"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:jd7qc.12789
Gore could have been President during all of this?

YES, and we will never know how well (or poorly) he might have done.
I
can't imagine what he could do worse

I can. By all measures, we experienced a *very* short-lived recession
thanks to the Bush tax cut. Without it, we'd probably still be in a
deep
recession. Additionally, the Taliban would still control Afghanistan.

They pretty much still are, and as soon as we leave, they will be in
full charge again, so just what have we accomplished there?

Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq.

So what? Did you HONESTLY, before Bush lied us into Iraq, think about
Iraqi citizens being abused?

Nope. I thought about Saddam waging his own private war against the US
using terrorist mercenaries.

And were those thoughts of how we could
releive the suffering of those citizens?

Nope. I really didn't care...and still don't.


If so, then why now do you
make statements like we should nuke them all?

See my answers above.


France, Russia and China would
still be selling banned weapons to Iraq.

Have a problem with governments selling weapons to Iraq? Did you have
the same concerns when the United States (Rumsfield) did the same?

No. At that time, Saddam wasn't teaming up with terrorist organizations to
secretly wage war against the US.

UN officials would still be
skimming billions off the oil-for-food program.

Only difference is, now it's US that's doing that, by way of "private
contractors", and Bush/Cheney are profiting.

Bush/Cheney are profiting? How so?


al Qaeda would be stronger
than ever, and probably control the oil coming from the Middle East.

How do you know that al Qaeda "would be stronger than ever" and
"control the oil coming from the Middle East"?

Because algore would have given in to bin Laden's demands after 9/11...and
left the Middle East.


And
numerous additional domestic terrorist attacks would be occurring
because
algore would be dealing with each attack as a law enforcement issue.

What proof of this wild allegation do you have?

Al Gore would have just continued with the Reno Justice Dept. method of
combatting terrorism. Arrest the surviving suicide bombers.


Now we are getting somewhere. So, I take it, by your above answers,
that you really don't buy into BushCos rhetoric about freeing Iraqis,
and making there lives better through democracy? Good, the intelligent
people of the U.S. have known that was pure horse**** from the
beginning!! Thank you for realizing it, also. Now if you could just
get the rest of your right wing fanatics to believe it, we could get
Bush out of the white house.

"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:_abqc.12958
Without it, we'd probably still be in a deep
recession.

This based upon your liberal arts studies of economics?

In undergrad, I majored in Mechanical Engineering, with a minor in
economics.

I guess not of it really *hit home* then, did it?

"not of it really hit home"? It appears that I retained more from Econ than
you did from English.

Ah, so, you want to make this an argument about typing, and
grammatical errors? What a dim bulb you are.

"NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:jd7qc.12789
Gore could have been President during all of this?

YES, and we will never know how well (or poorly) he might have done.
I
can't imagine what he could do worse

I can. By all measures, we experienced a *very* short-lived recession
thanks to the Bush tax cut. Without it, we'd probably still be in a
deep
recession. Additionally, the Taliban would still control Afghanistan.

They pretty much still are, and as soon as we leave, they will be in
full charge again, so just what have we accomplished there?

Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq.

So what? Did you HONESTLY, before Bush lied us into Iraq, think about
Iraqi citizens being abused?

Nope. I thought about Saddam waging his own private war against the US
using terrorist mercenaries.

And were those thoughts of how we could
releive the suffering of those citizens?

Nope. I really didn't care...and still don't.


If so, then why now do you
make statements like we should nuke them all?

See my answers above.


France, Russia and China would
still be selling banned weapons to Iraq.

Have a problem with governments selling weapons to Iraq? Did you have
the same concerns when the United States (Rumsfield) did the same?

No. At that time, Saddam wasn't teaming up with terrorist organizations to
secretly wage war against the US.

Sure they were, you twit!!! They have ALWAYS been scheming against the
U.S., as to them, we are satanists.

UN officials would still be
skimming billions off the oil-for-food program.

Only difference is, now it's US that's doing that, by way of "private
contractors", and Bush/Cheney are profiting.

Bush/Cheney are profiting? How so?

Do you not think that they have holdings in the companies hired? Are
you REALLY that blind?


al Qaeda would be stronger
than ever, and probably control the oil coming from the Middle East.

How do you know that al Qaeda "would be stronger than ever" and
"control the oil coming from the Middle East"?

Because algore would have given in to bin Laden's demands after 9/11...and
left the Middle East.

How do you know this? Any proof?


And
numerous additional domestic terrorist attacks would be occurring
because
algore would be dealing with each attack as a law enforcement issue.

What proof of this wild allegation do you have?

Al Gore would have just continued with the Reno Justice Dept. method of
combatting terrorism. Arrest the surviving suicide bombers.

Again do you have any proof of this? Or, like BushCo, just like to
spew rhetoric? Do you call the above statement the "proof" that I
asked for?

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
I had Civil Engineering I and II in my ME program. It followed
Statics
and
Design.


Do you really think that would qualify you to do bridge design?

No, not now. I graduated in 1993, and took the EIT exam...but never worked
as an engineer. If I had pursued engineering, my degree *would* have
qualified me (eventually) to do "bridge design". But you are right...if I
really wanted to design bridges, I'd have studied Civil Engineering.

Mechanical Engineers build bombs and weapons. Civil Engineers build
targets.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
I had Civil Engineering I and II in my ME program. It followed
Statics
and
Design.


Do you really think that would qualify you to do bridge design?

No, not now. I graduated in 1993, and took the EIT exam...but never
worked
as an engineer. If I had pursued engineering, my degree *would* have
qualified me (eventually) to do "bridge design". But you are right...if
I
really wanted to design bridges, I'd have studied Civil Engineering.

