Wanna See How Iran or China Will Kick Our Butts?

[Gunner]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:29:18 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
<EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>So where is his videos and whatnot? He seems to be rather camera shy
>>since we bombed the **** out of Tora Bora.
>
>The process with which OBL releases a video tape is not risk-free from
>his perspective. He must use a kind of supply chain to get the video
>from his place to the TV station, and were one of the carriers
>arrested, they could trace the chain back to OBL.

Bullshit. Thats absolutely lame. They can simply stick the ****er in
the mail. Pakistan does have mail service.
>
>I agree there is substantial doubt as to whether he is still alive.
>The only video tape we've seen of him since December 2001 is the one
>he did just before the 2004 election - and the OBL in that tape looked
>slightly different to the one we'd seen before. His nose, for example,
>seemed quite a lot thinner.

Or a stand in. Such is not uncommon in the ME.
>
>On balance though I'd think I'd say he's probably still alive.

I hold the opposite view.
>
>>American invasion of what country? Of course he wasnt the target of ANY
>>invasion. Who claimed he was?
>
>Well, there is a heap of evidence to say that the U.S didn't try their
>hardest to catch OBL e.g. very few U.S troops at the battle of Tora
>Bora; they outsourced the job to local warlords who botched it.
>
Who better to go into cave fighting than the locals who's next of kin
dont vote in US elections?

Cave fighting is like close quarters urban warfare..house to
house..nasty bloody man eating work. Better to have the locals die.

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[Gunner]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:39:22 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
<EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>Hit and run mechanical ambushes is hardly a battle. The proper way would
>>be to level the area. Note that the tangos are killing fellow muslims at
>>a far far larger rate then Collalition troops.
>
>Iran could send in proxy forces to Iraq and start killing them there.
>Whatever Iran is doing now in Iraq will be nothing compared to what
>they will do when the U.S attacks them. The British troops in the
>south will in particular be very vulnerable. I don't know what on
>earth makes you think that the U.S troops in Iraq would be
>invulnerable to Iranian retaliation.

Iran ALREADY has been sending proxy troops to Iraq to kill our troops.
We have captured enough of them to have a good guess on the numbers.
>
>>Imagine what Iran
>>>could do to Israel i.e. fire cruise missiles at Tel Aviv all day long?
>>
>>I would suspect that 2 cruise missiles fired at Tel Aviv would result in
>>the weather in Tehran becoming 20,000 degrees F for a few milliseconds.
>
>Yet another person mentioning the nuking of Iran (yet another silly
>comment). Iran would fire cruise missiles at Tel Aviv - and No, I
>don't think nuking Iran in response would happen or would be
>justified. In fact, if it is Israel that eventually attacks Iran, then
>explain to me how Iran firing cruise missiles at Tel Aviv in response
>would not be justified? Seeing as it's obvious that all this would get
>out of hand, maybe the best idea would be to avoid a war with Iran in
>the first place?


Israel would nuke Iran in a heartbeat if the Iranians started launching
cruise missiles at Tel Aviv. We had to put heavy pressure on the
Israelies to NOT respond when Saddam started dropping Scuds on Israel.
They would not know if any of those incoming cruise missiles carried a
nuke warhead and would slip the lease the US holds on them.

Frankly..we are having a difficult time NOW from keeping the Israelis
from turning large portions of Iran to glass ashtrays in an effort to
destroy the Iranian nuke programs.

It wouldnt take much and we would be in the unenviable position of
shooting down Israeli aircraft on their way to Iran, stepping back and
seeing the mushroom clouds rise, or joining in with a full fledged
bunker buster attack. WE..the US would be unlikely to use nukes at this
stage..but the same cannot! be said about Israel.

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[Gunner]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:41:05 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
<EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>Yes, the mud hut age may be a step up for them. Seems modern Arabs
>>regard their mud hut age as their days of glory.
>
>The UN sanctions meant that Iraq hadn't managed to rebuild much of its
>infrastructure since being battered in the first Gulf War.


Heads up..the UN sanctions didnt prevent any such thing. It didnt stop
Saddam from building 19 multibillion dollar palace complexes.

