OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 10:26:03 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 03:48:25 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:03:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
I'll tell you now. We had NEVER went to war against another country
unprovoked, without reason, and without consent of our allies, that
is, until now.

cough cough vietnam cough cough

LOL. He's one of yours.

Those LOL's are annoying, and pretty third gradish, to start. Now,

I would have thought you were used to people laughing at you by now. Is
it about as annoying as you saying republicans shouldn't be allowed to
breed? Where have we heard rhetoric like that before?

Why from you, of course. And no, me saying republicans shouldn't be
allowed to breed is called an OPINION, do you know what that is? Now,
those LOL's serve WHAT purpose? Oh, I know, it's so even fools can
make a point.

If it annoys you, that's purpose enough. Your HEHHEE's don't bother me.
It just shows what a lunatic you are.

about Vietnam, the reason I don't put it in the same class as this
current lie-war we are in is multi-faceted, but to keep it simple, at
least we had allies that were in agreement with us.

I see. So you're saying that Vietnam is different than Iraq because we
didn't have any allies that were in agreement with us, right?

Oh, you disagree? So you are saying Vietnam IS just like Iraq?

There are many reasons why Vietnam is not just like Iraq. You're just
too stupid to point them out. You "reason" that we didn't have any
allies is just pure crap. You don't know what you're talking about AT
ALL.

Now I
have to ask ... which one was it that we didn't have any allies that
were in agreement with is?

We had VERY FEW allies in Iraq, with most of the world either not
wanting to get involved, or showing total disdain for us. Our allies
to countries ratio for Vietnam was MUCH higher.

Ah, I see. You now went from none to VERY FEW allies. Ok, why don't
you list all the allies we have providing material support (men, money,
whatever) in Iraq vs. all the allies we had providing material support
in Vietnam. This should be interesting.

Steve

Uh, for your information, our Allies in Vietnam OUTNUMBERED U.S.
troops in every single year!!!! Bwaaahaaa!!!!! Need proof? No problem!
The below website CLEARLY shows that in Vietnam, thanks to South
Vietnam, Aust. N.Z., Thailand, Philippines, that the allied troops
outnumbered us. Can you say the same about Iraq?
http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm

Now, I know that you conservatives, who goose step to Bush, have been
brainwashed into believing that most of the world is with him, but,
let's put it into perspective:
Here are some of those countries and what they've contributed:

Kazakhstan -- 27 troops.
Latvia -- 106 troops.
Lithuania -- 90 troops.
Macedonia -- 28 troops.
Spain -- 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in
south-central Iraq.
Thailand -- 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.

FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT:
I know that it's important for the Bush Administration to claim they
have a broad coalition of support in postwar Iraq, but I can't imagine
that the small number of troops from countries such as Kazakhstan and
Macedonia would justify the logistics necessary to implement them.

Twenty-eight troops?

That's an 8th grade classroom.

A very small Boy Scout Troop.

Kazakhstan and Macedonia have both contributed less than .025 percent
of the 120,000 troops that the US has sent.

All of the troops from Kazakhstan and Macedonia could fit on a
standard-sized yellow school bus

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

On 19 Dec 2003 04:35:09 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 10:26:03 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 03:48:25 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:03:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
I'll tell you now. We had NEVER went to war against another country
unprovoked, without reason, and without consent of our allies, that
is, until now.

cough cough vietnam cough cough

LOL. He's one of yours.

Those LOL's are annoying, and pretty third gradish, to start. Now,

I would have thought you were used to people laughing at you by now. Is
it about as annoying as you saying republicans shouldn't be allowed to
breed? Where have we heard rhetoric like that before?

Why from you, of course. And no, me saying republicans shouldn't be
allowed to breed is called an OPINION, do you know what that is? Now,
those LOL's serve WHAT purpose? Oh, I know, it's so even fools can
make a point.

If it annoys you, that's purpose enough. Your HEHHEE's don't bother me.
It just shows what a lunatic you are.

about Vietnam, the reason I don't put it in the same class as this
current lie-war we are in is multi-faceted, but to keep it simple, at
least we had allies that were in agreement with us.

