On Mar 26, 9:22 am, katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Joe

Problem is that GB's only allies, aside from former British colonies
like Canada and OZ, is us...so once again there would be no world
backing for anything like that...the prevailing sentiment from the rest
of the world is "Why were you there to begin with?" so there won't be
any help that way..and the UN is a joke so you know there won't be any
help there. It would be nice, though, if GB would lob something at
someone as an initial action so they could take the heat instead of us
for a change.

Heat? Well if the rest of the world feels it's wrong to liberate
people from a tyrant like Saddam, and go after mass murders like Al
Queida then thats their problem. We do not need thier approval. Let's
face it, they are jealous of America, so the only way they can feel
good is to imigrate and become American, or find ways to try to
tarnish our accomplishments.

Hopefully theses ********s that bitch about America will some day
move into the modern age and become sufficent enough to not be so
angry and jealous.

Joe

In article .com,
Joe wrote:

On Mar 26, 9:22 am, katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

It's not strange... you think the Iranians just had sidearms or
something?

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Probably. You don't have to actually hit someone to get a
confession. Everyone knows the "confession" would be coerced, so why
go through the actual beating.

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Typical response from a Bushkin. When Carter tried to freed the
Americans, he was called a wimp. When Ronny Raygun traded arms for
hostages, no one seemed to care.

Heat? Well if the rest of the world feels it's wrong to liberate
people from a tyrant like Saddam, and go after mass murders like Al
Queida then thats their problem. We do not need thier approval. Let's
face it, they are jealous of America, so the only way they can feel
good is to imigrate and become American, or find ways to try to
tarnish our accomplishments.

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different. We should
have gone after the latter. Instead, we went after the former. A war
of choice rather than necessity. 3000 US soldiers dead, 25K wounded,
100s of 1000s of Iraqi innocents dead, and civil war.

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

On Mar 26, 12:15 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article .com,

Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 9:22 am, katy wrote:
Joe wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

It's not strange... you think the Iranians just had sidearms or
something?


And you think the brits were packing pop sicyles & bubble gum?
The team surrendered Jon.... Never mind, you do not have a clue.

Strange too, they have the whole episode on radar and sat and know
they were not in Iran waters, but the Iranian's say they confessed to
being in Iraq waters. Rubber hose confessions I bet.

Probably. You don't have to actually hit someone to get a
confession. Everyone knows the "confession" would be coerced, so why
go through the actual beating.


Would you confess to another country if you did no wrong?

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Typical response from a Bushkin. When Carter tried to freed the
Americans, he was called a wimp.

The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site.

When Ronny Raygun traded arms for
hostages, no one seemed to care.

Heat? Well if the rest of the world feels it's wrong to liberate
people from a tyrant like Saddam, and go after mass murders like Al
Queida then thats their problem. We do not need thier approval. Let's
face it, they are jealous of America, so the only way they can feel
good is to imigrate and become American, or find ways to try to
tarnish our accomplishments.

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different.

Both were terrorist supporters that needed to be delt with.

We should
have gone after the latter. Instead, we went after the former. A war
of choice rather than necessity. 3000 US soldiers dead, 25K wounded,
100s of 1000s of Iraqi innocents dead, and civil war.


You left out the 3000 killed in NY. And the many thousands of kurds
gassed by Saddam.


Joe

--
Capt. JG

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:15 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

It's not strange... you think the Iranians just had sidearms or
something?


And you think the brits were packing pop sicyles & bubble gum?
The team surrendered Jon.... Never mind, you do not have a clue.

Umm... you were making the point that you couldn't understand why they
didn't fight back. I said that the Iranians were probably well-armed.
Now, you say they were surrounded. Sounds like not dying was the right
thing to do. Do you not have a clue?

Probably. You don't have to actually hit someone to get a
confession. Everyone knows the "confession" would be coerced, so why
go through the actual beating.


Would you confess to another country if you did no wrong?

If I was threatened with torture, especially if I knew that no one
would believe it. Would you prefer to have your fingernailed
extracted until you tell them what they want to hear anyway?

Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Typical response from a Bushkin. When Carter tried to freed the
Americans, he was called a wimp.

The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site.

Typical response if you don't value human life. So far, they haven't
killed or likely tortured anyone.

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different.

Both were terrorist supporters that needed to be delt with.

