Supporting the troops
 

There are real ways to support the troops.

http://www.operationusocarepackage.o...MSKvH&b=569653

http://www.americasupportsyou.mil/am...you/index.aspx

http://soldiersangels.org/

http://www.freedomisnotfree.com/

http://www.give2thetroops.org/

Joe

Supporting the troops
 

There are real ways to support the troops.



You support them first and formemost by being certain the what they
are fighting for is real. NO WMD's, Joe. That was the reason for our
little war. These soldiers have died for a lie. If you truly believe
that Bush didn't know what he was doing, then they died for AWFUL
intelligence. And so did many others.
It's a false war for a false cause bolstered by false patriotism
trumpeted by a false president. Truly one of the low points in US
history, but at least it's brought whacko's like Joe and Scotty to the
surface.



RB
35s5
NY

Supporting the troops
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
There are real ways to support the troops.



You support them first and formemost by being certain the what they
are fighting for is real. NO WMD's, Joe. That was the reason for our
little war. These soldiers have died for a lie. If you truly believe
that Bush didn't know what he was doing, then they died for AWFUL
intelligence. And so did many others.
It's a false war for a false cause bolstered by false patriotism
trumpeted by a false president. Truly one of the low points in US
history, but at least it's brought whacko's like Joe and Scotty to the
surface.


Bobsprit here simply repeats the old tired moveon dot org talking
points. No WMD, Bush lied etc ect.

Funny how liberals repeat the lies so often they end up believing them.

I remember clearly a Bush speech prior to the war where he listed the
reasons we were going into Iraq to kick Saddam's ass. It all was a
reaction to the terrorist attack that happened on Sept. 11th. In the
speech Bush made it clear that since the 9-11 attack we could no longer
sit and wait for another attack like that idiot liberal Clinton did.
Nope. Mr. Bush made it very plain that we could no longer sit and wait
and watch and tolerate any serious threat to our country. Saddam was a
proven serious threat. Not just the president said it. All but a handful
of Democrats said it. too. They even authorized the war via a
Congressional resolution that passed almost unanimously which gave Mr.
Bush permission to use force to get rid of the Saddam threat. WMD was
only one reason. One almost unanimous reason proven by the Democrat
vote. So here's the double standard. Liberals say Bush lied but they
never say Congressional Democrats lied. Hypocrites just aren't taken
seriously.

Now liberals change their mind because they refuse to admit they are
just as responsible for troops being in Iraq as Mr. Bush is. So they try
to re-write history. They attempt to cut off funding for the military on
the one hand and they claim they support the troops on the other hand.
It's too hypocritical to take seriously. What's really said is morons
like you, Bobsprit, ending up believing your own propaganda. You're
pathetic and you're anti-American and you're unpatriotic and you're a
joke when you act all holier than thou. But what you are, above all
else, is an asshole.

Wilbur Hubbard

Supporting the troops
 

OzOne wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:15:38 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
scribbled thusly:

Bobsprit here simply repeats the old tired moveon dot org talking
points. No WMD, Bush lied etc ect.

Funny how liberals repeat the lies so often they end up believing
them.

I remember clearly a Bush speech prior to the war where he listed the
reasons we were going into Iraq to kick Saddam's ass. It all was a
reaction to the terrorist attack that happened on Sept. 11th. In the
speech Bush made it clear that since the 9-11 attack we could no
longer
sit and wait for another attack like that idiot liberal Clinton did.
Nope. Mr. Bush made it very plain that we could no longer sit and wait
and watch and tolerate any serious threat to our country. Saddam was a
proven serious threat. Not just the president said it. All but a
handful
of Democrats said it. too. They even authorized the war via a
Congressional resolution that passed almost unanimously which gave Mr.
Bush permission to use force to get rid of the Saddam threat. WMD was
only one reason. One almost unanimous reason proven by the Democrat
vote. So here's the double standard. Liberals say Bush lied but they
never say Congressional Democrats lied. Hypocrites just aren't taken
seriously.

Now liberals change their mind because they refuse to admit they are
just as responsible for troops being in Iraq as Mr. Bush is. So they
try
to re-write history. They attempt to cut off funding for the military
on
the one hand and they claim they support the troops on the other hand.
It's too hypocritical to take seriously. What's really said is morons
like you, Bobsprit, ending up believing your own propaganda. You're
pathetic and you're anti-American and you're unpatriotic and you're a
joke when you act all holier than thou. But what you are, above all
else, is an asshole.

Wilbur Hubbard



Your memory is obviously faulty.

And both you and Bobsprit are twin assholes

Wilbur Hubbard

Read up anti-American....
 

OzOne wrote in message
...
Your memory is obviously faulty.

Read up you asshole anti-American terrorists facilitators, Bobsprit and
Ozone...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

My memory is very sound it would appear.

