'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

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

I proposed a similar scenario a couple of years ago.

Link each US city up with an equal-sized city in a "Muslim-dominant"
country. For example, if NY gets hit (population 8.1 million), buh-bye
to 3/4 of Tehran (population 12 million).

But I favored nukes over conventional weapons. They're cheaper and put
US forces at less risk.

Only stupid people would actually advocate the use of nuclear weapons.

They're cheaper and put US forces at less risk.




How do you figure?

'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

I think Harry is getting jealous of all the nice attention Kevin gets. It seems as though Harry is
making a valiant effort to take Kevin's place. Yesterday with Harry was priceless!


On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 08:45:31 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to
my manor. wrote:

JohnH,
If this NG did not have a "Kevin" we would have to invent one. He is
priceless, and in my humble opinion brings more joy to rec.boats than anyone
else. I almost spit coffee all over my monitor when I read his post
concerning "succession of command".

Kevin is one in a million. Did you know he graduated from U of Penn?


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:


*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then move up
to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there are no
more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?

Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play chess, and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the Queen??

Another who knows nothing of succession of command.

In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets killed,
the other wins. Amen.

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you peace, fellowship, and good humor as we celebrate the birth of
our Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.



--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you peace, fellowship, and good humor as we celebrate the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:13:48 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:44:04 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then move up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there are no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?
Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play chess, and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the Queen??
Another who knows nothing of succession of command.

In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets killed, the other wins. Amen.


Sorry, but Vietnam proved the "war of attrition" techniques don't work.
You were there, right? We lost.

Harry, only someone with your extreme intelligence could relate my statement about chess to Vietnam
attrition techniques.


In chess, there are two opposing teams of many players under the command
of a king, as it were.

The game isn't over when a player is killed. Further, it is possible to
replace "killed" players within the game.

Not much of a chess player, eh?

The North Vietnamese had a virtually endless supply of players ready to
take over from those who were killed. Which is why we could never win a
war of attrition there.

And which is why we are losing Iraq.

If you and I were playing chess, and you shot me with one of your new shotguns, you would be the
winner, not me.

Is the difference between a chess piece and a chess player hard to understand? I could imagine Kevin
having that problem, but you?

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you peace, fellowship, and good humor as we celebrate the birth of our Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

JohnH,
For what it is worth, I don't think Kevin ever had a mind, and Harry is very
quickly losing his.


"John H." wrote in message
...
I think Harry is getting jealous of all the nice attention Kevin gets. It
seems as though Harry is
making a valiant effort to take Kevin's place. Yesterday with Harry was
priceless!


On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 08:45:31 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about
my driveway leading up to
my manor. wrote:

JohnH,
If this NG did not have a "Kevin" we would have to invent one. He is
priceless, and in my humble opinion brings more joy to rec.boats than
anyone
else. I almost spit coffee all over my monitor when I read his post
concerning "succession of command".

Kevin is one in a million. Did you know he graduated from U of Penn?


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:


*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then move
up
to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there are no
more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?

Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play chess, and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the Queen??

Another who knows nothing of succession of command.

In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets killed,
the other wins. Amen.

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you peace, fellowship, and good humor as we celebrate the birth
of
our Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.



--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you peace, fellowship, and good humor as we celebrate the birth of
our Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

It is hard to tell if Harry really couldn't understand the difference or he
was choosing not to. At one time, I always thought Harry would pick and
chose what he "chose to believe". Now it seems that Harry is losing it
quickly, and is having trouble telling the difference. That might be the
result of dementia or it might be a result of depression, aggravated by his
NPD. Harry's outburst at the Best Buy is very typical of those suffering
from severe depression.

Kevin really can not tell the difference and will posts 3 or 4 links showing
you that he is wrong.


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:13:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:44:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then move
up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there are
no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?
Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play chess, and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the Queen??
Another who knows nothing of succession of command.

In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets
killed, the other wins. Amen.


Sorry, but Vietnam proved the "war of attrition" techniques don't work.
You were there, right? We lost.

Harry, only someone with your extreme intelligence could relate my
statement about chess to Vietnam
attrition techniques.


In chess, there are two opposing teams of many players under the command
of a king, as it were.

The game isn't over when a player is killed. Further, it is possible to
replace "killed" players within the game.

Not much of a chess player, eh?

The North Vietnamese had a virtually endless supply of players ready to
take over from those who were killed. Which is why we could never win a
war of attrition there.

And which is why we are losing Iraq.

If you and I were playing chess, and you shot me with one of your new
shotguns, you would be the
winner, not me.

Is the difference between a chess piece and a chess player hard to
understand? I could imagine Kevin
having that problem, but you?

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you peace, fellowship, and good humor as we celebrate the birth of
our Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.

'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

Harry,
I would love to play you in a game of chess. Your opening move would be
very grand and predictable, and then you would fold up as you went into
defensive mode.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:13:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:44:04 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H. wrote:
On 5 Dec 2005 05:16:28 -0800, wrote:

*JimH* wrote:

Harry, Harry, Harry. This really is a terrific story. Surely you
understand that when any of the top five are killed others then
move up to
take their place. There will always be a top five until there are
no more
leaders left to fill the ranks.

