Lieutenant Lynch (the cute blonde "rescued" soldier)'s real story.
Robert Whelan
Tonight ABC television had a news story about what really happened at
that "daring" rescue operation. ABC reporters interviewed the hospital
staff, and apparently the Republican Guard had left the hospital
completely at 10 a.m. the previous day. Lynch was scheduled to have
her leg set by a surgeon the same day. The doctors were under the
impression that her leg was broken when her truck rolled over on her.
In addition, apparently the hospital had tried, previous to the
raid, to return Lynch to the Americans, but had to turn back
the ambulance when it was fired upon by the Americans.
So much for the propaganda implying that she was being tortured,
or that her injuries were from being tortured.
I'm surprised that ABC is reporting this, though.
Ralph Snart
"Robert Whelan" <rwh...@googlyghosty.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org...
>
> Tonight ABC television had a news story about what really happened at
> that "daring" rescue operation. ABC reporters interviewed the hospital
> staff, and apparently the Republican Guard had left the hospital
> completely at 10 a.m. the previous day. Lynch was scheduled to have
> her leg set by a surgeon the same day. The doctors were under the
> impression that her leg was broken when her truck rolled over on her.
>
Bullshit.
> In addition, apparently the hospital had tried, previous to the
> raid, to return Lynch to the Americans, but had to turn back
> the ambulance when it was fired upon by the Americans.
>
More Bullshit. When have the Iraqis ever returned a POW?
> So much for the propaganda implying that she was being tortured,
> or that her injuries were from being tortured.
>
Face the East, hike your ass into the air, troll
> I'm surprised that ABC is reporting this, though.
Bullshit
Ernest Fairchild
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org...
>
Oh, crap. I thought I had you killfiled. Back in the nut bin, Robert!
Aaron Nagano
Robert Whelan
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Ralph Snart wrote:
>
> "Robert Whelan" <rwh...@googlyghosty.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org...
> >
> > Tonight ABC television had a news story about what really happened at
> > that "daring" rescue operation. ABC reporters interviewed the hospital
> > staff, and apparently the Republican Guard had left the hospital
> > completely at 10 a.m. the previous day. Lynch was scheduled to have
> > her leg set by a surgeon the same day. The doctors were under the
> > impression that her leg was broken when her truck rolled over on her.
> >
>
> Bullshit.
>
> > In addition, apparently the hospital had tried, previous to the
> > raid, to return Lynch to the Americans, but had to turn back
> > the ambulance when it was fired upon by the Americans.
> >
>
> More Bullshit. When have the Iraqis ever returned a POW?
Did you even read what I wrote, idiot? The Iraqi SOLDIERS left
her in the hospital. The hospital workers tried to return her.
> > So much for the propaganda implying that she was being tortured,
> > or that her injuries were from being tortured.
> >
>
> Face the East, hike your ass into the air, troll
>
> > I'm surprised that ABC is reporting this, though.
>
> Bullshit
You are a fucking idiot, if you won't even believe what right-wing
ABC reports.
Count 1
"Robert Whelan" <rwh...@googlyghosty.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org...
>
This was first reported by the BBC, or some European journalist a few days
ago. ABC just picked it up. Apparently the Iraqis are telling a different
story then the Americans, and tried but failed to return her after the
soldiers had abandoned (I think) Najaf. The US came the next night.
The fog of war.
There is no way to know for sure. Even viewing the US Army's recording of
the event would probably not yield very much one way or the other. I
suspect the truth is found somewhere in the middle of the two stories.
Robert Whelan
Since you are too stupid to killfile properly, I will be seen by
you whenever I want to be, apparently.
Ernest Fairchild
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org...
>
> Since you are too stupid to killfile properly, I will be seen by
> you whenever I want to be, apparently.
"Properly" does not mean you change your fucking screen name every day,
HC!
Ernest
_____________________
"If you can't win, annoy the hell out of 'em."
Visit my website at http://www.public.asu.edu/~ernestf
Robert Whelan
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Aaron Nagano wrote:
> She was a private first class.
Thanks. I wasn't sure.
Brandon Ray
Robert Whelan wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2003, Ralph Snart wrote:
>
> >
> > > In addition, apparently the hospital had tried, previous to the
> > > raid, to return Lynch to the Americans, but had to turn back
> > > the ambulance when it was fired upon by the Americans.
> > >
> >
> > More Bullshit. When have the Iraqis ever returned a POW?
>
> Did you even read what I wrote, idiot? The Iraqi SOLDIERS left
> her in the hospital. The hospital workers tried to return her.
Or at least, so they say, when confronted with armed men who might not look
kindly on people who participated in Private Lynch's mistreatment.
> > > So much for the propaganda implying that she was being tortured,
> > > or that her injuries were from being tortured.
> > >
> >
> > Face the East, hike your ass into the air, troll
> >
> > > I'm surprised that ABC is reporting this, though.
> >
> > Bullshit
>
> You are a fucking idiot, if you won't even believe what right-wing
> ABC reports.
ABC? Right wing? You have GOT to be kidding! Fox News is right wing. ABC
is in the soft and squishy center.
David B.
You change your address constantly dickhead. It's your fucking fault you
piece of shit.
Gregg Sharp
> the event would probably not yield very much one way or the other. I
> suspect the truth is found somewhere in the middle of the two stories.
It's a little sad that Bagdad Bob is still viewed as being more true and
honest than anything to come out of Fox or even the "big three"
(ABC,CBS,NBC) because the more negative a light the US is shown in, the more
believable it is to many groups. Now if someone will just develop a BS
detector that will work on television...
=g
Karl M Syring
Sigh, the theatrical play is done in vain. We firmly have
classified the USA as a Rogue Nation, when the Iraq
invasion was launched.
Karl M. Syring
--
Pillaging is legal now:
Baghdad liable for September 11: judge
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/08/1052280380297.html
Tina
>is in the soft and squishy center.
>
You make that sound like a bad thing. :)
Tina
Del Cotter
Robert Whelan <rwh...@googlyghosty.com> said:
>Tonight ABC television had a news story
What the- ?
# New thread
# Posted by someone who morphs his address to evade killfiles
# Crossposted to alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise, alt.books.stephen-king,
and rec.arts.sf.written.
# OT politics thread by any possible definition
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a troll.
