wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:30:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

No I don't care how many the Taliban kill. We should get the hell out
of there and let them all kill each other if they want. They won't be
holding up Hellfire missile parts and blaming us.

Really? You don't care? Wow. That's quite a statement.

I really don't care. Why should I? Sometime you just have to get out
and let these things shake themselves out. Every time we stick our
nose in someone elses civil war we get our nose bloodied until the
American public demands we leave, they finish their war and the world
keeps spinning.

For Whom the Bell Tolls
by John Donne

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me, --
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:07:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:07:32 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:12:11 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:41:03 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:00:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

No wonder they hate us there.

who gives a **** if they hate us. if they leave us alone that's
enough.

They are more likely to screw with us if we are screwing with them.

we arent screwing with them. afghanistan attacked us. that has some
consequences. just ask the japanese.

Afghanistan never attacked us. That is as valid as the WMD argument
... from the same guy, your hero GW Bush.

gee. where was bin laden on 9/11

oh. you dont know.

He wasn't in Hamburg where the plot was planned, he wasn't in Spain
where the hijackers were trained and the Taliban did not have any
involvement at all except letting him live there. They certainly did
not know anything about airplanes crashing into buildings.
Their fight is with the people who have invaded their country, no more
no less.
They were there before we arrived and they will be there when we
leave.

So, what you're saying is that if there's a known murderer living in your
house, you're not really responsible for turning him in, because you weren't
there when he murdered someone...

In article , says...

jps wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:36:48 -0400, Jim wrote:



I never did anything to John's wife. Nor did I make the above-referenced
comment about Israel. I guess one of you assholes is ID copying me too.
That's all you kiddies seem capable of doing, copying the IDs of other
posters.

A careful look at the headers supports your case. Different versions
of Thunderbird.

Forget about that. He's flajim, who first started the spoofing by
becoming Harry, and abandoning his flajim id.
When I came across this newsgroup and decided to post here I took his
old id to post anonymously.
Seemed fitting since my name is Jaime and I'm currently in Florida.
Never called myself flajim though.

The Jim that harassed John's wife was an insurance salesman from Ohio.
Anybody capable of obscene phone calls is also capable of spoofing, and
vice versa, so he might be skulking around here with Loogy.

Doesn't matter. It will be overcome. I have a dream.
I have a dream that rec.boat posters will one day live in a newsgroup
where they will not be judged by the id they use but by the content of
their posts.
You might say about us all "If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you
tickle us, do we not laugh?"
But I'm not sure of that.

Now it seems flajim wants his old id back.
Maybe he's tired of spoofing. Good for him.
I was probably rude to pick it up when he abandoned it.
But I don't feel like changing the id just yet.
Hey, nobody's perfect.
Maybe I will if flajim keeps on using the id.
Rolph Wolfheart might work. Even Wolf Rolphingheart.
Or Urquhart Finstermiesterbothingham III. Pepe LePew?
Kind of like those. Anything but Harry Krause or Loogypicker really.
In the meantime you can easily enough discern the difference between us.
I don't call others here names - directly anyway.
Don't cuss too ****ing much either, that's for damn sure.

Jim - What tangled webs we weave.

I'm the real Harry Krause, and I never ever post anything on topic here.
All of my posts are just insults and name calling. Same with my little
buddy Don, and now Plume is getting with the program.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:15:14 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:07:08 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

you're right. i dont give a rat's ass about how many of them we kill.
25% of their children die before their 1st birthday. and all they care
about is their idiotic religion.

No I don't care how many the Taliban kill. We should get the hell out
of there and let them all kill each other if they want. They won't be
holding up Hellfire missile parts and blaming us.

that's the joe biden approach. i think it has merit.

I guess if you take both sides of the argument you can't lose.

they both have merits. unlike you, i can think my way through this
without rush limball's help

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:20:29 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:07:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


gee. where was bin laden on 9/11

oh. you dont know.

He wasn't in Hamburg where the plot was planned,

you're SUCH an idiot!! let's see...bin laden was personal friends and
advisor with mullah omar.

was he a personal friend of the chancellor of germnay??

