Top story on Google News:
Wrath runs high in Iraq toward US WMD report
The report, prepared after 1,200 inspectors headed by American chief
weapon inspector Charles Dolfer conducted a 18-month search campaign,
said that Iraq had no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before
the US occupation of the oil-rich Arab country.
The report virtually overturned the US pretext for invading Iraqin
March 2003, igniting angry emotions among Iraqis, who also harbored
hatred toward the occupation forces for the war andensuing chaos,
destruction and bloodshed.
"The results of the report confirm that there was no justification for
invading and destroying Iraq the way they did,and the report would
only increase hatred of Iraqis against America and gives the
resistance more enthusiasm and justification to escalate the
resistance campaign against occupation," said Mohamed Hussein, a
writer
Talks began emerging in Iraqi streets that people felt much safer in
Saddam's time.
"The whole world, including America, was safer before the
occupation than it is now," Abbass Al Hamdani, a school teacher,said.
"The ulterior reason for the United States to invade Iraq was not the
WMD. Washington planned to occupy Iraq for other reasons,"said Saadi
Al Ani, a colleague of Hamdani.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/07/content_2061461.htm
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:13:32 -0400, Richard Clements
<[email protected]> wrote:
>have you ever posted something that's on topic?
>and more important don't you have something better to do
>maybe get a hobby, I enjoy wordworking
Ferdian slip there? :-)
... snip of Florida "patriot" troll tripe (it didn't read the whole report
either -- probably ate it since nobody's crossing its bridge much anymore)
"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pke9d.362$EZ.7@okepread07...
> Damn - I'll be glad when the election is over and we can get back to
> woodworking.
>
>
Of course, it will take some time for the "Bush stole the election" posts to subside before that happens<g>
"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pke9d.362$EZ.7@okepread07...
> Damn - I'll be glad when the election is over and we can get back to
> woodworking.
I've been getting my best woodworking done during the election process.
Nothing to watch on TV <g> I have just uploaded my brand new router table
to the abpw group. Thanks to Unisaw for his inspiration, Lee Valley for
their great accessories, and George Bush and John Kerry for allowing me the
time.
SH
> Maybe the reason these people are as violent and full of hatred as they
> are
> is because the school teachers are teaching that they were better off
> under
> a leader that killed hundreds of thousands of them on a whim.
Maybe these people are as angry as they are because foreign invaders came in
and blew up half their country and killed tens of thousands of innocent
civilians. Not to mention the foreign power is building permanent military
bases on their soil and doesn't plan on leaving anytime soon.
Would you feel any different if China and Russia got together, invaded the
US, and destroyed as much of the US as the US has destroyed of Iraq? Would
you be jumping for joy if Chinese and Russian "liberators" treated the
American people the same way that the US and Brits have treated the Iraqis?
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 8 Oct 2004 16:06:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> A bully and a wimp, hell of a man. Couldn't carry Mikey Moore's
> jockstrap.
>
I heard that Kerry can and does carry Mikey Moore's jockstrap. In fact, rumor has it that Kerry pulled it out of his pocket and
laid it on the podium for inspiration during the first debate.
> That said, Bush didn't murder all those people; the Iraqis themselves
> killed those people.
That's like saying Hitler didn't kill anyone, the Jews killed themselves.
> The US military attacked Iraqi military personnel as much as they
> could. We do not have soliders walking around just happily shooting
> unarmed citizens as they go about their daily routines.
No. It's more like volleys of 500 pound bombs being dropped on wedding
parties and crowded markets.
> Mist iof the killings are a result of things like roadside bombings
> and car bombs which are directly attributed to the Iraqis, so it's
> more like Iraqis killing their own brethern.
Most of the estimated 20,000-35,000 Iraqi civilian casualties happened
during the first month or two of the invasion.
> My question is why are the GOOD things that are happening in Iraq
> never reported? Why is it that it is not good that most of the poelpe
> have electricity and clean water? Much more than before but I guess
> that is bad?
The electricity and water are not yet up to pre-invasion levels and they
won't be for some time yet. Makes you kind of wonder where the billions
being spent on reconstruction are actually going. Not to mention that
unemployment is extremely high and there are serious food shortages
throughout most of Iraq. These are good things?
> Is it a bad thing now that hospitals are said to be up 100%? How
> about girls being allowed to go to school to learn how to read and
> write for the first time? Is that good or bad?
You're thinking of another country, possibly Afghanistan? Iraqi women are
(were) among the most educated in the middle east.
> As far as the 30,000 dead people are concerned, how about the millions
> Sadaam put in mass graves? Oh, I guess that was okay. It was a good
> thing Clinton went into Sudan to stop genocide but it's okay that
> Sadamm did it.
Rumours and wild speculation on your part. Saddam killed some people but
nowhere near the number that were killed during the two wars, and this isn't
even taking into account the effects of the sanctions.
"JAW" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Ray Kinzler woke up and had the following to say....:
>
> My take on this is:
> If you are talking (more likely listening to some sort of emotional and
> incoherent rant) with a liberal, they are ALWAYS right and you are wrong.
> They will argue, stomp, cry, wail, spit, degrade, curse and lie until they
> get their way. Reminds me of the kid who did not like the way the friends
> were playing, so he/she took his/her toys and went home.
>
> If you are talking to a conservative, they will listen and then go off and
> do what they were wanting to do in the first place.
>
> I have never meet a liberal that would listen to a point of view other than
> the one that is playing in their head.
>
> JAW
>
Kind of reminds me of a conversation I once had with a liberal college economics teacher BIL. In short, the conversation revolved
around growth of Federal revenues vs growth of spending. He told me I was wrong. I showed him the data from multiple non-biases
and government sources. His response was that the facts do not matter and that he was right and I was wrong. He didn't even look
at the data. A classic "don't confuse the issue with the facts" argument. That was the last time I ever had a political/economic
discussion with him.
--
Al Reid
How will I know when I get there...
If I don't know where I'm going?
> Listen, even Clinton said he believed Sadaam had weapons and wanted to
> use them. His comments were based upon intelligence reports he
> received from various places.
Clinton's bombing of the aspirin factory (or whatever it was) in Sudan shows
he didn't have the most reliable intelligence either. The big difference is
Clinton didn't invade Iraq under false pretences.
> The same places Bush received his
> reports. Bush decided to act upon those reports and I believe there
> is a good possibility that Clinton would have acted the same way if
> 9/11 had occurred during his tenure.
You actually think another president would have invaded a country that had
nothing to do with 9/11? What I find amazing is that a large percentage of
Americans still think Saddam was behind 9/11. It just goes to show what's
most impressive about the current administration - their propaganda machine.
> Oh, I forgot. He's a liberal and that's okay. He was a 'real' (aka,
> 'elected') President so, again, that's okay.
You're assuming that if a person isn't for Bush they're a Clinton apologist.
Not true.