I see. So you're saying that Vietnam is different than Iraq because we
didn't have any allies that were in agreement with us, right?

Oh, you disagree? So you are saying Vietnam IS just like Iraq?

There are many reasons why Vietnam is not just like Iraq. You're just
too stupid to point them out. You "reason" that we didn't have any
allies is just pure crap. You don't know what you're talking about AT
ALL.

Now I
have to ask ... which one was it that we didn't have any allies that
were in agreement with is?

We had VERY FEW allies in Iraq, with most of the world either not
wanting to get involved, or showing total disdain for us. Our allies
to countries ratio for Vietnam was MUCH higher.

Ah, I see. You now went from none to VERY FEW allies. Ok, why don't
you list all the allies we have providing material support (men, money,
whatever) in Iraq vs. all the allies we had providing material support
in Vietnam. This should be interesting.

Can't do a simple search yourself? It's quite easy. This should prove interesting.

YOU are the one who made the statement that Iraq is different than
VietNam because in VietNam we had allies and in Iraq we don't.

Here it is again. YOU said:
about Vietnam, the reason I don't put it in the same class as this
current lie-war we are in is multi-faceted, but to keep it simple, at
least we had allies that were in agreement with us.

All I'm doing is asking you to back up your statement by prooving that
we had allies in agreement with us over VietNam and prooving that we
don't have any allies in agreement with us over Iraq. If you can't do
that, fine. Just say so.

Steve

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

On 19 Dec 2003 06:17:00 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 10:26:03 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 03:48:25 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:03:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
I'll tell you now. We had NEVER went to war against another country
unprovoked, without reason, and without consent of our allies, that
is, until now.

cough cough vietnam cough cough

LOL. He's one of yours.

Those LOL's are annoying, and pretty third gradish, to start. Now,

I would have thought you were used to people laughing at you by now. Is
it about as annoying as you saying republicans shouldn't be allowed to
breed? Where have we heard rhetoric like that before?

Why from you, of course. And no, me saying republicans shouldn't be
allowed to breed is called an OPINION, do you know what that is? Now,
those LOL's serve WHAT purpose? Oh, I know, it's so even fools can
make a point.

If it annoys you, that's purpose enough. Your HEHHEE's don't bother me.
It just shows what a lunatic you are.

about Vietnam, the reason I don't put it in the same class as this
current lie-war we are in is multi-faceted, but to keep it simple, at
least we had allies that were in agreement with us.

I see. So you're saying that Vietnam is different than Iraq because we
didn't have any allies that were in agreement with us, right?

Oh, you disagree? So you are saying Vietnam IS just like Iraq?

There are many reasons why Vietnam is not just like Iraq. You're just
too stupid to point them out. You "reason" that we didn't have any
allies is just pure crap. You don't know what you're talking about AT
ALL.

Now I
have to ask ... which one was it that we didn't have any allies that
were in agreement with is?

We had VERY FEW allies in Iraq, with most of the world either not
wanting to get involved, or showing total disdain for us. Our allies
to countries ratio for Vietnam was MUCH higher.

Ah, I see. You now went from none to VERY FEW allies. Ok, why don't
you list all the allies we have providing material support (men, money,
whatever) in Iraq vs. all the allies we had providing material support
in Vietnam. This should be interesting.

Steve

Uh, for your information, our Allies in Vietnam OUTNUMBERED U.S.
troops in every single year!!!! Bwaaahaaa!!!!! Need proof? No problem!
The below website CLEARLY shows that in Vietnam, thanks to South
Vietnam, Aust. N.Z., Thailand, Philippines, that the allied troops
outnumbered us. Can you say the same about Iraq?

Yes, I can. Because if you're including South VietNam as one of the
allies in VietNam then I'm including non Baathist Iraq as one of the
allies in Iraq.