(In any case, it's an old story outside the US, and was in the world
press within a few days of Lynch being picked up, although I'm of course
glad the Americans have finally picked it up)
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the recent increase in UBE, I will soon be ignoring email
sent to d...@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
fengallow
> classified the USA as a Rogue Nation, when the Iraq
> invasion was launched.
>
> Karl M. Syring
Just out of curiosity, who is "we"?
Sean O'Hara
declared...
>
If your name isn't Aragorn, Legolas, or Gimli, please ignore the
troll.
--
Sean O'Hara
Brent: Women shouldn't be punished for having big boobs.
Gareth: They should be rewarded.
Brent: They should be equal. --The Office
Ernest Fairchild
news:gxFa1OBF...@branta.demon.co.uk...
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a troll.
Dorky Whelan is a Stephen King troll, but apparently he's widening his
area of influence.
Have a great day!
Magenta Sky
> Now if someone will just
> develop a BS detector that will work on television...
>
Mine has one. There's a little LED that comes on
when bullshit is coming out of the TV. It's labeled
"Power".
Robert Whelan
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Del Cotter wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2003, in rec.arts.sf.written,
> Robert Whelan <rwh...@googlyghosty.com> said:
>
> >Tonight ABC television had a news story
>
> What the- ?
>
> # New thread
>
> # Posted by someone who morphs his address to evade killfiles
Actually, I only do it if someone is stupid enough to announce
their killfiles. Killfile announcers are morons. I usually
don't bother unless some idiot announces it.
> # Crossposted to alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise, alt.books.stephen-king,
> and rec.arts.sf.written.
All of which I read, and post to regularly.
> # OT politics thread by any possible definition
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a troll.
Oh, just use your killfile, and shut up.
> (In any case, it's an old story outside the US,
The majority of Usenet posters are from the U.S.
and was in the world
> press within a few days of Lynch being picked up, although I'm of course
> glad the Americans have finally picked it up)
The general impression left in the mind of most Americans, despite this
late-breaking expose on ABC, is one of Rambo-like heroic action. This
little crossposted thread won't have made much of an impact, but I
think it was worth it to try.
Robert Whelan
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Robert Whelan
> declared...
> >
> If your name isn't Aragorn, Legolas, or Gimli, please ignore the
> troll.
For God's Sake, you fucking morons. There isn't much to this
thread. There's more crossposting from you stupid Troll announcers
than from me.
EvilBill[AGQx]
hath spoken thusly:
> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Robert Whelan
> declared...
>>
> If your name isn't Aragorn, Legolas, or Gimli, please ignore the
> troll.
What about Frodo?
--
--
* "Why is it that no one believes me even when I'm telling the truth?"
- Elim Garak
E-mail: evilbill @ lineone . net (remove spaces to e-mail)
AIM: EvilBill1782
MSN: dev...@agqx-imperium.fsnet.co.uk (do not e-mail me here!)
Quiz Program website: http://www.angelfire.com/alt/evilbill
Quiz Program Yahoogroup: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quizprogram
Matriarch Kheperkare - Lvl 93 Javazon - Open
Matriarch EB-Amarice - Lvl 89 Bowazon - USWest
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> Dorky Whelan is a Stephen King troll, but apparently he's widening his
> area of influence.
>
He's been a Trek NG troll for a while too.
Robert Whelan
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Ernest Fairchild wrote:
> "Robert Whelan" <rwh...@googlyghostyboy.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org...
> >
> > Since you are too stupid to killfile properly, I will be seen by
> > you whenever I want to be, apparently.
>
> "Properly" does not mean you change your fucking screen name every day,
> HC!
As I said, too stupid.
Innocent Ta'
"Robert Whelan" <rwh...@googlyghosty.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org...
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 May 2003, Ralph Snart wrote:
Oh, look... Fuckwit vs Fuckwit. Who to root for?
JodieMc30
<Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org>...
>
> Tonight ABC television had a news story about what really happened at
> that "daring" rescue operation. ABC reporters interviewed the hospital
> staff, and apparently the Republican Guard had left the hospital
> completely at 10 a.m. the previous day. Lynch was scheduled to have
> her leg set by a surgeon the same day. The doctors were under the
> impression that her leg was broken when her truck rolled over on her.
They also stated that the US Soldiers kicked down several doors trying to
get to her...well D-UH!
In addition, apparently the hospital had tried, previous to the
> raid, to return Lynch to the Americans, but had to turn back
> the ambulance when it was fired upon by the Americans.
They stated that an ambulance tried to get to the US Soldiers but were
turned away by gunfire when they refused to stop...I guess when you have
men/women/children "civilians" used as suicide bombers you'd be a *wee* bit
cautious as well...
>
> So much for the propaganda implying that she was being tortured,
> or that her injuries were from being tortured.
Being a US Soldier in the midst of war, my thought is that, being a female,
she tripped on a rock & sprained her ankle whilst staring in her compact
applying lipstick. At that time, a very friendly Iraqi soldier decided to
give her a helping hand to the hospital where, after buying her a "Tommy"
tracksuit to feel more "at home", they made EVERY effort to inform the
American infidels where she was being held...
Yup...that's the ticket...
> I'm surprised that ABC is reporting this, though.
>
I'm surprised you're even ATTEMPTING this! Not one of your brighter
"fishing" expeditions.
--
JodieMc30
***************************
I am here to kick ass & chew bubblegum...
and I'm ALL out of bubblegum..
-----"Rowdy" Roddy Piper, They Live
**********************
JodieMc30
<Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org>...
>
>
>
Maybe they're fishing for trolls...certainly seems to be enuf *bites*
Ralph Snart
like my shit, you can killfile me and it'll stay that way.
Fuckhead.
"Innocent Ta'" <tat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b9eht3$ihcjt$1...@ID-119704.news.dfncis.de...
Innocent Ta'
"Ralph Snart" <ralph...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:hUBua.64641$pa5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> No need to root for anyone--at least my addy stays the same, so if you
don't
> like my shit, you can killfile me and it'll stay that way.
What, and miss your bright and profoundly insightful posts? Never!
> Fuckhead.
Fuckwit.
Patrick Matheson
BTW... i like your Piper sig.. fan from way back...
Kristy
David B.
Yeah, you are Bobbie. Thanks for finally aditing it.
David B.
Yeah, you are Bobbie. Thanks for finally admiting it.
David B.
Karl and the voices inside his head.
David B.
Well, Bobbie's an asshole so I'd vote against him.