> If people only pay attention to one side of a subject and totally
> rejectt he other side, it is impossible to reason with them. No
> wonder why so many in this newsgroup have had enough of this blarney.
My take exactly.
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:34:54 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"JAW" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> Ray Kinzler woke up and had the following to say....:
> >>
> >> My take on this is:
> >> If you are talking (more likely listening to some sort of emotional and
> >> incoherent rant) with a liberal, they are ALWAYS right and you are wrong.
> >> They will argue, stomp, cry, wail, spit, degrade, curse and lie until they
> >> get their way. Reminds me of the kid who did not like the way the friends
> >> were playing, so he/she took his/her toys and went home.
> >>
> >> If you are talking to a conservative, they will listen and then go off and
> >> do what they were wanting to do in the first place.
> >>
> >> I have never meet a liberal that would listen to a point of view other than
> >> the one that is playing in their head.
> >>
> >> JAW
> >>
> >
> >Kind of reminds me of a conversation I once had with a liberal college economics teacher BIL. In short, the conversation
revolved
> >around growth of Federal revenues vs growth of spending. He told me I was wrong. I showed him the data from multiple non-biases
> >and government sources. His response was that the facts do not matter and that he was right and I was wrong. He didn't even
look
> >at the data. A classic "don't confuse the issue with the facts" argument. That was the last time I ever had a
political/economic
> >discussion with him.
>
> You are a sociopath. Only a sociopath could talk about the heartless and cruel
> deaths of 30,000 innocent Iraqis in such a clinical fashion.
> GWBush is a war criminal the likes of which we haven't seen since the second
> world war. He attacked Iraq for pleasure and to show up his dad.
>
Abe,
Time to have the meds adjusted again, huh? Exactly where did I talk about any Iraqi deaths, let alone your accusation that Bush
murdered 30,000 of them. You are indeed in need of a very long stay in the psych ward.
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:52:44 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Exactly where did I talk about any Iraqi deaths, let alone your accusation that Bush
> >murdered 30,000 of them.
>
> So I guess all those thousands of Iraqis 'offed' themselves when the heard the
> bombs falling.
> I can hardly what until terrorists finally get a nuke into the US and set it
> off.
>
> I will enjoy watching that almost as much as you enjoyed watching American bombs
> falling on civilians in Iraq.
>
> And you know something Al, you better make lots of those meds because BILLIONS
> of people around the world are going to be cheering as well.
>
>
Listen, I really don't think you have anything valid to say, so FO.
As to the claim, http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ which is no right wing organization puts the count at about half of your number and
many other sources puts is at far less that that.
Get your head out of you butt and get back on the meds.
> Actually, that is the problem I have with liberals and that is the
> fact that the truth is relative until somebody says something that
> they don't agree with and then they say their stance is the one and
> only absolute truth.
What I find interesting about many republicans is their blind allegiance to
Bush and his revolving justifications for invading Iraq. It doesn't matter
if there were no WMD's, no nuclear weapons, no links to Al Qaeda, no ties to
9/11. You'll always come up with some lame excuse to try to justify what
amounts to an illegal invasion.
On 11 Oct 2004 16:09:18 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Oddly enough, the only documentation to support your little draft-dodger
>theory is "suspect at best". Also, hard though it is, you might consider
>that your argument might carry moare validity if you didn't have to
>resort to name-calling to make whatever your point is supposed to be.
You're easy and no fun. At least Al has a bit of a sense of humor.
All you gotta do to figure out whether he is a draft dodger or not is
to ask the question...."America was calling and you avoided the
service... why"
What possible answer is there other than he was avoiding the service?
There is none. The guard in those days was a ruse... are you
actually so ignorant of that era that you don't know that?
He is a chickenshit wimp.
>> A bully and a wimp, hell of a man. Couldn't carry Mikey Moore's
>> jockstrap.
>
>That is _not_ a mental image that anyone needs.
> He is a chickenshit wimp.
What's the bravest thing you've ever done? Kerry applied for a deferrment.
Then he joined the naval *reserves* Bush flew fighter jets. I've neither
flew jets, nor spent 3 months in vietnam. So I cannot judge. Unless you
have done one of those two things, you have little right to call anyone
anything.
To quote someone who would know: "The amount of material you need to know
to pass the FAA written test is staggering. I genuinely believe that even
the brightest Hollywood Celebrity -- yes, even those who finished High
School -- would throw their own pooh at the test screen and storm off
smashing American Tourister luggage without getting a single answer correct.
(The instrument rating, which I am almost finished with, is perhaps three
times harder. Add weapons systems, combat flight maneuvers,
counter-counter-measures, and the ability to fly a fire-breathing mach 2
deathsled called the F-102 Delta Dagger, and you begin the grasp the dimmest
outlines of the intelligence it took for that Idiot Moron Chimp George W.
Bush to takeoff, fly a mission, and land. Yes, daddy was rich and powerful
and well-connected. But there's no back seat in an F-102)"
You can't do any woodworking until the election is over? bummer...
"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pke9d.362$EZ.7@okepread07...
> Damn - I'll be glad when the election is over and we can get back to
> woodworking.
>
>
On 7 Oct 2004 09:35:35 -0700, Florida Patriot <[email protected]> wrote:
> Top story on Google News:
Google news is a search engine, not a news service.
Why have you not responded to me catching you lying, when you posted the
fake Bush quote?
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:42:00 -0400, Al Reid <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pke9d.362$EZ.7@okepread07...
>> Damn - I'll be glad when the election is over and we can get back to
>> woodworking.
>
> Of course, it will take some time for the "Bush stole the election" posts to subside before that happens<g>
If history is any guide, it'll be 4+ years. Hell, some of 'em still
haul out the "popular vote" thing, as if they've never heard of the
electoral college.
Hmmmm....
" "The whole world, including America, was safer before the
occupation than it is now," Abbass Al Hamdani, a school teacher,said."
Maybe the reason these people are as violent and full of hatred as they are
is because the school teachers are teaching that they were better off under
a leader that killed hundreds of thousands of them on a whim.
Perhaps we should take the Ken doll off the ballot and have Saddam run with
Kerry.
Why do I get sucked into this by these liberal morons...;+}
--
-Jim
©¿©¬
If you want to reply by email its --> ryan at jimryan dot com
Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Top story on Google News:
>
> Wrath runs high in Iraq toward US WMD report
>
> The report, prepared after 1,200 inspectors headed by American chief
> weapon inspector Charles Dolfer conducted a 18-month search campaign,
> said that Iraq had no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before
> the US occupation of the oil-rich Arab country.
>
> The report virtually overturned the US pretext for invading Iraqin
> March 2003, igniting angry emotions among Iraqis, who also harbored
> hatred toward the occupation forces for the war andensuing chaos,
> destruction and bloodshed.
>
>
> "The results of the report confirm that there was no justification for
> invading and destroying Iraq the way they did,and the report would
> only increase hatred of Iraqis against America and gives the
> resistance more enthusiasm and justification to escalate the
> resistance campaign against occupation," said Mohamed Hussein, a
> writer
>
> Talks began emerging in Iraqi streets that people felt much safer in
> Saddam's time.
