On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 15:25:23 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 06:44:49 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.
Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.
It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.
Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H
I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor of
the war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that
person's
kids should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this,
or
be arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war -
same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to
serve
or have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with
what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it yet.
Sounds good to me as long as the military funding has been directed by
those
same people long enough for it to be properly equipped so that we have
the
LOW mortality rates we have now.

Do you realize how concerned the military mind is about their guys.
Speed
limits and the belt law are RIGIDLY enforced on bases to prevent deaths
from
car accidents. You only heard about shaped charges in regards to taking
out
tanks in the past, now terrorists are using them against jeeps because
of
the armor the troop carriers have installed to protect the crew.


If the military leadership were so concerned about the troops on the
ground, the latter would have all the lightweight effective body armor
it needed, along with all the armored vehicles it needed, and it would
be spending as much on intel as it does on the overwrought contracts it
hands out.
The military spends its money as it is told to do so by civilians.

That's one of the lamest things you've said to date. Stop being lazy.
Civilians told the military to chill out and not worry so much about proper
body armor or fortified vehicles?




Herring comes up with any rationalization he thinks will work to
"protect" his boy Bush and its military establishment.

Harry, do your personal attacks add anything to any discussion?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal