

That seems a little disingenuous, to me.

Kevin
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> > > Even in Iraq Bush does not support our soldiers. Half of those
> > > fighting in Iraq weren't even issued rifles and rely on 9mm pistols
> > > or confiscated weapons.
> > >
> > Where'd you hear that?
> >
>
> Washington Post. I don't remember the date. My impression from
> the article was that the problem largely is the result of personnel
> who would normally use weapon systems that are mounted on vehicles
> being required to seek or pursue beligerants on foot.
>
> --
>
> FF

Yes, I read it. Offers no proof. BTW Andy, you still owe me some money.

"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> : As usual with this kind of stuff, the article uses a lot of exact terms
like
> : "if" and "may". Nothing solid.
>
>
> Nothing solid? Did you actually read the articles, and the report?
>
> : If this stuff bothers you, here's another one for you. If the sun burns
out,
> : we'll all freeze.
>
>
> You really aren't very smart. Surprise, surprise.
>
> -- Andy Barss

As usual with this kind of stuff, the article uses a lot of exact terms like
"if" and "may". Nothing solid.
If this stuff bothers you, here's another one for you. If the sun burns out,
we'll all freeze.

"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Is that the UK version of the "National Enquirer"?
>
>
> Um, nope. More like the NY Times. And the report was issued by the
> Pentagon.
>
> This has been reported in the Miami Herald, and other mainstream papers.
> Here's one from Fortune magazine:
>
> http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,582584,00.html
>
> This isn't fake, it's real, and scary.
>
> -- Andy Barss

In uk.politics.electoral Fuck Face <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is John F Kerry going to be the democratic nominee?

If he shows he can win Southern states today, it's most likely.

> Or is there still a chance for John Edwards?

To be Veep, yes.

> Who would make a better candidate against Bush?

Hilary Clinton, but she's not running, thank Eris.

> Who should be the VP candidate? Gephardt? Dean? Clark? Gore? Hillary?

Doubt Hilary would take it unless it's a certain walkover for Kerry.
Gephardt's far too Old Democrat. There's no percentage for Gore in
another Veep job. Dean's from the north where Kerry needs someone from the
South. Edwards currently looks like the shrewd move.

Who'll run with Bush is also an interesting question: If he took Condy,
we might see Condy versus Hilary in 2008 and that'd be a very interesting
election.

FoFP

--
"It's silly to make such a thing about the language someone else chooses to
use"
-- Emma Delaney

Back at ya: Bush has been a consistently and singularly hostile
president to both veterans and active-duty soldiers:

With 130,000 soldiers still in the heat of battle in Iraq and more
fighting and dying in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sought this
year to cut $75 a month from the "imminent danger" pay added to soldiers'
paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by $150 a
month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers and
others who serve overseas away from their families. Although they were
termed "wasteful and unnecessary" by the White House, Congress blocked
those cuts this year, largely because of Democratic votes.

* This year's White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion from
VA hospitals-despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam
veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per
patient than nine years ago.

* The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all
Priority 8 veterans-those with "non-service-related illnesses"-who seek
treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals to Priority 8
veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year.

* Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also was
charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived for
medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most injured
are treated.

* In mid-October, the Pentagon, at the request of Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, announced plans to shutter 19 commissaries-military-run stores
that offer discounted food and merchandise that helps low-paid enlisted
troops and their families get by-along with the possiblility of closing 19
more.

* At the same time, the Pentagon also announced it was trying to determine
whether to shutter 58 military-run schools for soldiers' children at 14
military installations.

* The White House is seeking to block a federal judge's award of damages
to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture during
the 1991 Gulf War. The White House claims the money, to come from Iraqi
assets confiscated by the United States, is needed for that country's
reconstruction.

* The administration beat back a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add
$1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush's request of $87 billion for war and
reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.

* In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to
provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body
armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving
equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic and
Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to "the cost of the
extraordinary security" during Bush's recent trip to Asia, which he noted
grimly "would cover a vest for every soldier" in Iraq.

Bush2 is not only a coward, he's happy to undermine the safety, pay, and
benefits of real soldiers. Why you could think he's a "war president" is
really hard to see.

-- Andy BArss

Gregg Germain <[email protected]> wrote:
(I am registered Indep and voted
: for Bush. WIll do so again)

So ...

You like the:

USA Patriot Act, the most aggressive assault on individual rights since, well, forever?