Mechanical Engineers build bombs and weapons. Civil Engineers build
targets.

The ME's I work with design HVAC systems........

The best doctors (and dentists :-) ) I've meet have all been engineers
or math majors in undergrad......something about their problem solving
skills :-)

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
I had Civil Engineering I and II in my ME program. It followed
Statics
and
Design.

Out of curiosity.....where you in a 'college of enginneering' majoring
in
mechanical, or were you in a 'college of mechanical engineering'?....

BSME Purdue University 1993. It was the "Schools of Engineering" Mechanical
Engineering degree. In April of this year, they renamed the "Schools of
Engineering" the "Colleges of Engineering". Purdue also offered a
"Mechanical Engineering Technology" (MET) degree...but I believe it was
offered by the Schools of Technology.

Here's a link of the program I attended:
http://tools.ecn.purdue.edu/ME/Undergrad/index283.whtml

The CE classes I took were technical electives. I had a difficult time
visualizing the concepts of fluid mechanics and heat and mass transfer. I
preferred things that I could visualize a little bit easier...like Statics,
Dynamics, and Structural Design.

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message news:jd7qc.12789
Gore could have been President during all of this?

YES, and we will never know how well (or poorly) he might have
done.
I
can't imagine what he could do worse

I can. By all measures, we experienced a *very* short-lived
recession
thanks to the Bush tax cut. Without it, we'd probably still be in a
deep
recession. Additionally, the Taliban would still control
Afghanistan.

They pretty much still are, and as soon as we leave, they will be in
full charge again, so just what have we accomplished there?

Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq.

So what? Did you HONESTLY, before Bush lied us into Iraq, think about
Iraqi citizens being abused?

Nope. I thought about Saddam waging his own private war against the US
using terrorist mercenaries.

And were those thoughts of how we could
releive the suffering of those citizens?

Nope. I really didn't care...and still don't.


If so, then why now do you
make statements like we should nuke them all?

See my answers above.


France, Russia and China would
still be selling banned weapons to Iraq.

Have a problem with governments selling weapons to Iraq? Did you have
the same concerns when the United States (Rumsfield) did the same?

No. At that time, Saddam wasn't teaming up with terrorist organizations
to
secretly wage war against the US.

UN officials would still be
skimming billions off the oil-for-food program.

Only difference is, now it's US that's doing that, by way of "private
contractors", and Bush/Cheney are profiting.

Bush/Cheney are profiting? How so?


al Qaeda would be stronger
than ever, and probably control the oil coming from the Middle East.

How do you know that al Qaeda "would be stronger than ever" and
"control the oil coming from the Middle East"?

Because algore would have given in to bin Laden's demands after
9/11...and
left the Middle East.


And
numerous additional domestic terrorist attacks would be occurring
because
algore would be dealing with each attack as a law enforcement issue.

What proof of this wild allegation do you have?

Al Gore would have just continued with the Reno Justice Dept. method of
combatting terrorism. Arrest the surviving suicide bombers.


Now we are getting somewhere. So, I take it, by your above answers,
that you really don't buy into BushCos rhetoric about freeing Iraqis,
and making there lives better through democracy?

No, that's being offered for the bleeding heart simpletons.



Good, the intelligent
people of the U.S. have known that was pure horse**** from the
beginning!!

And the really intelligent people see Iraq as just a cog in the wheel of our
fight on terrorism. It provides a strategic geographical location in the
Middle East to act as a staging area against terrorist groups in the region.
It also provides the necessary oil flow we'll need while Saudi Arabia goes
through its struggle against the Wahhabi fundametalists.


Thank you for realizing it, also. Now if you could just
get the rest of your right wing fanatics to believe it, we could get
Bush out of the white house.

You obviously don't fall among the "really intelligent people".

Paul Fritz wrote:
The best doctors (and dentists :-) ) I've meet have all been engineers
or math majors in undergrad......something about their problem solving
skills :-)

Unless they have gotten intellectually lazy and take a lot of shortcuts,
like NOBBY.

BTW most younger doctors wouldn't have a chance to take an engineering
degree undergrad, they have to have either pre-med or one of the
biological sciences. Getting into medical school has become totally cut
throat and an engineer would not be remotely competitive even with
perfect M-Cats.

Pardon me for interrupting your schmooze. Carry on.

DSK

wrote in message
link.net...
Actually, the further I research, it appears that Project Bojinka was
developed after the bombing of the WTC Tower... and was later developed
into
the building blocks of the 9/11 attacks...

Will search more because last night I had come across something that said
the Bojinka plans had started in the late 80's and the WTC bomb was a test
bomb for those plans.


Everything that I've read indicated that the Bojinka plot developed
independently of and after the 1993 WTC bombing. In 1996, the idea of
merging the two was hatched.



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

wrote in message
link.net...
Actually, the original plan came about in the late 1980's.....

No it didn't. It is now believed that the original plan executed by
Ramzi
Yousef of toppling the towers in 1993 was merged with the Bojinka plan
discovered during an arrest in the Philippines in 1995.


But the plan was sidetracked by a new direction of planting a bomb
under
one
tower to get it to fall into the other...

Your timeline is out of order.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:07:16 +0000, NOYB wrote:


And the really intelligent people see Iraq as just a cog in the wheel of
our fight on terrorism. It provides a strategic geographical location in
the Middle East to act as a staging area against terrorist groups in the
region. It also provides the necessary oil flow we'll need while Saudi
Arabia goes through its struggle against the Wahhabi fundametalists.

Unless it is just for my consumption, you know, a less intelligent
*voter*, there is considerable talk about cutting and running for your
assessment to hold water. I believe your neocon dream has long since gone
by the wayside.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3721491.stm

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_1474638.htm

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=34670