Seems W is tapdancing as fast as he can trying to insure that the
nuclear door stays closed. Apparently it's not just
the "chickenshit" liberals who frequent this site that have that
desire. Still there are former marines and others who think that
nukes are the best way to take care of the situation over there. But
I guess that their opinion is far more informed than mine or even
W's. I am very grateful that some people are not in positions to
change the world. No nukes is good nukes!
Nuclear madness
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
No nukes is good nukes!
Tell that to fanatical Muslim scum!
I'm telling that to every person on earth. I'm not so narrowminded
to believe, as some have in years past, that limited tactical
nuclear weapons are OK.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
>
No nukes is good nukes!Tell that to fanatical Muslim scum!
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
> <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
> >
> No nukes is good nukes!
>
> Tell that to fanatical Muslim scum!I'm telling that to every person on earth. I'm not so narrowminded
to believe, as some have in years past, that limited tactical
nuclear weapons are OK.
The reason they are OK for the US is because it is a deterrent....a
very STRONG deterrent. We have them because we can be trusted by
everyone with them both in use and non-use. No one with bad
intentions will ever get their hands on them. People who complain
about the US being world police, agressors (like Dick re: Iraq), and
power-hungry are simply in the dark. Imagine if we wanted to take
over ANYWHERE....if we suddenly began thinking like Hitler or Saddam.
But we are not like that and everyone knows that. Nukes are necessary
in this day and age--esp. in the arsenal of a strong democracy.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
> > <three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > No nukes is good nukes!
> >
> > Tell that to fanatical Muslim scum!
>
> I'm telling that to every person on earth. I'm not so
narrowminded
> to believe, as some have in years past, that limited tactical
> nuclear weapons are OK.The reason they are OK for the US is because it is a
deterrent....a
very STRONG deterrent. We have them because we can be trusted by
everyone with them both in use and non-use. No one with bad
intentions will ever get their hands on them. People who complain
about the US being world police, agressors (like Dick re: Iraq),
and
power-hungry are simply in the dark. Imagine if we wanted to take
over ANYWHERE....if we suddenly began thinking like Hitler or
Saddam.
But we are not like that and everyone knows that. Nukes are
necessary
in this day and age--esp. in the arsenal of a strong democracy.
C'mon Rob. You and I both know that the world would be a better
place if no one had nuclear capabilities.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
> The reason they are OK for the US is because it is a
deterrent....a
> very STRONG deterrent. We have them because we can be trusted by
> everyone with them both in use and non-use. No one with bad
> intentions will ever get their hands on them. People who complain
> about the US being world police, agressors (like Dick re: Iraq),
and
> power-hungry are simply in the dark. Imagine if we wanted to take
> over ANYWHERE....if we suddenly began thinking like Hitler or
Saddam.
> But we are not like that and everyone knows that. Nukes are
necessary
> in this day and age--esp. in the arsenal of a strong democracy.C'mon Rob. You and I both know that the world would be a better
place if no one had nuclear capabilities.
What I know is what I wrote above. And BTW, those weapons you
say "the world would be better without" ended WWII with Japan and
saved hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives that would
have absolutely occurred with the planned all-out invasion.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:> > The reason they are OK for the US is because it is a
> deterrent....a
> > very STRONG deterrent. We have them because we can be trusted
by
> > everyone with them both in use and non-use. No one with bad
> > intentions will ever get their hands on them.
You have a lot more faith in the powers that be than I have. I don't
trust GWB, I don't trust him at all. Sure, I voted for Kerry. Not
because Kerry was right but because he wasn't Bush. Hell, I would
have voted for you rather than W.
What I know is what I wrote above. And BTW, those weapons you
say "the world would be better without" ended WWII with Japan and
saved hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives that
would
have absolutely occurred with the planned all-out invasion.
The only reason that they ended WWII was because no one else had
them. If Japan had nukes do you think that they would have hesitated
to retaliate? I'm just thankful that W wasn't president during the
Cuban missle crisis.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
My,my, my, we have been busy since I was away.
Even though I find debating people like you as productive as trying
to get Jell-o to stick to the ceiling, what the heck, I'm bored
tonight.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but, this "door" you seem so
comfortable to hide behind, has been wide open since the breakup of
the former Soviet Union. There is a black market for nuclear material
whether you believe it or not.
We also know that terrorist organizations are trying to obtain these
materials. Do you think they want them as a deterrent? We also just
learned that Osama has received permission from the Mullahs to Nuke
the US. Why do you think he did this?
Let's see if we can get two of your brain cells working in unison so
you can figure this out on your own. Where do you think these
terrorists are looking to buy these materials and why? OK, I'll give
you one clue to help you. Wal-Mart doesn't have a Thermo Nuclear Dept.
Being privy to a bit more military intelligence than you are I ignore
most of your statements because of ignorance of the facts. But you
seem to be willing to take your ignorance to new heights. You wear it
as a badge of honor. I would bet from your posts that most of your
military experience has come from viewing Saving Private Ryan and
possibly Full Metal Jacket. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
Rob comes closest on here to understanding what we are up against and
what is going to happen.
Sadly we will use nukes. They will be in retaliation not as a
deterrent. This you can bet the farm on.