Sean O'Hara
declared...
> Hail! For Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com>
> hath spoken thusly:
> > In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Robert Whelan
> > declared...
> >>
> > If your name isn't Aragorn, Legolas, or Gimli, please ignore the
> > troll.
>
> What about Frodo?
>
go all weepy.
Bill Snyder
<darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful EvilBill[AGQx]
>declared...
>> Hail! For Sean O'Hara <darkerthenightth...@myrealbox.com>
>> hath spoken thusly:
>> > In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Robert Whelan
>> > declared...
>> >>
>> > If your name isn't Aragorn, Legolas, or Gimli, please ignore the
>> > troll.
>>
>> What about Frodo?
>>
>Run quickly before Whelan the Troll skewers you and makes Sam
>go all weepy.
If that pervy hobbit-fancier tries to skewer Frodo, Sam will kill him.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
EvilBill[AGQx]
Unless Gollum does it first and takes preciousssss...
Simon Slavin
Robert Whelan <rwh...@googlyghosty.com> wrote:
>[snip]
Just a quick heads-up that this troll was cross-posted to
alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise,
alt.books.stephen-king,
rec.arts.sf.written
If you decide to post a follow-up please makes sure your message
is on-topic for all the groups you post it to. Thanks for your
help.
JodieMc30
<K4Eua.4159$4O6.5...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>...
tell ya the truth) Then he did this lame assed movie that was based
loosely on a SK short story....kudos to anyone guessing the title....
JodieMc30
<b9eht3$ihcjt$1...@ID-119704.news.dfncis.de>...
JodieMc30
Ernest Fairchild <ern...@delphidude.com> wrote in article
<b9e6qe$ic1i4$1...@ID-79033.news.dfncis.de>...
> "Del Cotter" <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gxFa1OBF...@branta.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a troll.
>
> Dorky Whelan is a Stephen King troll, but apparently he's widening his
> area of influence.
>
> Have a great day!
>
> Ernest
Yup, he's trolling Star Trek(NG, etc, etc) groups also....
I just keep imagining that he & HC (duh) are the comic book guy on The
Simpsons...
Cant be far from the truth...
--
JodieMc30
***************************
I am here to kick ass & chew bubblegum...
and I'm ALL out of bubblegum..
-----"Rowdy" Roddy Piper, They Live
**********************
>
JodieMc30
<Pine.GSO.4.53.03...@amanda.dorsai.org>...
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 7 May 2003, in rec.arts.sf.written,
> > Robert Whelan <rwh...@googlyghosty.com> said:
> >
> > >Tonight ABC television had a news story
> >
> > What the- ?
> >
> > # New thread
> >
> > # Posted by someone who morphs his address to evade killfiles
>
> Actually, I only do it if someone is stupid enough to announce
> their killfiles. Killfile announcers are morons. I usually
> don't bother unless some idiot announces it.
>
> > # Crossposted to alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise,
alt.books.stephen-king,
> > and rec.arts.sf.written.
>
> All of which I read, and post to regularly.
-------ALL of which you disgust
>
> > # OT politics thread by any possible definition
> >
> > Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a troll.
>
> Oh, just use your killfile, and shut up.
And miss all the fun....?
ald
<evilb...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>What about Frodo?
D*mn, I had to check which group I was reading ;-) Hey, Bill, which
group are *you* posting from?
Hmm, and I thought I'd killfiled this thread, I guess it's a good
thing I didn't ;-)
--
ald
reply via e-mail to a717 at erols dot com
EvilBill[AGQx]
> On Thu, 8 May 2003 21:49:40 +0100, "EvilBill[AGQx]"
> <evilb...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> What about Frodo?
>
> D*mn, I had to check which group I was reading ;-) Hey, Bill, which
> group are *you* posting from?
>
> Hmm, and I thought I'd killfiled this thread, I guess it's a good
> thing I didn't ;-)
The Enterprise NG. Yep, I'm a Trek nerd. LOL
Liz
"ald" <10317...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3ebd6172...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Hi ald!!!! Haven't seen you in here for a loooonnnng time!
Liz
Dr Ozon
>
> This was first reported by the BBC, or some European journalist a few days
> ago. ABC just picked it up. Apparently the Iraqis are telling a different
> story then the Americans, and tried but failed to return her after the
> soldiers had abandoned (I think) Najaf. The US came the next night.
>
> The fog of war.
>
> There is no way to know for sure. Even viewing the US Army's recording of
> the event would probably not yield very much one way or the other. I
> suspect the truth is found somewhere in the middle of the two stories.
>
A few days ago? That's funny. I remember reading about it about a week
or so after the rescue.
Kai Henningsen
> > Sigh, the theatrical play is done in vain. We firmly have
> > classified the USA as a Rogue Nation, when the Iraq
> > invasion was launched.
> >
> > Karl M. Syring
>
> Just out of curiosity, who is "we"?
That's one of the extremely rare occasions when I have to agree with Karl
- and "we" includes pretty much all people I have discussed this with
outside the net (at least I can't remember even a single dissenting
voice). (Though "rogue nation" isn't the usual term used. That would be
"axis of evil". When the shoe fits ...)
As long as Bush or someone from the same political corner rules the US,
that is.
Current communications from Washington sound like an attempt to one-up a
certain Iraqi information minister. "Of course they had WMDs. We just need
to search better. No, we don't want anyone searching who isn't paid by us.
And maybe the reason we're not finding any is that Saddam destroyed
everything, which proves how right we were to attack him for not
destroying them. Oh, and we just eliminated a major ally of Al Quaeda."
That's worse that Sturgeons law for truth content.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
ald
>Hi ald!!!! Haven't seen you in here for a loooonnnng time!
>Liz
>
I'm reading here every day, at least through the Watch filter (which
lately has been catching almost every post), and posting sporadically.
Couldn't resist when I saw a familiar name from my game's NG, though
Liz
Hey! Nice to see you for whatever reason.
Liz
watching The Green Mile, prolly 3 hours after ya'll got it.
Dr Ozon
>
> What makes me laugh about this situation is that the same people who
> wanted to give Hans Blix 6 more months in Iraq to look for this
> material, are now the people who are demanding that Bush produce the
> evidence right now.
>
"The group directing all known U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof
that President Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms,
according to participants."
