|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » United Earth
| Re: United Earth OT [message #242363 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 14:02 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:55:34 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:08:25 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:59:29 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro)
>>added to a lack of mature, intelligent discourse:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:49:21 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:09:03 -0500, ToolPackinMama
>>>><laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote this liberal spin:
>>>>
>>>>>VernonT wrote:
>>>>>> "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the saying goes, "Nobody died when Clinton lied."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Says lots of people. BTW, it's verifiable.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, Clinton presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity, unlike GW Bush.
>>>>
>>>> Except for the recession that started 2 years "before" GW Bush was
>>>>elected.
>>>>
>>>> That's just the "prosperity" part.
>>>>
>>>> With everything from the first attack on the WTC to the attack on
>>>>the Khobar Towers, to the destruction of 2 US Embassies, to the
>>>>blowing up of the USS Cole - there was no "peace" during the Clinton
>>>>regime.
>>>>
>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>
>>>
>>> That's like pointing out the difference between a mud pie and
>>>a shit sandwich.
>>>
>>> Bush wants us all to eat the sandwich.
>>
>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>
>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>The Blair Memo in the news today proves
The so-called Blair Memo has already been proven to be a lie.
>that Bush lied to America and
>the world about an imaginary threat after deciding to attack Iraq, an
>unarmed, defeated country that had NO WMD and was complying with
>United Nations resolutions. Bush is a traitor, a coward, and deserves
>the full punishment for war crimes. What comes around, goes around.
With the "Blair Memo" as the basis for the rest of your statement,
nothing you say has any merit.
Nice cut-and-paste from the liberal handbook though. Why don't you
put a fact into your next diatribe?
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #242374 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 23:01 |
|
<d fjs [at] dk. mhd> wrote in message
news:ccuh22l3negred0ad2klj4jrek600c4gja [at] 4ax.com...
>
> The Blair Memo in the news today proves that Bush lied to America and
> the world about an imaginary threat after deciding to attack Iraq, an
> unarmed, defeated country that had NO WMD and was complying with
> United Nations resolutions. Bush is a traitor, a coward, and deserves
> the full punishment for war crimes. What comes around, goes around.
You probably believed Dan Rather, too.
He proved that "once a brainless li.." Oh, never mind.
If Bush didn't defend YOUR right to complain, who would?
And, re: WMD's.....................
If you come across a married couple with no children in tow, your reasoning
would be that they never had any and never would.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #242375 ] |
Di, 28 März 2006 23:13 |
|
in article ccuh22l3negred0ad2klj4jrek600c4gja [at] 4ax.com, d fjs [at] dk. mhd at d
fjs [at] dk. mhd wrote on 3/28/06 1:55 AM:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:08:25 GMT, John H. Schneider II
> <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:59:29 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro)
>> added to a lack of mature, intelligent discourse:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:49:21 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>>> <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:09:03 -0500, ToolPackinMama
>>>> <laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote this liberal spin:
>>>>
>>>>> VernonT wrote:
>>>>>> "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the saying goes, "Nobody died when Clinton lied."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Says lots of people. BTW, it's verifiable.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, Clinton presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity, unlike GW
>>>>> Bush.
>>>>
>>>> Except for the recession that started 2 years "before" GW Bush was
>>>> elected.
>>>>
>>>> That's just the "prosperity" part.
>>>>
>>>> With everything from the first attack on the WTC to the attack on
>>>> the Khobar Towers, to the destruction of 2 US Embassies, to the
>>>> blowing up of the USS Cole - there was no "peace" during the Clinton
>>>> regime.
>>>>
>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>
>>>
>>> That's like pointing out the difference between a mud pie and
>>> a shit sandwich.
>>>
>>> Bush wants us all to eat the sandwich.
>>
>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>> country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>> and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>
>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>> Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
> The Blair Memo in the news today proves that Bush lied to America and
> the world about an imaginary threat after deciding to attack Iraq, an
> unarmed, defeated country that had NO WMD and was complying with
> United Nations resolutions. Bush is a traitor, a coward, and deserves
> the full punishment for war crimes. What comes around, goes around.
In that case you'll die soon in a steaming pile of your own pathetic
delusions.
plonk
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #242379 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 03:44 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:08:25 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:59:29 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro)
>added to a lack of mature, intelligent discourse:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:49:21 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:09:03 -0500, ToolPackinMama
>>><laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote this liberal spin:
>>>
>>>>VernonT wrote:
>>>>> "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> As the saying goes, "Nobody died when Clinton lied."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Says you.
>>>>
>>>>Says lots of people. BTW, it's verifiable.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, Clinton presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity, unlike GW Bush.
>>>
>>> Except for the recession that started 2 years "before" GW Bush was
>>>elected.
>>>
>>> That's just the "prosperity" part.
>>>
>>> With everything from the first attack on the WTC to the attack on
>>>the Khobar Towers, to the destruction of 2 US Embassies, to the
>>>blowing up of the USS Cole - there was no "peace" during the Clinton
>>>regime.
>>>
>>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>>
>> That's like pointing out the difference between a mud pie and
>>a shit sandwich.
>>
>> Bush wants us all to eat the sandwich.
>
> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>
> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
> And yes, that's a different war.
>
> John H. Schneider II
Hey Junior . . .
"Defending our country" also includes not getting us involved
in meaningless quagmires. :)
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #242380 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 03:50 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:55:34 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:08:25 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:59:29 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro)
>>added to a lack of mature, intelligent discourse:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:49:21 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:09:03 -0500, ToolPackinMama
>>>><laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote this liberal spin:
>>>>
>>>>>VernonT wrote:
>>>>>> "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the saying goes, "Nobody died when Clinton lied."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says you.
>>>>>
>>>>>Says lots of people. BTW, it's verifiable.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, Clinton presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity, unlike GW Bush.
>>>>
>>>> Except for the recession that started 2 years "before" GW Bush was
>>>>elected.
>>>>
>>>> That's just the "prosperity" part.
>>>>
>>>> With everything from the first attack on the WTC to the attack on
>>>>the Khobar Towers, to the destruction of 2 US Embassies, to the
>>>>blowing up of the USS Cole - there was no "peace" during the Clinton
>>>>regime.
>>>>
>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>
>>>
>>> That's like pointing out the difference between a mud pie and
>>>a shit sandwich.
>>>
>>> Bush wants us all to eat the sandwich.
>>
>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>
>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>The Blair Memo in the news today proves that Bush lied to America and
>the world about an imaginary threat after deciding to attack Iraq, an
>unarmed, defeated country that had NO WMD and was complying with
>United Nations resolutions. Bush is a traitor, a coward, and deserves
>the full punishment for war crimes. What comes around, goes around.
That'll be the day . . .
I'd sooner expect to be reunited wif all mys earrahjittamment
chirrenns, and retires tuh da land o' rainbows and gumdrop smiles. :)
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #242381 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 04:42 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:44:37 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro) got
it wrong again:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:08:25 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
-brevity--
>>
>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>
>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>
> Hey Junior . . .
First, I'm not "Junior".
>
> "Defending our country" also includes not getting us involved
>in meaningless quagmires. :)
No quagmires from President GW Bush, meaningless or otherwise.
And if you want to complain about how long we might be in Iraq
and/or Afganistan (and then maybe Iran, Syria, North Korea, and
wherever else), I'll remind you that we're still in Germany and Japan
- and WWII ended over 60 years ago.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243217 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 14:10 |
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:42:39 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:44:37 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro) got
>it wrong again:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:08:25 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>
> -brevity--
>
>>>
>>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>>>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>>>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>>
>>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>>>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>>
>>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>>
>> Hey Junior . . .
>
> First, I'm not "Junior".
>
Okay.
Hey Number Two . . .
>>
>> "Defending our country" also includes not getting us involved
>>in meaningless quagmires. :)
>
> No quagmires from President GW Bush, meaningless or otherwise.
>
> And if you want to complain about how long we might be in Iraq
>and/or Afganistan (and then maybe Iran, Syria, North Korea, and
>wherever else), I'll remind you that we're still in Germany and Japan
>- and WWII ended over 60 years ago.
>
> John H. Schneider II
Try to stop parroting what you hear on Fox News and think for
yourself.
Thank you. :)
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243218 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 18:05 |
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:10:02 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro)
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:42:39 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:44:37 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro) got
>>it wrong again:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:08:25 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> -brevity--
>>
>>>>
>>>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>>>>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>>>>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>>>
>>>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>>>>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>>>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>>>
>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Junior . . .
>>
>> First, I'm not "Junior".
>>
>
> Okay.
>
> Hey Number Two . . .
>
How about "Hey John", without any of the derogatory inferences? I'm
sure you're capable of actually calling me by my name.
>>>
>>> "Defending our country" also includes not getting us involved
>>>in meaningless quagmires. :)
>>
>> No quagmires from President GW Bush, meaningless or otherwise.
>>
>> And if you want to complain about how long we might be in Iraq
>>and/or Afganistan (and then maybe Iran, Syria, North Korea, and
>>wherever else), I'll remind you that we're still in Germany and Japan
>>- and WWII ended over 60 years ago.
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>
> Try to stop parroting what you hear on Fox News and think for
>yourself.
I think for myself, that's why I watch Fox News.
>
> Thank you. :)
Why don't you stop parroting what you see in the liberal handbook?
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243220 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 21:50 |
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:05:09 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 07:10:02 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:42:39 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:44:37 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro) got
>>>it wrong again:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:08:25 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>>>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> -brevity--
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>>>>>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>>>>>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>>>>>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>>>>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>>>>
>>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Junior . . .
>>>
>>> First, I'm not "Junior".
>>>
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>> Hey Number Two . . .
