wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade
and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 women
are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is a bit
far-fetched, no?

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade
and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each
year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 women
are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is a
bit
far-fetched, no?

I wonder if kevin ever get tired of being constantly wrong?

You're blaming Clinton for absurd things. I thought it was time to
lend some balance to your comments.


Let's not forget, Clinton used his brother as an intermediary to sell
heroin to children.

Another despicably evil act Clinton performed was to lock up American
citizens with no due process... oh wait, that was Bush...


Scooby Doo wrote:
Clinton's foreign policy featured appeasement

Hmm.... whom exactly did Clinton "appease?"

... and using the military for
humanitarian efforts inappropriate to their abilities.

Now here I tend to agree, except that the same thing has been done more
or less by every President. When there is not sufficient civilian
resources for relief efforts, who ya gonna call?

But obviously it's *CLINTON*s fault!!

... This led to the
"we can get away with it" attitude partly responsible for the Cole and
Mogadishu incidents.

Oh please... why not blame it on the the morally lax atmosphere created
by Clinton getting a blow job?


The missile-tech-to-China deal involved Loral Technologies, a company run
by Clinton cronie Bernard Schwartz, the single most generous donor to the
Democratic National Committee.

Hey, why don't you get up on the roof top while you shout this. And you
might be more credible if you blew on a trumpet or thumped a tub.



Clinton's fingerprints are on each of these incidents, which is why I
mentioned them.

Actually, the fingerprints of the hysterical legion of paranoid &
poorly-educated Clinton-haters is what's all over this.


I could provide a similar list of GWB foreign policy failures, should
someone wish to argue that his policies "were successful". Wisely, nobody
has made such an argument that I've seen.

Go talk to NOBBY and JohnH and Bert and P.Fritz... they never get tired
of proclaiming what a wonderful success Bush & Cheney's policies have
been... they even claim his 'No Child Left Behind Act' is successful,
and that he's done wonderful things for the economy!

DSK

NOYB wrote:
So all N. Korean nuclear weapon research sat dormant for 6 years, eh?


Let me put it this way... Did the N.Koreans unapologetically build atoms
bombs while Clinton was President? No. Did they do so while George Bush
Jr was President? Yes.

Apparently you draw from these facts that Clinton failed and Bush succeeded.




... Saddam continued to aid and abet terrorists

There is no proof that Saddam Hussein has ever had any links whatever to
anti-US terrorism. The White House has said so many times, when will you
get with the program?



There's plenty of proof. He paid the families of terrorist suicide bombers
in Israel.

And that is anti-US terrorism? Remember too, that there is no proof that
Saddam ever actually paid his bounty, there is more evidence that he
used this offer as a PR tool to increase his "street cred" in the Arab
world.


... He harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal and Ramzi Yousef.

Yeah, back in the Reagan Administration... I guess that's why Don
Rumsfeld was such buddies with him back in those days...

... His
intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta. That's all what
you'd call "proof".

Actually, that meeting is now believed to have never taken place. And if
it did take place, the result was the Saddam refused to give any funds
or training to Al-Queda. Not that fundamentalist Al-Queda would have
been eager to buddy up to a brutally secular Arab ruler anyway, but hey
let's ignore that little inconvenient fact...



... commit genocide against his own people

Is this our business? We don't interfere in other countries that carry out
far worse genocides.


Sure we do. Maybe not all, but a lot of them.

Like the former Yugoslavia, right? Odd how it's conveniently forgotten
that Republicans fought intervention tooth & nail, then railed at
Clinton for not intervening sooner.



... and threaten his neighbors.

Yep, the first President Bush told him it was OK to invade Kuwait,


You've been spending too much time on liberal conspiracy web pages.

Really? I guess reality is a liberal conspiracy, then.

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
** * ** quote ** * **
In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled,
Iraq massed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American ambassador
April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of
them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his
grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade
Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published
by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern
over the troop buildup, but went on to say:

But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during
the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not
associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen
to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using
any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General
Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these
issues are solved quickly.

Some have interpreted these statements as signalling a tacit approval of
invasion, although no other evidence of this has been presented.
Although the State Department did not confirm the authenticity of these
transcripts, US sources say that she had handled everything "by the
book" (in accordance with the US's neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue)
** * ** end quote ** * **

Now, that was rather long, NOBBY, and I don't expect you to actually
grasp all of it. The key point is that the US ambassador told Saddam
personally that the US didn't have a problem with his invasion plans.





and sold him weapons (including WMDs) to fight Iran.


Nope. Bush wasn't President when those weapons went to Iraq.

Really? But he was certainly Vice President, nyet? And didn't those
weapons sales continue until right before the start of Gulf War 1?


... And al Qaeda grew emboldened by Clinton's withdrawal of troops from
Somalia.

???

I thought they were all PO'd because of US troops on Saudi Arabian soil,



That's not what emboldened them. Read bin Laden's 1996 Fatwah:

" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations "


You agree with Osama Bin Laden?

DSK

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
BTW if you're going to mention Clinton, you should also mention that
his
policies *were* successful.


NOYB wrote:
Bull****. N. Korea continued to develop nukes well after Clinton
bribed
them in the mid-90's.

Really? That must explain why they only started up their enrichment
plant... relatively easily verifiable by satellite... after President
Bush
started calling them names.


So all N. Korean nuclear weapon research sat dormant for 6 years, eh?



... Saddam continued to aid and abet terrorists

There is no proof that Saddam Hussein has ever had any links whatever to
anti-US terrorism. The White House has said so many times, when will you
get with the program?


There's plenty of proof. He paid the families of terrorist suicide
bombers
in Israel. He harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal and Ramzi Yousef. His
intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta. That's all
what
you'd call "proof".

