| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
As violence erupts and security remains elusive, more American allies are signaling their concerns about the situation in Iraq. Following this week's removal of Spanish, Honduran and Dominican troops, Britain announced it would not send additional (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...22/wbasra322.x ml&sSheet=/news/2004/04/22/ixnewstop.html) troops and Poland started to show (http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsA...2b93e2d2efb?ty pe=worldNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=4895634) cracks in its commitment. Reconstruction efforts are being suspended, and the administration is left to flip-flop on policy, with no solid strategy in place. (Stunningly, in the past two weeks, the only measure the White House has taken to prepare (http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=44603) for the transfer of power on June 30 is the controversial naming of John Negroponte to be Ambassador.) Meanwhile, the pressure on U.S. troops is increasing as the highly-touted (http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=11300) Iraqi security forces are not yet performing as promised (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ces-quit_x.htm) : "About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces 'actually worked against' U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation." |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Jim wrote in message ... : "About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces 'actually worked against' U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation." This can't be! I remember all those army press releases John H. produced, saying how well things were going and making much of the graduating classes. What happened! Could the army pr people be wrong? |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
On Thursday 22 April 2004 7:47 pm in rec.boats Jim wrote:
As violence erupts and security remains elusive, more American allies are Will you PLEASE just **** off and die. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS X-Complaints-To: X-Trace: 52616e646f6d49568619cc7e6235e53395413339225ae22d76 ec6125ec9f746bb14a590573b0e494322673cb60062ae6708b d531bf892688ed8dbbcd427b091f7308a0d0f2964b1f379486 878db60049d3b02f0dede0ab03fc47e8baea0904db -- My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently deleted. Send only plain text. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
"Don White" wrote in message
... Jim wrote in message ... : "About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces 'actually worked against' U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation." This can't be! I remember all those army press releases John H. produced, saying how well things were going and making much of the graduating classes. What happened! Could the army pr people be wrong? NPR interviewed a bunch of Iraqi guys applying for jobs with the security force last week. They said the overwhelming majority were applying for the worst reason of all: They needed jobs. The people interviewed also said they'd never fire on their own people, which is exactly what they're being hired to do. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message ... Jim wrote in message ... : "About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces 'actually worked against' U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation." This can't be! I remember all those army press releases John H. produced, saying how well things were going and making much of the graduating classes. What happened! Could the army pr people be wrong? NPR interviewed a bunch of Iraqi guys applying for jobs with the security force last week. They said the overwhelming majority were applying for the worst reason of all: They needed jobs. The people interviewed also said they'd never fire on their own people, which is exactly what they're being hired to do. Not firing on their own people, of course, puts them a step up on the humanity scale compared to those wonderful Ohio national guardsmen who shot up a bunch of students at Kent State. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Don White wrote:
Jim wrote in message ... : "About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces 'actually worked against' U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation." This can't be! I remember all those army press releases John H. produced, saying how well things were going and making much of the graduating classes. What happened! Could the army pr people be wrong? John simply is playing the same lying, deceitful game the Pentagon played during its Vietnam fiasco. he hopes by spreading meaningless flackery, he can help obfuscate the disaster that has become Bush's policy in Iraq. It's just lying by another name. He probably got used to it during his days in the military. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Harry are you talking about those bunch of scared kids who were surrounded
by 1000's of anger protestor throwing rocks and bottles? Unfortunately a small group of the guardsmen feeling in danger of their life, freaked out and shot into the crowd trying to disperse the angry students. You should not be angry at the guardsmen, you should be upset at LBJ who sent young Americans to an war that we could never win. If LBJ had not escalated the war, the protestors would not have threaten the guardsmen, and the guardsmen would have been home with their family. You do seem to make a habit of placing the blame on the wrong people. "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Don White" wrote in message ... Jim wrote in message ... : "About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces 'actually worked against' U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation." This can't be! I remember all those army press releases John H. produced, saying how well things were going and making much of the graduating classes. What happened! Could the army pr people be wrong? NPR interviewed a bunch of Iraqi guys applying for jobs with the security force last week. They said the overwhelming majority were applying for the worst reason of all: They needed jobs. The people interviewed also said they'd never fire on their own people, which is exactly what they're being hired to do. Not firing on their own people, of course, puts them a step up on the humanity scale compared to those wonderful Ohio national guardsmen who shot up a bunch of students at Kent State. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:49:37 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Don White wrote: Jim wrote in message ... : "About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces 'actually worked against' U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation." This can't be! I remember all those army press releases John H. produced, saying how well things were going and making much of the graduating classes. What happened! Could the army pr people be wrong? John simply is playing the same lying, deceitful game the Pentagon played during its Vietnam fiasco. he hopes by spreading meaningless flackery, he can help obfuscate the disaster that has become Bush's policy in Iraq. It's just lying by another name. He probably got used to it during his days in the military. Speaking of good news. Luckily the defeatist attitude doesn't live in the US Marine Corps. Marines pin hopes on new Iraqi police Submitted by: 1st Marine Division Story Identification Number: 200441811215 Story by Lance Cpl. Macario P. Mora Jr. CAMP AL QAIM, Iraq(April 14, 2004) -- They're a little rough around the edges. They're still learning how to walk, talk and perform as the law of the land. For Marines here, though, the newly-graduated police force in this western Iraqi city is the hope for a better future here. "The fate of this nation depends on its ability to take care of itself," said 1st Lt. Sean M. Gavigan, officer-in-charge of the Al Qaim Police Academy. "Its security forces need to know how to defend (Iraq) against those who oppose it. If not, we will fail." A class of nearly 40 Iraqi police graduated April 17th from the academy's first class after completing a 21-day course. The academy is the first of its kind in the Al Qaim area, which covers a large portion of the western border of Iraq. Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment's military police detachment were tasked to train the policemen. Eight instructors were picked to teach procedures needed to police the streets, which is no small task on this border town. Enemy fighters trying to take control killed nearly 640 Iraqi policemen during the past year, according to Gavigan, who hails from New City, N.Y. "These guys are public enemy number one," Gavigan said. "Without the proper tools and knowledge they're going to be slaughtered. We all want to go home, but that's not going to happen unless these guys can take care of themselves." The three-week learning curve for the new policemen was enormous, according to Cpl. Michael A. Melfi, an instructor and from Columbus, Ohio. "These guys couldn't even use their weapons when we first started with them," Melfi said. "They have come a long way in a short amount of time." Being the first class, Marine and their students forged through hardships and difficulties with establishing the academy and training course. "One of the major difficulties is the language barrier," said Gunnery Sgt. Jamie P. Roberto, chief instructor from Cincinnati. "So much is lost in translation. But, they're giving 'max' effort and my instructors are doing a hell of a job. So, it'll happen, eventually." The class started with 50 students and slowly shrunk down to 40. Marines training the police were tough on their students. Some served previously in Iraqi law enforcement. Still, others didn't make it. "These guys were already policemen," Roberto explained, "If they weren't able to hack it, well... then they were kicked out." According to Melfi, the process was difficult at times. "We weeded out a lot of the bad guys," Melfi said. Marines were tasked with more than just training quality policemen. They were given the awesome task of creating a functional police force. "There was no administrative office," Roberto said. "We didn't know why a guy was promoted or when. No one was accountable for who came to work or any of that." They were also given a shell of a building to turn into an academy. The class that recently graduated had to travel from their homes every day to attend the training. The next go around, though, will be different. "The next class will be a live-in one," Roberto said. "We'll have 100 fresh recruits, and it will be a live-in academy then." Another instructor, Lance Cpl. Jeffery G. Mussman, also from Columbus, Ohio, said things were looking bright. "We noticed a lot of flaws with the original training plan," Mussman said. "So we added a whole section on close combat. We also added more days to their field-fire time." Things are getting better though. "It's a start," Roberto said. "We're using the crawl, walk, run method. If anything, they will be better off than before." "It starts with these guys," Gavigan added. "Whether we succeed will depend on guys like these. We're hoping they can influence the rest out there." John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:49:37 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Don White wrote: Jim wrote in message ... : "About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces 'actually worked against' U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation." This can't be! I remember all those army press releases John H. produced, saying how well things were going and making much of the graduating classes. What happened! Could the army pr people be wrong? John simply is playing the same lying, deceitful game the Pentagon played during its Vietnam fiasco. he hopes by spreading meaningless flackery, he can help obfuscate the disaster that has become Bush's policy in Iraq. It's just lying by another name. He probably got used to it during his days in the military. Oh yeah, is it Doctor Doctor, or just Doctor, or just LSW (speaking of lies). John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Harry are you talking about those bunch of scared kids who were surrounded
by 1000's of anger protestor throwing rocks and bottles? Oh, Christ!!! Some things cannot be left unchallenged. Aplogies in advance to all: No. Harry is not talking about a group of scared kids "surrounded by 1000's of anger (sic) protestors throwing rocks and bottles" Shut off the Limbaugh show and do some acutal research on Kent State. Think it might be signfiicant that not a *single* guardsman was injured? Those thousands of protestors with rocks and bottles must have all been lousy shots. If not, thousands of peope throwing rocks would have simply killed off the entire squad on the spot. The shooters were initially separated from the crowd by the brow of a hill, and had to crest that hill in order to open fire. You must be very young. Here are a few incidents related to Kent State and its aftermath to help you begin your liberation from propanganda and set you upon your quest for truth. May 3 Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes personally appears on campus and promises to use "every force possible" to maintain order. Rhodes denounces the protesters as worse than brownshirts and vows to keep the Guard in Kent "until we get rid of them." May 4 Four students are killed and nine others are wounded when a contingent of Guardsmen suddenly opens fire during a noontime demonstration. July 23 Key portions of a secret Justice Department memo are disclosed by the Akron Beacon Journal. The memorandum describes the shootings as unnecessary and urges the Portage County Prosecutor to file criminal charges against six Guardsmen. October 4 The President's Commission on Campus Unrest concludes: "The actions of some students were violent and criminal and some others were dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible." The shootings are branded as "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable." October 16 The "special" state grand jury exonerates the Guardsmen, but indicts 25 individuals, mostly students, for a variety of offenses that occurred on campus before the shootings. Late October-November Demands for a federal grand jury mount after it is revealed that the "special" state grand jury ignored key evidence and that one of the "special" prosecutors told a newsman he felt the Guardsmen should have shot more students. Following year: The "special" state grand jury is even further discredited when Ohio officials dismiss charges against 20 of the 25 individuals indicted by the grand jury. Ohio prosecutors claimed they had insufficient evidence to convict any protesters. 1973: May 10 In a meeting with the student petitioners, K. William O'Connor, a high-level Justice Department official, admits that the Justice Department already has sufficient evidence to prosecute six Guardsmen. A bit of truth leaks out: August 3 Assistant Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger announces that the Justice Department will officially conduct a new inquiry. Senator Birch Bayh follows Pottinger's announcement by releasing a letter he received from one of the Guard's company commanders. On the basis of that letter Bayh charges that armed FBI informant Terry Norman may have been "the fatal catalyst" for the tragedy. NOTE: That letter was from one of the Guard's own company commanders, not some left wing apologist. 