>>
>
> How about "Hey John", without any of the derogatory inferences? I'm
>sure you're capable of actually calling me by my name.
>
PROMISE me you won't DIE IN MY ARMS again!!!
>>>>
>>>> "Defending our country" also includes not getting us involved
>>>>in meaningless quagmires. :)
>>>
>>> No quagmires from President GW Bush, meaningless or otherwise.
>>>
>>> And if you want to complain about how long we might be in Iraq
>>>and/or Afganistan (and then maybe Iran, Syria, North Korea, and
>>>wherever else), I'll remind you that we're still in Germany and Japan
>>>- and WWII ended over 60 years ago.
>>>
>>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>>
>> Try to stop parroting what you hear on Fox News and think for
>>yourself.
>
> I think for myself, that's why I watch Fox News.
>
>>
>> Thank you. :)
>
> Why don't you stop parroting what you see in the liberal handbook?
>
> John H. Schneider II
Why don't you stop parroting what I say?
Parroting what I say?
Get away from that parrot, I say.
It's already dead.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243221 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 22:46 |
|
"SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
news:u3uk225erqicljktq4u7equ7d61p6kvaef [at] 4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:42:39 GMT, John H. Schneider II
> <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
> -brevity--
>>
>>>>
>>>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>>>>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>>>>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>>>
>>>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>>>>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>>>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>>>
>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Junior . . .
>>
>> First, I'm not "Junior".
>>
>
> Okay.
>
> Hey Number Two . . .
>
>>>
>>> "Defending our country" also includes not getting us involved
>>>in meaningless quagmires. :)
>>
>> No quagmires from President GW Bush, meaningless or otherwise.
>>
>> And if you want to complain about how long we might be in Iraq
>>and/or Afganistan (and then maybe Iran, Syria, North Korea, and
>>wherever else), I'll remind you that we're still in Germany and Japan
>>- and WWII ended over 60 years ago.
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>
> Try to stop parroting what you hear on Fox News and think for
> yourself.
>
> Thank you. :)
Wow, that's funny coming from a guy who says we are in a quagmire.
Is that your first hand, expert opinion FROM Iraq or what you hear on
CNN?
You are right though. They are not worth our time, lives, or money. Neither
were the Kuwaitis for that matter. We could have just let Saddam keep it.
Should have according to you. Isn't it a "hands off" policy you want?
It wouldn't have affected us too much.
And your un-funny reference to shit didn't go unnoticed. BTW What an
asshole you are, in my opinion.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243222 ] |
Mi, 29 März 2006 22:48 |
|
"SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
news:6uol225toc3ak49gavgf7400d5p719n9ig [at] 4ax.com...
>> Why don't you stop parroting what you see in the liberal handbook?
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>
> Why don't you stop parroting what I say?
>
> Parroting what I say?
>
> Get away from that parrot, I say.
>
> It's already dead.
>
Oh, I got it. You aren't an asshole. You're a loon. Sorry, my
mistake.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243226 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 01:14 |
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:46:12 GMT, "Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
>"SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
>news:u3uk225erqicljktq4u7equ7d61p6kvaef [at] 4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 02:42:39 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>> <JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>> -brevity--
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>>>>>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>>>>>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>>>>>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>>>>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>>>>
>>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Junior . . .
>>>
>>> First, I'm not "Junior".
>>>
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>> Hey Number Two . . .
>>
>>>>
>>>> "Defending our country" also includes not getting us involved
>>>>in meaningless quagmires. :)
>>>
>>> No quagmires from President GW Bush, meaningless or otherwise.
>>>
>>> And if you want to complain about how long we might be in Iraq
>>>and/or Afganistan (and then maybe Iran, Syria, North Korea, and
>>>wherever else), I'll remind you that we're still in Germany and Japan
>>>- and WWII ended over 60 years ago.
>>>
>>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>>
>> Try to stop parroting what you hear on Fox News and think for
>> yourself.
>>
>> Thank you. :)
>
>Wow, that's funny coming from a guy who says we are in a quagmire.
What can I say? I'm a funny guy. :)
>Is that your first hand, expert opinion FROM Iraq or what you hear on
>CNN?
>
Do I only get two choices?
>You are right though. They are not worth our time, lives, or money. Neither
>were the Kuwaitis for that matter. We could have just let Saddam keep it.
>Should have according to you. Isn't it a "hands off" policy you want?
>It wouldn't have affected us too much.
>
>And your un-funny reference to shit didn't go unnoticed.
Your reasoning here would make Riker . . . well, "Pissy".
>BTW What an asshole you are, in my opinion.
>
Well . . . you know what they say:
"Opinions are like assholes . . . everybody has one."
Perhaps . . . just perhaps, in the whole grand scheme of
things, I really am *your* asshole. Did you ever think of that?
I mean, really. Stranger things have happened.
Now . . . ~as~ your asshole, let me be frank with you. I
really don't appreciate all of the abuse I've had to suffer at your
hands.
Yes. I *do* believe in a "hands off" policy. So I ask you
now, and I expect you to listen. Please keep you hands off your
asshole. It makes it very hard for me to do my job when you stress me
out like you do.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243227 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 01:41 |
|
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 20:48:33 GMT, "Numan" <tbrdmann [at] sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
>"SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
>news:6uol225toc3ak49gavgf7400d5p719n9ig [at] 4ax.com...
>
>
>>> Why don't you stop parroting what you see in the liberal handbook?
>>>
>>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>>
>> Why don't you stop parroting what I say?
>>
>> Parroting what I say?
>>
>> Get away from that parrot, I say.
>>
>> It's already dead.
>>
>
>Oh, I got it. You aren't an asshole. You're a loon. Sorry, my
>mistake.
>
The "parrot" is a ridiculous argument that goes nowhere,
because it is full of empty rationalizations.
Try getting out of the box sometimes . . . the air is a bit
fresher here. :)
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243233 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 11:47 |
|
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:02:35 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:55:34 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:08:25 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:59:29 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro)
>>>added to a lack of mature, intelligent discourse:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:49:21 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>>>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:09:03 -0500, ToolPackinMama
>>>>><laura [at] lauragoodwin.org> wrote this liberal spin:
>>>>>
>>>>>>VernonT wrote:
>>>>>>> "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As the saying goes, "Nobody died when Clinton lied."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Says you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Says lots of people. BTW, it's verifiable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, Clinton presided over 8 years of peace and prosperity, unlike GW Bush.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except for the recession that started 2 years "before" GW Bush was
>>>>>elected.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just the "prosperity" part.
>>>>>
>>>>> With everything from the first attack on the WTC to the attack on
>>>>>the Khobar Towers, to the destruction of 2 US Embassies, to the
>>>>>blowing up of the USS Cole - there was no "peace" during the Clinton
>>>>>regime.
>>>>>
>>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's like pointing out the difference between a mud pie and
>>>>a shit sandwich.
>>>>
>>>> Bush wants us all to eat the sandwich.
>>>
>>> The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>>>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>>>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.
>>>
>>> Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>>>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
>>> And yes, that's a different war.
>>>
>>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>>The Blair Memo in the news today proves
>
> The so-called Blair Memo has already been proven to be a lie.
>
>>that Bush lied to America and
>>the world about an imaginary threat after deciding to attack Iraq, an
>>unarmed, defeated country that had NO WMD and was complying with
>>United Nations resolutions. Bush is a traitor, a coward, and deserves
>>the full punishment for war crimes. What comes around, goes around.
>
> With the "Blair Memo" as the basis for the rest of your statement,
>nothing you say has any merit.
>
> Nice cut-and-paste from the liberal handbook though. Why don't you
>put a fact into your next diatribe?
>
> John H. Schneider II
Let's see your "side" produce some facts instead of manure. Why did
you go to war against Iraq? What was that reason of the day you
finally settled on? Why, you had PROOF of WMD BEFORE you went to war,
according to Colin Powell, who resigned in shame after being duped by
the Bush Crime Family. WMD? Find any? No? No nukes to make those
mushroom clouds Cheney spoke of? No biological missiles waiting to
strike at der homeland? Ohhh, and the Iraqi war was going to be paid
for by all that OIL flow from Iraq. Good thing Halliburton and
Monsanto got all those NO BID contracts. Uh, now how many hundreds of
billions have we borrowed from China now to finance that "wag the dog"
war? I know you can't do math...that would require thinking. Hey,
how about OSAMA who actually attacked the US? Find him yet? No?
Can't find a 7 foot tall white Arab dragging a dialysis machine
through the desert? Awwww. And Rumsfield told of how we were going
to be greeted as heroes with flowers and candy. How many dead US
servicemen ago was that lie? And even though Saddam was a bastard, he
was a bastard who kept terrorists under control in his nation. Now,
under Bush, it's another shitstorm with terrorists streaming into Iraq
like Mexicans across the US border.
Let's hear you address these assertions with "facts" instead of
smirking your way through with empty self-righteousness. Your game is
through, loser. America is sick of you morons and IF we had half the
guts of the French, your heads would be rolling in the gutter also.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243239 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 16:30 |
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:47:54 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd trolled,
projected, and lied:
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:02:35 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
--brevity--
>>
>> With the "Blair Memo" as the basis for the rest of your statement,
>>nothing you say has any merit.
>>
>> Nice cut-and-paste from the liberal handbook though. Why don't you
>>put a fact into your next diatribe?
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>Let's see your "side" produce some facts instead of manure.
I see you still have the sides confused.
> Why did
>you go to war against Iraq?
Saddam was a terrorist supporter and Iraq has a strategic location.
Tat's about the basis of it.
> What was that reason of the day you
>finally settled on?
Same ones we actually started out with.
