Nathan Branden wrote:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/poli...85/detail.html

The Republicans are starting to call for the impeachment of Bush over
his Iraq war policy. How much do anyone want to bet the bonehead
Democrats will oppose the Republicans on this one. Oops! They already
have, Pelosi said so. What is with these Democrats? They are against
the war but let the troops linger underfunded, and now have Bush's
head on a platter but can't do anything about it. Are they that
incompetent? What gives?

God bless all you former and current Marines out there.

Semper Fi!

Nathan

Contrary to popular opinion Clinton was impeached for lying under oath,
not for his affair with Monica.

Every time a person in government, or in the media opens their mouth and
says we should get out of Iraq, they are sanctioning the killing of
another soldier or Iraq civilian. Their support makes the extremist
think that his death will be the straw that will cause the US to
surrender in Iraq. He thinks with his death, the US will finally decide
to leave.

It is basic human nature, that they will keep doing, what they are doing
as long as they are encouraged, or think there is a chance of getting
their way. Any of you who have successfully raised children can see
what is going on in Iraq.

As with children, the US must unite and show one face to the the
terrorist who are killing innocent civilians and soldiers and tell them
by words and actions that their acts will not be tolerated.

There has not been one pacifist movement in history that has prevent
blood shed. In every pacifist incidence they have only postponed the
conflict for a number of years, then it is worse that if it had been
resolved when it first occurred.



--
Keith Nuttle
3110 Marquette Court
Indianapolis, IN 46268
317-802-0699

In article ,
Keith nuttle wrote:
Contrary to popular opinion Clinton was impeached for lying under oath,
not for his affair with Monica.

And, he was found not guilty on all counts by the Senate.

Every time a person in government, or in the media opens their mouth and
says we should get out of Iraq, they are sanctioning the killing of
another soldier or Iraq civilian. Their support makes the extremist
think that his death will be the straw that will cause the US to
surrender in Iraq. He thinks with his death, the US will finally decide
to leave.

Bull.

It is basic human nature, that they will keep doing, what they are doing
as long as they are encouraged, or think there is a chance of getting
their way. Any of you who have successfully raised children can see
what is going on in Iraq.

We encouraged them by invading based on lies. The only way to fix it
is to get out of their civil war and let them deal with it. Sad, but
true. We are certainly to blame.

As with children, the US must unite and show one face to the the
terrorist who are killing innocent civilians and soldiers and tell them
by words and actions that their acts will not be tolerated.

Like in Darfur? I guess we're not going to be invading there any time
soon.

There has not been one pacifist movement in history that has prevent
blood shed. In every pacifist incidence they have only postponed the
conflict for a number of years, then it is worse that if it had been
resolved when it first occurred.

Different discussion. No one is advocating pacifism.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Keith nuttle" wrote
: Every time a person in government, or in the media ... says we should get
out of Iraq, they are sanctioning the killing of another soldier ....

Do your peers call you Nutty Nuttle? That's *almost* as stupid as Bush
letting bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban set up a new terrorist regime on
the Pakistan border so he'd have troops to topple Saddam, the strongest
bulwark against muslim extremists in the region. So now the Shiites have
adopted a government *just like Iran's* and are systematically killing the
"oppressive" Sunnis who had been keeping them from doing just that. We're in
the middle. They really don't care if we go or stay so long as we let them
turn Iraq into another Iran ... which Bush's policies are doing.

In article ,
Vito wrote:
"Keith nuttle" wrote
: Every time a person in government, or in the media ... says we should get
out of Iraq, they are sanctioning the killing of another soldier ....

Do your peers call you Nutty Nuttle? That's *almost* as stupid as Bush
letting bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban set up a new terrorist regime on
the Pakistan border so he'd have troops to topple Saddam, the strongest
bulwark against muslim extremists in the region. So now the Shiites have
adopted a government *just like Iran's* and are systematically killing the
"oppressive" Sunnis who had been keeping them from doing just that. We're in
the middle. They really don't care if we go or stay so long as we let them
turn Iraq into another Iran ... which Bush's policies are doing.

