OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:58:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

But the 10-15 who are doing more than just keeping quiet are not
meaningless. Are we taking the biggest burden? Of course. Are there
other nations that are meaningful parts of a coalition? Also, of
course.

Steve

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

JohnH wrote in message
Then why all the ****in' and moanin'?


I believe you misspelled two words. The correct spelling is ****ing,
and moaning. See what happens when you start correcting grammer,
spelling and syntax, when you can't debate? The thing to do would
have, when you couldn't debate anymore, would have been to quit, as
opposed to correcting spelling.

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
JohnH wrote in message
Then why all the ****in' and moanin'?


I believe you misspelled two words. The correct spelling is ****ing,
and moaning. See what happens when you start correcting grammer,
spelling and syntax, when you can't debate? The thing to do would
have, when you couldn't debate anymore, would have been to quit, as
opposed to correcting spelling.

Grammer?

Doh!

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

On 22 Dec 2003 07:59:46 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message
Then why all the ****in' and moanin'?


I believe you misspelled two words. The correct spelling is ****ing,
and moaning. See what happens when you start correcting grammer,
spelling and syntax, when you can't debate? The thing to do would
have, when you couldn't debate anymore, would have been to quit, as
opposed to correcting spelling.


Have you ever heard of a colloquialism?

Debate what? Your grammar? Read, please, this sentence: The thing to do would
have, when you couldn't debate anymore, would have been to quit, as opposed to
correcting spelling. Do you find a boo-boo therein? Also, do you realize you are
'correcting' may grammar using the word 'grammer'?

Why don't you just stop? My God, I couldn't take it any more. You're like the
Energizer Bunny.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:48:04 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On 22 Dec 2003 07:59:46 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message
Then why all the ****in' and moanin'?


I believe you misspelled two words. The correct spelling is ****ing,
and moaning. See what happens when you start correcting grammer,
spelling and syntax, when you can't debate? The thing to do would
have, when you couldn't debate anymore, would have been to quit, as
opposed to correcting spelling.


Have you ever heard of a colloquialism?

Debate what? Your grammar? Read, please, this sentence: The thing to do would
have, when you couldn't debate anymore, would have been to quit, as opposed to
correcting spelling. Do you find a boo-boo therein? Also, do you realize you are
'correcting' may grammar using the word 'grammer'?

Why don't you just stop? My God, I couldn't take it any more. You're like the
Energizer Bunny.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Please change 'may' to 'my'. My May grammar and spelling is much better than my
December grammar and spelling!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


Also, do you realize you are
'correcting' may grammar using the word 'grammer'?

One of the funniest lines of the day! Thanks.

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

On 22 Dec 2003 07:55:42 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
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.

Well, if you can, then DO so. Provide proof.

Ok.

From http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...iz.html#People
the population of Iraq is 24,683,313 (July 2003 est.) That same site
used to have political party breakdown but now we have to get it
elsewhere.

http://english.people.com.cn/200305/...2_116531.shtml says
that the total Baath party membership is around 1.5 million members with
only a few dozen thousand as full members. I've seen other estimates of
around 40,000 full members. But just for the sake of argument, we'll go
with the 1.5 million members.

That means that 23,183,313 Iraqis are allies of the US in Iraq. Now, do
you tink that is more or less than the number of US troops in Iraq?

Steve

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 22 Dec 2003 07:55:42 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
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.

Well, if you can, then DO so. Provide proof.

Ok.

From http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...iz.html#People
the population of Iraq is 24,683,313 (July 2003 est.) That same site
used to have political party breakdown but now we have to get it
elsewhere.

http://english.people.com.cn/200305/...2_116531.shtml says
that the total Baath party membership is around 1.5 million members with
only a few dozen thousand as full members. I've seen other estimates of
around 40,000 full members. But just for the sake of argument, we'll go
with the 1.5 million members.

That means that 23,183,313 Iraqis are allies of the US in Iraq. Now, do
you tink that is more or less than the number of US troops in Iraq?

Steve

Uh, how about we, "for argument's sake" use the 40k number?

OT : Poor, Poor Democrats
 

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 22 Dec 2003 07:55:42 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
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.

Well, if you can, then DO so. Provide proof.

Ok.

From http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...iz.html#People
the population of Iraq is 24,683,313 (July 2003 est.) That same site
used to have political party breakdown but now we have to get it
elsewhere.

http://english.people.com.cn/200305/...2_116531.shtml says
that the total Baath party membership is around 1.5 million members with
only a few dozen thousand as full members. I've seen other estimates of
around 40,000 full members. But just for the sake of argument, we'll go
with the 1.5 million members.

That means that 23,183,313 Iraqis are allies of the US in Iraq. Now, do
you tink that is more or less than the number of US troops in Iraq?

Steve

Now, just what IS that Baath party's army called? You see, you
absolutely talking ignorant here, the S.V. was a REAL army. You are
making one up from a political party.