|
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. And where do you get off calling me "rich"? That's the biggest lie that the Democtrats have been trying to pull over everyone's eyes. The tax break was across the board, which means we ALL got a break, proportional to what we put in. I'd never vote for anyone who is in favor of taking more money from me. I don't think the democratic candidates care what you think since there's no way of capturing your vote. It's only once they've assumed to office of the President that they're obligated to take your views into account. I'm afraid the next president will be elected without your assistance Dave. |
OT--new candidate
Nor if the current president paid any attention to the repeated messages
that indicated those hostile to the US were contemplating using US carriers as weapons against our country. "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... 4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt with now. 3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if Bush 41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched Schwarzkopff into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message om... Mark, I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy like Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the media to play along, and we can control the infidels". At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be sure he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be *all* bad. Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who thought we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly, when I got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over there. How old are YOUR kids, NOYB? |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. How did YOU spend your $400 check, Dave? And, would it have ****ed you off if Bush had never said a word about a tax break, so everything remained the same as last year? |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Unfortunately, it's the "swing" voters that vote this way. They make up less than 7% of the electorate, and there's no common theme that appeals to them. They vote for the guy they like best, many times basing their vote on nothing more than charisma. Of course. How do you think a guy like Clinton could actually win.... Clinton is a prime example of someone who is long on charisma, and short on character. Dave Once again, your dependence on kindergarten-level news is obvious. Oh? Where am I wrong then? You are wrong in assuming that your leader, Nookular Boy, didn't benefit mightily from the idiot vote, just the same as any other president. After BOTH Clinton's and Bush's successful elections, NPR sent a reporter wandering around a couple of college campuses, asking students why they voted the way they did. Regarding both candidates, many young women said they voted for the winner because "he was cute", or they liked the way his eyebrows wrinkled when making an important point in a speech. Thank you for making my point for me. NOYB was making a generic statement. Which I applied to a specific individual, as a testiment to the validity of the point. Dave And I supplied you with information indicating that there will always be numbskulls who vote this way, regardless of the candidate. Your leader ALSO got votes from people like that. |
OT--new candidate
The report that terrorists might use commercial aircraft as weapons came in
1998 from some info discovered in the Phillipines. What did Clinton do with that info from 1998 until 2000 to make our aircraft safer? Both Presidents "Bush 43" and Clinton were guilty of not taking more action on this info...but only one of 'em passed up several chances at getting bin Laden. "jps" wrote in message ... Nor if the current president paid any attention to the repeated messages that indicated those hostile to the US were contemplating using US carriers as weapons against our country. "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... 4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt with now. 3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if Bush 41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched Schwarzkopff into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message om... Mark, I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy like Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the media to play along, and we can control the infidels". At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be sure he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be *all* bad. Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who thought we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly, when I got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over there. How old are YOUR kids, NOYB? |
OT--new candidate
The "idiot vote" has determined 2 of the last three Presidential elections.
Perot pulled the idiots from Bush 41 in 2000. Nader pulled the idiots from Gore in 2000. That's why a third party candidate is important...he/she bleeds off most of the idiots, thus leaving a semi-intelligent electorate to choose the best candidate. Of course, not much can be done to account for the not-so-bright "semi-intelligent" voters that vote for someone because "they're sexy" or "charismatic". The idiot vote is precisely the reason Schwarznegger will win California (*if* the vote proceeds). He'll get the Republicans and the idiot swing voters. Bustamante will only get the Democrats. Of course, Larry Flynt and the porno actress will pull some of the idiots from Schwarznegger...which may be precisely why they are running. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Unfortunately, it's the "swing" voters that vote this way. They make up less than 7% of the electorate, and there's no common theme that appeals to them. They vote for the guy they like best, many times basing their vote on nothing more than charisma. Of course. How do you think a guy like Clinton could actually win.... Clinton is a prime example of someone who is long on charisma, and short on character. Dave Once again, your dependence on kindergarten-level news is obvious. Oh? Where am I wrong then? You are wrong in assuming that your leader, Nookular Boy, didn't benefit mightily from the idiot vote, just the same as any other president. After BOTH Clinton's and Bush's successful elections, NPR sent a reporter wandering around a couple of college campuses, asking students why they voted the way they did. Regarding both candidates, many young women said they voted for the winner because "he was cute", or they liked the way his eyebrows wrinkled when making an important point in a speech. Thank you for making my point for me. NOYB was making a generic statement. Which I applied to a specific individual, as a testiment to the validity of the point. Dave And I supplied you with information indicating that there will always be numbskulls who vote this way, regardless of the candidate. Your leader ALSO got votes from people like that. |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to throwing rocks. Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think this has been established in our not so distant past. Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles and little not much else but rice. The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the curtain" supplying them the arms. 1) Man behind the curtain - Saudi oil money - You bet the Arab kings want the USA to fail in this adventure. 2) Supply of weapons - Worlds arms market - You name it; it's for sale. For the right price, I'll bet that there are nukes for sale in the former Soviet states. For that matter; who knows what Pakistan could do if we lean on them hard enough on the Taliban thing. Try a different argument - this dog won't hunt. Mark Browne |