Is it "Liebral bury your head in the sand" week?


... commit genocide against his own people

Is this our business? We don't interfere in other countries that carry
out
far worse genocides.

Sure we do. Maybe not all, but a lot of them.


... and threaten his neighbors.

Yep, the first President Bush told him it was OK to invade Kuwait,

You've been spending too much time on liberal conspiracy web pages.

and sold him weapons (including WMDs) to fight Iran.

Nope. Bush wasn't President when those weapons went to Iraq.


... And al Qaeda grew emboldened by Clinton's withdrawal of troops
from
Somalia.

???

I thought they were all PO'd because of US troops on Saudi Arabian soil,


That's not what emboldened them. Read bin Laden's 1996 Fatwah:

" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton
appeared
in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these
threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced
by
Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became
very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy
to the "chests" of believing nations "

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:39:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 women
are brought into the US each.

What's interesting to note, is that human trafficking has replaced the
drug trade as the world's largest illegal business. A large part of that
business, is slavery, including sex slavery. It's disgraceful in this day
and age.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2056662.stm

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
So all N. Korean nuclear weapon research sat dormant for 6 years, eh?


Let me put it this way... Did the N.Koreans unapologetically build atoms
bombs while Clinton was President?

Yes. The difference was that they hid it the entire time, and the Clinton
administration took them on their word.

No. Did they do so while George Bush Jr was President? Yes.

They just continued doing what they were doing.


Apparently you draw from these facts that Clinton failed and Bush
succeeded.




... Saddam continued to aid and abet terrorists

There is no proof that Saddam Hussein has ever had any links whatever to
anti-US terrorism. The White House has said so many times, when will you
get with the program?



There's plenty of proof. He paid the families of terrorist suicide
bombers in Israel.

And that is anti-US terrorism? Remember too, that there is no proof that
Saddam ever actually paid his bounty, there is more evidence that he used
this offer as a PR tool to increase his "street cred" in the Arab world.


... He harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal and Ramzi Yousef.

Yeah, back in the Reagan Administration... I guess that's why Don Rumsfeld
was such buddies with him back in those days...

Ramzi Yousef bombed the WTC in 1993.


... His intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta.
That's all what you'd call "proof".

Actually, that meeting is now believed to have never taken place.

Believed by whom? You? Democrats?


And if it did take place, the result was the Saddam refused to give any
funds or training to Al-Queda. Not that fundamentalist Al-Queda would have
been eager to buddy up to a brutally secular Arab ruler anyway, but hey
let's ignore that little inconvenient fact...



... commit genocide against his own people

Is this our business? We don't interfere in other countries that carry
out far worse genocides.


Sure we do. Maybe not all, but a lot of them.

Like the former Yugoslavia, right? Odd how it's conveniently forgotten
that Republicans fought intervention tooth & nail, then railed at Clinton
for not intervening sooner.




... and threaten his neighbors.

Yep, the first President Bush told him it was OK to invade Kuwait,


You've been spending too much time on liberal conspiracy web pages.

Really? I guess reality is a liberal conspiracy, then.

From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
** * ** quote ** * **
In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq
massed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American ambassador April
Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them
controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his
grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait
before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New
York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop
buildup, but went on to say:

But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border
disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during
the late '60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we
should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not
associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen
to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using
any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General
Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues
are solved quickly.

Some have interpreted these statements as signalling a tacit approval of
invasion, although no other evidence of this has been presented. Although
the State Department did not confirm the authenticity of these
transcripts, US sources say that she had handled everything "by the book"
(in accordance with the US's neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue)
** * ** end quote ** * **

Now, that was rather long, NOBBY, and I don't expect you to actually grasp
all of it. The key point is that the US ambassador told Saddam personally
that the US didn't have a problem with his invasion plans.


You're full of **** on this issue. The idea that the US would give tacit
approval to the invasion of Kuwait...and then send 600,000 troops to the
region to toss them out less than a year later flies against any and all
logic. You'd have to be out on the farthest fringe of conspiracy nuts to
even consider such a scenario. And your proof that this occurred? The New
York Times. Puh-leaze.










and sold him weapons (including WMDs) to fight Iran.


Nope. Bush wasn't President when those weapons went to Iraq.

Really? But he was certainly Vice President, nyet? And didn't those
weapons sales continue until right before the start of Gulf War 1?

WMD sales continued until right before the start of the Gulf War? That's
news to me. You sure are reading from some funny history books. Do you
find those in the Fiction section at Barnes and Noble?




... And al Qaeda grew emboldened by Clinton's withdrawal of troops from
Somalia.

???

I thought they were all PO'd because of US troops on Saudi Arabian soil,



That's not what emboldened them. Read bin Laden's 1996 Fatwah:

" But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous
propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of
the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force,
including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However,
when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American
Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying
disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton
appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge ,
but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been
disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and
weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every
Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations "

You agree with Osama Bin Laden?

Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...and consequently appeared impotent
and weak to the Muslim world. Did you see it happen another way?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:39:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 women
are brought into the US each.

What's interesting to note, is that human trafficking has replaced the
drug trade as the world's largest illegal business. A large part of that
business, is slavery, including sex slavery. It's disgraceful in this day
and age.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2056662.stm

So does Israel "lead the World in sex slave trade" as Dan posited?

On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 14:07:01 -0500, "Dan J.S." wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???


It's HUGE. Israel is one of the leaders in that space. They have huge sex
slaves rings that take women from former Russian states and sell them all
over the world, and the Israeli government is doing very little about it.
There were some arrests recently when there was some UN pressures along with
some U.S. concerns.

The UN has concerns about the sex slave trade?

Well, then I guess that's good enough for me.

