About the Iranian bomb ! [Archive]

Eeyore

November 21st 06, 05:58 AM

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.

Correspondents say the alleged document appears to challenge Washington's views
regarding Iranian nuclear intentions.

The CIA assessment, according to unnamed officials quoted in the article, casts
doubt on how far Iran has actually progressed to making a nuclear weapon.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear
weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has
declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Hersh wrote.

It says the agency based its conclusions on technical intelligence, such as
satellite photography and measurements from sensors planted by US and Israeli
agents.

The article says: "A current senior intelligence official confirmed the
existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile
to it."

In response....

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticised the article, calling it an
"error-filled" piece in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush
administration".

"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously
degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods
to justify his own radical views," she was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6167304.stm

Graham

[email protected]

November 21st 06, 08:29 AM

Eeyore wrote:
> The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that
> Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
>
> Let's just repeat that !
>
> The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive evidence
> that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
>
> Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a
> secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
>
> Correspondents say the alleged document appears to challenge Washington's views
> regarding Iranian nuclear intentions.
>
> The CIA assessment, according to unnamed officials quoted in the article, casts
> doubt on how far Iran has actually progressed to making a nuclear weapon.
>
> "The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear
> weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has
> declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Hersh wrote.
>
> It says the agency based its conclusions on technical intelligence, such as
> satellite photography and measurements from sensors planted by US and Israeli
> agents.
>
> The article says: "A current senior intelligence official confirmed the
> existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile
> to it."
>
> In response....
>
> White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticised the article, calling it an
> "error-filled" piece in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush
> administration".
>
> "The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously
> degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods
> to justify his own radical views," she was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6167304.stm
>
> Graham

Clearly there is no love for truth on either side of the aisle, as this
excerpt from Factcheck.org points out. The Whoppers Of 2006

We review the worst deceptions from House and Senate campaigns.

November 4, 2006

Modified: November 4, 2006

The mid-term elections of 2006 brought an unprecedented barrage of
advertising containing much that is false or misleading. We found
examples of disregard for facts and honesty - on both sides - that
would get a reporter fired in a heartbeat from any decent news
organization.

Candidates, parties and independent groups have faked quotes, twisted
words, misrepresented votes and positions, and engaged in rank
fear-mongering and outright fabrication. Here we review some of the
worst deceptions we found.
Analysis

We haven't addressed every false or misleading statement in 2006 House
and Senate campaigns - there were too many of them and our resources
are too limited for that. For the full record of our work please refer
to the earlier articles on the home page and in our archive.

True they refer to the campaign mud slinging, but the war on truth
never seems to end, and there is no shortage of liars passing
themselves off as guardians of the People.

ScottW

November 21st 06, 07:42 PM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 21st 06, 08:34 PM

ScottW wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that
> > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> >
> > Let's just repeat that !
> >
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive evidence
> > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
> >
> > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a
> > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
> >
>
> Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
>
> http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
>
> Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
> anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
> actually
> accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
> Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
> words
> like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
> say.
>
> You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

OTOH, toopid, we went to war in Iraq without any conclusive evidence of
WMD, and you seem quite happy about that.

So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
(as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?

And I do get sick of the right's always attacking the media. You want
to talk about fascist attempts at thought control...

Go back to the unvarnished truths of Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin et al.
They're more your speed.

November 21st 06, 09:22 PM

MiNe 109

November 21st 06, 09:37 PM

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
> > that
> > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> >
> > Let's just repeat that !
> >
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
> > evidence
> > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
> >
> > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker,
> > cites a
> > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
> >
>
> Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
>
> http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?

> Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
> anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
> actually
> accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
> Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
> words
> like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
> say.
>
> You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

Stephen

MiNe 109

November 21st 06, 09:37 PM

In article >,
> wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
> > that
> > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> >
> > Let's just repeat that !
> >
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
> > evidence
> > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
> >
> > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker,
> > cites a
> > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
>
> Well, if they haven't found "conclusive" evidence, what kind of evidence
> have they found? Have they found vague, suggestive evidence? Have they
> found anything above and beyond what the public already knows?

How about suspect intelligence?

Stephen

November 21st 06, 09:54 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
> The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
> that
> Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
>
> Let's just repeat that !
>
> The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
> evidence
> that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the "most dangerous
country".

1. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty.
2. Iran has not violated the NPT or shown any inclination to do so.
3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any other country. At
least not in modern times.
4. The US is doing everything in its power to make life difficult for Iran,
and is beating the war drums day and night.

Now let's look at a few other I's:

India

1. India has not signed the NPT.
2. India has made nuclear weapons, and has an ongoing weapons
program--which it's quite proud of.
3. India has fought China, Pakistan, Bangladesh (a country essentially
manufactured by India.) It's currently threatening Sri Lanka as a result of
the Tamil insurgency in that country.
4. The US seems to have no problem at all with India, and intends to help
India's nuclear power industry, in spite of India's refusal to sign the NPT.
It was necessary to pass a special exemption to our NPT laws--just for
India.

Israel

1. Has not signed the NPT
2. It is currently a nuclear power, although they haven't admitted it.
3. Israel has invaded every one of its neighbors, often twice, and is
currently occupying 2 of them. This in spite of the fact that none of its
neighbors has invaded Israel. Israel has to be considered a paranoid
warlike country that goes for the gun first--not last.
4. The US supports Israel in whatever it does--without exception--and
vetoes any UN Security Council resolution affecting Israel adversely.

So why are we so concerned over Iran?

ScottW

November 21st 06, 10:38 PM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that
> > > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> > >
> > > Let's just repeat that !
> > >
> > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive evidence
> > > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
> > >
> > > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a
> > > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
> > >
> >
> > Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
> >
> > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
> >
> > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
> > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
> > actually
> > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
> > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
> > words
> > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
> > say.
> >
> > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
>
> OTOH, toopid, we went to war in Iraq without any conclusive evidence of
> WMD, and you seem quite happy about that.

Perhaps you can't remember that I felt there were sufficient other
reasons to take out Saddam, not all of which were strictly for your
selfish interests.
>
> So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
> (as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
> some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?

I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
in Iran.

>
> And I do get sick of the right's always attacking the media.

as I get sick of the media attacking the right...

>You want
> to talk about fascist attempts at thought control...
>
> Go back to the unvarnished truths of Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin et al.
> They're more your speed.

Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.

ScottW

ScottW

November 21st 06, 10:40 PM

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
> > > that
> > > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> > >
> > > Let's just repeat that !
> > >
> > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
> > > evidence
> > > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
> > >
> > > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker,
> > > cites a
> > > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
> > >
> >
> > Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
> >
> > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
>
> Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?

Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.

>
> > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
> > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
> > actually
> > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
> > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
> > words
> > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
> > say.
> >
> > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
>
> Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

ScottW

ScottW

November 21st 06, 11:13 PM

wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
> > that
> > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> >
> > Let's just repeat that !
> >
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
> > evidence
> > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
>
> let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the "most dangerous
> country".
>
> 1. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty.
> 2. Iran has not violated the NPT or shown any inclination to do so.

Even the IAEA hasn't gone that far.

http://www.armscontrol.org/pdf/20060227_Iran_BoG_Report.pdf
http://www.armscontrol.org/pdf/20060831_Iran_BoG_Report.pdf

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/irannptviolations.pdf

> 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any other country. At
> least not in modern times.
> 4. The US is doing everything in its power to make life difficult for Iran,
> and is beating the war drums day and night.

How eloquent...we beat drums and Admadinejad gets a pass
on his lunatic rantings. So what do his speeches amount to,
singing an opera?

>
> Now let's look at a few other I's:
>
> India
>
> 1. India has not signed the NPT.
> 2. India has made nuclear weapons, and has an ongoing weapons
> program--which it's quite proud of.
> 3. India has fought China, Pakistan, Bangladesh (a country essentially
> manufactured by India.) It's currently threatening Sri Lanka as a result of
> the Tamil insurgency in that country.
> 4. The US seems to have no problem at all with India, and intends to help
> India's nuclear power industry, in spite of India's refusal to sign the NPT.
> It was necessary to pass a special exemption to our NPT laws--just for
> India.
>
> Israel
>
> 1. Has not signed the NPT
> 2. It is currently a nuclear power, although they haven't admitted it.
> 3. Israel has invaded every one of its neighbors, often twice, and is
> currently occupying 2 of them. This in spite of the fact that none of its
> neighbors has invaded Israel. Israel has to be considered a paranoid
> warlike country that goes for the gun first--not last.
> 4. The US supports Israel in whatever it does--without exception--and
> vetoes any UN Security Council resolution affecting Israel adversely.
>
> So why are we so concerned over Iran?

Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 21st 06, 11:49 PM

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:

> > > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
> > > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
> > > actually
> > > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
> > > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
> > > words
> > > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
> > > say.
> > >
> > > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
> >
> > OTOH, toopid, we went to war in Iraq without any conclusive evidence of
> > WMD, and you seem quite happy about that.
>
> Perhaps you can't remember that I felt there were sufficient other
> reasons to take out Saddam, not all of which were strictly for your
> selfish interests.

Ever read _Lost Horizon_? Some of it seems to apply directly to you,
toopid.

"He admired the simple black-and-white of Mallinson's code; the public
school ethic might be crude, but at least it was downright."

-and-

"... Chang, you're a philosopher. I must remember that remark of yours.
'Many religions are moderately true.' You fellows up on the mountain
must be a lot of wise guys to have thought that one out. You're right,
too, I'm dead certain of it."

"But we," responded Chang, "are only *moderately* certain."

-and-

"Yet to Conway it did not appear that the Eastern races were abnormally
dilatory, but rather that Englishmen and Americans charged about the
world in a state of continual and rather preposterous fever-heat."

Fiction from 1933 pegs toopid to the wall.

LOL!

> > So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
> > (as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
> > some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?
>
> I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
> Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
> in Iran.

Fair enough. It doesn't matter, as bushie hasn't got enough power right
now to order a shoeshine for the Iranian president.

> > And I do get sick of the right's always attacking the media.
>
> as I get sick of the media attacking the right...

Your programmers must be so very proud of their work on you.

> >You want
> > to talk about fascist attempts at thought control...
> >
> > Go back to the unvarnished truths of Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin et al.
> > They're more your speed.
>
> Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.

But you quote her. Hm. That doesn't seem likely.

I won't argue the point. Go back to the unvarnished truths of O'Reilly,
Malkin et al. They're more your speed. Feel better now, toopid?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 21st 06, 11:49 PM

ScottW wrote:
> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
> > > > that
> > > > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> > > >
> > > > Let's just repeat that !
> > > >
> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
> > > > evidence
> > > > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
> > > >
> > > > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker,
> > > > cites a
> > > > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
> > >
> > > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
> >
> > Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?
>
> Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.
>
> >
> > > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
> > > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
> > > actually
> > > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
> > > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
> > > words
> > > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
> > > say.
> > >
> > > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
> >
> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>
> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

LOL!

While I see a moron....still.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 21st 06, 11:52 PM

ScottW wrote:

> Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

John Lennon must've really made you mad. He stated the same dream. Good
thing someone shot him, right?

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace"

Moron (you, toopid. Not Lennon).

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 12:14 AM

> wrote in message

> let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the
> "most dangerous country".

> 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
> other country. At least not in modern times.

I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Invasion_and_repulse

"By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the
areas previously lost to Iraq. An especially significant battle of this
counter-offensive in the Khuzestan province was the liberation of
Khorramshahr city from the Iraqis on May 24, 1982.
"Most of the fighting for the rest of the war occurred on Iraqi territory,
although some have interpreted the Iraqi withdrawal as a tactical ploy by
the Iraqi military. By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
territory and in well-established defensive positions. The Iranians
continued to employ unsophisticated human wave attacks, while Iraqi soldiers
remained, for the most part, in a defensive posture.

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 12:19 AM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.
>
> John Lennon must've really made you mad. He stated the same dream. Good
> thing someone shot him, right?

Somebody was gonna give John Lennon a nuke?

>
> "Imagine there's no countries
> It isn't hard to do
> Nothing to kill or die for
> And no religion too
> Imagine all the people
> Living life in peace"

Didn't some imam issue a fatwa over this song?

>
> Moron (you, toopid. Not Lennon).

RIP or ROOAR (run out on a rail)?

ScottW

George M. Middius

November 22nd 06, 12:24 AM

Arnii Krooger, Sh.D., shows why he flunked out of high school.

> > 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
> > other country. At least not in modern times.

> I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Invasion_and_repulse
> "By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive

Question for you, Turdy: In Krooglish, is "counter-offensive" synonymous
with "invasion"? I'm asking because in human language, the two terms are
quite different in meaning.

Take your time. A psychotic **** like yourself needn't feel time pressure on
a complex question like this one.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 12:26 AM

In article m>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
> > > > evidence
> > > > that
> > > > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> > > >
> > > > Let's just repeat that !
> > > >
> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
> > > > evidence
> > > > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
> > > >
> > > > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
> > > > Yorker,
> > > > cites a
> > > > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
> > >
> > > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
> >
> > Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?
>
> Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.

No, that's Ferstler.

> > > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
> > > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
> > > actually
> > > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
> > > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
> > > words
> > > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
> > > say.
> > >
> > > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
> >
> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>
> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

That settles that.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 12:29 AM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
>
> > let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the
> > "most dangerous country".
>
> > 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
> > other country. At least not in modern times.
>
> I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.

Learn to read, Arns. Let's requote what was said:

"3. Iran has not *invaded* or *threatened to invade* any
other country. At least not in modern times."

"The war began when *Iraq invaded Iran* on 22 September 1980 following
a long history of border disputes and demands for the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein's regime."

How has this 'slipped off the radar'? How does this run counter to what
was said?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Invasion_and_repulse
>
> "By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the
> areas previously lost to Iraq. An especially significant battle of this
> counter-offensive in the Khuzestan province was the liberation of
> Khorramshahr city from the Iraqis on May 24, 1982.

Counter-offensive. A pretty technical military term with a specific
meaning, yes? In general military usage, it's a term that would
indicate there was an initial offensive that was being countered.
Counter-offensives can actually be defensive in nature, contrary to
what you might intuitively guess.

Using your logic, the Germans were the invaders in June, 1944 at
Normandy: The Allies invade, the Germans launch a counter-offensive,
therefore the Germans are the aggressors.

LOL!

> "Most of the fighting for the rest of the war occurred on Iraqi territory,
> although some have interpreted the Iraqi withdrawal as a tactical ploy by
> the Iraqi military. By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
> popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
> territory and in well-established defensive positions. The Iranians
> continued to employ unsophisticated human wave attacks, while Iraqi soldiers
> remained, for the most part, in a defensive posture.

You are insane.

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

Jenn

November 22nd 06, 01:09 AM

In article . com>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> > > Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.
> >
> > John Lennon must've really made you mad. He stated the same dream. Good
> > thing someone shot him, right?
>
> Somebody was gonna give John Lennon a nuke?

Hey, 2nd Amendment and all.... ;-)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 01:09 AM

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> > > Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.
> >
> > John Lennon must've really made you mad. He stated the same dream. Good
> > thing someone shot him, right?
>
> Somebody was gonna give John Lennon a nuke?
>
>
> >
> > "Imagine there's no countries
> > It isn't hard to do
> > Nothing to kill or die for
> > And no religion too
> > Imagine all the people
> > Living life in peace"
>
> Didn't some imam issue a fatwa over this song?

Hinckley was actually Ali bin Muswat al Tikriti

> > Moron (you, toopid. Not Lennon).
>
> RIP or ROOAR (run out on a rail)?

So you liked the new one?

Happy to oblige.;-)

Moron.

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 02:51 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
>> > (as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
>> > some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?
>>
>> I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
>> Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
>> in Iran.
>
> Fair enough. It doesn't matter, as bushie hasn't got enough power right
> now to order a shoeshine for the Iranian president.

No...this will be an issue for Hillary though she hasn't shown any
reluctance to drop the bomb.

>
>> > And I do get sick of the right's always attacking the media.
>>
>> as I get sick of the media attacking the right...
>
> Your programmers must be so very proud of their work on you.
>
>> >You want
>> > to talk about fascist attempts at thought control...
>> >
>> > Go back to the unvarnished truths of Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin et al.
>> > They're more your speed.
>>
>> Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.
>
> But you quote her. Hm. That doesn't seem likely.

Hardly...IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.

>
> I won't argue the point. Go back to the unvarnished truths of O'Reilly,
> Malkin et al. They're more your speed. Feel better now, toopid?

I think Malkin generally does a good job of substantiating her
positions. Exactly what caused you to arrive at your conclusion
about her work? Familiarity or because someone told you
what to think?