> Why, you had PROOF of WMD BEFORE you went to war,
>according to Colin Powell, who resigned in shame after being duped by
>the Bush Crime Family.
More delusions from you. General powell didn't resign in shame,
wasn't duped, and there isn't a "Bush Crime Family". This is why you
are confused (as above), and why your credibility is in free fall.
> WMD? Find any?
Yyes. And there's more and more evidence that the majority of it was
shipped to Syria - before the invasion.
> No? No nukes to make those
>mushroom clouds Cheney spoke of?
Nobody ever said that he had nukes. What was said was that he had to
be stopped "before" he did have nukes.
Why don't you respond to what Vice-President Dick Cheney actually
said?
> No biological missiles waiting to
>strike at der homeland?
Nobody said that either.
> Ohhh, and the Iraqi war was going to be paid
>for by all that OIL flow from Iraq.
A few people might have floated that as a possibility, but no one
took it seriously. Everyone knew that the money would be spent
rebuilding the country after decades under the Saddam regime.
> Good thing Halliburton and
>Monsanto got all those NO BID contracts.
You mean the contracts that they signed while the Clinton regime was
still in power?
Why no complaints about that?
I also note that there are a lot of things that only a company like
Haliburton can do, and they are very good at many things.
> Uh, now how many hundreds of
>billions have we borrowed from China now to finance that "wag the dog"
>war?
I don't know how much we borrowed to finance Clinton's adventure
into Yugoslavia. It's the only "wag the dog" war that's happened in
the last 20 years.
> I know you can't do math...that would require thinking.
And here's proof that you don't know anything. Thanks for the
admission.
> Hey,
>how about OSAMA who actually attacked the US?
Ok, so you believe that Osama actually attacked the USA?
Wow!
I thought all 19 hijackers died on the planes. Did he parachute out
at the last minute or something?
From what I've been informed of, Osama ordered the attack, not
actually attacked himself.
> Find him yet? No?
Let me guess - you believe that ALL (every single one) Nazi war
criminals were caught within 5 years after the end of WWII, huh?
That war is always very tidy, like in a video game, where you get to
the Boss level and he never tries to escape?
I'm starting to see your problem.
>Can't find a 7 foot tall white Arab dragging a dialysis machine
>through the desert? Awwww.
Hate to break it to you, but the tribal areas between Afganistan and
Pakistan are NOT desert.
Of course, that would interfere with your search for the Boss on the
last level of the game.
> And Rumsfield told of how we were going
>to be greeted as heroes with flowers and candy.
And we have been greeted as liberators.
> How many dead US
>servicemen ago was that lie?
No lie except from you. SecDef Rumsfeld said that it was going to be
a long and hard war, he has never retreated from that position.
Just because you keep seeing a Boss at the end of the level doesn't
mean that Rumsfeld and the rest of us are playing a game.
> And even though Saddam was a bastard, he
>was a bastard who kept terrorists under control in his nation.
Yes, you're right, no one was ever killed while Saddam controlled
Iraq. Well, unless you count the 300,000+ bodies found in the mass
graves.
> Now,
>under Bush, it's another shitstorm with terrorists streaming into Iraq
>like Mexicans across the US border.
Now, under President GW Bush, we're fighting them over there rather
than over here.
I suppose you'd rather have the terrorists attacking shopping malls
and schools over here than heavily armed US troops over there.
>
>Let's hear you address these assertions with "facts"
Already done.
> instead of
>smirking your way through with empty self-righteousness.
Sorry, I don't post the way you do.
> Your game is
>through, loser.
To me, it's not a game. I don't have any delusions that there's a
Boss on every level that can be killed, and a big Boss at the end of
the game.
Remember that the war of Islam against the civilized world has been
going on for at least 1300 years, there's little indication it will be
over soon.
> America is sick of you morons and IF we had half the
>guts of the French, your heads would be rolling in the gutter also.
I see you have become pretty good at projection.
After your side brought down my side (the only ones actually trying
to protect you from the terrorists), then your head would be rolling
in the gutter next. This would happen because the terrorists would
look at you and know that you can't be trusted.
If you choose not to learn from history, it's going to follow you
into your grave.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243244 ] |
Do, 30 März 2006 17:40 |
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:30:24 GMT, John H. Schneider II
<JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:47:54 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd trolled,
>projected, and lied:
>
>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:02:35 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>
>
> --brevity--
>
>>>
>>> With the "Blair Memo" as the basis for the rest of your statement,
>>>nothing you say has any merit.
>>>
>>> Nice cut-and-paste from the liberal handbook though. Why don't you
>>>put a fact into your next diatribe?
>>>
>>> John H. Schneider II
>>
>>Let's see your "side" produce some facts instead of manure.
>
> I see you still have the sides confused.
>
>> Why did
>>you go to war against Iraq?
>
> Saddam was a terrorist supporter and Iraq has a strategic location.
>Tat's about the basis of it.
>
>> What was that reason of the day you
>>finally settled on?
>
> Same ones we actually started out with.
>
>> Why, you had PROOF of WMD BEFORE you went to war,
>>according to Colin Powell, who resigned in shame after being duped by
>>the Bush Crime Family.
>
> More delusions from you. General powell didn't resign in shame,
>wasn't duped, and there isn't a "Bush Crime Family". This is why you
>are confused (as above), and why your credibility is in free fall.
>
>> WMD? Find any?
>
> Yyes. And there's more and more evidence that the majority of it was
>shipped to Syria - before the invasion.
>
>> No? No nukes to make those
>>mushroom clouds Cheney spoke of?
>
> Nobody ever said that he had nukes. What was said was that he had to
>be stopped "before" he did have nukes.
> Why don't you respond to what Vice-President Dick Cheney actually
>said?
>
>> No biological missiles waiting to
>>strike at der homeland?
>
> Nobody said that either.
>
>> Ohhh, and the Iraqi war was going to be paid
>>for by all that OIL flow from Iraq.
>
> A few people might have floated that as a possibility, but no one
>took it seriously. Everyone knew that the money would be spent
>rebuilding the country after decades under the Saddam regime.
>
>> Good thing Halliburton and
>>Monsanto got all those NO BID contracts.
>
> You mean the contracts that they signed while the Clinton regime was
>still in power?
> Why no complaints about that?
> I also note that there are a lot of things that only a company like
>Haliburton can do, and they are very good at many things.
>
>> Uh, now how many hundreds of
>>billions have we borrowed from China now to finance that "wag the dog"
>>war?
>
> I don't know how much we borrowed to finance Clinton's adventure
>into Yugoslavia. It's the only "wag the dog" war that's happened in
>the last 20 years.
>
>> I know you can't do math...that would require thinking.
>
> And here's proof that you don't know anything. Thanks for the
>admission.
>
>> Hey,
>>how about OSAMA who actually attacked the US?
>
> Ok, so you believe that Osama actually attacked the USA?
> Wow!
> I thought all 19 hijackers died on the planes. Did he parachute out
>at the last minute or something?
>
> From what I've been informed of, Osama ordered the attack, not
>actually attacked himself.
>
>> Find him yet? No?
>
> Let me guess - you believe that ALL (every single one) Nazi war
>criminals were caught within 5 years after the end of WWII, huh?
> That war is always very tidy, like in a video game, where you get to
>the Boss level and he never tries to escape?
>
> I'm starting to see your problem.
>
>>Can't find a 7 foot tall white Arab dragging a dialysis machine
>>through the desert? Awwww.
>
> Hate to break it to you, but the tribal areas between Afganistan and
>Pakistan are NOT desert.
> Of course, that would interfere with your search for the Boss on the
>last level of the game.
>
>> And Rumsfield told of how we were going
>>to be greeted as heroes with flowers and candy.
>
> And we have been greeted as liberators.
>
>> How many dead US
>>servicemen ago was that lie?
>
> No lie except from you. SecDef Rumsfeld said that it was going to be
>a long and hard war, he has never retreated from that position.
>
> Just because you keep seeing a Boss at the end of the level doesn't
>mean that Rumsfeld and the rest of us are playing a game.
>
>> And even though Saddam was a bastard, he
>>was a bastard who kept terrorists under control in his nation.
>
> Yes, you're right, no one was ever killed while Saddam controlled
>Iraq. Well, unless you count the 300,000+ bodies found in the mass
>graves.
>
>> Now,
>>under Bush, it's another shitstorm with terrorists streaming into Iraq
>>like Mexicans across the US border.
>
> Now, under President GW Bush, we're fighting them over there rather
>than over here.
> I suppose you'd rather have the terrorists attacking shopping malls
>and schools over here than heavily armed US troops over there.
>
>>
>>Let's hear you address these assertions with "facts"
>
> Already done.
>
>> instead of
>>smirking your way through with empty self-righteousness.
>
> Sorry, I don't post the way you do.
>
>> Your game is
>>through, loser.
>
> To me, it's not a game. I don't have any delusions that there's a
>Boss on every level that can be killed, and a big Boss at the end of
>the game.
> Remember that the war of Islam against the civilized world has been
>going on for at least 1300 years, there's little indication it will be
>over soon.
>
>> America is sick of you morons and IF we had half the
>>guts of the French, your heads would be rolling in the gutter also.
>
> I see you have become pretty good at projection.
> After your side brought down my side (the only ones actually trying
>to protect you from the terrorists), then your head would be rolling
>in the gutter next. This would happen because the terrorists would
>look at you and know that you can't be trusted.
>
> If you choose not to learn from history, it's going to follow you
>into your grave.