OT--new candidate
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message om... "Mark Browne" wrote in message news:9dR9b.369154 Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run? I certainly *did* answer your question: "We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving." You did NOT answer his question: "What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?" I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open arms by the majority of the population. In any other scenario, we stay. So you are willing to run the country into the ground for an ideological point. For details - See the Soviet example in Afghanistan. Unless of course, you are able to explain how this is going to turn out different. Please explain in detail, using fully formed concepts. The underlying truth of the rebel actions is that it is *much* easier to break things then it is to fix them. We spend weeks of hair pulling effort to get something working - they blow it up in an hour. It is not physically possible to guard the infrastructure of an entire country. Efforts to do so are doomed; we want to use fewer people, not more. What are we going to do that the Soviets did not? Clams will like the part about the Soviets brutal punishment of the natives for attacks. The problems is that this provided an endless stream of converts to the rebel cause. While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you around, they may be able to pull it off. Mark Browne |
OT--new candidate
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... 4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt with now. 3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if Bush 41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched Schwarzkopff into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. snip Or if Ray Gun had not built him up in the first place! I love these what-if games. You have trouble with Clinton telling a few whoppers? There is enough dirt on Ray Gun to go on forever! Mark Browne |
OT--new candidate
Mark Browne wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... 4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt with now. 3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if Bush 41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched Schwarzkopff into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. snip Or if Ray Gun had not built him up in the first place! I love these what-if games. You have trouble with Clinton telling a few whoppers? There is enough dirt on Ray Gun to go on forever! Mark Browne Really, and Bush II lies about far more important things than blow jobs, and he lies much more frequently. -- * * * email sent to will *never* get to me. |
OT--new candidate
Mark Browne wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to throwing rocks. Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think this has been established in our not so distant past. Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles and little not much else but rice. The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the curtain" supplying them the arms. 1) Man behind the curtain - Saudi oil money - You bet the Arab kings want the USA to fail in this adventure. Transactions like this should be easy to trace. However, the Saudis are in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, some of the more fundamental Islamics, hate the US for what it stands for. On the other hand, the US is their biggest customer for their oil. As much as the loss of oil would hurt us, the loss of our dollars would equally hurt the Saudis. 2) Supply of weapons - Worlds arms market - You name it; it's for sale. A far different cry from a country which is more than willing to supply arms gratis, simply because they have a political stake in the outcome (and they have a large stockpile to pull from). For the right price, I'll bet that there are nukes for sale in the former Soviet states. For that matter; who knows what Pakistan could do if we lean on them hard enough on the Taliban thing. Again, where the arms are coming from will be sporatic and expensive, and should be tracable. If WE put pressure of the countries that supply arms to terrorists, as well as blockade or heavily monitor the Iraqi borders, the supply of arms will dry up. Dave |
OT--new candidate
Mark Browne wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message om... "Mark Browne" wrote in message news:9dR9b.369154 Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run? I certainly *did* answer your question: "We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving." You did NOT answer his question: "What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?" I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open arms by the majority of the population. In any other scenario, we stay. So you are willing to run the country into the ground for an ideological point. For details - See the Soviet example in Afghanistan. Unless of course, you are able to explain how this is going to turn out different. Please explain in detail, using fully formed concepts. The underlying truth of the rebel actions is that it is *much* easier to break things then it is to fix them. We spend weeks of hair pulling effort to get something working - they blow it up in an hour. It is not physically possible to guard the infrastructure of an entire country. Efforts to do so are doomed; we want to use fewer people, not more. What are we going to do that the Soviets did not? Clams will like the part about the Soviets brutal punishment of the natives for attacks. The problems is that this provided an endless stream of converts to the rebel cause. While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you around, they may be able to pull it off. But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the job done"? We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses, and pull out. But you are not considering the emotional boost that this will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that we're at their mercy. I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us. I personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our options open up a bit. Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur, both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of the campaign. Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness. There would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of yet. Dave |