Bush lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. If he would have said,
because he's a bad guy and he's torturing/killing his own people, then
maybe he wouldn't have 25% support and actually did the right thing
for the right reason. Saddam was contained and not a threat to us.

But, keep telling yourself he was if it makes you feel better.

We should
have gone after the latter. Instead, we went after the former. A war
of choice rather than necessity. 3000 US soldiers dead, 25K wounded,
100s of 1000s of Iraqi innocents dead, and civil war.


You left out the 3000 killed in NY. And the many thousands of kurds
gassed by Saddam.

And, we attacked the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. Nothing to do
with Iraq.

BTW, how come you're not so upset about the 100s of 1000s in Darfur
who are being killed by terrorists there? Or, do they not count
because they have darker skin?

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

On Mar 26, 2:08 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
In article .com,

Joe wrote:
On Mar 26, 12:15 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:
It's crazy. You would think a boat load of Brits could fend off a boat
load of Iran sailors.
Seems the America's are required not to be captured.

It's not strange... you think the Iranians just had sidearms or
something?

And you think the brits were packing pop sicyles & bubble gum?
The team surrendered Jon.... Never mind, you do not have a clue.

Umm... you were making the point that you couldn't understand why they
didn't fight back. I said that the Iranians were probably well-armed.
Now, you say they were surrounded. Sounds like not dying was the right
thing to do. Do you not have a clue?


Where did I say they were surrounded?
And do you expect to loose every fight?



Probably. You don't have to actually hit someone to get a
confession. Everyone knows the "confession" would be coerced, so why
go through the actual beating.

Would you confess to another country if you did no wrong?

If I was threatened with torture, especially if I knew that no one
would believe it. Would you prefer to have your fingernailed
extracted until you tell them what they want to hear anyway?

Fingernail extraction before dis-honoring my country. Knowing my
commrades in arms are on they way to my rescue.


Blair needs to pop off 15 cruise missles now, and then give them
about one hour to release the crew or send in another 15 missles.

Typical response from a Bushkin. When Carter tried to freed the
Americans, he was called a wimp.

The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site.

Typical response if you don't value human life. So far, they haven't
killed or likely tortured anyone.

Typical bend over and take it liberal attitude.
If we delt with Iran in 1979 then maybe hostage taking would not be so
popular.
Did you miss the part about calling ahead and letting them know the
targets so they can clear them?

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different.

Both were terrorist supporters that needed to be delt with.

Bush lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. If he would have said,
because he's a bad guy and he's torturing/killing his own people, then
maybe he wouldn't have 25% support and actually did the right thing
for the right reason. Saddam was contained and not a threat to us.

But, keep telling yourself he was if it makes you feel better.

Keep your blinders on Jon, if you think he was a honest guy willing to
live up the the surrender treaty he signed then go and keep thinking
that if it makes you feel better.


We should
have gone after the latter. Instead, we went after the former. A war
of choice rather than necessity. 3000 US soldiers dead, 25K wounded,
100s of 1000s of Iraqi innocents dead, and civil war.

You left out the 3000 killed in NY. And the many thousands of kurds
gassed by Saddam.

And, we attacked the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. Nothing to do
with Iraq.

BTW, how come you're not so upset about the 100s of 1000s in Darfur
who are being killed by terrorists there? Or, do they not count
because they have darker skin?

I'm waiting for France or Russia, or Germany, China, Japan, Mexico,
Cuba, or Canada to deal with Dufar.

Joe


--
Capt. JG

In article .com,
Joe wrote:
Umm... you were making the point that you couldn't understand why they
didn't fight back. I said that the Iranians were probably well-armed.
Now, you say they were surrounded. Sounds like not dying was the right
thing to do. Do you not have a clue?


Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

And do you expect to loose every fight?

Using the word "every" basically means that you're ignoring what I
said.

Fingernail extraction before dis-honoring my country. Knowing my
commrades in arms are on they way to my rescue.

Easy to say Joe until you're the one in the hot seat.

Typical response if you don't value human life. So far, they haven't
killed or likely tortured anyone.

Typical bend over and take it liberal attitude.

Typical response when you've run out of logic... attack the messenger.

If we delt with Iran in 1979 then maybe hostage taking would not be so
popular.

Carter tried. Raygun attempted to bribe them.

Did you miss the part about calling ahead and letting them know the
targets so they can clear them?

Huh?