Let me put it this way... Did the N.Koreans unapologetically build atoms
bombs while Clinton was President?


NOYB wrote:
Yes.

No. Denying unpleasant facts won't change them.

... The difference was that they hid it the entire time, and the Clinton
administration took them on their word.

And verified thier actions (or lack of same) by careful intel work
including satellite scanning.




No. Did they do so while George Bush Jr was President? Yes.


They just continued doing what they were doing.

Really? Considering that they did not enrich any fuel (very difficult to
hide) while Clinton was President, then no, they absolutely did *not*
continue what they were doing.

They might have been working their way up to it, but there's a big big
difference between "working on the possibility of someday building a
nuclear weapon" which *might* have been what they were doing during
Clinton's tenure, and "building a nuclear weapon" which is what they are
doing now, or have already done.

Big success for Bush Jr. Almost as big as Harken Energy.


... His intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta.
That's all what you'd call "proof".

Actually, that meeting is now believed to have never taken place.


Believed by whom? You? Democrats?


By me, yes... on the word of the CIA and the State Dept.


Now, that was rather long, NOBBY, and I don't expect you to actually grasp
all of it. The key point is that the US ambassador told Saddam personally
that the US didn't have a problem with his invasion plans.



You're full of **** on this issue.

Actually, I'm not.

... The idea that the US would give tacit
approval to the invasion of Kuwait...and then send 600,000 troops to the
region to toss them out less than a year later flies against any and all
logic.

Yes, it does, doesn't it? But then, logic really isn't the strong point
of either of the Presidents Bush.


... You'd have to be out on the farthest fringe of conspiracy nuts to
even consider such a scenario.

Why? Unfortunately, it really did happen. Actually, it wasn't a case of
giving tacit approval as of having no notion of what was about to
happen... a failure of intelligence (in both meanings of the word).


Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why? Defeated by superior forces when attempting to bring
order for relief efforts... a humanitarian mission gone extremely awry
due to the sheer murderous insanity on th epart of those we were trying
to help... you consider that a disgrace?

And you say you "support our troops?" Nice.


... and consequently appeared impotent
and weak to the Muslim world.

We've appeared impotent & weak, militarily, to most of the world since
Viet Nam. Appearances aren't everything, fortunately.

If the fundamentalist Muslim really thinks we're so weak, why don't they
attack us with military force against military force? Answer: they're
psychopaths, not idiots. They know we are still far too strong for them,
that way.

In other words, you're wrong again.

... Did you see it happen another way?


Umm, yes. A rather bone headed decision to use insufficient force, with
really tragic results. One response would have been to cluster bomb
Mogadishu to maim everybody who participated in dragging our troops
bodies through the streets... and all their families... but it wouldn't
have brought those men back.

DSK

On 2 Aug 2005 11:49:11 -0700, wrote:


NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Tell us about your Moto Guzzi 'Desmo', please.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

On 2 Aug 2005 11:51:38 -0700, wrote:


John H. wrote:
On 2 Aug 2005 04:10:21 -0700, wrote:


NOYB wrote:

BTW why did you run away from the thread about Turkey?

What about it?

I take it you didn't comprehend the question? He asked WHY did you run
away from the thread about Turkey?

I take it you didn't comprehend the question? I asked, "So what percent of
terrorists do you think are WASP types like McVey, or
old women?"

Perhaps you need to learn how to follow a thread???

Perhaps you should answer the questions you prompt with your inanities in the
thread in which they are posted!

You tend to ignore those questions.

Now, tell us about your Moto Guzzi 'Desmo'. And, see if you can answer the
question prompted by your 'McVey' comment. Or, simply take the chicken way out!

Puck, puck.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Let me put it this way... Did the N.Koreans unapologetically build atoms
bombs while Clinton was President?


NOYB wrote:
Yes.

No. Denying unpleasant facts won't change them.

... The difference was that they hid it the entire time, and the Clinton
administration took them on their word.

And verified thier actions (or lack of same) by careful intel work
including satellite scanning.



Hehehe. I suppose that same "careful intel work" led Clinton's military
chief of staff to testify in 1998 that N. Korea did not have an active
ballistic missile program...one week before they launched a Taepodong-1
missile over Japan and into the Pacific.




No. Did they do so while George Bush Jr was President? Yes.


They just continued doing what they were doing.

Really? Considering that they did not enrich any fuel (very difficult to
hide) while Clinton was President, then no, they absolutely did *not*
continue what they were doing.

They hid a ballistic missile system...so why not a nuclear rod enrichment
program?



They might have been working their way up to it, but there's a big big
difference between "working on the possibility of someday building a
nuclear weapon" which *might* have been what they were doing during
Clinton's tenure, and "building a nuclear weapon" which is what they are
doing now, or have already done.

Most sources show that the N. Koreans already had a nuke or two in the early
to mid 90's.



Big success for Bush Jr. Almost as big as Harken Energy.


... His intelligence agents met with al Zarqawi and Mohammed Atta.
That's all what you'd call "proof".

Actually, that meeting is now believed to have never taken place.


Believed by whom? You? Democrats?


By me, yes... on the word of the CIA and the State Dept.


Now, that was rather long, NOBBY, and I don't expect you to actually
grasp all of it. The key point is that the US ambassador told Saddam
personally that the US didn't have a problem with his invasion plans.



You're full of **** on this issue.

Actually, I'm not.

... The idea that the US would give tacit approval to the invasion of
Kuwait...and then send 600,000 troops to the region to toss them out less
than a year later flies against any and all logic.

Yes, it does, doesn't it? But then, logic really isn't the strong point of
either of the Presidents Bush.


... You'd have to be out on the farthest fringe of conspiracy nuts to
even consider such a scenario.

