That is really, really sick. You need professional help.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dndeeley" wrote in message
...
I hope its your kid hat gets killed next. Its a great education.

Real Sailor Sentiment there Dip Wad!

CM

"Dndeeley" wrote in message
...
| I hope its your kid hat gets killed next. Its a great education.

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

Financial leverage is the most powerful leverage. The US should
halt foreign aid and trade to nations that do not treat us with respect.
If we are not liked, we should vote with our feet and go elsewhere.

I agree, Bart, but it's not really respect I'm seeking--it's allegiance.
The biggest mistake the US has continually made in this regard is the
never-ending financial benevolence with no strings. We give money and
simply hope that it will buy allegiance, but it seldom does. Our
beneficiaries generally turn on us at the first sign of trouble. That
should cease, or the money should.

Max

"gonefishiing" wrote in message

that's your answer?
how about an intelligent response?

Don't hold your breath, GF. Jon hasn't exactly been, um . . . forthcoming
with pearls of wisdom.

Max

"thunder" wrote in message

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:15:05 +0000, Maxprop wrote:


One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is
a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that
if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

Gadaffi's efforts to rejoin the civilized world predate Bush. I'll grant
you that Reagan's bombing of Libya may have shown him the light, but it
was not Bush. Gadaffi turned over the Lockerbie bombers pre-Bush.
Denounced terrorism and reestablished diplomatic links with the UK in
1999. Ending his weapons programs was just a continuation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/548303.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/388420.stm

What you cite is accurate, and I agree. But I do think that our
no-line-in-the-sand approach with Saddam tended to lead Qaddaffi to believe
he was in jeopardy by keeping his nukes. It was the push he needed, if you
will.

Max

"Vito" wrote in message


So our choice is "spineless" Kerry or a village idiot who
thinks he's king?

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Almost makes Nader look palatable, eh?

Max

"Dndeeley" wrote in message

I hope its your kid hat gets killed next. Its a great education.

You're a pathetic excuse for flesh and bone. Not sure where you originated,
but I hope they'll do a recall soon.

Max

yeah figured that out
takes the ball and runs home

debate is an interesting forum to extract and evaluate ideas............and
of course than deciding something based on knowledge.
unfortunately Ganz is not interested in anything except extolling his own
view, which is course is right.

freedom of speech is a great thing, when people are responsible about what
they say. with some the need to say something is just because they
can........

enough people like that and the democratic system comes to an abrupt halt.

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"gonefishiing" wrote in message

that's your answer?
how about an intelligent response?

Don't hold your breath, GF. Jon hasn't exactly been, um . . . forthcoming
with pearls of wisdom.

Max

finally something i can agree with you on.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
That is really, really sick. You need professional help.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dndeeley" wrote in message
...
I hope its your kid hat gets killed next. Its a great education.

Except that Qaddafi didn't actually, ever, have any nukes. Correct me
if I'm wrong by reference to an article stating the contrary.

You guys keep going on like he had things that could make big bangs.
All he had was an R&D program looking for a means of building bombs.

Get a grip on reality. Nearly everyone on rec.crafts.metalworking has
the technical equipment to build a nuclear weapon, it isn't technically
very difficult. The problem lies in getting the plutonium or U235.

PDW

In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:15:05 +0000, Maxprop wrote:


One example: Qaddaffi surrendered his nukes. His ties to terrorists is
a
matter of extensive record. Can you honestly claim he'd have done that
if
we hadn't shown the cajones to enter Iraq? Why didn't he make this
surrender during the Clinton admin.?

Gadaffi's efforts to rejoin the civilized world predate Bush. I'll grant
you that Reagan's bombing of Libya may have shown him the light, but it
was not Bush. Gadaffi turned over the Lockerbie bombers pre-Bush.
Denounced terrorism and reestablished diplomatic links with the UK in
1999. Ending his weapons programs was just a continuation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/548303.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/388420.stm

What you cite is accurate, and I agree. But I do think that our
no-line-in-the-sand approach with Saddam tended to lead Qaddaffi to believe
he was in jeopardy by keeping his nukes. It was the push he needed, if you
will.

Max