Nor did it starve/kill 500,000 children. Saddam did that all on his
own.


Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 25, 10:21 am, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m> wrote:
> In article <1174793290.921832.212...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> too_many_to...@yahoo.com mumbled
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 8:56 pm, Tankfixer <paul.carr...@us.army.m> wrote:
> > > In article <1174745884.273386.310...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > too_many_to...@yahoo.com mumbled
>
> > > > So much for the Republicans and a strong America...they just want
> > > > money to line their coffins.....
>
> > > And what party had to line the Iraq bill with pork projects to get
> > > people to vote for it ?
>
> > > --
> > > Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
> > > diet of static text and
> > > cascading "threads."
>
> > > And what party had to line the Iraq bill with pork projects to get
> > > people to vote for it ?
>
> > The Republicans of course....and the public records show it as so.
>
> Bald faced lie.
> And you know it.
> The DNC had to line this bill with pork to bribe congressmen to vote for
> it.
>
> But I know you will deney that fact, your handlers will hand you a new
> script and off you will totter.
>
> --
> Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
> diet of static text and
> cascading "threads."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

>
> > > And what party had to line the Iraq bill with pork projects to get
> > > people to vote for it ?
>
> > The Republicans of course....and the public records show it as so.
>
> Bald faced lie.
> And you know it.
> The DNC had to line this bill with pork to bribe congressmen to vote for
> it.
>
> But I know you will deney that fact, your handlers will hand you a new
> script and off you will totter.
>

You are the liar.

It is a matter of public record.

I am assuming that you can read....is that a unwise assumption when
one is considering a Republican?

When you compare the bill still in Congress with what the Republicans
have done in the past, it is relatively free of pork....the meat that
Republicans like.

LOL...I suppose that would concern a Republican since without the pork
that you have been using to buy votes the Republican Party will lose
even MORE seats come 2008.

By the way....how are the Republicans planning on paying for the debt
that THEY have run up....making license plates in prison?

Laugh...laugh....laugh....

TMT

 

[Too_Many_Tools]

On Mar 25, 12:13 pm, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:29:18 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
>
> <EFill4Zag...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>So where is his videos and whatnot? He seems to be rather camera shy
> >>since we bombed the **** out of Tora Bora.
>
> >The process with which OBL releases a video tape is not risk-free from
> >his perspective. He must use a kind of supply chain to get the video
> >from his place to the TV station, and were one of the carriers
> >arrested, they could trace the chain back to OBL.
>
> Bullshit. Thats absolutely lame. They can simply stick the ****er in
> the mail. Pakistan does have mail service.
>
>
>
> >I agree there is substantial doubt as to whether he is still alive.
> >The only video tape we've seen of him since December 2001 is the one
> >he did just before the 2004 election - and the OBL in that tape looked
> >slightly different to the one we'd seen before. His nose, for example,
> >seemed quite a lot thinner.
>
> Or a stand in. Such is not uncommon in the ME.
>
>
>
> >On balance though I'd think I'd say he's probably still alive.
>
> I hold the opposite view.
>
> >>American invasion of what country? Of course he wasnt the target of ANY
> >>invasion. Who claimed he was?
>
> >Well, there is a heap of evidence to say that the U.S didn't try their
> >hardest to catch OBL e.g. very few U.S troops at the battle of Tora
> >Bora; they outsourced the job to local warlords who botched it.
>
> Who better to go into cave fighting than the locals who's next of kin
> dont vote in US elections?
>
> Cave fighting is like close quarters urban warfare..house to
> house..nasty bloody man eating work. Better to have the locals die.
>
> Gunner
>
> Political Correctness
>
> A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
> rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
> which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
> to pick up a turd by the clean end.

>
> >Well, there is a heap of evidence to say that the U.S didn't try their
> >hardest to catch OBL e.g. very few U.S troops at the battle of Tora
> >Bora; they outsourced the job to local warlords who botched it.
>
> Who better to go into cave fighting than the locals who's next of kin
> dont vote in US elections?
>
> Cave fighting is like close quarters urban warfare..house to
> house..nasty bloody man eating work. Better to have the locals die.
>
> Gunner
>

Yeah I guess when you are a coward with money it pays to have someone
else do your fighting for you...