>
> "The whole world, including America, was safer before the
> occupation than it is now," Abbass Al Hamdani, a school teacher,said.
>
> "The ulterior reason for the United States to invade Iraq was not the
> WMD. Washington planned to occupy Iraq for other reasons,"said Saadi
> Al Ani, a colleague of Hamdani.
>
> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/07/content_2061461.htm
the real question is why rec.woodworking people hate off topic posters.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:18:57 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >view Kerry's 4 months in country (1 month training) which garnered him 3
> >purple hearts and a quick trip home (3 and you're out) as something of a
cop
> >out.
> >
>
> Too bad those 50 thousand plus on that black wall in DC can't vote.
>
> Wonder who they'd give the nod to; the navy dude who was actually
> there or the chickenshit ... the transplanted texan who spent the war
> drinking the best whiskey in the snobbiest country clubs on the planet
> talking shit?
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:18:57 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>view Kerry's 4 months in country (1 month training) which garnered him 3
>purple hearts and a quick trip home (3 and you're out) as something of a cop
>out.
>
Too bad those 50 thousand plus on that black wall in DC can't vote.
Wonder who they'd give the nod to; the navy dude who was actually
there or the chickenshit ... the transplanted texan who spent the war
drinking the best whiskey in the snobbiest country clubs on the planet
talking shit?
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:26:09 GMT, Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/groups?safe=off&as_uauthors=florida%20patriot&lr=&hl=en
> because all he does all day is spam high newsgroups with his made up crap.
> everyone needs to either killfile him or ignore him. he is not going to
> read your replies dave.
Fair enough, I guess we'll be even then, sounds like time to tune the
killfile a bit. Thanks for the link.
Dave
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:53:54 GMT, Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> To stop Saddam before he develops WMDs. He wasn't as far along in his WMD
> programs as the entire world thought he was, but whose fault is that?
> Saddam is the one who said he had WMDs and ignored UN resolutions. I don't
> find this that hard to follow. Perhaps you can clarify what it is about this
> that mystifies you.
I think the lesson here is this: "If you're going to pretend to be a big
dog and threaten the US, chances are really good that we'll take you
seriously and act accordingly. Don't do that."
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:09:06 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
You got my name wrong GEROGE and not GEORGE! :-)
>Damn, I ain't got a clue George but I bet he wasn't drinking T-bird
>with some of the guys in an abandoned car.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> But only if you are a wimp nation, Dave. Note that the Nam wimp,
> ratBoy Bush the draft dodger, cowered to North Korea.
>
TheButler by any other name would smell as bad :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 03:24:24 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2004 16:06:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I think the lesson here is this: "If you're going to pretend to be a big
>>dog and threaten the US, chances are really good that we'll take you
>>seriously and act accordingly. Don't do that."
>
> But only if you are a wimp nation, Dave. Note that the Nam wimp,
> ratBoy Bush the draft dodger, cowered to North Korea.
Oddly enough, the only documentation to support your little draft-dodger
theory is "suspect at best". Also, hard though it is, you might consider
that your argument might carry moare validity if you didn't have to
resort to name-calling to make whatever your point is supposed to be.
> A bully and a wimp, hell of a man. Couldn't carry Mikey Moore's
> jockstrap.
That is _not_ a mental image that anyone needs.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 06:20:19 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2004 16:09:18 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Oddly enough, the only documentation to support your little draft-dodger
>>theory is "suspect at best". Also, hard though it is, you might consider
>>that your argument might carry moare validity if you didn't have to
>>resort to name-calling to make whatever your point is supposed to be.
> You're easy and no fun. At least Al has a bit of a sense of humor.
I was actually trying to point out how your choice of idiom limits the
effectiveness of your message.
> All you gotta do to figure out whether he is a draft dodger or not is
> to ask the question...."America was calling and you avoided the
> service... why"
You know, if there was an actual problem at the time, I would think
there'd be some sort of, you know, reprimand or something. Oddly enough,
no such document exists, not even in Dan Rather's imagination. Why,
oh why, could that be? Maybe because, oh, I don't know, it didn't happen
the way you like to pretend it did? I mean, maybe you know more now, 30
years later, than his CO did at the time it was(n't) happening, but I
doubt it.
> What possible answer is there other than he was avoiding the service?
> There is none. The guard in those days was a ruse... are you
> actually so ignorant of that era that you don't know that?
I would imagine that others who served in the Guard at that time would
take serious exception to your characterization.
> He is a chickenshit wimp.
Oh well then, you've changed my mind entirely. I'm voting Kerry, thank
you for showing me the error in my logic. The namecalling is what made
all the difference.
Yawn.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> The guard in those days was a ruse... are you
> > actually so ignorant of that era that you don't know that?
>
> I would imagine that others who served in the Guard at that time would
> take serious exception to your characterization.
>
I'm sure they would. But others of us who lived through that time
remember well that the Guard was used as a draft refuge.
That doesn't mean that all, or even a majority, of the members were
avoiding the draft, but there was certainly a considerable number. A
number of people of draft age that I worked with flat out told me that's
why they joined the Guard.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
> >What's the bravest thing you've ever done? Kerry applied for a
deferrment.
> >Then he joined the naval *reserves* Bush flew fighter jets. I've
neither
> >flew jets, nor spent 3 months in vietnam. So I cannot judge. Unless you
> >have done one of those two things, you have little right to call anyone
> >anything.
> How come having shrapnel in my back from 'nam wasn't included in your
> test? You as limited in mind power as the cheerleader? In this up and
> down world of the idiot neo-cons and the gomers they con, I am now the
> chickenshit?
Fits right in with the Rove style of painting your opponent with your sins.
Effective, but only perpetrated by those without respect for truth and
reason.
> Answer the question god damn it.. why didn't he volunteer for the
> draft or join the service if he was so fucking gung-ho? Maybe worried
> about flying tacos being smuggled across the Rio Grande or something?
Bush's answer to that was that he chose to stay out of that "political war."
Yet he bad mouths those who conscientiously spoke out in an effort to end
it.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:43:51 -0800, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> How old are you? The 'yawn' is a dead giveway among other things that
> you'se ( good old boy parlance) is a whippersnapper. I wish we had a
> draft today so you would have to worry about getting your nuts blown
> off in Iraq.. Might wisen you up a bit.
I'm well past draft-able age, and you're just a foul waste of time. Bye,
"sarah".
have you ever posted something that's on topic?
and more important don't you have something better to do
maybe get a hobby, I enjoy wordworking maybe you should give it a try, you
might like it
Florida Patriot wrote:
> Top story on Google News:
>
> Wrath runs high in Iraq toward US WMD report
>
> The report, prepared after 1,200 inspectors headed by American chief
> weapon inspector Charles Dolfer conducted a 18-month search campaign,
> said that Iraq had no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before
> the US occupation of the oil-rich Arab country.