ScottW

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 02:52 AM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article m>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > In article . com>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Eeyore wrote:
>> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
>> > > > evidence
>> > > > that
>> > > > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
>> > > >
>> > > > Let's just repeat that !
>> > > >
>> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
>> > > > evidence
>> > > > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
>> > > >
>> > > > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
>> > > > Yorker,
>> > > > cites a
>> > > > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
>> > >
>> > > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
>> >
>> > Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?
>>
>> Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.
>
> No, that's Ferstler.
>
>> > > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
>> > > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
>> > > actually
>> > > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
>> > > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
>> > > words
>> > > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
>> > > say.
>> > >
>> > > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
>> >
>> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>>
>> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>
> That settles that.

Back to back unsubstantive responses.
You guys should go dancing.

ScottW

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 02:57 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article m>,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> > In article . com>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Eeyore wrote:
> >> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
> >> > > > evidence
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Let's just repeat that !
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found
> >> > > > conclusive
> >> > > > evidence
> >> > > > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
> >> > > > Yorker,
> >> > > > cites a
> >> > > > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
> >> > >
> >> > > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
> >> >
> >> > Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?
> >>
> >> Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.
> >
> > No, that's Ferstler.
> >
> >> > > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
> >> > > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
> >> > > actually
> >> > > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
> >> > > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity
> >> > > using
> >> > > words
> >> > > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
> >> > > say.
> >> > >
> >> > > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
> >> >
> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
> >>
> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
> >
> > That settles that.
>
> Back to back unsubstantive responses.
> You guys should go dancing.

What was that on the substantial scale?

Stephen

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 03:22 AM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article m>,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> > In article . com>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Eeyore wrote:
>> >> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
>> >> > > > evidence
>> >> > > > that
>> >> > > > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Let's just repeat that !
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found
>> >> > > > conclusive
>> >> > > > evidence
>> >> > > > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
>> >> > > > Yorker,
>> >> > > > cites a
>> >> > > > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
>> >> >
>> >> > Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?
>> >>
>> >> Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.
>> >
>> > No, that's Ferstler.
>> >
>> >> > > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
>> >> > > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
>> >> > > actually
>> >> > > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
>> >> > > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity
>> >> > > using
>> >> > > words
>> >> > > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
>> >> > > say.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
>> >> >
>> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>> >>
>> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>> >
>> > That settles that.
>>
>> Back to back unsubstantive responses.
>> You guys should go dancing.
>
> What was that on the substantial scale?

Your night out with ssshhhh? I'm sure it was
purely physical and meant nothing, really.

ScottW

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 03:33 AM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article m>,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> >> > In article . com>,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Eeyore wrote:
> >> >> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
> >> >> > > > evidence
> >> >> > > > that
> >> >> > > > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Let's just repeat that !
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found
> >> >> > > > conclusive
> >> >> > > > evidence
> >> >> > > > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has
> >> >> > > > reported.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
> >> >> > > > Yorker,
> >> >> > > > cites a
> >> >> > > > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written
> >> >> > work?
> >> >>
> >> >> Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.
> >> >
> >> > No, that's Ferstler.
> >> >
> >> >> > > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there
> >> >> > > wasn't
> >> >> > > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if
> >> >> > > they
> >> >> > > actually
> >> >> > > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
> >> >> > > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity
> >> >> > > using
> >> >> > > words
> >> >> > > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > > say.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
> >> >>
> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
> >> >
> >> > That settles that.
> >>
> >> Back to back unsubstantive responses.
> >> You guys should go dancing.
> >
> > What was that on the substantial scale?
>
> Your night out with ssshhhh? I'm sure it was
> purely physical and meant nothing, really.

LOL. Locker room humor's a step up for you.

Meanwhile, the executive branch is setting up another 'stovepiping'
intelligence organization, perhaps remembering how well the method
worked for Iraq.

Stephen

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 03:53 AM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article m>,
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> >> > In article . com>,
>> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Eeyore wrote:
>> >> >> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
>> >> >> > > > evidence
>> >> >> > > > that
>> >> >> > > > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Let's just repeat that !
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found
>> >> >> > > > conclusive
>> >> >> > > > evidence
>> >> >> > > > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has
>> >> >> > > > reported.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
>> >> >> > > > Yorker,
>> >> >> > > > cites a
>> >> >> > > > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written
>> >> >> > work?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, that's Ferstler.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > > Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there
>> >> >> > > wasn't
>> >> >> > > anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if
>> >> >> > > they
>> >> >> > > actually
>> >> >> > > accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
>> >> >> > > Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity
>> >> >> > > using
>> >> >> > > words
>> >> >> > > like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has
>> >> >> > > to
>> >> >> > > say.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>> >> >
>> >> > That settles that.
>> >>
>> >> Back to back unsubstantive responses.
>> >> You guys should go dancing.
>> >
>> > What was that on the substantial scale?
>>
>> Your night out with ssshhhh? I'm sure it was
>> purely physical and meant nothing, really.
>
> LOL. Locker room humor's a step up for you.
>
> Meanwhile, the executive branch is setting up another 'stovepiping'
> intelligence organization, perhaps remembering how well the method
> worked for Iraq.

Listening to Seymour again?

ScottW

Eeyore

November 22nd 06, 05:23 AM

wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
> > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> >
> > Let's just repeat that !
> >
> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
> > evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has
> reported.
>
> let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the "most dangerous
> country".
>
> 1. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty.
> 2. Iran has not violated the NPT or shown any inclination to do so.
> 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any other country. At
> least not in modern times.
> 4. The US is doing everything in its power to make life difficult for Iran,
> and is beating the war drums day and night.
>
> Now let's look at a few other I's:
>
> India
>
> 1. India has not signed the NPT.
> 2. India has made nuclear weapons, and has an ongoing weapons
> program--which it's quite proud of.
> 3. India has fought China, Pakistan, Bangladesh (a country essentially
> manufactured by India.) It's currently threatening Sri Lanka as a result of
> the Tamil insurgency in that country.
> 4. The US seems to have no problem at all with India, and intends to help
> India's nuclear power industry, in spite of India's refusal to sign the NPT.
> It was necessary to pass a special exemption to our NPT laws--just for
> India.
>
> Israel
>
> 1. Has not signed the NPT
> 2. It is currently a nuclear power, although they haven't admitted it.
> 3. Israel has invaded every one of its neighbors, often twice, and is
> currently occupying 2 of them. This in spite of the fact that none of its
> neighbors has invaded Israel.

Well actually they have. But not in recent times.

> Israel has to be considered a paranoid
> warlike country that goes for the gun first--not last.
> 4. The US supports Israel in whatever it does--without exception--and
> vetoes any UN Security Council resolution affecting Israel adversely.
>
> So why are we so concerned over Iran?

You missed out Pakistan.

A US 'ally' also with ( muslim ) nukes !

Graham

Eeyore

November 22nd 06, 05:25 AM

Eeyore

November 22nd 06, 05:33 AM

Eeyore

November 22nd 06, 05:40 AM

ScottW wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
>
> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>
> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !

Graham

Eeyore

November 22nd 06, 05:42 AM

MiNe 109 wrote:

> Meanwhile, the executive branch is setting up another 'stovepiping'
> intelligence organization, perhaps remembering how well the method
> worked for Iraq.

Who would believe them any more ( aside from toopid and his pals ? ).

Graham

Arny Krueger

November 22nd 06, 07:43 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the
>>> "most dangerous country".
>>
>>> 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
>>> other country. At least not in modern times.
>>
>> I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Invasion_and_repulse
>>
>> "By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive
>> had recovered the areas previously lost to Iraq.
> " previously lost to Iraq " ?

That, too.

> Since when is it an invasion to reclaim your own land ?

"By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
territory and in well-established defensive positions."

Note that Hussein fought Iran on Iraq's own territory. IOW, Iran invaded
Iraq and fought Iraq on Iraq's ground.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 07:59 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >> > So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
> >> > (as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
> >> > some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?
> >>
> >> I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
> >> Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
> >> in Iran.
> >
> > Fair enough. It doesn't matter, as bushie hasn't got enough power right
> > now to order a shoeshine for the Iranian president.
>
> No...this will be an issue for Hillary though she hasn't shown any
> reluctance to drop the bomb.

Nor would I be if necessary. I just don't think we're as close to that
as you might.

> >> Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.
> >
> > But you quote her. Hm. That doesn't seem likely.
>
> Hardly...IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
> to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
> Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.

Perhaps some leftists.

Or, as an alternative, I think it's quite cowardly of the (closet) gay,
drug-using rightists not to just come out of the closet. You are all
(closet) gay drug-users, yes?

> > I won't argue the point. Go back to the unvarnished truths of O'Reilly,
> > Malkin et al. They're more your speed. Feel better now, toopid?
>
> I think Malkin generally does a good job of substantiating her
> positions. Exactly what caused you to arrive at your conclusion
> about her work? Familiarity or because someone told you
> what to think?

I frankly get sick of the right being so black/white. You see it in
criticisms of Dems not all marching to the same drumbeat. I'm glad that
they don't. Malkin strikes me as one who is just so *damned* sure that
she's right.

If you want my opinion, read the _Lost Horizon_ quotes from another
post to you this evening. She may be *moderately* right on some points.
I do not see the world in black or white only. Usually, IME, it's
shades of gray.

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 12:03 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> > Meanwhile, the executive branch is setting up another 'stovepiping'
> > intelligence organization, perhaps remembering how well the method
> > worked for Iraq.
>
> Listening to Seymour again?

Of course. Your examples of his 'dishonesty' are actually the
responsible journalism you ask for whenever the NYT or whoever discloses
facts awkward for the right.

Stephen

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 12:11 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
> to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
> Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.

Except that the 'victims' haven't avoided criticism. Quite brave of them
if you think about it, facing criticism for unpopular public stands.

Stephen

November 22nd 06, 06:39 PM

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> wrote:
>
>> So why are we so concerned over Iran?
>
> Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.
>
> ScottW

We had the exact same policy toward Iran before the current president was
elected. Try harder.

Norm

November 22nd 06, 06:54 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
>> > evidence
>> > that
>> > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
>> >
>> > Let's just repeat that !
>> >
>> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
>> > evidence
>> > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
>> >
>> > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
>> > Yorker,
>> > cites a
>> > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
>>
>> Well, if they haven't found "conclusive" evidence, what kind of evidence
>> have they found? Have they found vague, suggestive evidence? Have they
>> found anything above and beyond what the public already knows?
>
> How about suspect intelligence?
>
> Stephen

I'm afraid I don't understand the term "suspect intelligence". Would you
define it for me, please.

Norm

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 08:10 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>>
>> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>>
>> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>
> A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !

You've fallen into the "references required" category.

ScottW

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 08:33 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >> > So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
>> >> > (as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
>> >> > some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?
>> >>
>> >> I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
>> >> Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
>> >> in Iran.
>> >
>> > Fair enough. It doesn't matter, as bushie hasn't got enough power right
>> > now to order a shoeshine for the Iranian president.
>>
>> No...this will be an issue for Hillary though she hasn't shown any
>> reluctance to drop the bomb.
>
> Nor would I be if necessary. I just don't think we're as close to that
> as you might.

3 years....if we assume Iran hasn't got a clandestine enrichment facility
unknown to the IAEA...and the IAEA has clearly stated
they cannot monitor any centrifuge components outside of the
Natanz facility.

"The IAEA has already reported that it can no longer effectively monitor
centrifuge components, unless they are at Natanz and within areas subject to
IAEA containment and surveillance."
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja06albright

>
>> >> Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.
>> >
>> > But you quote her. Hm. That doesn't seem likely.
>>
>> Hardly...IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
>> to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
>> Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.
>
> Perhaps some leftists.
>
> Or, as an alternative, I think it's quite cowardly of the (closet) gay,
> drug-using rightists not to just come out of the closet. You are all
> (closet) gay drug-users, yes?

Thats quite the loony theory.

>
>> > I won't argue the point. Go back to the unvarnished truths of O'Reilly,
>> > Malkin et al. They're more your speed. Feel better now, toopid?
>>
>> I think Malkin generally does a good job of substantiating her
>> positions. Exactly what caused you to arrive at your conclusion
>> about her work? Familiarity or because someone told you
>> what to think?
>
> I frankly get sick of the right being so black/white. You see it in
> criticisms of Dems not all marching to the same drumbeat.

Criticism comes from not knowing what a democratically controlled
government will do. Kind of a nice thing to know before an
election...don't you think?

> I'm glad that
> they don't. Malkin strikes me as one who is just so *damned* sure that
> she's right.

Self confidence is a bad thing? BTW..Malkin is highly critical of the
right and Bush at times. She really came out against Trent Lott.
She clearly isn't a party honk like Hugh Hewitt.