And yet Osama Bin Forgotten is still alive.....

Another Bush failure....that Republicans make excuses for.

TMT

 

[Vandar]

Gunner wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:34:12 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>He's alive and well in NW Pakistan. He was never the target of the
>>American invasion.
>
>
>
> So where is his videos and whatnot? He seems to be rather camera shy
> since we bombed the **** out of Tora Bora.

He's made numerous appearnaces since Tora Bora.
Here's but one:
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

> American invasion of what country?

Afghanistan.

> Of course he wasnt the target of ANY
> invasion. Who claimed he was?

Nearly everyone.

 

[EFill4Zaggin]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:19:48 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m>
wrote:

>In article <9tnc03d2005peidoe193h4b3pbvjkqo1qu@4ax.com>,
>EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com mumbled
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:12:16 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
>> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Tankfixer wrote:
>> >> In article <6q-dnVbdPrF-wZjbnZ2dnUVZ_qemnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> >> stuart.grey@comcast.net mumbled
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> We could bomb them back to the mud hut age.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Don't you mean bomb them up to the mud hut age ?
>> >
>> >I was shocked to see some of the Iraq War rubble on television. The
>> >buildings literally were nothing more than mud huts. Even a famous
>> >historical mosque was nothing more than a hovel of painted mud.
>> >
>> >I'm sure that not all of Iraq is like that. On the other hand, mud huts
>> >are not very common in the United States.
>> >
>> >Yes, the mud hut age may be a step up for them. Seems modern Arabs
>> >regard their mud hut age as their days of glory.
>>
>> The UN sanctions meant that Iraq hadn't managed to rebuild much of its
>> infrastructure since being battered in the first Gulf War.
>
>Then what was Saddam spending some $30 billion on ?
>Oh wait, more palaces.
>
>Prior to the UN sanctions Iraq wasn't being bothered to renew its
>infrastructure.
>They spent the 1980's trying to kill Iranians instead. Who's fault was
>that ?

The purpose of my post was not to debate who caused the decline in the
infrastructure, it was just to point out that the sanctions were a
significant reason as to why Iraq's infrastructure was never rebuilt
after the first gulf war.

 

[EFill4Zaggin]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:19:26 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:39:22 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
><EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Hit and run mechanical ambushes is hardly a battle. The proper way would
>>>be to level the area. Note that the tangos are killing fellow muslims at
>>>a far far larger rate then Collalition troops.
>>
>>Iran could send in proxy forces to Iraq and start killing them there.
>>Whatever Iran is doing now in Iraq will be nothing compared to what
>>they will do when the U.S attacks them. The British troops in the
>>south will in particular be very vulnerable. I don't know what on
>>earth makes you think that the U.S troops in Iraq would be
>>invulnerable to Iranian retaliation.
>
>Iran ALREADY has been sending proxy troops to Iraq to kill our troops.
>We have captured enough of them to have a good guess on the numbers.

Whatever Iran is doing now in Iraq - and the extent of their
involvement is open to debate - it will be NOTHING compared to what
they do in retaliation to a U.S attack.

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

Gunner wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:34:12 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>He's alive and well in NW Pakistan. He was never the target of the
>>American invasion.
>
>
>
> So where is his videos and whatnot? He seems to be rather camera shy
> since we bombed the **** out of Tora Bora.
>
> American invasion of what country? Of course he wasnt the target of ANY
> invasion. Who claimed he was?
>
> Gunner

He may be alive, but people who've been the target of B-52 carpet
bombing tend to be changed people. It may be that he's missing a few
chunks of flesh or has gone whited haired and gibbering and is not ...
good photogenic propaganda material any more.

