Read up anti-American....
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Do you think his biggest weapons were the planes that hit the towers?
Think again... it's the TV broadcasts that followed and still follow.

Indirectly, yes. It's the fear that he created within the western world
that is his biggest weapon. Like B.F. Skinner and his chickens, he only
has to reinforce periodically, but rarely, to keep the fear level high. A
bomb in London, a train wreck somewhere else--that's all it takes to keep
everyone in fear. And with such fear comes the monstrous expense of
attempting to insure public safety. bin Laden will probably win an
economic war, not one of bloodshed.

Max

It's not fear... that's a byproduct. The thing bin ladin is winning is the
story. Few people are afraid in western countries.

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

Read up anti-American....
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM.

And now that you know there was no threat, that Bin Laden hated
Saddam, that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted, that Bush used 8
year old intelligence to make his case....and now that so many
Americans and Iraq innocents have been murdered, you still stand
behind Bush and his war?
Dude, just how many bridges have you bought? Do you really think a
true American calls anyone a "terrorist faciliator" simply because
they believe the current government to be evil and corrupt?
9/11 happened on Bush watch. Period. The WMD fiasco happened under
his
watch. The useless Iraq war also on his watch. Gas over 3 bucks a
gallon on his watch. And many more issues both scientific, moral and
environmental...all taken back in time under his watch. And when he
got the news that the USA was under attack he simply sat there,
useless as a leader and a man. The guy is as inept as he is evil, as
is any so-called leader who kills because he thinks his god is
superior. Bush himself is a terrorist. And now the majority of the
country, including many republicans, know it.

But in the end "No WMD's" is really all that needs to be said. It's
the absolute pinnicale of Orwellian prophecy made real.

RB
35s5
NY

Dummy..Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people with
chemical weapons. He shot at our planes in the no fly zones. He had
the chance to leave the country. He chopped of arms, hands, ears,
ect..ect..ect.. No to mention his boys evil acts. Only a total
douchbag would turn his back on that...you & Jon come to mind btw.

Saddam was a nut case and since he failed to live up to his surrender
agreement he got what he deserved. I know that saddens you and Jonboy
buts thats the facts.

See UN resolution 1441.

Joe




Buzz of Joe. You think that attacking Saddam, a leader who was
contained and not a threat made *us* safer?? Every study there is
suggests just the opposite.

Every study? Is this similar to "every scientist," when referring to
global warming? Thank God you aren't inclined to hyperbole, Jon. g

I read a piece by a couple of retired military officers last night.
Both had served in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as having been
stationed in Kuwait following Desert Storm. Both felt that had we not
taken Saddam out, his nuclear program would be at least on par with
Iran's, and more likely significantly ahead. Not to mention that Saddam
had delivery systems (SCUDS), while Ahmadinejad, AFAWK, does not.

I'm not pointing this out to support our incursion into Iraq--only to
demonstrate that when you say "every study" you only damage your own
credibility.


Max, Saddam was a broken leader on the verge of collapse. He was having
trouble controlling his own people, and had no WMDs. His "nuclear"
program consisted of a _desire_ to have one. Give me a break.

I wasn't defending the opinion, Jon--only pointing out that not "every
study" concurs with your opinion. I guess you don't get it.

Max



Well, which studies say we're winning in Iraq?


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

Read up anti-American....
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:58 pm, "Capt. Rob" wrote:
What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM.

And now that you know there was no threat, that Bin Laden hated
Saddam, that we did exactly what Bin Laden wanted, that Bush used 8
year old intelligence to make his case....and now that so many
Americans and Iraq innocents have been murdered, you still stand
behind Bush and his war?
Dude, just how many bridges have you bought? Do you really think a
true American calls anyone a "terrorist faciliator" simply because
they believe the current government to be evil and corrupt?
9/11 happened on Bush watch. Period. The WMD fiasco happened under
his
watch. The useless Iraq war also on his watch. Gas over 3 bucks a
gallon on his watch. And many more issues both scientific, moral and
environmental...all taken back in time under his watch. And when he
got the news that the USA was under attack he simply sat there,
useless as a leader and a man. The guy is as inept as he is evil, as
is any so-called leader who kills because he thinks his god is
superior. Bush himself is a terrorist. And now the majority of the
country, including many republicans, know it.

