Veteran's Day; Thanks Guys
Thom Stewart
I do! Remember the "Twenty one Dollars a Day, Once a month!" That's
what we were paid for putting our lives on the line against the Jap &
Germans.
So all you people who have served in the Armed Forces; THANKS from one
of your own
AND: I've poured, "I'LL DRINK TO THAT!"
Ole Thom
JAXAshby
Scott Vernon
SV
"JAXAshby" <jaxa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041111222147...@mb-m23.aol.com...
SAIL LOCO
I remembered on the train boards where people seem to care.
SAILLOCO
Viet Nam '66'
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"
John Cairns
"Thom Stewart" <tas...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14872-41...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
Unless you live in a cave and don't have an access to a calendar or don't
live in the western world it's hard not to remember it's veteran's day,
Thom. We get a paid holiday (today), the union-sponsored veteran's group set
up their table at the front door to our plant, handing out something to
vets. I guess some of us might have the same problem that the folks who
sport the "support our troops" stickers on the bumpers of their large SUV's
(aah, the irony) How do you honor vets without appearing to be pro-war?
John Cairns
>
Gilligan
war (force) is the only solution. Otherwise don't deal with evil. Your
solutions would bring people like Noriega, Saddam Hussien, Hitler(remember
Chamberlain and appeasement), Stalin, Il Jung and others into greater and
greater power. Negotiate with the devil and lose!
Gilligan, a veteran
<OzOne> wrote in message news:hpbap0lheu5j1kg7q...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:39:38 GMT, "John Cairns"
> <jgcairn...@sbcglobal.net> scribbled thusly:
>
> >) How do you honor vets without appearing to be pro-war?
> >
> >John Cairns
>
> Difficult eh.
> Too many people seem to think that they can't be separated but IMHO,
> supporting and thanking those who suffered, died, or just turned out
> in no way condones the action of the Govt that may have moved them
> into that war.
>
> My grandfather was a highly decorated vet of 3 wars.
> He always maintained that war should be avoided at all cost and that
> the decision to go to war should be made by those who had actually
> been there, that they wouldn't be as eager as those who've never seen
> the carnage, and would go to far greater lenghth to pursue peaceful
> solutions.
>
>
>
>
>
> Oz1...of the 3 twins.
>
> I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.
Gilligan
Unless you have no principles.
<OzOne> wrote in message news:hpbap0lheu5j1kg7q...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:39:38 GMT, "John Cairns"
> <jgcairn...@sbcglobal.net> scribbled thusly:
>
> >) How do you honor vets without appearing to be pro-war?
> >
> >John Cairns
>
Overproof
<OzOne> wrote in message
> All very well until you start to look at the reasons for some of the
> wars..probably most of them.
> People wanting back what was theirs at some time in the past
With that premise in mind ... it would be wise to follow the path of total
genocide when at war.
We have been pitted and forged to Survive since before recorded history.
We have been taught by nature that to the victor go the spoils... that
history is written by the winners.
Now in the blink of an eye you wish to change a millennia of reinforcement
by suggesting that altruism should overtake basic survivalism?
Don't Hold Your Breath..... unless you care not for oxygen for the next 100
thousand years.
CM
Scout
cousin(s) Bill, Dwight.
Thanks to all my ancestor-soldiers, for being there from the beginning, and
staking out our own little piece of this insanity.
Thanks for telling Europe's nobility to bugger off. Thanks for trying to set
things right with the slaves even though you weren't slave owners. Thanks
for making us proud everytime America, right or wrong, placed the burden on
you.
And thanks again to you Dad, for making me understand when I was 18, that if
I was chosen to go to Viet Nam that I would be fighting for my family's
piece of America, and not for all the assholes who don't deserve to be here.
And finally, thanks to you West Point, for dangling the words 'Dulce et
Decorum est Pro Patria Mori' in my face and then turning me away for a heart
murmur.
Scout
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock--kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through the sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, bood-shod. All went lame, all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
of tired outstripped five nines that dropped behind.
Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!--An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin,
If you could hear at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth corrupted lungs
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend you would not say with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old lie: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.
- Wilfred Owen
Thom Stewart
You've grasped the moment that signifies the years of veterns service.
Thanks again!
Ole Thom
Joe
Well done Scout.
Wilferd Owen kenw the price of freedom.
He saw what it took.
He understood sacrafice.
It amazes me some here do not undertand the true cost of what veterans gave them.
Joe
JAXAshby
>them.
>
>Joe
>
oh, they understand alright. They just claim ignorance because they personally
are not up to the effort.
You and say they are just chickenshit, while they attempt to claim they are
some jetsam on the moral high ground.
guess which one the women prefer as the fathers of their children?
John Cairns
"Joe" <steelr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6d6c2e2.04111...@posting.google.com...
