|
Bush the Moron
Great...Saddam is still alive.
All that money spent, lives lost and lies told and Saddam is still making 100% successful attacks against the USA. Great Job, Mister Bush, murderer and thief. You really helped out Iraq and the USA. Capt RB |
Booby the Moron
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... I am a moron. |
Booby the fag.
The CIA manufactured and mailed the tape to Aljezerra. They want to embolden and flush out Saddam's Baathist followers. What better way than to allow them to think Saddam is still alive and in control when they have not heard word one from him in months? Lord but you New Yorkers are dumb! Almost as dumb as Saddams Iraqi followers. "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Great defense, Neal. Saddam is alive. US Troops are dying while Moron Bush eggs them on. The man is retarded. And so are you. RB |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... The CIA manufactured and mailed the tape to Aljezerra. Content of tape calls for more attacks on USA. So theyu released this dangerous material so more people could die? Yes, more Iraqi Saddam supporters can be flushed out so THEY can die. More intelligence can be gathered to further locate and destroy them. In the long run it is better to squash the resistance now than let then drag things out. |
Neal bangs his own sister while the cat watches.
Yes, more Iraqi Saddam supporters can be flushed out so THEY
can die. So Bush' statement that Saddam is probably alive is yet another lie to the US people. RB |
Bush the Moron
Nutsy,
Anybody that has a degree from Princton, a Masters from Harvard, been elected governor of the State of Texas, presently the President of the USA doesn't have to worry about being called a Moron by some one who considers an ugly broad in a bikini, supposedly making over $300,000/yr a person to be admired. As Oz says; "You're Nuts!" |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. Gilligan "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... The CIA manufactured and mailed the tape to Aljezerra. Content of tape calls for more attacks on USA. So theyu released this dangerous material so more people could die? Yes, more Iraqi Saddam supporters can be flushed out so THEY can die. More intelligence can be gathered to further locate and destroy them. In the long run it is better to squash the resistance now than let then drag things out. |
Bobsprit yanks his own chain
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... So Bush' statement that Saddam is probably alive is yet another lie to the US people. A CIA spokes man said Saddam's is probably the voice on the tape. This may or may not be a lie because the word 'probably' makes it to vague and this is on purpose. You are not too bright there, fatboy! |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
George Washington must be an idiot then:
http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor. As I said, retreat then go back. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
Bush the Moron
Yeah, but he is an idiot none-the-less.
"Thomas Stewart" wrote in message ... Nutsy, Anybody that has a degree from Princton, a Masters from Harvard, been elected governor of the State of Texas, presently the President of the USA doesn't have to worry about being called a Moron by some one who considers an ugly broad in a bikini, supposedly making over $300,000/yr a person to be admired. As Oz says; "You're Nuts!" |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred
years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals. FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... George Washington must be an idiot then: http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor. As I said, retreat then go back. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals. FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use. More sarcasm, eh? I assume that you are hinting at Vietnam! Regards Donal -- |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals
are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US Constitution is antiquated? I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much larger force using feigning tactics? Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you think they lost? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals. FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... George Washington must be an idiot then: http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor. As I said, retreat then go back. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my
dear man. Such tactics nowadays in Iraq and other Muslim countries would only result in greater losses because they would allow the guerillas to become better organized. As long as a guerilla force is disorganized they are highly vulnerable. I just got done watching "Collateral Damage" so I should know. Libertarian ideals are not bad ideals, as a matter of fact, they are good ideals. But, that doesn't change the fact that probably over 95 percent of the American people don't think they apply any more. "Gilligan" wrote in message rthlink.net... Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US Constitution is antiquated? I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much larger force using feigning tactics? Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you think they lost? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals. FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... George Washington must be an idiot then: http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor. As I said, retreat then go back. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
Bobsprit yanks his own chain
Anybody that has a degree from Princton, a Masters from Harvard, been
elected governor of the State of Texas, presently the President of the USA Yeah and we all know you can't get any of those things with money and connections. Bush is REAL smart! The man can't even speak! Bwahahahahahaha! RB |
Neal had oral with his mom!