But, keep telling yourself he was if it makes you feel better.

Keep your blinders on Jon, if you think he was a honest guy willing to
live up the the surrender treaty he signed then go and keep thinking
that if it makes you feel better.

Never said Saddam was honest or willing to live up to his
commitments. There was never a surrender treaty.

We invaded Iraq based on lies and deception. The President and/or the
Vice-President conspired to out an undercover CIA agent to punish Joe
Wilson for speaking the truth. The Attorney General mislead Congress
about his involvement in the firing of federal prosecuters. Bush lied
about Rumsfeld. 1000s died, were horribly injured all because Bushco
was fixated on Saddam.

And, we attacked the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. Nothing to do
with Iraq.

BTW, how come you're not so upset about the 100s of 1000s in Darfur
who are being killed by terrorists there? Or, do they not count
because they have darker skin?

Why? We didn't wait to invade Iraq because of the Kurds... at least
that's what the right-wing is now saying was the reason.

I'm waiting for France or Russia, or Germany, China, Japan, Mexico,
Cuba, or Canada to deal with Dufar.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mar 26, 4:30 pm, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote:

Where did I say they were surrounded?

Thought you did. I don't have access to the entire thread from my
boat.

You thought wrong..and should update your crappy internet via boat
connection if you do not want to keep putting your foot in your mouth.



And do you expect to loose every fight?

Using the word "every" basically means that you're ignoring what I
said.

You said surrender, and loose.

Fingernail extraction before dis-honoring my country. Knowing my
commrades in arms are on they way to my rescue.

Easy to say Joe until you're the one in the hot seat.

Typical response if you don't value human life. So far, they haven't
killed or likely tortured anyone.

Typical bend over and take it liberal attitude.

Typical response when you've run out of logic... attack the messenger.

If we delt with Iran in 1979 then maybe hostage taking would not be so
popular.

Carter tried. Raygun attempted to bribe them.

Did you miss the part about calling ahead and letting them know the
targets so they can clear them?

Huh?

Damn Jon, if you can not follow a thread, then wait till you get home.
I said
"The whole operation was a major cluster F*&K Jon. A totally botched
snatch and grab, when we should have used overwhelming force. Flaten
a
few dozen palaces and see how fast they return hostages. You can even
call the assholes and give them enough warning to clear the target
site."



But, keep telling yourself he was if it makes you feel better.

Keep your blinders on Jon, if you think he was a honest guy willing to
live up the the surrender treaty he signed then go and keep thinking
that if it makes you feel better.

Never said Saddam was honest or willing to live up to his
commitments. There was never a surrender treaty.

We invaded Iraq based on lies and deception. The President and/or the
Vice-President conspired to out an undercover CIA agent to punish Joe
Wilson for speaking the truth. The Attorney General mislead Congress
about his involvement in the firing of federal prosecuters. Bush lied
about Rumsfeld. 1000s died, were horribly injured all because Bushco
was fixated on Saddam.

And, we attacked the Taliban and Al Queda in Afganistan. Nothing to do
with Iraq.

BTW, how come you're not so upset about the 100s of 1000s in Darfur
who are being killed by terrorists there? Or, do they not count
because they have darker skin?

Why? We didn't wait to invade Iraq because of the Kurds... at least
that's what the right-wing is now saying was the reason.

Why?, well maybe the folks in Dufar are not shooting missles at our
pilots in the NO FLY ZONE.
Maybe the folks in Dufar are not a clear and present danger to the
USA.

Whats wrong with other countries dealing with Dufar, they know we are
busy.

Joe

I'm waiting for France or Russia, or Germany, China, Japan, Mexico,
Cuba, or Canada to deal with Dufar.

--
Capt. JG

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different. We should
have gone after the latter.

Why? If, as you left-wingnuts believe, the whole 9/11 attack scenario was a
ruse by the Bush Administration, what does al Qaeda have to do with
anything, other than taking credit for something they didn't do?

Max

In article ink.net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

Such unmitigated BS. Saddam and AQ are totally different. We should
have gone after the latter.

Why? If, as you left-wingnuts believe, the whole 9/11 attack scenario was a
ruse by the Bush Administration, what does al Qaeda have to do with
anything, other than taking credit for something they didn't do?

Huh? Do you need meds? When did I say that? Did Michael Moore, your
arch evil whipping boy say that? Who did exactly?
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com