-- May 11, 2003 by the Washington Post
Terrell Miller
news:BAE1F3C59...@10.0.1.2...
since Simon has been repeatedly anal about OT crosspostings, i can only
conclude that he's one of those people who are still paying his ISP by the
minute or byte or whatever.
Simon: if you don't want to read OT posts...just don't read them. Otherwise
you look like an intolerant, pompous ass.
HTH,
--
Terrell Miller
mill...@bellsouth.net
"Even a Rolls Royce can get a flat tire"
- Papa Dee Allen
EvilBill[AGQx]
> <evilb...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> The Enterprise NG. Yep, I'm a Trek nerd. LOL
>
> she enters the Viper Temple, "I sure hope I know what I'm doing" ;-) >
>
Good thing Fangskin can't spawn MSLE. On the other hand, the boss packs
of greater mummies can... ;)
> Aye, so am I, if I could keep up with the 12 groups that I'm reading
> now I'd see you there ;-)
12? Is that all? Pshaw!
EB, currently subscribed to 15 NGs <g>
--
--
* "We few. We happy few."
"We band of buggers."
fengallow
> iwil...@yahoo.com (fengallow) wrote on 08.05.03 in <1175906e.03050...@posting.google.com>:
>
> > > Sigh, the theatrical play is done in vain. We firmly have
> > > classified the USA as a Rogue Nation, when the Iraq
> > > invasion was launched.
> > >
> > > Karl M. Syring
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, who is "we"?
>
> That's one of the extremely rare occasions when I have to agree with Karl
> - and "we" includes pretty much all people I have discussed this with
> outside the net (at least I can't remember even a single dissenting
> voice). (Though "rogue nation" isn't the usual term used. That would be
> "axis of evil". When the shoe fits ...)
>
Germany. It's not incredibly surprising that everyone you speak to
outside of the net is labelling the US as a rogue nation (which in
historical context is pretty funny). It's also not surprising that you
would defend the inalienable right of a dictator to commit war crimes,
unprovoked invasion and programs of ethnic cleansing.
Bill Snyder
While I concede that the "axis of evil" line constitutes serious
provocation, your second sentence is flat-out beyond the pale.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> So what The Post set in its headline is misleading. The search is not
> winding down in fact it is picking up. The headline is designed to
> make the reader think the search for WMD is over, when in fact by
> their own admission the opposite is true.
> The article also details the make up of Task Force 75. Which include,
> -- biologists, chemists, arms treaty enforcers, nuclear operators,
> computer and document experts, and special forces troops.
> This is a combat unit. If it were not there would be no need of
> Special Forces Troops.
It was not a combat unit, the article notes explicitly that
they went into secured areas 24 hours after combat units had
moved on.
Special forces troops were there presumably for security, to
protect the technical staff in areas that were no longer battlefields
but no secure either.
Since you read the article you will note that they are sending
back the scientists and technicians. People with expertise in
handling nuclear materials, analysing chemicals, running DNA chips.
The unit that is ramping up is an intelligence task force,
heavy on arab interpreters and analysts. They're supposed to read
captured papers to track what happened and if they can find paper trails.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> On 12 May 2003 14:37:50 -0400, Steinn Sigurdsson
> <ste...@najma.astro.psu.edu> wrote:
> >T-Mac <Tho...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
> >> So what The Post set in its headline is misleading. The search is not
> >> winding down in fact it is picking up. The headline is designed to
> >> make the reader think the search for WMD is over, when in fact by
> >> their own admission the opposite is true.
> >> The article also details the make up of Task Force 75. Which include,
> >> -- biologists, chemists, arms treaty enforcers, nuclear operators,
> >> computer and document experts, and special forces troops.
> >> This is a combat unit. If it were not there would be no need of
> >> Special Forces Troops.
> >It was not a combat unit, the article notes explicitly that
> >they went into secured areas 24 hours after combat units had
> >moved on.
...
> >Special forces troops were there presumably for security, to
> >protect the technical staff in areas that were no longer battlefields
> >but no secure either.
> Special Forces are combat troops. When you place combat troops in a
> unit that unit becomes a combat unit. i.e. a unit that is prepared to
> do combat. It doesn't matter if the readiness is there for defense (
> security ) or for assault. These troops are prepared for combat.
> They are combat troops.
As I understand it, Special Forces are NOT combat troops,
although they are very good at fighting.
And, they are frequently used for security - eg the Afghan president
had US special forces bodyguards, until they could be replaced
by commercial guards (dynacorp?), which are basically recently
retired special forces
> But that is not the point I was making.
> search was over, and that nothing had been found. That is not the
> case. The search is on going by an even larger team of searchers.
> This different unit may have different methods and may be searching
> differently but the search is not over, in fact based on the number
> of people searching it has intensified.
The search is ramping down, and nothing was found.
Which is why they are going to focus on intelligence
analysis and paper trails.
No WMDs have been found at this stage, and they are reducing
the effort to physically search for them and the people doing
the searching seem to think there are few or no WMDs to be found.
> >Since you read the article you will note that they are sending
> >back the scientists and technicians.
> No. I noted that they are reducing the groups of techs from Task
> Force 75 from 6 to 2. { Again the head line makes it seem as if the
> entire task force was giving up the search. Not true }
Right, they are sending back the techs. Because the techs have
nothing to do.
> I also note ( outside of the article ) that many units are scaling
> back their operations and the activity of most units has been
> drastically reduced. I note that three aircraft carriers have been
> sent home and many military units are rotating out of the area.
> I would say this reduction in activity is a normal part of the end of
> the conflict.
You know, after ~ decade, and with $20 billion budget, the USA has
managed to destroy 22% of its chemical weapons inventory.
If Iraq has any WMDs they will need a lot of experienced techs
to handle them - if the weapons are there they need the staff
in country.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 May 2003 20:40:39 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>wrote:
>Why?
>
>If someone takes pot shots at the USA why is it beyond the pale to
>take a few pot shots back?
>
>I noticed you held your tongue while Kai was speaking " beyond the
>pale ". and being " seriously provocative " with his comments.
>
>So why did you feel compelled to comment at one but not the other?
>
>Did you not find them equally offensive? If not why is bringing up
>history more offensive than pontificating on current events?
>
>Kai equated Washington with the most brutal regime the world has known
>since Pol Pot, did that not seem " Beyond the pale " to you? It was
>done in open ridicule and with no constructive purpose. It was down
>right trollish, yet you held your tongue for that.