OT--new candidate
jps wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. And where do you get off calling me "rich"? That's the biggest lie that the Democtrats have been trying to pull over everyone's eyes. The tax break was across the board, which means we ALL got a break, proportional to what we put in. I'd never vote for anyone who is in favor of taking more money from me. I don't think the democratic candidates care what you think since there's no way of capturing your vote. Me any far more people than you seem able to count. Most Americans have a problem with paying taxes. If you give them a choice between a candidate who lowers taxes, versus one who raise them, guess who will win. What the democrats have been trying to play is the class warfare game. They call the tax cut a "Tax break for the rich", which is misleading, if not an outright lie. The hope is that the poor and undereducated will buy into this propaganda, and jump on the democrat bandwagon. The DNC knows that they have little chance of capturing the corporate vote, so the rich become the demons and whipping boys of the DNC and their mindless followers. It's nothing more than favoring policies which redistrubute the wealth, which is not fair to those who earn it. What the DNC and their minions are also seemingly clueless about, is that the more you squeeze the rich, and corporations, the more they are driven to relocate offshore, thereby denying us not only tax money (Some is better than none), but also job opportunities. It's only once they've assumed to office of the President that they're obligated to take your views into account. The only thing they care about is their own political aspirations. Why else would the democrats hope the economy stays poor, (and were caught on tape talking about it) and favors the media planting the seeds of doubt into investor's minds, by encouraging more negative forecasts (Which will conveniently end if a democrat gets elected). The democratic part of today, is a horrible sshell of what it once was. It's nothing more than the voice of the liberal left, who will do whatever it takes to gain and maintain power. The more ground they loose, the more desperate and obvious their tactics become. Not ONE of the now 10 democratic political candidates has a positive platform of their own. They have no detailed plan to outline why we should vote for them. They are basing their whole campaigns on bashing Bush. Everything they say that they stand for is nothing more than "the anti-bush". I want to know how they are going to turn the economy around. How will they do a better job than Bush? How will they handle the terrorist situation? What would they do diffferently. Why would their plan be any better? THAT is what I want to see in a "debate" not an open free for all, to throw daggers that the current president. Until they can convince me that theirs is a better plan, then they have no business trashing the current one. I'm afraid the next president will be elected without your assistance Dave. Then rest comfortably knowing that my vote will cancel yours. Dave |
OT--new candidate
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. How did YOU spend your $400 check, Dave? I bought a grass catcher for my lawn tractor, and paid for most of my daughter's pre-school. The last rebate check bought me a water softener, and some other things for the house. And, would it have ****ed you off if Bush had never said a word about a tax break, so everything remained the same as last year? It's a far different thing to have never have had something, then having something and then having it taken away. In a nutshell, I have gotten $1000 in the form of checks back, thanks to Bush. I am also paying about $800 less a year. Compound that with the small raises that have come about, and I'm doing a bit better than I was a few years ago. $800 may not sound like much, but it's better than not getting anything. It will make for some nice Christmas presents When people ask whether I'm doing better now than under Clinton, I can answer with a resounding "yes". Bottom line: better in my pocket than in the government's, no matter how you cut it. Dave |
OT--new candidate
Mark Browne wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... 4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt with now. 3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if Bush 41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched Schwarzkopff into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. snip Or if Ray Gun had not built him up in the first place! I love these what-if games. You have trouble with Clinton telling a few whoppers? There is enough dirt on Ray Gun to go on forever! Yea, like forcing the downfall of the USSR. Not bad, I'd say..... Dave |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. How did YOU spend your $400 check, Dave? I bought a grass catcher for my lawn tractor, and paid for most of my daughter's pre-school. The last rebate check bought me a water softener, and some other things for the house. And, would it have ****ed you off if Bush had never said a word about a tax break, so everything remained the same as last year? It's a far different thing to have never have had something, then having something and then having it taken away. In a nutshell, I have gotten $1000 in the form of checks back, thanks to Bush. I am also paying about $800 less a year. Compound that with the small raises that have come about, and I'm doing a bit better than I was a few years ago. $800 may not sound like much, but it's better than not getting anything. It will make for some nice Christmas presents When people ask whether I'm doing better now than under Clinton, I can answer with a resounding "yes". Bottom line: better in my pocket than in the government's, no matter how you cut it. How does it feel to have borrowed all that money from your daughter? Do you suppose she will resent paying for it? Mark Browne |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Until they can convince me that theirs is a better plan, then they have no business trashing the current one. Perhaps you're looking for someone to come up with a very flashy plan. This won't happen. If you and you wife think a hot night of excitement means sitting down periodically to redo the household budget, you need a hobby. All the Democrats need to do is remind people that no individual in his right mind would set up his personal budget the way Bush did with the country's. Only an idiot foresees an enormous increase in spending and responds by giving away a large chunk of his cash reserves, especially when he's already in hock up to his eyeballs. So, it's a matter of asking "If you saw your just-left-home 20 yr old kid doing this with her money, what would be your response?" |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... And, would it have ****ed you off if Bush had never said a word about a tax break, so everything remained the same as last year? It's a far different thing to have never have had something, then having something and then having it taken away. In a nutshell, I have gotten $1000 in the form of checks back, thanks to Bush. I am also paying about $800 less a year. Compound that with the small raises that have come about, and I'm doing a bit better than I was a few years ago. $800 may not sound like much, but it's better than not getting anything. It will make for some nice Christmas presents When people ask whether I'm doing better now than under Clinton, I can answer with a resounding "yes". Bottom line: better in my pocket than in the government's, no matter how you cut it. Dave It's an interesting fantasy world in which you live. Nobody has to pay for anything they want, like a war. |