>
> John H. Schneider II
My side! Your side!! My side!!! Your side!!!!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243247 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 00:04 |
|
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:40:49 -0500, nunca [at] hogar.mundo (SrEspectro)
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:30:24 GMT, John H. Schneider II
><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 03:47:54 -0600, d fjs [at] dk. mhd trolled,
>>projected, and lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:02:35 GMT, John H. Schneider II
>>><JHSII [at] IX.Netcom.Com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> --brevity--
>>
>>>>
>>>> With the "Blair Memo" as the basis for the rest of your statement,
>>>>nothing you say has any merit.
>>>>
>>>> Nice cut-and-paste from the liberal handbook though. Why don't you
>>>>put a fact into your next diatribe?
>>>>
>>>> John H. Schneider II
>>>
>>>Let's see your "side" produce some facts instead of manure.
>>
>> I see you still have the sides confused.
>>
>>> Why did
>>>you go to war against Iraq?
>>
>> Saddam was a terrorist supporter and Iraq has a strategic location.
>>Tat's about the basis of it.
>>
>>> What was that reason of the day you
>>>finally settled on?
>>
>> Same ones we actually started out with.
>>
>>> Why, you had PROOF of WMD BEFORE you went to war,
>>>according to Colin Powell, who resigned in shame after being duped by
>>>the Bush Crime Family.
>>
>> More delusions from you. General powell didn't resign in shame,
>>wasn't duped, and there isn't a "Bush Crime Family". This is why you
>>are confused (as above), and why your credibility is in free fall.
>>
>>> WMD? Find any?
>>
>> Yyes. And there's more and more evidence that the majority of it was
>>shipped to Syria - before the invasion.
>>
>>> No? No nukes to make those
>>>mushroom clouds Cheney spoke of?
>>
>> Nobody ever said that he had nukes. What was said was that he had to
>>be stopped "before" he did have nukes.
>> Why don't you respond to what Vice-President Dick Cheney actually
>>said?
>>
>>> No biological missiles waiting to
>>>strike at der homeland?
>>
>> Nobody said that either.
>>
>>> Ohhh, and the Iraqi war was going to be paid
>>>for by all that OIL flow from Iraq.
>>
>> A few people might have floated that as a possibility, but no one
>>took it seriously. Everyone knew that the money would be spent
>>rebuilding the country after decades under the Saddam regime.
>>
>>> Good thing Halliburton and
>>>Monsanto got all those NO BID contracts.
>>
>> You mean the contracts that they signed while the Clinton regime was
>>still in power?
>> Why no complaints about that?
>> I also note that there are a lot of things that only a company like
>>Haliburton can do, and they are very good at many things.
>>
>>> Uh, now how many hundreds of
>>>billions have we borrowed from China now to finance that "wag the dog"
>>>war?
>>
>> I don't know how much we borrowed to finance Clinton's adventure
>>into Yugoslavia. It's the only "wag the dog" war that's happened in
>>the last 20 years.
>>
>>> I know you can't do math...that would require thinking.
>>
>> And here's proof that you don't know anything. Thanks for the
>>admission.
>>
>>> Hey,
>>>how about OSAMA who actually attacked the US?
>>
>> Ok, so you believe that Osama actually attacked the USA?
>> Wow!
>> I thought all 19 hijackers died on the planes. Did he parachute out
>>at the last minute or something?
>>
>> From what I've been informed of, Osama ordered the attack, not
>>actually attacked himself.
>>
>>> Find him yet? No?
>>
>> Let me guess - you believe that ALL (every single one) Nazi war
>>criminals were caught within 5 years after the end of WWII, huh?
>> That war is always very tidy, like in a video game, where you get to
>>the Boss level and he never tries to escape?
>>
>> I'm starting to see your problem.
>>
>>>Can't find a 7 foot tall white Arab dragging a dialysis machine
>>>through the desert? Awwww.
>>
>> Hate to break it to you, but the tribal areas between Afganistan and
>>Pakistan are NOT desert.
>> Of course, that would interfere with your search for the Boss on the
>>last level of the game.
>>
>>> And Rumsfield told of how we were going
>>>to be greeted as heroes with flowers and candy.
>>
>> And we have been greeted as liberators.
>>
>>> How many dead US
>>>servicemen ago was that lie?
>>
>> No lie except from you. SecDef Rumsfeld said that it was going to be
>>a long and hard war, he has never retreated from that position.
>>
>> Just because you keep seeing a Boss at the end of the level doesn't
>>mean that Rumsfeld and the rest of us are playing a game.
>>
>>> And even though Saddam was a bastard, he
>>>was a bastard who kept terrorists under control in his nation.
>>
>> Yes, you're right, no one was ever killed while Saddam controlled
>>Iraq. Well, unless you count the 300,000+ bodies found in the mass
>>graves.
>>
>>> Now,
>>>under Bush, it's another shitstorm with terrorists streaming into Iraq
>>>like Mexicans across the US border.
>>
>> Now, under President GW Bush, we're fighting them over there rather
>>than over here.
>> I suppose you'd rather have the terrorists attacking shopping malls
>>and schools over here than heavily armed US troops over there.
>>
>>>
>>>Let's hear you address these assertions with "facts"
>>
>> Already done.
>>
>>> instead of
>>>smirking your way through with empty self-righteousness.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't post the way you do.
>>
>>> Your game is
>>>through, loser.
>>
>> To me, it's not a game. I don't have any delusions that there's a
>>Boss on every level that can be killed, and a big Boss at the end of
>>the game.
>> Remember that the war of Islam against the civilized world has been
>>going on for at least 1300 years, there's little indication it will be
>>over soon.
>>
>>> America is sick of you morons and IF we had half the
>>>guts of the French, your heads would be rolling in the gutter also.
>>
>> I see you have become pretty good at projection.
>> After your side brought down my side (the only ones actually trying
>>to protect you from the terrorists), then your head would be rolling
>>in the gutter next. This would happen because the terrorists would
>>look at you and know that you can't be trusted.
>>
>> If you choose not to learn from history, it's going to follow you
>>into your grave.
>>
>> John H. Schneider II
>
>
>
> My side! Your side!! My side!!! Your side!!!!
>
> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! My sides hurt!! ROTFLMAO
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243258 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 21:41 |
|
"SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
news:u3uk225erqicljktq4u7equ7d61p6kvaef [at] 4ax.com...
> Try to stop parroting what you hear on Fox News and think for
> yourself.
That coming from the parrot of Mr. Dan Rather. Ha
Think for your OWN self, Sr.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243259 ] |
Fr, 31 März 2006 22:03 |
|
<d fjs [at] dk. mhd> wrote in message
news:999n221ii0fl1e0nbvs3cptjab7n2arktj [at] 4ax.com...
> Let's see your "side"
My side is America. What exactly is YOUR side?
produce some facts instead of manure. Why did
> you go to war against Iraq?
WE went to war.
What was that reason of the day you
> finally settled on? Why, you had PROOF of WMD BEFORE you went to war,
> according to Colin Powell,
USA sold/gave him some. Where do YOU think they went??
> how about OSAMA who actually attacked the US? Find him yet? No?
Did you?? You are so smart, YOU find him.
> And Rumsfield told of how we were going
> to be greeted as heroes with flowers and candy.
Dan Quayle must be one of your "heroes".
> And even though Saddam was a bastard, he
> was a bastard who kept terrorists under control in his nation.
Yea, and the Iraqi citizens, too, by the same sadistic methods.
> Let's hear you address these assertions with "facts" instead of
> smirking your way through with empty self-righteousness. Your game is
> through, loser. America is sick of you morons and IF we had half the
> guts of the French, your heads would be rolling in the gutter also.
Self descriptive drivel. Your playbook has been full of conjecture and
self-righteousnous.
Get over yourself.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243273 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 21:33 |
|
Vernon T not making much sense:
> Vernon T reduced to personal insults:
<<So, you're a "do as I say, not as I do" liberal??
OK, my mistake.>>
Yes, it is indeed "your mistake" to equate challenging and
criticizing someone's statements and opinions as being the same as
using personal insults because that's apparently all you've got
available.
> <<The idiot "CrimsnKid6" who thinks he knows more about
> the war than the soldiers do...........
>> The President has repeatedly lied to the American people about both
> <<Yes, but Clinton isn't president anymore.>>
> Clinton certainly lied, as do almost all politicians these days,
<<But it's only wrong if you don't like it??>>
I never said that it's "okay" for politicians (especially
presidents) to lie to the American people, just that it's commonplace.
I feel no particular necessity to defend Clinton in the areas in
which he committed wrongdoing, although it's not Clinton that's really
the subject here.
> As the saying goes, "Nobody died when Clinton lied."
<<Says you.
And that argument is for those of you who can't come up with
anything of warrent to argue.>>
Says history.
Whether a president's decisions result in unnecessary American
deaths or not isn't "anything of warrant to argue" in your opinion?
Well, that's your opinion--but IMHO continuous pointless deaths of
American soldiers under "Dubya" is something of GREAT warrant.
> I don't blame the American troops for believing in the cause they're
> purportedly fighting for, as it would be psychologically devastating
> for soldiers to accept that their lives were being risked
<<But yet, you continue to degrade and badmouth their cause............
no logic to your efforts at all.>>
Just because soldiers, of any nationality, have a desperate need to
believe that their sacrifices are for a "good cause" doesn't mean that
they really are. The U.S. soldiers are victims in this situation, just
as they were in Vietnam, being forced to kill and sometimes die based
on a mistaken, self-destructive policy.
Your idea of "supporting the troops" who are fighting and dying
based on a misguided, pointless policy apparently is to refuse to admit
that the mistake exists and has always existed--just as Kennedy,
Johnson and Nixon refused to RE Vietnam.
MY idea of "supporting the troops" is to immediately stop wasting
their efforts and lives in a futile, senseless operation that was never
in America's best interest and that won't ever--no matter how many
lives are expended--work out in America's favor.
