OT--WMD's may still be found
 

We should start a new policy, if a terrorist wants to strike the US he has
to strike the area that voted for the current president.


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...



Should we invade there next or should it be Iran?

Probably Iran, since they're closest to developing nukes. There may
not

be


a need to hit Saudi Arabia militarily if we're able to isolate them
from

the


rest of the Middle East.


Hit Saudi Arabia....pant...pant.....pant....I don't have words to

describe

how HOT HOT HOT you sound when you talk macho like that, with those
sexy
action verbs. Not unlike President "Bring 'Em On". I have to go get
some
fresh air.....




Would you like to


send your children?

Of course I wouldn't like it. However, my kids are 4 1/2, 2 1/2 and
1

years


old. I'd prefer we deal with the radical Islamics now rather than
in
13
years when my oldest is draft age...*AND* those same countries have

nukes.



I have news for you, hot boy: If we keep dealing with the world in
our
current fashion, we'll have the same problems when your kids are old

enough

to be drafted.



Perhaps the next target will be in SW Florida, where knobs-for-brains
lives.


Harry,
You've been wishing a terrorist strike down here for awhile. As much
as
you
and I disagree, I'd never wish that on you nor any another American.




You need some instruction in language. I'm not wishing anything. I feel
in my gut we are going to be attacked again by terrorists, and *if* it
does, I think it should be in "Bush Country," rather than in the more
civilized parts of the nation.

"More civilized parts"? LOL. You're a piece of work...

OT--WMD's may still be found
 

With attitudes like John's you don't have to wonder why the Democrats are
loosing.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:YYgkc.866$NI6.172886@attbi_s01...
We should start a new policy, if a terrorist wants to strike the US he has
to strike the area that voted for the current president.


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...



Should we invade there next or should it be Iran?

Probably Iran, since they're closest to developing nukes. There
may
not

be


a need to hit Saudi Arabia militarily if we're able to isolate
them
from

the


rest of the Middle East.


Hit Saudi Arabia....pant...pant.....pant....I don't have words to

describe

how HOT HOT HOT you sound when you talk macho like that, with those
sexy
action verbs. Not unlike President "Bring 'Em On". I have to go get
some
fresh air.....




Would you like to


send your children?

Of course I wouldn't like it. However, my kids are 4 1/2, 2 1/2
and
1

years


old. I'd prefer we deal with the radical Islamics now rather than
in
13
years when my oldest is draft age...*AND* those same countries
have

nukes.



I have news for you, hot boy: If we keep dealing with the world in
our
current fashion, we'll have the same problems when your kids are
old

enough

to be drafted.



Perhaps the next target will be in SW Florida, where
knobs-for-brains
lives.


Harry,
You've been wishing a terrorist strike down here for awhile. As
much
as
you
and I disagree, I'd never wish that on you nor any another American.




You need some instruction in language. I'm not wishing anything. I
feel
in my gut we are going to be attacked again by terrorists, and *if* it
does, I think it should be in "Bush Country," rather than in the more
civilized parts of the nation.

"More civilized parts"? LOL. You're a piece of work...

OT--WMD's may still be found
 

Nah, that we would only allow them to attack Bush Country while Bush is in
office. If Kerry wins the next election, they would have to bomb Krause.
; )

(tongue firmly in cheek)


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...
With attitudes like John's you don't have to wonder why the Democrats are
loosing.

"John Smith" wrote in message
news:YYgkc.866$NI6.172886@attbi_s01...
We should start a new policy, if a terrorist wants to strike the US he
has
to strike the area that voted for the current president.


"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...



Should we invade there next or should it be Iran?

Probably Iran, since they're closest to developing nukes. There
may
not

be


a need to hit Saudi Arabia militarily if we're able to isolate
them
from

the


rest of the Middle East.


Hit Saudi Arabia....pant...pant.....pant....I don't have words to

describe

how HOT HOT HOT you sound when you talk macho like that, with
those
sexy
action verbs. Not unlike President "Bring 'Em On". I have to go
get
some
fresh air.....




Would you like to


send your children?

Of course I wouldn't like it. However, my kids are 4 1/2, 2 1/2
and
1

years


old. I'd prefer we deal with the radical Islamics now rather
than
in
13
years when my oldest is draft age...*AND* those same countries
have

nukes.



I have news for you, hot boy: If we keep dealing with the world
in
our
current fashion, we'll have the same problems when your kids are
old

enough

to be drafted.



Perhaps the next target will be in SW Florida, where
knobs-for-brains
lives.


Harry,
You've been wishing a terrorist strike down here for awhile. As
much
as
you
and I disagree, I'd never wish that on you nor any another
American.




You need some instruction in language. I'm not wishing anything. I
feel
in my gut we are going to be attacked again by terrorists, and *if*
it
does, I think it should be in "Bush Country," rather than in the
more
civilized parts of the nation.

"More civilized parts"? LOL. You're a piece of work...

OT--WMD's may still be found
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Should we invade there next or should it be Iran?