1974: October 7-17 Attorneys for James A. Rhodes unsuccessfully try to block the release of Rhodes's deposition in the civil case until after the Ohio gubernatorial election. The deposition reveals that Rhodes's attorney, in a move reminiscent of the Watergate cover-up, offered into evidence an incomplete transcript of Rhodes's May 3, 1970, press conference. Among the remarks deleted was a comment by an official that the Guard would resort to shooting if necessary. Etc, etc, etc, Now, other than "Everybody knows" and/or "I heard on Fox News, Hannity, or Limbaugh" what facts can you cite that support your allegation that thousands of angry protestors surrounded the troops and pelted them with rocks and bottles? Those innocent kids exercising their First Amendment Rights don't deserve to have their memories villified, especially when there isn't a shred of evidence supporting the wild allegation. A real man would apologize for such a slanderous error. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
John H wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:49:37 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Don White wrote: Jim wrote in message ... : "About one in every 10 members of Iraq's security forces 'actually worked against' U.S. troops during the recent militia violence in Iraq, and an additional 40 percent walked off the job because of intimidation." This can't be! I remember all those army press releases John H. produced, saying how well things were going and making much of the graduating classes. What happened! Could the army pr people be wrong? John simply is playing the same lying, deceitful game the Pentagon played during its Vietnam fiasco. he hopes by spreading meaningless flackery, he can help obfuscate the disaster that has become Bush's policy in Iraq. It's just lying by another name. He probably got used to it during his days in the military. Speaking of good news. Luckily the defeatist attitude doesn't live in the US Marine Corps. Marines pin hopes on new Iraqi police Yet another example of stupidity. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
|
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
|
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Harry are you talking about those bunch of scared kids who were surrounded by 1000's of anger protestor throwing rocks and bottles? Oh, Christ!!! Some things cannot be left unchallenged. Aplogies in advance to all: He's baaa-aack! |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
John Smith wrote:
Harry are you talking about those bunch of scared kids who were surrounded by 1000's of anger protestor throwing rocks and bottles? Whoa right there hoss. You are flat wrong. The protestors never "surrounded" anybody. ... Unfortunately a small group of the guardsmen feeling in danger of their life, freaked out and shot into the crowd trying to disperse the angry students. Actually, they shot at a crowd across a big lawn, and two of the people killed were not even in the protest. You should not be angry at the guardsmen, Yes, you should. They murdered their countrymen over a political disagreement. ... you should be upset at LBJ who sent young Americans to an war that we could never win. Agreed, but with the added notice that LBJ did not initiate US involvement in Viet Nam nor formulate an original policy. All he did was follow bad advice and indulge in a Southerner's instinct to not back down from a fight. Viet Nam was a disaster in the making back in the 1800s, and we should *never* have backed the French to go back in after WW2. DSK |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
I don't listen to Rush, Fox News, or Hannity. Below I have copied the order
of events from the Kent May 4 Center www.may4.org. A web site to remember those killed at Ohio State, so hopefully it will not happen again. I can't imagine many 18 - 21 yr old soldiers who would not be scared to death. If you saw pictures of the students yelling at the guardsmen and the guardsman faces you would agree they were very scared. A real man would realize that it was a terrible situation for all, the students and the guardsmen. Both of them were put in that position due to a failed attempt to wage a ill conceived war, that LBJ escalated. LBJ knew the war was totally out of control, and for that reason he refused to accept his parties nomination for presidency This is from May4.org web site May 2 On the morning of May 2, some KSU students assisted with the downtown cleanup. Rumors of radical activities were widespread, and KSU's ROTC building was believed to be the target of militant student actions that evening. During the Vietnam War, students on many college campuses opposed the presence of ROTC and often were successful in forcing the removal of ROTC from their campuses. A dusk-to-dawn curfew was imposed on the city of Kent, and students were restricted to the campus. At 5 p.m., shortly after assessing the situation, Mayor Satrom alerted the Ohio National Guard. KSU officials were unaware of this decision. Shortly after 8 p.m., about 300 people gathered on the Commons, where a few anti-war slogans were chanted and a few brief speeches given. An impromptu march began and participants headed toward the dormitories to gain strength. Large numbers of people joined the march. The now 2,000 marchers swarmed down the hill over looking the Commons, crossed the Commons. They then surrounded the ROTC building, an old wooden World War II barracks which was scheduled to be demolished. Windows were broken, and a few persons eventually set the building on fire. Plain-clothed police who were standing nearby mce who were standing nearby made no attempt to stop the students at this point. Firemen arrived on the scene but their action were abandoned because some of the crowd attacked the firemen and slashed their hoses. The blaze quickly died out.The firemen eventually regained control and the fire died out. The building was ignited again. This time, however, firemen arrived with massive police protection. Police surrounded the building and dispersed the students with tear gas. The firemen again got the tire under control. The crowd then moved to the front of the campus and were astonished to see units of the Ohio national Guard arriving on their campus. The students retreated to the Commons to find the ROTC building smoldering at both ends. Within minutes, the building was fully ablaze. The crowd then assembled on the wooded hillside beside the Commons and watched as the building burned. Many shouted anti-war and anti-ROTC slogans. In the first two weeks of May, thirty ROTC buildings would be burned nationwide. Armed with tear gas and drawn bayonets, the Guard pursued students, protesters and bystanders alike, into dormitories and other campus buildings. Some stones were thrown and at least one student was bayoneted. The question of who set the fire that destroyed ROTC building has never been satisfactorily answered by any investigative body. May 3 May 3rd was a relatively quiet day. By now, however, the campus was fully occupied by Ohio National Guard troops, and armored personnel carriers were stationed throughout the campus. Although some students and guardsmen fraternized, the feeling, for the most part, was one of mutual hostility. That morning, Ohio Governor James Rhodes, who was running for U.S. Senate, arrived in Kent and along with city officials, held a news conference. Rhodes, running on