Why? Unfortunately, it really did happen. Actually, it wasn't a case of
giving tacit approval as of having no notion of what was about to
happen... a failure of intelligence (in both meanings of the word).


Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?

Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.



Defeated by superior forces when attempting to bring order for relief
efforts... a humanitarian mission gone extremely awry due to the sheer
murderous insanity on th epart of those we were trying to help... you
consider that a disgrace?

The premature withdrawal was a disgrace.


And you say you "support our troops?" Nice.

Our "troops" didn't make the decision to pull out.



... and consequently appeared impotent and weak to the Muslim world.

We've appeared impotent & weak, militarily, to most of the world since
Viet Nam. Appearances aren't everything, fortunately.

Nawww. I think the rest of the World stood up and took notice how quickly
and easily we destroyed the World's 4th largest army in 1991.




If the fundamentalist Muslim really thinks we're so weak, why don't they
attack us with military force against military force?


They meant "weak" in the sense that we don't have the guts to finish what we
start once the casualties start to mount.



Answer: they're psychopaths, not idiots. They know we are still far too
strong for them, that way.

In other words, you're wrong again.

... Did you see it happen another way?


Umm, yes. A rather bone headed decision to use insufficient force, with
really tragic results. One response would have been to cluster bomb
Mogadishu to maim everybody who participated in dragging our troops bodies
through the streets... and all their families... but it wouldn't have
brought those men back.

It would have sent a message that we wouldn't run and hide at the first
sight of American casualties.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:34:11 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 2 Aug 2005 11:49:11 -0700, wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade and
no one seems to really care.
Slave sex trade???


I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.
Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Tell us about your Moto Guzzi 'Desmo', please.



You have a perseveration problem, Herring? How many times are you going
to add this boring little comment to Basskisser's posts? And why are you
playing the same idiotic game here as Fritz and Hertvik? Aren't you cut
from a slightly better bolt of cloth?

Besides, Ducs rule.


Hey, I would just like to get an answer! Perhaps he will answer you, if you ask
him nicely. He's the one that said the owned a Moto Guzzi 'Desmo'!

"Ducs" may rule, until they break. Then the Goose rules. They're fixable. By
amateurs. Like me.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:40:05 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:

John H. wrote:


You tend to ignore those questions.

Now, tell us about your Moto Guzzi 'Desmo'. And, see if you can answer the
question prompted by your 'McVey' comment. Or, simply take the chicken way out!

Puck, puck.

Needle stuck in a grove, Herring?

Yup. Wanting an answer. Any idea why none is forthcoming? I know I could learn a
lot from an engineer from Penn State University of Georgia Tech...or whatever,
that owned a Moto Guzzi 'Desmo'.

You've been in his position many times, how would you advise him?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH,
Harry is embarrassed for Basskisser, Basskisser and Harry both keep getting
caught at their lies.

Harry has empathy for anyone who is made to look as foolish as Basskisser.


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:34:11 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 2 Aug 2005 11:49:11 -0700, wrote:

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade
and
no one seems to really care.
Slave sex trade???


I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.
Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Tell us about your Moto Guzzi 'Desmo', please.



You have a perseveration problem, Herring? How many times are you going
to add this boring little comment to Basskisser's posts? And why are you
playing the same idiotic game here as Fritz and Hertvik? Aren't you cut
from a slightly better bolt of cloth?

Besides, Ducs rule.


Hey, I would just like to get an answer! Perhaps he will answer you, if
you ask
him nicely. He's the one that said the owned a Moto Guzzi 'Desmo'!

"Ducs" may rule, until they break. Then the Goose rules. They're fixable.
By
amateurs. Like me.

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

Harry would recommend you pretend to set up a "bozo bin" so you don't have
to respond.


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:40:05 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

John H. wrote:


You tend to ignore those questions.

Now, tell us about your Moto Guzzi 'Desmo'. And, see if you can answer
the
question prompted by your 'McVey' comment. Or, simply take the chicken
way out!

Puck, puck.

Needle stuck in a grove, Herring?

Yup. Wanting an answer. Any idea why none is forthcoming? I know I could
learn a
lot from an engineer from Penn State University of Georgia Tech...or
whatever,
that owned a Moto Guzzi 'Desmo'.

You've been in his position many times, how would you advise him?

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

Scooby Doo wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote in
:

Who - the Israelis? I thought they only used missiles on people in
wheel chairs?

What, terrorists can't ride around in wheel chairs? That should help us narrow
our search for these crazies. Only wheel chair incident I recall is when the Arabs
pushed a Jewish man in a wheel chair off a cruise boat. Now that's a brave thing
to do.



And bulldozers on pacifists with bullhorns.

I keep hearing this story about the poor pacifist who put herself in front of a bulldozer.
Not a very smart thing to do. This ranks with people who step in front of speeding trains.

As for statistics about deaths on both sides, the Israelis do kill Palestinians who are
firing on them or throwing molotov cocktails, but that does not compare with people
who sit around and plan for weeks in advance how to kill innocent civilians. Some
of Israel's security measures, like building walls, may seem extreme to some people,
but try and imagine yourself living there under a constant threat of terrorist attack.
As for Gaza, opening up their borders would allow the terrorists there to import all
kinds of weapons, which they now try and do by digging tunnels at the borders.
Until the Palestinians can show they have control of their own population, there is
no trusting them on security issues.

Sherwin D.

NOYB wrote:
Hehehe. I suppose that same "careful intel work" led Clinton's military
chief of staff to testify in 1998 that N. Korea did not have an active
ballistic missile program...one week before they launched a Taepodong-1
missile over Japan and into the Pacific.