Even more amazing, you can read something like this a nod your head in
agreement, I guess you harbor the same anti-war sentiments that Owen did?
You DO know the meaning of the final words in Latin, right?
"Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori."
What Wifred Owen knew, was the futility and brutality of war, from watching
men being slaughtered like cattle. He knew that the only folks that benefit
from war are the politicians, generals, and industrialists.
And their sycophants.
John Cairns
JAXAshby
>from war are the politicians, generals, and industrialists.
>And their sycophants.
It appears you don't not know what a sycophant is. You might wish to drop that
word from your analogy.
Scout
Did you know Wilfred Owen was killed in battle not long after writing that
poem?
I believe he was 25 years old.
Scout
"Thom Stewart" <tas...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14115-419...@storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net...
Joe
He knew that the only folks that benefit
> from war are the politicians, generals, and industrialists.
> And their sycophants.
> John Cairns
What about the jewish people in WWII did they benefit when Hitler
was taken out?
Did the world benefit when Hitler was taken out? I think so.
Did Hitlers generals proser in the end? And if someone is smart enough
to build a product that is needed then should he not
prosper(industrailists)
You might be happy speaking German, But Im glad people like OleThom
put an end to his evil reign.
Just like Im proud of the troops bringing freedom and democracy to
Iraq.
Joe
Thom Stewart
Scout put it in context. You pulled it out of context. Scout called the
war insanity. Us veterans knew it to be insanity but there are times
when it is necessary to show more insanity than your enemy. It is a
necessity, to defeat your enemy to return to your own world of sanity.
If we didn't fight the Axis Powers an win (Thank your Vets) we would not
be able to select our leaders and governments as we do today.
Just look at the trouble the Iraqi is having trying to hold an election
by the people of that country. I'm not sure we had the right to invade
but someone had to do something after 12 years. UN sanity wasn't
stopping Mass graves. Even with two "No Fly Zones"
Oz, sometimes we have to be insane to save our own sanity. This is what
has created our Veterans. It was a call that was necessary.
Again; Thanks You, All you Veterans
Ole Thom
John Cairns
industrialists and even prominent public citizens like Lindbergh, supported
and praised the Nazis-something akin to the Reagan administration's support
of Saddam Hussein in the 80's-even while he was gassing the Kurds and
Iranians. In the 20's, under 3 successive Republican administration, the US
followed a policy of isolationism and non-engagement, as did a clear
majority of the population.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gerdec41.htm Something else to
consider, the Germans declared war against us FIRST, many would speculate
that it might have taken some time for the US to declare war against Germany
if they hadn't been so accommodating.
Bottom line is, if the US had been more involved in world affairs the
Europeans may have been able to nip the Nazi problem in the bud, without the
leadership of what was the greatest industrial power in the world at that
time, the Nazis had their way, we had another world war. To quote a famous
author, a mercenary with a 30 cent bullet could have solved the problem with
Hitler long before the war broke out. BTW, there has NEVER been a successful
revolution in any nation that was fomented EXTERNALLY. When the radical
Shiites take over in Iraq, I'll be more than happy to tell you "I told you
so". One other thing to consider, you and some other folks seem to think
that opposition to war and honoring the sacrifice of veterans are mutually
exclusive, I could quote any number of COMBAT veterans that would strongly
disagree, among them, Wilfred Owens.
John Cairns
Bob Crantz
years. More people died under Stalin than Hitler. American should have sided
with the Nazis first, beat the Ruskies and then smashed the Nazis.
Amen!!
Bob Crantz
"John Cairns" <jgcairn...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:PXOld.23852$5b1....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Horvath
>
>Now lets look at the reasons for WWI
WWI was started by the Serbs, who hired assassins to kill our beloved
leader, Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Hor...@Horvath.net
Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!
Overproof
A kid that spray paints it's name on a chain link fence!!
CM
"Horvath" <Te...@Fartingmor.com> wrote in message
news:s05gp09c9f661bl5e...@4ax.com...
Peter Wiley
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:55:35 GMT, "Gilligan"
> <glen_harri...@hotmail.com> scribbled thusly:
>
> >The compromise between good and evil is never good. When dealing with evil,
> >war (force) is the only solution. Otherwise don't deal with evil. Your
> >solutions would bring people like Noriega, Saddam Hussien, Hitler(remember
> >Chamberlain and appeasement), Stalin, Il Jung and others into greater and
> >greater power. Negotiate with the devil and lose!
> >
> >Gilligan, a veteran
> >
>
> Interesting isn't it...
> Noriega was installed by the US
> Saddam was a friend of the US
> Hitler was trying to right what the Germans saw as a wrong when they
> lost land to Poland and France after the Treaty of Versailles presided
> over by Britain, France, Italy and the US
My knowledge of Euro history is pretty ordinary, but didn't Germany
take most of the land it lost at the end of WW1 from France in the war
of 1870?
Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
Germany had used itself, previously.
As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?
PDW
Thom Stewart
I really don't no where to start a reply to your post. I know you sure
have history twisted around.
First lets take Lindberg. He warned us and Europe about Hilter and his
strength and was ignored. Did you ever hear of the saying "Peace in our
time"? That was said after Lindberg warning, which Europe didn't want to
hear.
About external forement, my God where have you learned your history. Do
you know how Cuba and the Philippines came into being after the Spanish
American War, Have you any idea at all how just about every nation in
the Middle East came into being after the Turk were defeated in WW1 by
moslem tribe under British leadership. After WW2 the China Communist
came into being with the exception of Taiwan, All the countries of
Europe blame us for losing their colonies. The French were driven out of
North Africa after the Allies defeated the Germans
Have you ever heard of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan?
The Lendlease Plan, Berlin Airlift, The Formation of the UN, Nato. The
creation of Israel.
John, I've only covered some of our involvement. All non-isolationist
My only comment to you is cure yourself of the myopic view of World
History. You really do seem to be missing a lot.
Ole Thom
Jonathan Ganz
Lindberg was was a non-interventionist. If we had listened to him, we would
have been much worse off..
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Thom Stewart" <tas...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25706-41...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
Scott Vernon
WE were right and THEY were wrong, men were men, and ganzy types hid
in the closet.
Scotty
"Thom Stewart" <tas...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25706-41...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
DSK
> My knowledge of Euro history is pretty ordinary, but didn't Germany
> take most of the land it lost at the end of WW1 from France in the war
> of 1870?
Sure, and much of that was land that France managed to grab during
Napoleon's time, etc etc. Borders are changeable. It's one of the
ongoing problems between nations... for that matter, between states
within nations. For example there are several states borders here in the
US that are defined by rivers, which are constantly removing land from
one side & depositing it on the other, and vice versa. The big question
is, shall we kill people over it?
>
> Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
> economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
> territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
> Germany had used itself, previously.
Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).
Shows you what happens when countries try and formulate national policy
of wishful thinking and slogans basd on fantasy.
>
> As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
> a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?
Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.
DSK
Jonathan Ganz
obviously closeted and needs to come out.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Scott Vernon" <Sco...@Seidelmann.com> wrote in message
news:2vrckjF...@uni-berlin.de...
John Cairns
"Thom Stewart" tas...@webtv.net
> wrote in message news:25706-41...@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net...
> John,
>
> I really don't know where to start a reply to your post. I know you sure
> have history twisted around.
>
> First lets take Lindbergh. He warned us and Europe about Hitler and his
> strength and was ignored. Did you ever hear of the saying "Peace in our
> time"? That was said after Lindbergh warning, which Europe didn't want to
> hear.
http://www.traces.org/charleslindbergh.html
Your hero, Lindbergh. All of this stuff has been in the public domain for
years. You must be the last person on the planet that didn't know about
this.
>
> About external forement, my God where have you learned your history. Do
> you know how Cuba and the Philippines came into being after the Spanish
> American War,
Not exactly sure what this had to do with my original post. Oh, I see. Well,
let me explain briefly. The Cubans and Filipinos didn't revolt against the
Spanish, we occupied those countries. So you consider Cuba to be a success?
There are a LOT of Cubans in south Florida that would disagree with you. As
far as the Philippines go, you are probably completely clueless about any of
this, so you can ignore the title, "Imperial Amnesia", which would imply
that you knew some of this at one time or another.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/54a/index-a.html
Really, Thom, all of this information is at your fingertips, literally.
> Have you ever heard of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan?
> The Lendlease Plan, Berlin Airlift, The Formation of the UN, Nato. The
> creation of Israel.
When you comment on a post, it helps if you leave some of the original, if
only so you don't forget what was written. Try this:
"In the 20's, under 3 successive Republican administration, the US
followed a policy of isolationism and non-engagement, as did a clear
majority of the population."
Part of my original post, I might have added, the isolationist sentiments of
a majority of Americans continued up until Pearl Harbor, fortunately the
Roosevelt administration("Lend Lease"), didn't share those sentiments.
Berlin airlift, formation of the UN, the Marshall Plan, formation of NATO
all occurred during the Truman administration
>
> My only comment to you is cure yourself of the myopic view of World
> History. You really do seem to be missing a lot.
>
It appears that I've forgotten more than you ever knew.
> Ole Thom
>
Bobsprit
obviously closeted and needs to come out.
>>>
It seems to me that Scotty has been pretty open about his gayness. Doesn't
explain the Siedlemann though.
RB
Donal
> I've waited all day and no one seems to rememder.
Many of us remembered. Many of us are *very* aware of the sacrifices that
have been made on our behalf.
