wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:

Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying
to
explain Harry out of a jam.

I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin
Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't
invaded Iraq?

From bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America:

" I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the
nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as
it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the
soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace. "

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm

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

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:

Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying
to
explain Harry out of a jam.

I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin
Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't
invaded Iraq?

From bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America:

" I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the
nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle
as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for
the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace.
"

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm


More from bin Laden:

" Moreover, the presence of the world largest oil reserve makes the land of
the two Holy Places an important economical power in the Islamic world"

--------------------------------------------------------------
Are you still convinced he wasn't after the region's oil supply, Kevin?

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

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:

Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup trying
to
explain Harry out of a jam.

I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin
Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't
invaded Iraq?

From bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America:

" I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the
nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle
as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for
the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace.
"

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm


More from bin Laden:

" Moreover, the presence of the world largest oil reserve makes the land of
the two Holy Places an important economical power in the Islamic world"

--------------------------------------------------------------
Are you still convinced he wasn't after the region's oil supply, Kevin?

NOYB, first I'm not Kevin, second I never, EVER said he "wasn't after
the region's oil supply". You can't understand a damned THING, can you?
What I said was "how do you know that bin Laden would now control all
of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq"???? Now,
care to answer that? You have nothing but YOUR speculation. Would he
have TRIED to take complete control of the mideast? Hell, even that
question is a *maybe* at best. So, EVEN IF he tried, and we weren't at
war with Iraq, we could have done something then. Remember Kuwait?????

wrote in message
ups.com...


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

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:

Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup
trying
to
explain Harry out of a jam.

I'm dumb?? Then, do tell the group, NOYB, how do you know that bin
Laden would now control all of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't
invaded Iraq?

From bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America:

" I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of
the
nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the
battle
as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential
for
the soon to be established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and
Grace.
"

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm


More from bin Laden:

" Moreover, the presence of the world largest oil reserve makes the land
of
the two Holy Places an important economical power in the Islamic world"

--------------------------------------------------------------
Are you still convinced he wasn't after the region's oil supply, Kevin?

NOYB, first I'm not Kevin, second I never, EVER said he "wasn't after
the region's oil supply". You can't understand a damned THING, can you?
What I said was "how do you know that bin Laden would now control all
of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq"???? Now,
care to answer that? You have nothing but YOUR speculation. Would he
have TRIED to take complete control of the mideast? Hell, even that
question is a *maybe* at best. So, EVEN IF he tried, and we weren't at
war with Iraq, we could have done something then. Remember Kuwait?????


Your analogy is extremely flawed as usual.

First of all, Kuwait was attacked by another country...not from within by a
home-grown fundamentalist uprising

Secondly, we had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, etc. at the
time Kuwait was invaded. If we had not had troops there, many speculate
that Saddam would have kept pushing into Saudi Arabia.

If bin Laden got us to leave Saudi Arabia following 9/11, we would had
virtually no militarty presence in the Middle East. His goal of
overthrowing the Saudis and creating a radical Islamic state utilizing the
wealth from the Saudi oil would have come to fruition...and we wouldn't have
had the resources in place to stop it.

Instead, we now have 130,000+ troops setting up bases smack dab in the
middle of the world's second largest oil supply...and right on the doorstep
of the world's largest oil supply. We could move on the fundamentalists in
a heartbeat if bin Laden successfully overthrew the Saudi government.

What you forget about Kuwait is that it took nearly half a year to get the
troops in place to toss Saddam out of there. Imagine Saudi oil supply was
interrupted for 6 months *and* there was no Iraqi oil supply (like we have
today). We'd have an instant meltdown of our economy. We couldn't afford
to wait 6 months to get troops in place to toss out the fundamentalists.

bin Laden greatly misjudged Bush's response. Instead of staying on the
defensive and holding our bases in Saudi Arabia (which would have become
more and more difficult due to the tremendous pressure the Saudi royals were
feeling from within), Bush made a brilliant strategic move to preempt bin
Laden's powergrab. He invaded Iraq and put 130,000+ troops in the
region...and did it in the name of liberating a country from tyranny.

The Saudis were able to relieve some of their internal strife by asking the
US to leave...and we were able to keep a foothold in the Middle East.

The reason al Qaeda has focused all their toperations in Iraq is because
they realize that none of bin Laden's plans to grab Saudi oil will ever
happen as long as the US has a strong military presence on the Saudi border.
They must first get us out of Iraq. And the liberals in the US want to help
'em do it!

NOYB wrote:


Your analogy is extremely flawed as usual.


Well, then do tell, answer the question I asked. How do you know that
if the United States hadn't invaded Iraq, that binLaden would now be in
control of all of the mideast oil? ANSWER IT, you are the one who
stated it. It's nothing but speculation, and you know it, or else you'd
answer. So, to try to make it look like you actually know something,
instead of answering the bigger picture, you took a ****ing two word
sentence and gave a long winded diatribe filled with more
speculation!!!!! And you have the audacity to call other people dumb!
Now, care to try again? Here are the questions I asked in direct
response to YOU saying that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, bin Laden would
be in control of mideast oil:
What I said was "how do you know that bin Laden would now control all
of the oil in the mideast if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq"???? Now,
care to answer that? You have nothing but YOUR speculation. Would he
have TRIED to take complete control of the mideast? Hell, even that
question is a *maybe* at best. So, EVEN IF he tried, and we weren't at
war with Iraq, we could have done something then. Remember Kuwait?????

It's simple really, just answer the questions.

wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:


Your analogy is extremely flawed as usual.


Well, then do tell, answer the question I asked. How do you know that
if the United States hadn't invaded Iraq, that binLaden would now be in
control of all of the mideast oil?