OT--new candidate
snip
While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you around, they may be able to pull it off. But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the job done"? We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses, and pull out. Not yet. I *was* suggesting that we not get mired in this before it started. You seemed to think that was a bad idea then; can you remember that far back? Does it sound like such a bad idea now? Since we *are* in it - our goal should be to minimize loses while getting the job done. The administration is still trying to hang on to control while asking for assistance. Why in the world would anybody get involved without getting a piece of the action? Exactly how stupid does little Bush think the rest of the world is? It is getting to be time to suck it up and pass the baton to the UN. That means that it is time to let them have some say in how things are done. It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and rebuilding contracts. End of story. But you are not considering the emotional boost that this will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that we're at their mercy. For someone who does not do much reading and has never spent any time talking to these people, you seem to know a lot about the psychology of the Arab people. Not! Just how stupid do you think these people are? I don't think they need the USA to tell them if they are winning or loosing - they can figure these things out for themselves.They already know that the emperor has no clothes! I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us. Kill them to liberate them - Where have I heard that before? In any case - the population was ruthlessly oppressed by a small group before we dropped by. Now you want to continue the oppression of these people by nuking them? Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not. On the other hand, it might turn a lot of people that did not care one way or the other into vengeful enemies. If you remember the OK city bombing, some of the ****ed off people might even be American citizens! I personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our options open up a bit. I don't think they respect or fear us. Actually, I think that they are laughing at us! They *are* just killing us; the longer we stay there, the better they will get at it. At this point, little Bush has driven us into a box - We have very few viable options. I did outline them in march while the war was still running hot. http://www.google.com/groups?q=end+g...nsc04&rnum= 1 Do you see *any* other options besides the ones outlined? Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur, both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of the campaign. Negotiations? Now there's a hoot! Um, who do you intend to talk to? What embassy do you go to? What do you have to offer that is better then *them* winning? Can you think of any carrot that they might go for? Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness. Who are we trying to kid? We can run our country into the ground without ever impressing them. Do you have any idea what *they* are thinking? I do spend some time reading some of what is available on the web and exchanging the odd email with Arab friends. I don't think we are making the impression you are hoping for. There would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of yet. Why would *they* negotiate? We are in the loosing position. *They* are very aware of that. All they have to do is more of what they are doing. As I have stated before, this area has been invaded several times and the locals have formed some very effective strategies. They have driven off every super power that has dropped by. All we can do at this point is loose more money and people without any possibility of winning. We can't get to the people behind this without killing everybody. They *do* know that. In the revolutionary war the rascally colonists refused to stand and fight like they were supposed to; instead they hid behind trees and killed lots of red coats. The administrations "dash to Baghdad" killed anybody that opposed us, and left all tens of thousands of soldiers in the field. Now *they* stage 15 or so raids a day, blow up a power station or town hall, and fade back into the crowd. This is much better for them than standing and fighting in the open desert like we hoped they would. Instead they hide behind the civilian population and kill some US soldiers. Do you see any parallels here? Mark Browne PS - I told you so! |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the job done"? We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses, and pull out. News flash: We were in a bad situation the moment your leader, who thinks he's playing a video game, first opened his mouth and began sabre rattling. That was long before the first shots were fired, but from that moment on, he put us in a position where there was no turning back. "Bad situation"? That was obvious to a whole lot of people long ago, Dave. The enemy could've been crumbled in other ways: 1) Having their leaders snuffed out in spooky ways, like that truck we nailed with a drone-launched bomb in Sudan or wherever the hell it was. 2) Telling a few of those countries that they can rot in their own **** for all we care (a policy that's even suggested by some progressive Arab thinkers who've had it up to here with the extremist whiners). But...no. When you're the president and your need for a constant erection can only be satisfied by scenarios resembling something from "Ghost Recon", you have to go to war to be satisfied. Question: If we had to kiss Saudi Arabia goodbye for a few years as an oil supplier, and ask Americans to immediately find ways to sacrifice by driving their cars 30% less, do you think we'd do it, or would we prefer to send our kids overseas to be killed? |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Again, where the arms are coming from will be sporatic and expensive, and should be tracable. If WE put pressure of the countries that supply arms to terrorists, as well as blockade or heavily monitor the Iraqi borders, the supply of arms will dry