Loss of *three* *million* jobs since he took office?

The official doctrine that we can attack any country we perceive as a potential threat?

The denial of benefits to veterans who have served this country?

Laisser-faire attitude toward serving in the National Guard?

presence of a president who can just barely put a sentence together half the time?


A couple of years ago, Gregg, you seemed like a smart guy. What happened?


-- Andy Barss

Oh yeah, and I forgot:

a) the largest budgets deficits in world history, derived
from a budget surplus handed to him by Bill Clinton.

b) the rupturing of diplomatic relationships with several key allies.

c) the characterization of massive moves of US jobs to
overseas countries as a good thing.

-- Andy Barss

Bob Schmall <[email protected]> wrote:
: Fabbl sayeth:
: "I have first hand knowledge that this garbage being posted is coordinated -
: a friend of mine, in the Dean campaign, told me so and showed me a trail of
: similar messages. The source is leftist hacks working under www.moveon.org.
: They actually have paid, full time activist trolling these newsgroups and
: internet message boards (particularly on Yahoo!). It's pretty well
: coordinated. What I found interesting is some of these people are even from
: Europe."

: Hey, Andy:
: How much they paying in those liberal boiler rooms? I'm looking for extra
: cash for a miter saw.



As far as I can recall, I've never even logged into moveon.org.

The facts are publicly available, at least to those who aren't so
wedded to the GOP party line that they can't do anything for themelves.
Like, say, the much hindered Bob.



-- Andy Barss

Gregg Germain <[email protected]> wrote:
: In rec.woodworking Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
: : Back at ya: Bush has been a consistently and singularly hostile
: : president to both veterans and active-duty soldiers:


: Yeah. That explains why every time he goes to a base he's wildly
: cheered byt he soldiers. That explains why when he went to Iraq they
: loved it.


Soldier Smith goes on duty March 2003. She goes to Iraq.

President Bush cuts bennies for both active-duty and veteran soldiers, in July 2003.
This is given limited coverage in the US, by the conservative media,
and no coverage in then US Army media.

Bush presses himself inyto a gonad-highlighting flight suit, and asks for
applause on a flight deck. Smith knows nothing other than
that she has been told -- she's doing a great job. She's no independent
news of the war for 6 months.

She cheers Bush.

It's meaningless.

-- Andy Barss

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Oh yeah, and I forgot:
>
And you also forgot what he's doing to the environment. Global
warming? What's that? Wildlife preserve? Drill it! Etc..

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I think he does better than half. I'm not sure public speaking is the most
> important skill for the leader of the free world, but, then, I'm not a
> Democrat, am I?
>
As long as the present system continues as is, we'll continue to
see the best candidates, not the best leaders.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Kevin Singleton <[email protected]> wrote:
: a) A federal "surplus" means that the people are overtaxed. How is that
: good for us?

Okay, say it means that. Then the government can either (a) return it to
the taxpayer, or (b) use it to pay for good things.

Consider the alternative. The government spends *trillions* more than it
takes in in revenue, as it is under Bush's policies and proposals.

In that case, there is no koney to either (a) return to the taxpayer, or
(b) spend on good things.

How can anyone think running huge deficits is a good thing? I'm old
enough to remember when the GOP at least pretended to be the party of
fiscal responsibility.

: b) "Key allies"? The French? Does this mean we won't have to rescue them,
: next time? How is that bad for us?

Germany, France, Russia. That's not an inconsiderable
group of countries to have alienated, especially given that the population
of Iraq is about that of Mexico City.


: c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't that
: the responsibility of employers?

That's a pathetic dodge.

If three million US jobs had been lost under a Democratic administration,
the mainstream press as well as GOP flacks would have been all over it for
months.

What really amazes me is that Bush's economic report of last week
describes this massive loss of US jobs as a good thing. And the
mainstream press has been pretty silent on that.


: It seems your anger is misdirected, Andy. How sad.

My feeling isn't anger, it's amazement. I'm genuinely amazed that
people who seem smart and sensible can think Bush and his administration
are anything other than a complete disaster.