You snipped my answer, so here it is again:


If bin Laden got us to leave Saudi Arabia following 9/11, we would had
virtually no military presence in the Middle East. His goal of
overthrowing the Saudis and creating a radical Islamic state utilizing the
wealth from the Saudi oil would have come to fruition...and we wouldn't have
had the resources in place to stop it.

Instead, we now have 130,000+ troops setting up bases smack dab in the
middle of the world's second largest oil supply...and right on the doorstep
of the world's largest oil supply. We could move on the fundamentalists in
a heartbeat if bin Laden successfully overthrew the Saudi government.

What you forget about Kuwait is that it took nearly half a year to get the
troops in place to toss Saddam out of there. Imagine Saudi oil supply was
interrupted for 6 months *and* there was no Iraqi oil supply (unlike we have
today). We'd have an instant meltdown of our economy. We couldn't afford
to wait 6 months to get troops in place to toss out the fundamentalists.

bin Laden greatly misjudged Bush's response. Instead of staying on the
defensive and holding our bases in Saudi Arabia (which would have become
more and more difficult due to the tremendous pressure the Saudi royals were
feeling from within), Bush made a brilliant strategic move to preempt bin
Laden's powergrab. He invaded Iraq and put 130,000+ troops in the
region...and did it in the name of liberating a country from tyranny.

The Saudis were able to relieve some of their internal strife by asking the
US to leave...and we were able to keep a foothold in the Middle East.

The reason al Qaeda has focused all their toperations in Iraq is because
they realize that none of bin Laden's plans to grab Saudi oil will ever
happen as long as the US has a strong military presence on the Saudi border.
They must first get us out of Iraq. And the liberals in the US want to help
'em do it!

HarryKrause wrote:
*JimH* wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:


Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup
trying to
explain Harry out of a jam.


I'm dumb??



More so than even a rock.



He's brighter than you are, Hertvik.

.....and at least he boats!
How would we go about setting up a 'boaters only' criteria? It would
do wonders for the tone in this newsgroup.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:


Your analogy is extremely flawed as usual.


Well, then do tell, answer the question I asked. How do you know that
if the United States hadn't invaded Iraq, that binLaden would now be in
control of all of the mideast oil?

You snipped my answer, so here it is again:


If bin Laden got us to leave Saudi Arabia following 9/11, we would had
virtually no military presence in the Middle East. His goal of
overthrowing the Saudis and creating a radical Islamic state utilizing the
wealth from the Saudi oil would have come to fruition...and we wouldn't have
had the resources in place to stop it.

Instead, we now have 130,000+ troops setting up bases smack dab in the
middle of the world's second largest oil supply...and right on the doorstep
of the world's largest oil supply. We could move on the fundamentalists in
a heartbeat if bin Laden successfully overthrew the Saudi government.

What you forget about Kuwait is that it took nearly half a year to get the
troops in place to toss Saddam out of there. Imagine Saudi oil supply was
interrupted for 6 months *and* there was no Iraqi oil supply (unlike we have
today). We'd have an instant meltdown of our economy. We couldn't afford
to wait 6 months to get troops in place to toss out the fundamentalists.

bin Laden greatly misjudged Bush's response. Instead of staying on the
defensive and holding our bases in Saudi Arabia (which would have become
more and more difficult due to the tremendous pressure the Saudi royals were
feeling from within), Bush made a brilliant strategic move to preempt bin
Laden's powergrab. He invaded Iraq and put 130,000+ troops in the
region...and did it in the name of liberating a country from tyranny.

The Saudis were able to relieve some of their internal strife by asking the
US to leave...and we were able to keep a foothold in the Middle East.

The reason al Qaeda has focused all their toperations in Iraq is because
they realize that none of bin Laden's plans to grab Saudi oil will ever
happen as long as the US has a strong military presence on the Saudi border.
They must first get us out of Iraq. And the liberals in the US want to help
'em do it!

So that is your criteria for KNOWING that if we hadn't gone to Iraq,
that bin Laden would have succeeded in taking over all of the mideast's
oil supplies??????!!!!!!!! You have GOT to be kidding.........
So, now that I've quit laughing, let me get this straight. You KNOW FOR
A FACT, that because bin Laden said he wanted to control the oil
supply, that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, that he would have
succeeded????? Oh, my god......

Can i see a copy of the pink slip for your 36' Lobster Boat?


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
HarryKrause wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:


Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup
trying to
explain Harry out of a jam.



I'm dumb??




More so than even a rock.



He's brighter than you are, Hertvik.

....and at least he boats!
How would we go about setting up a 'boaters only' criteria? It would do
wonders for the tone in this newsgroup.


Pink slips or something else showing current registration!

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

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Don White wrote:
HarryKrause wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:


Oh, this is a gem! Here we have dumbest leftie on the newsgroup
trying to
explain Harry out of a jam.



I'm dumb??




More so than even a rock.



He's brighter than you are, Hert.

....and at least he boats.

I went boating on Tuesday. When was the last time you took your boat out
Krause?


How would we go about setting up a 'boaters only' criteria? It would
do wonders for the tone in this newsgroup.


One can be a boater and still not own a boat. But that sort of logic is
beyond that hockey puck dented brain of yours.....eh Don?

And is boat ownership some sort of status thing for you? If so, I earned my
25 year membership. If I recall, you just saved up enough money (and you
are retired and living with your mother if I recall) to finally buy a little
sailing boat.

You could not even afford a decent snowblower if I recall also and settled
for the $79 red light special at KMart.....an electric broom type. How
brilliant for someone living up north.



Pink slips or something else showing current registration!

--


Yep, let's see the pink slip for that custom made 32 foot lobster boat.

Oh................I forgot......................you don't own one.

How funny.