Well, everybody has their off days. Like Rummy firing all the generals
who said we need more force to occupy Iraq, and that it would take years
to pacify. Or Cheney's announcement that the Iraq insurgency is on it's
last legs.

Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the
few things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.


Most sources show that the N. Koreans already had a nuke or two in the early
to mid 90's.

Really? Like what soources? And if that's true, then it's Reagan and
Bush Sr's fault, not Clintons.

Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.


The premature withdrawal was a disgrace.


And you say you "support our troops?" Nice.


Our "troops" didn't make the decision to pull out.

No, the theatre command did. Do you have the slightest clue about C-3
and TO? Don't feel bad, most civilians don't. But you're criticising
actions you don't have the foggiest idea about.

To leave those troops in Mogadishu longer would have meant more deaths,
possibly a total loss... a military castrophe unparalleled even by Pearl
Harbor... great leadership, eh NOBBY?





... and consequently appeared impotent and weak to the Muslim world.

We've appeared impotent & weak, militarily, to most of the world since
Viet Nam. Appearances aren't everything, fortunately.


Nawww. I think the rest of the World stood up and took notice how quickly
and easily we destroyed the World's 4th largest army in 1991.

And left a brutal, genocidal, terrorist-harboring dictator in place.


If the fundamentalist Muslim really thinks we're so weak, why don't they
attack us with military force against military force?


They meant "weak" in the sense that we don't have the guts to finish what we
start once the casualties start to mount.


Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.

DSK

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:48:24 -0400, NOYB wrote:


So does Israel "lead the World in sex slave trade" as Dan posited?

Perhaps on a per capita basis ;-) Seriously, I don't know the answer to
that question. There are quite a few articles on Israel's involvement
with sexual slavery, but the big numbers, at least in total dollars, are
in the US and Europe. There is a pie-chart in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4532617.stm

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Dan J.S. wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade
and no one seems to really care.
Slave sex trade???


It's HUGE. Israel is one of the leaders in that space. They have huge sex
slaves rings that take women from former Russian states and sell them all
over the world, and the Israeli government is doing very little about it.
There were some arrests recently when there was some UN pressures along
with some U.S. concerns.




You mean the Russians who have emigrated to Israel. They're the ones
running the sex trades in that country.


Yes, with the Israeli government turning their heads to the problem because
per capita, Israeli men use more prostitutes than any other group. BTW -
most of Israeli population are people who emigrated to Israel from Russia
and Poland.

The sex slave actually affected a family friend, so we have been tracking
this for a long time. My sister, a lawyer, is very involved in working with
the UN (yes - the enemy) and lobby groups to put pressure on Israel and
other nations, like Mexico who apparently buys a lot of these women from
Israel.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade
and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each
year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 women
are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is a
bit far-fetched, no?



Who do you think brings them? A lot are from China, but now its mostly
Russian women coming through Israel.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:39:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:


I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000
women
are brought into the US each.

What's interesting to note, is that human trafficking has replaced the
drug trade as the world's largest illegal business. A large part of that
business, is slavery, including sex slavery. It's disgraceful in this
day
and age.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2056662.stm

So does Israel "lead the World in sex slave trade" as Dan posited?


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...062297,00.html


The report, issued annually, said some 10,000 such women currently reside in
about 300 to 400 brothels throughout the country. They are traded for about
USD 8,000 - USD 10,000, the committee said.

The U.S. State Department ranks Israel in the second tier of human
trafficking around the world, saying the Jewish State does not maintain
minimal conditions regarding the issue but is working to improve them.

Israel passed a law in 2003 that would allow the state to confiscate the
profits of traffickers, but watchdog groups say it is rarely enforced.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
Hehehe. I suppose that same "careful intel work" led Clinton's military
chief of staff to testify in 1998 that N. Korea did not have an active
ballistic missile program...one week before they launched a Taepodong-1
missile over Japan and into the Pacific.

Well, everybody has their off days.


That's hardly an "off day". Intel said that N. Korea didn't have an active
ballistic missile program...and they couldn't have been more wrong. That
intel was provided by the same folks that you cited for your "proof" that N.
Korea didn't have an active nuclear program under Clinton. If they were
wrong on the missile issue, then they were most likely wrong on the nuke
issue. Of course, guys like you wouldn't believe it until a mushroom cloud
appeared. So when everybody started screaming and questioning about how
there could be such a huge failure in intel, you'd shrug and say "well,
everybody has their off days"?



Like Rummy firing all the generals who said we need more force to occupy
Iraq, and that it would take years to pacify. Or Cheney's announcement
that the Iraq insurgency is on it's last legs.

I think a more apt analogy is how the same folks providing the poor intel to
Clinton also provided poor intel to Bush on the WMD issue in Iraq. "Oh
well, everybody has an off day".


Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the few
things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.

You've been reading too much Popular Science. If it were so easy to spot
"radioactive tailings" on a bomb that's never been detonated, then why all
the fear about a suitcase nuke being smuggled into out ports? Afterall, the
satellite spy-eyes are very good at spotting them.



Most sources show that the N. Koreans already had a nuke or two in the
early to mid 90's.

Really? Like what soources?

How about Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin...in a letter they wrote to the
Washington Post:

"Porter Goss, the director of central intelligence, has reported to the
Senate Armed Services Committee (on March 17) that the number of nuclear
weapons North Korea possesses has increased and that there is now "a range"
of estimates above the one or two weapons that may have been produced in the
early 1990s. "

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe that
Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4 billion and
asked "please"?

Hillary wrote this piece to pre-empt the almost certain criticism that her
husband will face should a N. Korean nuke ever hit US soil. But in the
article, she admitted that they already had developed nukes under her
husband's watch.

And if that's true, then it's Reagan and Bush Sr's fault, not Clintons.


Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's during
Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then why aren't
nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the administration that
preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite here, Doug.

Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.

Yes...a massacre of the Somali warlords and their followers. We could have
and should have gone in with armored vehicles and decimated the population
in that region.



The premature withdrawal was a disgrace.


And you say you "support our troops?" Nice.


Our "troops" didn't make the decision to pull out.

No, the theatre command did.

The commander pulled back, not out. Clinton totally withdrew the troops
from the region.

Do you have the slightest clue about C-3 and TO? Don't feel bad, most
civilians don't. But you're criticising actions you don't have the foggiest
idea about.

Let me ask you this:
If the Chief of Staff at Defense Headquarters decides to pull completely out
of Iraq tomorrow, could he do it without the President's consent? No.



To leave those troops in Mogadishu longer would have meant more deaths,
possibly a total loss... a military castrophe unparalleled even by Pearl
Harbor... great leadership, eh NOBBY?


Those troops weren't in danger once they pulled back. They were in danger
because we sent light infantry into a enemy city that had heavily prepared
positions. There was no need to leave the country to protect the men who
made it out of Mogadishu. We could have gone back in with a more
heavily-armored mechanized infantry force and probably not lost a single
man.






... and consequently appeared impotent and weak to the Muslim world.

We've appeared impotent & weak, militarily, to most of the world since
Viet Nam. Appearances aren't everything, fortunately.


Nawww. I think the rest of the World stood up and took notice how
quickly and easily we destroyed the World's 4th largest army in 1991.

And left a brutal, genocidal, terrorist-harboring dictator in place.


That what a huge policy mistake on Bush's part. Of course, the people who
criticized Bush Sr. for stopping short of Baghdad are the same people who
are now criticizing his son for going there.




If the fundamentalist Muslim really thinks we're so weak, why don't they
attack us with military force against military force?


They meant "weak" in the sense that we don't have the guts to finish what
we start once the casualties start to mount.


Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.

Inflicting casualties is most certainly a goal of any force that squares off
against the US military. Here's why, in the words of Dr. Kenneth Allard,
Colonel, US Army (Ret.), and author of "Somalia Operations: Lessons
Learned""



"One of the things that the Taliban have been absolutely blunt in saying to
us was that they, at least, had absorbed the lessons from Somalia. They
understood that the United States lacked staying power. They understood that
the United States substituted technology for courage. They were the ones
that understood how the United States would simply fire Cruise missiles and
then declare a press conference, but when push came to shove, would cut and
run.

The great tragedy of Somalia is that it was, given what those Rangers did,
one of the great feats of arms in American military history. Two
congressional Medals of Honor that were given out as a result of that --
guys that gave their lives, laid down their lives willingly; 82 more that
were wounded.

That is a classic definition of American courage. It is a classic example of
what the American fighting man is capable of doing. Because we withdrew
those troops under pressure, the lesson that was given to the rest of the
world was that the United States can be had. All you need to do is to shed
their blood. And if you do that, they'll cut and run."



(bin Laden, himself, confirmed that this was the case in the 1996 Fatwah
that I've reposted here several times).

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:48:24 -0400, NOYB wrote:


So does Israel "lead the World in sex slave trade" as Dan posited?

Perhaps on a per capita basis ;-) Seriously, I don't know the answer to
that question. There are quite a few articles on Israel's involvement
with sexual slavery, but the big numbers, at least in total dollars, are
in the US and Europe. There is a pie-chart in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4532617.stm

The pie-chart seems to indicate that Dan's assertion isn't correct.

As always, though, I'm sure the stats can be manipulated to read "per
capita" or "as a percentage of GDP"...and make it look like Israel is near
the top.

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

per capita, Israeli men use more prostitutes than any other group.

I knew there was a statistical loophole to your original statement!

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex trade
and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each
year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 women
are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is a
bit far-fetched, no?



Who do you think brings them?

You mean after you place your order on the internet?

http://www.volgagirl.com/

I suppose it could be DHL, UPS, or Airborne.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:48:24 -0400, NOYB wrote:


So does Israel "lead the World in sex slave trade" as Dan posited?
Perhaps on a per capita basis ;-) Seriously, I don't know the answer to
that question. There are quite a few articles on Israel's involvement
with sexual slavery, but the big numbers, at least in total dollars, are
in the US and Europe. There is a pie-chart in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4532617.stm

The pie-chart seems to indicate that Dan's assertion isn't correct.

As always, though, I'm sure the stats can be manipulated to read "per
capita" or "as a percentage of GDP"...and make it look like Israel is
near the top.



Methinks Dan and a few others have a hard-on for Israel.

More fuel for the anti-Semetic fire...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex
trade and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each
year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000
women are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is a
bit far-fetched, no?



Who do you think brings them?

You mean after you place your order on the internet?

http://www.volgagirl.com/

I suppose it could be DHL, UPS, or Airborne.

I'll take Luisa, please.

NOYB wrote:
... Intel said that N. Korea didn't have an active
ballistic missile program...and they couldn't have been more wrong. That
intel was provided by the same folks that you cited for your "proof" that N.
Korea didn't have an active nuclear program under Clinton.

So? Nobody has a perfect record. If you want to make a big deal of this,
let's list all the major policy blunders committed by President Clinton
due to bad intel (or wilfully ignoring intel that didn't agree with his
preconceptions); and stack them up next to President Bush's.

My advice to you is to be a little more quiet on this subject.



Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the few
things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.


You've been reading too much Popular Science. If it were so easy to spot
"radioactive tailings" on a bomb that's never been detonated, then why all
the fear about a suitcase nuke being smuggled into out ports? Afterall, the
satellite spy-eyes are very good at spotting them.