-- Andy Barss

Imagine someone wants to set you up with a woman (if you're female, please
reverse genders here) who:

a) charges huge purchases to your credit card with no plan to pay them
off, other than vaguely implying your kids will take care of it;

b) goes over to a neighbor's house and hits him in the head with an axe,
based on an unsubstatiated rumour that the neighbor had been planning to
buy an axe;

c) decides your dad would be better off if we threw away some of his
benefit checks, calling them "wasteful";


d) pretended to have served a full term on the local PTA, when in
fact she spent half her claimd PTA time doing her nails;

e) decides she should have access to the complete records of what you,
your family, and your neighbors have said on the phone, checked out of the
library, and said in private, and that the content of that can and should
be used to deter anyone suspicious in jail, without being charged, and
without having access to an attourney.


Would you marry her?


-- Andy Barss

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> While no WMD's have been found in Iraq, there is no (zero, zip, zilch,
> nada) dispute that the Taliban in Afghanistan was supporting, protecting
> and shielding OBL and his training camps of terror from which OBL
> deployed the terrorists who killed over 3000 Americans in acts that by
> any rational definition constituted a declaration of war on this
> country.
>
Agreed. I have no quibble with us invading Afghanistan, just
how badly we seem to be screwing up the "peace". The warlords
are bringing back Taliban-like restrictions, the farmers are
making it be growing opium poppies, and we give Pakistan a free
ride because their leader "supports" us while their citizens
support Bin Laden.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

George <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 03:21:41 GMT, Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

:> My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of our
:>nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
:>targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person who
:>has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
:>major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
:>commander in chief.

According to the Pentagon, Bush is dangerously and deliberately clueless:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1153530,00.html

-- Andy Barss

Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
: Is that the UK version of the "National Enquirer"?


Um, nope. More like the NY Times. And the report was issued by the
Pentagon.

This has been reported in the Miami Herald, and other mainstream papers.
Here's one from Fortune magazine:

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,582584,00.html

This isn't fake, it's real, and scary.

-- Andy Barss

Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
: Is there a difference between the NY Times and the National Enquirer?


Is there a difference between Bill and a 2x4 cutoff soaked in
used motor oil?

-- Andy Barss

CW <[email protected]> wrote:
: As usual with this kind of stuff, the article uses a lot of exact terms like
: "if" and "may". Nothing solid.


Nothing solid? Did you actually read the articles, and the report?

: If this stuff bothers you, here's another one for you. If the sun burns out,
: we'll all freeze.


You really aren't very smart. Surprise, surprise.

-- Andy Barss

Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
: LOL!

: Seems to me the Global warming would cancel out the global cooling.

: Or is it vice versa.

Please read some of the science behind these reports. It isn't a choice
or conflict between cooling and warming. It's that increases in
greenhouse gases destabilize the world climate, bringing it to a tipping
point where extremes of both cold and warm occur.


By the Pentagon's estimates, northwestern Europe will be extremely cold
-- England having winters like Siberia does now -- while
other areas, including equatorial areas of Africa, southern Europe, and
Central and South America will experience extreme increaes in heat.

Let's see: the Pentagon, trying to calculate risks to national security,
says climate change in the next 15 years is a far greater threat than
terrorism is.

The White House, with deep ties to the oil industry, buries the report for
four months until it's leaked to the press, then dismisses it as
speculation.

Gee, I guess I better believe Cheney and Bush -- they're really on top of
the science. Unlike those, uh, scientists.

-- Andy Barss

Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

: I have this Barss character filtered for other antics.
: He's a TEACHER, y'know.

And I ignore your postings, always, since I've found them to be either
irrational, unpleasant, or offbase.

: Yes. There is a global warming happening right now. BUT...

: ONE degree per CENTURY is not going to kill/drown/ruin us

Are you familiar with the concept of a tipping point?


: "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the
: World" by Bjorn Lomborg

You're citing Lundberg on this? Come on, that's like citing
Tammy Faye on matters of religion. Lundberg is a joke.

-- Andy Barss

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

: ... of the perpetrators of that one, single attack. While those who
: financed, trained, and harbored the planners of that attack were allowed
: to continue financing, planning, and training for the next attacks.

Kind of like the 2001-4 lack of attempts to get the Saudis to stop
financing Al Quaeda, no?

-- Andy Barss

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote:

: Do you by chance subscribe to "It Could Happen to You!" magazine?


No. Do you?

: i.e. his conclusions do not agree with those you support.

No, his conclusions do not agree with a huge majority of people who are
experts in ecology. Which he isn't, by the way -- he's a statistician,
and his work has been taken apart in detail by experts. He's a fringe
"scientist" in an area where there are a lot of real scientists. His work
is essentially vapid.



http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=773
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/7089
http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/SciAm_JHResp.htm
http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg08709.html


He's a bad scientist.