a "law and order" platform, attempted to use this opportunity to garner votes in the primary election, which was only two days away. In a highly inflammatory speech, Rhodes claimed that the demonstrations at Kent were the handiwork of a highly organized band of revolutionaries who were out to "destroy higher education in Ohio." These protesters, Rhodes declared, were "the worst type of people we harbor in America, worse than the brown shirts and the communist element...we will use whatever force necessary to drive them out of Kent!" Later that evening, a National Guard commander would tell his troops that Ohio law gave them the right to shoot if necessary. This merely served to heighten guardsmen's hostility toward students. Arity toward students. Around 8 p.m., a crowd gathered on the Commons near the Victory bell. As the group increased in size, Guard officials announced the immediate enforcement of a new curfew. The crowd refused to disperse. At 9 p.m., the Ohio Riot Act was read. Tear gas was fired from helicopters hovering overheard, and the Guard dispersed the crowd from the area. Students attempted to demonstrate that the curfew was unnecessary by peacefully marching toward the town, but were met by guardsmen. Students then staged a spontaneous sit-in at the intersection of East Main and Lincoln streets and demanded that mayor Saytrom and KSU President Robert White speak with them about the Guard's presence on campus. Assured that this demand would be met, the crowd agreed to move from the street onto the front lawn of the campus. The Guard then betrayed the students and announced that the curfew would go into effect immediately. Helicopters and tear gas were used to disperse the demonstrators. As the crowd attempted to escape, some were bayoneted and clubbed by the guardsmen. Students were again pursued and prodded back to their dormitories. Tear gas inundated the campus, and helicopters with searchlights hovered overheard all night. , May 4, 1970 At 11 a.m., about 200 students gathered on the Commons. Earlier that morning, state and local officials had met in Kent. Some officials had assumed that Gov. Rhodes had declared Martial law to be in effect * but he had not. In fact, martial law was not officially declared until May 5. Nevertheless, the National Guard resolved to disperse any assembly. As noon approached, the size of the crowd increased to 1,500. Some were merely spectators, while others had gathered specifically to protest the invasion of Cambodia and the continued presence of the National Guard on the campus. Upon orders of Ohio's Assistant Adjutant General Robert Canterbury, an army jeep was driven in front of the assembled students. The students were told by means of a bullhorn to disperse immediately. Students responded with jeers and chants. When the students refused to disperse, Gen. Canterbury ordered the guardsmen to disperse them. Approximately 116 men, equipped with loaded M-1 rifles and tear gas, formed a skirmish-line toward the students. Aware of the bayonet injuries of the previous evening, students immediately ran away from the attacking National Guardsmen. Retreating up Blanket Hill, some students lobbed tear some students lobbed tear gas canisters back at the advancing troops, and one straggler was attacked with clubs. The Guard, after clearing the Commons, marched over the crest of the hill, firing tear gas and scattering the students into a wider area. The Guard then continued marching down the hill and onto a practice football field. For approximately 10 minutes, the Guard stayed in this position. During this time, tear gas canisters were thrown back and forth from the Guard's position to a small group of students in the Prentice Hall parking at, about 100 yards away. Some students responded to the guardsmen's attack by throwing stones. Guardsmen also threw stones at the students. But because of the distance, most stones from both parties fell far short of their targets. The vast majority of students, however, were spectators on the veranda of Taylor Hall. While on the practice field, several members of Troop G which would within minutes fire the fatal volley, knee and aimed their weapons at the students in the parking lot. Gen. Canterbury concluded that the crowd had been dispersed and ordered the Guard to march back to the Commons area. Some members of Troop G then huddled briefly. After reassembling on the field, the guardsmen seemed to begin to retreat as they marched back up the hill retracing their previous steps. Members of Troop G, while advancing up the hill, continued to glance back to the parking at, where the mos parking at, where the most militant and vocal students were located. The students assumed the confrontation was over. Many students began to walk to their next classes. As the Guard reached the crest of the Blanket Hill, near the Pagoda of Taylor Hall, about a dozen members of Troop G simultaneously turned around 180 degrees, aimed and fired their weapons into the crowd in the Prentice Hall parking lot. The 1975 civil trials proved that there was a verbal command to fire. A total of 67 shots were fired in 13 seconds. Four students; Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Schroeder were killed. Nine students were wounded: Joseph Lewis, John Cleary, Thomas Grace, Robbie Stamps, Donald Scott MacKenzie, Alan Canfora, Douglas Wrentmore, James Russell and Dean Kahler. Of the wounded, one was permanently paralyzed and several were seriously maimed. All were full-time students. "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Harry are you talking about those bunch of scared kids who were surrounded by 1000's of anger protestor throwing rocks and bottles? Oh, Christ!!! Some things cannot be left unchallenged. Aplogies in advance to all: No. Harry is not talking about a group of scared kids "surrounded by 1000's of anger (sic) protestors throwing rocks and bottles" Shut off the Limbaugh show and do some acutal research on Kent State. Think it might be signfiicant that not a *single* guardsman was injured? Those thousands of protestors with rocks and bottles must have all been lousy shots. If no t, thousands of peope throwing rocks would have simply killed off the entire squad on the spot. The shooters were initially separated from the crowd by the brow of a hill, and had to crest that hill in order to open fire. You must be very young. Here are a few incidents related to Kent State and its aftermath to help you begin your liberation from propanganda and set you upon your quest for truth. May 3 Ohio Governor James A. Rhodes personally appears on campus and promises to use "every force possible" to maintain order. Rhodes denounces the protesters as worse than brownshirts and vows to keep the Guard in Kent "until we get rid of them." May 4 Four students are killed and nine others are wounded when a contingent of Guardsmen suddenly opens fire during a noontime demonstration. July 23 Key portions of a secret Justice Department memo are disclosed by the Akron Beacon Journal. The memorandum describes the shootings as unnecessary and urges the Portage County Prosecutor to file criminal charges against six Guardsmen. October 4 The President's Commission on Campus Unrest concludes: "The actions of some students were violent and criminal and some others were dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible." The shootings are branded as "unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable." October 16 The "special" state grand jury exonerates the Guardsmen, but indicts 25 individuals, mostly students, for a variety of offenses that occurred on campus before the shootings. Late October-November Demands for a federal grand jury mount after it is revealed that the "special" state grand jury ignored key evidence and that one of the "special" prosecutors told a newsman he felt the Guardsmen should have shot more students. Following year: The "special" state grand jury is even further discredited when Ohio officials dismiss charges against 20 of the 25 individuals indicted by the grand jury. Ohio prosecutors claimed they had insufficient evidence to convict any protesters. 