>
>While I am amused by them, I find that double standards do not lend
>credibility to a discussion.
Nor do reading disabilities. It's perfectly legitimate (although
often unwise, especially if the terms are as harsh as here) to
criticize someone else's country/government in an argument. It's
another thing entirely to accuse him, personally, and everyone else
with the same citizenship, of condoning "war crimes, unprovoked
invasion, and ethnic cleansing." If you can't understand that, I
suggest you work on developing at least a single standard of
acceptable behavior before you start mouthing off about double ones.
Jordan179
>
> This was first reported by the BBC, or some European journalist a few days
> ago. ABC just picked it up. Apparently the Iraqis are telling a different
> story then the Americans, and tried but failed to return her after the
> soldiers had abandoned (I think) Najaf. The US came the next night.
>
> The fog of war.
>
> There is no way to know for sure. Even viewing the US Army's recording of
> the event would probably not yield very much one way or the other. I
> suspect the truth is found somewhere in the middle of the two stories.
Indeed, it's possible that one group of Iraqis tortured or wanted to
torture her, and another group helped or wanted to help her. It's not
as if Iraq was the most organized place in the world in the last weeks
of Saddam's regime, after all ...
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 May 2003 13:01:49 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>wrote:
>
>I will continue to " mouth off " when I see double standards like
>yours no matter what rationalizations they are wrapped in.
Obviously, I didn't make myself clear. A last try: Tell all the lies
you like, hurl all the insults you like, but don't expect decent
people to listen to you.
<plonk>
Steinn Sigurdsson
> On 13 May 2003 13:09:12 -0400, Steinn Sigurdsson
> <ste...@najma.astro.psu.edu> wrote:
> Moot point to this discussion.
It is not a moot point. The US agreed to destroy its
chemical weapons, it has found it very hard to do so,
and has taken much longer and required more effort to
destroy a small proportion of its stock of weapons.
Therefore, based on its own experience, if the US seriously
thinks it will need to handle a large quantity of chemical weapons
it will need a lot of personnel and equipment to deal with it.
> My original statement was that the same people who were willing to
> give the UN six more months are demanding that the Bush Administration
> produce these weapons NOW!!!
> I was pointing out a double standard.
Thank you, there is a double standard.
The US refused to give the UN more time to search because,
the US claimed, the were a lot of weapons, the search was not
being done well (as evidenced by their inability to find the weapons),
the Iraqis were obstructing the search, and, the US hinted, the
US KNEW what weapons the Iraqis had and where they were.
Now the US controls the country, there is not active obstruction
of the search, and the US is now asking for more time because they
can't find anything. Which is a double standard by the current
US administration and its supporters.
Its critics are asking the US to live up to its word, no more.
> The point was obscured by a discussion about a misleading headline and
> a misleading paragraph pasted from a news article, as well as a
> discussion on if Special Forces are really combat troops of not.
Well then stop obfuscating and focus on addressing the issue.
> If the thread continues I also firmly suspect that the thread will
> drift into a discussion on feeding dogs chocolate. And a discussion
> on the type of ink the Washington Post uses to publish its rag. As
> well as a discussion on if the Post is really a rag or not.
If you want.
> What I won't get is discussion on the hypocritical double standard
> that has been applied to this issue by liberals, democrats, and other
> left wing sheeple.
See above. You're welcome.
And WTF is a sheeple - is that some new street slang among illiterates?
Sorry, just trying to give the sci.lang crowd some distraction...
DJ
"T-Mac" <Tho...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message . "Of course they had
WMDs. We just need
> >to search better. No, we don't want anyone searching who isn't paid by
us.
> >And maybe the reason we're not finding any is that Saddam destroyed
> >everything, which proves how right we were to attack him for not
> >destroying them. Oh, and we just eliminated a major ally of Al Quaeda."
>
> What makes me laugh about this situation is that the same people who
> wanted to give Hans Blix 6 more months in Iraq to look for this
> material, are now the people who are demanding that Bush produce the
> evidence right now.
>
Umm...are you missing the point?
The point of giving the UN time was to establish that there were in fact
weapons as well as an imminent threat.
It's a little pointless to discover the threat after the fact.
Plus Bush(or whoever is pulling his strings) got what he wanted anyway.
Precedent.
Wag
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:14:47 +0800, "DJ" <gre...@newmail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"T-Mac" <Tho...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message . "Of course they had
> >WMDs. We just need
> >> >to search better. No, we don't want anyone searching who isn't paid by
> >us.
> >> >And maybe the reason we're not finding any is that Saddam destroyed
> >> >everything, which proves how right we were to attack him for not
> >> >destroying them. Oh, and we just eliminated a major ally of Al
Quaeda."
> >
> >>
> >> What makes me laugh about this situation is that the same people who
> >> wanted to give Hans Blix 6 more months in Iraq to look for this
> >> material, are now the people who are demanding that Bush produce the
> >> evidence right now.
>
> >
> >Umm...are you missing the point?
>
>
> >The point of giving the UN time was to establish that there were in fact
> >weapons as well as an imminent threat.
>
> different. Each has its own agenda it is following.
>
> I am not concerned with motives or the politics of the two groups, I
> am only observing a phenomena and commenting on what I see. However I
> will point out the Saddam authorized his troops to use VX gas. Was he
> bluffing? I don't know.
>
> The point here being that the possibility of the existence of WMD in
> Iraq is a problem.
>
> I see one group that has in fact taken 12 years and has still not
> solved this problem. I see people willing to give this group more
> time.
>
> I see another group that has taken over the project and has been
> working on the problem for less than 6 months and people are demanding
> results.
>
> That is a double standard. You can't spin it away and you can't sugar
> coat it.
>
> >It's a little pointless to discover the threat after the fact.
>
> time around. It tells you how effective your strategy was and it
> shows you where the possible holes in your plans are.
>
> >Plus Bush(or whoever is pulling his strings) got what he wanted anyway.
> >Precedent.
>
> does not mitigate the double standard that I was commenting on.
>
> Thom
Thom... quit fighting those windmills.... there are those who will
believe whatever they want, regardless of the facts.
In fact, I bet there are still some folks out there who think that
"Dubbya" was only out to avenge his daddy.
lol'd
Wag
A.C.
> I see another group that has taken over the project and has been
> working on the problem for less than 6 months and people are demanding
> results.
>
> That is a double standard. You can't spin it away and you can't sugar
> coat it.
No, it's not. The difference between the weapons inspectors and Bush is
that he said unequivocably that the weapons did exist, were being developed,
and would soon be deployed. Having already made these statements, it's not
unreasonable to ask where all these weapons are. Especially since those
"intelligence" photos were produced as incontrovertible evidence of the
WMD's existence.
Mike Schilling
"Wag" <HCs_m...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:bcec9p$i86mc$1...@ID-29204.news.dfncis.de...
> In fact, I bet there are still some folks out there who think that
> "Dubbya" was only out to avenge his daddy.
>
That's more plausible than any of the official stories.
Dan Swartzendruber
Wag
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Z8IGa.178$%27.16...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Would you mind scooting a little more to the left? Your tin-foil
hat is messing up the reception on my TV...
Mike Schilling
"Dan Swartzendruber" <dsw...@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19551b1cf...@news.supernews.net...
Bush *is* tiresome, isn't he?
Mike Schilling
I didn't say it was the truth. But compared to the crap coming out of Ari
Fleischer's mouth, it has the virtue of consistency with known facts.
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
Quite. We now return you to your regularly schedule wankfest...
Mike Schilling
It is amusing how people who as a matter of principle don't trust the
government or politicians become docile as soon as their side is in.
>
EvilBill[AGQx]
>
> It is amusing how people who as a matter of principle don't trust
the
> government or politicians become docile as soon as their side is in.
I don't trust governments or politicians no matter *who* gets in. I
voted for Labour in 1997 to get rid of the godsdamned Tories. hat
worked. Labour didn't.
But at least they're not *quite* as bad as the Tories.
--
--
* "Assimilation turns us all into friends." - Borg Queen
E-mail: evilbill @ lineone . net (remove spaces to e-mail)
AIM: EvilBill1782
MSN: dev...@agqx-imperium.fsnet.co.uk (do not e-mail me here!)
Web: http://www.angelfire.com/alt/evilbill/index.html
Matriarch Kheperkare - Lvl 94 Javazon - Open
Matriarch EB-Amarice - Lvl 92 Bowazon - USWest
Dan Swartzendruber
mscotts...@hotmail.com says...
> > > Would you mind scooting a little more to the left? Your tin-foil
> > > hat is messing up the reception on my TV...
> >
> > Quite. We now return you to your regularly schedule wankfest...
>
> It is amusing how people who as a matter of principle don't trust the
> government or politicians become docile as soon as their side is in.
Nice strawman, Mike. Objecting to the kind of preposterous statements
you made hardly means I'm docilely going along with everything the Bush
administration has done.
Mike Schilling
What preposterous statements? I didn't say the Iraqi invasion was revenge
for Daddy, I said that that theory is more plausible than the official
explanations. Do you not realize how dishonest the Bush administration has
been?
Dan Swartzendruber
mscotts...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
> What preposterous statements? I didn't say the Iraqi invasion was revenge
> for Daddy, I said that that theory is more plausible than the official
> explanations. Do you not realize how dishonest the Bush administration has
> been?
Your interpretation. I suspect this discussion is pointless though.
Dan Swartzendruber
> In article <MPG.195565a3a...@news.supernews.net>, Dan
Political wanking almost always is (and I don't make that observation by
way of insinuating that I think I'm right and Mike is wrong.)
fozzi bear
"to avenge his daddy" perhaps not, but skewing it a little is plausible.
To set up yhe opinion I need to point out that I dont buy the story
that GB snr does not influence the current administration. I realise
why it is said (as it might seem to damage the credibility of the
current admin among those too naive to realise that consulting
former leaders in times of extreme crisis is somewhat standard practice)
If Jnr didn't take advantage of Snr's experience he would be even more
foolish than he is accused of being.
In light of the above I can definately picture GWB going to Snr
immediately prior or post election and asking what Snr felt was
the biggest mistake of his Presidency. Receiving the answer "
not getting rid of that SOB Saddam" would be likely.
In that sense the statement is plausible IMHO. IOW not so much to
avenge, but to complete a task left unfinished.
Cheers
Fozzi
Wag
Does "Mike" post often about Planet X?
Seems the type.
Wag
Keith Morrison
> > I see another group that has taken over the project and has been
> > working on the problem for less than 6 months and people are demanding
> > results.
> >
> > That is a double standard. You can't spin it away and you can't sugar
> > coat it.
>
> No, it's not. The difference between the weapons inspectors and Bush is
> that he said unequivocably that the weapons did exist, were being developed,
> and would soon be deployed. Having already made these statements, it's not
> unreasonable to ask where all these weapons are. Especially since those
> "intelligence" photos were produced as incontrovertible evidence of the
> WMD's existence.
Take, for instance, what he said in Qatar ten days ago:
"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were
capable of producing biological agents."
If you will remember, that's also what he was roaming around Europe
claiming when he was over there.
Lookie what's in The Guardian today:
An official British investigation into two trailers
found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not
mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair
and President George Bush, but were for the production
of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis
have continued to insist.
...
"They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories.
You could not use them for making biological weapons.
They do not even look like them."
Oopsie.
--
Keith
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>Lookie what's in The Guardian today:
Just for future reference: you are putting yourself on record as
considering the Guardian a reliable source, which may be quoted to you
when you ask for a cite?
Dan Swartzendruber
bsn...@airmail.net says...
> On 15 Jun 2003 02:20:33 -0700, kei...@polarnet.ca (Keith Morrison)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Lookie what's in The Guardian today:
>
> Just for future reference: you are putting yourself on record as
> considering the Guardian a reliable source, which may be quoted to you
> when you ask for a cite?
Don't be ridiculous, my man! If someone on the other side of the aisle
quoted the Guardian, he'd be scourged out of the chambers! :) This is
why political wanking is so counterproductive :(
Aaron Denney
> I know what you mean. I got into a discussion about the tax break
> that Bush has suggested. The other person was very upset that the
> rich would get a tax break but the people that are in the 10 to 20
> thousand a year group would not get a tax cut.
>
> I kept asking how do you give a tax cut to people that don't pay
> taxes? No one could answer me but they were still very upset at the
> unfairness of it all.
*sigh*. They do indeed pay taxes, hefty taxes, on their income: the
payroll tax. (I believe that currently this is an additional 15.3
percent rate up to $68,400, and 2.9% after that.) Whenever Republicans
talk about the heavy burden of taxes, they include the payroll tax, but
whenever they propose cutting taxes, it's exclusively the income tax.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Mike Schilling
Not for people who believe in proof by assertion, that is?
Steinn Sigurdsson
> On 15 Jun 2003 02:20:33 -0700, kei...@polarnet.ca (Keith Morrison)
> wrote:
> >Lookie what's in The Guardian today:
> Just for future reference: you are putting yourself on record as
> considering the Guardian a reliable source, which may be quoted to you
> when you ask for a cite?
I don't know about Keith, but I'll take that one.
You see, when the Grauniad goofs, as they occasionally do,
they very publicly correct themselves as fast as they can
and they take their knocks.
Unlike some other so called news sources.
Oh, and whatever CIA analyst wrote that those trucks
could only plausibly be bioweapon labs should be fired,
it is a preposterous statement and reveals either gross
ignorance or blatant willingness to lie.
J.B. Moreno
> I know what you mean. I got into a discussion about the tax break
> that Bush has suggested. The other person was very upset that the
> rich would get a tax break but the people that are in the 10 to 20
> thousand a year group would not get a tax cut.
>
> I kept asking how do you give a tax cut to people that don't pay
> taxes? No one could answer me but they were still very upset at the
> unfairness of it all.
Uhm, when the income from my job was in the 10-20 thousand range *I
certainly paid both state and federal income taxes -- I generally got a
refund, but the refund was not equal to what I'd paid.
(Now, a couple of years ago when my income was 2,500, I got all of the
state and fed back, but of course that still left SS so that the cash in
pocket wasn't the same as what was officially paid).
--
JBM
"Everything is futile." -- Marvin of Borg
Paolo Pizzi
> I kept asking how do you give a tax cut to people that don't pay
> taxes? No one could answer me but they were still very upset at the
> unfairness of it all.
Actually it's very simple: you DON'T give a break to people
who earn millions and you continue to provide services for
the poor. But we all know that the Republican's secret
agenda is "screw the poor!!"
> Nah Dubbya is just a retarded puppet. It is Ashcroft and Rumsfield
> that are pulling his strings. :-)
No, it's the corporate world who bought his election.
Dubya is retarded, no doubt about it, his use of the
English language speaks volumes of that...
> Did you know that if you spell Ashcroft using Arabic letters the
> literal translation comes out Six hundred sixty six. :-) Please keep
> spreading this around. It will be amusing to see how long it takes
> for this to come up as a valid point.
Do you know that if you keep saying that medicines in countries
with socialized medicine cost a lot more, after a while millions of
right-wingers will start claiming it as the truth while the rest of the
nation buys them mail order from Canada because they actually
cost LESS? ;-)
Jess
some university or something? He launched into this little rant, then
caught himself. It was on CNN, a few months before the war started. Does
anyone remember that?
~Jess
--
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pVIGa.654$pr3.88...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Bill Woods
> Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> writes:
>
> > On 15 Jun 2003 02:20:33 -0700, kei...@polarnet.ca (Keith Morrison)
> > wrote:
>
> > >Lookie what's in The Guardian today:
>
> > Just for future reference: you are putting yourself on record as
> > considering the Guardian a reliable source, which may be quoted to you
> > when you ask for a cite?
>
> I don't know about Keith, but I'll take that one.
> You see, when the Grauniad goofs, as they occasionally do,
Is there some significance to the Guardian's anagrammic nickname?
--
Bill Woods
"... Doc Smith was a genius. RAH was a genius. I doubt
Toni Morrison could describe an exploding spaceship convincingly
if her life depended on it."
-- Mike Schilling
Mike Schilling
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:31:19 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"T-Mac" <Tho...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> >news:1fknevcjncj36kkk1...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:35:05 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> >> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Wag" <HCs_m...@nada.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:bcec9p$i86mc$1...@ID-29204.news.dfncis.de...
> >> >> In fact, I bet there are still some folks out there who think that
> >> >> "Dubbya" was only out to avenge his daddy.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >That's more plausible than any of the official stories.
> >> >
> >> Not for people who can think for them selves.
> >
> >Not for people who believe in proof by assertion, that is?
> >
Yes, and you think it constitutes some sort of proof. Can't imagine why.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> > Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> writes:
> > > On 15 Jun 2003 02:20:33 -0700, kei...@polarnet.ca (Keith Morrison)
> > > wrote:
> > > >Lookie what's in The Guardian today:
> > > Just for future reference: you are putting yourself on record as
> > > considering the Guardian a reliable source, which may be quoted to you
> > > when you ask for a cite?
> > I don't know about Keith, but I'll take that one.
> > You see, when the Grauniad goofs, as they occasionally do,
> Is there some significance to the Guardian's anagrammic nickname?
Yup, for many years they were famour for sloppy typos, including
printing their own name incorrectly in articles.
This was not unrelated to the fact that for a long time they had
no London presses and leased capacity from Murdoch's printers
(before the strike and move from Fleet Street IIRC).
Thunderchief
"Steinn Sigurdsson" <ste...@najma.astro.psu.edu> wrote in message
news:rx7wufk...@najma.astro.psu.edu...
Wasn't it Private Eye that first start referring to them as The Grauniad?
TC
Crowfoot
Pizzi" <paolopiz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "T-Mac" <Tho...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:qhjnevcre6vt7h3e1...@4ax.com...
>
> > I kept asking how do you give a tax cut to people that don't pay
> > taxes? No one could answer me but they were still very upset at the
> > unfairness of it all.
>
> Actually it's very simple: you DON'T give a break to people
> who earn millions and you continue to provide services for
> the poor. But we all know that the Republican's secret
> agenda is "screw the poor!!"
Nothing secret about it; they have always held to this credo, and always
will. It's the "let them eat cake" mentality, and it always leads to
the same place -- just soooooo slowly sometimes, and with such crazed
and dangerous results that you really don't wanna go there unless it's
the only alternative to the destruction of the species in the mindless
pursuit of profit at any cost (to others, naturally).
> > Did you know that if you spell Ashcroft using Arabic letters the
> > literal translation comes out Six hundred sixty six. :-) Please keep
> > spreading this around. It will be amusing to see how long it takes
> > for this to come up as a valid point.
>
> Do you know that if you keep saying that medicines in countries
> with socialized medicine cost a lot more, after a while millions of
> right-wingers will start claiming it as the truth while the rest of the
> nation buys them mail order from Canada because they actually
> cost LESS? ;-)
Thanks, ducks; too true. Problem is, the Rep-uglicans then attempt to
pass laws to make it impossible to buy your meds from Canada, repaying
the huge bribes given them by the pharmaceuticals industry.
Here's a thought: I came across the idea once that there is a sort of
human oversoul, a parliament of all of us, who meet continually on
another plane of existence (which I, and no doubt many others, have
dreamed of occasionally over the past fifty years), where decisions are
taken anent the destiny of species; and the fall of the Roman Empire was
a product of this parliament of souls, the point being that the
dominance of Rome and its feckless dependence on the labor of vast
armies of slaves made it impossible for great numbers of souls to
progress, their ability to make the choices by which souls learn having
been abrogated by Roman dominance and arrogance. Likewise, the Black
Plague was an answer to the death grip of the Catholic Church on Europe,
opening the way to the slow but effective death of feudalism.
How long do you think it would take for the incredibly stupid, smug,
self-righteous arrogance of the current US course of dominance over
everything and everybody to invite an action of similar effect? If this
notion were a reality, which of course it can't possibly be (keep
telling yourself that, boys and girls). Personally I think we are ripe
for a fall, and what a fall it would be, what wailing and railing and
gnashing of teeth! What a pack of bumptious babies we have allowed to
take us over! And what a price we are likely to pay for our lazyness
and infintie corruptibility . . .
Just musing. But it is about a future, after all, not entirely off topic.
C
"Endless growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell."
-- said by somebody way smarter than I am
C
--
Crow
Crowfoot
<Tho...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> >Do you know that if you keep saying that medicines in countries
> >with socialized medicine cost a lot more, after a while millions of
> >right-wingers will start claiming it as the truth while the rest of the
> >nation buys them mail order from Canada because they actually
> >cost LESS? ;-)
>
> LOL Where in the fuck did THAT come from? That was right out of the
> clear blue sky.
AARP Bulletin, fully researched article, recent edition, among many
other places. Wake up and smell the stupidity.
> Bad. Bad Liberal. No wheatgrem and honey cakes. LOL.
Hate 'em. Talk about weird and unfounded prejudices! Eat 'em yourself,
silly person.
> FYI.... I am in complete favor of socialized medicine. I have
> benefited from the American system of socialized medicine for 30
> years. The American system of socialized medicine provides health
> care for 25 % to 40% of the population. It works just fine.
Hmm. Speaking of alternate universes and people who have misplaced
their aluminum hats . . .
C
--
Crow
Crowfoot
<Tho...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> When you retire you will also get the SS that you paid back.
>
> Thom
No you won't. Bush will have spent it on wars and weapons, which is the
Republican plan to bankrupt government so that it becomes nothing but an
army and a court system devoted to protecting the rich from the people
they have stolen their wealth from. They aren't actually Republicans at
all, but Libertarians in Republican clothing. The Liberals were too
busy being divided by the damn Greens to notice until it was too late.
Tough luck for our grandchildren.
C
--
Crow
Mark Atwood
>
> "Endless growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell."
> -- said by somebody way smarter than I am
Mortalist.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Mike Schilling
> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:49:45 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"T-Mac" <Tho...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> >news:37rsev8c65htrucql...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:31:19 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> >> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"T-Mac" <Tho...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:1fknevcjncj36kkk1...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 16:35:05 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> >> >> <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Wag" <HCs_m...@nada.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:bcec9p$i86mc$1...@ID-29204.news.dfncis.de...
> >> >> >> In fact, I bet there are still some folks out there who think
that
> >> >> >> "Dubbya" was only out to avenge his daddy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's more plausible than any of the official stories.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Not for people who can think for them selves.
> >> >
> >> >Not for people who believe in proof by assertion, that is?
> >> >
> >> No I am pretty sure I said exactly what I meant.
> >
> >Yes, and you think it constitutes some sort of proof. Can't imagine
why.
>
Too easy: you don't.
Paolo Pizzi
> So what your saying here is that America does not have a system of
> socialized medicine?
>
> What do you think the VA is Einstein?
Last I checked, not *EVERY* US citizen is elegible for VA
benefits... Actually only a small fraction of the country is or
was in the military.
VA works, right? Now think how it could work if it covered
*EVERY* person in need...
Derek
"alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise" assembled, and proclaimed:
>> So what your saying here is that America does not have a system of
>> socialized medicine?
>>
>> What do you think the VA is Einstein?
>
> Last I checked, not *EVERY* US citizen is elegible for VA
> benefits... Actually only a small fraction of the country is or
> was in the military.
>
> VA works, right? Now think how it could work if it covered
> *EVERY* person in need...
Depends on with whom you speak. There are a number of veterans who'd
say that the VA doesn't work.
Derek
--
"When giving treats to friends or children, give them what they like,
emphatically not what is good for them." - G.K. Chesterton
Paolo Pizzi
news:Xns939FBA2F...@209.240.77.22...
> Depends on with whom you speak. There are a number of veterans who'd
> say that the VA doesn't work.
Do HMO's work?
Anything can be improved. Still, they basically get free health
care, unlike any other US citizen, who has to pay hundreds
per month for an HMO that more often than not is *FAR
WORSE* than the VA.
Derek
"alt.tv.star-trek.enterprise" assembled, and proclaimed:
>> Depends on with whom you speak. There are a number of veterans
>> who'd say that the VA doesn't work.
>
> Do HMO's work?
Only for the shareholders. If you need care, you're probably out of
luck because the HMO won't cover it without 17 secondary opinions
from 19 different doctors.
> Anything can be improved. Still, they basically get free health
> care, unlike any other US citizen, who has to pay hundreds
> per month for an HMO that more often than not is *FAR
> WORSE* than the VA.
Is bad healthcare better than no healthcare at all?
Derek
--
"What embitters the world is not excess of criticism, but an absence
of self-criticism."
- G.K. Chesterton
Paolo Pizzi
> > Anything can be improved. Still, they basically get free health
> > care, unlike any other US citizen, who has to pay hundreds
> > per month for an HMO that more often than not is *FAR
> > WORSE* than the VA.
>
> Is bad healthcare better than no healthcare at all?
Yeah, because you can't improve something that
DOESN'T EXIST. And often "bad" only means
"slow" and not "bad quality." Easy to improve on
that.