You and those that think like you paint with a broad brush. Not
everyone who advocates the use of nukes is "nuke crazy". Sometimes
the hyperbole on these threads can be raised a notch. I've seen
enough death in my life. I don't need anymore. I as i'm sure Rob
would agree would like nothing better than to see this come to an end
with as little loss of life as possible. Being realists we understand
that might not happen.
Losing is not an option under any circumstances. We can not let the
likes of you get us into another politically correct hell hole like
Vietnam. We have to use anything at our disposal to win. If that
means nukes so be it. I trust that our CIC would only use them as a
last resort to protect our troops.
As I pointed out in a previous post a point that seemed to go right
over your head. Truman did what he had to do to protect our troops.
He didn't go to the world leaders and try to form some kind of
consensus. Our security comes first, world opinion after.
I must admit your "just war" response was a hoot. It took me ten
minutes to clean the Pepsi I spit out on my keyboard from laughing
when I read that one.
Please don't be offended if I don't respond to any more of your
idiotic posts. You try to start a war on words but you don't bring
any ammo, boring. I also know I won't change your distorted views nor
do I care. I have nothing to prove. Also your feeble attempts at name
calling doesn't bother me. I've been around the block to many times
to let that bother me.
One last thing. There are tactical nukes do some research.
Oh and one last last thing. I made a mistake by referring to myself
as an x-marines in one of my posts. I was tired. My apologies to all
Marines .
Every Marine knows; Once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fi
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
Seems W is tapdancing as fast as he can trying to insure that the
nuclear door stays closed. Apparently it's not just
the "chickenshit" liberals who frequent this site that have that
desire. Still there are former marines and others who think that
nukes are the best way to take care of the situation over there.
But
···
I guess that their opinion is far more informed than mine or even
W's. I am very grateful that some people are not in positions to
change the world. No nukes is good nukes!
My,my, my, we have been busy since I was away.
Even though I find debating people like you as productive as
trying
to get Jell-o to stick to the ceiling, what the heck, I'm bored
tonight.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but, this "door" you seem
so
comfortable to hide behind, has been wide open since the breakup
of
the former Soviet Union. There is a black market for nuclear
material
whether you believe it or not.
We also know that terrorist organizations are trying to obtain
these
materials. Do you think they want them as a deterrent? We also
just
learned that Osama has received permission from the Mullahs to
Nuke
the US. Why do you think he did this?
Let's see if we can get two of your brain cells working in unison
so
you can figure this out on your own. Where do you think these
terrorists are looking to buy these materials and why? OK, I'll
give
you one clue to help you. Wal-Mart doesn't have a Thermo Nuclear
Dept.
And Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Iran has nukes,
so does N. Korea, Pakistan and India. Since some of these countries
are predominantly muslim, I'm wondering why they haven't used them
already by your twisted logic.
Being privy to a bit more military intelligence than you are
I'm sure that you are privy to much military intelligence. In your
narrow mind.
I ignore
most of your statements because of ignorance of the facts. But you
seem to be willing to take your ignorance to new heights. You wear
it
as a badge of honor. I would bet from your posts that most of your
military experience has come from viewing Saving Private Ryan and
possibly Full Metal Jacket.
Or maybe a nose gunner on a PBR.
I could be wrong but I doubt it.
Rob comes closest on here to understanding what we are up against
and
what is going to happen.
Sadly we will use nukes. They will be in retaliation not as a
deterrent. This you can bet the farm on.
And when we do I can see you in your marine uniform that doesn't fit
anymore, saluting the mushroom cloud.
You and those that think like you paint with a broad brush. Not
everyone who advocates the use of nukes is "nuke crazy". Sometimes
the hyperbole on these threads can be raised a notch. I've seen
enough death in my life. I don't need anymore. I as i'm sure Rob
would agree would like nothing better than to see this come to an
end
with as little loss of life as possible.
Hence, the reference to the glass parking lot.
Being realists we understand
that might not happen.
Losing is not an option under any circumstances. We can not let
the
likes of you get us into another politically correct hell hole
like
Vietnam.
I was against this Iraq war from day one and still am. If we want to
fight terrorism, then lets fight terrorism. Let's join with Israel
and destroy Hammas. Lets get OBL. Waging war on Iraq after 9/11 is
about as logical as invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. You are a
moron.
We have to use anything at our disposal to win. If that
means nukes so be it. I trust that our CIC would only use them as
a
last resort to protect our troops.
He said he would only go to war with Iraq as a last resort.
Ooooppppps.
As I pointed out in a previous post a point that seemed to go
right
over your head. Truman did what he had to do to protect our
troops.
He didn't go to the world leaders and try to form some kind of
consensus.
He didn't have to. We had an alliance. We were part of the allies.
You know, bonehead, in a world war.
Our security comes first, world opinion after.
I must admit your "just war" response was a hoot. It took me ten
minutes to clean the Pepsi I spit out on my keyboard from laughing
when I read that one.
You sure it wasn't coke?
Please don't be offended if I don't respond to any more of your
idiotic posts.
Suits me fine, I'm not too happy that you came back for this one.
You try to start a war on words but you don't bring
any ammo, boring. I also know I won't change your distorted views
nor
do I care. I have nothing to prove. Also your feeble attempts at
name
calling doesn't bother me. I've been around the block to many
times
to let that bother me.
One last thing. There are tactical nukes do some research.