You would seemingly prefer to see American soldiers continue to die
rather than admit that "Dubya" made a terrible mistake back in 2003.
I'd much rather admit the mistake, end the doomed operation
immediately, and preserve the lives of the still-surviving U.S.
occupation forces.
What's more important, the egos of "Dubya" and the right-wing
*warhawks* who support him, or the lives of American soldiers?
Differing points of view, obviously...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243274 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 21:56 |
|
John H. Schneider *super-stretching* a historical comparison:
<<The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.>>
Except that "Dubya" didn't invade, conquer and occupy a nation that
had attacked the United States, because the 9/11 attacks weren't
launched by another country but rather by an international terrorist
organization--which even Bush II's administration has admitted was not
being supported or financed by Iraq.
So basically "Dubya" has created another "enemy," the people of
Iraq, by invading and occupying their country--this "enemy" didn't
exist as a threat to the United States then, and is only a threat to
the lives of American soldiers due to their being occupation forces
there today.
(I'm not apologizing for the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, but his
government was no threat to the United States and had absolutely no
intention of attacking America.)
<<Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
And yes, that's a different war.>>
And an ENTIRELY different situation, as the United States went to
war against a sovereign nation that had attacked it--there's no valid
comparison at all.
The Iraq situation is much more comparable to Vietnam, wherein
American forces were involved in trying to control a people which
strongly resisted being occupied and controlled by any foreign power.
It was a devastatingly costly mistake in Vietnam, and it's currently
one in Iraq...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243275 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 22:13 |
|
On 1 Apr 2006 11:33:27 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
defends the terrorists with this diatribe:
--brevity--
>
> Says history.
> Whether a president's decisions result in unnecessary American
>deaths or not isn't "anything of warrant to argue" in your opinion?
> Well, that's your opinion--but IMHO continuous pointless deaths of
>American soldiers under "Dubya" is something of GREAT warrant.
There are no "pointless deaths of American soldiers" under President
GW Bush, unless, that is, you feel that the USA should be defeated in
the war on militant islam.
>
>> I don't blame the American troops for believing in the cause they're
>> purportedly fighting for, as it would be psychologically devastating
>> for soldiers to accept that their lives were being risked
>
><<But yet, you continue to degrade and badmouth their cause............
>
>no logic to your efforts at all.>>
>
> Just because soldiers, of any nationality, have a desperate need to
>believe that their sacrifices are for a "good cause" doesn't mean that
>they really are. The U.S. soldiers are victims in this situation, just
>as they were in Vietnam, being forced to kill and sometimes die based
>on a mistaken, self-destructive policy.
The only "mistaken, self-destructive policy" comes from your side,
where you apparently believe that if we just retreat and appease, then
the enemy will leave us alone. That's the pre-9/11 view of the world;
I am thankful that this President has a post-9/11 view of the world.
>
> Your idea of "supporting the troops" who are fighting and dying
>based on a misguided, pointless policy
Again, our troops are not fighting and dying supporting the policy
of your side.
> apparently is to refuse to admit
>that the mistake exists and has always existed--just as Kennedy,
>Johnson and Nixon refused to RE Vietnam.
The mistake was listening to people like you pre-9/11. The mistake
today would be listening to your side now.
> MY idea of "supporting the troops" is to immediately stop wasting
>their efforts and lives in a futile, senseless operation that was never
>in America's best interest and that won't ever--no matter how many
>lives are expended--work out in America's favor.
Then you support the US military withdrawal from Germany? WWII is
over.
As for operations in the Middle East, we have a strategic position
that you would have us give up. That is the very definition of futile
and senseless, is against America's best interests, and would
guarantee that large numbers of lives would be expended as it would
never work out in America's favor. Remember, one of the reasons that
Bin Laden gave for the attacks on 9/11 was the defeat of America in
Mogadishu. You would hand them that victory all over again.
>
> You would seemingly prefer to see American soldiers continue to die
>rather than admit that "Dubya" made a terrible mistake back in 2003.
You want it to be a mistake so that more soldiers will die - all so
you can blame it on president GW Bush. The only mistake is listening
to people like you in the first place.
> I'd much rather admit the mistake, end the doomed operation
>immediately, and preserve the lives of the still-surviving U.S.
>occupation forces.
"still-surving US occupation forces" makes it sound like we have
been defeated. Why is it that whenever I hear from you, it sounds
exactly like the propaganda from the terrorists?
The only way it will become a mistake and a doomed operation will be
if your side ever regains power.
>
> What's more important, the egos of "Dubya" and the right-wing
>*warhawks* who support him, or the lives of American soldiers?
What's more important, the anti-American hate of the leftists and
the terrorists who they seem to support, or our own existence?
We are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them
over here.
> Differing points of view, obviously...
Which would you rather have, terrorists fighting heavily armed and
equipped US soldiers over there, or terrorists blowing up shopping
mallls and schoolbusses over here?
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243276 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 21:54 |
|
On 1 Apr 2006 11:33:27 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote:
>Vernon T not making much sense:
>
>> Vernon T reduced to personal insults:
>
><<So, you're a "do as I say, not as I do" liberal??
>OK, my mistake.>>
>
> Yes, it is indeed "your mistake" to equate challenging and
>criticizing someone's statements and opinions as being the same as
>using personal insults because that's apparently all you've got
>available.
>
>> <<The idiot "CrimsnKid6" who thinks he knows more about
>> the war than the soldiers do...........
>
>>> The President has repeatedly lied to the American people about both
>
>
>> <<Yes, but Clinton isn't president anymore.>>
>
>
>> Clinton certainly lied, as do almost all politicians these days,
>
><<But it's only wrong if you don't like it??>>
>
> I never said that it's "okay" for politicians (especially
>presidents) to lie to the American people, just that it's commonplace.
> I feel no particular necessity to defend Clinton in the areas in
>which he committed wrongdoing, although it's not Clinton that's really
>the subject here.
>
>> As the saying goes, "Nobody died when Clinton lied."
>
><<Says you.
>And that argument is for those of you who can't come up with
>anything of warrent to argue.>>
>
> Says history.
> Whether a president's decisions result in unnecessary American
>deaths or not isn't "anything of warrant to argue" in your opinion?
> Well, that's your opinion--but IMHO continuous pointless deaths of
>American soldiers under "Dubya" is something of GREAT warrant.
>
>> I don't blame the American troops for believing in the cause they're
>> purportedly fighting for, as it would be psychologically devastating
>> for soldiers to accept that their lives were being risked
>
><<But yet, you continue to degrade and badmouth their cause............
>
>no logic to your efforts at all.>>
>
> Just because soldiers, of any nationality, have a desperate need to
>believe that their sacrifices are for a "good cause" doesn't mean that
>they really are. The U.S. soldiers are victims in this situation, just
>as they were in Vietnam, being forced to kill and sometimes die based
>on a mistaken, self-destructive policy.
>
> Your idea of "supporting the troops" who are fighting and dying
>based on a misguided, pointless policy apparently is to refuse to admit
>that the mistake exists and has always existed--just as Kennedy,
>Johnson and Nixon refused to RE Vietnam.
> MY idea of "supporting the troops" is to immediately stop wasting
>their efforts and lives in a futile, senseless operation that was never
>in America's best interest and that won't ever--no matter how many
>lives are expended--work out in America's favor.
>
> You would seemingly prefer to see American soldiers continue to die
>rather than admit that "Dubya" made a terrible mistake back in 2003.
> I'd much rather admit the mistake, end the doomed operation
>immediately, and preserve the lives of the still-surviving U.S.
>occupation forces.
>
> What's more important, the egos of "Dubya" and the right-wing
>*warhawks* who support him, or the lives of American soldiers?
> Differing points of view, obviously...
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
I share yours.
< groceries >
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243277 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 22:24 |
|
John H. Schneider II with his definition of "quagmire":
<<No quagmires from President GW Bush, meaningless or otherwise.>>
I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam quagmire quite clearly (and
for those that aren't, there's a good, brief summarization in the last
section of THE MARCH OF FOLLY by Barbara W. Tuchman), and the situation
in Iraq is looking more and more parallel as time goes by.
The speeches by "Dubya" on the subject are even beginning to sound
eerily like Lyndon Johnson's from forty years ago.
<<And if you want to complain about how long we might be in Iraq
and/or Afganistan (and then maybe Iran, Syria, North Korea, and
wherever else), I'll remind you that we're still in Germany and Japan
- and WWII ended over 60 years ago.>>
Countries which initiated war against the United States in 1941, and
which (especially in the case of Germany) were serious long-term
military threats to the United States.
(Germany in '41 was at least twenty times the threat that Iraq was
in 2003, a much more powerful and threatening country.)
Furthermore, our forces in those countries are no longer occupation
forces but rather allied forces, and have been for over a
half-century--no U.S. servicepeople are being killed by any resistance
movements there.
The Luftwaffe even fought alongside the other NATO air forces
(including the U.S.) in the air operations that resulted in the
overthrow and imprisonment of Slobovan Milosivich and the end of the
Serbian genocide in Kosovo.
Situations entirely not comparible at all--the World War II
analogies *collapsed* in Vietnam four decades ago...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243278 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 22:26 |
|
On 1 Apr 2006 11:56:14 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
defended the terrorists with this diatribe:
>John H. Schneider II wrote:
>
><<The difference is that President GW Bush is actually defending the
>country. He's taking the war "to" the enemy, rather than sitting back
>and treating a war as nothing more than an exercise in legal action.>>
>
> Except that "Dubya" didn't invade, conquer and occupy a nation that
>had attacked the United States, because the 9/11 attacks weren't
>launched by another country but rather by an international terrorist
>organization--which even Bush II's administration has admitted was not
>being supported or financed by Iraq.
