wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.


You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:07:23 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


Tom, there have been any number of great leaders throughout history who
have stated they "despise" war (or negatives just as strong) and who
have held their soldiers in high esteem. The father of our country,
George Washington, hated war.


I understand that. And I agree. The soldier does a dirty job - the
job that nobody else wants to do.

However, you cannot make the leap from hating a war and loving the
very people who make that war possible. You are either for it or
against it - you can't be both.


Why not? I think the war in which we are now engaged is the height of
stupidity, but I have no negative feelings about the troops who were
ordered over there.



I fully appreciate the reasons for stating that the war is illegal and
that it is not worth the effort and that we entered into it on dubious
evidence. I understand that.

However, you cannot separate the act of war and the very people who
make it possible.

I differentiate between the people who made it possible (the political
leaders) and those who put their bodies in the way of bullets.

You can't - it's not a logical position - without soldiers, you can't
have a war. It's as simple as that.

If I see a really ugly office building going up, I don't blame the
workmen (assuming the quality of work is decent). I blame the architect.

It's not analogous by any stretch of imagination.

Besides, if you have an ugly building, the architect was only doing
what the owner wanted done. Shoot the owner. :)

If you can, then you need to revisit the Nuremberg Trials transcripts
in which the act of following legal orders does not, in and of itself,
indemnify the soldier from all guilt resulting from performing acts of
war.

That's really not relevant to my position.

Of course it is. If you regard the leaders who made the war as
responsible for creating an fraudulent environment leading and
creating the war, then the war is not honorable or legal. The
political leaders gave the orders for the soldiers to do what they do
- you cannot indemnify the soldier from the very acts that make the
war the war. Even since Nuremberg, the excuse of "only following
orders", stated by Marshall Alfred Jodl (who lead a very interesting
military career being basically opposed to Hitler the entire war, but
managing to survive anyway but hanged not because he did anything
dastardly, but because of his position) is considered, in an of itself
as inexcusable.

As to George Washington, I'm fairly familiar with that War and I can't
think of a specific quote or phrasing that indicated that he hated war
and the acts of war. After all, the only reason he was placed in
command of the Continental Army was because he had a uniform and
Benedict Arnold didn't. :)

However, I'm always willing and able to admit that I'm wrong.

I'll look around for something from Washington relating to his disdain
for war.

Good enough.

Later,

Tom

You might think JimH is stupid, but you do have to agree Kevin is dumb as
dirt.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.



You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.


Broken record Hertvik, back again to demonstrate his stupidity.

--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.

On 20 Jun 2005 07:05:00 -0700, wrote:



John H wrote:

Better stick with dick comparisons and high speed boat trips on 'your' boat,
Harry.
--
John H


John, is this dick stuff going to be like the last time you went off of
the deep end and called Harry a "****ing liar" several hundred times?

Don't know. Ask the guy who started it. Are you able to do so?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On 20 Jun 2005 07:05:00 -0700, wrote:



John H wrote:

Better stick with dick comparisons and high speed boat trips on 'your' boat,
Harry.
--
John H


John, is this dick stuff going to be like the last time you went off of
the deep end and called Harry a "****ing liar" several hundred times?

Don't know. Ask the guy who started it. Are you able to do so?
--
John H

Yes, that's why I'm asking you. But, as usual, you just don't get
it.....
Now, there are several threads just this morning where you've stated to
Harry something about dick comparisons. YOU, John. YOU..... So, I take
it that you've gone over the edge again and will do the same as you did
when you called Harry a "****ing liar" over and over again. Now, just
out of curiousity who DID start calling Harry a "****ing liar" a few
hundred times?

NOYB wrote:

I'm referring to the price that oil would climb to if we never went into
Iraq, withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and let bin Laden overthrow the Saudi
royals and control all of the oil in the Middle East.

Which would be pure speculation. You don't have any idea whether or not
oil prices would have climbed or not if we didn't go to Iraq. You are
also doing nothing but speculating whether bin Laden would have
overthrown the Saudis and whether he'd have been successful. What did
going to Iraq have to do with bin Laden? Where IS he?

*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.


You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.

No, YOU are an idiot, for thinking I'm Kevin. I'm actually quite
surprised that you can't figure that out! And I'll still bet you
wouldn't have posted your post had a democratic president been in
office right now. And I also see that you don't keep your word. What
happened to your vow not to insult and call people names? What happened
to your vow to not post off topic? Quite childish, you are!

" wrote in message
...
You might think JimH is stupid, but you do have to agree Kevin is dumb as
dirt.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


*JimH* wrote:

I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.



You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.


Broken record Hert, back again to demonstrate his stupidity.

--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.



Krause is upset because I have shown his lies to this NG and have outed him
as being an internet stalker.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


N.L. Eckert wrote:


Very well said, my feelings exactly....
==================================
Despite your feelings about the war please keep all our men and women
serving in our Armed Forces in your prayers ********* The war, along
with the people who deliberately lied us into it and are
now profiting from it is crap. The young men and women who do their
duty there are heroic. Each one
killed, wounded, or separated on multiple extended tours from home and
family is a national tragedy. Screw the war, but honor the troops. It
is possible to do both at once.
People who feel that we must despise the troops because they are
forced
to serve in a bogus war as well as people who feel that we cannot
respect and value the troops without cheering for the war itself are
all
wrong.



And a pox on all of those who are making a monetary profit off this
war.



Does that include the businesses which are able to turn profits only
because oil hasn't hit $100/barrel?


Are you referring to the price Bush and the neocons hope their actions
will lead to?



I'm referring to the price that oil would climb to if we never went into
Iraq, withdrew from Saudi Arabia, and let bin Laden overthrow the Saudi
royals and control all of the oil in the Middle East.


Climb? It would be lower.

Really? If bin Laden controlled the Middle East oil, it would lower oil
prices?

I'm fascinated to hear your reasoning.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 17:12:05 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

*JimH* wrote:
" wrote in message
...

You might think JimH is stupid, but you do have to agree Kevin is dumb as
dirt.


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...

*JimH* wrote:

wrote in message
glegroups.com...


*JimH* wrote:


I find the fact the you ruined a nice thread pathetic.

You're just mad because Chuck saw right through you. Being proud of
someone is one thing, but I'll bet you wouldn't have posted those same
exact words if he was in the service under a democratic president. So,
YOU made it a political thread.



You are an idiot Kevin, pure and simple.


Broken record Hert, back again to demonstrate his stupidity.

--
If it is Bad for Bush,
It is Good for the United States.



Krause is upset because I have shown his lies to this NG and have outed him
as being an internet stalker.




A. I'm not upset.
B. You're an ass.
C. More Hertvik paranoid bullship.

Sure am glad you had nothing to say about the rest of his comment, Harry!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."