No, the spy-eye is good at spotting the rasioactive plume emitted as
fuel is enriched. You really know nothing about science, do you?

An already-built bomb does not leave a plume of radioactive tailings and
can be shielded from a geiger counter.



One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe that
Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4 billion and
asked "please"?

Umm, not exactly. Perhaps if you gave up on lies & distortion, you might
realize how sensible the program was... if the Clinton Administration
believed that the North Koreans had already built nukes on Reagan and
Bush Sr's watches, then the options were either 1- a premptive strike to
take them away or 2- give solid incentive to get back on the
Non-Proliferation bandwagon.

The money was to be handed over in smaller sums, over a period of years,
subject to verification that the N. Koreans were abiding by the
Non-Proliferation rules.



Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's during
Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then why aren't
nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the administration that
preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite here, Doug.

Not at all. First of all, N. Korea only announced that they were
re-activating their nuke program after Bush Jr had been in office for
some time, and given them a ration of ****. Bush Jr has been in office
now going on five years... if the N. Koreans had nukes in 1993, then
Clinton had been in office less than a year.

I guess there's no difference between less than one year and more than 4
1/2 years, is there? I guess there's no difference between "might have
had nukes, which were clearly developed & built while under the eye of
the last administration, and announcing DURING one administration that
they plan to start building, activating enrichment plants, and then
claiming (with credibility) to have active nuclear warheads.

No, those two things are pretty much the same, arent't they?

There is a lot of hypocrisy here, but it's all coming from your side of
the fence. 100% lies, distortion, and hypocrisy... don't you ever stop
to think that it might be nice to believe in something that will stand
up to the truth?





Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.


Yes...a massacre of the Somali warlords and their followers. We could have
and should have gone in with armored vehicles and decimated the population
in that region.

But we didn't. The force in place had to be evacuated or left to be
massacred.

One problem you seem to consistantly have, wishful thinking versus
dealing with the facts as they exist. It's great to daydream about using
overwhelming force, but that force was not in place at the time.



Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.


Inflicting casualties is most certainly a goal of any force that squares off
against the US military.

That is because we are in the lucky position of having unbeatable
logistic & technological resources, provided from an (almost)
unassailable economic base.

Does this mean that you support the 'body count' concept of going after
'terrorists' and feel that as long as we're killing them faster than
they're killing us, we're winning? That seems to be the prevalent
strategic concept in place now.

DSK

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:12:03 +0000, NOYB wrote:


More fuel for the anti-Semetic fire...

What's anti-Semitic about discussing sexual slavery in Israel? It clearly
exists there, as here. It's a disgraceful practice that isn't taken as
seriously as it deserves, here or there.

"NOYB" wrote in message
. net...

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Must be true, and a good idea, too. Similar carrots have been dangled in
front of N. Korea by Nookular Boy.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
... Intel said that N. Korea didn't have an active ballistic missile
program...and they couldn't have been more wrong. That intel was
provided by the same folks that you cited for your "proof" that N. Korea
didn't have an active nuclear program under Clinton.

So? Nobody has a perfect record. If you want to make a big deal of this,
let's list all the major policy blunders committed by President Clinton
due to bad intel (or wilfully ignoring intel that didn't agree with his
preconceptions); and stack them up next to President Bush's.

My advice to you is to be a little more quiet on this subject.

You've been the master of bad advice. I'd have to be stupid or a masochist
to listen to any it.

What's really interesting is how easily you dismiss poor policy decisions by
Clinton when the the decisions were the result of poor intel, but are so
quick to chastise Bush for acting on intel failures.








Radiation is hard to hide. Spotting radioactive tailings is one of the
few things satellite spy-eyes are very good at.


You've been reading too much Popular Science. If it were so easy to spot
"radioactive tailings" on a bomb that's never been detonated, then why
all the fear about a suitcase nuke being smuggled into out ports?
Afterall, the satellite spy-eyes are very good at spotting them.

No, the spy-eye is good at spotting the rasioactive plume emitted as fuel
is enriched.

Hogwash. We don't have near the ability you think (and hope) we have
regarding the ability to spot nuclear fuel enrichment. Why do you think we
have been pushing so hard for boots-on-the-ground inspections in Iran.




An already-built bomb does not leave a plume of radioactive tailings and
can be shielded from a geiger counter.



One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Umm, not exactly.

"Not exactly" what? N. Korea did "not exactly" develop nukes in the early
90's? Or Hillary did "not exactly" write an article talking about those
nukes.

Perhaps if you gave up on lies & distortion, you might realize how sensible
the program was... if the Clinton Administration believed that the North
Koreans had already built nukes on Reagan and Bush Sr's watches, then the
options were either 1- a premptive strike to take them away or 2- give
solid incentive to get back on the Non-Proliferation bandwagon.


Option 1 would have stopped the continuation of the program. Option 2 ended
up funding the very program that it was trying to abate! Talk about irony.
Kim probably gets hyterical with laughter every time he thinks about it.

The money was to be handed over in smaller sums, over a period of years,
subject to verification that the N. Koreans were abiding by the
Non-Proliferation rules.

The N. Koreans never abided by the rules yet still collected the money.
Some program!




Whoa. Wait a minute. If N. Korea developed a nuke in the early 90's
during Clinton's watch, and that was Reagan and Bush Sr.'s fault, then
why aren't nukes built in 2003 (Bush's first term) the fault of the
administration that preceded Bush? You're being quite the hypocrite
here, Doug.

Not at all. First of all, N. Korea only announced that they were
re-activating their nuke program after Bush Jr had been in office for some
time,

Yeah, yeah...sure, whatever. N. Korea realized that Bush cut them off from
Clinton's gravy train. With nothing more to gain by concealing the nuke
program, they felt they had nothing to lose by revealing it.



and given them a ration of ****. Bush Jr has been in office now going on
five years

Whoah. Wait a minute. The N. Koreans talked about restarting their nuke
program only a year or two into Bush's first term.

