It was definitely WAG THE DOG
Walt Horning
and/or are spread out all of the country. The U.S. barely has enough
forces in the area to do more than a "bee sting" operation.
If they are hitting anything, its mostly empty buildings that used to
house weapons facilities (and maybe a few radar installations).
Buried facilities will take massive amounts of bombs or a nuclear
strike, neither of which is feasible.
Even with the massive military presence in the Gulf War, they did not
have enough to do the job and take these facilities completely out.
The only way to get at Iraq's weapons programs is to completely disarm
Iraq's military, so that inspectors will have "free reign". The only
way this will happen is for the United States to declare war on Iraq,
but that's not going to happen. Its also not going to even put
together another coalition to do that either.
So, indeed, it was WAG THE DOG, because Clinton's efforts are and will
continue to be useless against Iraq.
Continue the impeachment process!
Martin McPhillips
>Traitor.
It was *definitely* a wag the dog maneuver.
And if that be treason, then let us make the best of it!
Billy Beck
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:52:27 -0500, "McGee" <mcg...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>Traitor.
>
>It was *definitely* a wag the dog maneuver.
If it *wasn't*, then these people, everyone of them involved in
it, are simply far too lame to wield this sort of power.
(A sidelight implication would be the simply stupifying
dedication of the people in the field who are dodging AAA-fire even as
we chat about this. A data-point for thought, here: the appalling
attrition of qualified pros in the armed forces. It's an astonishing
and sickening thing to consider that the likes of The Lying Bastard
have no use for "dangerous extremists" like the USMC, until they're
needed, and then for what?)
Anyone who's paying attention to the actual tactical details of
this thing - within the context of all the administration double-talk
over this entire year - understands that there isn't the least hope in
hell of this operation coming anywhere near its goals. Anyone who
questions how the likes of Albright and Cohen could possibly involve
themselves, is also not familiar with the self-preservation impulse
built into every bureaucrat ever born, and summed in the immortal
words of Mel Brooks: "We must protect our phony-baloney jobs,
gentlemen!" Anyone who who questions how the Joint Chiefs of Staff
could get behind this thing also doesn't understand the martial
principle annunciated in the famously sardonic rationale for Vietnam:
"It's not much of a war, but it's the only one we've got." Anyone who
doesn't understand how these two species, and others, could get
together on this also does not understand Eisenhower's razor-prescient
warning about the military-industrial complex. (AKA, "Use 'em or lose
'em.")
And anyone who doesn't understand why The Lying Bastard would do
something like this even though, in the oft-mouthed question (as if
the question itself solves the paradox), "Why the hell would he when
everybody knows that nobody is going to change a single impeachment
vote over this?", also does not understand that this is a *criminal*
president and presidency. There is no desperation to which he is not
open in order to save himself, to include any and every grisly appeal
to "TheAmericanPeople", the polls, media butt-lickers, political
bag-persons, and Jim Kennemur, all of whom will happily snarl their
own partisan fealty to a manifest thug during the whole time they
snivel over "partisanship" in the very pit where they stand ass-deep
in the bullshit.
IOW: "bi-partisanship" means submitting to anything and
everything they whim out of thin air, to include a slack-jawed Arkie
hillbilly's pretense to world statesmanship with recourse to the
bloodsworn commitment of professionals who will actually go out and
look down the barrel when the flag goes up, even if that flag didn't
quite catch the splash of this despicable person's dissolution at the
very center of the power that he thinks is his own "private" joyride.
"Kinda cool, huh?"
Recall those words from a chiseling mutant, whose sense of smell
appeared to have been somewhat rehabilitated in the span of four
minutes in August of this year. There is an essential kernel in them.
Watch The Boy President carefully. I mean: look at his *face*, at all
times. When pressed to play the role, thespianism paints his features
with a bitten-lip and other perfect plaints to the roar of the
cameras. ("JFK is risen from the grave," to paraphrase from BÖC.)
Watch, however, that cheeky glow when he reflects the indulgence of
"world leaders" and other children.
"Bill Clinton wants all the cheeseburgers in the world."
(Camille Paglia)
And, when he burps, the whole world suffers the vapors.
It is *far* past the time for him to be starved out of existence.
Billy
VRWC fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Doug Lenertz
Please, do carry on.
It saves me writing so much, since my judgements of the Cocksuckee in Chief
are essentially identical to yours.
--
*********************************************************
And furthermore, citizens, I want my (share of) the $64 TRILLION back!
See http://www.broadcast.com/shows/endoftheline/archive.stm and listen to
the Real Audio interview with Walter Burien for proof!
All that is necessary for EVIL to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
In God We Trust.
Doug Lenertz
doug.l...@norstanconsulting.com
Mary E Knadler
>
>Traitor.
>
>
Definitetly "Wag the Dog", you're wrong.
Mike Schne|der
> cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:52:27 -0500, "McGee" <mcg...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Traitor.
> >
> >It was *definitely* a wag the dog maneuver.
>
> If it *wasn't*, then these people, everyone of them involved in
> it, are simply far too lame to wield this sort of power.
= = =
"Animals In The Disney-Tinted Village" -- wj...@mindspring.com
August 23, 1998
"They were sending messages. Well, for god's sake, if you want
to send a message, you use a courier, you don't use a bomber."
(Former CIA Director William Colby remarking on the
Johnson/McNamara policy of "graduated response" in the Rolling Thunder
bombing campaign against North Vietnam.)
"Joseph Nye, dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University and former assistant secretary of defense for
international security affairs, said Thursday's attacks in Afghanistan
and Sudan against suspected terrorist sites with links to bin Laden
sent a signal that Americans will respond strongly to terrorism."
(excerpt of the 8/22/98 AP report, "U.S. Inherits Former
Soviet Nemesis As Chief Terrorist Threat" at
http://www.tampabayonline.net/news/news1022.htm)
Regardless of the prospect that the Sudan/Afghani strikes of
this week were executed as a matter of redeeming an image of proper
presidential leadership for The Lying Bastard, it appears clear that
his vaunted "legacy" will include an element which the most hardened
criminal psychopath would envy if only he could lay his hand on the
same machine to produce it. This Boy President, with an intemperate
fit of international swagger, has now beset this country with the
curse of small, fierce, animals constantly biting at our tenderest
parts. Apart from personal references to him attributed to various
unmelodious howls in protest of the reprisal strikes, we are told that
the future holds attacks against America, but they don't really aim at
The Man From Hope. As usual, he'll skate. He doesn't have to deal
with the mess he's made.
People who commit acts such as the bombings alleged as the
reason for the cruise missile strikes generally take a view far longer
than one constricted even to the most optimistic estimates of this
man's remaining tenure in office. He'll be gone, and America will
remain: draped in security against a madness only inflamed by his
petty little two hundred million dollar swipe.
Joseph Nye, in his remark to which the Associated Press report
alluded above, doesn't purport to speak for the administration, but he
might as well: it's impossible to imagine that any official would
dispute him. These are people whose concern with image outstrips
their grasp of reality. In the last analysis, they simply haven't the
fortitude to confront the truest nature of the adversary they pretend
to face, because the brutality of it does not admit their manicured
demeanor of civility in a Disney-tinted little global village. In a
press conference this week, one official was asked whether the Afghan
strikes aimed at Osama bin Laden were a contradiction of the standing
United States doctrine against officially sanctioned assassination.
He refused to entertain the question. That blank-out was a moment of
confession to rank impotence: all this administration has is "signals"
and "messages" couched in terribly expensive hardware wasted on the
indiscriminate suffering of people, such as the residents of Khartoum,
whose involvement with the true adversary would not stand a test of
reasonable doubt in any American court of law.
In his look at the Vietnam policy of "graduated response",
Colby was actually pointing to the importance of precisely effective
applications of force when necessary, restraint of force when it will
not properly serve a diplomatic objective, and the wisdom of
distinction between the two very different circumstances. His
observation exposes a principle: it is a fundamental error to confuse
talk with action. To act and call it talk, even with sophisticated
euphemism, is even worse. That sort of thing might placate public
fears, real or presumed, but it will not fool real men of action who
know the difference, and who understand what it means. Men of action
respect, even in their enemies, comparable potency. They find
pretense contemptible. A devotion to battle coupled with contempt
often results in the most predatory of all adversaries, and there
should be no surprise at oaths of continued battle from the terrorist
quarter.
"I doubt that bin Laden's organization will stop,'' said Nye.
"In other words, I think bin Laden and his organization were
determined to attack American targets in any case, and I think this
may induce a bit more caution.''
(from the AP report)
Nye may very well be correct in his final assessment, but in a
completely different way than he intended. A cautious terrorist is
the very thing to be most feared and something directly opposite from
the sort of blind pot shot taken by the current administration this
week. A cautious terrorist implies precision: a cunning weave through
every line of defense between him and his target with the purpose of
striking exactly by design. This in no way compares to the contorted
logic which piously denies assassination but yet crosses its fingers
in random hope that a given man will be caught standing under a cruise
missile when it happens to reach the end of its flight.
A man like bin Laden, rich as he is alleged to be, cannot
mount such glamorous but stupid and impotent attacks. The first
attribute doesn't concern him, and the second two are precisely why he
will not be intimidated. He has no regard for that kind of thing,
because it's not where his action is. Because his circumstance
dictates, he fights from the mind, first, and crafts his action
accordingly. This attribute of intellect, however misguided in its
ultimate goals, will serve him well in analyzing his stated
adversary's conduct of the battle. Only an engagement of similar
fidelity to essentials and principles of war will stand any hope of
success against him and his kind.
This administration might have, in a fit of nerve to
challenge, chosen to engage the battle with a reach to authentic
principles that recognize its truest nature. If the east African
embassy bombings were so horribly offensive as is held out for the
rationale of this week's reprisals, it would not have been too much to
expect a serious design of engagement. That would begin with a match
of force to threat, and an off-hand toss of sheer technology in no way
qualifies in this case. The first qualification would be a
rolled-shirtsleeve abandonment of false civility, aimed at a
man-to-man precision of engagement in an arena far too intimate for
armies and against an enemy far too cunning for Global Positioning
Systems.
The damage is done, now. That moment has passed, and the
initiative will be vastly more difficult to recover. The bin Laden
types now have a host on their side, allied by outrage over an
extraordinary flex of imperial might which, in large part, is the
actual impetus of the battle to begin with. This alliance will
survive The Lying Bastard, the terrorists will use it well, and
America will live with the consequences of his self-serving lash in
the dark of a Disney-tinted village.
It should be remembered that America is not Disneyland, and it
was never intended that we would conduct our lives through endless
turnstiles.
Thank you, Bill Clinton.
Billy
VRWC fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. ===================================
"You, on the otherhand, are like that talking pig in 'Restaurant at the
End of the Universe' who tries to convince patrons to eat him, piece by
piece, because he has been specifically bred to *enjoy* being consumed."
-- Bill Kasper, replying to a shill for statist predations. ===========
Victim not shot with a .38: http://www.federal.com/oct26-98/Story01.html
Coup USA: gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/00/SIGS/JFK/FAQ/faq-daeron/3-faq
Why were the black GIs murdered? The Slaughter: http://www.theslaughter.com/
They screwed people left and right: http://users.aol.com/beachbt/screwold.txt
William Q. Nix
impeachment procedures if forcing Clinton to work harder for us so what...
Matthew Devney <ma...@devney.com> wrote in message
news:367C4C...@devney.com...
>We can put this in the past tense, too, since he's called off the air
>strikes: Clinton's efforts have been useless.
>
>So what does this look to you? I mean, the day before impeachment
>starts, Clinton bombs Iraq. They go ahead and impeach him, and he stops
>bombing, as if to say, "Well, that didn't work."
>
>> Continue the impeachment process!
>
>--
> Matthew Devney
> Nothing says "This is serious" like a corpse on the floor.
William Q. Nix
100%. Next president may not care...
William Q. Nix <willi...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:75hjdk$h9u$1...@camel25.mindspring.com...
Matthew Devney
Matthew Devney
>
> It is crazy to remove Clinton, we have him where we want him, working for us
> 100%. Next president may not care...
>
to save his job. At this moment he doesn't have a second to spare for
you or I or "us" because he's too busy thinking about how to keep his
job.
Hint, Clinton: it's not worth killing over.
Mary E Knadler
<willi...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>I do not care if it was wag the dog or not. It was long overdue. If
this
>impeachment procedures if forcing Clinton to work harder for us so
what...
>
>
>Matthew Devney <ma...@devney.com> wrote in message
>news:367C4C...@devney.com...
>> Matthew Devney
>> Nothing says "This is serious" like a corpse on the floor.
>
>
I think he wants to save some of the country of Iraq to use for
the Senate trial. But I really wish to GOD he would bomb another
country as we are planning a trip to the Middle East in April.
And if there is more bombing it will probably be dangerous to
to go there. They already "hate" Americans already.
Also it may lead to the State Dept warning Americas from travelling
there. And that makes me very angry.
Maybe he could switch to North Korea or any other place but
the Middle east & Iraq AGAIN!
They have implied that they are only suspending the bombing
so it looks like they are trying to still cling to the old
UN resolutions just in case things do not go too well in the Senate.
Just another thought.......wonder what Senators are being
targeted for the "scorched eaarth" policy by L. Flynt & the
White House. Gee, do you think Hatch could have.........
& him a Morman too.
Or can they now have more wives than others. He could at least use
that as an excuse tho, couldn't he.
yasmin2
dominic
> I think he wants to save some of the country of Iraq to use for
> the Senate trial. But I really wish to GOD he would bomb another
> country as we are planning a trip to the Middle East in April.
> And if there is more bombing it will probably be dangerous to
> to go there. They already "hate" Americans already.
Remember the mad man who gunned down 2 police at the Capital? I heard
he is unfit and would never be tried? That also happened during a
crucial date on Clinton's scandal calendar, I believe.
Bob
> Iraqs military and weapons programs have mostly gone underground
> and/or are spread out all of the country.
http://www.softwar.net/comint9.html
DESERT FOX ATTACKS TIGER SONG
The Pentagon -
U.S. war-planners are not all that happy with operation DESERT FOX. The
strike was telegraphed to Iraq far in advance and most of the Iraqi
mobile Surface to Air missile (SAM) units escaped damage. The prime
target for U.S. strikes, the Iraqi Integrated Air Defense network (NATO
code-name "Tiger Song") suffered no major damage and appears to have
lost no missile units.
The only real "hard target" kills that can be claimed are a few attack
helicopters destroyed at a northern Iraqi air-base.
Ironically, the Iraqi "Tiger Song" system was built using American and
French parts exported to China. Iraq purchased the encrypted - secure -
fiber optic system from the Chinese Army in 1996.
The Clinton administration authorized the exports of a secure, fiber
optic, communication systems to China in 1994. According to the GAO,
Clinton also authorized the export of an encrypted - secure - air
control system directly to the Chinese Air Force using a Presidential
waiver.
Iraq bombing photos--
Boris
be stupid; from my point of view being a stupid president is MUCH bigger crime that lying
about cigar sex in White House. God bless fools; they make life so interesting.
Boris
Karen Horn
: It's all Bush's fault. He should have killed Saddam in 1991. Republican presidents tend to
: be stupid; from my point of view being a stupid president is MUCH bigger crime that lying
: about cigar sex in White House. God bless fools; they make life so interesting.
:
: Boris
:
And people named Boris all tend to be stupid. What stupid Klinnochio
supporters go brain dead on is the fact that in order to get the
Arab coalition to back Bush at all and keep them off of Israel the
mission had to be defined as kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and not
"getting" Saddam.
Go back to bed. You've once again proven that the vast majority of
dummycrats have a memory of 5 seconds long.
Karen
Kurtz
writes:
>Boris (boris...@pleasemovil.com) wrote:
>: It's all Bush's fault. He should have killed Saddam in 1991.
Republican presidents tend to
>: be stupid; from my point of view being a stupid president is MUCH
bigger crime that lying
>: about cigar sex in White House. God bless fools; they make life so
interesting.
>:
>: Boris
>:
>:
>
>And people named Boris all tend to be stupid. What stupid Klinnochio
>supporters go brain dead on is the fact that in order to get the
>Arab coalition to back Bush at all and keep them off of Israel the
>mission had to be defined as kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and not
>"getting" Saddam.
>
Yet another right-wing lunatic attempts to explain away one of the most
devastatingly bone-headed decisions in modern military history. Right
up there with the Munich Pact. George Bush, the Neville Chamberlain of
the 1990s.
Karen Horn
: In <91473676...@wagasa.cts.com> kah...@king.cts.com (Karen Horn)
Flame away. I don't care. I'm right.
Karen
tr...@got.net
HELL........Why not toss in The Treaty of Versailles and Lausanne
Conference to boot......what a crock.
WAR is PEACE...FREEDOM is SLAVERY...IGNORANCE is STRENGTH...IS is ISN'T...
Boris
>supporters go brain dead on is the fact that in order to get the
>Arab coalition to back Bush at all and keep them off of Israel the
>mission had to be defined as kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and not
>"getting" Saddam.
It's well known fact; it was one of the reasons Gen. Schwarzcopf (pronunciation) gave up
his command of the troops. Bush was just incompetent president (same as Reagan). From my
personal experience people who vote for Republicans are mostly inferior: unable to compete
in real world.
Boris
Pixie
>It's all Bush's fault. He should have killed Saddam in 1991. Republican presidents tend to
>be stupid; from my point of view being a stupid president is MUCH bigger crime that lying
>about cigar sex in White House. God bless fools; they make life so interesting.
>
>Boris
>
And I'm certain that God also blesses closed-minded nitwits; For they provide
needed laughter.
Kurtz
writes:
>Kurtz (sie...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <91473676...@wagasa.cts.com> kah...@king.cts.com (Karen
Horn)
>: writes:
>: >
>: >: It's all Bush's fault. He should have killed Saddam in 1991.
>: Republican presidents tend to
>: >: be stupid; from my point of view being a stupid president is MUCH
>: bigger crime that lying
>: >: about cigar sex in White House. God bless fools; they make life
so
>: interesting.
>: >:
>: >: Boris
>: >:
>: >:
>: >
Klinnochio
>: >supporters go brain dead on is the fact that in order to get the
>: >Arab coalition to back Bush at all and keep them off of Israel the
>: >mission had to be defined as kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and not
>: >"getting" Saddam.
>:
>: Yet another right-wing lunatic attempts to explain away one of the
most
>: devastatingly bone-headed decisions in modern military history.
Right
>: up there with the Munich Pact. George Bush, the Neville Chamberlain
of
>: the 1990s.
>
>
>Karen
Good answer Karen. Go watch TV.
Karen Horn
: >And people named Boris all tend to be stupid. What stupid Klinnochio
: >supporters go brain dead on is the fact that in order to get the
: >Arab coalition to back Bush at all and keep them off of Israel the
: >mission had to be defined as kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and not
: >"getting" Saddam.
You saying this doesn't make it so. And why can't you people set your
word wrap correctly?
The rest snipped because it's a chore to read and I'm not going to fix it
for you.
As far as "republicans being unable to compete in the real world" and your
carping on Bush:
The democrats sure vote for people who "Can't compete in the real world"
What honest job has the likes of Ted Kennedy ever held? There's a
man who set the standard for the Clinnochio's of the world. Billy boy
is probably sorry he couldn't commandeer the Secret Service to lend
him a vehicle that he could drive Monica over a bridge with.
Karen
Mary E Knadler
writes:
>In <91473932...@wagasa.cts.com> kah...@king.cts.com (Karen Horn)
>writes:
>>
>>Kurtz (sie...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>: In <91473676...@wagasa.cts.com> kah...@king.cts.com (Karen
>Horn)
>>: writes:
>>: >
>>: >Boris (boris...@pleasemovil.com) wrote:
>>: >: It's all Bush's fault. He should have killed Saddam in 1991.
>>: Republican presidents tend to
>>: >: be stupid; from my point of view being a stupid president is
MUCH
>>: bigger crime that lying
>>: >: about cigar sex in White House. God bless fools; they make life
>so
>>: interesting.
>>: >:
>>: >: Boris
>>: >:
>>: >:
>>: >
>Klinnochio
>>: >supporters go brain dead on is the fact that in order to get the
>>: >Arab coalition to back Bush at all and keep them off of Israel the
>>: >mission had to be defined as kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and not
>>: >"getting" Saddam.
>>: >
>>: Yet another right-wing lunatic attempts to explain away one of the
>most
>>: devastatingly bone-headed decisions in modern military history.
>Right
>>: up there with the Munich Pact. George Bush, the Neville Chamberlain
>of
>>: the 1990s.
>>
>>Flame away. I don't care. I'm right.
>>
>>Karen
>
>Good answer Karen. Go watch TV.
She is right. There is great concern about ending the rule of
Saddam, for that country. It needs a strong hand to keep the many
factions together. It is an artificially constructed country like
Yugosavia was & we know what has happened there after Tito. I
don't think the US would or should occupy an Arab country. It
would cause great instability in the Arab world. As there is no on
who is waiting in the wings to take Saddam's place we should just
leave that area alone.
Why cause more hardship & suffering to people who have been thru
too much. Since when should people sitting in Washington be
picking leaders for the people of Iraq. Why should Madeline
Albright be saying he has to go. Who is she to decide who should go &
who should stay.
She can't even run the Department of State properly let along pick the
leader of an Arab country whose people "detest" her.
She should just keep her mouth shut.
yasmin2
Kurtz
Right wing nuts find endless excuses for apologizing for their
country's attempts to rid the world of a genocidal dictator.
Astonishing ignorance.
sunB...@webtv.net
Well, if thats true Pix, even you too, have a ticket to heaven.
Martin McPhillips
The astonishing ignorance is yours. Political scientists have routinely
explained the situation in Iraq in the terms just recapitulated by
Mary Knadler.
But you wouldn't know that because you are truly astonishingly
ignorant and a Clintooniac slob to boot.
Kurtz
Political scientists? Fah! You mean all those Republican apologists for
George Bush the First's chickenshit cave-in to a genocidal dictator.
Hackneyed tripe contrived to try and disguise one of the most
disgraceful blunders in US history.
Don't forget your umbrella on the way out, Mr. Chamberlain.
Martin McPhillips
>In <3686ce4e...@news.nyct.net> cay...@nyct.net (Martin
>McPhillips) writes:
>>
>>On 27 Dec 1998 22:25:15 GMT, sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
>>
>>>In <76692d$8...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E
>>>Knadler) writes:
>>>
>>>>She is right. There is great concern about ending the rule of
>>>>Saddam, for that country. It needs a strong hand to keep the many
>>>>factions together. It is an artificially constructed country like
>>>>Yugosavia was & we know what has happened there after Tito. I
>>>>don't think the US would or should occupy an Arab country. It
>>>>would cause great instability in the Arab world. As there is no on
>>>>who is waiting in the wings to take Saddam's place we should just
>>>>leave that area alone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Right wing nuts find endless excuses for apologizing for their
>>>country's attempts to rid the world of a genocidal dictator.
>>>Astonishing ignorance.
>>
>>The astonishing ignorance is yours. Political scientists have
>routinely
>>explained the situation in Iraq in the terms just recapitulated by
>>Mary Knadler.
>
>Political scientists? Fah! You mean all those Republican apologists for
>George Bush the First's chickenshit cave-in to a genocidal dictator.
No. I mean people who know international politics in general and the
Mid-East in specific.
>Hackneyed tripe contrived to try and disguise one of the most
>disgraceful blunders in US history.
You're an idiot, pure bred.
>Don't forget your umbrella on the way out, Mr. Chamberlain.
There's not even a comparison between those two things.
Saddam Hussein, first of all, was not Hitler, is not Hitler. He
is not the ruler of one of the most powerful industrial nations in
the world. And Iraq is a compound of at least three different
cultures collected in a petro-dollar powered fishbowl. There is
no sane logic that suggests that the U.S. had any reason to
go directly into Bagdhad in the Gulf War. It was the path to
heavy casualties in a war that was at that point costly only in
treasure and materiel, not lives. And there was no reason to
sacrifice *any* lives for a mechanized assault on Bagdhad.
Further, how would the gravitation of the Shi'ite south into the
sphere of influence and control of it's natural "mother land,"
Iran, be of any possible benefit to the U.S. or the region?
And what kind of potential war would you propose to fight to
keep that from happening?
And, in the north, Kurdish nationals don't want just freedom
in Iraq. They want it in Turkey and Iran as well. Is there yet
another regional war in which the U.S. fights for or against
a Kurdish state, with or against its Turkish allies? With or
against Iran?
There was nothing to be gained by moving on Bagdhad save
more dead U.S. soldiers and unrelenting destablization of
the region featuring unending U.S. involvement.
The objective was to get Hussein out of Kuwait and make
sure that the Saudi border was secure. That prevented
Hussein from eclipsing the region and becoming a real
power.
Now he's just a pain in the ass, threatening no one. And one
bad move away from getting himself nuked.
Mary Knadler had it right. You had it wrong. And you demonstrated
once again that you're an idiot, pure bred.
johnz
sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
> Right wing nuts find endless excuses for apologizing for their
> country's attempts to rid the world of a genocidal dictator.
> Astonishing ignorance.
How about "Intelligent people abhor starting wars as political distractions, and
think that Clinton's half-hearted bombardment did absolutely nothing
to threaten Saddam's position, and has, in fact, merely strengthened him.
Clintonista shills defend Clinton's stupidity and deliberate use of the US
military to delay the impeachment vote by shrieking that anyone who
objects to Clinton's foolish actions must support Saddam. Actually, it is
the Clintonistas
who are helping Saddam, since this kind of idiotic half-measure makes him
stronger."
Feel free to copy my posts and parrot my opinions, since you have no mind
of your own and are merely a brainless husk, "Kurtz".
In fact, I'll save you some more trouble and write your response for you:
"Bongload JonnyZee's militia Depends are chafing again. You hippy."
See? I'm actually better at being you than you are, "Kurtz". For a nominal
monthly fee, I would be glad to take over the tedious business of writing
all your posts.
SAMPLE SIMULATED KURTZ OUTPUT:
Wingnut#1: "You're an idiot, Kurtz"
"KURTZ": "Your Depends are slipping, militia hippie."
Wingnut#2: "That's not what I posted."
"KURTZ": "Your Depends are a hippie, militia"
Wingnut#3: "Actually, those statistics are totally false"
"KURTZ": "Your slipping militias are the hippie's Depends."
For an extra fee, I could even handle your personal correspondance:
Utilities company: " Mr.'Kurtz':Unless payment is recieved within
twenty-four hours, your power will be disconnected. Extra charges for
reconnection are $200 in addition to the amount owed."