up. Not mentioned much on the kiddie news shows you watch: There's an awful lot of nuclear material that's gone missing from the former Soviet Union. Nobody knows where it is. It was being monitored by people who hadn't been paid in months, and who were, therefore, easily bought. Even though public tv is a rats nest of liberal/socialist madness, you should check the tv listings for what's on Nova each week. You might learn something. And, listen to NPR each morning, instead of Bob & Sally's drive time McDrivel. |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Mark Browne wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:11:46 -0400, Dave Hall wrote: In Iraq, there is no superpower supplying arms to the terrorists. Once we cut off their supply lines completely, they'll soon be reduced to throwing rocks. Point taken about arms supply, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of a rock. A motivated and resourceful enemy will find a way to kill. I think this has been established in our not so distant past. Yes. The VC moved quite a lot of material down the Ho Chi Minh trail, with the stuff strapped to bicycles and pushcarts. They did it wearing sandles and little not much else but rice. The VC were also being covertly supplied by the former Soviets. The VC were very determined, and resourceful. The terrorists in Iraq are likely equally motivated and resourceful. But they lack the "man behind the curtain" supplying them the arms. 1) Man behind the curtain - Saudi oil money - You bet the Arab kings want the USA to fail in this adventure. Transactions like this should be easy to trace. However, the Saudis are in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, some of the more fundamental Islamics, hate the US for what it stands for. On the other hand, the US is their biggest customer for their oil. As much as the loss of oil would hurt us, the loss of our dollars would equally hurt the Saudis. I did not say that they want the US to die, rightists have been floating that strawman. They just want the US to stop meddling in their affairs. 2) Supply of weapons - Worlds arms market - You name it; it's for sale. A far different cry from a country which is more than willing to supply arms gratis, simply because they have a political stake in the outcome (and they have a large stockpile to pull from). So they have to pay for them. BFD. Buy some more gas so they have more money to work with. Besides, there is plenty of drugs being grown in Afghanistan now - to they have plenty of narco-dollars to work with. Keep the drugs illegal so that the price stays high and the trade is underground. For the right price, I'll bet that there are nukes for sale in the former Soviet states. For that matter; who knows what Pakistan could do if we lean on them hard enough on the Taliban thing. Again, where the arms are coming from will be sporadic and expensive, and should be tracable. If WE put pressure of the countries that supply arms to terrorists, as well as blockade or heavily monitor the Iraqi borders, the supply of arms will dry up. Are you living on a different planet than me? If you got money, you can get guns. For the kind of pressure you are describing to have any meaning, the pipelines would have to dry up at the producers, and all the weapons would have to get "used up". This would take many years. In the mean time, we have lots of soldiers getting killed in Iraq now! In any case, there are plenty of weapon to kill American soldiers floating around the world now. Mark Browne |
OT--new candidate
I guarantee you'd be singing a different tune if they were between 18 and 25
years old and Nookular Boy was calling for more soldiers. "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... 4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt with now. 3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if Bush 41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched Schwarzkopff into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message om... Mark, I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy like Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the media to play along, and we can control the infidels". At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be sure he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be *all* bad. Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who thought we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly, when I got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over there. How old are YOUR kids, NOYB? |
OT--new candidate
If I had family that lived in NYC or Washington, DC, I'd worry that they'd
be killed by a terrorist attack. Unlike you, I believe that rebuilding Iraq into a Democracy, and maintaining military bases there as a deterrent (or launching point) against other terrorist-sponsoring countries, will ultimately make us safer in our own cities. In the 1940's, our country felt they had the moral authority to send young men to Europe to fight against the Germans because they knew that what was happening over there would one day affect us. Sitting around idly while terrorists take pot shots at us is no way to live. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... I guarantee you'd be singing a different tune if they were between 18 and 25 years old and Nookular Boy was calling for more soldiers. "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... 4 months, 2 years, and 4 years. That's why I want those maniacs dealt with now. 3000 people likely wouldn't have died in the WTC if a certain prior President dealt with bin Laden when he had the chance...and the 300 or so soldiers that recently were killed in Iraq likely wouldn't have died if Bush 41 didn't worry so much about what the UN thought, and marched Schwarzkopff into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message om... Mark, I think the absolute worst thing that could happen would be if a guy like Dean won the Presidency and pulled us out of Iraq too soon. The repercussions would be awful. "Rack up enough US casualties, get the media to play along, and we can control the infidels". At least if a guy like World War III Wesley was in charge, we could be sure he'd probably nuke someone over there before long...and that can't be *all* bad. Hey...you're starting to sound like my father, around 1968-1969, who thought we should "throw everything we've got" at North Vietnam. Suddenly, when I got my draft card, he got a little antsy about what was going on over there. How old are YOUR kids, NOYB? |
OT--new candidate