1973: May 10 In a meeting with the student petitioners, K. William O'Connor, a high-level Justice Department official, admits that the Justice Department already has sufficient evidence to prosecute six Guardsmen. A bit of truth leaks out: August 3 Assistant Attorney General J. Stanley Pottinger announces that the Justice Department will officially conduct a new inquiry. Senator Birch Bayh follows Pottinger's announcement by releasing a letter he received from one of the Guard's company commanders. On the basis of that letter Bayh charges that armed FBI informant Terry Norman may have been "the fatal catalyst" for the tragedy. NOTE: That letter was from one of the Guard's own company commanders, not some left wing apologist. 1974: October 7-17 Attorneys for James A. Rhodes unsuccessfully try to block the release of Rhodes's deposition in the civil case until after the Ohio gubernatorial election. The deposition reveals that Rhodes's attorney, in a move reminiscent of the Watergate cover-up, offered into evidence an incomplete transcript of Rhodes's May 3, 1970, press conference. Among the remarks deleted was a comment by an official that the Guard would resort to shooting if necessary. Etc, etc, etc, Now, other than "Everybody knows" and/or "I heard on Fox News, Hannity, or Limbaugh" what facts can you cite that support your allegation that thousands of angry protestors surrounded the troops and pelted them with rocks and bottles? Those innocent kids exercising their First Amendment Rights don't deserve to have their memories villified, especially when there isn't a shred of evidence supporting the wild allegation. A real man would apologize for such a slanderous error. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:gZXhc.5422$IW1.488827@attbi_s52... Harry are you talking about those bunch of scared kids who were surrounded by 1000's of anger protestor throwing rocks and bottles? Unfortunately a small group of the guardsmen feeling in danger of their life, freaked out and shot into the crowd trying to disperse the angry students. You should not be angry at the guardsmen, you should be upset at LBJ who sent young Americans to an war that we could never win. If LBJ had not escalated the war, the protestors would not have threaten the guardsmen, and the guardsmen would have been home with their family. You do seem to make a habit of placing the blame on the wrong people. Here we go again: Lights on, nobody home. Truman authorized the war in Vietnam. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
"John H" wrote in message
... Has Hannity or Limbaugh discussed this recently? You must listen to them a lot more than I, Chuck, as I don't recall anything about this matter. Of course, I focus a lot more on Mr Colmes. :) John, I have to tell you something. Sit down. This is serious. Are you ready? Really ready? You are a corpse. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
No apologies necessary. Harry needs all the help he can get now. His
credibility seems to have taken a big hit. John H I'm not standing up for Harry. He makes his own bed here, and enjoys the abuse. I'm protesting the vile, hateful, inaccurate misrepresentation of a tragic incident. Most National Guardsmen would have never shot into a crowd of protestors, but some did. Trying after all these years to characterize the tragedy as a case of the Guardsmen acting in self defense is pure BS. Hell, even the NIXON administration concluded the shootings were "inexcusable". Is Nixon suddenly too liberal for our politically conservative sect? |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Doug,
Do you have a problem comprehending English? I said LBJ "escalated the war. As far as your other comment about Truman, Truman did provide financial assistance to the French and provided a few military advisors (35 in 1950) to help train the Vietnamese troops, but it was the French-Indochina War until May, 1954. Truman's presidency ended before the French had withdrawn from Vietnam. Please turn on the lights. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message news:gZXhc.5422$IW1.488827@attbi_s52... Harry are you talking about those bunch of scared kids who were surrounded by 1000's of anger protestor throwing rocks and bottles? Unfortunately a small group of the guardsmen feeling in danger of their life, freaked out and shot into the crowd trying to disperse the angry students. You should not be angry at the guardsmen, you should be upset at LBJ who sent young Americans to an war that we could never win. If LBJ had not escalated the war, the protestors would not have threaten the guardsmen, and the guardsmen would have been home with their family. You do seem to make a habit of placing the blame on the wrong people. Here we go again: Lights on, nobody home. Truman authorized the war in Vietnam. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Gould, You need to take a long breath and calm down, tell me where I used any vile or hateful words in my discussion of the Kent State tragedy? When did I say the Guardsman were acting in self defense? I said a bunch of scared kids made a tragic mistake. that is not vile, hateful or inaccurate. I'm protesting the vile, hateful, inaccurate misrepresentation of a tragic incident. Most National Guardsmen would have never shot into a crowd of protestors, but some did. Trying after all these years to characterize the tragedy as a case of the Guardsmen acting in self defense is pure BS. Hell, even the NIXON administration concluded the shootings were "inexcusable". Is Nixon suddenly too liberal for our politically conservative sect? |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
John Smith wrote:
I don't listen to Rush, Fox News, or Hannity. Below I have copied the order of events from the Kent May 4 Center www.may4.org. A web site to remember those killed at Ohio State, so hopefully it will not happen again. I can't imagine many 18 - 21 yr old soldiers who would not be scared to death. If you saw pictures of the students yelling at the guardsmen and the guardsman faces you would agree they were very scared. How about the pictures of kids putting flowers in the Guardsmen's rifles? That must have been scary too. Yelling is not the same as shooting. When a man yells at you, you are not allowed to shoot him in self-defense. There were rocks thrown, and some of the students threw back tear gas cannisters (which fell short) fired at them. Basically, the crowd of protestors was dispersing when the Guardsmen opened fire. IMHO it was murder. Thanks for posting the quote from the may4.org web site. It corresponds pretty well with what I remember, except that some of the student leaders later apologized for attacking the firemen and the court decision that the soldiers were "ordered" to fire was widely considered a whitewash since the "order" was given by "person or persons unknown." BTW please note that this factual account does not ever once mention the students surrounding the soldiers. Please acknowledge this error in your earlier post. DSK |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
You are correct, my use of the word surround was inaccurate. They were