-- Andy Barss

CW <[email protected]> wrote:
: You mean the "if", "may", and "possibly could" crowd?


Yes, seedubya. Unlike the "must, you will, and we'll make you" crowd
you're so enamourer of.

If you'd like an explanation of any of the complex words above, let us
know. We'll spell 'em out for you.

-- Andy Barss

David <[email protected]> wrote:
: That rag is as liberal as the New York Times. I have renewed my
: stance... they would be better off getting their information from
: their fellow riders on the short bus.


And you get your "information" from what? Rush? Savage? Ralph Reed's
newsletter?


-- Andy Barss

Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
: LOL! You guys are cracking me up!


: I've seen some great replies to these liberals in here.

: I'm trying to stay as silent as I can. I get pretty worked up sometimes.

: I honestly think most of these people would LOVE to live in China.

And I'm sure you'd love to live in 15th Century Spain.

-- Andy Barss, wondering if you'll even get the reference

CW <[email protected]> wrote:
: For a couple of days, then they'd figure it out.


That you're off youre rocker? Takes just a minute or two, actually!


-- Andy Barss

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
... snip
>
> : ONE degree per CENTURY is not going to kill/drown/ruin us
>
> Are you familiar with the concept of a tipping point?
>

Do you by chance subscribe to "It Could Happen to You!" magazine?

>
> : "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the
> : World" by Bjorn Lomborg
>
> You're citing Lundberg on this? Come on, that's like citing
> Tammy Faye on matters of religion. Lundberg is a joke.
>

i.e. his conclusions do not agree with those you support.

> -- Andy Barss
>

David wrote:

> Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>
>>>I think he does better than half. I'm not sure public speaking is the most
>>>important skill for the leader of the free world, but, then, I'm not a
>>>Democrat, am I?
>>>
>>
>>As long as the present system continues as is, we'll continue to
>>see the best candidates, not the best leaders.
>
>
> Oh how trite. Oh how profound. Oh what a crock of BS.



Actually it's very true.


To bad you can't see it.



--
--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Laisser-faire attitude toward serving in the National Guard?
> > >
> > Better than running off to merry old England to avoid service, ain't it,
> > Andy?
>
> Vietnam was the crucible which tested able-bodied male Boomers' metal.
>
> Clinton's studying with Carroll Quigley, at Georgetown, may have
> informed him of the criminal nature of our country's role there. While
> his later proven lack of character can be attributed to his unfortunate
> and dysfunctional upbringing, only God knows whether it was wisdom or
> cowardice which got him to a correct response on Vietnam.

... so since Clinton is "your guy", his moral failings weren't his
fault, it was OK for him to play games with the reserves and write how
many like himself "loathed the military" (parse it as you will, I'm sure
your parsing of the phrase will be most favorable to Bill), and go to
England and participate in anti-US protests on foreign soil. For all
these things you are willing to provide Bill with an excuse and overlook
those failings.

>
> Bush, on the other hand, violated an American taboo: with his
> Congressman father's assistance he cut past the front of the line after
> LBJ had ordered that no further Guard or Reserve units could be called
> up for duty in S.E.Asia, and admittance had been closed.
>

Let's see, George Bush Sr. served as a congressman from 1966 to 1970,
LBJ was president only during 1966 to 1968, Richard Nixon was president
for the last term Bush Sr served as a congressman. Bush Jr didn't go
into the Guard until after he graduated in 1968, the final year of Bush
Sr's term, during which he was running for a Senate seat in Texas. LBJ
was no longer president, so your statement about not being called up for
duty in SE Asia seems irrelevant relative to who was in charge.

You seem to have negelected the son of another prominent
congresscritter whose daddy made sure he did not see combat, but was
able to serve as a correspondent rather than as a normal soldier. While
he did go to Vietnam, his tour was short and his duty was in as safe a
place as was possible.


> Unlike many millions of others confronted by the same challenge, Bush
> has no DD214 and his "Honorable Discharge" is not from the U.S. Armed
> Forces.
>
> Any veteran of the era might easily imagine this was critical in his
> staying drunk for the next twenty years.
>

What, no excuses for him here or any other of the "passes" you were
willing to give Billy-boy above?