Oh and one last last thing. I made a mistake by referring to
myself
as an x-marines in one of my posts. I was tired. My apologies to
all
Marines .
You should appologize, you are a disgrace. Not at all unique but a
disgrace.
Every Marine knows; Once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fi
Lee Harvey Oswald agrees with you 100%
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
>
> Seems W is tapdancing as fast as he can trying to insure that
the
> nuclear door stays closed. Apparently it's not just
> the "chickenshit" liberals who frequent this site that have that
> desire. Still there are former marines and others who think that
> nukes are the best way to take care of the situation over there.
But
> I guess that their opinion is far more informed than mine or
even
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tghysel" <tghysel@y...> wrote:
> W's. I am very grateful that some people are not in positions to
> change the world. No nukes is good nukes!
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
You have a lot more faith in the powers that be than I have. I
don't
trust GWB, I don't trust him at all. Sure, I voted for Kerry. Not
because Kerry was right but because he wasn't Bush. Hell, I would
have voted for you rather than W.>
> What I know is what I wrote above. And BTW, those weapons you
> say "the world would be better without" ended WWII with Japan and
> saved hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives that
would
> have absolutely occurred with the planned all-out invasion.The only reason that they ended WWII was because no one else had
them. If Japan had nukes do you think that they would have
hesitated to retaliate?
If any of our enemies--esp. Imperialistic Japan--had them at the
time, they'd have used them first, wherever they had the power and
ability to deliver them. If they'd have somehow followed your secret
scenario and kept them just for retailiation purposes, that country
would no longer exist as of the day after they did. This all goes to
show that nukes, if only existing in the proper hands, are the
strongest deterrent known, and if used, are only used an overall
positive objective.
I'm just thankful that W wasn't president during the Cuban missle
crisis.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
And Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Iran has nukes,
so does N. Korea, Pakistan and India. Since some of these countries
are predominantly muslim, I'm wondering why they haven't used them
already by your twisted logic.
I'll answer that. First, India and Pakistan. Both have low-grade
weapons and a limited ability to deliver them. but then again, they
only care about hitting each other, and they can both do that now. If
the missiles start flying over there then look for GWB to sit back
and enjoy the show. India is one of the biggest shithole countries on
earth. And they continue to grab jobs away from Americans because
they're rich people at $10,000/year. Ever try to get an answer from
AMEX when you're first routed to some obscure idiot in Bangalore who
only reads scropt from the computer in front of him or her? Pakistan
is an even worse hell-hole packed with angry Muslims with no way out
but the terrorist route. And if I could count the times I've had e-
coli and stomach-pumping in Karachi and Lahore, I'd never sleep.
N. Korea & Iran are being dealt with very carefully, but make no
mistake, we WILL take them out if either or both make a funny move.
No one wants Seoul or Tokyo to get hit, and guess why Iran stays away
from Israel. It's a political game right now, but my guess is Iran
will be next.
I was against this Iraq war from day one and still am. If we want
to fight terrorism, then lets fight terrorism. Let's join with Israel
and destroy Hammas. Lets get OBL. Waging war on Iraq after 9/11 is
about as logical as invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. You are a
moron.
We are fighting terrorism. How does that get by you so easily? Israel
needs none of our help to destroy Hamas. Politics tie that issue up
all the time, but it will happen. OBL is being pursued, obviously,
and more than you know. It's only a Kerry thing that makes believe
we "let him go" or "are not looking for him". And where did that
nonsense get him?? Iraq was a cesspool for terrorists and still is to
a much smaller extent. If you remember GWB saying "We will hold
terrorist and the countries that support, finance, or give refuge to
them accountable, and they WILL answer to us" then you should know
that is one of the main reasons why we went after Iraq. And it looks
like the majority of voters agreed, so try another approach.
He didn't have to. We had an alliance. We were part of the allies.
You know, bonehead, in a world war.
Hello? Who was it that helped us against Japan??
You should appologize, you are a disgrace. Not at all unique but a
disgrace.> Every Marine knows; Once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fi
Lee Harvey Oswald agrees with you 100%
And this guy got rid of a democrat. Was it THAT bad???
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
>N. Korea & Iran are being dealt with very carefully, but make no
mistake, we WILL take them out if either or both make a funny
move.
No one wants Seoul or Tokyo to get hit, and guess why Iran stays
away
from Israel. It's a political game right now, but my guess is Iran
will be next.
What are we going to use for soldiers? We're fresh out. All the
regular army and too many of the National Guard have been called up
and extended. Well, maybe if we had a draft. But NO, W wouldn't do
that. That would be a mistake and W doesn't make mistakes. If you
don't believe him, just ask him.
>
> I was against this Iraq war from day one and still am. If we
want
to fight terrorism, then lets fight terrorism. Let's join with
Israel
> and destroy Hammas. Lets get OBL. Waging war on Iraq after 9/11
is
> about as logical as invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. You are
a
> moron.
We are fighting terrorism. How does that get by you so easily?
Israel
needs none of our help to destroy Hamas. Politics tie that issue
up
all the time, but it will happen. OBL is being pursued, obviously,
and more than you know.
There are more police officers in Manhatten than American soldiers
in Afghanistan. So, who's looking? Must be one of those exagerations.
It's only a Kerry thing that makes believe
we "let him go" or "are not looking for him". And where did that
nonsense get him?? Iraq was a cesspool for terrorists and still is
to
a much smaller extent.