>
> The report virtually overturned the US pretext for invading Iraqin
> March 2003, igniting angry emotions among Iraqis, who also harbored
> hatred toward the occupation forces for the war andensuing chaos,
> destruction and bloodshed.
>
>
> "The results of the report confirm that there was no justification for
> invading and destroying Iraq the way they did,and the report would
> only increase hatred of Iraqis against America and gives the
> resistance more enthusiasm and justification to escalate the
> resistance campaign against occupation," said Mohamed Hussein, a
> writer
>
> Talks began emerging in Iraqi streets that people felt much safer in
> Saddam's time.
>
> "The whole world, including America, was safer before the
> occupation than it is now," Abbass Al Hamdani, a school teacher,said.
>
> "The ulterior reason for the United States to invade Iraq was not the
> WMD. Washington planned to occupy Iraq for other reasons,"said Saadi
> Al Ani, a colleague of Hamdani.
>
> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/07/content_2061461.htm
Richard Clements wrote:
> have you ever posted something that's on topic?
> and more important don't you have something better to do
> maybe get a hobby, I enjoy wordworking maybe you should give it a try, you
> might like it
Yeah. He could put his new-found skills to use rebuilding his bridge.
Obviously it was destroyed in the hurricanes and the poor troll has nothing
else to do.
--RC
>
>
> Florida Patriot wrote:
>
> > Top story on Google News:
> >
> > Wrath runs high in Iraq toward US WMD report
> >
> > The report, prepared after 1,200 inspectors headed by American chief
> > weapon inspector Charles Dolfer conducted a 18-month search campaign,
> > said that Iraq had no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before
> > the US occupation of the oil-rich Arab country.
> >
> > The report virtually overturned the US pretext for invading Iraqin
> > March 2003, igniting angry emotions among Iraqis, who also harbored
> > hatred toward the occupation forces for the war andensuing chaos,
> > destruction and bloodshed.
> >
> >
> > "The results of the report confirm that there was no justification for
> > invading and destroying Iraq the way they did,and the report would
> > only increase hatred of Iraqis against America and gives the
> > resistance more enthusiasm and justification to escalate the
> > resistance campaign against occupation," said Mohamed Hussein, a
> > writer
> >
> > Talks began emerging in Iraqi streets that people felt much safer in
> > Saddam's time.
> >
> > "The whole world, including America, was safer before the
> > occupation than it is now," Abbass Al Hamdani, a school teacher,said.
> >
> > "The ulterior reason for the United States to invade Iraq was not the
> > WMD. Washington planned to occupy Iraq for other reasons,"said Saadi
> > Al Ani, a colleague of Hamdani.
> >
> > http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/07/content_2061461.htm
On 8 Oct 2004 16:06:51 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 15:53:54 GMT, Frank Ketchum <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> To stop Saddam before he develops WMDs. He wasn't as far along in his WMD
>> programs as the entire world thought he was, but whose fault is that?
>> Saddam is the one who said he had WMDs and ignored UN resolutions. I don't
>> find this that hard to follow. Perhaps you can clarify what it is about this
>> that mystifies you.
>
>I think the lesson here is this: "If you're going to pretend to be a big
>dog and threaten the US, chances are really good that we'll take you
>seriously and act accordingly. Don't do that."
But only if you are a wimp nation, Dave. Note that the Nam wimp,
ratBoy Bush the draft dodger, cowered to North Korea.
A bully and a wimp, hell of a man. Couldn't carry Mikey Moore's
jockstrap.
The 'big dog theory'... rolflmao!!!!
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:15:08 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Which is the BEST whiskey and snobbiest country club in Texas?
>> >By the way is that Cattleman Club still areound in Fort Worth?
>> >
>>
>> Damn, I ain't got a clue George <snip>
>
>You got that right, at least.
I really wanna know is that Cattleman Club still around, been thinking of the
THICK steak I had!
>todd
>
"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:15:08 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Another admirer of the the draftdodger from Yale. The lttile
> > chickenshit who'd make you come in the servant's entrance at Crawford.
> >
> > Here is anothe way to view this guy, Todd. The way he shakes his
> > finger around you think he still have it if wasn't for being protected
> > by goons in some way or another? He would have it broke off and shove
> > up his ass 40 years ago if he did it real life.
> > >>
> > >> Damn, I ain't got a clue George <snip>
> > >
> > >You got that right, at least.
> > >
> > >todd
>
> And he's still probably smart enough to know not to top-post.
> And you have it wrong. Clinton dodged the draft. Bush was in the ANG.
For
> a good synopsis of the wartime activities of your war "hero", I refer you
to
> "Unfit for Command".
Please! Everybody who's been paying the slightest attention know that book
is near total bullshit. The author never served with Kerry nor most of the
people he uses for hearsay.
There were 11 men who served under Kerry. One has since died. Nine of the
remaining 10 are campaigning for Kerry. --NPR
Kerry In Combat: Setting The Record Straight
--Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,686045,00.html
Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush: John Kerry saved my life. Now his
heroism is being questioned.
BY JIM RASSMANN
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:15:08 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Another admirer of the the draftdodger from Yale. The lttile
> chickenshit who'd make you come in the servant's entrance at Crawford.
>
> Here is anothe way to view this guy, Todd. The way he shakes his
> finger around you think he still have it if wasn't for being protected
> by goons in some way or another? He would have it broke off and shove
> up his ass 40 years ago if he did it real life.
> >>
> >> Damn, I ain't got a clue George <snip>
> >
> >You got that right, at least.
> >
> >todd
And he's still probably smart enough to know not to top-post.
And you have it wrong. Clinton dodged the draft. Bush was in the ANG. For
a good synopsis of the wartime activities of your war "hero", I refer you to
"Unfit for Command".
todd
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:15:08 -0500, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Another admirer of the the draftdodger from Yale. The lttile
chickenshit who'd make you come in the servant's entrance at Crawford.
Here is anothe way to view this guy, Todd. The way he shakes his
finger around you think he still have it if wasn't for being protected
by goons in some way or another? He would have it broke off and shove
up his ass 40 years ago if he did it real life.
>>
>> Damn, I ain't got a clue George <snip>
>
>You got that right, at least.
>
>todd
>
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why have you not responded to me catching you lying, when you posted the
> fake Bush quote?
>
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=off&as_uauthors=florida%20patriot&lr=&hl=en
because all he does all day is spam high newsgroups with his made up crap.
everyone needs to either killfile him or ignore him. he is not going to
read your replies dave.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:26:09 GMT, Frank Ketchum
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
http://www.google.com/groups?safe=off&as_uauthors=florida%20patriot&lr=&hl=en
> > because all he does all day is spam high newsgroups with his made up
crap.
> > everyone needs to either killfile him or ignore him. he is not going to
> > read your replies dave.