> His moral and patriotic failure at that time, while "other" Americans in
> uniform bled for a lie his father helped develop,

LBJ escalated the war and then instituted such convoluted, self-
defeating rules of engagement that we never stood a chance of emerging
from that conflict victorious; Bush Sr. was only a congressman the last
two years of LBJ's term. How did Bush Sr exactly help "develop" this
lie?

> is only compounded by
> his unmilitary lack of responsiveness to the events unfolding on the
> morning of September 11, 2001...particularly since without WMD it stands
> as the "reason" middle-aged Weekend Warriors, institutionally exempted
> from combat while Bush got free flying lessons, are now being sent by
> him to kill and die in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>

While no WMD's have been found in Iraq, there is no (zero, zip, zilch,
nada) dispute that the Taliban in Afghanistan was supporting, protecting
and shielding OBL and his training camps of terror from which OBL
deployed the terrorists who killed over 3000 Americans in acts that by
any rational definition constituted a declaration of war on this
country. How exactly was our response in Afghanistan "unmilitary"?
What would have been "unmilitary" would have been to have continued for
months on end to "negotiate" and beg for the Taliban to "please, please,
please turn over OBL and close down those camps". Support (tacit or
open) for terrorists such as was being practiced by the Taliban
constitutes a de facto inclusion of those peoples' actions as officially
sanctioned by the government of Afghanistan.

Frankly, GW's response to Afghanistan was rapid, swift (within two
months of the attack on us, a full-scale response was in progress) and
decisive. The Iraqi confrontation simply constitutes a completion of
the conflict that had drug on for over 10 years. The administration was
not the only institution that believed WMD's were present in Iraq, other
foreign intelligence services also believed this to be true. A rational
person would be asking the question "Where are those WMD's?" since it
was known at one time that they did exist (without any doubt) and no
credible chain of custody has been established documenting that those
weapons have been destroyed.

Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Believe me, I really understand your frustration. As one pundit put
> it, Bush gets an A+ for his efforts following 9/11,...
>

Perhaps it has espaced your attention that pundits tell jokes.

> My vote for Bush will only be to prevent having Kerry in charge of our
> nation's defenses, particularly in this time when our country has been
> targeted by terrorists and the nations that support them. A person who
> has voted to kill, or indicated that he would have voted to kill every
> major modern weapon system in our inventory has no business being
> commander in chief.

With George W. Bush as commander-in-chief we have concentrated our
miltary forces in the one Arab country that has done the least to
support or shelter Al Qaeda. That is not leadership, that it folly.

It is equivalent to invading China to retaliate for Pearl Harbor.
But of course, we did not invade Iraq in response to the attack on
September 11, 2001. That attack resulted in a one year delay of
the invasion of Iraq.

The rationalization for the invasion was based on a campaign of
lies and deceipt that has cost us the aid and support of most of
the nations who had stood by us after the attacks of September 11.

Even in Iraq Bush does not support our soldiers. Half of those
fighting in Iraq weren't even issued rifles and rely on 9mm pistols
or confiscated weapons.

--

FF

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Even in Iraq Bush does not support our soldiers. Half of those
> > fighting in Iraq weren't even issued rifles and rely on 9mm pistols
> > or confiscated weapons.
> >
> Where'd you hear that?
>

Washington Post. I don't remember the date. My impression from
the article was that the problem largely is the result of personnel
who would normally use weapon systems that are mounted on vehicles
being required to seek or pursue beligerants on foot.

--

FF

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> So, the thrust of the argument is that the soldiers are being asked to
> perform tasks outside their normal training, not that they're improperly
> armed for combat?
>
> That seems a little disingenuous, to me.
>
> Kevin
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > > Even in Iraq Bush does not support our soldiers. Half of those
> > > > fighting in Iraq weren't even issued rifles and rely on 9mm pistols
> > > > or confiscated weapons.
> > > >
> > > Where'd you hear that?
> > >
> >
> > Washington Post. I don't remember the date. My impression from
> > the article was that the problem largely is the result of personnel
> > who would normally use weapon systems that are mounted on vehicles
> > being required to seek or pursue beligerants on foot.
> >

No, the thrust of the argument is that the soldiers are not being
properly armed for the sort of combat in which they are ordered
to engage.

This assumes the Washington Post article, and my understanding of
that article was accurate.