 

[Gunner]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:49:14 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
<EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:19:26 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:39:22 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
>><EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Hit and run mechanical ambushes is hardly a battle. The proper way would
>>>>be to level the area. Note that the tangos are killing fellow muslims at
>>>>a far far larger rate then Collalition troops.
>>>
>>>Iran could send in proxy forces to Iraq and start killing them there.
>>>Whatever Iran is doing now in Iraq will be nothing compared to what
>>>they will do when the U.S attacks them. The British troops in the
>>>south will in particular be very vulnerable. I don't know what on
>>>earth makes you think that the U.S troops in Iraq would be
>>>invulnerable to Iranian retaliation.
>>
>>Iran ALREADY has been sending proxy troops to Iraq to kill our troops.
>>We have captured enough of them to have a good guess on the numbers.
>
>Whatever Iran is doing now in Iraq - and the extent of their
>involvement is open to debate - it will be NOTHING compared to what
>they do in retaliation to a U.S attack.
>
>
so what are they going to do..send masses of troops across the border
into Iraq?

How long did us take to roll over the Iraqi Army again? 100 hours?

We (the US) do very well when we have massed targets to cream. Think
Hiway of Death.

We have problems with the minnows swimming in the schools of innocent
fish.

Iran would do what again..that wouldnt result in the mass deaths and
destruction of most of their troops and equipment?

Keep in mind..our doctrine still teaches how to destroy invading Soviet
hordes in vast numbers. And we do that sort of thing very very well
indeed.

Gunner



Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[Gunner]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:27:55 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Gunner wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:34:12 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He's alive and well in NW Pakistan. He was never the target of the
>>>American invasion.
>>
>>
>>
>> So where is his videos and whatnot? He seems to be rather camera shy
>> since we bombed the **** out of Tora Bora.
>
>He's made numerous appearnaces since Tora Bora.
>Here's but one:
>http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403

Date not verified. Common thought its pre tora bora or a stand in.
>
>> American invasion of what country?
>
>Afghanistan.

Of course not. Al Quida was the target.
>
>> Of course he wasnt the target of ANY
>> invasion. Who claimed he was?
>
>Nearly everyone.

Only on the Left.

Gunner


Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[J. Carroll]

Gunner wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:49:14 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
> <EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:19:26 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:39:22 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
>>> <EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
> Keep in mind..our doctrine still teaches how to destroy invading
> Soviet hordes in vast numbers. And we do that sort of thing very very
> well indeed.
>

LOL
You are right Gunner. We are well prepared for the fight that won't
materialize.
We are also unable to fight the battle at hand.


--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

Gunner wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:49:14 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
> <EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:19:26 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:39:22 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
>>><EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Hit and run mechanical ambushes is hardly a battle. The proper way would
>>>>>be to level the area. Note that the tangos are killing fellow muslims at
>>>>>a far far larger rate then Collalition troops.
>>>>
>>>>Iran could send in proxy forces to Iraq and start killing them there.
>>>>Whatever Iran is doing now in Iraq will be nothing compared to what
>>>>they will do when the U.S attacks them. The British troops in the
>>>>south will in particular be very vulnerable. I don't know what on
>>>>earth makes you think that the U.S troops in Iraq would be
>>>>invulnerable to Iranian retaliation.
>>>
>>>Iran ALREADY has been sending proxy troops to Iraq to kill our troops.
>>>We have captured enough of them to have a good guess on the numbers.
>>
>>Whatever Iran is doing now in Iraq - and the extent of their
>>involvement is open to debate - it will be NOTHING compared to what
>>they do in retaliation to a U.S attack.
>>
>>
>
> so what are they going to do..send masses of troops across the border
> into Iraq?
>
> How long did us take to roll over the Iraqi Army again? 100 hours?
>
> We (the US) do very well when we have massed targets to cream. Think
> Hiway of Death.
>
> We have problems with the minnows swimming in the schools of innocent
> fish.

WE didn't in WW II, but yes, we do now.

In WW II, if the minnows swam with the "innocent fish", we had a fish
fry. See, for example Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. The innocent fish
learned quickly to get the hell away from the minnows.