It's one thing to watch films like "The Longest Day", - it's another thing
to actually visit the beaches where the allies landed. I nearly vomited
when I saw the cliffs at Arramaches. I couldn't believe that young kids
were asked to risk their lives in such circumstances.
Regards
Donal
--
Donal
> John,
>
> I really don't no where to start a reply to your post. I know you sure
> have history twisted around.
>
> First lets take Lindberg. He warned us and Europe about Hilter and his
> strength and was ignored. Did you ever hear of the saying "Peace in our
> time"? That was said after Lindberg warning, which Europe didn't want to
> hear.
Thom,
There is a very big difference between Hitler and Saddam.
Hitler invaded other countries *without* US permission.
Saddam sought US permission before launching any attacks.
Regards
Donal
--
Michael
a thank you note from a mugger. It's a closed circle Ganz......we're in
it....you're not.
M.
"Jonathan Ganz" <nos...@noo2x31o1oospam.com> wrote in message
news:10pgmif...@corp.supernews.com...
Jonathan Ganz
If by closed circle, you mean you're in a group of chickenshit faggots, then
I agree with you. Please stay in your closed circle.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Michael" <SV_Se...@yahooyoohoo.com> wrote in message
news:zaednV4ukqE...@giganews.com...
Capt. Neal®
"Jonathan Ganz" <nos...@noo2x31o1oospam.com> wrote in message news:10piqur...@corp.supernews.com...
Jonathan Ganz
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Capt. NealŽ" <Capt...@Bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:NJCdnc3hOLv...@terranova.net...
Thom Stewart
I'd like to add a foot note;
Do you know where the Lindberg's lived when they returned from Europe?
They settled on the north shore of Long Island.
Oyster Bay Township. Their children's cook was my Aunt. Lindy and Anne
flew the first route that later became PanAm routes. Their home gave
Lindy good access to Gruman aircraft and Republic aircraft factories
where they used him as a consultant
Cubans in the USA weren't there until Castro took power, long after Cuba
was free from Spain. John, those people didn't flee to Spain, did they.
Good old USA
Your Hartford article open in its first paragraph to it being a
un-validate information
I hope you aren't to put out if I'm not impressed by your reply.
Ole Thom
Peter Wiley
<d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote:
> Peter Wiley wrote:
> > My knowledge of Euro history is pretty ordinary, but didn't Germany
> > take most of the land it lost at the end of WW1 from France in the war
> > of 1870?
>
> Sure, and much of that was land that France managed to grab during
> Napoleon's time, etc etc. Borders are changeable. It's one of the
> ongoing problems between nations... for that matter, between states
> within nations. For example there are several states borders here in the
> US that are defined by rivers, which are constantly removing land from
> one side & depositing it on the other, and vice versa. The big question
> is, shall we kill people over it?
No, not these days :-) We're having an argument with East Timor ATM
over a sea bed boundary. Not the least worried about them attacking us
of course.
> > Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
> > economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
> > territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
> > Germany had used itself, previously.
>
> Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
> was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
> back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).
Well they didn't lose militarily, it was a stalemate. They got starved
into submission which is evidence that sufficiently rigorous economic
sanctions backed by military force to enforce them can work.
> Shows you what happens when countries try and formulate national policy
> of wishful thinking and slogans basd on fantasy.
>
>
> >
> > As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
> > a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?
>
> Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
> ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.
Yeah, my feeling as well. However we have the example of Hussein using
the 'food for oil' exemption from economic sanctions to bribe other
nation-state leaders while simultaneously starving his people of food &
medicine and using the resultant deaths et al to convince people like
Donal et al that it was all the fault of the Western powers. That's a
good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.
PDW
Horvath
<nos...@noo2x31o1oospam.com> wrote this crap:
>I Forgot to give your boyfriend a blowjob?
You have to gay up everything, don't you, Jon-boy?
Jonathan Ganz
>>I Forgot to give your boyfriend a blowjob! Again!
DSK
> No, not these days :-) We're having an argument with East Timor ATM
> over a sea bed boundary. Not the least worried about them attacking us
> of course.
>
No, at least not officially. But then that doesn't seem to be in style
these days anyway. Plenty of whackos with the potential to become
suicide bombers in Nusutengarra though.
>
>>>Seems to me it was the reparations that led to massive inflation and
>>>economic chaos that led to the rise of Hitler more than the loss of
>>>territory. Even the reparations were just playing by the same rules
>>>Germany had used itself, previously.
>>
>>Yep, that sound pretty close to right to me. Although the stolen land
>>was part of the Nazi's political sloganeering, as was the "stab in the
>>back" (their popular theory that Germany didn't really lose WW1).
>
>
> Well they didn't lose militarily, it was a stalemate. They got starved
> into submission which is evidence that sufficiently rigorous economic
> sanctions backed by military force to enforce them can work.
I disagree somewhat. The German armies in the field had not been
decisively defeated, that is true. But they had been pushed back from
the Hindenburg line and only managed to prevent an Allied breakthrough
at high cost. Their manpower was waning dramatically (especially with
regard to bringing up trained reserves) and their supplies were running
out. Mostly they were being starved into submission. But an army that is
starving cannot fight.
>>>As for wars, dunno. Basically the Western powers can economically ruin
>>>a country without taking military action. Is this preferable?
>>
>>Yes. An economy in ruins is better, by definition, than an economy in
>>ruins with 100,000+ dead and all infrastructure destroyed.
>
>
> Yeah, my feeling as well. However we have the example of Hussein using
> the 'food for oil' exemption from economic sanctions to bribe other
> nation-state leaders while simultaneously starving his people of food &
> medicine and using the resultant deaths et al to convince people like
> Donal et al that it was all the fault of the Western powers. That's a
> good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.
yep... utter ruthlessness is hard to beat, and hard to believe for a lot
of people. IMHO Saddam Hussein's gov't is a classic example of a
revolution gone wrong... happens in history more often than ones that go
right, perhaps. The irony is that we (the US mainly, but also the
western powers) supported him against the obvious danger of Iran and now
we have toppled him which mostly helps Iran.
DSK
Donal
"Peter Wiley" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:161120041603393037%peter_...@hotmail.com...
Your inability to see reality is truly impressive.
*Before* the invasion, I said that there was no evidence to support Bush's
wild claims about WMD.
*Before* the invasion, I said that a war would create MORE terrorists - not
less.
Can you give us an example of a forecast that you made that has turned out
to be correct?
If you cannot, then you should consider the possibility that you have no
idea at all about the subject.
>That's a
> good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.
Saddam killed 300,000 in 30 years.
100,000 have died as a result of the war in little more than a year. Would
you say that Bush is more ruthless than Saddam?
I am constantly amazed by man's inability to learn from history.
Regards
Donal
--
Peter Wiley
<do...@lanospamde.com> wrote:
So..... you're saying that Hussein did not rort the 'food for oil'
exemption? That all the reports of payments from this program to UN
officials are false? That all the oil sales earmarked for purchase of
medicines & food went to buying medicines & food? Hah.
> *Before* the invasion, I said that there was no evidence to support Bush's
> wild claims about WMD.
>
> *Before* the invasion, I said that a war would create MORE terrorists - not
> less.
And the relevance of this to my statement that Hussein deprived his
people of food & medicine deliberately so as to capture the sympathy of
people like you is.......... what? A teeny little red herring :-)
Methinks you squeal too much, Donal.
> Can you give us an example of a forecast that you made that has turned out
> to be correct?
> If you cannot, then you should consider the possibility that you have no
> idea at all about the subject.
Hey, I said that I had no problem in believing that the USA would win
the military campaign but I had severe doubts that they'd manage the
next phase. And......... so far I'm right.
Still trying to change the subject, Donal?
> >That's a
> > good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.
>
> Saddam killed 300,000 in 30 years.
Source? I think you're pulling figures out of your backside again.
Here, I'll provide a URL as a starting point.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640/Iran-Iraq_War.html
Or another:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm
Your turn.
> 100,000 have died as a result of the war in little more than a year. Would
> you say that Bush is more ruthless than Saddam?
>
> I am constantly amazed by man's inability to learn from history.
So am I Donal. BTW did you ever decide if a neutron bomb was a WMD or
not? Hah.
PDW
Scott Vernon
--
"Jonathan Loser Ganz" <jgayz_...@nowin.com> wrote
> Fuck you Mikey.
> If by closed circle, you mean you're in a group of chickenshit
faggots, then
Jonathan Ganz
Scott Vernon <Sco...@Seidelmann.com> wrote:
> If by closed circle, you mean you're in a group of chickenshit
>faggots, then can I be the pivot man?
>
--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."
Donal
> >
> > Your inability to see reality is truly impressive.
>
> So..... you're saying that Hussein did not rort the 'food for oil'
> exemption?
Am I? I don't remember saying any such thing.
>That all the reports of payments from this program to UN
> officials are false?
I didn't say that either.
> That all the oil sales earmarked for purchase of
> medicines & food went to buying medicines & food?
Do you really believe that I said that?
You have dishonestly attempted to attribute three false statements to me in
an attempt to justify your position. I did not say any of these things.
>Hah.
You sound pleased with your attempt at deception!
>
> > *Before* the invasion, I said that there was no evidence to support
Bush's
> > wild claims about WMD.
> >
> > *Before* the invasion, I said that a war would create MORE terrorists -
not
> > less.
>
> And the relevance of this to my statement that Hussein deprived his
> people of food & medicine deliberately so as to capture the sympathy of
> people like you is.......... what? A teeny little red herring :-)
>
> Methinks you squeal too much, Donal.