There was no al queda in Iraq before we invaded, but there sure are
now.
If you remember GWB saying "We will hold
terrorist and the countries that support, finance, or give refuge
to
them accountable, and they WILL answer to us" then you should know
that is one of the main reasons why we went after Iraq. And it
looks
like the majority of voters agreed, so try another approach.
>
> He didn't have to. We had an alliance. We were part of the
allies.
> You know, bonehead, in a world war.
Hello? Who was it that helped us against Japan??
>
> You should appologize, you are a disgrace. Not at all unique but
a
> disgrace.
>
> > Every Marine knows; Once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fi
>
> Lee Harvey Oswald agrees with you 100%And this guy got rid of a democrat. Was it THAT bad???
Rob, I don't believe you wrote that. If you consider all democrats
the enemy, then I may have to reconsider my view of republicans.
Believe it or not, I voted for a republican governor this time. He
was better than his opponent.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
What are we going to use for soldiers? We're fresh out. All the
regular army and too many of the National Guard have been called up
and extended. Well, maybe if we had a draft. But NO, W wouldn't do
that. That would be a mistake and W doesn't make mistakes. If you
don't believe him, just ask him.
Leave it up to a sore-loser liberal to make an issue out of manpower.
You'll go after anything in order to criticize. I don't have those
answers but I'm certain people who are far less afraid than you do.
> We are fighting terrorism. How does that get by you so easily?
Israel
> needs none of our help to destroy Hamas. Politics tie that issue
up
> all the time, but it will happen. OBL is being pursued,
obviously,
> and more than you know.
There are more police officers in Manhatten than American soldiers
in Afghanistan. So, who's looking? Must be one of those
exagerations.
Again, repeating what the NY Times says. They....and you....would
have us believe it's a forlorn lost cause and way beyond our reach,
but it isn't and you know that. We aren't the only ones looking, and
the reward money is there for a reason. Even fanatics give in to
capitalism when faced with agony on the run. It was always a weak
platform for Kerry to say what you did, and it is plain stupid for
you to say or believe it now.
It's only a Kerry thing that makes believe
> we "let him go" or "are not looking for him". And where did that
> nonsense get him?? Iraq was a cesspool for terrorists and still
is to a much smaller extent.
There was no al queda in Iraq before we invaded, but there sure are
now.
That's incorrect. Another liberal position that helped Kerry get
silenced by thinking people.
If you remember GWB saying "We will hold
> terrorist and the countries that support, finance, or give refuge
to
> them accountable, and they WILL answer to us" then you should
know
> that is one of the main reasons why we went after Iraq. And it
looks
> like the majority of voters agreed, so try another approach.
> >
> > He didn't have to. We had an alliance. We were part of the
allies.
> > You know, bonehead, in a world war.
>
> Hello? Who was it that helped us against Japan??
> >
> > You should appologize, you are a disgrace. Not at all unique
but
a
> > disgrace.
> >
> > > Every Marine knows; Once a Marine, always a Marine. Semper Fi
> >
> > Lee Harvey Oswald agrees with you 100%
>
> And this guy got rid of a democrat. Was it THAT bad???Rob, I don't believe you wrote that. If you consider all democrats
the enemy, then I may have to reconsider my view of republicans.
Believe it or not, I voted for a republican governor this time. He
was better than his opponent.
That was in humor. I'm from Mass. and was a child when he was shot.
My family was devastated. However, that does not excuse the
traitorous statements made by Chappaquidick Ted during the current
campaign. Clearly, the wrong Kennedy's wer shot over the years.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:> What are we going to use for soldiers? We're fresh out. All the
> regular army and too many of the National Guard have been called
up
> and extended. Well, maybe if we had a draft. But NO, W wouldn't
do
> that. That would be a mistake and W doesn't make mistakes. If
you
> don't believe him, just ask him.
Leave it up to a sore-loser liberal to make an issue out of
manpower.
You'll go after anything in order to criticize. I don't have those
answers but I'm certain people who are far less afraid than you do.
I'm serious, W says no draft, They are saying that we need another 3-
5 thousand in Iraq, so where are we going to get the soldiers? If
you actually know, then tell me.
OBL is being pursued,
obviously,
> > and more than you know.
>
> There are more police officers in Manhatten than American
soldiers
> in Afghanistan. So, who's looking? Must be one of those
exagerations.Again, repeating what the NY Times says. They....and you....would
have us believe it's a forlorn lost cause and way beyond our
reach,
but it isn't and you know that. We aren't the only ones looking,
and
the reward money is there for a reason. Even fanatics give in to
capitalism when faced with agony on the run. It was always a weak
platform for Kerry to say what you did, and it is plain stupid for
you to say or believe it now.
If I am wrong and you can show me proof, I will admit my mistake. If
there are more troops in Afghanistan than I know of, show me your
facts. Kerry is no longer in the equation.
> There was no al queda in Iraq before we invaded, but there sure
are
> now.
That's incorrect. Another liberal position that helped Kerry get
silenced by thinking people.
Again, Rob. Show me the facts. I have read an awful lot of
information on the Iraq invasion and all the sources say "no al
queda in Iraq prior to 3/03". Again,Kerry is no longer in the
equation.