--

FF

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Do we have the most aircraft carriers on earth?
>
> And, they provided no protection against the attacks of September 11, 2001,
> and were unable to determine whether Iraq was developing weapons of mass
> destruction.
>

I agree that aircraft carriers are only marginally useful for the
purpose of finding WMDs. But we do have other means to do so and
there is no evidence that those other methods failed to give the
US administartion an accurate understanding of the situation in Iraq.
Indeed, there is ample evidence that it did.

--

FF

"Paul Mays" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > Washington Post. I don't remember the date. My impression from
> > > > the article was that the problem largely is the result of personnel
> > > > who would normally use weapon systems that are mounted on vehicles
> > > > being required to seek or pursue beligerants on foot.
> > > >
> >
> > No, the thrust of the argument is that the soldiers are not being
> > properly armed for the sort of combat in which they are ordered
> > to engage.
> >
> > This assumes the Washington Post article, and my understanding of
> > that article was accurate.
> \
>
> Have you ever been in combat?

No. You?

>
> Theres never been a battle where every solder has
> had the equipment he thought he should in the situation
> they find themself in.
>
> When in a small arms fight a solder wants a Tank or two
> and when in a tank fight the wish for a few air strikes
> pops into the head real fast....

Sure. but I don't think that expecting a rifle for a stand-up
fight on foot against enemy armed with AK-47s is unreasonable.

>
> To top that off we went through 4 years of having the
> military stripped of funds and equipment with the
> espree di corp falling out the bottom because of
> the way the military was castrated before the present
> administration...

The rapid deployment and swift victory in Afghanistan shows
that the US military left to GWB was more than adequate.

>
> With so many in congress that really do not understand
> that this is a war that will be on the level of WW2 in
> the near future I'm suprized we have been able to
> supply the hardware we have now much less what
> we really need.
>

I question your grasp of history.
Who will we soon be fighting to raise the level to anything
remotely like WWII?

--

FF

"Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I agree that aircraft carriers are only marginally useful for the
> > purpose of finding WMDs. But we do have other means to do so and
> > there is no evidence that those other methods failed to give the
> > US administartion an accurate understanding of the situation in Iraq.
> > Indeed, there is ample evidence that it did.
> >
> So, why'd you even mention aircraft carriers, if they're not relevant?

As you know, I did not. See:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=OvWdnZ34PrWh26PdRVn-sA%40comcast.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

> If
> the US had an accurate understanding of the situation in Iraq, how'd the UN
> get bamboozled for over 10 years?
>

My impression is that he UMOVIC report of 2003 was pretty accurate.

--

FF

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<kyD%[email protected]>...
> LOL!
>
> Seems to me the Global warming would cancel out the global cooling.
>
> Or is it vice versa.
>

Well, if you have one foot in a bucket of dry ice and the other in
a bucket of boiling water are you comfortable?


> The earth will be here long after we have gone.

Yes the question is how soon we're going and by what means.

>
> What big egos some people have to think we have the power to destroy her.
>

Oh no, we won't destroy the Earth. But we are real good at making
it inhospitable to some living things. We often find ourselves
among those.

--

FF

"Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Am I missing something here?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, of course, you are.
> > > >
> > > > > Are we not the only superpower on earth?
> > > >
> > > > That didn't stop the attacks of September 11, 2001, did it?
> > >
> > > Yeah, but that's because your arrogant administration ignored
> > > all the warnings coming from various security agencies
> > > around the world.
> > >
> > ... and which administration would that be? Seems that many of those
> > warnings were issued in the late 90's.
>
> Dammit, stop confusing the issue with the facts ;^)
>
> The previous admin did nothing to stop terrorists. They tried to handle the first Trade
> Center attack and a violation of law thru the courts. See where that got us.

Convictions, as you well know.

>
> Just like WMD's. The Clinton made a far more compelling case for the existence of WMD's
> than the Bush admin. Even launched an attack via cruise missiles.

As I recall he was criticized for bombing an 'aspirin factory'.
He also bombed bin Laden, but missed him.

> Suddenly, with a Republican
> in the White House, the WMD's never existed and George Bush knew it.

The evidence indicates that he knew it. Or perhaps you weren't paying
attention to his demand that Iraq PROVE it had no WMDs and his
argument that Iraq's failure to produce WMDs for disposal was the
proof that they really had them.

Why give the IAEA forged documents if he had real evidence? Why
misconstrue the Medusa missle tubes if he had real evidence?
Why misidentify the British built hydrogen generators as
fermenters if he had real evidence?