That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my
dear man. Gorilla? Scotty's wife is nearby? RB |
Bobsprit yanks his own chain
I'll take that as a no.
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Is there anybody you're NOT jealous of Man, what an angry dude!!! Try actually sailing some day! RB |
Re Booby has the clap!
Bwaawwwaaaah!
|
Boobby has sex with his live father!
I don't think that a guerilla force can be defeated from the outside. It
must be defeated from within. America's great weakness is its lack of "on the ground" intelligence, which will make defeating the Savages of Islam very costly. These guys are not like your typical Commie. The US Constitution is the greatest government document in all of history. It's concise with no fluff and has a very solid philosophical basis. Contrast it to the documents of foriegn countries and you'll realize why they are so inferior. I assume where you live there's lots of liberals. Out here we have drive through liquor stores, it's legal to drive with a loaded pistol in the car, very high or no speed limits, some places it's legal to drink and drive, it's legal to shoot right in your own yard, there's the famous "make my day law" where tresspassers can be shot on sight near your house (they don't even have to be in it) and a good lack of preventative type laws. Needless to say, the liberals have been run off and our rednecks are the best. Every morning I awake to the sound of some good American exercising his Second Amendment Right, hell, I live within several hours drive of atomic bomb detonation sites, Barry Goldwater's home and John Wayne's birthplace. There's missle silos all around and B-52's buzzing chickens in the barnyard! Who, in their right mind, would want to live anywhere else? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my dear man. Such tactics nowadays in Iraq and other Muslim countries would only result in greater losses because they would allow the guerillas to become better organized. As long as a guerilla force is disorganized they are highly vulnerable. I just got done watching "Collateral Damage" so I should know. Libertarian ideals are not bad ideals, as a matter of fact, they are good ideals. But, that doesn't change the fact that probably over 95 percent of the American people don't think they apply any more. "Gilligan" wrote in message rthlink.net... Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US Constitution is antiquated? I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much larger force using feigning tactics? Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you think they lost? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals. FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... George Washington must be an idiot then: http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor. As I said, retreat then go back. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
Bobsprit yanks his own chain
Scotty wrote:
I'll take that Neal for a blow. |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
Just wanted to see this subject line one more time.
John Cairns |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
Now if only you had a decent place to sail..........it'd be perfect.
Scotty "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... I don't think that a guerilla force can be defeated from the outside. It must be defeated from within. America's great weakness is its lack of "on the ground" intelligence, which will make defeating the Savages of Islam very costly. These guys are not like your typical Commie. The US Constitution is the greatest government document in all of history. It's concise with no fluff and has a very solid philosophical basis. Contrast it to the documents of foriegn countries and you'll realize why they are so inferior. I assume where you live there's lots of liberals. Out here we have drive through liquor stores, it's legal to drive with a loaded pistol in the car, very high or no speed limits, some places it's legal to drink and drive, it's legal to shoot right in your own yard, there's the famous "make my day law" where tresspassers can be shot on sight near your house (they don't even have to be in it) and a good lack of preventative type laws. Needless to say, the liberals have been run off and our rednecks are the best. Every morning I awake to the sound of some good American exercising his Second Amendment Right, hell, I live within several hours drive of atomic bomb detonation sites, Barry Goldwater's home and John Wayne's birthplace. There's missle silos all around and B-52's buzzing chickens in the barnyard! Who, in their right mind, would want to live anywhere else? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my dear man. Such tactics nowadays in Iraq and other Muslim countries would only result in greater losses because they would allow the guerillas to become better organized. As long as a guerilla force is disorganized they are highly vulnerable. I just got done watching "Collateral Damage" so I should know. Libertarian ideals are not bad ideals, as a matter of fact, they are good ideals. But, that doesn't change the fact that probably over 95 percent of the American people don't think they apply any more. "Gilligan" wrote in message rthlink.net... Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US Constitution is antiquated? I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much larger force using feigning tactics? Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you think they lost? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals. FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... George Washington must be an idiot then: http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor. As I said, retreat then go back. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
he he he