>
> If you remember GWB saying "We will hold
> > terrorist and the countries that support, finance, or give
refuge
> to
> > them accountable, and they WILL answer to us" then you should
know
> > that is one of the main reasons why we went after Iraq.
Then why did W never mention that as the main reason? It was all
WMD, yellow cake, etc.
My family was devastated. However, that does not excuse the
traitorous statements made by Chappaquidick Ted during the current
campaign. Clearly, the wrong Kennedy's wer shot over the years.
I don't agree with all that Ted Kennedy says, but I won't say he
should have been killed.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
> Leave it up to a sore-loser liberal to make an issue out of
manpower. You'll go after anything in order to criticize. I don't
have those answers but I'm certain people who are far less afraid
than you do.
I'm serious, W says no draft, They are saying that we need another
3-5 thousand in Iraq, so where are we going to get the soldiers? If
you actually know, then tell me.
Don't know, like I said. But that's the last thing I'd even be the
least bit concerned about. Certainly, it's nothing to criticize
anyone about. Liberals keep reaching and can't find much. Your hero
goofball Michael Moore is so beside himself seeing that all his
criticizms meant less than nothing, that he's trying to put together
a new movie critical of GWB. That's sour grapes at its best, but i
kind of like that this fat slob is sufferring so much. You're also as
nebulous as Dick with "They are saying". Who are they? Where'd you
get the 3-5 thousand number? And where'd you hear we don't have such
a low number of soldiers available right now?
> Again, repeating what the NY Times says. They....and you....would
> have us believe it's a forlorn lost cause and way beyond our
reach, but it isn't and you know that. We aren't the only ones
looking, and the reward money is there for a reason. Even fanatics
give in to capitalism when faced with agony on the run. It was always
a weak platform for Kerry to say what you did, and it is plain stupid
for you to say or believe it now.
If I am wrong and you can show me proof, I will admit my mistake.
If there are more troops in Afghanistan than I know of, show me your
facts. Kerry is no longer in the equation.
How do you know how many troops are in Afghanastan? I personally know
of 6 Black Ops agents that aren't on any list, and 2 of them are on
the Pakistan side of the border. Other than that, who really knows?
And why criticize anyone about it anyway? The election's over,
Clinton let OBL go already, and now it's up to this admin. to comb
the caves and locate him.
> That's incorrect. Another liberal position that helped Kerry get
> silenced by thinking people.Again, Rob. Show me the facts. I have read an awful lot of
information on the Iraq invasion and all the sources say "no al
queda in Iraq prior to 3/03". Again,Kerry is no longer in the
equation.
I have also read an awful lot of info as well as heard testimony on
TV about the Al Q. presence in Iraq prior to 9-11. I choose to
believe those who run this country, and not big mouth racists like
Jesse Jackson, fat boy MM, Madonna, Bono, Robbins, Kerry, Edwards,
traitorous Ted Kennedy, or ANYONE who has that other agenda which was
a failure.
> >
> > If you remember GWB saying "We will hold
> > > terrorist and the countries that support, finance, or give
refuge to them accountable, and they WILL answer to us" then you
should know that is one of the main reasons why we went after Iraq.
Then why did W never mention that as the main reason? It was all
WMD, yellow cake, etc.
I heard it mentioned several times, but the mainstream TV and
newspapers chose not to run it over and over again like they did all
the rhetoric criticizms. It's similar to suicide bombings in Isreal.
There's a 10-second blurb when one goes off in a shopping mall or a
restaurant or on a bus killing 15 women and children, but the
retaliatory strikes by Isreal get the BIG newscast of the day,
showing the bomber's house flattened by a missile and 3 Hammas men's
body's blown to bits as the children pick up the pieces over and over
again--with boobs like Wolf Blitzer proclaiming that Israel should be
ashamed of itself for their destruction.
> My family was devastated. However, that does not excuse the
> traitorous statements made by Chappaquidick Ted during the
current campaign. Clearly, the wrong Kennedy's wer shot over the
years.
I don't agree with all that Ted Kennedy says, but I won't say he
should have been killed.
If it were a choice between Bobby and Ted or JFK and Ted, everyone
knows who should have gone.
Don't know, like I said. But that's the last thing I'd even be the
least bit concerned about. Certainly, it's nothing to criticize
anyone about. Liberals keep reaching and can't find much. Your
hero
goofball Michael Moore is so beside himself seeing that all his
criticizms meant less than nothing, that he's trying to put
together
a new movie critical of GWB. That's sour grapes at its best, but i
kind of like that this fat slob is sufferring so much. You're also
as
nebulous as Dick with "They are saying". Who are they? Where'd
you
get the 3-5 thousand number? And where'd you hear we don't have
such
a low number of soldiers available right now?
Information on troop increases @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6550818/
Easy Rob. The election is over, Bush won. Moore is not my hero, and
I wonder why you keep bringing up all these other people? I'm
attempting to have a conversation with you about perceived facts. I
tell you my sources, you tell me yours. Insraed, you keep bringing
up a bunch of people who have nothing to do with the discussion or
troubles that we have now.
How do you know how many troops are in Afghanastan? I personally
know
of 6 Black Ops agents that aren't on any list, and 2 of them are
on
the Pakistan side of the border. Other than that, who really
knows?
And why criticize anyone about it anyway? The election's over,
Clinton let OBL go already, and now it's up to this admin. to comb
the caves and locate him.
