"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.





Yeah, which country would you target, Dr. Happy Tooth?

And how would you know whether *any* country had
anything to do with it?

After all, Presidummy claimed Iraq had a hand in 9-11, and it didn't.

I'd put Tehran and Damascus on the top of any list. Prior to Operation
Iraqi Freedom, I'd have had Baghdad on my list.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"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.




Yeah, which country would you target, Dr. Happy Tooth?

And how would you know whether *any* country had
anything to do with it?

After all, Presidummy claimed Iraq had a hand in 9-11, and it didn't.

I'd put Tehran and Damascus on the top of any list. Prior to Operation
Iraqi Freedom, I'd have had Baghdad on my list.


No one is going to let anyone pull a Presidummy Bush again. You have to be
able to prove complicity of a foreign power.

So, I ask you again:

How would you know?

I wouldn't care because it doesn't matter. Consider my method the RICO
version of combatting terrorism. Guilt by association.

All three countries that I mentioned openly aid (or aided) terrorist groups
that have killed Americans and Israelis. They're all guilty.

Harry Krause wrote:

Yeah, which country would you target, Dr. Happy Tooth?

And how would you know whether *any* country had
anything to do with it?

After all, Presidummy claimed Iraq had a hand in 9-11, and it didn't.


He'd 'nuke 'em all' and let God sort it out.

NOYB wrote:

I wouldn't care because it doesn't matter. Consider my method the RICO
version of combatting terrorism. Guilt by association.

All three countries that I mentioned openly aid (or aided) terrorist groups
that have killed Americans and Israelis. They're all guilty.


I sure hope you wouldn't be on the jury if I was on trial for a serious
offence.

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

I wouldn't care because it doesn't matter. Consider my method the RICO
version of combatting terrorism. Guilt by association.

All three countries that I mentioned openly aid (or aided) terrorist
groups that have killed Americans and Israelis. They're all guilty.


I sure hope you wouldn't be on the jury if I was on trial for a serious
offence.

In NOYB's dream world, there would be no juries.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:26:20 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

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.

You're be right. I am a lousy chess player. I can barely beat the Belarussian kid who comes in the
summer.

But then, I've never bragged about my chess abilities, or my money, or my education, or my boat(s),
or my adventures, or my wife's education, or my guns, or my letters from POTUS, or ... Well, you get
the idea.

--
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.

Now he'll spend 12 hours working on his 'macro' trying to remove the profanity!


On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:00:39 -0500, "Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to
my manor. wrote:

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.



--
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.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:


I wouldn't care because it doesn't matter. Consider my method the RICO
version of combatting terrorism. Guilt by association.

All three countries that I mentioned openly aid (or aided) terrorist
groups that have killed Americans and Israelis. They're all guilty.


I sure hope you wouldn't be on the jury if I was on trial for a serious
offence.


In NOYB's dream world, there would be no juries.


Our own 'Judge Dread'.... law enforcer, judge & executioner.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:26:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.

You're be right. I am a lousy chess player. I can barely beat the
Belarussian kid who comes in the
summer.

But then, I've never bragged about my chess abilities,


Neither have I. I'm not that good a player, but I am sure I'd slam you.
Your thinking processes are too predictable to be any good at chess. I
lost nearly 25 games straight to a computerized chess game until I trained
myself to move in ways that wouldn't necessarily be expected. That alone
moved me up to the ranks of the mediocre live chess players.

I have yet to lose to a computerized chess game.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
John H. wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 11:26:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.
You're be right. I am a lousy chess player. I can barely beat the
Belarussian kid who comes in the
summer.

But then, I've never bragged about my chess abilities,

Neither have I. I'm not that good a player, but I am sure I'd slam you.
Your thinking processes are too predictable to be any good at chess. I
lost nearly 25 games straight to a computerized chess game until I
trained myself to move in ways that wouldn't necessarily be expected.
That alone moved me up to the ranks of the mediocre live chess players.

I have yet to lose to a computerized chess game.


Let us know how you do against Hydra, or even the non-restricted Shredder.

You didn't let me finish:

I also have yet to win against a computerized chess game.