You understand that....eh?
Oh, what a spin!! So, I take it, then, that when you play chess, and
someone takes your Queen, a Rook or a Knight becomes the Queen??
Another who knows nothing of succession of command.
In a game of chess, there are two opposing players. If one gets
killed, the other wins. Amen.

Sorry, but Vietnam proved the "war of attrition" techniques don't
work. You were there, right? We lost.
Harry, only someone with your extreme intelligence could relate my
statement about chess to Vietnam
attrition techniques.

In chess, there are two opposing teams of many players under the command
of a king, as it were.

The game isn't over when a player is killed. Further, it is possible to
replace "killed" players within the game.

Not much of a chess player, eh?

The North Vietnamese had a virtually endless supply of players ready to
take over from those who were killed. Which is why we could never win a
war of attrition there.

And which is why we are losing Iraq.

If you and I were playing chess, and you shot me with one of your new
shotguns, you would be the
winner, not me.


If the two of us were playing chess, you would lose, every time. No
shotguns would be needed. You don't think well out of the box, you don't
seem to be able to think abstractly, and all your thinking is dogmatic and
predictable.

You're be a lousy chess player.

Stick to tick-tack-toe.




--
If Jeb runs, I'm moving to a country whose dictator comes from a

'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

Harry,
Is it necessary to use profanity when responding to posts?

I would suggest that your use of profanity demonstrates your inability to
express yourself so you fall back on profanity to make up for your
deficiencies. If you would like a recommendation for some books on
effective writing styles, let me know.



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Lord Reginald Smithers wrote:
Harry,



You obviously have a reading comprehension problem, ****-for-brains:

There is not one opinion of yours nor one piece of advice or information
from you about which I give a ****. Same goes for your questions, your
comments, your "advice," your whatever.

Save your keystrokes for someone who cares.

Is that clear enough for you? Do you get it yet, scumbag?
We're *not* going to be engaging in dialogue, now or ever.
All you will get when I bother to respond at all is a canned response.

Now, go out and do what you and your boys say you do best: go slap some
bitches.



--
George W. Bush: American Nero.

'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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

I proposed a similar scenario a couple of years ago.

Link each US city up with an equal-sized city in a "Muslim-dominant"
country. For example, if NY gets hit (population 8.1 million), buh-bye
to 3/4 of Tehran (population 12 million).

But I favored nukes over conventional weapons. They're cheaper and put
US forces at less risk.

Only stupid people would actually advocate the use of nuclear weapons.

They're cheaper and put US forces at less risk.




How do you figure?

A nuke costs far less than the material costs of multiple precision-guided
warheads delivered by multiple aircraft sorties. And the nuke can be
delivered by a submarine beneath the sea hundreds of miles away...putting
our troops at zero risk against a country like Iran.

Let me clarify my position a little bit, because I certainly don't favor a
nuke retaliation against a country as a first choice. *IF* one of our
cities is hit by a WMD attack (nuclear, or large-scale chemical/biological),
*THEN* I would favor a nuclear response. If we fell victim to an attack
like 9/11, or Spain/Britain's railway bombings, I'd favor a Tomahawk missile
response with conventional warheads (MOABs). So I'd venture to say that
your and my positions don't vary by very much.

'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

If Jeb runs, I'm moving to a country whose dictator comes from a






?????
Harry,
Please finish your signature line. I want to make sure I hold you to it in
2008.

'Top 5' al Qaeda leader killed...again.
 

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

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

I proposed a similar scenario a couple of years ago.

Link each US city up with an equal-sized city in a "Muslim-dominant"
country. For example, if NY gets hit (population 8.1 million),
buh-bye to 3/4 of Tehran (population 12 million).

But I favored nukes over conventional weapons. They're cheaper and
put US forces at less risk.

Only stupid people would actually advocate the use of nuclear weapons.

They're cheaper and put US forces at less risk.




How do you figure?

A nuke costs far less than the material costs of multiple precision-guided
warheads delivered by multiple aircraft sorties. And the nuke can be
delivered by a submarine beneath the sea hundreds of miles away...putting
our troops at zero risk against a country like Iran.

Let me clarify my position a little bit, because I certainly don't favor a
nuke retaliation against a country as a first choice. *IF* one of our
cities is hit by a WMD attack (nuclear, or large-scale
chemical/biological), *THEN* I would favor a nuclear response. If we fell
victim to an attack like 9/11, or Spain/Britain's railway bombings, I'd
favor a Tomahawk missile response with conventional warheads (MOABs). So
I'd venture to say that your and my positions don't vary by very much.

The problem with a nuclear response is that there's no reason to victimize
people hundreds or thousands of miles away in countries which are in no way
involved with this mess. As far as putting our soldiers at risk, we can
deliver guided conventional missiles from B-52s at altitudes where they're
untouchable.

Your comment about cost is most certainly a joke. The cost of a few missiles
pales in comparison to what we're spending every day in Iraq, with a goal
which could be reached with a handful of Viagra correctly distributed within
the beltway.