>
> > Can you give us an example of a forecast that you made that has turned
out
> > to be correct?
> > If you cannot, then you should consider the possibility that you have no
> > idea at all about the subject.
>
> Hey, I said that I had no problem in believing that the USA would win
> the military campaign but I had severe doubts that they'd manage the
> next phase. And......... so far I'm right.
>
> Still trying to change the subject, Donal?
>
> > >That's a
> > > good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.
> >
> > Saddam killed 300,000 in 30 years.
>
> Source? I think you're pulling figures out of your backside again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
>
> Here, I'll provide a URL as a starting point.
>
> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640/Iran-Iraq_War.html
The second sentence on that page is "The war was one of the longest and
most destructive of the 20th century, with likely more than one million
casualties."
Do you believe that statement?
>
> Or another:
>
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm
Uh oh!!! This link seems to contradict your first link.
Peter, have you any idea at all about the number of people who died in WW2?
Don't Jews or Russians count?
>
> Your turn.
>
> > 100,000 have died as a result of the war in little more than a year.
Would
> > you say that Bush is more ruthless than Saddam?
> >
> > I am constantly amazed by man's inability to learn from history.
>
> So am I Donal. BTW did you ever decide if a neutron bomb was a WMD or
> not? Hah.
>
Are you still certain that the Iran-Iraq war was more destructive than WW2?
Regards
Donal
--
Peter Wiley
<do...@lanospamde.com> wrote:
> "Peter Wiley" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:181120041619298836%peter_...@hotmail.com...
> > In article <cngneb$bif$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Donal
> > <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > Your inability to see reality is truly impressive.
> >
> > So..... you're saying that Hussein did not rort the 'food for oil'
> > exemption?
>
> Am I? I don't remember saying any such thing.
Well Donal, the paragraph you have snipped out referred to Hussein's
ruthlessness in depriving his population of food/medicine so as to
garner sympathy from people like you. You responded as above by saying
that my inability to see reality was truly impressive. The conclusion
therefore is that the previous para was not real. So I ask you to
clarify and.......
>
> >That all the reports of payments from this program to UN
> > officials are false?
>
> I didn't say that either.
>
> > That all the oil sales earmarked for purchase of
> > medicines & food went to buying medicines & food?
>
> Do you really believe that I said that?
>
> You have dishonestly attempted to attribute three false statements to me in
> an attempt to justify your position. I did not say any of these things.
you run for cover and neither confirm nor deny. Perhaps your grasp of
logic is lacking? Along with your grasp of basic English, it would
seem. Did you fail to notice the question marks on the end of my
sentences above? They generally indicate that I was asking you a
question, not assigning to you a statement. Your faux indignation is
noted and ignored.
I don't need to justify my position by attributing false statements to
you, Donal. Perhaps your grasp on reality is tenuous?
>
>
> >Hah.
>
> You sound pleased with your attempt at deception!
Hah.
>
>
> >
> > > *Before* the invasion, I said that there was no evidence to support
> Bush's
> > > wild claims about WMD.
> > >
> > > *Before* the invasion, I said that a war would create MORE terrorists -
> not
> > > less.
> >
> > And the relevance of this to my statement that Hussein deprived his
> > people of food & medicine deliberately so as to capture the sympathy of
> > people like you is.......... what? A teeny little red herring :-)
> >
> > Methinks you squeal too much, Donal.
> >
> > > Can you give us an example of a forecast that you made that has turned
> out
> > > to be correct?
> > > If you cannot, then you should consider the possibility that you have no
> > > idea at all about the subject.
> >
> > Hey, I said that I had no problem in believing that the USA would win
> > the military campaign but I had severe doubts that they'd manage the
> > next phase. And......... so far I'm right.
> >
> > Still trying to change the subject, Donal?
> >
> > > >That's a
> > > > good example of what happens if you're ruthless enough.
> > >
> > > Saddam killed 300,000 in 30 years.
> >
> > Source? I think you're pulling figures out of your backside again.
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
Donal, Donal, Donal. I know you think I'm an idiot, but I can read. I
just read that article. I can't find a single reference in it where it
says that Hussein killed 300,000 people in 30 years. Help me out here,
Donal. I simply don't believe that you're too stupid to fail to
associate a question of mine with the immediately preceding statement
of yours.
Alternatively you can admit that you have no checkable source for that
figure of 300K deaths in 30 years.
> > Here, I'll provide a URL as a starting point.
> >
> > http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640/Iran-Iraq_War.html
>
> The second sentence on that page is "The war was one of the longest and
> most destructive of the 20th century, with likely more than one million
> casualties."
>
> Do you believe that statement?
>
>
> >
> > Or another:
> >
> > http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm
>
>
> Uh oh!!! This link seems to contradict your first link.
How so? I think you're about to drop yourself into a hole but don't let
me stop you. Others here can read the URL's for themselves if they
wish.
> Peter, have you any idea at all about the number of people who died in WW2?
> Don't Jews or Russians count?
>
>
> >
> > Your turn.
Still your turn, Donal. The statement you made was that Hussein killed
300,000 in 30 years. I dispute it. Your attempt to drag red herrings
across the discussion is noted - and ignored. Start a new thread if you
want to discuss other issues. I picked the first couple of hits I got
from a Google search to refute your assertion.
Your turn.
Surely, Donal, you can come up with a checkable source that contradicts
mine, since you think I'm an idiot. Alternatively, you can filibuster
until I get bored with your stalling, which won't take long. About
right now, in fact, since it's Friday and I'm off sailing. I may check
on Monday but probably not. If you had anything on point to say, you
would have already done it. Sort of like your idiotic claim about WMD.
PDW
Michael
"Donal" <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote in message
news:cnjciu$24o$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Scout
> Side question? When is Neville Chamberlain day?
Same as groundhog day. If Neville sees Hitler's shadow, Poland belongs to
Germany for another six weeks.
Scout
Michael
with the day Poland regained it's freedom from Russia. That being the
ostensible reason given for the start of WWII. Not the longest war in
history but certainly the most odd in terms of how fought. Five years of
intense battle and 40 more years of economic warfare with the Poles amongst
others bearing most of the non economic burden. How they MUST value
their freedom after all those years as socialist slaves.
One of the two great unanswered questions of war. The other being did
Texas lose it's Lone Star Republic rights because of the civil war?
M.
"Scout" <scout...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tJjnd.934210$Gx4.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
DSK
> I always wondered if any historians figured out the end of WWII coincided
> with the day Poland regained it's freedom from Russia.
???
Where do you get these ideas? If that's the case, then WW2 is still
going on because North Korea is as much a Russian client state as ever,
and Cuba became one well after the "end" of WW2 if you don't count
Poland; but if you do count Poland then it's occupied territory now.
Maybe the Germans should invade North Korea and Cuba, thus ending the
war. We can't do it for them because with regard to WW2, we are Russia's
allies.
> ... That being the
> ostensible reason given for the start of WWII. Not the longest war in
> history but certainly the most odd in terms of how fought.
Hardly. I suggest you look up some of the previous European dynastic
wars, for example the War of the Spanish Succession... now there were
some complex webs to untangle.
> ... Five years of
> intense battle and 40 more years of economic warfare with the Poles amongst
> others bearing most of the non economic burden. How they MUST value
> their freedom after all those years as socialist slaves.
Why don't you go there and find out? I have a number of Polish friends
including a couple who just moved back because they think (with some
good reasons) that their children's future is brighter there than here.
>
> One of the two great unanswered questions of war. The other being did
> Texas lose it's Lone Star Republic rights because of the civil war?
No more so than any other state. The War of Northern Aggression settled
the issue of state's rights under the Constitution... there aren't any.
Next I suppose we should look at the question of individual rights... no
wait, let's not...
DSK
Donal
> In article <cnjciu$24o$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Donal
> <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote:
>
> > "Peter Wiley" <peter_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:181120041619298836%peter_...@hotmail.com...
> > > In article <cngneb$bif$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Donal
> > > <do...@lanospamde.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Your inability to see reality is truly impressive.
> > >
> > > So..... you're saying that Hussein did not rort the 'food for oil'
> > > exemption?
> >
> > Am I? I don't remember saying any such thing.
>
> Well Donal, the paragraph you have snipped out referred to Hussein's
> ruthlessness in depriving his population of food/medicine so as to
> garner sympathy from people like you.
Believe it or not, I wasn't at all surprised that Saddam fiddled the system
for his personal gain. Were you?
>You responded as above by saying
> that my inability to see reality was truly impressive. The conclusion
> therefore is that the previous para was not real.
Huh?
When sanctions were imposed on Iraq, many people said that the real victims
would be the poorest members of Iraqi society.
You seem to think that it is entirely Saddam's fault that the sanctions had
such a devastating effect on the weakest members of the population. While I
agree that Saddam "broke the rules", I would suggest that sanctions were
bound to affect the poor and weak. Anybody who supported sanctions knew
this, and therefore they are hypocrites if they cry "foul".
>So I ask you to
> clarify and.......
>
> >
> > >That all the reports of payments from this program to UN
> > > officials are false?
> >
> > I didn't say that either.
> >
> > > That all the oil sales earmarked for purchase of
> > > medicines & food went to buying medicines & food?
> >
> > Do you really believe that I said that?
> >
> > You have dishonestly attempted to attribute three false statements to me
in
> > an attempt to justify your position. I did not say any of these things.
>
> you run for cover and neither confirm nor deny.
I deny that!
You needed to make three totally false allegations in order to back up your
position.