facing them. Do you think the guardsman were not aware that the students had attacked the fireman for trying to put out the fire the students had started? I know that would scare the hell out of me. It was a scary situation for most of the guardsman, and most of the students at Kent State. I have never said the Guardsman were justified in firing their guns, I said it was done by young kids (who enlisted into the National Guard as a way to get out going to Viet Nam). They were faced with a situation they were not qualified to handle and were scared to death. As Gould pointed out, if the students wanted to, they could have overwhelmed the National Guard.. If you believe the National Guard fired on the students because they disagreed with the students position on the war, and decided to murder them, there is not much for me to say. My guess is everyone involved in this tragedy have nightmares about it "DSK" wrote in message . .. John Smith wrote: I don't listen to Rush, Fox News, or Hannity. Below I have copied the order of events from the Kent May 4 Center www.may4.org. A web site to remember those killed at Ohio State, so hopefully it will not happen again. I can't imagine many 18 - 21 yr old soldiers who would not be scared to death. If you saw pictures of the students yelling at the guardsmen and the guardsman faces you would agree they were very scared. How about the pictures of kids putting flowers in the Guardsmen's rifles? That must have been scary too. Yelling is not the same as shooting. When a man yells at you, you are not allowed to shoot him in self-defense. There were rocks thrown, and some of the students threw back tear gas cannisters (which fell short) fired at them. Basically, the crowd of protestors was dispersing when the Guardsmen opened fire. IMHO it was murder. Thanks for posting the quote from the may4.org web site. It corresponds pretty well with what I remember, except that some of the student leaders later apologized for attacking the firemen and the court decision that the soldiers were "ordered" to fire was widely considered a whitewash since the "order" was given by "person or persons unknown." BTW please note that this factual account does not ever once mention the students surrounding the soldiers. Please acknowledge this error in your earlier post. DSK |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Doug Kanter wrote:
"John H" wrote in message ... Has Hannity or Limbaugh discussed this recently? You must listen to them a lot more than I, Chuck, as I don't recall anything about this matter. Of course, I focus a lot more on Mr Colmes. :) John, I have to tell you something. Sit down. This is serious. Are you ready? Really ready? You are a corpse. He kinda resembles one, in person. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Harry, would your wife, the social worker, think that is a nice thing to
say? "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... Has Hannity or Limbaugh discussed this recently? You must listen to them a lot more than I, Chuck, as I don't recall anything about this matter. Of course, I focus a lot more on Mr Colmes. :) John, I have to tell you something. Sit down. This is serious. Are you ready? Really ready? You are a corpse. He kinda resembles one, in person. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:Sp%hc.5114$cF6.275326@attbi_s04... I said it was done by young kids (who enlisted into the National Guard as a way to get out going to Viet Nam). Heh...sort of like our current president. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
"John Smith" wrote in message
news:IH_hc.5114$YP5.506831@attbi_s02... Doug, Do you have a problem comprehending English? I said LBJ "escalated the war. As far as your other comment about Truman, Truman did provide financial assistance to the French and provided a few military advisors (35 in 1950) to help train the Vietnamese troops, but it was the French-Indochina War until May, 1954. Truman's presidency ended before the French had withdrawn from Vietnam. Please turn on the lights. Truman authorized the OSS to "stick around", rather than leave Indochina, as we called it then. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Gould,
You need to take a long breath and calm down, tell me where I used any vile or hateful words in my discussion of the Kent State tragedy? When did I say the Guardsman were acting in self defense? I said a bunch of scared kids made a tragic mistake. that is not vile, hateful or inaccurate. Your exact words we * Harry are you talking about those bunch of scared kids who were surrounded by 1000's of anger protestor throwing rocks and bottles? Unfortunately a small group of the guardsmen feeling in danger of their life, freaked out and shot into the crowd trying to disperse the angry students. * There are no "vile words" in the paragraph, only a vile distortion of the truth. The statement "surrounded by 1000's of angry protestors throwing rocks and bottles" is by no means ambivalent, nor is it open to subjective intepretation. You have stated there were at least 2 x 1000 protestors, surrounding the guardsmen, and throwing rocks and bottles. The statement is hateful in that it dismisses an entire class of people (the protestors) based solely upon the isolated actions of a very few. Thousands of protestors throwing rocks and bottles is a far different scenario from one or two people in a generally peaceful crowd throwing a rock, or a bottle, or even tossing a fuming gas cannister back at the cops. (That was SOP in the 60's. had to happen 1000 times in the space of a few years, and nobody else felt that it required shooting Americans for exercising their first amendment rights). It would be equally hateful for one of my liberal brothers to say, "The KKK lynched a guy down in Alabama, and thousands of local conservatives turned out to cheer that justice had been done." Maybe *a* conservative turned out to cheer......but exaggerating the number for effect or to distort reality would be a hateful act placing political rhetoric above any attempt to live harmoniously with folks holding different opinions. You implied the Guardsmen were acting in self defense when you stated they were surrounded by thousands of rock and bottle throwing protestors. Any reasonable person would agree, that had thousands of protestors surrounded the squad and proceded to pelt it with rocks and bottles some sort of response would be justified in self defense. *If*. But that's not the way it happened. I appreciate that you have acknowledged your mischaracterization of the events at Kent State. As I said, a real man would do so- so congrats. :-) Sorry if I reacted strongly. There's still a scab on a few wounds from that era. If you lived through it, you can understand why so many people are nervous about the current tone the divisive rhetoric is taking in America at this time. A busted country is serious schlitz, and extremist positions from either side saying "it's my way or the highway", "you either support the president or you're a traitor", or "conservatives all think money is more important than life or justice" won't do. The situation is different now that it was this time last year. We are more polarized. The country is ready to come apart. Now, about that "armed FBI informant" that the Guard Commander mentioned in the letter to the senator......coupled with the tough talk from the governor the night before I suspect the FBI was hoping to incite just the sort of incident that developed. "We'll show these liberal traitors that it doesn't pay to question the president!" Kent State helped galvanize opposition to Nixon and to the war in Viet Nam, so I guess somebody showed somebody something. We're lucky there weren't a lot more incidents of this kind. I can tell you for a fact that during some anti-war protests in Seattle at that time, the FBI had snipers on rooftops. Just in case, apparently. (My father had a job at that time that required him to provide the FBI access to the roof of some publicly owned buildings.) As two antogonists say at signoff..... "peace be upon you" and "peace on you too" :-) |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Doug,