It was my understanding that the war on terror was to focus on the
man / group that attacked us. So, my only question is why have we
seemingly abandoned that quest to make a democracy in a part of the
world where one has never existed?
I have also read an awful lot of info as well as heard testimony
on
TV about the Al Q. presence in Iraq prior to 9-11. I choose to
believe those who run this country, and not big mouth racists like
Jesse Jackson, fat boy MM, Madonna, Bono, Robbins, Kerry, Edwards,
traitorous Ted Kennedy, or ANYONE who has that other agenda which
was
a failure.
I have read the official 9/11 report (it's pretty good, you should
read it) and they explicitly state that there was no connection
between al queda and Iraq. Since this report was done by "those who
run the country", I would think that we both could believe them.
> > >
> > > If you remember GWB saying "We will hold
> > > > terrorist and the countries that support, finance, or give
> refuge to them accountable, and they WILL answer to us" then you
should know that is one of the main reasons why we went after Iraq.
>
> Then why did W never mention that as the main reason? It was all
> WMD, yellow cake, etc.I heard it mentioned several times, but the mainstream TV and
newspapers chose not to run it over and over again like they did
all
the rhetoric criticizms.
OK, what are your sources that cover the white house better than
main stream TV and papers? I have even listened to the right wing
Fox news and not heard what you state as fact.
If it were a choice between Bobby and Ted or JFK and Ted, everyone
knows who should have gone.
Not a choice the either one of us had and certainly not one that I
would have wanted.
Settle down Rob. Please just keep to topic and try to avoid going on
one of your liberal bashing tirades. We may be able to have a
reasonable conversation.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote:
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
Information on troop increases @
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6550818/
Easy Rob. The election is over, Bush won.
Thank God....for you and me both!
Moore is not my hero, and
I wonder why you keep bringing up all these other people?
They have the same ideas as you, and because they are on mainstream
TV all the time blabberring their nonsense, it can easily rub off on
the very vulnerable.
I'm
attempting to have a conversation with you about perceived facts. I
tell you my sources, you tell me yours. Insraed, you keep bringing
up a bunch of people who have nothing to do with the discussion or
troubles that we have now.
That's just it....you and Dick don't want to listen to facts. I say
I've been over to Iraq/Afg. twice and all envious Dicky can do is say
I lied. So it then reverts into whatever it was that filled liberal,
pacifist heads with the baloney, and then my perception of why
liberals always seem to believe only what they want to believe--even
in the face of fact after fact. That's one big reason why Bush won--
who can trust a liberal to be honest??
>
> How do you know how many troops are in Afghanastan? I personally
know of 6 Black Ops agents that aren't on any list, and 2 of them
are on the Pakistan side of the border. Other than that, who really
knows? And why criticize anyone about it anyway? The election's
over, Clinton let OBL go already, and now it's up to this admin. to
comb the caves and locate him.
It was my understanding that the war on terror was to focus on the
man / group that attacked us. So, my only question is why have we
seemingly abandoned that quest to make a democracy in a part of the
world where one has never existed?
The first part is correct, but incomplete. It is also to terminate
terrorists wherever they are, and we were clearly told that would
take decades to accomplish. We have not abandoned that quest at all--
I can only believe you listened to Kerry say that too often and it is
a lie. The terrorists are being attracted to Iraq and then getting
wiped out. But all the mainstream media reports is how "Gee, they got
away before we went in" or "2 Americans were killed today in a car
bombing" when hundreds of enemy terrorists are killed every week. It
would be against the media's agenda to report about success or any
operation in a successful way.
> I have also read an awful lot of info as well as heard testimony
on TV about the Al Q. presence in Iraq prior to 9-11. I choose to
> believe those who run this country, and not big mouth racists
like Jesse Jackson, fat boy MM, Madonna, Bono, Robbins, Kerry,
Edwards, traitorous Ted Kennedy, or ANYONE who has that other agenda
which was a failure.
I have read the official 9/11 report (it's pretty good, you should
read it) and they explicitly state that there was no connection
between al queda and Iraq. Since this report was done by "those who
run the country", I would think that we both could believe them.
That's an incomplete assessment again. I've read most of it, and not
only does it leave out specific CIA reports, but YOU do not elaborate
on the fact that although there is no concrete evidence to the link
that would be directly related to 9-11, the terrorists were careful
to not operate that way (a specific country being implicated) in
preparation of the attack, and a number of Al Q. meetings were seen
to have taken place inside Iraq beforehand--again, although there is
no concrete knowledge of the discussions.
> I heard it mentioned several times, but the mainstream TV and
> newspapers chose not to run it over and over again like they did
all the rhetoric criticizms.OK, what are your sources that cover the white house better than
main stream TV and papers? I have even listened to the right wing
Fox news and not heard what you state as fact.
I've heard it on Michael Savage, and once I heard it on Bill
O'Reilly's show. But I do know more than either of them because of my
ties to people in the Gov't.
Settle down Rob. Please just keep to topic and try to avoid going
on one of your liberal bashing tirades. We may be able to have a
reasonable conversation.
I wonder if you wrote into Michael Moore when he put together that
obscene movie that backfired, and said the same type of thing to
him........