Why is it that UNMOVIC was unable to certify that Iraq had no
WMDs befor the SPring deadline? It was because the Bush administration
sent them on one wild goose chase after another to make sure that
they could not get their work done in time.

--

FF

"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Kevin Singleton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Am I missing something here?
> >
> > Yes, of course, you are.
> >
> > > Are we not the only superpower on earth?
> >
> > That didn't stop the attacks of September 11, 2001, did it?
>
> Yeah, but that's because your arrogant administration ignored
> all the warnings coming from various security agencies
> around the world.

Not all, only some. Some US forces abroad were on alert, in anticipation
of a local (abroad) attack when Al Qaeda struck in the US.
They fooled us.

--

FF

"Paul Mays" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Paul Mays" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Washington Post. I don't remember the date. My impression from
> > > > > > the article was that the problem largely is the result of
> personnel
> > > > > > who would normally use weapon systems that are mounted on vehicles
> > > > > > being required to seek or pursue beligerants on foot.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, the thrust of the argument is that the soldiers are not being
> > > > properly armed for the sort of combat in which they are ordered
> > > > to engage.
> > > >
> > > > This assumes the Washington Post article, and my understanding of
> > > > that article was accurate.
...
> >
> > Sure. but I don't think that expecting a rifle for a stand-up
> > fight on foot against enemy armed with AK-47s is unreasonable.
>
> Never has a solder been sent into a foot persute of
> and enemy with out a rifle... or other hand held
> weapon... Has not happened in Iraq or Aff ' y ...

Therre was no claim that had happened. Only that the hand-held
weapons for some were pistols.

>
> If a top gunner on a Hummer is asked to dismount
> and go attack those bad guys over there I assure you
> he will either have a rifle

Yes, according to the article many GIs rely on confiscated rifles.


> or find a way to dismount
> the .50 and take it with him...
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > To top that off we went through 4 years of having the
> > > military stripped of funds and equipment with the
> > > espree di corp falling out the bottom because of
> > > the way the military was castrated before the present
> > > administration...
> >
> > The rapid deployment and swift victory in Afghanistan shows
> > that the US military left to GWB was more than adequate.
>
> There is no such thing as Adequate when people are shooting at you...
>
> Your view is that we had adequate supplies then you
> yell about not having proper equipment...

Good point. 'Twas adequate for Afghanistan in 2001. It was after the
Bush administration had been in charge for two years that shortages
began to surface.

> ...
>
> In this War we are faced with an enemy that in military terms has
> a troop strengh 3 times that we faced in WW2 ( 10% of Islamist
> have stated support for killing YOU and ME ) ..

Quite frankly, that makes me feel good since the clear implication
is that the ovewhelming majority, 90% do not. Of those 10%, few will
actually wind up taking action. It's easier to SAY you'll do
something than it is to do it.

...

FF

bush LIED, people DIED.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > > Is John F Kerry going to be the democratic nominee?
> > >
> > > Or is there still a chance for John Edwards?
> > >
> > > Who would make a better candidate against Bush?
> > >
> > > Who should be the VP candidate? Gephardt? Dean? Clark? Gore? Hillary?
> >
> > ***
> > Gee what a choice that will be for us USA voters. Lurch from the Adams
> > Family, vs Frat Boy.
> >
> > On September 11th, GWBush had that Deer in the headlights look when they
> > told him about the WTC plane crash. I wonder how Kerry would react:
> >
> > "Missssssterrrrrrrr Adamssssssssssss. Call the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We
> > have a problem here.
> > mmmheowseammmmmsoeswrrrrrgrrrrrrrrrrowllllllllllll. hahahahaha!
> >
> > So we have mr deer in the headlights vs a corpse. What a choice.
> > ***
> >
> > +ocean+
> >
>
> Well, let's see, that "deer in the headlights" look (I've seen the
> pictures and don't see it, but that's your opinion) turned into grim
> resolve and even if we haven't caught OBL, he is on the run and unable
> to muster or do much else with his troops. In the case of Lurch, I
> suspect we would still be begging the Taliban in Afghanistan to "please,
> please, turn over OBL and stop training terrorists in those camps or
> we're going to go the UN again for another resolution"
>
> Just as a data point, Lurch has voted in the past for significant fund
> cuts in intelligence, against anti-terrorism funding (prior to 9/11),
> against providing additional aid to our troops in Iraq. He either voted
> or indicated he would have voted to cut funding for the F-15, the F-16,
> the F-14, the B1-B, the B2, the Patriot missile, the Aegis missile
> cruiser, the M-1 tank, the M-2 Bradley troop vehicle, and the Tomahawk
> missile. i.e. Lurch has been against and would have been happy to have
> killed every major weapon program that helped assure the victories that
> have been achieved in the past 4 military actions in which we have been
> involved. (A google search on "Kerry defense budget" will return
> numerous results that provide the data for these statements, e.g.
> <http://www.usorthem.org/current-events/election-2004-john-kerry.html>)
>
> >
> >