"John Cairns" wrote in message ... Just wanted to see this subject line one more time. John Cairns |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... he he he "John Cairns" wrote in message ... Just wanted to see this subject line one more time. John Cairns |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Now if only you had a decent place to sail..........it'd be perfect. Scotty "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... I don't think that a guerilla force can be defeated from the outside. It must be defeated from within. America's great weakness is its lack of "on the ground" intelligence, which will make defeating the Savages of Islam very costly. These guys are not like your typical Commie. The US Constitution is the greatest government document in all of history. It's concise with no fluff and has a very solid philosophical basis. Contrast it to the documents of foriegn countries and you'll realize why they are so inferior. I assume where you live there's lots of liberals. Out here we have drive through liquor stores, it's legal to drive with a loaded pistol in the car, very high or no speed limits, some places it's legal to drink and drive, it's legal to shoot right in your own yard, there's the famous "make my day law" where tresspassers can be shot on sight near your house (they don't even have to be in it) and a good lack of preventative type laws. Needless to say, the liberals have been run off and our rednecks are the best. Every morning I awake to the sound of some good American exercising his Second Amendment Right, hell, I live within several hours drive of atomic bomb detonation sites, Barry Goldwater's home and John Wayne's birthplace. There's missle silos all around and B-52's buzzing chickens in the barnyard! Who, in their right mind, would want to live anywhere else? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my dear man. Such tactics nowadays in Iraq and other Muslim countries would only result in greater losses because they would allow the guerillas to become better organized. As long as a guerilla force is disorganized they are highly vulnerable. I just got done watching "Collateral Damage" so I should know. Libertarian ideals are not bad ideals, as a matter of fact, they are good ideals. But, that doesn't change the fact that probably over 95 percent of the American people don't think they apply any more. "Gilligan" wrote in message rthlink.net... Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US Constitution is antiquated? I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much larger force using feigning tactics? Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you think they lost? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals. FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... George Washington must be an idiot then: http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor. As I said, retreat then go back. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
Gilligan has sex with his dead father!
Bwahahahahaha!
RB |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
Scotty:
There's no big water, but it doesn't reduce the challenge or unique skills required. The wind in the mountains is unpredictable and turbulent. I've seen three boats separated by about 200 yards all on different tacks. Airflow in fiords can be quite complex and actually have two opposing directions. You can sail upvalley and down valley without having to sail into the wind. The wind can gust from 0 to 90 mph, it can also blow straight down. Sometimes anchoring next to shore will require 1500 feet of line because the water is 500 feet deep - just offshore. The water is also really cold, in places you have about 20 minutes after capsizing before hypothermia sets in. You can also get attacked by moose, dumped by avalanches or rock slides and have a real good chance of being hit by lightning since storms are very frequent. Add to that the intense sun, lower air density, chronic hypoxia and you can have a great time. Fustration and misery abound! "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Now if only you had a decent place to sail..........it'd be perfect. Scotty "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... I don't think that a guerilla force can be defeated from the outside. It must be defeated from within. America's great weakness is its lack of "on the ground" intelligence, which will make defeating the Savages of Islam very costly. These guys are not like your typical Commie. The US Constitution is the greatest government document in all of history. It's concise with no fluff and has a very solid philosophical basis. Contrast it to the documents of foriegn countries and you'll realize why they are so inferior. I assume where you live there's lots of liberals. Out here we have drive through liquor stores, it's legal to drive with a loaded pistol in the car, very high or no speed limits, some places it's legal to drink and drive, it's legal to shoot right in your own yard, there's the famous "make my day law" where tresspassers can be shot on sight near your house (they don't even have to be in it) and a good lack of preventative type laws. Needless to say, the liberals have been run off and our rednecks are the best. Every morning I awake to the sound of some good American exercising his Second Amendment Right, hell, I live within several hours drive of atomic bomb detonation sites, Barry Goldwater's home and John Wayne's birthplace. There's missle silos all around and B-52's buzzing chickens in the barnyard! Who, in their right mind, would want to live anywhere else? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my dear man. Such tactics nowadays in Iraq and other Muslim countries would only result in greater losses because they would allow the guerillas to become better organized. As long as a guerilla force is disorganized they are highly vulnerable. I just got done watching "Collateral Damage" so I should know. Libertarian ideals are not bad ideals, as a matter of fact, they are good ideals. But, that doesn't change the fact that probably over 95 percent of the American people don't think they apply any more. "Gilligan" wrote in message rthlink.net... Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US Constitution is antiquated? I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much larger force using feigning tactics? Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you think they lost? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals. FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... George Washington must be an idiot then: http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor. As I said, retreat then go back. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
Boobby has sex with his live father!