"KURTZ": "Slipping again, power militia hippies? Get Depends."
See how easy it could be? Even the minimal amount of thought, vanishingly
small though it is, that goes into your posts must be incredibly fatiguing
for you.
My rates are reasonable, and without the daily chore of posting
irrelevant, meaningless messages, you will be able to sink into the
mindless paralysis that is, no doubt, your natural state.
JS
Kurtz
jo...@aa.nospam.net (johnz) writes:
>
>In article <766c4b$t...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
>
>
>
>> Right wing nuts find endless excuses for apologizing for their
>> country's attempts to rid the world of a genocidal dictator.
>> Astonishing ignorance.
>
>How about "Intelligent people abhor starting wars as political d
Hey, is it true you deliver donuts for a living?
Martin McPhillips
Is it true you do stupid for a living?
Kurtz
Oh dear me. Is this your idea of a clever retort, McKnucklehead? Pretty
jejune, even for an old crackpot such as yourself. Now the motive for
asking Johnny if he delivers donuts for a living was genuine curiosity
on my part. When looking through DejaNews for some of my most favorite
Johnny quotes, I made what I thought was an interesting discovery. The
organization credit for his posts is: "lung donut and pastry supply
brigade." When I saw that I pictured this fat middle-aged guy with a
ponytail, in cammies of course, riding around Seattle in a donut and
cigarette delivery wagon all the while entertaining fantasies that deep
down inside he is not just another pastry peddler, but a fearsome
freedom fighter, too! And it amused me. You just can't get any more
Walter Mitty than that. I was merely looking for confirmation.
Martin McPhillips
>In <3687bd32...@news.nyct.net> cay...@nyct.net (Martin
>McPhillips) writes:
>>
>>On 28 Dec 1998 16:55:13 GMT, sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
>>
>>>In <johnz-28129...@cust9.max4.seattle-k56.aa.net>
>>>jo...@aa.nospam.net (johnz) writes:
>>>>
>>>>In article <766c4b$t...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>>sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Right wing nuts find endless excuses for apologizing for their
>>>>> country's attempts to rid the world of a genocidal dictator.
>>>>> Astonishing ignorance.
>>>>
>>>>How about "Intelligent people abhor starting wars as political d
>>>
>>>Hey, is it true you deliver donuts for a living?
>>
>>Is it true you do stupid for a living?
>
>Oh dear me. Is this your idea of a clever retort, McKnucklehead? Pretty
>jejune, even for an old crackpot such as yourself.
Clever enough for a response to you.
johnz
sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
> In <johnz-28129...@cust9.max4.seattle-k56.aa.net>
> jo...@aa.nospam.net (johnz) writes:
> >
> >In article <766c4b$t...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
> >sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Right wing nuts find endless excuses for apologizing for their
> >> country's attempts to rid the world of a genocidal dictator.
> >> Astonishing ignorance.
> >
> >How about "Intelligent people abhor starting wars as political d
>
> Hey, is it true you deliver donuts for a living?
Uh-oh.
JS
johnz
sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
(snip)
> When looking through DejaNews for some of my most favorite
> Johnny quotes, I made what I thought was an interesting discovery. The
> organization credit for his posts is: "lung donut and pastry supply
> brigade." When I saw that I pictured this fat middle-aged guy with a
> ponytail, in cammies of course, riding around Seattle in a donut and
> cigarette delivery wagon
Donut and cigarette delivery wagon? What weird stuff you'll come up with
in order
to make yet another lame joke. As I said before, why not let me write all your
posts? - I'll do a far better job. Monthy or weekly rates available. Just E-mail
me your credit card number - it'll be secure, all right.
As for donuts - it's better not to get into that too much.
I'll just comment that donut supply is not only patriotic,
it's prudent as well.
JS
Kurtz
jo...@aa.nospam.net (johnz) writes:
>
>In article <768gth$l...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
>
>(snip)
>> When looking through DejaNews for some of my most favorite
>> Johnny quotes, I made what I thought was an interesting discovery
>> organization credit for his posts is: "lung donut and pastry supply
>> brigade." When I saw that I pictured this fat middle-aged guy with a
>> ponytail, in cammies of course, riding around Seattle in a donut and
>> cigarette delivery wagon
>
>Donut and cigarette delivery wagon? What weird stuff you'll come up
with
>in order to make yet another lame joke.
>I'll just comment that donut supply is not only patriotic,
>it's prudent as well.