Here is just a small part of the speech.

"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why
do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced
the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate
America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent
people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be
eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final
proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United
States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate
deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation,
large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the
actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations
security to constitute maximum peril."

"Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and
deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the
worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."

I rest my case.

Wilbur Hubbard

Read up anti-American....
 

OzOne wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:30:12 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..
Your memory is obviously faulty.

Read up you asshole anti-American terrorists facilitators, Bobsprit
and
Ozone...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

My memory is very sound it would appear.

Here is just a small part of the speech.

"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why
do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced
the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate
America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent
people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be
eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the
final
proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the
United
States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate
deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation,
large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only
the
actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a
nations
security to constitute maximum peril."

"Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and
deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the
worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from
occurring."

I rest my case.

Wilbur Hubbard

You destroy your case.
Significant mention of the threat of biological and nuclear weapons
and their threat to the US.....
There were none...It was a vendetta agains Saddam...

You've again proven that you cannot actually comprehend what you read.


On the contrary, it is not I but you liberals who ignore the parts you
read that don't support your idiotic conclusions. What matters is AFTER
THE FACT FINDINGS that there were none. What matters is everybody agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM. You
can't stick your head in the sand and ignore a significant threat.
(Unless you're a liberal and a terrorist facilitator like you and that
scum Robert Brody.)

Wilbur Hubbard.

Read up anti-American....
 

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

OzOne wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:30:12 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
...
Your memory is obviously faulty.

Read up you asshole anti-American terrorists facilitators, Bobsprit
and
Ozone...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

My memory is very sound it would appear.

Here is just a small part of the speech.

"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem,
why
do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've
experienced
the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate
America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of
innocent
people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be
eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat
gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the
final
proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the
United
States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate
deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation,
large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only
the
actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a
nations
security to constitute maximum peril."

"Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and
deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the
worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from
occurring."

I rest my case.

Wilbur Hubbard

You destroy your case.
Significant mention of the threat of biological and nuclear weapons
and their threat to the US.....
There were none...It was a vendetta agains Saddam...

You've again proven that you cannot actually comprehend what you
read.


On the contrary, it is not I but you liberals who ignore the parts you
read that don't support your idiotic conclusions. What matters is
AFTER THE FACT FINDINGS that there were none. What matters is
everybody agreed PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat
FROM THEM. You can't stick your head in the sand and ignore a
significant threat. (Unless you're a liberal and a terrorist
facilitator like you and that scum Robert Brody.)

Wilbur Hubbard.

Revised: I inadvertently left out an important 'not'

On the contrary, it is not I but you liberals who ignore the parts you
read that don't support your idiotic conclusions. What matters is NOT
AFTER THE FACT FINDINGS that there were none. What matters is
everybody agreed PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat
FROM THEM. You can't stick your head in the sand and ignore a
significant threat. (Unless you're a liberal and a terrorist
facilitator like you and that scum Robert Brody.)

Read up anti-American....
 

OzOne wrote in message
...

On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:48:08 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 19:30:12 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
scribbled thusly:


OzOne wrote in message
m...
Your memory is obviously faulty.

Read up you asshole anti-American terrorists facilitators, Bobsprit
and
Ozone...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html

My memory is very sound it would appear.

Here is just a small part of the speech.

"Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem,
why
do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've
experienced
the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate
America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of
innocent
people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be
eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat
gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the
final
proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a
mushroom
cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the
United
States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate
deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any
nation,
large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only
the
actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a
nations
security to constitute maximum peril."

"Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and
deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the
worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from
occurring."

I rest my case.

Wilbur Hubbard

You destroy your case.
Significant mention of the threat of biological and nuclear weapons
and their threat to the US.....
There were none...It was a vendetta agains Saddam...

You've again proven that you cannot actually comprehend what you
read.


On the contrary, it is not I but you liberals who ignore the parts you
read that don't support your idiotic conclusions. What matters is
AFTER
THE FACT FINDINGS that there were none. What matters is everybody
agreed
PRIOR TO THE FACT that there was a significant threat FROM THEM. You
can't stick your head in the sand and ignore a significant threat.
(Unless you're a liberal and a terrorist facilitator like you and that
scum Robert Brody.)

Wilbur Hubbard.

You truly are an ignorant arse.
You state clearly, above, that Shrub had a fear of a nuclear or
biological attack yet deny it.
You then accuse people of ignoring facts.
Would that be the fact thatshrub refused to believe the reports of the
weapons inspectors?
Would that be that no WMD were found, a fact admitted by your Govt,
although very reluctantly and couched in terms that admitted nothing,


Who "agreed that there was a significant threat"?
Oh you mean the countries bullied into agreeing after threats of
political and economic penalties?
Maybe you should look at your list of "everybody" and see which
countries had the balls to stand up to the standover man.