Now, the Democrats would rather lose a war than kill the not so innocent
fish. Of course, that makes the tactic of hiding in the innocent fish
very effective, so they do it even MORE. Had we just bombed the hell out
of the first terrorist held villages, we wouldn't have a problem today.
But Bush didn't. He tried to give the terrorist voting rights instead.

> Iran would do what again..that wouldnt result in the mass deaths and
> destruction of most of their troops and equipment?
>
> Keep in mind..our doctrine still teaches how to destroy invading Soviet
> hordes in vast numbers. And we do that sort of thing very very well
> indeed.

It's not the Soviet Communist hoards we have to worry about. Like you
say, we can deal with easily identifyable enemy hoards.

It's the communist in the House and Senate we have to worry about. It's
the hoards of "civilians" who come into our country illegally to
colonize it for Greater Mexico we have to worry about.

This war would be long over had Bush the balls to win it. If he didn't
have the guts to kill the enemy, he should never have started it.

 

[Vandar]

Gunner wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:27:55 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Gunner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:34:12 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>He's alive and well in NW Pakistan. He was never the target of the
>>>>American invasion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So where is his videos and whatnot? He seems to be rather camera shy
>>>since we bombed the **** out of Tora Bora.
>>
>>He's made numerous appearnaces since Tora Bora.
>>Here's but one:
>>http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403
>
>
> Date not verified. Common thought its pre tora bora

"In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the
hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No."

Was Kerry campaigning for the White House before Tora Bora?

> or a stand in.

A catch-all answer for anything one doesn't want to accept.

>>>American invasion of what country?
>>
>>Afghanistan.
>
>
> Of course not. Al Quida was the target.

The Taliban was the target.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011013.html

>>>Of course he wasnt the target of ANY
>>>invasion. Who claimed he was?
>>
>>Nearly everyone.
>
>
> Only on the Left.

 

[Gunner]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:38:08 GMT, "J. Carroll" <nohow@haha.cam> wrote:

>Gunner wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:49:14 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
>> <EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:19:26 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:39:22 +0100, EFill4Zaggin
>>>> <EFill4Zaggin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>> Keep in mind..our doctrine still teaches how to destroy invading
>> Soviet hordes in vast numbers. And we do that sort of thing very very
>> well indeed.
>>
>
>LOL
>You are right Gunner. We are well prepared for the fight that won't
>materialize.
>We are also unable to fight the battle at hand.


John..as you are well aware..we are always fighting the last war.

So whats new?

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[Gunner]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:23:46 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
<stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:

>Gunner wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 05:34:12 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>He's alive and well in NW Pakistan. He was never the target of the
>>>American invasion.
>>
>>
>>
>> So where is his videos and whatnot? He seems to be rather camera shy
>> since we bombed the **** out of Tora Bora.
>>
>> American invasion of what country? Of course he wasnt the target of ANY
>> invasion. Who claimed he was?
>>
>> Gunner
>
>He may be alive, but people who've been the target of B-52 carpet
>bombing tend to be changed people. It may be that he's missing a few
>chunks of flesh or has gone whited haired and gibbering and is not ...
>good photogenic propaganda material any more.


There is indeed that too. And since he is/was dependant on
dialysis..blown kidneys....and they tend to not last real long even with
the best of care in hi-tech medical servivces..some village out beyond
the asshole of nowhere in Pakistan is hardly going to have a branch of
the Mayo Clinic

Gunner

Political Correctness

A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and
rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media,
which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible
to pick up a turd by the clean end.

 

[Jack A. Lopes]

In article <vaWdnUVkctmlXpjbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com>,
<"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:

> Jack A. Lopes wrote:
> > In article <TMudnZr3B_ZHxpjbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > <"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>EFill4Zaggin wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:55:19 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> >>><stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>NeverExpectPowerAlways wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Yeah, but...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
> >>>>>of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
> >>>>>a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
> >>>>
> >>>>We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
> >>>>the Democrats won't let us.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
> >>>re-writing history.
> >>
> >>The Democrats took congress because of Bush's refusal to win the war. He
> >>refused to win the war to please the Democrats.
> >
> >
> >
> > Good lord - do you really believe Bush ever did ANYTHING in order to
> > please the democrats? You are seriously delusional.
>
> Of course, you chose not to refute any of the examples I gave, and
> instead went off on an unsupported rant.
>
Unsupported? You need a dictionary. I did not rant, I just pointed
out your ridiculous assertion that Bush was trying to appease the
democrats. Why don't you support that claim with some facts?