>
>JS
"I'm sorry sir, we're all out of the crullers. Could I interest you in
some bear claws instead?"
johnz
(snip)
I repeat my more-than-generous offer:
Kurtz
>I repeat my more-than-generous offer:
>
>Feel free to copy my posts and parrot my opinions, since you have no
mind
Ahh, go peddle your doughnuts.
johnz
sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
(snip)
> "I'm sorry sir, we're all out of the crullers. Could I interest you in
> some bear claws instead?"
Crullers and bear claws will do. Plutonium, toxic waste and old tires will
do as well. Any spare drums of dioxin or lewisite will be appreciated,
and may spare you a painful nip.
Returned copies of "Baboon Dooley" will also be acceptable, possibly.
But be sure to have something around.
JS
lung
> When looking through DejaNews for some of my most favorite
> Johnny quotes, I made what I thought was an interesting discovery. The
> organization credit for his posts is: "lung donut and pastry supply
> brigade." When I saw that I pictured this fat middle-aged guy with a
(nip)
donut? where is donut? donut for lung.
lung saw your comic once. baboons are not adorable. they
smell and they listen to crass albums.
comics should be about adorable, rubbery little creatures. like lung.
lung is adorable. everybody loves lung. except noam chomsky. noam
called lung a "military industrial complex" then he got nipped. he was
mean. lung didnt nip him. lung doesnt know how he got nipped. maybe
that was some other lung. or another lung. maybe noam got his leg stuck
in a big hydralic press or something. maybe it was alexander cockburn
(tee hee).
lung
Kurtz
lu...@lung.lung (lung) writes:
>
>In article <768gth$l...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
>sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
>
>> When looking through DejaNews for some of my most favorite
>> Johnny quotes, I made what I thought was an interesting discovery.
The
>> organization credit for his posts is: "lung donut and pastry supply
>> brigade." When I saw that I pictured this fat middle-aged guy with a
>
>(nip)
>
>donut? where is donut? donut for lung.
Just call Johnny Zee. His donut van with the yellow smiling face is
willing serve all the deserving people of Seattle.
Tom Abbott
>In <3686ce4e...@news.nyct.net> cay...@nyct.net (Martin
>McPhillips) writes:
>>
>>On 27 Dec 1998 22:25:15 GMT, sie...@ix.netcom.com(Kurtz) wrote:
>>
>>>In <76692d$8...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> yas...@ix.netcom.com (Mary E
>>>Knadler) writes:
>>>
>>>>She is right. There is great concern about ending the rule of
>>>>Saddam, for that country. It needs a strong hand to keep the many
>>>>factions together. It is an artificially constructed country like
>>>>Yugosavia was & we know what has happened there after Tito. I
>>>>don't think the US would or should occupy an Arab country. It
>>>>would cause great instability in the Arab world. As there is no on
>>>>who is waiting in the wings to take Saddam's place we should just
>>>>leave that area alone.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Right wing nuts find endless excuses for apologizing for their
>>>country's attempts to rid the world of a genocidal dictator.
>>>Astonishing ignorance.
>>
>>The astonishing ignorance is yours. Political scientists have
>routinely
>>explained the situation in Iraq in the terms just recapitulated by
>>Mary Knadler.
>
>Political scientists? Fah! You mean all those Republican apologists for
>George Bush the First's chickenshit cave-in to a genocidal dictator.
>Hackneyed tripe contrived to try and disguise one of the most
>disgraceful blunders in US history.
>
>Don't forget your umbrella on the way out, Mr. Chamberlain.
It is always easeir to see what should have been done "after the
fact," and I think your criticism of George Bush's actions during
Desert Storm is unfair. The consensus of most parties involved at
that time, was: no attack should be made into Iraq to dethrone Saddam.
My bet is such an attack would not have been supported by the US media
or the public because it would have required a massive invasion of
Iraq by US ground forces which most certainly would have been costly
in American lives and would have been controversial as soon as it was
proposed.
I personally favored dethroning Saddam, but I could see the point of
Bush and his General's arguments. How many American troops lives
would it cost to lay our hands on Saddam? The situation isn't as
simple as it seems. It is more than just whether we're going to leave
Saddam in power or not.
I thought George Bush and everyone involved in Desert Storm did an
absolutely superb job, and should receive nothing but praise for their
efforts. The military abilites demostrated *must* make other petty
tyrants think twice about doing something foolish. Success in war,
especially spectacular success, will discourage many potential foes,
and rightfully so, if they are smart. But it takes troops on the
ground, not a few bombs or cruise missiles, to win a war or enforce a
surrender agreement. Clinton, take note.
TA