... if the N. Koreans had nukes in 1993, then Clinton had been in office
less than a year.

But he was in office for 8 years. He allowed the N. Koreans to keep what
they already had, and then gave them funding which helped expand the program
even further.




I guess there's no difference between less than one year and more than 4
1/2 years, is there?

How about 8 years?

I guess there's no difference between "might have had nukes, which were
clearly developed & built while under the eye of the last administration,
and announcing DURING one administration that they plan to start building,
activating enrichment plants, and then claiming (with credibility) to have
active nuclear warheads.

The N. Koreans announced the same exact thing early on in Clinton's
presidency. They said that they planned to build and activate nuclear
plants if Clinton didn't give them the funding.

The only difference is that Clinton acquiesced...and Bush did not. That's
the *only* difference. When Bush said "get lost", Kim acted like a spoiled
little rich kid stomping his feet for not getting his way.


No, those two things are pretty much the same, arent't they?

They *were* the same. The only difference was the response from each
administration...and the ensuing response from Kim to each of those
responses.







Yes. We were disgraced and withdrew...

Disgraced? Why?


Because our forces weren't given the chance to finish what they started.
Their CIC pulled them out too soon.

WHAT?!? The only outcome of not pulling out would have been a massacre.


Yes...a massacre of the Somali warlords and their followers. We could
have and should have gone in with armored vehicles and decimated the
population in that region.

But we didn't. The force in place had to be evacuated or left to be
massacred.

The force "pulled back" to a safe base of operations. But they were still
in Somalia...right up until Clinton ordered their withdrawal.


One problem you seem to consistantly have, wishful thinking versus dealing
with the facts as they exist. It's great to daydream about using
overwhelming force, but that force was not in place at the time.



Casualties are not the goal of a military operation, unless you're a
worshipper of Stonewall Jackson.


Inflicting casualties is most certainly a goal of any force that squares
off against the US military.

That is because we are in the lucky position of having unbeatable logistic
& technological resources, provided from an (almost) unassailable economic
base.

Does this mean that you support the 'body count' concept of going after
'terrorists' and feel that as long as we're killing them faster than
they're killing us, we're winning?

Absolutely. As long as the numbers are in the neighborhood of 1000 to 1 or
more. I'd like to see closer to 10,000 to 1, but that would require the use
of nukes...which is something that I favor in *some* circumstances.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex
trade and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave
sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each
year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000
women are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is
a bit far-fetched, no?



Who do you think brings them?

You mean after you place your order on the internet?

http://www.volgagirl.com/

I suppose it could be DHL, UPS, or Airborne.

I'll take Luisa, please.

Before or after the Israeli men have their way with her?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. net...

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Must be true, and a good idea, too. Similar carrots have been dangled in
front of N. Korea by Nookular Boy.

Bush has not made any bi-lateral proposals to the N. Koreans.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:12:03 +0000, NOYB wrote:


More fuel for the anti-Semetic fire...

What's anti-Semitic about discussing sexual slavery in Israel?

Nothing. But to call Israel the "world's worst offender" is a bit over the
top...especially when he tells us that all Jewish men are some of the worst
perverts in the World.

Dan lives in a country where the practice is much more prevalent than it is
in Israel. Does he believe that American men are even more perverse than
Israeli men? Does he hold all American men (including himself) to task? If
not, I'd say that there's a hint of anti-Semitism in his agenda.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. net...

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Must be true, and a good idea, too. Similar carrots have been dangled in
front of N. Korea by Nookular Boy.

Bush has not made any bi-lateral proposals to the N. Koreans.

Rice mentioned aid packages in an interview last year, in return for good
behavior. I suspect she informed the idiot that she was going to mention
aid.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:12:03 +0000, NOYB wrote:


More fuel for the anti-Semetic fire...

What's anti-Semitic about discussing sexual slavery in Israel? It clearly
exists there, as here. It's a disgraceful practice that isn't taken as
seriously as it deserves, here or there.

Some people believe that if you're Jewish, you're perfect, and any negative
remarks are anti-Semetic.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Dan J.S." wrote in message
...

As much as I admit to support the Bush administration, I have a
problem
with Israel. My issue is that they lead the world in slave sex
trade and
no one seems to really care.

Slave sex trade???



I've never heard anything about the prowess of Israel in the slave
sex
trade.

Really? Are you BLIND??? Here's a place to start, then do a google
search. Try Israel sex slave.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/israel.htm

Your link says that as many as 1000 women are brought into Israel each
year.

I can find statistics that show that anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000
women are brought into the US each.

So Dan's statement that Israel "leads the World in slave sex trade" is
a bit far-fetched, no?



Who do you think brings them?

You mean after you place your order on the internet?

http://www.volgagirl.com/

I suppose it could be DHL, UPS, or Airborne.

I'll take Luisa, please.

Before or after the Israeli men have their way with her?



Only the freshest here.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
. net...

One or two produced in the early 1990's! And we're supposed to believe
that Kim agreed to quit building them because Clinton handed him $4
billion and asked "please"?

Must be true, and a good idea, too. Similar carrots have been dangled in
front of N. Korea by Nookular Boy.

Bush has not made any bi-lateral proposals to the N. Koreans.

Rice mentioned aid packages in an interview last year, in return for good
behavior. I suspect she informed the idiot that she was going to mention
aid.

Actually, she mentioned them last week. But you can bet that if the Bush
administration enters into any agreements with Kim, it will be on more than
a spit and a handshake...and it will be subject to inspections of N. Korea
by the US and other countries.