OK Rob, I tried to raise several points that I wanted to clarify and
you sidestepped them all. First and foremost; I am not Dick or
Michael Moore. Second: your constantly bringing up liberals that are
not involved in this conversation serves no purpose. Third: Iraq had
no connection with al queda, in fact they didn't even share the same
core principals. Saddam didn't want to share his jihad with OBL or
anyone else. The fact that he had no WMD's is actually irrevelant.
If he did have them, the only way he could have possibly delivered
them to the US is via UPS. So he was no threat to America. Sure, he
wanted to kill Bush Sr. Bush Sr also wanted to kill him. So this
makes him irrelevant in the war on terror. The problem in Iraq right
now is that there are more of them than us. And they seem to have a
very large amount of replacements in reserve. To me, and I can only
speak for myself, this has a lot of similarities to Vietnam. I
suppose that we would be lucky to have another republican in office
like Nixon, who just decided to cut and run. Just give up and leave.
I don't see this Iraq thing as something that we can win. I'm not
talking about the war on terror, I'm talking about Iraq. Seems a lot
of high ranking republicans agree with that. I don't know about you,
but I can't afford Bush's plan to save the world.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
OK Rob, I tried to raise several points that I wanted to clarify
and you sidestepped them all.
That sounds like Dick when he can't come up with either clearly
stated facts or effective responses that abound with common sense.
First and foremost; I am not Dick or
Michael Moore. Second: your constantly bringing up liberals that
are not involved in this conversation serves no purpose.
I hope you're right on the first one. The world only can take so many
Dicks. Secondly, the liberals I bring up are very similar in beliefs
to what you believe, and because they've virtually been rendered
useless hammering away on the same criticizms about the war and Al Q.
that you continue to support, a firm purpose IS served.
Third: Iraq had no connection with al queda, in fact they didn't even
share the same core principals. Saddam didn't want to share his jihad
with OBL or anyone else. The fact that he had no WMD's is actually
irrevelant.
You are 100% wrong, I know better, and you asked what my sources
were, I told you, and it all went right thru that hole in your head
that you keep open in case conservative values and truths get too
close.
If he did have them, the only way he could have possibly delivered
them to the US is via UPS. So he was no threat to America.
I guess you actually believe all that nonsense, and the only way to
prove you wrong is if one goes off over here--which will probably
happen anyway because of the homos in the ACLU and all their t-o-l-e-
r-a-n-c-e- and d-i-v-e-r-s-i-t-y BS. The only positive to come out of
all that would be to see the look on yours, theirs, and all the
sissified actors and pop stars faces who become 'STUNNED' that they
were so screwed up not to listen to those whom they should have
listened to all along.
Sure, he
wanted to kill Bush Sr. Bush Sr also wanted to kill him. So this
makes him irrelevant in the war on terror.
That's about as small an issue as their is to contemplate. But--BIG
surprise--I DID hear such baloney from the Kerry platform. Now do you
see why I bring up others???
The problem in Iraq right
now is that there are more of them than us.
More of 'whom' than us? Terrorists? Where? Last I heard, 'we' had
over 250 million, and every one of us would choose to kill any of
them that attacked us. Are you saying they have more than that? Where
do you get such things from??
And they seem to have a very large amount of replacements in reserve.
Who are these people? Are you still talking about terrorists? If so,
goo thing you said 'seems to' because that exactly what Dan Rather
and friends wants all of you to believe.
To me, and I can only
speak for myself, this has a lot of similarities to Vietnam. I
suppose that we would be lucky to have another republican in office
like Nixon, who just decided to cut and run. Just give up and
leave. I don't see this Iraq thing as something that we can win.
Hello in there?! We've already WON!!! Now we're cleaning up and
readying Iraq for elections, helping them put together law
enforcement and a military. There will always enemy 'insurgents' that
hate what's going on because they can't be a piece of it and help
rule with their mutant Muslim religion, and there will be sporadic
attacks on the good people for years to come. No one ever said it
would be easy, and changing over to a democracy has always been done
at the cost of many lives.
I'm not talking about the war on terror, I'm talking about Iraq.
Seems a lot of high ranking republicans agree with that. I don't know
about you, but I can't afford Bush's plan to save the world.
That's such a crybaby, cowardly, and surrender attitude. You should
be ashamed. Imagine if our ancestors felt that way in the
Revolutionary War, where if we had CNN back then, all we would hear
is how the British outnumber us 10-1 and have far more useable
weapons than our ragtag militia. In Iraq we're fighting for them AND
us, because we all know Saddam and those who support him would stop
at nothing to get a WMD set off in NYC. You, as a bleeding pacifist,
would rather sit back, hope it doesn't happen, beg the enemy
to 'please don't do it', and offer to have Muslims over for tea and
cookies, than to go after them over there BEFORE they have the
opportunity to get us over here.
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "three2theroyal"
<three2theroyal@y...> wrote:
>
> OK Rob, I tried to raise several points that I wanted to clarify
and you sidestepped them all.That sounds like Dick when he can't come up with either clearly
stated facts or effective responses that abound with common sense.
If you check your previous posts, you will see that you are too busy
spouting party politics to come up with any facts. You make
statements and say that they can't be proven but believe you because
you are connected to the intelligence community. Sorry, homey don't
play that shit.