Nobody ever said that he did. Why don't you respond to what
President GW Bush did say?
> So basically "Dubya" has created another "enemy," the people of
>Iraq, by invading and occupying their country--this "enemy" didn't
>exist as a threat to the United States then, and is only a threat to
>the lives of American soldiers due to their being occupation forces
>there today.
Nice bit of history revisionism. If anything, President GW Bush
continued the Clinton policy or regime change in Iraq. The only
difference is that President GW Bush was serious about it.
President GWW Bush also looked at the strategic picture of the War
and decided that we needed better strategic positioning.
The only real threats to the lives of our soldiers today is people
like you giving encouragement to the enemy.
>
> (I'm not apologizing for the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, but his
>government was no threat to the United States and had absolutely no
>intention of attacking America.)
Nobody said that his government was a threat to the United States,
nor that he had any intention of attacking America. Again, why don't
you respond to what was actually said?
>
><<Would you rather had the President, on 12/8/41, send the Japanese
>Ambassador a bunch of arrest warrants for the Japanese pilots?
> And yes, that's a different war.>>
>
> And an ENTIRELY different situation, as the United States went to
>war against a sovereign nation that had attacked it--there's no valid
>comparison at all.
So, nobody attacked us on 9/11. Thanks for that little bit of info.
I thought, and you can correct me if I'm wrong; that forces of Al
Queda, operating under the umbrella of the government of Afganistan,
killed 3000+ people in attacks on 9/11.
Now, given that Germany did not attack the USA on 12/7/41, should we
have went to war against them? What about Italy? And don't try to tell
me that Italy was any great threat to the USA at any point in the war.
> The Iraq situation is much more comparable to Vietnam, wherein
>American forces were involved in trying to control a people which
>strongly resisted being occupied and controlled by any foreign power.
You want to make the issue another Vietnam, because it's the only
way you can guarantee another defeat for the USA. Interestingly
enough, you sound exactly like the terrorists.
Why is it that you want the USA destroyed?
Why do you still feel that the wrong side won the Cold War?
>
> It was a devastatingly costly mistake in Vietnam, and it's currently
>one in Iraq...
The costly mistake in Vietnam was listening to people like you.
Fortunately we aren't making that mistake this time.
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243279 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 22:36 |
|
On 1 Apr 2006 12:24:26 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
couldn't respond to what I actually posted so he spun it into this:
>John H. Schneider II wrote:
>
><<No quagmires from President GW Bush, meaningless or otherwise.>>
>
> I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam quagmire quite clearly (and
>for those that aren't, there's a good, brief summarization in the last
>section of THE MARCH OF FOLLY by Barbara W. Tuchman), and the situation
>in Iraq is looking more and more parallel as time goes by.
> The speeches by "Dubya" on the subject are even beginning to sound
>eerily like Lyndon Johnson's from forty years ago.
I see you're still old enough to use the old leftist propaganda too.
>
><<And if you want to complain about how long we might be in Iraq
>and/or Afganistan (and then maybe Iran, Syria, North Korea, and
>wherever else), I'll remind you that we're still in Germany and Japan
>- and WWII ended over 60 years ago.>>
>
> Countries which initiated war against the United States in 1941, and
>which (especially in the case of Germany) were serious long-term
>military threats to the United States.
Ok, so Germany is still a "serious long-term military threat" to the
United States?
Whoa. I must have missed that one.
> (Germany in '41 was at least twenty times the threat that Iraq was
>in 2003, a much more powerful and threatening country.)
Again, nobody said that Iraq was a direct threat to the USA in 2003.
Why are you still responding to things which weren't said?
>
> Furthermore, our forces in those countries are no longer occupation
>forces but rather allied forces, and have been for over a
>half-century--no U.S. servicepeople are being killed by any resistance
>movements there.
Our forces in Iraq right now are allied forces. You must have missed
the part where the Iraqi army is being rebuilt. Understandable, your
myopia prevents you from seeing a lot of things.
> The Luftwaffe even fought alongside the other NATO air forces
>(including the U.S.) in the air operations that resulted in the
>overthrow and imprisonment of Slobovan Milosivich and the end of the
>Serbian genocide in Kosovo.
Wait a minute - You just said that Germany is still a "serious
long-term military threat" to the United States. If that's true, then
how can they be fighting alongside our forces?
Maybe you think that it's some kind of German plot to gain our
confidence, then attack us when our backs are turned. That could be
why you ignore the fact that we still have troops in Germany - and
WWII ended over 60 years ago.
>
> Situations entirely not comparible at all--the World War II
>analogies *collapsed* in Vietnam four decades ago...
Your arguements collapsed on 9/11.
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243280 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 22:36 |
|
"CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143920007.781438.96210 [at] z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Vernon T making much sense:
>
> <<So, you're a "do as I say, not as I do" liberal??
> OK, my mistake.>>
>
> Yes, it is indeed "your mistake" to equate challenging and
> criticizing someone's statements and opinions as being the same as
> using personal insults because that's apparently all you've got
> available.
>
Liberals with any integrity would not consider being called "liberal"
an insult. The fact that you admit you feel insulted says volumes.
> <<But yet, you continue to degrade and badmouth their cause............
> The U.S. soldiers are victims in this situation, just
> as they were in Vietnam, being forced to kill and sometimes die based
> on a mistaken, self-destructive policy.
Have you actually talked to ANY soldier. I have talked to many (who have
been there). They only feel victimized by people like you, and the media
bias.
>
> You would seemingly prefer to see American soldiers continue to die
> rather than admit that "Dubya" made a terrible mistake back in 2003.
My opinion back then was "please don't". Mistake or not, it's been done.
Our duty as Americans is to support them, whether we agree with their cause
or not.
> I'd much rather admit the mistake, end the doomed operation
> immediately, and preserve the lives of the still-surviving U.S.
> occupation forces.
I'd not argue with an end to hostilities.
> Differing points of view, obviously...
Maybe. Maybe not.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243281 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 22:39 |
|
Numan on two diametrically different situations:
<<You are right though. They are not worth our time, lives, or money.>>
The Iraqis don't want to be occupied by any foreign power, just as
the Vietnamese didn't want to be a half-century ago.
The U.S. wasted "times, lives and money," in the process doing vast
physical damage in Vietnam and killing hundreds of thousands of people
(mostly civilians), carrying out a senseless, misguided policy.
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all insisted that this was being done to
"benefit" the Vietnamese people, just as "Dubya" and his *warhawk*
supporters are now insisting that the U.S. is "helping the Iraqi
people" by subjecting them to military occupation by a foreign power.
<<Neither
were the Kuwaitis for that matter. We could have just let Saddam keep
it.
Should have according to you. Isn't it a "hands off" policy you want?
It wouldn't have affected us too much.>>
If you can't tell the difference between being liberators and
invaders/occupiers, that's a serious perception problem. American-led
coalition forces were AGAINST the invaders and occupiers of Kuwait (the
Iraqis) in 1991, but now Americans have BECOME the invaders and
occupiers of Iraq.
If you can't see any *middle ground* between neoisolationism and
aggressive militarism, IMHO you have an extremely simplistic and
limited perspective on a complex issue...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243282 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 22:46 |
|
John H. Scheider II not much on verb tense:
> Countries which initiated war against the United States in 1941, and
>which (especially in the case of Germany) *WERE* serious long-term
>military threats to the United States.
<<Ok, so Germany *IS* still a "serious long-term military threat" to
the
United States?
Whoa. I must have missed that one.>>
If by "that one" you mean the difference between past tense and
present tense--yes, you missed it completely...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243283 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 22:50 |
|
"CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143923066.926529.306040 [at] z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam quagmire quite clearly (and
> for those that aren't, there's a good, brief summarization in the last
> section of THE MARCH OF FOLLY by Barbara W. Tuchman), and the situation
> in Iraq is looking more and more parallel as time goes by.
And since she spent so much time in Vietnam, she can be trusted. <sar>
> Countries which initiated war against the United States in 1941, and
> which (especially in the case of Germany) were serious long-term
> military threats to the United States.
> (Germany in '41 was at least twenty times the threat that Iraq was
> in 2003, a much more powerful and threatening country.)
>
> Furthermore, our forces in those countries are no longer occupation
> forces but rather allied forces, and have been for over a
> half-century--no U.S. servicepeople are being killed by any resistance
> movements there.
So, you are willing to give 50 years to Germany but not to Iraq.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243284 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 22:39 |
|
"SrEspectro" <nunca [at] hogar.mundo> wrote in message
news:jhmt221vg1c7b805qf9p8lfpigj04ouufs [at] 4ax.com...
> I share yours.
>
>
> < groceries >
Can I share your groceries, too?
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243285 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 23:03 |
|
John H. Schneider II comparing U.S. forces in allied nations and
American-occupied Itaq:
> Furthermore, our forces in those countries are no longer
occupation
>forces but rather allied forces, and have been for over a
>half-century--no U.S. servicepeople are being killed by any resistance
>movements there.
<<Our forces in Iraq right now are allied forces. You must have missed
the part where the Iraqi army is being rebuilt. Understandable, your
myopia prevents you from seeing a lot of things.>>
This is the same thing that Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon claimed in
Vietnam--that an American-established government, in power only because
it was *propped up* by massive U.S. military force, constituted an
"allied nation."
And, of course, the U.S. spent over a decade "rebuilding* the Saigon
regime's military forces, only to have them collapse completely when
finally required to fight for themselves.
The fact is that the vast majority of Vietnamese people considered
the U.S. to be a foreign occupying power, just as most of the Iraqi
people do today--hence the continuing resistance movement.