>
> Fair enough, I guess we'll be even then, sounds like time to tune the
> killfile a bit. Thanks for the link.
Add [email protected] while you're at it ... that'll quieten things down a
bit.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04
That's easy, because you're a conservative moron. Open your eyes.
Every justification for this war has been debunked. Take a moment to
elighten me. Why have we spent 150+ billion dollars and lost 1000+
American soldiers again? Pres Bush did a great job of defending this
action in the debate. Wow, that was impressive!! He really set me
straight. I keep picturing that idiot standing with his elbow pointed
at the toilet while he shits his pants.
"jtpr" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Hmmmm....
>
> " "The whole world, including America, was safer before the
> occupation than it is now," Abbass Al Hamdani, a school teacher,said."
>
>
> Maybe the reason these people are as violent and full of hatred as they are
> is because the school teachers are teaching that they were better off under
> a leader that killed hundreds of thousands of them on a whim.
>
> Perhaps we should take the Ken doll off the ballot and have Saddam run with
> Kerry.
>
> Why do I get sucked into this by these liberal morons...;+}
>
> --
> -Jim
> ©¿©¬
>
> If you want to reply by email its --> ryan at jimryan dot com
> Please use BCC and lets all avoid spam
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Top story on Google News:
> >
> > Wrath runs high in Iraq toward US WMD report
> >
> > The report, prepared after 1,200 inspectors headed by American chief
> > weapon inspector Charles Dolfer conducted a 18-month search campaign,
> > said that Iraq had no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before
> > the US occupation of the oil-rich Arab country.
> >
> > The report virtually overturned the US pretext for invading Iraqin
> > March 2003, igniting angry emotions among Iraqis, who also harbored
> > hatred toward the occupation forces for the war andensuing chaos,
> > destruction and bloodshed.
> >
> >
> > "The results of the report confirm that there was no justification for
> > invading and destroying Iraq the way they did,and the report would
> > only increase hatred of Iraqis against America and gives the
> > resistance more enthusiasm and justification to escalate the
> > resistance campaign against occupation," said Mohamed Hussein, a
> > writer
> >
> > Talks began emerging in Iraqi streets that people felt much safer in
> > Saddam's time.
> >
> > "The whole world, including America, was safer before the
> > occupation than it is now," Abbass Al Hamdani, a school teacher,said.
> >
> > "The ulterior reason for the United States to invade Iraq was not the
> > WMD. Washington planned to occupy Iraq for other reasons,"said Saadi
> > Al Ani, a colleague of Hamdani.
> >
> > http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/07/content_2061461.htm
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:16:58 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>Wonder who they'd give the nod to; the navy dude who was actually
>there or the chickenshit ... the transplanted texan who spent the war
>drinking the best whiskey in the snobbiest country clubs on the planet
>talking shit?
Which is the BEST whiskey and snobbiest country club in Texas?
By the way is that Cattleman Club still areound in Fort Worth?
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:41:02 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> He is a chickenshit wimp.
>
>What's the bravest thing you've ever done? Kerry applied for a deferrment.
>Then he joined the naval *reserves* Bush flew fighter jets. I've neither
>flew jets, nor spent 3 months in vietnam. So I cannot judge. Unless you
>have done one of those two things, you have little right to call anyone
>anything.
How come having shrapnel in my back from 'nam wasn't included in your
test? You as limited in mind power as the cheerleader? In this up and
down world of the idiot neo-cons and the gomers they con, I am now the
chickenshit?
He is a chickenshit wimp and you are another one who doesn't know what
you are talking about.
Answer the question god damn it.. why didn't he volunteer for the
draft or join the service if he was so fucking gung-ho? Maybe worried
about flying tacos being smuggled across the Rio Grande or something?
Just answer that question or hush up. Why was he too chickenshit to
answer the call when his country called? Cheney at least said he had
'better things to do' and doesn't prance on aircraft carriers in
elevator shoes.
In article <pke9d.362$EZ.7@okepread07>, "RonB" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Damn - I'll be glad when the election is over and we can get back to
> woodworking.
There's an election coming up?
GGG
--
Geof
To contact me: [email protected]
> As I understand it Kerry served something like 15 or 18 months in
> Vietnam. The first tour was aboard a ship off shore - then he reupped
> for a second tour requesting duty on the swiftboats.
>
From what I understand, that is exactly what Kerry would have you believe.
Here's more of what I understand: John Kerry petitioned his draft board for
a student deferment, to study in paris for a year. When they refused, he
decided to enlist in the navy. The Navy or Coast Guard (or national guard)
were thought to be good choices for people who assumed they were doomed to
be drafted. The risk of being in combat in the navy was less likely because
NV and the Viet Cong didn't have battleships, etc. On February 18, 1966, JK
enlisted in the Naval Reserves, status "inactive." He entered OCS in
Newport, RI, training to be an officer of the US Naval Reserve. His first
tour, from June 67 to June 68, was spent aboard the USS Gridley, a
guided-missle frigate. During this year, he experienced no combat. This
ship was in the pacific and in december 67 did guard duty for planes
operating in the china sea and gulf of tonkin. From June 67 to Nov 67, the
gridley operated along the california coast, and on Jan 2, 1968, the Gridley
sailed for Australia, then returned to Cali on June 8th. That was the first
"tour." For the second, it is true that he volunteered for swift boat
duty -- at the time, swift boats were considered "safe" -- in fact Kerry
himself says, "At the time, the boats had very little to do with the war.
They were engaged in coastal patrolling, and that is what I thought I would
be doing. I wanted to see for myself what was going on, I really didn't
want to get involved in the war." So three purple hearts and 3 months
later, he's back home hanging with Hanoi Jane. Still, he went, and
regardless of his motives, I have to respect him for that. However, to
create a political career from it, and to make 30 year old embellishements
the basis of your presidential campaign, well I think that is just stupid.
You should base your campaign on your 20 year record in the Senate.
> How come having shrapnel in my back from 'nam wasn't included in your
> test? You as limited in mind power as the cheerleader? In this up and
> down world of the idiot neo-cons and the gomers they con, I am now the
> chickenshit?
If you truly have schrapnel in your back from Vietnam, then you have every
right to say whatever you want about Bush's lack of service, and I sincerely
thank you for your service to the country. Having said that, I would think
that you would object to Kerry even more vehemently, since I'm sure you view
*your* purple heart as something you rightfully earned, carrying schrapnel
around in your back for the rest of your life. I would think that you would
view Kerry's 4 months in country (1 month training) which garnered him 3
purple hearts and a quick trip home (3 and you're out) as something of a cop
out.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
"RonB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:pke9d.362$EZ.7@okepread07...
> Damn - I'll be glad when the election is over and we can get back to
> woodworking.
>
>
me,
I think you are WAY over the top with your response.
That said, Bush didn't murder all those people; the Iraqis themselves
killed those people.
The US military attacked Iraqi military personnel as much as they
could. We do not have soliders walking around just happily shooting
unarmed citizens as they go about their daily routines.
Mist iof the killings are a result of things like roadside bombings
and car bombs which are directly attributed to the Iraqis, so it's
more like Iraqis killing their own brethern.
My question is why are the GOOD things that are happening in Iraq
never reported? Why is it that it is not good that most of the poelpe
have electricity and clean water? Much more than before but I guess
that is bad?
Is it a bad thing now that hospitals are said to be up 100%? How
about girls being allowed to go to school to learn how to read and
write for the first time? Is that good or bad?
As far as the 30,000 dead people are concerned, how about the millions
Sadaam put in mass graves? Oh, I guess that was okay. It was a good
thing Clinton went into Sudan to stop genocide but it's okay that
Sadamm did it.
This political bullshit is nothing more than a bunch of whiny idiots
who are still crying foul from the last elections and are acting like
a bunch of school children. Come on. Grow up.
Geesh. Looking at my post, I am sounding like one, too. What a bunch
of crap. Listen, the President is not the only part of this
government. in fact, he may even be the weakest of the three parts.
You had better take a good long look at who you vote for to go into
the House and Senate. And you better think about the Presdient,
House, and Senate as it concernes the justices who will serve on the
Supreme Court.
It takes three to tango in this government of ours; not just one. And
f your guy doesn't win, don't dis the guy that did.
[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:55:54 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >That might give you a clue
>
> Let me know when that figure hits 1,000,000 then i'll be happy. These
> fucking ingreatful sand niggers need to be wiped off the face of the
> earth as far as i'm concerned
> Another show of tolerance and good will from the looney left. When you
> can't win the argument you guys always resort to attacking the messenger
> rather than the message. Admit it, you haven't got a clue.
While I don't wish you dead as the other poster did, I do want to point out
how inaccurate your characterization of the left is.
In general, liberals are considered tolerant and in favor of reasoning
rather than insult.
Right-wingers don't have that reputation. And they don't even wait until
they "can't win an argument" before "resorting to attacking the messenger."
Further, they often make shit up about the messenger.
Kinda like you just insulted the left with "looney" and made shit up about
the left being vicious.
Jeff Harper
"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Another show of tolerance and good will from the looney left. When you
> > can't win the argument you guys always resort to attacking the messenger
> > rather than the message. Admit it, you haven't got a clue.
>
> While I don't wish you dead as the other poster did, I do want to point
out
> how inaccurate your characterization of the left is.
>
> In general, liberals are considered tolerant and in favor of reasoning
> rather than insult.
>
> Right-wingers don't have that reputation. And they don't even wait until
> they "can't win an argument" before "resorting to attacking the
messenger."
> Further, they often make shit up about the messenger.
>
> Kinda like you just insulted the left with "looney" and made shit up about
> the left being vicious.
>
> Jeff Harper
>
>
Jeff,
Just look at these recent OT political posts, mostly started by Florida
Patriot (who, btw has never participated in the discussion, just posts an
runs). Carefully go back and start reading at the top. You will find that
in almost every case the first ad hominem attack, or insult was levied by
the left leaning responder. Go ahead an look. I did it myself a few days
ago when someone accused Dave or Todd of throwing the first insult. It was
quite interesting to re-read those posts and to see who started the insults.
Don't believe me, read them for yourself.
There are many things that we may not agree on, but I can discuss them
rationally up to the point where insults are thrown around. As soon as it
comes to that level, it is useless to continue. when pressed for details or
reasoning for a statement, you, among many, just dodge the question. The
issue of the August 6 PDB comes immediately to mind. When asked a specific
question, you just ignore it.
At this point it is futile to attempt any more rational conversation, so I,
for one, am bowing out of the OT political threads and going back to
woodworking. BTW, Jeff do you do any woodworking?
--
Al
Al
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:52:43 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> >15,000 (which I believe is still a distortion) is fewer that were
murdered each year by SH. Then figure the savings over the next
> >several decades and 15000 will be a small price to pay for freedom.
> >
> I agree. 15,000 dead war mongering idiots like you is a small price to
pay.
>
> Fortunately scum like you are a tiny percentage of the world's population.
The
> sooner you are dead and buried the better for the rest of us. You just
don't
> realize how truly vile you are.
> And 90% of the world's population agrees with me.
> http://www.smh.com.au/frontpage/2004/10/15/frontpage.jpg
Another show of tolerance and good will from the looney left. When you
can't win the argument you guys always resort to attacking the messenger
rather than the message. Admit it, you haven't got a clue.
And back to my first post in this thread, you are just like the lib BIL, you
know what you think and will never let the facts get in the way. I'm not
wasting any more time on you.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:52:43 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:26:02 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:52:44 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Exactly where did I talk about any Iraqi deaths, let alone your accusation that Bush
>> >> >murdered 30,000 of them.
>> >>
>> >> So I guess all those thousands of Iraqis 'offed' themselves when the heard the
>> >> bombs falling.
>> >> I can hardly what until terrorists finally get a nuke into the US and set it
>> >> off.
>> >>
>> >> I will enjoy watching that almost as much as you enjoyed watching American bombs
>> >> falling on civilians in Iraq.
>> >>
>> >> And you know something Al, you better make lots of those meds because BILLIONS
>> >> of people around the world are going to be cheering as well.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Listen, I really don't think you have anything valid to say, so FO.
>> >
>> >As to the claim, http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ which is no right wing organization puts the count at about half of your number
>and
>> >many other sources puts is at far less that that.
>> >
>> Well I hope when that nuke does go off, it's in your neighborhood and I won't
>> feel bad if it only kills 15,000 or so of your neighbors.<g>
>> 15,000 less of people like you is a good thing.
>
>What, so you are now revising your death toll? Can't you stick with one distortion? Feeling morally superior are you. You're a
>fly on a horse's *ss.
>
>15,000 (which I believe is still a distortion) is fewer that were murdered each year by SH. Then figure the savings over the next
>several decades and 15000 will be a small price to pay for freedom.
>
I agree. 15,000 dead war mongering idiots like you is a small price to pay.
Fortunately scum like you are a tiny percentage of the world's population. The
sooner you are dead and buried the better for the rest of us. You just don't
realize how truly vile you are.
And 90% of the world's population agrees with me.
http://www.smh.com.au/frontpage/2004/10/15/frontpage.jpg
I think I have figured it out.
If a Democratic President had done this, it would be seen as a good
thing.
Since a Republican President did it, it was a bad thing.
Listen, even Clinton said he believed Sadaam had weapons and wanted to
use them. His comments were based upon intelligence reports he
received from various places. The same places Bush received his
reports. Bush decided to act upon those reports and I believe there
is a good possibility that Clinton would have acted the same way if
9/11 had occurred during his tenure.
Oh, I forgot. He's a liberal and that's okay. He was a 'real' (aka,
'elected') President so, again, that's okay.
Many, many of these posts are entirely emotional with all sense of
rational thought tossed out the window.