First and foremost; I am not Dick or
> Michael Moore. Second: your constantly bringing up liberals that
are not involved in this conversation serves no purpose.I hope you're right on the first one. The world only can take so
many
Dicks. Secondly, the liberals I bring up are very similar in
beliefs
to what you believe, and because they've virtually been rendered
useless hammering away on the same criticizms about the war and Al
Q.
that you continue to support, a firm purpose IS served.
You don't know me or know my opinions. You certainly don't have any
right to throw me into a bin with all your perceived liberals.
Third: Iraq had no connection with al queda, in fact they didn't
even
share the same core principals. Saddam didn't want to share his
jihad
with OBL or anyone else. The fact that he had no WMD's is actually
irrevelant.You are 100% wrong, I know better, and you asked what my sources
were, I told you,
You told me just to believe you cause you couldn't prove anything.
and it all went right thru that hole in your head
that you keep open in case conservative values and truths get too
close.
What are conservative values? And what do conservatives know about
truth. You blindly follow a man who is an admitted cocaine user,
convicted drunk driver, deserter and liar. Bow down in his presence
or he might shit on your head.
> If he did have them, the only way he could have possibly
delivered
> them to the US is via UPS. So he was no threat to America.
I guess you actually believe all that nonsense, and the only way
to
prove you wrong is if one goes off over here--which will probably
happen anyway because of the homos in the ACLU and all their t-o-l-
e-
r-a-n-c-e- and d-i-v-e-r-s-i-t-y BS. The only positive to come out
of
all that would be to see the look on yours, theirs, and all the
sissified actors and pop stars faces who become 'STUNNED' that
they
were so screwed up not to listen to those whom they should have
listened to all along.
I am proud to say that I will never believe GWB or you. If one "goes
off over here" it will be your fault and your kings.
Sure, he
> wanted to kill Bush Sr. Bush Sr also wanted to kill him. So this
> makes him irrelevant in the war on terror.That's about as small an issue as their is to contemplate. But--
BIG
surprise--I DID hear such baloney from the Kerry platform. Now do
you
see why I bring up others???
No I don't. But I figure it's because you like to hear yourself
talk. You make no sense whatsoever. Again and again. Kerry is no
longer part of the equation.
The problem in Iraq right
> now is that there are more of them than us.More of 'whom' than us? Terrorists?
No, asshole, combatants.
Where? Last I heard, 'we' had
over 250 million, and every one of us would choose to kill any of
them that attacked us. Are you saying they have more than that?
Where
do you get such things from??
>And they seem to have a very large amount of replacements in
reserve.
Who are these people? Are you still talking about terrorists? If
so,
goo thing you said 'seems to' because that exactly what Dan Rather
and friends wants all of you to believe.
Boy, you sure are an accomplished name dropper. I'm beginning to
wonder if you actually have an original thought in that balding head
of yours.
To me, and I can only
> speak for myself, this has a lot of similarities to Vietnam. I
> suppose that we would be lucky to have another republican in
office
> like Nixon, who just decided to cut and run. Just give up and
leave. I don't see this Iraq thing as something that we can win.Hello in there?! We've already WON!!!
Still cleaning up after a year and a half. We must be pretty good.
If you consider this winning than there is little or no hope for you.
Now we're cleaning up and
readying Iraq for elections, helping them put together law
enforcement and a military. There will always enemy 'insurgents'
that
hate what's going on because they can't be a piece of it and help
rule with their mutant Muslim religion
So these elections that you speak of, they will be electing non-
muslims to rule their country. Give it up Rob, you don't have a clue.
and there will be sporadic
attacks on the good people for years to come. No one ever said it
would be easy, and changing over to a democracy has always been
done
at the cost of many lives.
Again, a democracy has never existed in the middle east and I don't
think they have the infrstructure to have one. I presume that a
religious leader will be elected. That's only if the elections are
honest and not fixed by your people.
>I'm not talking about the war on terror, I'm talking about Iraq.
Seems a lot of high ranking republicans agree with that. I don't
know
about you, but I can't afford Bush's plan to save the world.
That's such a crybaby, cowardly, and surrender attitude. You
should
be ashamed. Imagine if our ancestors felt that way in the
Revolutionary War,
Actually, that's pretty much what happened during the revolutionary
war. Thank god that France was there to save our asses with money,
food, military advisors and weapons.
where if we had CNN back then, all we would hear
is how the British outnumber us 10-1 and have far more useable
weapons than our ragtag militia. In Iraq we're fighting for them
Because so many of them fought for us?!?!?
AND
us, because we all know Saddam and those who support him would
stop
at nothing to get a WMD set off in NYC.
I think he would have been happier to set one off in Jerusalem. But
he couldn't deliver there either. Best I can tell, he didn't even
have any.
You, as a bleeding pacifist,
Not, I served, actively and hey, in wartime. Well, police action
time anyway. Wanna see my medals??
would rather sit back, hope it doesn't happen, beg the enemy
to 'please don't do it', and offer to have Muslims over for tea
and
cookies, than to go after them over there BEFORE they have the
opportunity to get us over here.
They have gotten us over here, you might have heard about, it's
being called 9/11 and was in all the papers. I heard that we were
going to bring those responsible to justice. But I guess the prez
had more important thing to do with our armed forces for awhile
before that. Something of a personal nature.
Trying to discuss anything with you is like trying to explain
quadratic equation to my dog. He looks interested but he just
doesn't get it.
···
--- In FREEvpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "deadin7" <deadin7@y...> wrote: