|
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... s "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. You really do live on another planet, don't you? Not only that, but you never quite got past the age of 12. Have you noticed the return of suicide bombings in Iraq, or are all those reports fabricated? |
Doug,
I think their game plan of not attacking us at home is working, they have us running scared. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... They'll attack here anytime they please. You know that. "Dr. Dr. K. Grear" Call180bucme@foragoodtime wrote in message ... Doug, I completely agree with you, why should we bring the fight to their home, we should wait till they attack us in our home. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... They'll attack here anytime they please. You know that. So I guess they did not *please* to do so since 9-11-01. Right. LMAO!!!!!!!! |
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:02:04 -0400, "Harry.Krause"
wrote: Which Smithers are you? Are you Smithers, Robbins, Hertvik, Jackoff? Appears to be one Brad Jesness. Check out this resume: http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/nine.html dude has some issues bb |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... s "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. You really do live on another planet, don't you? Not only that, but you never quite got past the age of 12. Have you noticed the return of suicide bombings in Iraq, or are all those reports fabricated? They're blowing up Iraqi men, women, and children attending weddings. However, there's been a 35% reduction in US casualties over the last 3 months than in the 3 month period prior to that. |
bb May 2, 5:20 pm show options
Newsgroups: rec.boats From: bb - Find messages by this author Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 00:20:30 GMT Local: Mon,May 2 2005 5:20 pm Subject: OT--Washington Post admits the obvious Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:02:04 -0400, "Harry.Krause" wrote: Which Smithers are you? Are you Smithers, Robbins, Hertvik, Jackoff? Appears to be one Brad Jesness. Check out this resume: http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/=ADnine.html dude has some issues bb **************** What inspires you to believe this one-man wrecking crew is responsible for the sudden flurry of profane attack posts in rec.boats? (It would be nice to discover that it isn't one of the regulars just gone off the deep end). |
"NOYB" wrote in message
... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... s "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof. No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor. Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em. You really do live on another planet, don't you? Not only that, but you never quite got past the age of 12. Have you noticed the return of suicide bombings in Iraq, or are all those reports fabricated? They're blowing up Iraqi men, women, and children attending weddings. However, there's been a 35% reduction in US casualties over the last 3 months than in the 3 month period prior to that. OK, boy. If you think that last paragraph is NOT a non-sequitur, we're done with this. |
"harry.krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms... ...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets. Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own backyard? Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds. As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95. The "intel" the Bush Misadministration "acts" upon is so bad that we have no way of knowing whether threats to our homeland are real or nonexistent. Why, after all that has been revealed about our ****-poor intel would anyone believe the Bu****es about anything? AFter 9-11 happened on his watch, Bush should have jumped from a helicopter into the still-smoldering ruins of the WTC. The blame for our intel failure can be placed at the door of Carter and the Democrats of the 80's. We were told to believe in a kinder world and the past actions of the CIA were considered criminal and they were forbidden to engage in tactics that were popular and sanctioned during the height of the cold war. A crippled CIA relied on Satellite intel and had no-one on the ground when needed. Clinton was more interested in disarming America than in foreign enemies (Waco). To be fair, Bush was probably an isolationist but he as a conservative was going to rearm the military after 8 years of consistent budget cuts for the military under Clinton and the fiscally budget conscious congress (Republican). I agree with your statement that we shouldn't rely on good news intel! I feel that the Bush administration is suffering from an erroding base and needs good news to get his numbers up. He has several agendas for US that need to be addressed and they are not being given fair play in the press. (For the most part not the fault of the press. That's our fault for not thinking thru these issues for ourselves.) |
Carter is actually responsible for quietly pumping funds into our submarine
program, something I think was a really good idea. Quite a bit of intel is gathered by those boats, although we don't hear much about that process. |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com