Probably Iran, since they're closest to developing nukes. There may not

be

a need to hit Saudi Arabia militarily if we're able to isolate them from

the

rest of the Middle East.


Hit Saudi Arabia....pant...pant.....pant....I don't have words to
describe
how HOT HOT HOT you sound when you talk macho like that, with those sexy
action verbs. Not unlike President "Bring 'Em On". I have to go get some
fresh air.....



Would you like to

send your children?

Of course I wouldn't like it. However, my kids are 4 1/2, 2 1/2 and 1

years

old. I'd prefer we deal with the radical Islamics now rather than in 13
years when my oldest is draft age...*AND* those same countries have
nukes.




I have news for you, hot boy: If we keep dealing with the world in our
current fashion, we'll have the same problems when your kids are old
enough
to be drafted.



Perhaps the next target will be in SW Florida, where knobs-for-brains
lives.

I hope not. Too many innocent alligators and pelicans. I love pelicans.

OT--WMD's may still be found
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Nobody needs the damn oil if they can't afford it.

Being able to afford it has nothing to do with whether or not you need it.

It would be interesting to have a real leader, you know? One who'd use a TV
appearance as follows:

Mah fellow Americans.....I was sittin' out behind the White House yesterday
sippin' a beer and I had this here idea. What if every one of us kept a list
of every time we used our cars for a month, and then found a way to
eliminulate..elimemonade....get rid of maybe 20% of those trips, or even
maybe 1 out of 5? Even if we only did it for 6 months or half a year, do ya
think we could appraise some pressure on the Saudis that way and get 'em to
lower the price of oil? Y'all heard of surprise & demand, right?"

Do you suppose most patriots could walk the walk and do this?

OT--WMD's may still be found
 

"Son of Spam" wrote in message
om...
"Joe" wrote in message
...
"jps" wrote in message
...

Not WMDs, fertilizer bombs. Ingredients available in large quantities
worldwide. The same variety that took 160 innocent men, women and
children's lives in Oklahoma City by one of our own.

jps

They were not "fertilizer bombs" as used in Oklahoma City.
There was nerve gas in the mix.

That is yet to be determined. The only positive identification of the
chemicals I have seen stated that a "large portion" of the mix was
just sulfuric acid, which seems to indicate that the attackers simply
wanted to contaminate the area with toxic chemicals.

My ex-neighbor is a fireman. He was trained to deal with chemicals like
that. This guy's an idiot and HE could handle it. I'd be real surprised if
sulfuric acid could create the kind of Armageddon our government makes it
out to be.

OT--WMD's may still be found
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

Who is Chris Matthews?
What station?

You're kidding, right? He worked for several Presidential
administrations,
and is one of the top news talk show hosts in the country...on MSNBC.

Not everyone lives their lives based on television.

OT--WMD's may still be found
 

In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
says...

Well Jeez, Saudi Arabia was a safe haven and provided funding for al
Qaeda long before we went to Iraq. Further, 15 or the 19 hijackers who
conspired to kill 3000 of our brethren were Saudi nationals. Why didn't
we invade their country?

Because our economy couldn't handle the economic shock of the lost oil
supply. Of course, Iraq provides not only the staging area to strike
against the other countries in the region...but also enough oil to keep our
economy going should bin Laden successfully oust the Saudi royals.

So economic considerations should trump Bush's "Charge to keep?" That's
not very Christian of you.


There's plenty of evidence of terrorist activity in Saudi Arabia right
now!

Should we invade there next or should it be Iran?

Probably Iran, since they're closest to developing nukes. There may not be
a need to hit Saudi Arabia militarily if we're able to isolate them from the
rest of the Middle East.

Huh? Isolate them in the eyes of Arabs in the mid-east vs. the US?
Don't think so. They're the ones who produced and supported bin Laden,
remember?

Would you like to
send your children?

Of course I wouldn't like it. However, my kids are 4 1/2, 2 1/2 and 1 years
old. I'd prefer we deal with the radical Islamics now rather than in 13
years when my oldest is draft age...*AND* those same countries have nukes.

Bottom line: You'd prefer to send other people's kids to die or be
maimed, either physically or mentally or both.

Good one.

OT--WMD's may still be found
 

In article B4fkc.18$J71.8113@attbi_s03, says...
NYOB,
That is because you are a compassionate individual. Harry on the other
hand, is an insecure old fart who is insecure and wishes ill will on all who
disagree with him.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaa aaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

The doc's compassion reaches as far as his own family. He's fully
supportive of compassionately sending someone else's kids to die or be
maimed but I guarantee his kids would be counseled by nobby to apply for
deferments.

Probably dental school or hemmoroids.

OT--WMD's may still be found
 

jps wrote in message
...

The doc's compassion reaches as far as his own family. He's fully
supportive of compassionately sending someone else's kids to die or be
maimed but I guarantee his kids would be counseled by nobby to apply for
deferments.

Probably dental school or hemmoroids.

I'd probably see NOYB's kids up here trying to avoid any future draft.
Talk is cheap!