"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.

On 2 May 2005 18:48:36 -0700, wrote:

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).

His skill, abilities, persistence, deep hatred and dedication to his
craft. I can't really think of any more endearing qualities for him.
He's even more of a nut case than they typical disgruntled
wrecked.boater.

Just my opinion of course, but I don't think this is one of the
regular "I hate Harry" cases.

bb