Work on your reading comprehension and read the speech again. Then read
it some more. Maybe the gist of it will sink through that thick skull of
yours in about ten years. The intelligence gathering apparatus of all
the major world powers agreed that Saddam possessed WMD. He murdered
thousands of Kurds with poison gas. He killed hundreds of Iranians with
poison gas. He had an active nuclear development program.

The whole point is after 9 - 11 you cannot sit around and wait until a
mushroom cloud occurs in one of your cities to finally decide you have
to do something about a threat.

Even if it turns out later the threat was overstated you still have to
act on the CURRENT EVIDENCE AT HAND.

It seems to me one major problem you liberal scumbags have is you just
cannot comprehend cause and effect. You seem to think things just happen
randomly or in a vacuum. That's why liberals are so easy to brainwash
and are so easily led by the nose to their slaughter. What I object to
is you assholes expecting me to sit around doing nothing while you fools
facilitate your own destruction that might spill over onto me.

Now, bugger off. I'm though wasting my time with obviously
irresponsible, suicidal, shortsighted, death-to-America assholes. I know
you'll all come running to us for help the very first time a terrorist
attacks your little piece of the world. And then the refrain will be,
"Why didn't you DO SOMETHING to prevent this horror?"

Wilbur Hubbard

Read up anti-American....
 

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

Read up anti-American....
 

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

Read up anti-American....
 

"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.


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

Read up anti-American....
 

Saddam was actually helping us, by doing his best at supressing Bin
Laden, his
bitter enemy. When we took out Saddam, it was one of the happiest days
of Bin
Laden's life.



Folks like Joe could really care less about Iraq. In fact he probably
knows that Bush lied about Iraq. He imagines that Bush embodies anti-
liberal beliefs which he embraces. For that he'll make excuses for
just about anything, including a phoney war. The sad part is that
ploticians like Bush use folks like Joe so easily. If someone is pro-
life, you can sell them on that while sliding a lot of other seemingly
intolerable acts into the mix. Of course anyone with open eyes can see
that Bush is not a conservative and does not contain the fine elements
that comprise a true republican. His party afiliation is one of device
rather than conviction.

RB
35s5
NY

Read up anti-American....
 

"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

Read up anti-American....
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:22:26 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
groups.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.

Saddam was actually helping us, by doing his best at supressing Bin Laden,
his
bitter enemy. When we took out Saddam, it was one of the happiest days of
Bin
Laden's life.

Hmmm. Sounds as if you know bin Laden personally. Otherwise how would you
know so much about how he feels? Perhaps the FBI should speak with you.
Might help to solve all our terrorism problems.

Max

Read up anti-American....
 

"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

Let's apply the liberal philosophy to a situation that could happen to
Rob or Oz. Let's say their wives get raped and murdered. Let's say the
perp is caught and DNA evidence says the perp is 99.9999% a DNA match.
Let's say six independent DNA labs confirm the results. Let's say
justice is done and the perp is executed via lethal injection.

Let's say five years later a giant paperwork snafu was uncovered that
showed there was a DNA mix-up and the perp is determined to NOT be the
individual responsible. Using the Bobsprit and Oz logic we would have to
conclude that the labs all "lied." and that there should be no further
attempt to find the real perp.

Liberal logic = no logic at all or selective illogic for political
reasons. We all know that liberals have as their religion furthering
their political aims which is socialism and slavery to big government
that controls every aspect of daily life.

Wilbur Hubbard

Read up anti-American....
 

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
Saddam was actually helping us, by doing his best at supressing Bin Laden,
his
bitter enemy. When we took out Saddam, it was one of the happiest days of
Bin
Laden's life.

CWM


The worst of it was that Saddam was a junk yard dog we helped create. I'll
never forget the picture of Rumsfeld glad-handing with him.

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

Read up anti-American....
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Charlie Morgan" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 22:22:26 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Joe" wrote in message
egroups.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.

Saddam was actually helping us, by doing his best at supressing Bin
Laden, his
bitter enemy. When we took out Saddam, it was one of the happiest days of
Bin
Laden's life.

Hmmm. Sounds as if you know bin Laden personally. Otherwise how would
you know so much about how he feels? Perhaps the FBI should speak with
you. Might help to solve all our terrorism problems.

Max



That has been a fairly talked about scenario of bin laden. It sure makes
sense. Iraq now has 1000s of jihadists there now... mostly home-grown. I bet
bin laden is quite pleased. He's a strategic thinker.

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. When the
pictures of prisoners in Abu Graib got published, it confirmed the
falsehoods bin laden has been telling. He's winning (or has already won) the
"story" war.


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

Read up anti-American....
 

"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.

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

Read up anti-American....
 

"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

Read up anti-American....
 

"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

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