Once the American *props* are removed from any U.S.-established
Iraqi government, I expect that it will be overthrown rather
quickly--which is why "Dubya" is sounding increasingly like Lyndon
Johnson did forty years ago, talking about the "long haul" and other
such Vietnam-era blather.
BTW, does it ever occur to you that anyone's disagreements with you
are based on patriotism (perception of America's interests) rather than
narrow political partisanship?
Because IME it's the most partisan, ideologically-oriented persons
who are the quickest to accuse others of that mindset, albeit on the
*other side* to their own...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243286 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 23:21 |
|
John H. Schneider II *putting words on my keyboard*:
> What's more important, the egos of "Dubya" and the right-wing
>*warhawks* who support him, or the lives of American soldiers?
<<What's more important, the anti-American hate of the leftists and
the terrorists who they seem to support, or our own existence?>>
The same old drivel about pro-peace protesters during the Vietnam
era "hating America" and "supporting the communists."
Now it's "terrorists" instead of "communists," but the mindset is
the same--if you disagree with the government you're "against America"
and "helping the enemy."
The people who opposed American involvement in Vietnam were right,
and IMHO so are those that oppose the U.S. occupation of Iraq
today--it's a pointless exercise in trying to impose the American
government's will on a sovereign people via military force, and they
(the Iraqis) won't accept it.
<<We are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them
over here.>>
IMHO there was never any danger of Iraq invading the U.S., either by
direct military force or covertly.
Once again, that exact same argument was used RE the Vietnam
conflict--that "the communists" (meaning any Vietnamese opposed to the
U.S. controlling their country) would be attacking and invading America
if they weren't defeated in Vietnam.
> Differing points of view, obviously...
<<Which would you rather have, terrorists fighting heavily armed and
equipped US soldiers over there, or terrorists blowing up shopping
mallls and schoolbusses over here?>>
Almost all of what you call Iraqi "terrorists" are resistance
fighters, engaging against U.S. occupation forces out of a desire to
see their country free of foreign domination.
How many of them would cross the ocean to attack the U.S. if
American forces were withdrawn from Iraq?
The same number as "Viet Cong terrorists" invaded the United States
in the late 1970's, I'd say...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243287 ] |
Sa, 01 April 2006 23:51 |
|
John H. Schneider II still with discredited World War II comparisons:
>And an ENTIRELY different situation, as the United States went to
>war against a *SOVEREIGN NATION* that had attacked it--there's no valid
>comparison at all.
<<So, *NOBODY* attacked us on 9/11. Thanks for that little bit of
info.>>
No "sovereign nation"--with that critical *correction,* you're most
welcome.
<<I thought, and you can correct me if I'm wrong; that forces of Al
Queda, operating under the umbrella of the government of Afganistan,
killed 3000+ people in attacks on 9/11.>>
That's correct, but--although you're seemingly trying to *fudge* it
a bit with your "umbrella" phrase--Al Queda is NOT a "sovereign
nation."
Even if I were to grant you that Al Queda was the government of
Afghanistan--which I'm not because it wasn't--that would be
justification for invading only Afghanistan, not Iraq.
<<Now, given that Germany did not attack the USA on 12/7/41, should we
have went to war against them? What about Italy? And don't try to tell
me that Italy was any great threat to the USA at any point in the
war.>>
Both Germany and Italy formally declared war on the United States on
December 10, 1941--they initiated the state of war against the United
States at that time.
If another country directly initiates warfare against America,
whether by attack (Japan) or formal declaration (Germany & Italy), of
course the United States is going to engage in hostilities against
them.
However, IIRC Iraq neither attacked the United States nor did it
declare war back in 2003.
> The Iraq situation is much more comparable to Vietnam, wherein
>American forces were involved in trying to control a people which
>strongly resisted being occupied and controlled by any foreign power.
<<You want to make the issue another Vietnam, because it's the only
way you can guarantee another defeat for the USA. Interestingly
enough, you sound exactly like the terrorists.>>
The situation is much more parallel to the Vietnam conflict than to
World War II, putting American forces into a situation where they're
*at odds* with a native anti-imperialist resistance movement.
Calling the resistance fighters "terrorists," just as they were
branded as "Soviet-style communists" or "Viet Cong" (an
American-invented term), doesn't change the basic dynamic--they U.S.
could/can only "win" by engaging in a massive genocidal destruction of
most of the country's population, because most of the people were/are
opposed (based on patriotism) to American forces being there.
I'm unwilling to sanction massive genocide by U.S. forces in order
to have them "win" a conflict they should never have been involved in.
If that attitude strikes you as "pro-terrorist," that's your
perspective.
<<Why is it that you want the USA destroyed?
Why do you still feel that the wrong side won the Cold War?>>
Ummmm...Where did I make either of these statements? Is that what
you're reduced to now, claiming "hatred of America" by any Americans
who disagree with you?
And why do you equate dissent with treason, like totalitatian
governments worldwide do?
> It was a devastatingly costly mistake in Vietnam, and it's currently
>one in Iraq...
<<The costly mistake in Vietnam was listening to people like you.
Fortunately we aren't making that mistake this time.>>
The mistake in Vietnam was the U.S. ever becoming invovled in the
first place--it cost 58,000 needlessly-lost American lives and massive
death and destruction in Vietnam.
Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all insisted that the U.S. would never
end its self-destructive misadventure in Vietnam--but it did, when the
American people eventually realized their country's major mistake.
I'm betting on the American people this time, too...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243288 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 00:01 |
|
Vernon T misunderstanding my point:
> Yes, it is indeed "your mistake" to equate challenging and
> criticizing someone's statements and opinions as being the same as
> using personal insults because that's apparently all you've got
> available.
<<Liberals with any integrity would not consider being called "liberal"
an insult. The fact that you admit you feel insulted says volumes.>>
I was referring to your earlier use of the word "idiotic" (clearly
personally insulting), not the word "liberal."
Although my personal beliefs are rather too complex to be defined
purely ideologically, I consider both "liberal" and "conservative" to
be descriptive rather than insulting.
Of course, I also recall that Lyndon Johnson was considered highly
liberal on social and race-equality issues yet his militaristic Vietnam
policy was an unmitigated disaster for America.
I'm opposed to aggressive militarism, whether perpetrated by
liberals or conservatives or both...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243289 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 00:29 |
|
Vernon T on historical perspective:
> I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam quagmire quite clearly (and
> for those that aren't, there's a good, brief summarization in the last
> section of THE MARCH OF FOLLY by Barbara W. Tuchman), and the situation
> in Iraq is looking more and more parallel as time goes by.
<<And since she spent so much time in Vietnam, she can be trusted.
<sar>>>
She's a widely-respected, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who does
careful research, so I consider her a very accurate source who has no
reason (like partisanship or ideology) to be anything other than
truthful.
> Countries which initiated war against the United States in 1941, and
> which (especially in the case of Germany) were serious long-term
> military threats to the United States.
> (Germany in '41 was at least twenty times the threat that Iraq was
> in 2003, a much more powerful and threatening country.)
> Furthermore, our forces in those countries are no longer occupation
> forces but rather allied forces, and have been for over a
> half-century--no U.S. servicepeople are being killed by any resistance
> movements there.
<<So, you are willing to give 50 years to Germany but not to Iraq.>>
There was never any serious German resistance to the post-World War
II American occupation, and the minor isolated incidents (mostly
passive sabotage) that did occur took place only in the first few
months of the occupation.
Of course, Germany started World War II and brought its ultimate
defeat and division upon itself, something almost all the German people
admitted (albeit somewhat grudgingly in some cases) during the
occupation.
The Iraqi resistance is going on strongly after over three years,
and most of the Iraqi people clearly feel that the United States was
unjustified in invading and occupying their country.
So I see very little similarity between post-World War II Germany
and the current situation in Iraq...
L.L.A.P.,
--C.K.
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243290 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 01:02 |
|
On 1 Apr 2006 13:21:06 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
trolled, lied, and supported the terrorists with this bit of
propaganda:
>John H. Schneider II *putting words on my keyboard*:
>
>> What's more important, the egos of "Dubya" and the right-wing
>>*warhawks* who support him, or the lives of American soldiers?
>
><<What's more important, the anti-American hate of the leftists and
>the terrorists who they seem to support, or our own existence?>>
>
> The same old drivel about pro-peace protesters during the Vietnam
>era "hating America" and "supporting the communists."
When you actively support the same objectives that the enemy has,
then what should it be called?
> Now it's "terrorists" instead of "communists," but the mindset is
>the same--if you disagree with the government you're "against America"
>and "helping the enemy."
I never said that. I never said anything about disagreeing with the
government meaning that you're "against America" or "helping the
enemy".
What I did do was to point out that the exact same arguements that
you're using are the ones being used by the terrorists. Now, why do
you suppose that the terrorists are using those arguements? Is it
because they're pro-America? It is because they support the troops? Or
the mission?
Unlikely.
>
> The people who opposed American involvement in Vietnam were right,
They got what the Soviet Union wanted.
>and IMHO so are those that oppose the U.S. occupation of Iraq
>today--it's a pointless exercise in trying to impose the American
>government's will on a sovereign people via military force, and they
>(the Iraqis) won't accept it.
We removed a dictator and are giving them the opportunity to form
their own government.
Why is it that you are so against freedom?
>
><<We are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them
>over here.>>
>
> IMHO there was never any danger of Iraq invading the U.S., either by
>direct military force or covertly.
I never said that there was. I was specifically referring to the
terrorists - and you full well knew that.
Again, why don't you respond to what is actually in my posts?
> Once again, that exact same argument was used RE the Vietnam
>conflict--that "the communists" (meaning any Vietnamese opposed to the
>U.S. controlling their country) would be attacking and invading America
>if they weren't defeated in Vietnam.