As long as it keeps you happy. I prefer lazy, old fart sailing. That's why
I sold the Hobie. Scott Vernon Plowville PA __/)__/)__ "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... Scotty: There's no big water, but it doesn't reduce the challenge or unique skills required. The wind in the mountains is unpredictable and turbulent. I've seen three boats separated by about 200 yards all on different tacks. Airflow in fiords can be quite complex and actually have two opposing directions. You can sail upvalley and down valley without having to sail into the wind. The wind can gust from 0 to 90 mph, it can also blow straight down. Sometimes anchoring next to shore will require 1500 feet of line because the water is 500 feet deep - just offshore. The water is also really cold, in places you have about 20 minutes after capsizing before hypothermia sets in. You can also get attacked by moose, dumped by avalanches or rock slides and have a real good chance of being hit by lightning since storms are very frequent. Add to that the intense sun, lower air density, chronic hypoxia and you can have a great time. Fustration and misery abound! "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Now if only you had a decent place to sail..........it'd be perfect. Scotty "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... I don't think that a guerilla force can be defeated from the outside. It must be defeated from within. America's great weakness is its lack of "on the ground" intelligence, which will make defeating the Savages of Islam very costly. These guys are not like your typical Commie. The US Constitution is the greatest government document in all of history. It's concise with no fluff and has a very solid philosophical basis. Contrast it to the documents of foriegn countries and you'll realize why they are so inferior. I assume where you live there's lots of liberals. Out here we have drive through liquor stores, it's legal to drive with a loaded pistol in the car, very high or no speed limits, some places it's legal to drink and drive, it's legal to shoot right in your own yard, there's the famous "make my day law" where tresspassers can be shot on sight near your house (they don't even have to be in it) and a good lack of preventative type laws. Needless to say, the liberals have been run off and our rednecks are the best. Every morning I awake to the sound of some good American exercising his Second Amendment Right, hell, I live within several hours drive of atomic bomb detonation sites, Barry Goldwater's home and John Wayne's birthplace. There's missle silos all around and B-52's buzzing chickens in the barnyard! Who, in their right mind, would want to live anywhere else? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my dear man. Such tactics nowadays in Iraq and other Muslim countries would only result in greater losses because they would allow the guerillas to become better organized. As long as a guerilla force is disorganized they are highly vulnerable. I just got done watching "Collateral Damage" so I should know. Libertarian ideals are not bad ideals, as a matter of fact, they are good ideals. But, that doesn't change the fact that probably over 95 percent of the American people don't think they apply any more. "Gilligan" wrote in message rthlink.net... Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US Constitution is antiquated? I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much larger force using feigning tactics? Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you think they lost? "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals. FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... George Washington must be an idiot then: http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor. As I said, retreat then go back. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against terrorism by retreating. "Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net... If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again and then go back in and kill them? It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended military a needed rest. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com