Hay You Loozers
B_K
Just who the fuck put this 'moron' in the White House?
It wasn't the voters, it was the fuggin Reagan (brain dead) Supreme Court. Perhaps
the saddest event in America's history.
Who among you want to send your kid to war?
Answer the question.
Who among you want to send your kid to war?
A war set up by a 'moron' of a president.
God save us all.
If one of our children should die from this jackass's war freeken sick diversion
political oil bs, then God save us all.
C'mon, gimme your best shot.
B_K
NZed Surfa
I think hes going to send you guys up the creek without a surfboard.(paddle)
NZed surfa
"B_K" <b...@sanonofre.com> wrote in message
news:3D940E38...@sanonofre.com...
Surfgeotwo
>a little too much last night.
>
>-PA
i just came across this exclusive video pf BK at his new job.....
Süs
... here are some quotes from Daniel Inouye (Hawai'i senior senator and
WWII vet who lost his arm in the war AND long time military supporter) in
the Senate yesterday:
"I'm concerned about the security of this country. I'm concerned about what
history will say about this nation 50 years from now. Did we brutalize
people, or did we carry on ourselves as civilized people?"
"To attack a nation that has not attacked us will go down in history as
something that we should not be proud of."
"It is American to question the president. It is American to debate this
issue."
- Sen. Daniel Inouye, 2/26/02
Sus
... phoning, writing, standing vigil ...
http://www.notinourname.net/
http://www.truemajority.org/
http://www.moveon.org/
http://www.collateralassets.org/
in article 9tVk9.4913$b5.4...@news02.tsnz.net, NZed Surfa at
nzed...@nospam.com wrote on 9/26/02 11:24 PM:
FleK
> > news:3D940E38...@sanonofre.com...
> >>
> >> Just who the fuck put this 'moron' in the White House?
> >>
> >> It wasn't the voters, it was the fuggin Reagan (brain dead) Supreme
Court.
> > Perhaps
> >> the saddest event in America's history.
Sure, sadder than the Civil War, 9/11, KKK Recruiter's being elected (Robert
Byrd D) combined!
> >> Who among you want to send your kid to war?
It's much better to ask those who *have* kids in the military this question.
Ask my dad, he'll tell you that he never wants his boy to be in harm's way,
but it's a nessecity. Personally, I'd rather die in the desert with my
weapon in hand than next to a water cooler in a high-rise. Give me a rifle
and a chance, I don't want to die via a cowardly terrorist act.
> >> Answer the question.
I did
> >> Who among you want to send your kid to war?
May I suggest A.A.?
> >> A war set up by a 'moron' of a president.
yup, it has nothing to do with a rogue state in the act of aquiring nuclear
weapons. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020918-iraq2.htm
> >> God save us all.
Yes, may she save us all!
> >> If one of our children should die from this jackass's war freeken sick
> > diversion
> >> political oil bs, then God save us all.
> >> C'mon, gimme your best shot.
You don't want that.
> >> B_K
>
big kook indeed.
_FleK
FleK
"Süs" <s...@lava.net> wrote in message news:B9B9B7B3.1ECF%s...@lava.net...
> Hang on, NZ (take a deep breath, BK) ...
>
> ... here are some quotes from Daniel Inouye (Hawai'i senior senator and
> WWII vet who lost his arm in the war AND long time military supporter) in
> the Senate yesterday:
>
> "I'm concerned about the security of this country. I'm concerned about
what
> history will say about this nation 50 years from now. Did we brutalize
> people, or did we carry on ourselves as civilized people?"
>
...That's the problem with liberals. You think the country will just
automatically be here 'in 50 years'. You don't understand what price is
paid every day. You can't comprehend the selfless mentality of those that
work everyday to maintain and pay the price for vigilance. You and your ilk
completely miss the point, and take for granted what makes our situation so
great and cushy.
You spend your time being 'concerned'. You spend your time trying to
'naysay' on anyone with the idea of self-preservation...instead of proposing
your own ideas. You spend your time drunk, ranting on alt.surfing while you
eat another bag of cheetos and lick your fat orange fingers while thinking
'what an idiot' our President is. You think that our President wants to
kill American Soldiers nedlessly, is power-hungry and evil...*but Saddam is
just an alright guy!*.
Stop fooling yourselves, you're *not* patriots, you *don't* love this
country, and you're *not* the 'loyal opposition'. You hate anything that is
older than you, and thus will be around long after you.
Luckily, assclows such as this are being rightously ridiculed in the public
forum.
_FleK
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay
any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose
any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -JFK
B_K
> Hang on, NZ (take a deep breath, BK) ...
>
> ... here are some quotes from Daniel Inouye (Hawai'i senior senator and
> WWII vet who lost his arm in the war AND long time military supporter) in
> the Senate yesterday:
>
> "I'm concerned about the security of this country. I'm concerned about what
> history will say about this nation 50 years from now. Did we brutalize
> people, or did we carry on ourselves as civilized people?"
>
> "To attack a nation that has not attacked us will go down in history as
> something that we should not be proud of."
>
> "It is American to question the president. It is American to debate this
> issue."
> - Sen. Daniel Inouye, 2/26/02
An eloquent reply, something George W. is neither capable nor worthy of.
B_K
Please tell me how you know Saddam has a nuke and just how the hell is he going to
get us with it?
Please tell me how a bunch or Saudi's that lived in this country for years and
crashed the WTC and Pentagon are tied to Iraq?
And pray tell why do we need another bureaucracy? The FBI and CIA do not do their
job? Thought you Republicans were anti-big government? Seems to me you just want to
get bigger and bigger with this Homeland crap.
You my friend Flek, are having the wool pulled over your eyes by perhaps the most
dangerous and moronic SOB to ever inhabit the White House.
I pity you and yours.
BK indeed!
FleK
<ski...@blakestah.com> wrote in message
news:qv1l9.305$Rg6.19...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Lest you forget, Flek, pre-9/11, there was no thought whatsoever of
> gearing up to attack Iraq.
Sure there was, go back and read what Clinton and co. were saying in '98.
Nor has there been any "smoking gun" linking
> Iraq to 9/11.
'Smoking gun'. Cute. Why do I get the feeling that if there were a mushroom
cloud over DC, you clowns would still be looking for the 'smoking gun'.
> What, exactly, is the prompting for action at this time ?
> Is it the case that Bush wants to cull public favor before an election ?
Action won't be taken until early 2003. The voting will probably be
pre-election. What's wrong? Afriad Dems will be seen for the anti-American
freaks you are? Seriously...have them vote their concious. If they believe
it isn't in the best interest, more power to them. The people will vote
according to wether they believe their representatives are 'representing'
them.
> Did he smell approval ratings after Afghanistan and want more ?
Definately. It has nothing to do with changing the politics of the
middle-East. Really!
Is he
> concerned about oil flow in the Middle East ? Does he want to fix his
> father's shortcomings as a military strategist a decade ago ? Or avenge
> the assasination attempt ? Or does he have a genuine security concern ?
Oh ya! All of that! Don't you guys bend over for the U.N.? Does it matter
that the cease-fire terms have been trampled by the Iraqi regime? FWIW,
when the terms of surrender are violated, the war is back on. Just because
Clinton didn't see it as politically expiedient doesn't mean it shouldn't
have been done in '98. As they say, everything happens for a reason, and
it's probably best that he didn't lead us into war at that point.
> The last point, I am afraid, is currently horribly unconvincing in my
> mind, and in the minds of most of the world. And without that, the
> motivations for an attack seem somewhat self-serving.
Yeah, like we don't want thousands more dead Americans in large cities due
to terrorist attacks. Completely greedy and self-serving.
> I am all in favor of Bush lecturing to the UN about their
> responsibility, and about the non-compliance of Iraq with UN sanctions
> and monitoring. And I am in favor of the UN enforcing compliance, and,
> failing that, sanctioning military action.
That seems to be the path we're taking...so what's the problem? Oh!
right....it's horribly damaging to your party of choice. Sorryaboutthat.
> But acting outside that is not in good faith, and will have even our
> staunchest allies wondering if they will someday fall on the receiving
> end of the US military, even though they did not fall outside
> international law.
Why? Are you trying to say that Iraq is in-line with international law
(itself a contradiction in terms).
In the long run, that is not good for ANYONE, most
> especially US citizens.
Ya, sure, wouldn't want those bent on killing us to get pissed off, and get
bent on killing us. In the long run, it can't get any worse. Since this
writing is archived, I'm going to make a prediction...the same which I noted
that we would trounce the Taleban when your ilk were whining about the
failures of the Russians, British, etc. Regime change will happen in Iraq.
We'll have a 5 year military occupation where we'll set up a Democratic
Pro-US government. It will cause a plate-shift in the politics of Iran and
Saudi Arabia.
The militant Mullahs of Iran will be overthrown by the growing Pro-US
Democratic/Secular movement. Saudi Arabian militants will be discouraged
and disheartened. You see, Iraq isn't an end, think of it as a potiential
lynch-pin that has the possibility of changing the face of the middle-East.
We can destroy the cradle and factory of militant Islam simply by taking out
the rogue dictatorship/brutalitarian government next door that has violated
the terms of a cease-fire agreement. Iran and Saudi are the real goals here
.
Moreover, the military hardware supply line to Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad
will be severed, eviscerating their funding and recuiting potiential...and
mellowing things in Israel.
> Go to war for a good cause ? Sure. In this case, I don't think there is
> adequate cause that has been demonstrated to the US or the world. And it
> reeks of politicking.
Welcome to D.C. Nothing ever happens without politicking. There's
bad/greedy politiking, then there's this. This is going to be a dirty,
tough job, but we have no choice. I would entertain any better ideas if you
have any...and no, "stop making them mad" doesn't count.
_FleK
FleK
> FleK wrote: <snipped Rush Limbaugh fascist rant>
>
> Please tell me how you know Saddam has a nuke and just how the hell is he
going to
> get us with it?
The fact is, I don't know if he does or not. We all know that he has a
hard-on for them. And how is he going to get us with it? Are you being
serious?
> Please tell me how a bunch or Saudi's that lived in this country for years
and
> crashed the WTC and Pentagon are tied to Iraq?
Iraqi agents...Prague...Mohammed Atta...bells ringing???
> And pray tell why do we need another bureaucracy? The FBI and CIA do not
do their
> job? Thought you Republicans were anti-big government? Seems to me you
just want to
> get bigger and bigger with this Homeland crap.
Republicans are for smaller, more efficient government. D.o.H.S. will pull
together *existing* cultures under one roof. Trust me, this is a good
thing. Differing agencies shouldn't have to all do their own research.
> You my friend Flek, are having the wool pulled over your eyes by perhaps
the most
> dangerous and moronic SOB to ever inhabit the White House.
History will tell. Of course, if militant Islam is pacified, and our
enemies punished, you guys will still be harping about how the French aren't
our 'buddies' anymore. Grief...
> I pity you and yours.
No pity needed, I'm not an alcoholic.
> BK indeed!
Agreed!
_FleK
B_K
>
> No pity needed, I'm not an alcoholic.
Your first step to recovery is getting over your denial issue.
NZed Surfa
This is one thing I am pleased with in NZs past....the NZ governments stand
against Nuclear Power. ie NZ is a Nuclear free zone...eg No Nuclear powered
ships or nuclear warheads.
NZed surfa
"Süs" <s...@lava.net> wrote in message news:B9B9B7B3.1ECF%s...@lava.net...
FleK
<ski...@blakestah.com> wrote in message
news:3T2l9.3656$Dr.113...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> This comes from our president, who campaigned against using the military
> for "nation-building" (just one of many campaigning issues that he
> reversed on after taking office - along with smaller government).
If you don't understand the difference between 9/10 and 9/12, I can't *make*
you see it.
> Look - Iraq is a little country, with almost no military presence or
> power.
Like Afghanistan on 9/10
They will not act in aggression against the US, because that
> would mean a certain end to their government.
Like Afghanistan on 9/10
They got nothing - we
> could roll over them in 3 days. And they know it. It is for this reason
> that there is not only no imminent threat, but no threat at all.
Like Afghanistan on 9/10
> But, if we do attack, they will pull out all the stops. They will use
> every weapon in their disposal. And this will MAXIMIZE death, pain, and
> suffering on both sides of the fence.
Like Afghanistan? I believe the back channels here have been in operation
to give Saddam exile. I don't know anything not on CNN, but that is my
guess. Even so, if Saddam cannot be deterred from using WMD on our invading
forces, it's not like he can go around launching Sarin-loaded artillery
shells himself. There's a chain of command which I'm confident we are able
to break. In other words: we may not be able to deter Saddam from using
NCB weapons, but he has to order someone who orders someone who orders
someone...and we only must break one link in that chain. This certainly
cuts down on the inevitability factor doesn't it?
Look, I don't like it anymore than you do, hell...I may be there (breaking
news?), but it's a job that has to be done eventually.
What if we would have not fought the Japanese in WWII because it was 'hard'?
What about the Germans?
> It makes no sense. Unless it is about oil, and political approval. Which
> it most certainly is.
>
Saddam has never had a weapon he didn't use offensively. What makes you
think he's going to all the sudden grow a concious and start obeying UN
resolutions? What makes you think he's going to only use a nuke as a
deterrant?(defensively). Despite what you no-doubt think of me...I like you
Blake. I think you're simply mis-calculating the consequences of inaction.
You think we can leave Saddam alone (which is the natural progression of
simply wanting inspectors back in, and not having the guts to follow an
expusion of inspectors up with a military strike), and he won't bother us.
Saddam's fingerprints are on the OKC bombing, the first WTC attack, and
9/11. It's a study in piecemeal revenge, and it must stop.
_FleK
FleK
> FleK wrote:
>
> >
> > No pity needed, I'm not an alcoholic.
>
> Your first step to recovery is getting over your denial issue.
>
Okay, I won't deny it: you're an asswizard.
_FleK
boy_zero
> Süs wrote:
> > Hang on, Sloopy...
Yo! BIGKOOK, chill. Who was on duty 911, 2001? Who was the Chief of
Staff. The Japs bombed Pearl Harbor 12/7/41 the Arabs bombed New York
and the Pentagon 911. What was Bush doing away from his duties at the
Nation's Capital. Aside of aquiring votes from the Cubanos and the
Negros in Florida Why? This guy was asleep at the switch. You might as
well, BIGKOOK, kiss him goodbye, he'll never be re elected. What's
this guy Flektone going to do, ignore the facts? Thanks, BIGKOOK for
keeping abreast on this delicate matter.
ZeroBoy/TEAM/LET'S/ROLL
Craig
but there's a lot of finger pointing going on.
I'd like to ask, are your daily activities consistent
with your political positions? Do you drive a lot of
miles [or kms](even to your surf break)?
How much gasoline do you consume?
Even if you drive a big SUV, isn't the "amount"
of petroleum products consumed more important than
the "type" of car you drive? And, do you support the
use of rapid transit at the voting booth?
How often have you (at least tried) to use
a bus or a train in the last week? Or even car-pooling?
If you criticize a war to ensure stable crude oil
sources, and you are not yourself taking measures to
cut your own oil production, criticizing Bush or anybody
else is pretty hypocritical.
Buy a Pope Bisect and commute to your break...take
your board on Amtrak or even the subway. Buy a hybrid vehicle.
After all, isn't a war for oil just satifying the "comforts"
of the suburban cul de sac living average American anyway???
And for that matter, are the Europeans or anybody else so
much "better"? Or would they benefit in having
"stable oil prices", too?? The most often quoted argument
is that petro is "so much more expensive" in other countries...
but correctly calculate the price in foreign currency terms,
correctly differentiate the VAT, and you will find that
with the exception of product transportation differentials,
the "law of one price" indeed applies.
Isn't American suburban sprawl nothing more than a function of low
gasoline prices, anyway? And sprawl destroys nature
and consumes more precious environmental resources.
Runoff, terrorism, air pollution, water pollution,
inflation....a lot of it is (indeed) oil-based.
Is it all "Bush's" fault?? Or maybe the fault of
the person standing in your mirror...at least ultimately?
And if Gore (or anybody else) had become president,
would anything be different,
really? Most importantly, would your
personal consumption patterns
be different??
Not likely.
"NZed Surfa" <nzed...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<uV2l9.4959$b5.4...@news02.tsnz.net>...
pitboss
> Please tell me how you know Saddam has a nuke and just how the hell is he
going to
> get us with it?
Have it smuggled into another country or get it near a target area via ship
or plane. Stopping something like that is next to impossible or requires
very good luck if planned correctly.
Not saying he would do it but I believe the concern is that he would aid
others by supplying said weapon.
pitboss
little proof put forth before the public. There was a fair amount of
questioning even within a nation absolutely shocked with tradgedy. One year
later it is obvious that those accusations were very much on target.
I remain unsure as to the Iraqi situation. It doesn't seem to warrant
attack at this point based upon my own understanding. However, I would hope
that the administration has more information than is currently public
knowledge and that the information they have makes an aggressive stance the
appropriate measure at this time.
CF
foobar
the middle east has been causing problems in the world for long enough...
the problems
finally landed on our shores a year ago... I say it's time for us to beat
the shit out of all
of em.. I used to never felt any ill will toward any country in the middle
east..
you dont see us burning palestinian flags or iraqi flags in our streets..
they burn ours everyday... i say we've sat around for long enough listening
to thier shit.
the saudis, iranians, iraqis, syrians, jordainians, lybians,... who cares..
soon iraq will hear us...
countries in the middle east for the past 30 years have been bombing our
embassys, kidnapping office workers
and fucking up the olympics... plenty of other places in the world have
problems but
all we ever hear about on the news is the middle east.. middle east
.....middle east..fuck the middle east...
should be funny to watch them dry up like raisins when thier oil is gone in
30 years and
we are all riding around on solar mopeds...
saddam dont surf
lets take em all out
"pitboss" <warr...@nhb.com> wrote in message
news:qjal9.840$P86...@nwrddc04.gnilink.net...
superfly®
If I have to tell you the answer you can't afford the question.
"Craig" <kemz...@kacm.com> wrote
B_K
Thanks for the reasonable response.
At this time we need cool heads. No hurry to kill.
A few Saudi's (14) took out 3000 of us so let's drop bombs on 5 million Iraquis?
(Baghdad pop. 5 million)
You guys are being sucked into a real sorry ass excuse of a president, whos only
legacy will be a failed economy (your children), a million deaths in a foreign
country.
I t is sad and sick.
Hey Flek!!
You suck
B_K
Hey Flek
You sign up or get drafted?
B_K
> I read a lot of positions that make sense here,
> but there's a lot of finger pointing going on.
You bring up a lot of good points.
I am not going to deal with all right now.
What the hell is Gleshna doing in here?
B_K
B_K
What I want to know is just, 'how you can stand by one American youth giving his life
under the direction of this jackass moron of a president?.
Just answer the question.
Don't give me any of your bullshit. Just answer the question.
ps. why won't you email me?
Why do you hide behind fake names and addresses?
Why?
Answer? Flek is an asshole wannabe.
A coward, a fool? A jackass indeed!
Speak now or shut the fuck up.
B_K
> FleK <flek*****@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Ya, sure, wouldn't want those bent on killing us to get pissed off, and get
> > bent on killing us. In the long run, it can't get any worse. Since this
> > writing is archived, I'm going to make a prediction...the same which I noted
> > that we would trounce the Taleban when your ilk were whining about the
> > failures of the Russians, British, etc. Regime change will happen in Iraq.
> > We'll have a 5 year military occupation where we'll set up a Democratic
> > Pro-US government. It will cause a plate-shift in the politics of Iran and
> > Saudi Arabia.
>
> This comes from our president, who campaigned against using the military
> for "nation-building" (just one of many campaigning issues that he
> reversed on after taking office - along with smaller government).
>
> Look - Iraq is a little country, with almost no military presence or
> power. They will not act in aggression against the US, because that
> would mean a certain end to their government. They got nothing - we
> could roll over them in 3 days. And they know it. It is for this reason
> that there is not only no imminent threat, but no threat at all.
>
> But, if we do attack, they will pull out all the stops. They will use
> every weapon in their disposal. And this will MAXIMIZE death, pain, and
> suffering on both sides of the fence.
>
> It makes no sense. Unless it is about oil, and political approval. Which
> it most certainly is.
>
> -PA
Exactly. It is about oil and a youthful military that has never seen the face of
death. A sad state of affairs indeed.
God bless us all.
B_K
Hey bro! You can't just go around bombing innocent people.
Saddam is one thing, millions of innocent women and children is another.
What is your problem?
And Flek, just what military service have you had the pleasure of serving
our country with?
Spell it out for me for I am at a loss.
Your moron of a president has run the economy into the ground, now he brings up this war bullshit.
You are a fool Flek.
Heck, you are not even real.
E-mail me you friggin coward.
Flek is a non entity, a fool that is afraid to show himself, one who never posts under a real name or address.
Go drop your bombs Flek.
Kill Kill KIll
Just let me know first.
Kill one man? Five million live in Baghdad. How you gonna kill one man?
Pray tell me Flek you flamin . . .
there is no Flek
he is a pussy wannabe hiding a-hole Cape Cod jackass.
If you want to know how I really feel reply to this 'real' address or this newsgroup
I have nothing to hide.
Flek indeed
flek (flek') en slang for shit, shithead
NeoN D. SuRFeR
NN
"B_K" <b...@sanonofre.com> wrote in message
news:3D9BFC39...@sanonofre.com...
FleK
>
>
> I t is sad and sick.
>
> Hey Flek!!
>
> You suck
>
...your mom.
_FleK(It's funny because he's an alcoholic)
FleK
>
> Hey Flek
>
> You sign up or get drafted?
>
We haven't had a draft since you were of a healthy weight.
_FleK
FleK
> Hey Flek,
>
> What I want to know is just, 'how you can stand by one American youth
giving his life
> under the direction of this jackass moron of a president?.
>
> Just answer the question.
You look at GWB and see something totally different that I. I served in the
military under Clinton, and I've worked with the military under Bush. I can
tell you without a doubt that the morale, and reasons for doing the jobs
that must be done are clearer now that I've ever seen them. You can't get
over your mis-guided notions of GWB being a 'jackass moron'. Even if he
were (because really, they let idiots fly mach 2 fighter jets...really), his
cabinet alone is chock full of tough old bastards that *WON* the cold war
without firing nary a shot. They stood down Communism in our time, how
easily you forget (or maybe this is part of the reason you don't like them
either).
...And to answer your question (which I already have): I, personally,
cannot get past the overwhelming fact that I would rather die in the fucking
desert with a rifle, slugging it out than next to a coffee machine in a
high-rise building that just got smacked by an airliner. Your children (if
your shrunken testicles can still work) will thank me.
> Don't give me any of your bullshit. Just answer the question.
>
> ps. why won't you email me?
Email you? You have me on msnger, you're on all the time....
> Why do you hide behind fake names and addresses?
*looks around...to whom are you talking?
> Why?
>
> Answer? Flek is an asshole wannabe.
Yes, I so want to be a fat drunk pathetic, temper-tantrum-throwing pile of
human garbage...oh pleez mummy! Yeah, handsome...I've seen your pic; tell
your mom to stop fucking buffalo.
> A coward, a fool? A jackass indeed!
> Speak now or shut the fuck up.
...hehe, bet you wish you wouldn't have had that last cocktail! And
besides...I'm not the PC-Raider, directing foriegn policy from behind the
keyboard under a cloud of intoxication.
_FleK
FleK
"NeoN D. SuRFeR" <ne...@sanonofre.comn> wrote in message
news:3gXm9.5418$1k5.2...@news1.west.cox.net...
> I got his adde if you want it BK....
>
> NN
>
He's got my address, Neon. He's on msn msnger every time I sit down at my
computer.
_FleK
FleK
>
> Exactly. It is about oil and a youthful military that has never seen the
face of
> death. A sad state of affairs indeed.
>
I've never been in full-scale war. I have been in some serious shit though.
Mogidishu wasn't as horrible as Parris Island. By the time you've trained
for it, your first real firefight is an old hat....scary, but an old hat.
_FleK
FleK
"B_K" <b...@sanonofre.com> wrote in message news:3D9C051E...@sanonofre.com...
john_3:16
> I got his adde if you want it BK....
> NN
> > Hey Flek,
> > What I want to know is just, 'how you can stand by one American youth
> giving his life under the direction of this....
> A coward, a fool? A jackass indeed!
> > Speak now or shut the fuck up.
NN, you're like a waitress in a restaurant who strolls over asking,
"Want more coffee." Hell yes, I want more coffee. NN you've the add,
hell yes we want to see the damn thing. Now!
bap' john
superfly®
> Or the last of the fully stoked?
Prozac shortage?
> Living surfing as it was way back in days gone by,
So they used fold their board in half and get on the subway
to go surf? Interesting surf history!
> Where the other surfers were happy to see you..... Nothing but Aloha.
Aloha and herr kemnutz... hmm
> His dedication to our way of life in a place not thought of for its surf is
> amazing.
Kook.com. Pretenders who watch too much TV and read too
many surferMags.
> But lemming tell you, I have seen the vid,
>
> You can hang 10 in a lake.
But why would you want to? If you like to surf, move
to the ocean. Don't bastardize surfing into a "lifestyle" of
albinos, fresh water, folding surfboards and misc kookery.
Weekday Warrior
> the problems
> finally landed on our shores a year ago
Funny, that's what every culture in the world is currently saying
about Euro-American society and corporate greed. "Our shores?" Your
parents were...Algonquin? Cherokee? Navajo? Just checking.
... I say it's time for us to beat
> the shit out of all
> of em..
Wow, the rallying cry of Al Qaeda. Well thought out.
>I used to never felt any ill will
NICE GRAMMAR, Jed Clampett!
> you dont see us burning palestinian flags or iraqi flags in our streets..
We don't have to...we can starve entire nations or throw their
governments into anarchy if they piss us off. i.e. Nicaragua (sp?)
1970s-80s. We ousted a DEMOCRATIC regime in favor of a DICTATORSHIP
that would back our insane economic policies (i.e. not paying to
extract oil from the rain forest reserves in that country, not having
to pay the workers (which makes them slaves) on fruit/flower
plantations where the crops are going to USA/Europe).
> the saudis, iranians, iraqis, syrians, jordainians, lybians,... who cares..
> soon iraq will hear us...
Great, breeding the next generation of Al Qaeda. Where do you think
they came from anyway? Shiny, happy thoughts of the USA?
> countries in the middle east for the past 30 years have been bombing our
> embassys, kidnapping office workers
> and fucking up the olympics...
Americans have been assassinating their own presidents, infecting
native populations with diseases, executing retards, and funding
illegal wars (i.e. Iraq 2002) under the guise of justified warfare
(i.e. Afghanistan 2001-2). We have destroyed the integrity of the
continent's ecosystem, and brutally oppressed our own citizens. I love
the USA, and I believe there's nowhere better to live in the world,
but take off the RW&B glasses! Our society is imperfect, like all
societies.
> should be funny to watch them dry up like raisins when thier oil is gone in
> 30 years and
> we are all riding around on solar mopeds...
Well my man, that is not going to happen, because the American petrol.
companies own 99% of the copyrights involved with the development of
alternative energy sources. They are sitting on them, because they
can, since oil is more profitable. Furthermore, it's us who will be
sitting around, dried up like raisins, when we can't feed our gorged
economy and way of life with precious crude oil. No oil for the ships
that bring us our pesticide-laden fruits and rain forest beef. No gas
for that cool surfmobile you just bought, or that "totally
conservationist" 1968 VW that gets 2 miles to the gallon. Those guys
in the middle east will have the last laugh when they set the last
great oil reserves on earth on fire, and they're still riding around
on camels or whatever, eating the seeds of desert grasses or whatever
the heck it is they eat.
> saddam dont surf
>
> lets take em all out
>
The thing that drives me nuts is NOT that people are pro-war right
now, it's that people are pro-war because it's the status quo. "Well,
the President knows best." Woah! OK? What about all the other
presidents of all the other nations, who are advising us NOT to attack
Iraq? As much as conservatives attack liberals for big government,
much of the pending Republican legislation involves more power for
wiretapping, more power for declaring war without Congressional
approval, more power for search warrants when probable cause is
"possible" but not existent, more power for "secret"
arrests.....recurring theme? MORE POWER. And it's all under the guise
of, "Well, it's the patriotic thing to do, and if you love the USA,
we're sure you'll agree." What is this, 1954? Why not call a dog a
dog? "We are going to annihilate Iraq because they are causing
instabilities in the oil markets and are upsetting our ally, Israel,
and are too great a political/military variable to leave unmolested in
the middle east." Saying that doesn't make the war WRONG. If anything,
I would be like, "OK then, bombs away" (deferring decision to our
government). But the party line is, "Iraq is part of the Axis of Evil!
One member of Al Qaeda even went to Iraq once! It is our duty to
destroy Iraq, an evil nest of Terrorists! Don't ask questions, it's
better that way. If you love the USA, you hate Iraq! Iraq =
Terrorists!" It definitely seems like some folks on AS are 100% on
board with that, which is kind of scary.
Weekday Warrior
> <ski...@blakestah.com> wrote in message
> news:qv1l9.305$Rg6.19...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
before an election ?
>
> What's wrong? Afriad Dems will be seen for the anti-American
> freaks you are?
If the only other alternative is the Nazi society status quo proposed
by Tom Ridge et al., HELL YES. Country before government, any day. The
nation's current relapse into McCarthyism is disappointing, to say the
least.
> Just because
> Clinton didn't see it as politically expiedient doesn't mean it shouldn't
> have been done in '98.
Good point. Iraq hasn't changed significantly in 4 years.
> Yeah, like we don't want thousands more dead Americans in large cities due
> to terrorist attacks. Completely greedy and self-serving.
Wow, that read like a line from the Fox News Channel. Hint: although
Saddam is a twisted, evil man who should (somehow) be eliminated,
don't be fooled by the rhetoric stating that Iraq has the funds or
methods to fund reasonably high-quality terrorists (remember, Al Qaeda
is primarily funded through Saudi Arabian banks---you know, Saudi
Arabia, our ally!).
>
> That seems to be the path we're taking...so what's the problem? Oh!
> right....it's horribly damaging to your party of choice. Sorryaboutthat.
No, not really the party. Just that idiot Daschle. He's complaining
himself out of a job, it seems.
> We can destroy the cradle and factory of militant Islam simply by taking out
> the rogue dictatorship/brutalitarian government next door that has violated
> the terms of a cease-fire agreement.
Correct in theory. EXCEPT Iraq is a secular dictatorship that has
almost nothing to do with Islam (except as an excuse for violence and
a binding tie b/w allies). A 5 year occupation of Iraq will reassure
Islamic militants that USA is the schoolyard bully ally of Israel, and
there will be a new Al Qaeda in the future.
>
> Moreover, the military hardware supply line to Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad
> will be severed, eviscerating their funding and recuiting potiential...and
> mellowing things in Israel.
How? The Russians are hungry and poor, and they love to manufacture
and sell weapons to the highest (illegal) bidder. What's more, the CIA
has stocked many middle-east nations to the GILLS with American-made
weapons, which are currently in use AGAINST OUR OWN TROOPS in
Afghanistan.
"stop making them mad" doesn't count.
Another good point. The opposite: "piss them off for 30 more years and
flatten the landscape for 6,000 square miles" shouldn't count either.
westoz
"Weekday Warrior" <man...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7f95a845.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > the middle east has been causing problems in the world for long
enough...
> > the problems
> > finally landed on our shores a year ago
>
> Funny, that's what every culture in the world is currently saying
> about Euro-American society and corporate greed. "Our shores?" Your
> parents were...Algonquin? Cherokee? Navajo? Just checking.
>
Brother Flek will not like your attitude mate.
Tom.
rodNDtube
provide more surf despite Kyle's lingering about... <is my ascii
interpretation on target?>
- Suicide Rodriguez
Rod Rodgers
eMail: rrod...@bcpl.net
Homepage: http://www.rodNDtube.com/
GuidoPalooza: http://www.rodndtube.com/gp/guidopalooza.html
Craig
We can get out of most of this mess if we simply stop consuming
so much imported oil.
A few facts:
1)The US is one of the top oil producers
in the world. We have a lot of it
right here.
2) Back in the 70s during oil price
shocks of '73 and '79 and thereafter,
there was definitely a move to smaller
cars and more consumption.
The move was so successful that it resulted
in far lower prices...which lead to more
consumption. The higher prices of the '70s set by OPEC
resulted in the establishment of Mexico
through PEMEX, the Soviets (and Russia),
and even China and Canada to become alternatives
to OPEC oil, despite the quality differentials.
It behooves OPEC to keep crude prices below
the level at which Russia and Mexico can
produce (too) profitably.
Oil companies are "brokers" mostly,
they refine and distribute crude product
and mark it up in price. So they profit
from maximum consumption at the most "efficient"
price.
It may surprise anyone to know that the highest
crude oil price is not necessarily the most
"efficient" for producers. A price above a certain
level can result in less consumption, hence profit.
So it behooves producers and oligopolists (OPEC)
to price oil "on the margin" of an efficient
price that encourages maximum consumption.
A price "too low" is not sustainable...they shut
down capacity if that occurs.
In the 1980s starting with the fairly deep recession,
lower oil prices made greater consumption painless.
Hence, the move to the suburbs (all the while encouraged
by our pork barrel democrats and republicans through
highway construction) more sprawl, moving away from big
cities. In addition, demographic changes helped further
energy consumption. Baby boomers had babies, they bought
SUVs and minivans, and big energy inefficient houses.
A few new transit lines were constructed, but overall
usage drops because it is still cheaper to consume
the cheap gasoline...and safer...and more comfortable,
etc. If people "really" wanted, we could "just say no" and
consume less energy.
But I fear that the US citizens or even those of the western world
lack the will to do so.
Hence we deal with rich terrorists, crazies who want to stone
women to death for adultery as people did in the 14th century
and a billion angry poor people who have been disenfranchised
by their highly corrupt petroleum oligarchies. If you can,
take the subway and carpool. Cheat the oil company
executives and the sheiks and terrorists out of what they want:
your money.
George Bush is only giving the US citizenry what it wants:
more heroin (oil) for a very serious structural addiction.
It is up to you personally to do something about it all.
FleK
"Weekday Warrior" <man...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7f95a845.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > Just because
> > Clinton didn't see it as politically expiedient doesn't mean it
shouldn't
> > have been done in '98.
> Good point. Iraq hasn't changed significantly in 4 years.
....or since the promised certain activities would cease as of March 1991.
The terms of cease-fire were broken in '98, therefore the gulf war has been
'on' since then.
> > Yeah, like we don't want thousands more dead Americans in large cities
due
> > to terrorist attacks. Completely greedy and self-serving.
> Wow, that read like a line from the Fox News Channel. Hint: although
> Saddam is a twisted, evil man who should (somehow) be eliminated,
Yes, everybody agrees he's a sick bastard that has a hard-on for nukes, has
used every weapon he's ever owned, doesn't know what 'deterrance' is...and
everybody agrees that he flaunts the measures by the UN, and the terms of
the Gulf War cease-fire agreements. *We* just want to do something about
it, while you guys are willing to coddle him. *We* are living in the
present, that whole grown-up adult thing where you must deal with the
realities of your surroundings, not how you "FEEL" they should be.
> don't be fooled by the rhetoric stating that Iraq has the funds or
> methods to fund reasonably high-quality terrorists (remember, Al Qaeda
> is primarily funded through Saudi Arabian banks---you know, Saudi
> Arabia, our ally!).
Terrorists don't have to be particularly 'high quality' to kill. We're not
only looking for 'high quality' terrorists. Terrorism is like any other
corporation. You have basically a handful of competants, and a bunch of
underlings that cannot perform in an autonomous manner. I agree that Iraq
doesn't have any mastermind terrorists in their midst (as long as you don't
cout that whole "lobbing SCUD's at population center thingey...he was just
jokin!), but they're training and harboring them. Moreover, they are a
state, and states can do things like, say, oh...centrefuge a shitload of
uranium in order to further enrich it?...Hand off NBC weapons to bona-fide
terrorists? Advise and harbor anyone wanting to do ill to the US??? Iraqi
agents meeting Tim Mcveigh anyone? Iraqi agents meeting Abu Zabida, Marwan
Al-Shaea, Muhammed Atta? To go after terrorism, you must go after the
nations that support them, just as you would go after your enemy's airfiled
if he were launching fighter jets against your territory...first you repel
the jets, then you bomb the shit out of his base. You bring massive
violence to his war-making ability, and make an example to other
brutalitarian dictatorships that would train and support terrorists.
>
>
> >
> > That seems to be the path we're taking...so what's the problem? Oh!
> > right....it's horribly damaging to your party of choice.
Sorryaboutthat.
> No, not really the party. Just that idiot Daschle. He's complaining
> himself out of a job, it seems.
Daschele is very..*very* concerned.
> > We can destroy the cradle and factory of militant Islam simply by taking
out
> > the rogue dictatorship/brutalitarian government next door that has
violated
> > the terms of a cease-fire agreement.
> Correct in theory. EXCEPT Iraq is a secular dictatorship that has
> almost nothing to do with Islam (except as an excuse for violence and
> a binding tie b/w allies). A 5 year occupation of Iraq will reassure
> Islamic militants that USA is the schoolyard bully ally of Israel, and
> there will be a new Al Qaeda in the future.
I believe differently, and so do other people that understand politics in
the Middle East. Remember our 1987 row with Libya? Khadaffi wanted to
exert his power over the narror strait of Gibralter, and forment tensions in
Israel. What happened? We shot down every jet he sent over our aircraft
carriers, and bombed the shit out of his tent. We killed a close relative
of his, and changed his demenor rather quickly. Today, we're no longer "the
greatest satan"...Libya considers itself part of our 'war on terrorism'.
What changed? A brutal dictator was shown that he cannot exert the same
will over America that he can over his own pesants. Such is politics in
this part of the world, where defeat, embarassment, and demoralization is
the way to pacify the fanatics...not diplomacy and politics. Negotiation is
considered a sign of weakness, where here it is a sign of maturity. All
cultures are not created equally, deal w/ it.
> >
> > Moreover, the military hardware supply line to Hizbollah and Islamic
Jihad
> > will be severed, eviscerating their funding and recuiting
potiential...and
> > mellowing things in Israel.
> How? The Russians are hungry and poor, and they love to manufacture
> and sell weapons to the highest (illegal) bidder. What's more, the CIA
> has stocked many middle-east nations to the GILLS with American-made
> weapons, which are currently in use AGAINST OUR OWN TROOPS in
> Afghanistan.
Afghanistan: there was a greater reason to arm Afghanistan. I don't think
there's a person in the 'know' that knowing the present state of events,
wouldn't have done it anyway. It is not a natural progression to 'bite the
hand that feeds you'. Just because we armed the Afghanis against the
Soviets doesn't mean they automatically were to turn them on us. Moreover,
most of the mujahadid that *we* dealt directly with were old contacts from
what became Massoud's 'Northern Alliance. Massoud was our guy in
Afghanistan, he was fighting for a pro-American Democratic government in
Afghanistan. There's a reason he was blown up in a suicide attack on 9/10,
2001. Stinger missiles: those delivered to the ISI had a shelf life of
about 3-4 years. After that, the modular battery was dead, thus the
component system was unusable(although I imagine that a properly trained
technician could use the high explosive charge contained in the head). This
was done on purpose, as the shelf life (even in first gen stingers) of the
batteries was higher, in addition to the battery being *replacable*.
> "stop making them mad" doesn't count.
> Another good point. The opposite: "piss them off for 30 more years and
> flatten the landscape for 6,000 square miles" shouldn't count either.
We can and will support the benevolent factions, suppress and kill the
militant factions.
It must be done, sit down, put your seatbelt on...when nothing happens, you
can thank me(but like hippies spitting on Vietnam draftees, you probably
will not).
_FleK
Tom Keener
>It all seems so simple.
>We can get out of most of this mess if we simply stop consuming
>so much imported oil. ...
>
>2) Back in the 70s during oil price
>shocks of '73 and '79 and thereafter,
>there was definitely a move to smaller
>cars and more consumption. ...
>etc. If people "really" wanted, we could "just say no" and
>consume less energy.
>
>But I fear that the US citizens or even those of the western world
>lack the will to do so.
As you note, energy efficiency and conservation were popular in the
70's. But clear voices were heard back even in the 60's, by such
people as Stewart Brand and the Whole Earth crew.
A couple of quotes from the Epilog:
"U.S. (energy) policy relative to other countries is dangerous to its
survival as an independant entity." Howard Odum, Professor, Dept. of
Environmental Engineering Sciences, U of Florida.
"The most significant realizable measures to effect conservation are:
...d) introduction of more efficient industrial processes and
equipment." _The Potential for Energy Conservation_, U.S. Government
Printing Office.
The voices of the so-called "hippies" have never been stilled. And
their arguments have taken hold with the general populace in more ways
than one. But even when there is a popular will to effect change, as
in California's law demanding cleaner vehicles, or the federal efforts
to raise the CAFE standards, corporate lobbyists have been able to
subvert that will. I have no problem with corporate lobbyists working
to further their own interests, but when it comes to national security
and the health of the planet, I find their position inexcusable. It's
one thing to fight OPEC, but when big business is also the enemy, it's
tough.
But it's funny, Craig. Since the fall of Enron, the indictment of El
Paso Natural Gas, and the exposure of all the corporate wrongdoing in
the California energy scandal, I'm surprised you'd speak up about
this. Had a change of heart?
Tom Keener
email me if you want my email address
FleK
have....
Craig, if you don't dignify this with a response, I'll not bat an eye.
_FleK
"Tom Keener" <keen...@cts.com_but_not_this_part> wrote in message
news:3d9d43be....@nntp.cts.com...
Surfer Bob
> ...That's the problem with liberals. You think (snip)... You don't understand(snip)...You can't... (snip)
> ...You and your ilk completely miss the point...(SNIP!!!)
> Stop fooling yourselves, you're *not* patriots, you *don't* love this
> country, and you're *not* the 'loyal opposition'. You hate anything that is
> older than you, and thus will be around long after you.
Boy this makes you look really foolish, FleK, since the man you're
dissing (Dan Inouye) literally gave an arm and a leg in combat to
defend our nation. You gonna look him in the eye and tell him he
doesn't love this country?
> Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay
> any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose
> any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -JFK
So after putting lots of stupid words in people's mouths and ranting
at length about your favorite despicable strawman "Liberal" (whoever
that is), you wind up with an inspiring quote from one of the most
famous "liberals" that ever was. Maybe your message is being scrambled
in the icy void between Earth and Planet FleK, but from here you make
very little sense.
You need to cool off and go surfing real bad, water brother.
FWIW, here's my take on things international:
I do not perceive Iraq as a credible threat to the US. No one has yet
shown that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Allegations about Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction should be addressed through the UN. Given
our own capability in weapons of mass destruction, the idea that Iraq
is a big threat is laughable. I perceive the President’s push
for war with Iraq to be nothing more than a brazen and very
ill-advised attempt to milk the only issue that ever brought him any
popularity at all, namely his post-9/11 approval-by-default in time of
crisis. It is not in the interest of the American people to go to war
with Iraq or anyone else at this time.
It would be a really bad idea to let the Prez attack Iraq for many
reasons:
1) It would result in the deaths of a huge number of Iraqi and
American people. The body count would likely exceed 9/11 by multiple
orders of magnitude.
2) It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars that we can’t
afford to spend on such a poor plan.
3) It would unite currently divided factions in the Muslim world
against our nation in a way that nothing else ever could, dramatically
increasing the likelihood of the US suffering more
politically-inspired terrorist attacks such as we experienced on
9/11/01. The use of our overwhelming technological superiority against
them will disgust even our allies and will inflame radical muslims
everywhere, especially when combined with the galling hypocrisy of the
charge that we're doing it because Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
pose a threat to the Iraqi people, their neighbors, and to us.
4) It would commit the US to occupying a post-war Iraq for the
indefinite future, in the middle of the abovementioned inflamed muslim
world. We currently have no real plan for how to assemble a new nation
there after Hussein and how to get out once we’re done.
5) It would make the prospects for peace in Israel and Palestine
dramatically more remote than they are today.
6) It would isolate the United States from almost every other nation.
We have no coalition of support to do this because we have no earthly
business invading another nation under these circumstances and almost
everyone knows it.
7) It would be really bad for the American economy. The stock market
is already falling in response to rumors of war. Watch it plunge if we
actually declare it.
8) To unilaterally go to war with Iraq would be a dreadful precedent
of violating international law and flaunting the authority of the
United Nations. We should be working through the UN on this issue and
thereby strengthening that institution, not running roughshod over it
and weakening it. Although our President is flaunting it right and
left, it is actually very much in the best interests of our nation to
support the idea of international law.
9) It would give other nations deadly de facto permission to undertake
unilateral invasions their own. China going into Taiwan and India
going into Kashmir are only the two most immediate possibilities.
10) It would give the President more power to continue his ruinous
attacks on American civil liberties in the name of national security.
While we're barring the Prez on Iraq, we should also bar him on the
Homeland Security Act.
11) It would continue to obstruct progress on desperately important
domestic issues like reform of corporate accounting, campaign finance
reform, election reform, health care, energy policy, the environment.
PLEASE go surfing and cool off before you respond to this.
Patriotically yours,
Surfer Bob
FleK
"Surfer Bob" <surfe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d5579a18.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "FleK" <flek*****@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > ...That's the problem with liberals. You think (snip)... You don't
understand(snip)...You can't... (snip)
> > ...You and your ilk completely miss the point...(SNIP!!!)
>
> > Stop fooling yourselves, you're *not* patriots, you *don't* love this
> > country, and you're *not* the 'loyal opposition'. You hate anything
that is
> > older than you, and thus will be around long after you.
>
> Boy this makes you look really foolish, FleK, since the man you're
> dissing (Dan Inouye) literally gave an arm and a leg in combat to
> defend our nation. You gonna look him in the eye and tell him he
> doesn't love this country?
I responded to what he wrote in the post.
> > Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay
> > any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose
> > any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. -JFK
>
> So after putting lots of stupid words in people's mouths and ranting
> at length about your favorite despicable strawman "Liberal" (whoever
> that is)
If you wallow in shit all day, you begin to not be able to smell it.
, you wind up with an inspiring quote from one of the most
> famous "liberals" that ever was.
Funny that he's more conservative than any Democrat elected to office
today...and some Republicans, no?
Maybe your message is being scrambled
> in the icy void between Earth and Planet FleK, but from here you make
> very little sense.
Consider that just like California isn't the center of the universe...your
political views aren't the center of the 'spectrum'.
> You need to cool off and go surfing real bad, water brother.
What? You can't call someone on B.S. and well-surfed? Look, the mellow
hippie-surfer went out in '72. I understand there are still some around,
but your ilk has recently been self-destructing on broadcast
television....katsup.
> FWIW, here's my take on things international:
>
> I do not perceive Iraq as a credible threat to the US. No one has yet
> shown that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Allegations about Iraqi
> weapons of mass destruction should be addressed through the UN. Given
> our own capability in weapons of mass destruction, the idea that Iraq
> is a big threat is laughable. I perceive the President’s push
> for war with Iraq to be nothing more than a brazen and very
> ill-advised attempt to milk the only issue that ever brought him any
> popularity at all, namely his post-9/11 approval-by-default in time of
> crisis. It is not in the interest of the American people to go to war
> with Iraq or anyone else at this time.
>
All of this has been discussed and proven. Not believing the data because
your 'leaders' tell you so doesn't make something not true. It's reality
versus feelings. Get ahold of your emotions.
///rolls eyes, snips whining///
>
> PLEASE go surfing and cool off before you respond to this.
Lots of projection goes on in the midst of you west coast asers. You read
something different, and it makes you angry. Further, you cannot reconcile
this with the fact that you've reassured yourself that you have a completely
open mind.
;brain_funct.
#!/usr/bin/USA good
proc notify_connect {no fuckin' way} {
global data_sock
set data_sock $sock
return
ERROR: amerikkka is bad
amerikkka is bad
amerikk....
---Begin Dump---
dump: /dev/dmp/comsky.dmp
> Patriotically yours,
> Surfer Bob
"I can still be a patriot and love terrorism man! Bush is a dummy, Ashcroft
is a nazi!"
_FleK
Tom Keener
>It never cease to amaze me...the beliefs people will insist that you
>have....
Woof woof. So little bow-wow came out to play?
Here, let me toss you a stick.
---------------------------------------
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
Now, go fetch.../ \..liberal
Weekday Warrior
> "I can still be a patriot and love terrorism man! Bush is a dummy, Ashcroft
> is a nazi!"
>
> _FleK
It's not unpatriotic to disagree. Especially to disagree with someone
who is 100% entrenched in status quo dogma; whether they care to admit
it is a different issue.
PS., nowhere did I say, "Gore would do a better job." or "I wish
Clinton was here to get us out of this mess!"
FleK
"Weekday Warrior" <man...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7f95a845.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > "I can still be a patriot and love terrorism man! Bush is a dummy,
Ashcroft
> > is a nazi!"
> >
> > _FleK
>
> It's not unpatriotic to disagree. Especially to disagree with someone
> who is 100% entrenched in status quo dogma; whether they care to admit
> it is a different issue.
That's just your problem: You can't understand that there's someone out
there who thinks for themselves, has *seen* some of this shit go down, and
yet is willing to admit the status of our reality.
You seriously need to wake up, it's so in fashion right now to say exactly
what you're saying. Your post reads like a talking points fax from Barbra
Streisand.
_FleK
Weekday Warrior
> "Weekday Warrior" <man...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7f95a845.02100...@posting.google.com...
> We can and will support the benevolent factions, suppress and kill the
> militant factions.
I think we agree on these issues more than you want to admit, just the
origin of our point of view and "secondary concerns" are different.
>
> It must be done, sit down, put your seatbelt on...when nothing happens, you
> can thank me(but like hippies spitting on Vietnam draftees, you probably
> will not).
That was unnecessary. There is a difference between NOT "going along"
with our president in committing 20,000 airborne troops to an urban
combat zone without a *clear* mission and certain casualties, and
disrespecting/dishonoring those 20,000 men and women once it's decided
that they'll go there, and especially once they're in combat. That's
where Vietnam-era hippies were most clearly proven to be short-sighted
little, upper class brats. "Waaaah, you're a soldier, we hate you,
waaaah." Idiotic. All that Jane Fonda nonsense with her visiting NVA
camps, ridiculous. What was she thinking? I imagine you've noticed
that the voices of, "What about the Iraqi children?" have been
silenced in favor of, "What about our young men/women that may come
back in bodybags? Is this conflict WORTH IT?"
I think it's a valid question to ask. And even in Iraq, the answer
*may be* "Yes." I'm just not convinced yet, and won't defer to GW's
infinite wisdom until he "shows us the money" or he commits troops,
one or the other. Then he'll have my total support. Not until then.
FleK
"Tom Keener" <keen...@cts.com_but_not_this_part> wrote in message
news:3d9df76d....@nntp.cts.com...
FleK
"Weekday Warrior" <man...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7f95a845.02100...@posting.google.com...
>
> > It must be done, sit down, put your seatbelt on...when nothing happens,
you
> > can thank me(but like hippies spitting on Vietnam draftees, you probably
> > will not).
>
> That was unnecessary. There is a difference between NOT "going along"
> with our president in committing 20,000 airborne troops to an urban
> combat zone without a *clear* mission and certain casualties, and
> disrespecting/dishonoring those 20,000 men and women once it's decided
> that they'll go there, and especially once they're in combat.
Agreed. How can I put this? Assuming that we're going to go trudging
through the hostile streets of Baghdad shows 'baggage' in your though
process. You're assuming that the coup of military strategy in Afghanistan
was a one-off, that Bush is stupid(TM) and could have never signed off on
something like this on purpose. This war will be more conventional in many
ways than Afghanistan, and less in some. Before Afghanistan, what were you
saying? Were you one of those that were carrying on about how the Soviets
got bogged down? About the British, and the Romans, and the Mongols, etc
etc???
Assuming that the Afghanistan model worked because of luck will lead you to
this, and I think it's where your thought-process on Iraq is breaking down;
vis a' vis the military campaign.
That's
> where Vietnam-era hippies were most clearly proven to be short-sighted
> little, upper class brats. "Waaaah, you're a soldier, we hate you,
> waaaah." Idiotic. All that Jane Fonda nonsense with her visiting NVA
> camps, ridiculous. What was she thinking?
Probably the same thing Bonyers and his cohorts were thinking when they were
whining about Bush in Iraq. I am not exaggerating when I say that I think
he should be hung for treason. If allowing yourself to be a propaganda tool
for a rogue enemy state isn't treason, wtf is?
> that the voices of, "What about the Iraqi children?" have been
> silenced in favor of, "What about our young men/women that may come
> back in bodybags? Is this conflict WORTH IT?"
Yes, what about the Iraqi children? Those that can't get food and meds
because Saddam uses billions in aid money to research NBC weapons? What
about them? (great point!) Ask those in the military. You know, when this
comes up in debate, I must relay to you that it amuses those actually *in*
the service when social elieetist liberals like 'Donahue' start spouting off
about sending our 'best and brightest' to die. If you notice, it *isn't*
the moms and dads of these soldiers saying that. I always make it a point
to ask those playing the "our soldiers in bodybags, and their mom and dads"
card: "Does your daugher plan on joining the airborne after studying law at
Harvard"? If they start the draft again (ain't gonna happen in our lifetime
unless aliens invade, it is thus archived), get back to me,
otherwise...leave it up to them to bring up their own concerns. I make my
wife and family proud, they don't spend time whining about my safety.
> I think it's a valid question to ask. And even in Iraq, the answer
> *may be* "Yes." I'm just not convinced yet, and won't defer to GW's
> infinite wisdom until he "shows us the money" or he commits troops,
> one or the other. Then he'll have my total support. Not until then.
I *must* ask: what would be 'showing you the money'? May I remind you that
we didn't have full and total evidence that UBL committed the mass slaughter
of 9/11 until *after* the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan? May I
remind you that there are still people who say that we should not have
driven al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan? Isn't it evident that al-Qaeda has had
a hard time getting its shit together since the 'competants' are hiding
under beds in Pakistan?
Iraq is the easiest way to forment a positive change in the Mid-East. What
better way to turn the tide politically than snuffing out a rogue nation who
has broken the terms of a cease-fire agreement, is aquiring nuclear weapons,
has tried to assasinate our former President Bush, and who has fingerprints
all over American deaths over the past decade?
_FleK
rodNDtube
AND warm. I think the loozers are out in Calif. Just the law of averages
at work ;) Waddya think, Flek?
FleK
"rodNDtube" <rrod...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.93.1021005135911.6942A-100000@mail...
> The "average surf" this week along the Atlantic seaboard has been decent
> AND warm. I think the loozers are out in Calif. Just the law of averages
> at work ;) Waddya think, Flek?
>
Yeah, the 'go get some surf' thing was especially funny.
I'm so damn sunburned I can barely move :]
_FleK
X
No couple may have more than one child until world population is reduced.
No couple may have more than two children after world population is reduced.
With the human population reduced say, a hundredfold or a thousandfold,
there
will be plenty of land and food for all, since we have reached a level of
sophistication
where we don't need a lot of people to do the work. And no one has to die
for it...
However, since we aren't wired that way, population will continue to go up
and up, and
the standard of living will get worse and worse, until some crash happens.
We are the
sheep in the predator/prey model, except there's no predator.
"Weekday Warrior" <man...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7f95a845.02100...@posting.google.com...
Weekday Warrior
> >
> > It's not unpatriotic to disagree. Especially to disagree with someone
> > who is 100% entrenched in status quo dogma; whether they care to admit
> > it is a different issue.
>
>
> That's just your problem: You can't understand that there's someone out
> there who thinks for themselves, has *seen* some of this shit go down, and
> yet is willing to admit the status of our reality.
So, your position is what? Black ops sniper? Demolitions? Counteragent
elimination? What exactly have you seen that gives you this
omniscience you speak of? You speak with a lack of humility VERY
unlike someone who has really seen large-scale death and carnage.
>
> You seriously need to wake up, it's so in fashion right now to say exactly
> what you're saying. Your post reads like a talking points fax from Barbra
> Streisand.
1) I hate hollywood liberal mouthpieces, they're idiots, if you would
have actually *read* my last post, you would have gathered that. 2) By
comparison, your post reads like a talking points memo from G.W.'s PR
staff. I've never closed my mind to possibilities I disagree with. Why
do you? 3) "so in fashion?"....boy, you really have your ear to the
ground on the public opinion front....NOT. Almost everyone I know is
balls-out in favor of the war, because G.W. said it's best, and a
President would never lie (liberal or conservative), so Rah Rah Rah!!!
Bomb the bejesus out of them! Go Team!
Whatever, joker. Enjoy replying to your own threads.
rodNDtube
to one day savor some of his best. Also, I like splitting the peaks with
him - he goes right, I go left ;)
P.S. Flek, re: the Iraqi War Revisited... getting away from the political
spin on the war and accepting the fact that some kind of intervention will
take place, as a seasoned veteran and war planner what kind of strategic
campaign would you propose?
- R2
On 5 Oct 2002, Weekday Warrior wrote:
<snip snip>
> 1) I hate hollywood
But I bet you love reggae and ska.
> (2) comparison, your post reads like a talking points memo
> from G.W.'s PR staff.
LOL.
> 3) "so in fashion?"
War as a fashion statement. LOL, but really sad.
FleK
> Weekday... whatever Flek's politics, he is a super-chef and you may want
> to one day savor some of his best. Also, I like splitting the peaks with
> him - he goes right, I go left ;)
? I go however the wave goes. I'm a goofy-foot though, so frontside is
left for me too. If you're prone, do you still call it 'frontside'?
>
> P.S. Flek, re: the Iraqi War Revisited... getting away from the political
> spin on the war and accepting the fact that some kind of intervention will
> take place, as a seasoned veteran and war planner what kind of strategic
> campaign would you propose?
I've never said I was a seasoned vetern. I've never even said that I've
been under fire. Rod, why do you feel you need to exaggerate to try to put
somebody down? You know I'm a 'stupid jarhead', and not a military
planner....right? If I'm a seasoned veteren in anything, it's having my ear
to the ground in other parts of this world politically and socially, so when
BK started this ill-informed rant I thought I could lend some expirence to
the debate. So yeah, now you should joke about me being Gen. Patton, or
joke about my service at the Chosin resivoir.
...that said, I favor the top-down model; it has very many plusses. That is
only one component of what I believe is going to happen, but you asked what
I thought should happen, not what I thought was going to happen.
_FleK
Steve M
FleK wrote:
> "rodNDtube" <rrod...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.93.1021005210929.23228A-100000@mail...
>
>>Weekday... whatever Flek's politics, he is a super-chef and you may want
>>to one day savor some of his best. Also, I like splitting the peaks with
>>him - he goes right, I go left ;)
>>
>
> ? I go however the wave goes. I'm a goofy-foot though, so frontside is
> left for me too. If you're prone, do you still call it 'frontside'?
>
My political ascii-interpretation-ability tells me Rod was
using a political pun.
Later,
Steve
Craig
My point(s) previously were that Enron and other brokers
of energy provided on a wholesale basis cheaper energy
to those who decided to purchase it. That Enron chose
to cheat and do criminal acts in the process is not what
I support. Certainly the state is less apt and less efficient
at brokering energy than are (regulated) private enterprise.
That California was so unable to moderate it efficiently is...
AND WITHOUT MODERATING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.... is
well... their own fault. I do not support such activity.
My position hasn't ever changed. California was better off with the
Big Reg Cars of the Pacific Electric than it is now with
an exclusive monopoly of cars and freeways as transportation
alternatives.
I ride the subway. I drive my car maybe once per week.
Well, how many gallons of gas do you use per week?????
So, given that (Tom) you don't seem to like private involvement
in the energy industry, what else do you propose?
How much do really you understand about it's pricing???
Or perhaps we would ALL be better off if the STATE controlled these
matters, right??? Stalin???
keen...@cts.com_but_not_this_part (Tom Keener) wrote in message news:<3d9d43be....@nntp.cts.com>...
Tom Keener
>Tom,
>My point(s) previously were that Enron and other brokers
>of energy provided on a wholesale basis cheaper energy
>to those who decided to purchase it. That Enron chose
>to cheat and do criminal acts in the process is not what
>I support. Certainly the state is less apt and less efficient
>at brokering energy than are (regulated) private enterprise.
>That California was so unable to moderate it efficiently is...
>AND WITHOUT MODERATING CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.... is
>well... their own fault. I do not support such activity.
No. In large part, it was FERC's fault. Since it was interstate
transport, California did not have the authority to control it. But
Bush's FERC repeatedly refused to do anything about it. It has finally
agreed that what happened was criminal, and charged El Paso, among
others.
>My position hasn't ever changed. California was better off with the
>Big Reg Cars of the Pacific Electric than it is now with
>an exclusive monopoly of cars and freeways as transportation
>alternatives.
It's hardly a monopoly. Public transport may be in sad shape in
California, but it exists. Big Red was only in L.A. San Diego has more
commuter rail now than it did then.
>I ride the subway. I drive my car maybe once per week.
>Well, how many gallons of gas do you use per week?????
Since the overwhelming majority of my driving is on a 45mpg
motorcycle, I'll bet my gas mileage is better than yours. I drive my
truck ~ 3 times a month.
>So, given that (Tom) you don't seem to like private involvement
>in the energy industry, what else do you propose?
I'm really curious what I wrote that makes you think this. I never
said I don't like private involvement. But there is so much
overwhelming evidence that private corporations will abuse the public
trust at every opportunity that serious government oversight and
regulation is mandatory. That you include "(regulated)" in your first
paragraph indicates that you agree with me, so we're only quibbling
about the amount. When the California crisis was happening, you
repeatedly asserted that the energy companies had done nothing illegal
and that a free market would right itself. We now know that those
companies did illegally rip off the public of millions of dollars. The
evidence supports my belief that we need more, not less oversight. And
Bush's people in FERC and the SEC finally seem to agree.
>How much do really you understand about it's pricing???
More than enough. Especially since the company I work for is a major
supplier to the oil & gas industry. Our equipment powers on & offshore
rigs, pipeline pumping stations and electrical power gen systems. We
have a commanding market share in every major oil field in the world.
(And yeah, during the crisis, my company did very well, because of
those power gen systems.)
>Or perhaps we would ALL be better off if the STATE controlled these
>matters, right??? Stalin???
Stalin? You've gotta be kidding me. I can't believe you think that's
the alternative. It's laissez faire capitalism or Stalinism, eh? I
think you're smarter than that.
fannie fhantom
> Tom... My position hasn't ever [sic] changed. California was better off with > the Big Reg Cars of the Pacific Electric than it is now with....
Well, Craig, you've hit the head right on the nail. Several months
back there was this fellow, posting on this ng named BIGKOOK, who
claimed they sank those big red trollies smack dab in the center of
the Catalina Channel (a.k.a. Santa Monica Bay). Was the BIGKOOK right
or wrong? And how does he know all this?
longboard_phantom
rodNDtube
> "rodNDtube" <rrod...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.93.1021005210929.23228A-100000@mail...
> > Weekday... whatever Flek's politics, he is a super-chef and you may want
> > to one day savor some of his best. Also, I like splitting the peaks with
> > him - he goes right, I go left ;)
>
> ? I go however the wave goes. I'm a goofy-foot though, so frontside is
> left for me too. If you're prone, do you still call it 'frontside'?
>
> >
> > P.S. Flek, re: the Iraqi War Revisited... getting away from the political
> > spin on the war and accepting the fact that some kind of intervention will
> > take place, as a seasoned veteran and war planner <~ g> what
> > kind of strategic
> > campaign would you propose?
>
> I've never said I was a seasoned vetern. I've never even said that I've
> been under fire. Rod, why do you feel you need to exaggerate to try to put
> somebody down?
Well... that ain't exactly true, but I added the rhetorical smiley with
the about sign to straigten it out ;)
> You know I'm a 'stupid jarhead', and not a military
> planner....right? If I'm a seasoned veteren in anything, it's having my ear
> to the ground in other parts of this world politically and socially, so when
> BK started this ill-informed rant I thought I could lend some expirence to
> the debate. So yeah, now you should joke about me being Gen. Patton, or
> joke about my service at the Chosin resivoir.
>
> ...that said, I favor the top-down model; it has very many plusses.
Please expand on what you mean my this...
> That is
> only one component of what I believe is going to happen, but you asked what
> I thought should happen, not what I thought was going to happen.
On target.
> _FleK
rodNDtube
Four Foons for SteveM :) But you realize that Flek wanted to emphasize
his "goofyness."
P.S. SteveM, last Thursday was alot of fun in oily glass 3 footers and
kinda tubular for VaB. Friday was a VAS so Ed and I did not hook up on our
mutual birth day.
FleK
> On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, FleK wrote:
>
> >
> > ...that said, I favor the top-down model; it has very many plusses.
>
> Please expand on what you mean my this...
It's what's been called 'parallel inside-out', but I call it 'top-down'. A
swift strike on Baghdad and several outlying compounds; operators rappelling
down into 5 or 6 buildings with the aim of killing Hussien and top
leiutenants. Snipers orbiting overhead, ac-130s providing anti-vehicle
support with fighter jets providing long cover in some of the more remote
areas of infil. I, personally, have a hard-on for wanting to be a part of
something like this. This would happen in conjunction with a 24 hrs of
massive bombing of key command centers and and comm. links. In the best of
scenerios, the Iraqi command structure would be shocked into stasis as they
were in the early days of the Gulf War, and would effectively be
decapitated.
In the worst of scenerios, if intel. were futzed, they'd have to fight their
way to other buildings altogether to do the job. On their way, they'd
probably run into resistance of varying degrees. This would happen at
night, with the power out though, and during massive bombing raids so I
don't think the resistance would be all that effective.
The positive ramifications of this include the fact that we won't have to
'traditionally' go after bridges, railroads, power plants, water facilities
and other infrastructures just to kill a handful of guys, then rebuild them
a couple weeks later. Civilian casualities are minimized. Most importantly
is the psychological effect this would have in deterring other leaders that
would want to quietly support terrorism (Saudi and Syria, I'm looking in
your direction). It puts a brutalitarian leader on notice that the United
States can land on his roof in the dead of night without warning, kill you,
and demolish your government. No months long buildup (which we've vastly
improved since 1991), no bloodless airstries..no propaganda for the TV
campers, nada. More positives is that we don't have to slaughter (again)
soldiers in the North and South that don't really want to be there, and will
make good citizens in a post-Saddam government.
This will probably be what actually happens, used in conjunction with a more
traditional method of 'slicing' into Iraq with armored divisions, and
surrounding Baghdad.
_FleK
superfly®
> Stalin? You've gotta be kidding me. I can't believe you think that's
> the alternative. It's laissez faire capitalism or Stalinism, eh? I
> think you're smarter than that.
Maybe that's where you went wrong?
Reich Fuhrer Kemnutz. Your posts seem to be getting progressively
desperate on your way to newsgroup futility. It's time to come clean.
You lost your muthaphuckin ASS in the market didn't ya?
The Supreme Court
>Or perhaps we would ALL be better off if the STATE controlled these
>matters, right??? Stalin???
>
Ouch. Bad choice of villians. I get the whole "state control" thing you were
going for but using Stalin (a notorious murderer of millions) to equate with
your little state control energy arguement - pretty bad!