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net... Sitting around idly while terrorists take pot shots at us is no way to live. Unfortunately, you are only able to imagine two options: Doing nothing, and taking a war to Iraq. It is a virtual certainty that there were alternative ideas which were either never heard & understood by your leader, or never made it onto his desk. |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message ... jps wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... I don't think the democratic candidates care what you think since there's no way of capturing your vote. Me any far more people than you seem able to count. Most Americans have a problem with paying taxes. If you give them a choice between a candidate who lowers taxes, versus one who raise them, guess who will win. What happens is that, once people have experienced a Republican administration and are reminded of how willing they are to rob the kitty for a small number of constituents and supporters, they go back to the reality that bills have got to be paid and the gov't has to have enough money to pay them so we're not passing the burden onto future generations. It's only once they've assumed to office of the President that they're obligated to take your views into account. The only thing they care about is their own political aspirations. Why else would the democrats hope the economy stays poor, (and were caught on tape talking about it) and favors the media planting the seeds of doubt into investor's minds, by encouraging more negative forecasts (Which will conveniently end if a democrat gets elected). Oh, and Republicans aren't of the same mind? They're so confused with California it's insane. There's a split opinion between leaving Grey Davis in power since the state is in a horrible situation (helped by the likes of Bush friends Enron) since it'll reflect poorly on the Democrats, and stealing the seat through a recall election based on people's discomfort. By all accounts, if you'd do that to Bush right now, he'd be thrown out of office. Republicans are no less slimy that Democrats, they're just whiter. |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... Doug Kanter wrote: "Dave Hall" wrote in message ... Rolling back my tax break will do nothing but **** me off. How did YOU spend your $400 check, Dave? I bought a grass catcher for my lawn tractor, and paid for most of my daughter's pre-school. The last rebate check bought me a water softener, and some other things for the house. The last rebate check was an advance on taxes you were going to owe. But that doesn't matter, does it? You got a check! |
OT--new candidate
Mark Browne wrote:
snip While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you around, they may be able to pull it off. But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the job done"? We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses, and pull out. Not yet. I *was* suggesting that we not get mired in this before it started. You seemed to think that was a bad idea then; can you remember that far back? Does it sound like such a bad idea now? Since we *are* in it - our goal should be to minimize loses while getting the job done. Which is what we are doing. Do you think we are intentionally letting our soldiers get killed? What the leftist pravda news does not report, is the covert operations which are attempting to route out the "bad guys", as well as much of the other background duties that are being performed. The administration is still trying to hang on to control while asking for assistance. Why in the world would anybody get involved without getting a piece of the action? Because WE are the ones who are taking the biggest pounding. Do you think we should hand the spoils over to the wimps like France and Germany (Who had their own self serving reasons to oppose the war) when they did nothing to earn the right? Exactly how stupid does little Bush think the rest of the world is? It is getting to be time to suck it up and pass the baton to the UN. The UN!?!? The UN has no power other than what our military is willing to sign on to. What can the UN accomplish that we cannot? What, is the French military going to do something that we have not been able to? That means that it is time to let them have some say in how things are done. And if the UN becomes involved, it will magically eliminate terrorist action? How naive can you be? Most Iraqis and Arabs alike consider the UN to be a puppet of the U.S. anyway, at least when it comes to physical might. It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and rebuilding contracts. You guys on the left just can't seem to let go of this issue. End of story. Nothing is ever that easy. But you are not considering the emotional boost that this will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that we're at their mercy. For someone who does not do much reading and has never spent any time talking to these people, you seem to know a lot about the psychology of the Arab people. I never said that I don't read. That was Doug who promoted THAT rumor. I read ALOT, I just don't read fiction stories, or trite "artsy" forms of literature. There are far more intriguing true stories to read. I was not refering to the psychology of the Arab paople specifically, but rather the perception, that us pulling out with our tails between our legs, would give to the rest of the world. Just how stupid do you think these people are? Judging from the many leftists, with their naive and idealistic attitudes in this country, statistically there's bound to be a few in Iraq as well. I don't think they need the USA to tell them if they are winning or loosing - they can figure these things out for themselves.They already know that the emperor has no clothes! But at what cost? We all know that there are warped Arabs, who are willing to strap on a bomb and take themselves out in the name of Jihad. How many family memebrs will die before these people start to question the sense of their actions? I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us. Kill them to liberate them - Where have I heard that before? Not liberate them. We're trying that now. If they don't want freedom, and instead declare "Jihad" on us, then it becomes a battle of survival of the fittest. Us or them. Who do you vote for? In any case - the population was ruthlessly oppressed by a small group before we dropped by. Now you want to continue the oppression of these people by nuking them? Then those people should rise up in opposition to those who are fighting a terroristic battle plan against us. Only the most paranoid, xenophobic radical Islamic, would stand in the way of progress. Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not. No? If they're all dead, who will carry out terrorist acts against us? On the other hand, it might turn a lot of people that did not care one way or the other into vengeful enemies. If you remember the OK city bombing, some of the ****ed off people might even be American citizens! There has been a good deal of evidence that suggests that Tim McVeigh was "enouraged" by Iraqi agents who were all too happy to have an American face to place on their actions. Tim Mc Veigh fit the psychological profile almost perfectly for someone to be recruited into a terrorist cell (Or a religious cult for that matter). He had esteem issues, he felt disenfranchised, he was an underachiever. Oh, and since I'll anticipate your next question, here's the link: http://www.marsearthconnection.com/okc.html I personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our options open up a bit. I don't think they respect or fear us. Actually, I think that they are laughing at us! They *are* just killing us; the longer we stay there, the better they will get at it. So will we. At this point, little Bush has driven us into a box - We have very few viable options. I did outline them in march while the war was still running hot. This war was inevitable. Sometime in the future we would have to deal with this threat. How do you effectively fight a target which is not well defined? You have two choices; Dialogue, or military action. For dialogue to be effective and meaningful, there has to be something to be gained and lost which can be negotiated through the art of compromise. If your enemy refuses to play the game, then what is left? http://www.google.com/groups?q=end+g...nsc04&rnum= 1 Do you see *any* other options besides the ones outlined? Most of those solutions are the obvious ones. Each is fraught with the problems of uncertainty, and lacks a "rewind" mechanism to use when we find that it wasn't the best solution. Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur, both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of the campaign. Negotiations? Now there's a hoot! Um, who do you intend to talk to? What embassy do you go to? What do you have to offer that is better then *them* winning? Can you think of any carrot that they might go for? Who says they are winning? They might be putting up a good battle, but they are self destructing themselves in the process. When it is all said and done, and if they do succeed in forcing us out, what will they have to show for it, besides knowing that they bested the best military in the world? Their land will be in ruin, their population decimated. Is pride THAT important? Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness. Who are we trying to kid? We can run our country into the ground without ever impressing them. Do you have any idea what *they* are thinking? Not directly, but I do know human nature to some degree. I do spend some time reading some of what is available on the web That's suspect already. How do you know what you read on the web reflects the actual feelings of anyone besides the bias of the writer? and exchanging the odd email with Arab friends. That's probably a little more reliable, depending on the insight of the particular Arab. Judging from the correspondance that I've read, a great many Iraqi's are grateful that we removed Saddam for them. They just don't want us hanging around. If the terrorists would stop mucking up the rebuilding effort, then we'd be out of there that much sooner. All the more reason why the Iraqi people should dime these radicals out. There would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of yet. Why would *they* negotiate? We are in the loosing position. How do you figure? We can blow them back into the next century, if we decide to. They would be making a great gamble, on just how far they can push us before we decide that we've finally had enough. *They* are very aware of that. As long as you guys on the left continue to erode our resolve at home, then they can bank on it. Otherwise, they have a lot to fear. They have guys like you to thank for their will to stand up to us. Your country owes you a great debt....... All they have to do is more of what they are doing. As I have stated before, this area has been invaded several times and the locals have formed some very effective strategies. They have driven off every super power that has dropped by. When was the last superpower in Iraq? All we can do at this point is loose more money and people without any possibility of winning. You are really pessimistic aren't you? Is this a result of just wanting the Bush Doctrine to fail, or are you just not willing to fight for a good cause? If we all were to adopt your attitude, we might as well disable our whole military, since you seem to feel that it would be ineffective against the "new wave" warriors. We can't get to the people behind this without killing everybody. They *do* know that. And they should fear that, since we have the capability to do just that. In the revolutionary war the rascally colonists refused to stand and fight like they were supposed to; instead they hid behind trees and killed lots of red coats. The administrations "dash to Baghdad" killed anybody that opposed us, and left all tens of thousands of soldiers in the field. Now *they* stage 15 or so raids a day, blow up a power station or town hall, and fade back into the crowd. This is much better for them than standing and fighting in the open desert like we hoped they would. Instead they hide behind the civilian population and kill some US soldiers. Do you see any parallels here? Then we should adopt their own tactics against them. We too should fade into the background and track and apprehend each and every terrorist we can find. Dave |
OT--new candidate
"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net... If I had family that lived in NYC or Washington, DC, I'd worry that they'd be killed by a terrorist attack. Unlike you, I believe that rebuilding Iraq into a Democracy, and maintaining military bases there as a deterrent (or launching point) against other terrorist-sponsoring countries, will ultimately make us safer in our own cities. In the 1940's, our country felt they had the moral authority to send young men to Europe to fight against the Germans because they knew that what was happening over there would one day affect us. Sitting around idly while terrorists take pot shots at us is no way to live. That's what's going to continue to happen in Iraq, so get used to it. You seem to think our desire to make Iraq into a democracy is the panacea for solving the terrorist problem. Democracy only takes hold in countries that desire it. Iraq isn't one of them. Once we're gone, they'll move swiftly back to the tribal lifestyle. This will be both a political and military failure in the end. Our efforts to nation build will again be thwarted by the cultural forces that existed long before we or the English attempted to bring civility to the region. If we don't find a way to gracefully exit, Iraq will become America's Chechnya. |