So, you're saying that terrorists never attacked America on our own
soil?
If people like you ever run things, we won't have to worry about an
invasion, you'll simply surrender without their needing to fire a
shot.
>
>> Differing points of view, obviously...
>
><<Which would you rather have, terrorists fighting heavily armed and
>equipped US soldiers over there, or terrorists blowing up shopping
>mallls and schoolbusses over here?>>
>
> Almost all of what you call Iraqi "terrorists" are resistance
>fighters,
Now that's an outright lie. Almost all of the terrorists are
terrorists because we moved the battlefield there rather than letting
it come here.
You need to stay away from Michael Moore's scribblings on his
napkin.
> engaging against U.S. occupation forces out of a desire to
>see their country free of foreign domination.
If they are so engaged against US forces, then why have attacks
against US forces decreased and attacks against Iraqi civilian targets
increased?
Besides, we're bringing freedom. No longer do they have to live
under the terror of Saddam.
> How many of them would cross the ocean to attack the U.S. if
>American forces were withdrawn from Iraq?
>
> The same number as "Viet Cong terrorists" invaded the United States
>in the late 1970's, I'd say...
And the attacks on 9/11 never happened.
Thank you for that bit of history revisionism.
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243291 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 01:03 |
|
On 1 Apr 2006 12:46:33 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com> lied
and trolled:
>John H. Scheider II not much on verb tense:
>
>> Countries which initiated war against the United States in 1941, and
>>which (especially in the case of Germany) *WERE* serious long-term
>>military threats to the United States.
>
><<Ok, so Germany *IS* still a "serious long-term military threat" to
>the
>United States?
> Whoa. I must have missed that one.>>
>
> If by "that one" you mean the difference between past tense and
>present tense--yes, you missed it completely...
Again, can you answer the question?
WWII is OVER. Why do we still have troops in Germany?
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243292 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 01:11 |
|
On 1 Apr 2006 13:03:08 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
trolled, lied, engaged in history revisionism, and supported the
terrorists with this bit of propaganda:
>John H. Schneider II comparing U.S. forces in allied nations and
>American-occupied Itaq:
>
> > Furthermore, our forces in those countries are no longer
>occupation
>>forces but rather allied forces, and have been for over a
>>half-century--no U.S. servicepeople are being killed by any resistance
>>movements there.
>
><<Our forces in Iraq right now are allied forces. You must have missed
>the part where the Iraqi army is being rebuilt. Understandable, your
>myopia prevents you from seeing a lot of things.>>
>
> This is the same thing that Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon claimed in
>Vietnam--that an American-established government, in power only because
>it was *propped up* by massive U.S. military force, constituted an
>"allied nation."
Actually before your side stabbed the South Vietnamese government in
the back, they were doing pretty well.
> And, of course, the U.S. spent over a decade "rebuilding* the Saigon
>regime's military forces, only to have them collapse completely when
>finally required to fight for themselves.
No, the treaty that was signed said that in the event of a North
Vietnamese invasion, we would again begin unrestricted bombing (which
was why the North Vietnamese signed a treaty in the first place).
When the North invaded, your side refused to allow the planes to
take off.
>
> The fact is that the vast majority of Vietnamese people considered
>the U.S. to be a foreign occupying power, just as most of the Iraqi
>people do today--hence the continuing resistance movement.
I see you still believe the old Viet Cong propaganda. Have you ever
been able to think for yourself?
> Once the American *props* are removed from any U.S.-established
>Iraqi government, I expect that it will be overthrown rather
>quickly--which is why "Dubya" is sounding increasingly like Lyndon
>Johnson did forty years ago, talking about the "long haul" and other
>such Vietnam-era blather.
Again, please explain to me why we "still" have troops in Germany?
WWII is over.
And just in case you missed it, the war of militant islam against
civilization has been going on since the 7th century. Nobody ever said
it was going to be easy.
>
> BTW, does it ever occur to you that anyone's disagreements with you
>are based on patriotism (perception of America's interests) rather than
>narrow political partisanship?
If you weren't parroting what the terrorists were saying, then I
could believe you.
> Because IME it's the most partisan, ideologically-oriented persons
>who are the quickest to accuse others of that mindset, albeit on the
>*other side* to their own...
Then why don't you stop?
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
| Re: United Earth OT [message #243293 ] |
So, 02 April 2006 01:28 |
|
On 1 Apr 2006 13:51:58 -0800, "CrimsnKid6" <CrimsnKid6 [at] aol.com>
trolled, lied, engaged in history revisionism, and supported the
terrorists with this bit of propaganda:
>John H. Schneider II wrote:
>
>>And an ENTIRELY different situation, as the United States went to
>>war against a *SOVEREIGN NATION* that had attacked it--there's no valid
>>comparison at all.
>
><<So, *NOBODY* attacked us on 9/11. Thanks for that little bit of
>info.>>
>
> No "sovereign nation"--with that critical *correction,* you're most
>welcome.
Afganistan wasn't a sovereign nation? Please indicate the occupying
forces in Afganistan on 9/11.
>
><<I thought, and you can correct me if I'm wrong; that forces of Al
>Queda, operating under the umbrella of the government of Afganistan,
>killed 3000+ people in attacks on 9/11.>>
>
> That's correct, but--although you're seemingly trying to *fudge* it
>a bit with your "umbrella" phrase--Al Queda is NOT a "sovereign
>nation."
I never said that they were. Why don't you respond to what I did
say?
> Even if I were to grant you that Al Queda was the government of
>Afghanistan--which I'm not because it wasn't--that would be
>justification for invading only Afghanistan, not Iraq.
And Iraq has strategic location, and it was already official US
policy for "regime change" in Iraq.
Have you ever looked at a map?
>
><<Now, given that Germany did not attack the USA on 12/7/41, should we
>have went to war against them? What about Italy? And don't try to tell
>me that Italy was any great threat to the USA at any point in the
>war.>>
>
> Both Germany and Italy formally declared war on the United States on
>December 10, 1941--they initiated the state of war against the United
>States at that time.
> If another country directly initiates warfare against America,
>whether by attack (Japan) or formal declaration (Germany & Italy), of
>course the United States is going to engage in hostilities against
>them.
And according to the cease-fire at the end of the first Gulf War,
Saddam was allowed to take no offensive action against Coalition
forces.
>
> However, IIRC Iraq neither attacked the United States nor did it
>declare war back in 2003.
Nobody ever said that Iraq attacked the USA, nor did anyone say that
they declared war on the USA back in 2000. Why don't you respond to
what is actually posted?
Again, according to the cease-fire at the end of the first Gulf War,
Saddam was allowed to take no offensive action against Coalition
forces. Violation of that abrogates the cease-fire.
>
>> The Iraq situation is much more comparable to Vietnam, wherein
>>American forces were involved in trying to control a people which
>>strongly resisted being occupied and controlled by any foreign power.
>
><<You want to make the issue another Vietnam, because it's the only
>way you can guarantee another defeat for the USA. Interestingly
>enough, you sound exactly like the terrorists.>>
>
> The situation is much more parallel to the Vietnam conflict than to
>World War II, putting American forces into a situation where they're
>*at odds* with a native anti-imperialist resistance movement.
You want to keep trying to make it a parallel because you apparently
have a vested interest in the US losing.
The actual parallel is Europe prior to WWII, when the governments of
Europe kept appeasing Nazi Germany in hopes that Hitler wouldn't
attack. I admit, it worked for a while, up to about Septmenber of
1939.
> Calling the resistance fighters "terrorists,"
They are not "resistance fighters" no matter how much of their
propanganda you spout.
>just as they were
>branded as "Soviet-style communists" or "Viet Cong" (an
>American-invented term), doesn't change the basic dynamic--they U.S.
>could/can only "win" by engaging in a massive genocidal destruction of
>most of the country's population, because most of the people were/are
>opposed (based on patriotism) to American forces being there.
Your hatred of the USA and freedom really gets the best of you,
doesn't it?
>
> I'm unwilling to sanction massive genocide by U.S. forces in order
>to have them "win" a conflict they should never have been involved in.
> If that attitude strikes you as "pro-terrorist," that's your
>perspective.
My side hasn't committed "massive genocide", nor are there any plans
to do so. It is a good terrorist propaganda piece to keep pushing that
idea though.
>
> <<Why is it that you want the USA destroyed?
> Why do you still feel that the wrong side won the Cold War?>>
>
> Ummmm...Where did I make either of these statements?
I never said that you did. Why don't you respond to what I actually
post? I see that it is a major problem with you.
>Is that what
>you're reduced to now, claiming "hatred of America" by any Americans
>who disagree with you?
I never claimed that. Again, why don't you respond to what I
actually posted?
> And why do you equate dissent with treason, like totalitatian
>governments worldwide do?
Again, I never made that connection. You know, it isn't that
difficult to read what I actually posted and respond to it.
>
>> It was a devastatingly costly mistake in Vietnam, and it's currently
>>one in Iraq...
>
><<The costly mistake in Vietnam was listening to people like you.
>Fortunately we aren't making that mistake this time.>>
>
> The mistake in Vietnam was the U.S. ever becoming invovled in the
>first place--it cost 58,000 needlessly-lost American lives and massive
>death and destruction in Vietnam.
And your side is responsible for it.At least we agree that the cost
of your side's mistake was very high.
> Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon all insisted that the U.S. would never
>end its self-destructive misadventure in Vietnam--but it did, when the
>American people eventually realized their country's major mistake.
Yes, they elected Ronald Reagan to win the Cold War that your side
was so desperately trying to lose.
>
> I'm betting on the American people this time, too...
So am I.
> L.L.A.P.,
> --C.K.
John H. Schneider II
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:44:08 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,13287 Sekunden |