In any case, you have yet to proove that we have no allies in agreement
with us over Iraq. That's the only way you could possibly be right when
you said that the simple difference between VietNam and Iraq is that in
VietNam we had allies that were in agreement with us. If you can't
proove that we have no allies in agreement with us over Iraq, then
you're just making up crap as usual.

Steve

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


All I'm doing is asking you to back up your statement by prooving that
we had allies in agreement with us over VietNam and prooving that we
don't have any allies in agreement with us over Iraq. If you can't do
that, fine. Just say so.

Steve

I think what he might mean is that in both conflicts, the allies were
insignificant compared to the sacrifices WE made, Steve.

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


In any case, you have yet to proove that we have no allies in agreement
with us over Iraq. That's the only way you could possibly be right when
you said that the simple difference between VietNam and Iraq is that in
VietNam we had allies that were in agreement with us. If you can't
proove that we have no allies in agreement with us over Iraq, then
you're just making up crap as usual.

Steve

Perhaps he's reacting subconsciously to Bush's repeated claims that we have
60 or 80 in the coalition. Don't ask for a specific number - it's close to
one of the numbers I mentioned and it's not important. In terms of large
material contribution (relative to the size of each contributor's POTENTIAL
contribution), the actual number is closer to 2. If you include any country
that's sent more than a dozen humans, it's what....maybe a dozen?

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

(basskisser) wrote in message om...
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 10:26:03 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 18 Dec 2003 03:48:25 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:03:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
I'll tell you now. We had NEVER went to war against another country
unprovoked, without reason, and without consent of our allies, that
is, until now.

cough cough vietnam cough cough

LOL. He's one of yours.

Those LOL's are annoying, and pretty third gradish, to start. Now,

I would have thought you were used to people laughing at you by now. Is
it about as annoying as you saying republicans shouldn't be allowed to
breed? Where have we heard rhetoric like that before?

Why from you, of course. And no, me saying republicans shouldn't be
allowed to breed is called an OPINION, do you know what that is? Now,
those LOL's serve WHAT purpose? Oh, I know, it's so even fools can
make a point.

If it annoys you, that's purpose enough. Your HEHHEE's don't bother me.
It just shows what a lunatic you are.

about Vietnam, the reason I don't put it in the same class as this
current lie-war we are in is multi-faceted, but to keep it simple, at
least we had allies that were in agreement with us.

I see. So you're saying that Vietnam is different than Iraq because we
didn't have any allies that were in agreement with us, right?

Oh, you disagree? So you are saying Vietnam IS just like Iraq?

There are many reasons why Vietnam is not just like Iraq. You're just
too stupid to point them out. You "reason" that we didn't have any
allies is just pure crap. You don't know what you're talking about AT
ALL.

Now I
have to ask ... which one was it that we didn't have any allies that
were in agreement with is?

We had VERY FEW allies in Iraq, with most of the world either not
wanting to get involved, or showing total disdain for us. Our allies
to countries ratio for Vietnam was MUCH higher.

Ah, I see. You now went from none to VERY FEW allies. Ok, why don't
you list all the allies we have providing material support (men, money,
whatever) in Iraq vs. all the allies we had providing material support
in Vietnam. This should be interesting.

Steve

Uh, for your information, our Allies in Vietnam OUTNUMBERED U.S.
troops in every single year!!!! Bwaaahaaa!!!!! Need proof? No problem!
The below website CLEARLY shows that in Vietnam, thanks to South
Vietnam, Aust. N.Z., Thailand, Philippines, that the allied troops
outnumbered us. Can you say the same about Iraq?
http://members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm

Now, I know that you conservatives, who goose step to Bush, have been
brainwashed into believing that most of the world is with him, but,
let's put it into perspective:
Here are some of those countries and what they've contributed:

Kazakhstan -- 27 troops.
Latvia -- 106 troops.
Lithuania -- 90 troops.
Macedonia -- 28 troops.
Spain -- 1,300 troops, mostly assigned to police duties in
south-central Iraq.
Thailand -- 400 troops assigned to humanitarian operations.

FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT:
I know that it's important for the Bush Administration to claim they
have a broad coalition of support in postwar Iraq, but I can't imagine
that the small number of troops from countries such as Kazakhstan and
Macedonia would justify the logistics necessary to implement them.

Twenty-eight troops?

That's an 8th grade classroom.

A very small Boy Scout Troop.

And properly trained by the United States, that scout troop could take
out a small army. I would like to know what these guys are really
doing, not just what you "think" or what you say most of them are
doing... Anything you say is to forward an agenda, no concern for
facts at all...


Kazakhstan and Macedonia have both contributed less than .025 percent
of the 120,000 troops that the US has sent.

All of the troops from Kazakhstan and Macedonia could fit on a
standard-sized yellow school bus

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

"Backyard Renegade" wrote in message
om...


Twenty-eight troops?

That's an 8th grade classroom.

A very small Boy Scout Troop.

And properly trained by the United States, that scout troop could take
out a small army. I would like to know what these guys are really
doing, not just what you "think" or what you say most of them are
doing... Anything you say is to forward an agenda, no concern for
facts at all...

It really doesn't matter WHAT they're doing. Bush has stated that we have a
coalition of either 60 or 80 countries. Just for the sake of argument, tell
us what YOU PERSONALLY think a country has to do in order to be included in
"the coalition".

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:10:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


All I'm doing is asking you to back up your statement by prooving that
we had allies in agreement with us over VietNam and prooving that we
don't have any allies in agreement with us over Iraq. If you can't do
that, fine. Just say so.

I think what he might mean is that in both conflicts, the allies were
insignificant compared to the sacrifices WE made, Steve.

Um, no I don't think that's what he meant. Because if so, that would
have been a way they were both similar. He was trying to say they were
*different* because in one case "we at least had allies that were in
agreement with us."

I was just curious as to which one he thought we had allies that were in
agreement with us and which one he didn't think we had any allies in
agreement with us.

Steve

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:12:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


In any case, you have yet to proove that we have no allies in agreement
with us over Iraq. That's the only way you could possibly be right when
you said that the simple difference between VietNam and Iraq is that in
VietNam we had allies that were in agreement with us. If you can't
proove that we have no allies in agreement with us over Iraq, then
you're just making up crap as usual.

Steve

Perhaps he's reacting subconsciously to Bush's repeated claims that we have
60 or 80 in the coalition. Don't ask for a specific number - it's close to
one of the numbers I mentioned and it's not important. In terms of large
material contribution (relative to the size of each contributor's POTENTIAL
contribution), the actual number is closer to 2. If you include any country
that's sent more than a dozen humans, it's what....maybe a dozen?

A dozen is quite a few times more than none. What he's reacting to is
the fact that he was wrong (yet again) and can't bring himself to admit
he misspoke. And instead of simply saying he misspoke, he'll continue
to drag himself down the rabbit hole of stupidity trying to defend a
statement that's obviously false. That's his MO.

Steve

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...


Perhaps he's reacting subconsciously to Bush's repeated claims that we
have
60 or 80 in the coalition. Don't ask for a specific number - it's close
to
one of the numbers I mentioned and it's not important. In terms of large
material contribution (relative to the size of each contributor's
POTENTIAL
contribution), the actual number is closer to 2. If you include any
country
that's sent more than a dozen humans, it's what....maybe a dozen?

A dozen is quite a few times more than none. What he's reacting to is
the fact that he was wrong (yet again) and can't bring himself to admit
he misspoke. And instead of simply saying he misspoke, he'll continue
to drag himself down the rabbit hole of stupidity trying to defend a
statement that's obviously false. That's his MO.

Steve

Well, I guess I'm interpreting things my own way: In terms of a military
result, it probably didn't matter how many were in the coalition. But, the
military result was the easiest part of this mess. The hardest part is still
with us, and it really would've helped if we had more than a handful of
helpers. The 50-75 countries who've agreed to just keep quiet are basically
fluff. Meaningless. Not a coalition.