If people only pay attention to one side of a subject and totally
rejectt he other side, it is impossible to reason with them. No
wonder why so many in this newsgroup have had enough of this blarney.
But while we are on the subject, I am going to reply to Mark who
responded to my post with quotes that were not mine. Where did you
get this crap, Mark? I never said those things nor would I ever say
those things. And I do not appreciate the fact that you made it look
like I did.
Awwww, forget it. I think I am going to go back under my rock for a
while. This political BS is for the birds. I think we all need to
learn how to accept life and watever is tossed at us. Deal with it.
All the bellyaching in the world is not going to change things. The
only thing you can really control is your attitude.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:05:55 GMT, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Admit it, you haven't got a clue
Yeah right, 90% of the world is wrong and you are right.
The KKK thinks the same way you do.
Here's the bottom line:
I don't know the whole story.
You don't know the whole story.
Even Paul Harvey doesn't know the rest of the story.
Ain't none of us know the whole story and we may never know the whole
story.
The thing I have a huge problem with echoes what somebody earlier
said: everything and anything that contradicts what you are saying,
mp, is totally and wholely disregarded without a second thought.
I do not understand why absolutely everything you are saying and the
information you are providing and the opinion you have are the one and
only absolute truth.
Actually, that is the problem I have with liberals and that is the
fact that the truth is relative until somebody says something that
they don't agree with and then they say their stance is the one and
only absolute truth.
Conservatives, the liberals say, are hostile, stiff-necked, and
narrow-minded because they don't consider other points of view. I am
noticing more of that going on in the recent posts with the liberals
than with any of the conservatives.
My goodness. Sorry the rest of us are alive and have a different
opinion. Sorry we are so stupid and backward and we are not
enlightened as you and your brethern are. Lead us, oh wise ones.
Nah, forget it. I am not a stupid sheep. I'm not even a black sheep.
I don't want to be a sheperd, either, because I don't want to be
surrounded by a bunch of dumb sheep.
And I don't need a bunch of liberals to tell me how to think. It is
okay to disagree but to disagree about absolutely everything is absurd
and silly. I feel like I am trying to converse with a six-year-old
having a temper tantrum.
Let's call a truce, okay?
You didn't respond to what I said about neither of us knowing all of
the facts and circumstances that went into the Iraqi situation.
Have I been one to stand on a soapbox and holler "Yeah! Yeah! Bomb
them. Kill them." or anything like that?
Nope.
Have I said anything like "Whatever George W.. Bush says and does is
the perfect, exact truth and we shuld blindly follow and not say
anything critical or negative." or anything like that?
Nope.
Have I ever said that I like the fact that people are killed anywhere?
Nope.
The fact of the matter is we started something and it needs finished.
If we walk away from it right now, it wuld probably make matters
worse, not better like you think. If we took the responsibility to
start something, we need to take the responsibility to finish it.
We all wish we could all live in the Garden of Eden but we don't. Get
over it,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 7 Oct 2004 09:35:35 -0700, Florida Patriot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Top story on Google News:
>
> Google news is a search engine, not a news service.
>
>
The Google search engine does separate searches for:
Web
Images (on the web)
Groups (Usenet newsgroups)
News
and
'Froogle' whatever that is.
I agree that top story on 'Google News' is a bit silly, but there will
be a top story on the 'Google News' webpage:
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us
--
FF
On 12 Oct 2004 18:57:31 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
I would imagine that others who served in the Guard at that time would
>take serious exception to your characterization.
Well, shit ask them? Many of them are still alive junior.
>> He is a chickenshit wimp.
>
>Oh well then, you've changed my mind entirely. I'm voting Kerry, thank
>you for showing me the error in my logic. The namecalling is what made
>all the difference.
I'm just fucking with you, buckwheat. You don't know what you are
talking about and my back reminds me nearly everyday that I do.
He is a chickenshit wimp who passed his body bag chances on to
somebody else and now pretends to be a warrior.
How old are you? The 'yawn' is a dead giveway among other things that
you'se ( good old boy parlance) is a whippersnapper. I wish we had a
draft today so you would have to worry about getting your nuts blown
off in Iraq.. Might wisen you up a bit.
<[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:26:02 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:52:44 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Exactly where did I talk about any Iraqi deaths, let alone your accusation that Bush
> >> >murdered 30,000 of them.
> >>
> >> So I guess all those thousands of Iraqis 'offed' themselves when the heard the
> >> bombs falling.
> >> I can hardly what until terrorists finally get a nuke into the US and set it
> >> off.
> >>
> >> I will enjoy watching that almost as much as you enjoyed watching American bombs
> >> falling on civilians in Iraq.
> >>
> >> And you know something Al, you better make lots of those meds because BILLIONS
> >> of people around the world are going to be cheering as well.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Listen, I really don't think you have anything valid to say, so FO.
> >
> >As to the claim, http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ which is no right wing organization puts the count at about half of your number
and
> >many other sources puts is at far less that that.
> >
> Well I hope when that nuke does go off, it's in your neighborhood and I won't
> feel bad if it only kills 15,000 or so of your neighbors.<g>
> 15,000 less of people like you is a good thing.
What, so you are now revising your death toll? Can't you stick with one distortion? Feeling morally superior are you. You're a
fly on a horse's *ss.
15,000 (which I believe is still a distortion) is fewer that were murdered each year by SH. Then figure the savings over the next
several decades and 15000 will be a small price to pay for freedom.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:26:02 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:52:44 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Exactly where did I talk about any Iraqi deaths, let alone your accusation that Bush
>> >murdered 30,000 of them.
>>
>> So I guess all those thousands of Iraqis 'offed' themselves when the heard the
>> bombs falling.
>> I can hardly what until terrorists finally get a nuke into the US and set it
>> off.
>>
>> I will enjoy watching that almost as much as you enjoyed watching American bombs
>> falling on civilians in Iraq.
>>
>> And you know something Al, you better make lots of those meds because BILLIONS
>> of people around the world are going to be cheering as well.
>>
>>
>
>Listen, I really don't think you have anything valid to say, so FO.
>
>As to the claim, http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ which is no right wing organization puts the count at about half of your number and
>many other sources puts is at far less that that.
>
Well I hope when that nuke does go off, it's in your neighborhood and I won't
feel bad if it only kills 15,000 or so of your neighbors.<g>
15,000 less of people like you is a good thing.
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That's easy, because you're a conservative moron. Open your eyes.
> Every justification for this war has been debunked. Take a moment to
> elighten me.
To stop Saddam before he develops WMDs. He wasn't as far along in his WMD
programs as the entire world thought he was, but whose fault is that?
Saddam is the one who said he had WMDs and ignored UN resolutions. I don't
find this that hard to follow. Perhaps you can clarify what it is about this
that mystifies you.
>Why have we spent 150+ billion dollars and lost 1000+
> American soldiers again?
We haven't.
>Pres Bush did a great job of defending this
> action in the debate. Wow, that was impressive!! He really set me
> straight. I keep picturing that idiot standing with his elbow pointed
> at the toilet while he shits his pants.
The debate is not to persuade people like you. I was disappointed in his
performance but it didn't seem to hurt him.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:28:09 -0500, Geroge Barns <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:16:58 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >>Wonder who they'd give the nod to; the navy dude who was actually
> >>there or the chickenshit ... the transplanted texan who spent the war
> >>drinking the best whiskey in the snobbiest country clubs on the planet
> >>talking shit?
> >
> >Which is the BEST whiskey and snobbiest country club in Texas?
> >By the way is that Cattleman Club still areound in Fort Worth?
> >
>
> Damn, I ain't got a clue George <snip>
You got that right, at least.
todd
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:28:09 -0500, Geroge Barns <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:16:58 -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Wonder who they'd give the nod to; the navy dude who was actually
>>there or the chickenshit ... the transplanted texan who spent the war
>>drinking the best whiskey in the snobbiest country clubs on the planet
>>talking shit?
>
>Which is the BEST whiskey and snobbiest country club in Texas?
>By the way is that Cattleman Club still areound in Fort Worth?
>
Damn, I ain't got a clue George but I bet he wasn't drinking T-bird
with some of the guys in an abandoned car.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:52:44 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Exactly where did I talk about any Iraqi deaths, let alone your accusation that Bush
>murdered 30,000 of them.
So I guess all those thousands of Iraqis 'offed' themselves when the heard the
bombs falling.
I can hardly what until terrorists finally get a nuke into the US and set it
off.
I will enjoy watching that almost as much as you enjoyed watching American bombs
falling on civilians in Iraq.
And you know something Al, you better make lots of those meds because BILLIONS
of people around the world are going to be cheering as well.
In article
<[email protected]>,
"mark" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bush flew fighter jets. I've neither
> flew jets, nor spent 3 months in vietnam.
As I understand it Kerry served something like 15 or 18 months in
Vietnam. The first tour was aboard a ship off shore - then he reupped
for a second tour requesting duty on the swiftboats.
--
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
____
The problem in this country is that the bar is constantly being lowered;
we then cheer clearing the bar as a great accomplishment and achievment.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:34:54 -0400, "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"JAW" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> Ray Kinzler woke up and had the following to say....:
>>
>> My take on this is:
>> If you are talking (more likely listening to some sort of emotional and
>> incoherent rant) with a liberal, they are ALWAYS right and you are wrong.
>> They will argue, stomp, cry, wail, spit, degrade, curse and lie until they
>> get their way. Reminds me of the kid who did not like the way the friends
>> were playing, so he/she took his/her toys and went home.
>>
>> If you are talking to a conservative, they will listen and then go off and
>> do what they were wanting to do in the first place.
>>
>> I have never meet a liberal that would listen to a point of view other than
>> the one that is playing in their head.
>>
>> JAW
>>
>
>Kind of reminds me of a conversation I once had with a liberal college economics teacher BIL. In short, the conversation revolved
>around growth of Federal revenues vs growth of spending. He told me I was wrong. I showed him the data from multiple non-biases
>and government sources. His response was that the facts do not matter and that he was right and I was wrong. He didn't even look
>at the data. A classic "don't confuse the issue with the facts" argument. That was the last time I ever had a political/economic
>discussion with him.
You are a sociopath. Only a sociopath could talk about the heartless and cruel
deaths of 30,000 innocent Iraqis in such a clinical fashion.
GWBush is a war criminal the likes of which we haven't seen since the second
world war. He attacked Iraq for pleasure and to show up his dad.
On 13 Oct 2004 05:57:15 -0700, [email protected] (Ray Kinzler) wrote:
>me,
>
>I think you are WAY over the top with your response.
>
>That said, Bush didn't murder all those people; the Iraqis themselves
>killed those people.
>
>The US military attacked Iraqi military personnel as much as they
>could.
They were also innocent victims. Thousands of young untrained conscripted Iraqi
boys who did nothing to the US were napalmed and burned to death for the
amusement of the psychotics in the Whitehouse.
Iraq did nothing to the US.
When the US gets nuked in retaliation, and it will, soon, I'll be cheering.
I felt bad for you nasty bastards during 911 but never again.
You Americans have shown your true colors to the world.
Next big terror attack on the US and I'm buying a big screen TV and lots of
popcorn.
> When the US gets nuked in retaliation, and it will, soon, I'll be
> cheering.
> I felt bad for you nasty bastards during 911 but never again.
> You Americans have shown your true colors to the world.
>
> Next big terror attack on the US and I'm buying a big screen TV and lots
> of
> popcorn.
Assknob. Who wants sympathy from the likes of you. Besides, from what I
can tell, you're posting from a US location.
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:55:54 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>That might give you a clue
Let me know when that figure hits 1,000,000 then i'll be happy. These
fucking ingreatful sand niggers need to be wiped off the face of the
earth as far as i'm concerned
Ray Kinzler woke up and had the following to say....:
> I think I have incoherent out.
>
> If a Democratic President had done this, it would be seen as a good
> thing.
>
> Since a Republican President did it, it was a bad thing.
>
> Listen, even Clinton said he believed Sadaam had weapons and wanted to
> use them. His comments were based upon intelligence reports he
> received from various places. The same places Bush received his
> reports. Bush decided to act upon those reports and I believe there
> is a good possibility that Clinton would have acted the same way if
> 9/11 had occurred during his tenure.
>
> Oh, I forgot. He's a liberal and that's okay. He was a 'real' (aka,
> 'elected') President so, again, that's okay.
>
> Many, many of these posts are entirely emotional with all sense of
> rational thought tossed out the window.
>
> If people only pay attention to one side of a subject and totally
> rejectt he other side, it is impossible to reason with them. No
> wonder why so many in this newsgroup have had enough of this blarney.
>
>
> But while we are on the subject, I am going to reply to Mark who
> responded to my post with quotes that were not mine. Where did you
> get this crap, Mark? I never said those things nor would I ever say
> those things. And I do not appreciate the fact that you made it look
> like I did.
>
>
> Awwww, forget it. I think I am going to go back under my rock for a
> while. This political BS is for the birds. I think we all need to
> learn how to accept life and watever is tossed at us. Deal with it.
> All the bellyaching in the world is not going to change things. The
> only thing you can really control is your attitude.
My take on this is:
If you are talking (more likely listening to some sort of emotional and
incoherent rant) with a liberal, they are ALWAYS right and you are wrong.
They will argue, stomp, cry, wail, spit, degrade, curse and lie until they
get their way. Reminds me of the kid who did not like the way the friends
were playing, so he/she took his/her toys and went home.
If you are talking to a conservative, they will listen and then go off and
do what they were wanting to do in the first place.
I have never meet a liberal that would listen to a point of view other than
the one that is playing in their head.
JAW