But in the end "No WMD's" is really all that needs to be said. It's
the absolute pinnicale of Orwellian prophecy made real.

RB
35s5
NY

Dummy..Saddam murdered 100s of thousands of his own people with
chemical weapons. He shot at our planes in the no fly zones. He had
the chance to leave the country. He chopped of arms, hands, ears,
ect..ect..ect.. No to mention his boys evil acts. Only a total
douchbag would turn his back on that...you & Jon come to mind btw.

Saddam was a nut case and since he failed to live up to his surrender
agreement he got what he deserved. I know that saddens you and Jonboy
buts thats the facts.

See UN resolution 1441.

Joe




Buzz of Joe. You think that attacking Saddam, a leader who was
contained and not a threat made *us* safer?? Every study there is
suggests just the opposite.

Every study? Is this similar to "every scientist," when referring to
global warming? Thank God you aren't inclined to hyperbole, Jon. g

I read a piece by a couple of retired military officers last night.
Both had served in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as having been
stationed in Kuwait following Desert Storm. Both felt that had we not
taken Saddam out, his nuclear program would be at least on par with
Iran's, and more likely significantly ahead. Not to mention that
Saddam had delivery systems (SCUDS), while Ahmadinejad, AFAWK, does
not.

I'm not pointing this out to support our incursion into Iraq--only to
demonstrate that when you say "every study" you only damage your own
credibility.


Max, Saddam was a broken leader on the verge of collapse. He was having
trouble controlling his own people, and had no WMDs. His "nuclear"
program consisted of a _desire_ to have one. Give me a break.

I wasn't defending the opinion, Jon--only pointing out that not "every
study" concurs with your opinion. I guess you don't get it.

Max



Well, which studies say we're winning in Iraq?

I didn't clip any of the above so you could go back and re-read your post.
You never said anything about winning in Iraq. You only implied that
removing Saddam didn't make us safer. And I didn't contest that--only that
your hyperbole detracts from your argument.

Max

Read up anti-American....
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Do you think his biggest weapons were the planes that hit the towers?
Think again... it's the TV broadcasts that followed and still follow.

Indirectly, yes. It's the fear that he created within the western world
that is his biggest weapon. Like B.F. Skinner and his chickens, he only
has to reinforce periodically, but rarely, to keep the fear level high.
A bomb in London, a train wreck somewhere else--that's all it takes to
keep everyone in fear. And with such fear comes the monstrous expense of
attempting to insure public safety. bin Laden will probably win an
economic war, not one of bloodshed.

Max

It's not fear... that's a byproduct. The thing bin ladin is winning is the
story. Few people are afraid in western countries.

If that were true, why does virtually every politician give so much
lipservice to "the war on terror?" It's obviously an issue that clicks with
the electorate, otherwise the politicians wouldn't mention it.

Max

Read up anti-American....
 

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

Do you think his biggest weapons were the planes that hit the towers?
Think again... it's the TV broadcasts that followed and still follow.

Indirectly, yes. It's the fear that he created within the western world
that is his biggest weapon. Like B.F. Skinner and his chickens, he only
has to reinforce periodically, but rarely, to keep the fear level high.
A bomb in London, a train wreck somewhere else--that's all it takes to
keep everyone in fear. And with such fear comes the monstrous expense
of attempting to insure public safety. bin Laden will probably win an
economic war, not one of bloodshed.

Max

It's not fear... that's a byproduct. The thing bin ladin is winning is
the story. Few people are afraid in western countries.

If that were true, why does virtually every politician give so much
lipservice to "the war on terror?" It's obviously an issue that clicks
with the electorate, otherwise the politicians wouldn't mention it.


I think they're two different things... remember, bin laden isn't trying to
reach us. He's trying to scare us. But, his primary message is to his
constituents or potential constituents.


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