You should get into comedy. You're funnier than Michael Moore.


"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> : For a couple of days, then they'd figure it out.
>
>
> That you're off youre rocker? Takes just a minute or two, actually!
>
>
> -- Andy Barss

[snip]
> In addition, they cheer WILDLY. With big smiles on their face. Believe
> me when I tell yu that they wouldn't do that if they felt Bush was
> awful to them.
>
> They'd clap politely.
>
You need to understand camera angles and "cherry-picking" only the "best
actors" to situate where they will be seen. Witness the "town hall"
stuff where only Bush faithful are invited. Moral: don't believe
everything you see.

"Andrew Barss" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kevin Singleton <[email protected]> wrote:
> : a) A federal "surplus" means that the people are overtaxed. How is that
> : good for us?
>
> Okay, say it means that. Then the government can either (a) return it to
> the taxpayer, or (b) use it to pay for good things.
>
"Say it means that?" What else does it mean, Andy. "Return it to the
taxpayer" is the same as tax cuts, isn't it?

> Consider the alternative. The government spends *trillions* more than it
> takes in in revenue, as it is under Bush's policies and proposals.
>
> In that case, there is no koney to either (a) return to the taxpayer, or
> (b) spend on good things.
>
As I understand it, Bush signed tax cuts (passed by our representatives in
Congress) into law, thus returning the "surplus" to the taxpayers. The
"war" is what is creating the deficit. How would another administration pay
for the "war" on terrorism?

> How can anyone think running huge deficits is a good thing? I'm old
> enough to remember when the GOP at least pretended to be the party of
> fiscal responsibility.
>
I'm almost that old, too, Andy. I'm no longer of the opinion, though, that
any politicians have the taxpayer's interests at heart. Bush is no better
or worse than any other president we could have installed. At least,
though, he's got the nuts to fight the "war" on terrorism. I don't believe
Gore could have done it.

> : b) "Key allies"? The French? Does this mean we won't have to rescue
them,
> : next time? How is that bad for us?
>
> Germany, France, Russia. That's not an inconsiderable
> group of countries to have alienated, especially given that the population
> of Iraq is about that of Mexico City.
>
Russia is an ally? Didn't they just test an aircraft that's capable of
averting our missile defense system? I wonder why they did that? I don't
think Russia is an ally, Andy. Who cares about Germany and France? They've
been irrelevant since 1945.
>
> : c) The president hasn't moved a single civilian job overseas. Isn't
that
> : the responsibility of employers?
>
> That's a pathetic dodge.
>
> If three million US jobs had been lost under a Democratic administration,
> the mainstream press as well as GOP flacks would have been all over it for
> months.
>
So, it's not about what really happens, or who caused it, it's about who
complains about it? There's your pathetic dodge.

> What really amazes me is that Bush's economic report of last week
> describes this massive loss of US jobs as a good thing. And the
> mainstream press has been pretty silent on that.
>
It's a global economy. Why does it matter where you do your job?
>
> : It seems your anger is misdirected, Andy. How sad.
>
> My feeling isn't anger, it's amazement. I'm genuinely amazed that
> people who seem smart and sensible can think Bush and his administration
> are anything other than a complete disaster.
>
Just another in a long chain of disasters, going back to at least 1933, and
maybe 60-odd years prior. America ain't what it used to be, and it ain't
been what it was intended to be since the War Between the States. Bush is a
politician, and the son of a politician, and very, very rich. Why would we
expect anything but a president who would cater to politicians and the rich?
Gore is exactly the same, with a slightly liberal bent. At the least, Bush
isn't trying to take away our guns. That's worth whatever we have to
tolerate, in my book.

Kevin