> Perhaps your grasp of
> logic is lacking? Along with your grasp of basic English, it would
> seem. Did you fail to notice the question marks on the end of my
> sentences above?
I saw them.
>They generally indicate that I was asking you a
> question, not assigning to you a statement.
Rubbish! You were attempting to suggest that I agreed with
> Your faux indignation is
> noted and ignored.
>
> I don't need to justify my position by attributing false statements to
> you, Donal. Perhaps your grasp on reality is tenuous?
My grasp on reality seems to be a lot stronger than your's. I made
predictions which have turned out to be correct. You may use Google to
check the validity of my claim. Can you offer us any evidence that your
predictions were correct?
Here's one.
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/breaking_news/9612107.htm
>
> > > Here, I'll provide a URL as a starting point.
> > >
> > > http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580640/Iran-Iraq_War.html
> >
> > The second sentence on that page is "The war was one of the longest and
> > most destructive of the 20th century, with likely more than one million
> > casualties."
> >
> > Do you believe that statement?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Or another:
> > >
> > > http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm
> >
> >
> > Uh oh!!! This link seems to contradict your first link.
>
> How so? I think you're about to drop yourself into a hole but don't let
> me stop you. Others here can read the URL's for themselves if they
> wish.
I see that you have ignored my simple question about your evidence.
>
> > Peter, have you any idea at all about the number of people who died in
WW2?
> > Don't Jews or Russians count?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Your turn.
>
> Still your turn, Donal. The statement you made was that Hussein killed
> 300,000 in 30 years. I dispute it.
OK, I was thinking of Iraqis. If you include non-Iraqis, how many deaths
do you think that Saddam was responsible for? Is it more than Hitler,
Stalin or Mao? If not, then the first link that you published in an effort
to defend your position was total nonsense.
>Your attempt to drag red herrings
> across the discussion is noted - and ignored.
Ignored??? -- yet mentioned???
regards
Donal
--
Michael
answers, thoughtfully provoking. Where I came by the first question?
Britain had a defense pact with several nations one of which was Poland.
England entered into the fray in 'defense of Poland' which had been invaded
by Germany. At the time Herr Hitler had said, over and over, we have no
quarrel with England, do not consider them enemies, and have to wish to
fight them. Hyperbole or not England declared war on Germany because of
Germany's invasion of Poland. However by 1945 Poland, far from being freed
came under the complete sujugation of the 'other invader'. Let us not
forget while Germany invaded from West to East, Russia simultaneously
invaded from East to West. This was no less a violation of the treaty which
caused England to enter against Germany. Therefore it can easily be argued
the original reason for going to war, the freeing of Poland, was in
practical fact not accomplished for many decades after 1939. I think the
actual nullification of that original pact happened at Yalta when Roosevelt
and Churchill (and some French guy) agreed on 'sphere's of influence, at
war's end. Roosevelt and Churchill, well anyway Roosevelt for I think
Churchill was always in favor of 'using' the Soviets but otherwise had no
use for them, ostensibly made the error of believing Stalin. Although I
find it ludicrous Roosevelt could have been that politically naive and
rather think he knew all along what would happen. The lesson learned should
have stayed in the forefront )of political minds but obviously was
forgotten by many to include G. Bush Sr. when he made a deal with the
opposition and violated his "Read My Lips" policy. More to the point it's
been forgotten in almost every instance where J. Carter has been involved.
Now THAT ought to get you going for the next two three months or so!
History....not the way you wish it happened....just as it happened.
Question? If a huge national debt that is a small pittance by percentage of
the GDP was good for Clinton...why isn't it good for Bush?
M.
"DSK" <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
news:qNnnd.37757$IQ.3...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Scout
. . . How they MUST value their freedom after all those years as socialist
slaves.
I don't know Michael, however, my daughter just spent 6 months in East
Germany, and one of the things that surprised her most was that the people
their, particularly the older folks who lived through the nightmare, do not
seem to have adjusted well to freedom. Very odd.
Scout
Michael
thinking back to the German mindset of the early 20th century Alle est en
ordnung. (forgive the spelling it isn't one of my languages) which valued
obedience to the State, Party, Family above all. Give many decades of
National then International Socialism which has no room for individualism
and living in fear if you don't make the trains run on time....hmmm....I
think it would be odd not to find that viewpoint. As some of our fellow
posters have shown time and time again having to think, evaluate, reason,
ascertain facts for oneself is not always possible. Sometimes it's just
easier to follow the party line be it Herr Carville or Herr Goebbels. You
have to admit members of the former 'other party' like Doug or Thom are
damn few and far between. In that light I think you'll see a huge
difference with the Libertarians as the new second party especially as we
move ever closer to the formation of the North American Union.
M.
"Scout" <scout...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJDnd.940151$Gx4.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Cam
> Where ya been, Jax?
>
> SV
>
Jail?