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... What the leftist pravda news does not report, "Pravda"? Holy smokes! Dave has a new word! It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and rebuilding contracts. You guys on the left just can't seem to let go of this issue. Forget "potential oil supplies" and focus on "rebuilding contracts". You don't think it's just a tad tasteless (and arrogant and stupid) to bomb the snots out of a country, and then restrict the rebuilding process (smirk) to a handful of political cronies? I never said that I don't read. That was Doug who promoted THAT rumor. It's a rumor? How many family memebrs will die before these people start to question the sense of their actions? A whole lot more will die. You're only able to think like a Westerner. Johnson....Nixon...Bush....Dave Hall...all the same. That's why we got hammered so badly in Vietnam. You cannot understand that other cultures don't view war, death and victory/defeat the way we do. If an invading force was marching through your neck of the woods, you would do exactly what the Iraqis "terrorists" are doing. Not liberate them. We're trying that now. If they don't want freedom, and instead declare "Jihad" on us, then it becomes a battle of survival of the fittest. Us or them. Who do you vote for? Get out, and begin inflicting enormous financial pain on the Saudis through voluntary oil use reduction by Americans. ...OK...just get a little more worm on the hook so it doesn't get nibbled off in tiny pieces... Then those people should rise up in opposition to those who are fighting a terroristic battle plan against us. "Terroristic" ??? Bush-Bot Alert! Your monkey-leader is begin to affect your mind, Dave. I wonder if mind control can be considered a biologicalular weapon. Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not. No? If they're all dead, who will carry out terrorist acts against us? If WHO is all dead, Dave? Everyone in Iraq? Or, are you dreaming about tiny nuclear weapons that only "take out" half a building or a car? apologies for "take out", a favorite term of the impotent right-wing I don't think they respect or fear us. Actually, I think that they are laughing at us! They *are* just killing us; the longer we stay there, the better they will get at it. So will we. Well, our soldiers are getting to the point where they aren't too thrilled about being outdoors in Iraq. For some people, mostly TV droid/couch potatoes, that's fine, but some folks like to walk around. Not being able to do that sorta makes them depressed or crazy or both. Bad for morale. At this point, little Bush has driven us into a box - We have very few viable options. I did outline them in march while the war was still running hot. This war was inevitable. Sometime in the future we would have to deal with this threat. How do you effectively fight a target which is not well defined? You have two choices; Dialogue, or military action. For dialogue to be effective and meaningful, there has to be something to be gained and lost which can be negotiated through the art of compromise. If your enemy refuses to play the game, then what is left? Sigh...you are intensely stupid, Dave. You say the target is not well-defined, but a war was inevitable. You know that the 9/11 gang was primarily made up of Saudis. Your chump leader says there was no clear connection between 9/11 and Iraq. So, no target, dead bad guys from country A, no clear finger pointing at country B, so it's inevitable that we invade country B. We have a logic bomb here. If I give you ten bucks, would you pith yourself, please? * *1 a : to kill (as cattle) by piercing or severing the spinal cord b : to destroy the spinal cord or central nervous system of (as a frog) usually by passing a wire or needle up and down the vertebral canal |
OT--new candidate
You seem to think our desire to make Iraq into a democracy is the panacea for solving the terrorist problem. Democracy only takes hold in countries that desire it. Iraq isn't one of them. The great JPS has spoken, the people of Iraqi do not want Democracy! Had you been around at the time, I'm sure you would have said the same of post-war Japan and Germany. I know people on the ground in Iraq and communicate with them every chance I get. They say the vast majority of people do want democracy and are happy we're there. |
OT--new candidate
"Joe" wrote in message
... You seem to think our desire to make Iraq into a democracy is the panacea for solving the terrorist problem. Democracy only takes hold in countries that desire it. Iraq isn't one of them. The great JPS has spoken, the people of Iraqi do not want Democracy! Had you been around at the time, I'm sure you would have said the same of post-war Japan and Germany. I know people on the ground in Iraq and communicate with them every chance I get. They say the vast majority of people do want democracy and are happy we're there. You're clearly not a student of history. Both Japan and Germany were highly civilized nations hijacked by "special interests." They didn't come out of the dark ages to suddenly emerge into the light of modern democracy. Iraq will revert to the feudal/warlord system it's known for thousands of years (just like Afghanistan is presently). That's the system one level below the one imposed on Iraq and held together by Saddam -- one that was manditory to "encourage" competitive cultures to co-exist. It required an iron fist. There will be a rush for power just as soon as they've driven the Americans out. We, of course, will let them have control just as soon as we can restore control and sign them up for long term debt, the assistance of Halliburton and a sweetheart deal on barrel prices. Why don't you bless us with your theory of how it's going to work Joe? |
OT--new candidate
"Joe" wrote in message
... They say the vast majority of people do want democracy and are happy we're there. The vast majority doesn't control. Why the hell do you think Saddam was able to suppress these people? They'll fall in line behind whatever helps them restore their lives to some level of normalcy. Once we're gone, it'll be a thug. |
OT--new candidate
"Joe" wrote in message
... You seem to think our desire to make Iraq into a democracy is the panacea for solving the terrorist problem. Democracy only takes hold in countries that desire it. Iraq isn't one of them. The great JPS has spoken, the people of Iraqi do not want Democracy! Had you been around at the time, I'm sure you would have said the same of post-war Japan and Germany. I know people on the ground in Iraq and communicate with them every chance I get. They say the vast majority of people do want democracy and are happy we're there. Well, over the past few weeks, I've heard Iraqis say, in interviews, that nobody likes occupiers and that's what they consider us. This morning, when the news described the latest attack on our troops, the reporter said a horde of locals came to the scene and applauded. Yep. They're glad we're in town. |
OT--new candidate
"Joe" wrote in message ...
You seem to think our desire to make Iraq into a democracy is the panacea for solving the terrorist problem. Democracy only takes hold in countries that desire it. Iraq isn't one of them. The great JPS has spoken, the people of Iraqi do not want Democracy! Had you been around at the time, I'm sure you would have said the same of post-war Japan and Germany. I know people on the ground in Iraq and communicate with them every chance I get. They say the vast majority of people do want democracy and are happy we're there. We are the aggressor, the attacker. They feel the same about us, as we do the people that attacked us on 9/11...oh, wait, we aren't mad at them anymore, it's those pesky Iraqis we're going after. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com