Please turn on the lights, my statement was LBJ escalated the war, which part of that statement do you disagree with? You and Bass both have a problem comprehending English. PS - Do you agree with Bass that grain alcohol is whiskey? "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "John Smith" wrote in message news:IH_hc.5114$YP5.506831@attbi_s02... Doug, Do you have a problem comprehending English? I said LBJ "escalated the war. As far as your other comment about Truman, Truman did provide financial assistance to the French and provided a few military advisors (35 in 1950) to help train the Vietnamese troops, but it was the French-Indochina War until May, 1954. Truman's presidency ended before the French had withdrawn from Vietnam. Please turn on the lights. Truman authorized the OSS to "stick around", rather than leave Indochina, as we called it then. |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Gould,
Your interpretation of my post in no way reflects what I intended to convey. I definitely did not intend to distort he truth. There were 1000's of students. Some students were throwing rocks and bottles, many were yelling at the Guardsmen. By no stretch of the imagination was this a peaceful demonstration. I must be a real wuss, if I was facing 1000's of students right after a crowd of students had burned down the ROTC building, and attacked the firemen who arrived to put out the fire, I would have been very scared. The May 4 web site, conveyed to me, that this was a extremely tense situation for all involved. What I have a hard time believing is that any of the Guardsman fired on the students because they were conducting an antiwar protest. May 4. was tragic. Kent State and the Vietnam War are very sensitive to anyone alive during this period. For Don said the Guardsman murdered the students, that is as vile and as asinine as the protestors who called the returning Vietnam soldiers "baby killers". "Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Gould, You need to take a long breath and calm down, tell me where I used any vile or hateful words in my discussion of the Kent State tragedy? When did I say the Guardsman were acting in self defense? I said a bunch of scared kids made a tragic mistake. that is not vile, hateful or inaccurate. Your exact words we * Harry are you talking about those bunch of scared kids who were surrounded by 1000's of anger protestor throwing rocks and bottles? Unfortunately a small group of the guardsmen feeling in danger of their life, freaked out and shot into the crowd trying to disperse the angry students. * There are no "vile words" in the paragraph, only a vile distortion of the truth. The statement "surrounded by 1000's of angry protestors throwing rocks and bottles" is by no means ambivalent, nor is it open to subjective intepretation. You have stated there were at least 2 x 1000 protestors, surrounding the guardsmen, and throwing rocks and bottles. The statement is hateful in that it dismisses an entire class of people (the protestors) based solely upon the isolated actions of a very few. Thousands of protestors throwing rocks and bottles is a far different scenario from one or two people in a generally peaceful crowd throwing a rock, or a bottle, or even tossing a fuming gas cannister back at the cops. (That was SOP in the 60's. had to happen 1000 times in the space of a few years, and nobody else felt that it required shooting Americans for exercising their first amendment rights). It would be equally hateful for one of my liberal brothers to say, "The KKK lynched a guy down in Alabama, and thousands of local conservatives turned out to cheer that justice had been done." Maybe *a* conservative turned out to cheer......but exaggerating the number for effect or to distort reality would be a hateful act placing political rhetoric above any attempt to live harmoniously with folks holding different opinions. You implied the Guardsmen were acting in self defense when you stated they were surrounded by thousands of rock and bottle throwing protestors. Any reasonable person would agree, that had thousands of protestors surrounded the squad and proceded to pelt it with rocks and bottles some sort of response would be justified in self defense. *If*. But that's not the way it happened. I appreciate that you have acknowledged your mischaracterization of the events at Kent State. As I said, a real man would do so- so congrats. :-) Sorry if I reacted strongly. There's still a scab on a few wounds from that era. If you lived through it, you can understand why so many people are nervous about the current tone the divisive rhetoric is taking in America at this time. A busted country is serious schlitz, and extremist positions from either side saying "it's my way or the highway", "you either support the president or you're a traitor", or "conservatives all think money is more important than life or justice" won't do. The situation is different now that it was this time last year. We are more polarized. The country is ready to come apart. Now, about that "armed FBI informant" that the Guard Commander mentioned in the letter to the senator......coupled with the tough talk from the governor the night before I suspect the FBI was hoping to incite just the sort of incident that developed. "We'll show these liberal traitors that it doesn't pay to question the president!" Kent State helped galvanize opposition to Nixon and to the war in Viet Nam, so I guess somebody showed somebody something. We're lucky there weren't a lot more incidents of this kind. I can tell you for a fact that during some anti-war protests in Seattle at that time, the FBI had snipers on rooftops. Just in case, apparently. (My father had a job at that time that required him to provide the FBI access to the roof of some publicly owned buildings.) As two antogonists say at signoff..... "peace be upon you" and "peace on you too" :-) |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Gould 0738 wrote: Oh, Christ!!! Some things cannot be left unchallenged. Aplogies in advance to all: Oh yeah, the krause doggie is back. -- Charlie |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
John Smith wrote:
You are correct, my use of the word surround was inaccurate. They were facing them. Yep, "facing them" from at least 100 yards away. ... Do you think the guardsman were not aware that the students had attacked the fireman for trying to put out the fire the students had started? I know that would scare the hell out of me. Possibly, but that had been several days before. AFAIK none of the firemen were hurt. Meanwhile, the Guardsmen had been clubbing and bayoneting the students for two days. It was a scary situation for most of the guardsman, and most of the students at Kent State. Much scarier for the students, doncha think? I have never said the Guardsman were justified in firing their guns, I said it was done by young kids (who enlisted into the National Guard as a way to get out going to Viet Nam). Sure. So in a way, they agreed with the students. If you believe the National Guard fired on the students because they disagreed with the students position on the war, and decided to murder them, there is not much for me to say. Somebody either gave the order to fire when there was no threat, or simply started pulling the trigger and others followed suit. When you shoot at people for no reason, that's murder. I do not think it was because of the students position on the war, I think it was the whole situation... the inflammatory rhetoric of "law & order" politicians, the hatred of hippies and of priviledged college kids, etc etc. My guess is everyone involved in this tragedy have nightmares about it It's possible that many (most) of the protestors, and a few of the Guardsmen, do indeed. But IMHO at least a couple of the Guardsmen were glad to get away with it. Who gave the order to fire on unarmed students, who were dispersing, and were over 100 yards away? Who pulled the first trigger? Your position seems to be that the killing of the students (and two of the dead were not even protestors, remember) is fully justified and warrantable. So, by inference, you think it's OK for Americans to shoot other Americans over disagreements about politics. Is that right? DSK |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Sure. So in a way, they agreed with the students. I think this topic is so emotional that it makes it hard for people to read. Where did I stated the killing of students was either justified or warrented. I stated it was a tragedy. I stated that the troups "freaked out". American's have the right to peaceful protest. and even if protestors are acting in a threatening way towards the police, they do not have the right to shot into a crowd. That said, there were many leaders of the antiwar movement who believed the end justifies the means and whatever they could do to bring the war home to Middle America was justified. The burning of the ROTC building was designed to make their protest front page news across America. Unfortunatly, once the protest went beyond being a peaceful demonstration mob mentality took over, on both on the sides. If you have ever seen a mob at work, it is a very scary situation. My guess is the vast majority of the guardsmen completly agreed with the Student Protest for America to get out of Vietnam. Most Americans and most politicans felt that we should get out of Vietnam as quckly as possible. A week before Kent State, Nixon stated he was withdrawing an additional 150,000 troups by the end of year. If you believe the National Guard fired on the students because they disagreed with the students position on the war, and decided to murder them, there is not much for me to say. Somebody either gave the order to fire when there was no threat, or simply started pulling the trigger and others followed suit. When you shoot at people for no reason, that's murder. I do not think it was because of the students position on the war, I think it was the whole situation... the inflammatory rhetoric of "law & order" politicians, the hatred of hippies and of priviledged college kids, etc etc. My guess is everyone involved in this tragedy have nightmares about it It's possible that many (most) of the protestors, and a few of the Guardsmen, do indeed. But IMHO at least a couple of the Guardsmen were glad to get away with it. Who gave the order to fire on unarmed students, who were dispersing, and were over 100 yards away? Who pulled the first trigger? Your position seems to be that the killing of the students (and two of the dead were not even protestors, remember) is fully justified and warrantable. So, by inference, you think it's OK for Americans to shoot other Americans over disagreements about politics. Is that right? DSK |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
John Smith wrote:
I think this topic is so emotional that it makes it hard for people to read. That may the case for many people. Where did I stated the killing of students was either justified or warrented. When you repeated the falsehood that the Guardsmen were surrounded, and then later when you said that they were threatened, faced with angry yelling protestors, and probably very scared... all that implies that you think the shooting was justified. ... I stated it was a tragedy. Agreed. ... I stated that the troups "freaked out". Well, there's lots of ways to "freak out"... buying 1968 VW and painting it neon swirls, going to Tibet and hanging around ancient monasteries, growing strangely barbered facial hair, etc etc. These are not necessarily good, shooting people dead is a very very bad way to "freak out." One that can easily be considered murder. ... American's have the right to peaceful protest. Sure. Although the US gov't has less and less tolerance for it as time goes by. Nowadays you have to go to an authorized "protest area" and sign a waiver. Isn't freedom wonderful? DSK |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
"DSK" wrote in message ... John Smith wrote: I think this topic is so emotional that it makes it hard for people to read. That may the case for many people. Where did I stated the killing of students was either justified or warrented. When you repeated the falsehood that the Guardsmen were surrounded, and then later when you said that they were threatened, faced with angry yelling protestors, and probably very scared... all that implies that you think the shooting was justified. ... I stated it was a tragedy. Agreed. ... I stated that the troups "freaked out". Well, there's lots of ways to "freak out"... buying 1968 VW and painting it neon swirls, going to Tibet and hanging around ancient monasteries, growing strangely barbered facial hair, etc etc. These are not necessarily good, shooting people dead is a very very bad way to "freak out." One that can easily be considered murder. ... American's have the right to peaceful protest. Sure. Although the US gov't has less and less tolerance for it as time goes by. Nowadays you have to go to an authorized "protest area" and sign a waiver. Isn't freedom wonderful? DSK Many of us know the following quote, by the Rev. Martin Niemöller: "When they came for the communists, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. When they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me... and there was no one left to speak up." and recent events have spawned a new version, without attribution: "When they came for the 4th amendment, I kept silent because I am not a drug user. When they came for the 5th and amendment, I kept silent because I am innocent. When they came for the 2nd amendment, I kept silent because I do not own a gun. When they took the 1st amendment, I could no longer speak out." I wish I could take credit for this quote, but in fact I found it when looking for the one by Martin Niemöller |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Oh yeah, the krause doggie is back.
-- Charlie Chuck you, Farlie |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
LOL, very good Gould
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... Oh yeah, the krause doggie is back. -- Charlie Chuck you, Farlie |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
Gould 0738 wrote: Oh yeah, the krause doggie is back. -- Charlie Chuck you, Farlie I knew you couldn't stay away you self righteous hypocrite. -- Charlie |
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
|
( OT ) In Search Of A Plan
I knew you couldn't stay away you self righteous hypocrite.
-- Charlie There's a difference between avoiding the political threads and turning a deaf ear to absolutely outrageous, slanderous, vicious lies. My absence from political threads doesn't mean you could post "Gould's wife is a cheap crack whore, so vote for Bush!" without some response. Chuck you once again, Farlie. You can go back to obsessing about Krause now. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:10 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com