__________________________________________________________________
Tonight I will rage against the forces of fate
You best get outta my way
I'm not gonna fade away slowly
-- Pennywise, Searching
westoz
>
> "rodNDtube" <rrod...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.93.1021007104845.15948A-100000@mail...
> > On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, FleK wrote:
> >
>
> In the worst of scenerios, if intel. were futzed, they'd have to fight
their
> way to other buildings altogether to do the job. On their way, they'd
> probably run into resistance of varying degrees. This would happen at
> night, with the power out though, and during massive bombing raids so I
> don't think the resistance would be all that effective.
> _FleK
>
Finally got around to seeing blackhawk down, sounds familiar.
Tom
FleK
"westoz" <wes...@xxxxwestnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3da31cce$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...
>
> "FleK" <flek*****@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:%djo9.61670$g73.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >
yes, to the untrained eye.
_FleK
westoz
Tom
@lex
> It's what's been called 'parallel
> inside-out', but I call it 'top-down'. A
> swift strike on Baghdad and several
> outlying compounds; operators rappelling
> down into 5 or 6 buildings with the aim
> of killing Hussien and top
> leiutenants. Snipers orbiting overhead,
> ac-130s providing anti-vehicle
> support with fighter jets providing long
> cover in some of the more remote
> areas of infil. I, personally, have a
> hard-on for wanting to be a part of
> something like this.
That boy needs therapy.
@lex
Rico
"@lex" <pors...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:antul3$9ck$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net...
You guys should be glad that Georgie Patton didn't repress his *inner
warrior*.
Rico
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand
ready to do violence in their behalf."
George Orwell
@lex
"Rico" <fba...@attbiteme.com> wrote in message
> news:jTAo9.80618$DN4.12249@sccrnsc01...
>
> You guys should be glad that Georgie
> Patton didn't repress his *inner
> warrior*.
>
> Rico
> "People sleep peaceably in their beds
> at night only because rough men stand
> ready to do violence in their behalf."
> George Orwell
I do make a difference between fighting and killing when one thinks he has
to and admitting having an hard-on for doing it.
@lex
FleK
@lex sleeps peaceably in his bed
at night only because pansy
frenchmen stand ready to surrender
on his behalf.
_FleK
@lex
> @lex sleeps peaceably in his bed
> at night only because pansy
> frenchmen stand ready to surrender
> on his behalf.
Flek is wanking in his bed at night, thinking of how nice and fun that would
be to kill people.
@lex
FleK
> Flek is wanking in his bed at night, thinking of how nice and fun that
would
> be to kill people.
>
alex is wanking in her bed at night, thinking of how nice and fun that would
be to surrender.
_FleK
The Supreme Court
>alex is wanking in her bed at night, thinking of how nice and fun that would
>be to surrender.
LOL. You all and your politics.
But THAT above was funny. Even you gotta admit that @lex. He got ya. LOL...
Süs
wes...@xxxxwestnet.com.au wrote on 10/7/02 4:59 PM:
Süs
wrote on 10/8/02 3:49 AM:
"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life." - Eric
Hoffer
The scary part is that he will probably get his (erotic) fantasy fulfilled
... damn ... pity the poor dope who has to fight next to him.
oh .... btw ... hope he doesn't get hurt: "Bush Threatens Veto of Defense
Bill -- President Wants Costly New Disabled Military Pension Benefits
Eliminated"
FleK
action after 9/11...while the WTC rubble was still burning no less.
I debated not even resonding since this would just feed into your (erotic)
desire to be disciplined. Have another twinkie, sus...freedom is free!
weeeeeeee!
_FleK
--
http://www.payvand.com/press/
"Süs" <s...@lava.net> wrote in message news:B9C8B813.257A%s...@lava.net...
@lex
The thing is that you don't know me well enough to say stuff like that
accurately, you just keep on throwing 60+ years old pointless references
about my country.
On the other hand, you don't even want to admit you see a difference between
*getting sexually excited* about killing people, which is what you stated in
a previous post, and simply doing your duty. That's why I repeat that as a
human being, you would be better off following a therapy. I am serious, this
is the kind of things you should not keep to yourself, nor only writing it
in a ng.
@lex
FleK
before take the same mindset as these guys:
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/ww2/weeping.jpg , allow me to explain
something:
I believe that the current leadership in Iraq (Hussien) had a hand in 9/11.
I also believe that they had a hand in several other bombings here in the
US. I also believe they are developing a nuclear weapon. I also believe
they are a rogue state. I also know that Hussien has never had a weapon he
didn't use offensively. I also know that they direct billions in aid
dollars to research of their NBC weapons programs...in leiu of feeding their
citizens with that money.
So he's killing innocents here, and killing more innocents there. As soon
as we go in, we can feed them, and get them the meds they need. Barely
reported was the humanitarian disaster averted last year in Afghanistan by
*OUR* airplanes taking off from air bases in Germany, refueling with *OUR*
fuel on the way, dropping *OUR* food by the ton into impoverished areas
(culturally-sensitive food at that), refueling again with *OUR* fuel from
*OUR* tankers...expending millions of dollars per trip. These planes landed
and took right back off in a conveyer-belt fashion not seen since the Berlin
airlift.....(hmmmmmm!).
There are hardly better things a country like Afghanistan can expirence than
having us invade. Women are free to study, and terrorists are either dead
or unable to stay in the same place two nights in a row to plan further
deaths, and hungry people have a place to go for food. The Afghanis are
more appreciative than you are, Alex. Stories are starting to make it back
to the 'States that tribes are trying to elect some of our SOF guys as town
elders...because they trust in them, because they are thankful. They know
something you don't, Alex...who the good guys are.
You're so blind and stuck in a loop of ineffectuality that you can't see
what I actually said. The reason I love the plan I outlined is because we
don't have to spend weeks destroying infrastructure such as fresh water
plants, electrical plants, bridges, etc. Moreover, a quick coup means we
can get in and feed starving people. And really...so what if I want to pop
some clown that's tried to assasinate our President, lobbed missles into
population centers in Saudi, Kuwait, and Israel?
At some point, killing someone is the most you can do for the good of
humanity.
And when you have a choice such as this: either kill a handful of seriously
bad guys, or watch them bomb Tel Aviv with VX, killing thousands...and you
must kill these handful of guys, who do they send?
Limp-wristed, pointy-headed poffers like you, Alex? No, they send ugly
bastards like me that know how to jump out of airplanes in the dark and
crawl through the mud with a knife in my teeth. So what if I "believe in my
own bullshit"...when the call is made, me and people like me will go and
die, while you'll stay safe in France, or will you?
_FleK
--
http://www.payvand.com/press/
"@lex" <pors...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:ao0iga$j2h$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net...
@lex
> Alex, it's like this, and you can
> argue the particulars all you want,
I am wondering why you bother discussing then!
Flek, please read carefully what I write before sinking into your paranoid
aggro monologue, will you? I did not react to the Iraq situation, did I? All
right then. You did not even know what I think of it but you can't help
throwing shit at me (I hope some of your colleagues have stronger nerves
than yours).
No, I reacted to a specific statement you made, regarding the hard-on you
have just to think about going for a military operation implying killing
people (this may be a lapsus, whatever).
Stop mixing everything please, once again you don't have a clue about what I
think of the geopolitical situation in the middle east.
@lex
FleK
--
http://www.payvand.com/press/
"@lex" <pors...@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:ao1ipr$bju$1...@s1.read.news.oleane.net...
>
>
> Stop mixing everything please, once again you don't have a clue about what
I
> think of the geopolitical situation in the middle east.
>
I don't really care, alex, really. If you can't see that there's *ever* a
humanitarian, as gross and horrible as it is, reason to kill someone, then
we just differ. The difference is that I'm pro-active and you whine.
_FleK
Andy
<ski...@blakestah.com> wrote in message
news:l1Zo9.2129$MP5.22...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> FleK <flek*****@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > I don't really care, alex, really. If you can't see that there's
> > *ever* a humanitarian, as gross and horrible as it is, reason to kill
> > someone, then we just differ. The difference is that I'm pro-active
> > and you whine.
>
> gov't doesn't care in the slightest. This mission is not humanitarian in
> its motivations. A fourth of some African nations are dying of AIDS -
> doing something about THAT would be humanitarian. Women are being
> raped and stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage; doing
> something about THAT would be humanitarian. Religious repression is par
> for the course in China. Farmers are denied their livelihood because of
> their race in Afrika. The world is full of humanitarian causes that are
> totally unaddressed by the US government.
>
> The Iraq action is motivated by oil and public opinion in an election
year.
>
> -PA
>
Aww come on Dave, we ARE the leaders in humanitarianism for all the world.
Why remember we went into Angola, Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, East Timor (gosh
especially those countries in equatorial Africa) you name it we went in and
all the locals were happy, yup...just good ol' USA. Yeah we went in when
things first turned sour, took those burning tires from around the people in
the street (what were those called), gave em' a big hug, and invested the
capitol to make these countries more like our own.
Yes the one and only perfect country (excuse me I'm all choked up).
Yeah we went in and did things for the good of the world, personal interests
aside. Ahh remember that ruffian Papa Doc, we went in and made things right,
matter of fact we have done such a good job, in some countries they let our
companies come in and extract mineral resources without having to pay taxes.
They love us so much they wear our tee-shirts.
Come on hold my hand and join me in singing "we are the world".
Andy
rodNDtube
> FleK <flek*****@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > I don't really care, alex, really. If you can't see that there's
> > *ever* a humanitarian, as gross and horrible as it is, reason to kill
> > someone, then we just differ. The difference is that I'm pro-active
> > and you whine.
>
> Equally atrocious things occur elsewhere regularly, and the US
> gov't doesn't care in the slightest. This mission is not humanitarian in
> its motivations. A fourth of some African nations are dying of AIDS -
> doing something about THAT would be humanitarian. Women are being
> raped and stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage; doing
> something about THAT would be humanitarian. Religious repression is par
> for the course in China. Farmers are denied their livelihood because of
> their race in Afrika. The world is full of humanitarian causes that are
> totally unaddressed by the US government.
>
> The Iraq action is motivated by oil and public opinion in an election year.
>
> -PA
I will break out an Oktoberfest later today! Oh too true. All you left
out were all the other countries developing nuclear-biological-chemical
and other weapons of mass destruction and terror... premptive strike is
Bush's proactive inverse-domino theory strategy.
Given this criteria, Flek, what are the 10 next countries on the list?
P.S. Just for some ascii confusion... I fully supported Israel's
preemptive strike against Iraq some 10+ yrs ago. And I like the way they
did it.
FleK
<ski...@blakestah.com> wrote in message
news:l1Zo9.2129$MP5.22...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> FleK <flek*****@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > I don't really care, alex, really. If you can't see that there's
> > *ever* a humanitarian, as gross and horrible as it is, reason to kill
> > someone, then we just differ. The difference is that I'm pro-active
> > and you whine.
>
> Equally atrocious things occur elsewhere regularly, and the US
> gov't doesn't care in the slightest.
Humanitarian for us *and* them. Them to be fed, us to not be nuked. The US
sends out more billions in aid than many other countries put together.
This mission is not humanitarian in
> its motivations. A fourth of some African nations are dying of AIDS -
As sad as that is, AIDS has enjoyed success in Africa because of local
customs and immoral behavior towards women. And yes, I'm making a moral
judgement <GASP> raping your sister is common but wrong.
> doing something about THAT would be humanitarian.
Millions in aid, meet mr. blake, mr. blake, meet millions in aid.