> Come back when you can explain your thoughts and don't foam at the mouth
> with rabid hate.

WTF are you babbling about? I said nothing hateful. I merely pointed
out that you were writing nonsense.

--
1+1+1+1...

 

[fiend999]

In article <7e0f03t7jaka13jhsa8f4g2rq9ebhvtq6q@4ax.com>, Gunner
<gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:25:40 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Gunner wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:39:44 GMT, Vandar <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>So Bush is a democrat? That's a new one to me.
> >>>>Why did he decide to stop going after bin Laden and al Qaeda in
> >>>>Afghanistan?
> >>>
> >>>He never started.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> bin Laden died in Tora Bora and is simply a DNA rich smear in a
> >> collapsed cave.
> >>
> >> Gunner
> >
> >We've not seen much of bin Laden. I don't know if he is dead or alive,
> >but there are a lot more who need to be killed.
>
> We are working on it. Though if the Dems ever get out of Surrender like
> the French mode..we could be making faster headway.

How did the Democrats stop Bush and the Republicans from doing
something about bin Laden and al Qaeda during the last six years? I
anxiously await your fictional prose.i

--
~~~

 

[stuart.grey@comcast.net]

Jack A. Lopes wrote:
> In article <vaWdnUVkctmlXpjbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> <"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:
>
>
>>Jack A. Lopes wrote:
>>
>>>In article <TMudnZr3B_ZHxpjbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>><"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>EFill4Zaggin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:55:19 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
>>>>><stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>NeverExpectPowerAlways wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah, but...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
>>>>>>>of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
>>>>>>>a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
>>>>>>the Democrats won't let us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
>>>>>re-writing history.
>>>>
>>>>The Democrats took congress because of Bush's refusal to win the war. He
>>>>refused to win the war to please the Democrats.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Good lord - do you really believe Bush ever did ANYTHING in order to
>>>please the democrats? You are seriously delusional.
>>
>>Of course, you chose not to refute any of the examples I gave, and
>>instead went off on an unsupported rant.
>>
>
> Unsupported? You need a dictionary. I did not rant, I just pointed
> out your ridiculous assertion that Bush was trying to appease the
> democrats. Why don't you support that claim with some facts?

I did. You clipped them out, and now are pretending that those facts
never existed. No, I'm not going to re-write them so you can clip them
out again. You're not here to discuss, learn, or share ideas; you're
cleary here to lie and be annoying and other childish things.



>>Come back when you can explain your thoughts and don't foam at the mouth
>>with rabid hate.
>
>
> WTF are you babbling about? I said nothing hateful. I merely pointed
> out that you were writing nonsense.

You're a waste of time.

< PLONK >

 

[J. Carroll]

stuart.grey@comcast.net wrote:
> Jack A. Lopes wrote:
>> In article <vaWdnUVkctmlXpjbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> <"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jack A. Lopes wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <TMudnZr3B_ZHxpjbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>> <"stuart.grey@comcast.net"> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> EFill4Zaggin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:55:19 -0700, "stuart.grey@comcast.net"
>>>>>> <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NeverExpectPowerAlways wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Come back when you can explain your thoughts and don't foam at the
>>> mouth with rabid hate.
>>
>>
>> WTF are you babbling about? I said nothing hateful. I merely
>> pointed out that you were writing nonsense.
>
> You're a waste of time.
>
> < PLONK >

You're slipping, you forgot to call him a "commie" Stuart.

I seem to remember you posting that you had a web page up that laid out the
relationship between the CPUSA and the Democrats. Was that a lie as well
orcan you post a URL?
I never know, what with you being such a bull shitter and all.
I'm considering that it might be worth while to see if your drooling is
persuasive and sensible or as retarded and paranoid as your posts.

--

John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com