That's what makes America great... diverse opinions, freely expressed
despite the opportunity it gives people to ridicule them.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Keith nuttle wrote:


There has not been one pacifist movement in history that has prevent
blood shed. In every pacifist incidence they have only postponed the
conflict for a number of years, then it is worse that if it had been
resolved when it first occurred.

Ever hear of a fellow called Mohandas Ghandi?

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
Keith nuttle wrote:


There has not been one pacifist movement in history that has prevent
blood shed. In every pacifist incidence they have only postponed the
conflict for a number of years, then it is worse that if it had been
resolved when it first occurred.


Ever hear of a fellow called Mohandas Ghandi?

Cheers
Marty

Marty,
There was plenty of bloodshed when India changed hands...he preached
pacifism but the reality was that there were factions that were plenty
bloodthirsty...

katy wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:
Keith nuttle wrote:


There has not been one pacifist movement in history that has prevent
blood shed. In every pacifist incidence they have only postponed the
conflict for a number of years, then it is worse that if it had been
resolved when it first occurred.


Ever hear of a fellow called Mohandas Ghandi?

Cheers
Marty

Marty,
There was plenty of bloodshed when India changed hands...he preached
pacifism but the reality was that there were factions that were plenty
bloodthirsty...

That was mostly in the north, relatively limited. If a more violent
leader had come along and organised the Hindi as well as Ghandi and led
a violent revolt against the English the bloodshed would have been
massive. For a small taste have a look at the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857,
when India didn't really exsist as a single political entity.

Cheers
Marty

In article , Martin Baxter wrote:
Keith nuttle wrote:


There has not been one pacifist movement in history that has prevent
blood shed. In every pacifist incidence they have only postponed the
conflict for a number of years, then it is worse that if it had been
resolved when it first occurred.

Ever hear of a fellow called Mohandas Ghandi?

People see what they want to see and ignore the rest... I wonder where
I've heard that before.... g

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin Baxter
wrote:
Keith nuttle wrote:


There has not been one pacifist movement in history that has prevent
blood shed. In every pacifist incidence they have only postponed
the
conflict for a number of years, then it is worse that if it had been
resolved when it first occurred.

Ever hear of a fellow called Mohandas Ghandi?

People see what they want to see and ignore the rest... I wonder where
I've heard that before....


One of your LSD trips?

Wilbur Hubbard

Keith nuttle wrote:
Nathan Branden wrote:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/poli...85/detail.html

The Republicans are starting to call for the impeachment of Bush over
his Iraq war policy. How much do anyone want to bet the bonehead
Democrats will oppose the Republicans on this one. Oops! They already
have, Pelosi said so. What is with these Democrats? They are against
the war but let the troops linger underfunded, and now have Bush's
head on a platter but can't do anything about it. Are they that
incompetent? What gives?

God bless all you former and current Marines out there.

Semper Fi!

Nathan

Contrary to popular opinion Clinton was impeached for lying under oath,
not for his affair with Monica.

Every time a

bell rings, another angel gets her wings?

Your world is so ordered. You know what's going to happen so well,
you feel free to paraphrase in absolute terms?

I don't even need to understand the pretext, your nomenclature
brands you an idiot. The world is not so ordered, my precious.

It is basic human nature, that they will keep doing, what they are doing
as long as they are encouraged, or think there is a chance of getting
their way. Any of you who have successfully raised children can see
what is going on in Iraq.


Really? And what about the United States? Will 'successful'
parenthood help you to see your own house more clearly?

the US must unite and show snip that acts snip will not be tolerated.


Oh. I'm seeing a pattern now. There was no temperance in your
children's upbringing, was there?

No musicians or artists amongst your brood.

One voice, One parent, to rule them all.
Tolerance will not be tolerated!

So, it follows that "Might makes Right" as well then??

There has not been one pacifist movement in history that has prevent
blood shed.


Oh. I love this one.
What is the inverse of this statement?

How many militaristic movements have prevented bloodshed?
Was there ever a weapon made that was not used?

"You /are/ the weakest link"

--
When you do something right,
No one will know you did anything at all.

....attributed to 'God'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com