HAHAHAHAHA!!! what a MORON!!

he wasn't in Spain
where the hijackers were trained and the Taliban did not have any
involvement at all except letting him live there.

ah. 'letting him live there'...knowing what he was up to and refusing
to surrender him after 9/11

that's called an 'act of war'


They certainly did
not know anything about airplanes crashing into buildings.

bull****. then why did they refuse to surrender him after 9/11?


Their fight is with the people who have invaded their country, no more
no less.
They were there before we arrived and they will be there when we
leave.

more bull****. they'll be there if we let them

you are a clown.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:




So, what you're saying is that if there's a known murderer living in your
house, you're not really responsible for turning him in, because you weren't
there when he murdered someone...


he gets all weak kneed when he thinks of nazis attacking the US...

probably why he likes bush

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:32:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 02:12:11 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:41:03 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 22:00:40 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

No wonder they hate us there.

who gives a **** if they hate us. if they leave us alone that's
enough.

They are more likely to screw with us if we are screwing with them.

we arent screwing with them. afghanistan attacked us. that has some
consequences. just ask the japanese.

Afghanistan never attacked us. That is as valid as the WMD argument
... from the same guy, your hero GW Bush.


The Taliban were in control of the country. They supported and protected
bin
laden. We asked them to hand him over. They refused. He had killed 1000s
of
our people. And, your response is... do nothing. At least Bush initially
went after bin laden.

... but Bin Laden is not there now.
What part of that is so hard for you to understand. Have we demanded
Pakistan turn over Bin Laden? Have we occupied Islamabad to force them
to?

Why not if your logic is solid?



So, if we leave and he comes back, which would be fairly likely, then what?
Are we pressuring Pakistan to do more in the wild, border areas?

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:41:02 -0400, "MMC" wrote:



"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 07:48:08 -0500, "MMC" wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:38:51 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In all fairness....

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

BTW, we are not in the business of deposing dictators and Bush is the
one
that failed early and ugly in Afghanistan, Obama just doesn't have the
balls
to turn it off.


no, he has the good moral sense not to abandon a commitment we made.
you're confused

He promised to bring everyone home during the campaign, not honor any
imaginary commitment.
Karzai wants to throw out all private security and is talking about
throwing
out all contractors. Obama may have a convenient out.

Where is that "Mission Accomplished" banner?

Bush's biggest mistake was not believing the one behind him on the
Carrier
We could have brought home all the people from both wars that day and
the end result would be the same.

According to you, but not most other people just yet.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:33:54 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:15:34 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Gosh, it's a good thing Idi Amin didn't have oil under his country.

You notice that since Clinton got his nose bloodied in Africa we are
not really doing much war making there.

we were lifesaving there. no point in stopping genocide if everyone's
in favor of it


Are you saying a black person's life is less valuable than an
Afghani's life? You just finished a rant about how many Afghans the
Taliban kill.

Racist

Hmm... well, perhaps if we hadn't invaded Iraq (for no reason), we'd be
able
to do something in say Rwanda? Gee.. you think?

No we were not going to do anything about Rwanda.

Not now. I agree.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:32:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 21:55:42 -0700, jps wrote:

Yeah right, a partisan rant is fair I guess.

BTW history may say the Iraq war deposed one of the worst dictators of
the 20th century and Afghanistan accomplished nothing ... at about the
same price.

Gosh, it's a good thing Idi Amin didn't have oil under his country.

You notice that since Clinton got his nose bloodied in Africa we are
not really doing much war making there.

Actually, we have lots of people on the ground there... special ops I
think
they're called. But, feel free to blame Clinton.


I have no problems with a few special ops people being anywhere but it
should be a black op without any direct link to the US.
We used to be real good at that sort of thing.

That is pour best chance of getting Bin Laden. A guy with a sniper
rifle or a laser designator could get him but an army never will.


?? What's wrong with ties to the US? You're in favor of the policy of
targeted murder, right?