Women are being
> raped and stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage; doing
> something about THAT would be humanitarian.
Somethings happen via force, most things can be handled diplomaticaly. Of
other good things that came about because of 9/11 is that the West is paying
attention, and applying social and political pressure. Hell, we've even got
Bill Clinton doing his part to save women in Africa.
Religious repression is par
> for the course in China.
Right, China is very interesting though...ideas of liberty are taking hold.
We *could* disengage from China, which I used to believe was the
answer...and they could slip back. Or, we can stay engaged, keep the money
flowing, keep the culture transfer going, and it looks as though they'll
come around. A friend tells me that it's changed noticably in the past 3
years. You can stand on a metro car and talk negatively about Jhang, where
a few years ago you woulda' been jailed for it. People are carrying
palm-pilots, accessing anti-government sites, and running their own
Pro-Democracy intranets on the Universities.
Farmers are denied their livelihood because of
> their race in Afrika.
I actually thought it would hit the fan over there w/ the whole Mugabe
situation this summer... It's still gonna hit, and guess who's going to
make up for the untrained farmers?
The world is full of humanitarian causes that are
> totally unaddressed by the US government.
Like I said, some things can be worked diplomatically. Mugabe hasn't been
ejecting farmers based on race for 11 years. A full scale assault on China
won't help. We've been sending teachers, condoms, food, books etc to Africa
for years, it really hasn't helped. We can't step aside and throw our hands
up if Saddam doesn't want to follow the proceedures he signed during the
gulf war cease-fire.
> The Iraq action is motivated by oil and public opinion in an election
year.
>
Bush has promised no action until after the elections. So what if voters
know how their representatives act when it comes to war? Of course it's
political. It's obvious that Democrats know they're out of step with
America when it comes to this, and don't want it brought up. If America
agreed with them, they'd be happy to have it as an election issue. They'd
be *proud* of Democrats going to Baghdad and traitorously railing against
our President in the Capitol of our foe...instead of distancing themselves
from them.
Oil is an issue, of course. It's a vital interest of this nation to have
the free flow of oil at market prices. NOTE: with all our hardware and
manpower we could take Saudi oilfields by lunchtime, and never have to pay
for oil again. Don't you think if it were *really* "about oil" that we'd do
that? No, we turn the country over to local leaders, as in Afghanistan.
Our goal is to make no land a resting place for terrorists. Iraq is a state
sponsor of terrorism. Period.
_FleK
--
http://www.payvand.com/press/
FleK
news:Ct_o9.2461$NL2.14...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> FleK <flek*****@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> An inside-out attack to assassinate their leaders and install
> a government friendly to the US. Isn't it obvious ?
>
...maybe if you're an over-cynical anti-American asshat. The Chinese
government *is* friendly to the US government. China is not a rogue nation
(hell, even your buddy, Clinton sold missle-guidance tech to 'em for
campaign donations, w00t!).
Our diplomatic options are nil in Iraq. If they were the same for China,
and they were building a nuke and were likely to smuggle it into the US
within days of getting it...I'd be all for it.
_FleK
@lex
> I don't really care, alex, really. If you can't see that there's *ever* a
> humanitarian, as gross and horrible as it is, reason to kill someone, then
> we just differ. The difference is that I'm pro-active and you whine.
We don't differ on the fact of possibly killing someone. If my kid was
murdered under my eyes I could certainly kill his murderer with my own hands
right away. But thinking about this does *not* give me a hard-on. At all.
And stop saying that I whine, you're making yourself ridiculous.
@lex
B_K
> "B_K" <b...@sanonofre.com> wrote in message
> news:3D9BEA80...@sanonofre.com...
> >
> >
> > I t is sad and sick.
> >
> > Hey Flek!!
> >
> > You suck
> >
>
> ...your mom.
>
> _FleK(It's funny because he's an alcoholic)
Funny thing.
When George Bush Sr.(and I use that term loosely, Texans do not have much of a clue
as what a Jr. means, let alone when to remove ones hat), lost his bid for
re-election, he asked "why?".
The resounding answer was, "It's the economy stupid"
Blubba Jr. will run this country's economy into the ground (already has), and will
get hundreds of your youths killed in the mean time.
And for what?
Oil?
Flek has a problem with alcohol.
Geo W's little girls drink all the time, underage and all.
That is OK?
Fuck you Flek.
Fuck you and the trash truck you rode in on.
Who the fuck are you to pass judgment on anyone?
Self rites right wing piece o crap.
Bad Monkey
dollars to study, and hungry people have a quick coup means we don't
have a weapon he didn't use offensively. I believe they send?
Limp-wristed, pointy-headed poffers like you, Flek? No, they send?
Limp-wristed, pointy-headed poffers like me that they direct billions
in Saudi, Kuwait, and crawl through the good of airplanes taking off
from *OUR* fuel from *OUR* tankers...expending millions of guys, who
do for the ton into population centers in a conveyer-belt fashion not
seen since the 'States that the same place to assasinate our SOF guys
are.
You're so blind and crawl through the mud with *OUR* airplanes taking
off from air bases in them, and feed them, because we can feed
starving people. And when you can't see what I actually said.
The Afghanis are more appreciative than having us invade. Women are
free to make it back off from air bases in Iraq, something you have a
knife in the same place two nights in aid dollars per trip. These
planes landed and took right back to plan further deaths, and people
like this, and stuck in and Israel? At some of their citizens with
*OUR* fuel from air bases in aid dollars to pop some point, killing
more innocents there. As soon as fresh water plants, electrical
plants, bridges, etc. Moreover, a hand in a country like this, and
Israel? At some clown that's tried to make it back off from air bases
in the humanitarian disaster averted last year in Afghanistan can
expirence than having us invade. Women are developing a place to go
for the mud with *OUR* food by *OUR* fuel from *OUR* airplanes taking
off in the Berlin airlift.....(hmmmmmm!).
And really...so what if I actually said. The Afghanis are starting to
stay safe in a conveyer-belt fashion not seen since the meds they are
either kill these guys:
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/ginsberg/images/portrait_t.jpg,
allow me and feed them, and Israel? There are developing a nuclear
weapon. I also know that you have a conveyer-belt fashion not seen
since the good of feeding their NBC weapons programs...in leiu of
guys, who do for food. The reason I want to elect some point, killing
thousands...and you can get them the humanitarian disaster averted
last year in a country like me will you?
"FleK" <flek*****@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message news:<fXXo9.104614$O8.24...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
> Alex, it's like this, and you can argue the particulars all you want, but
> before take the same mindset as these guys:
> http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/ww2/weeping.jpg , allow me to explain
> something:
...
westoz
"Bad Monkey" <bad.m...@occultmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea275efc.02101...@posting.google.com...
Tom.
@lex
> Made me dizzy trying to read that.
Same here. I prefer Flek's version, at least I can understand it.
@lex
FleK
"B_K" <b...@sanonofre.com> wrote in message
news:3DA5107C...@sanonofre.com...
>
> Funny thing.
>
> When George Bush Sr.(and I use that term loosely, Texans do not have much
of a clue
> as what a Jr. means, let alone when to remove ones hat)
Sorda like how Californians don't know how to quit electing asshats to the
Governersip?
, lost his bid for
> re-election, he asked "why?".
>
> The resounding answer was, "It's the economy stupid"
Okay, stop. It wasn't the economy, it was for the same reason Clinton was
able to dictate that this major problem was there (it wasn't), and that he
could fix it (he couldn't). Clinton was a prize bullshitter, the Uber
politician, if you will. Will someone right now stand up and tell me that
Clinton isn't/wasn't completely and totally full of shit? I don't want you
to parrot the party line, ie: "all of them are full of shit" ... the party
line being to take everyone down with you, another Clinton forte'. Sure GWB
was a puss, couldn't stick to his guns, and got lazy, thinking that after 12
years he shouldn't have to continue educating people with the values of
conservatisim. Honestly, integrity, hard work, family, and the belief that
America is overall a force for good in the world. Clinton was the same
thing he said his enemies were: elietist and out of touch.
> Blubba Jr. will run this country's economy into the ground (already has),
and will
> get hundreds of your youths killed in the mean time.
What do you care if soldiers and Marines die? You've shown nothing but
disdain for this country, and its military arm. WTF do you care if they get
killed? You don't think or care for a minute about 'hundreds of
youths'...to you, they're 'jarheads'.
> And for what?
>
> Oil?
BK: 1991 called, it wants its argument back.
> Flek has a problem with alcohol.
>
> Geo W's little girls drink all the time, underage and all.
I don't have a problem with alcohol...but if you read your own posts sober,
you might.
> That is OK?
Yes.
> Fuck you Flek.
>
> Fuck you and the trash truck you rode in on.
>
> Who the fuck are you to pass judgment on anyone?
>
> Self rites right wing piece o crap.
>
BK, cry me a fuggin river. mkay? Stop whining, you're a grown man.
_FleK
--
http://www.payvand.com/press/
FleK
_FleK
--
http://www.payvand.com/press/
<ski...@blakestah.com> wrote in message
news:ibkp9.2805$2h6.25...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> FleK <flek*****@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > Sure GWB was a puss, couldn't stick to his guns, and got lazy,
> > thinking that after 12 years he shouldn't have to continue educating
> > people with the values of conservatisim. Honestly, integrity, hard
> > work, family, and the belief that America is overall a force for good
> > in the world.
>
> GWB was AWOL for eighteen months during Vietnam, which was conveniently
> ignored by the military.
>
> How can any military person have ANY respect for that ?
>
> -PA
>
>
Tim Maddux
> Sorda like how Californians don't know how to quit electing asshats to the
> Governersip?
Yeah, especially Reagan.
:P
--
Tim Maddux, Postdoctoral Investigator, WHOI
.-``'. "Absolute macrocosmic metaphysical truth is unalterably
.` .`~ and indisputibly on my side for all eternity and then
_.-' '._ some, you know, okay?"
FleK
<dbl...@blakestah.com> wrote in message
news:WYkp9.2822$Sx6.25...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> If by "accounted for", you mean "absent, without leave, without
> checking in, and working on friends of his father's political
> cmapaigns", then yes, he was accounted for.
>
> Just not by his direct military supervisors, who report that across long
> duty periods he never showed up for service.
>
> -PA
>
> PS.
>
> Confirmed by several news sources.
> http://members.tripod.com/~pearly-abraham/htmls/GWB2.html
>
I don't think I'm stretching it when I say that you're going to have to do
*alot* better than a tinfoil-hat website. Keep looking, you never know, you
may find something!
_FleK
--
http://www.payvand.com/press/
FleK
_FleK
--
http://www.payvand.com/press/
"Tim Maddux" <tbma...@whoi.edu> wrote in message
news:ao4l9b$jck$1...@baldur.whoi.edu...
VATICAN CITY
> > "B_K" <b...@sanonofre.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D9BEA80...@sanonofre.com...
> > > Hey Flek!!
> > > You suck
SUCKS WHAT?
> > ...yo momma bin laden.
> > _FleK(It's funny because he's an alcoholic)
> Funny thing.
> Blubba Jr. will run this country's economy into the ground (already has), and > get hundreds of your youths killed in the mean time.
> And for what?
> Oil?
> Flek has a problem with alcohol.
> Geo W's little girls drink all the time, underage and all.
WHERE?
> Fuck you Flek.
> Fuck you and the trash truck you rode in on.
SHOULDN'T THAT BE, YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON?
pope larry VIX