>
> If you want my opinion, read the _Lost Horizon_ quotes from another
> post to you this evening. She may be *moderately* right on some points.
> I do not see the world in black or white only. Usually, IME, it's
> shades of gray.

Sure...but leadership means providing direction...and dealing in the grey
zone all the time provides little direction.

ScottW
>

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 08:35 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
>> to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
>> Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.
>
> Except that the 'victims' haven't avoided criticism.

The people behind them use them as human shields.
Those who do criticize them are subject to attacks of
lack of sensitivity and caring.

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 08:39 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
> >>
> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
> >
> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
>
> You've fallen into the "references required" category.

I don't know about the 'imminent' comment, but I thought I'd dig out a
reference from RAO's resident military 'genius.'

Too bad I wasn't around then, toopid. I might have been able to save
you some embarrassment (I think I have tried a few times to no avail.
Oh well. Never mind.):

From: ScottW
Date: Wed, Aug 17 2005 10:41 pm
Email: "ScottW" >
Groups: rec.audio.opinion

"Not really... Israel wasted Syria in 3 days last time they tangled.
We can open operations against Iran on 2 fronts now.
Interesting how militarily the Afghan Iraq strategy has pretty
well isolated both Syria and Iran."

Message-ID: <bkUMe.42241$Ji.16667@lakeread02>

I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
that mission."

I also wonder how you feel now that we'll likely need help from Syria
and Iran to extricate ourselves from the mess your folks have created.

Moron.

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 08:44 PM

> wrote in message
. ..
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So why are we so concerned over Iran?
>>
>> Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.
>>
>> ScottW
>
> We had the exact same policy toward Iran before the current president was
> elected. Try harder.

BS. Here is our stated policy toward Iran.

http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2006/62779.htm

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 09:10 PM

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > ps.com...
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So why are we so concerned over Iran?
> >>
> >> Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

> > We had the exact same policy toward Iran before the current president was
> > elected. Try harder.
>
> BS. Here is our stated policy toward Iran.
>
> http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2006/62779.htm

Goody. You can Google. You can't see points too well though.

How does your link radically differ from this one, published three
months before he took office? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in
August, 2005.

http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2005/46528.htm

Moron.

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 09:35 PM

In article >,
> wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
> >> > evidence
> >> > that
> >> > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
> >> >
> >> > Let's just repeat that !
> >> >
> >> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
> >> > evidence
> >> > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
> >> >
> >> > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
> >> > Yorker,
> >> > cites a
> >> > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
> >>
> >> Well, if they haven't found "conclusive" evidence, what kind of evidence
> >> have they found? Have they found vague, suggestive evidence? Have they
> >> found anything above and beyond what the public already knows?
> >
> > How about suspect intelligence?
> >
> > Stephen
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand the term "suspect intelligence". Would you
> define it for me, please.

Intelligence whose sourcing and interpretation are "suspect," that is,
questionable.

Stephen

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 09:36 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >
>> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>> >>
>> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>> >
>> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
>>
>> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
>
> I don't know about the 'imminent' comment, but I thought I'd dig out a
> reference from RAO's resident military 'genius.'
>
> Too bad I wasn't around then, toopid. I might have been able to save
> you some embarrassment (I think I have tried a few times to no avail.
> Oh well. Never mind.):
>
> From: ScottW
> Date: Wed, Aug 17 2005 10:41 pm
> Email: "ScottW" >
> Groups: rec.audio.opinion
>
> "Not really... Israel wasted Syria in 3 days last time they tangled.
> We can open operations against Iran on 2 fronts now.
> Interesting how militarily the Afghan Iraq strategy has pretty
> well isolated both Syria and Iran."
>
> Message-ID: <bkUMe.42241$Ji.16667@lakeread02>
>
> I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
> two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
> that mission."

Stop playing police men and go back to what your armies are trained
for General....

Oh yeah..they'd hate that.

>
> I also wonder how you feel now that we'll likely need help from Syria
> and Iran to extricate ourselves from the mess your folks have created.

Kissinger has such a track record of success.
Why not just let Iran take over and start the sunni purge now?

ScottW

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 09:37 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
> >> to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
> >> Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.
> >
> > Except that the 'victims' haven't avoided criticism.
>
> The people behind them use them as human shields.
> Those who do criticize them are subject to attacks of
> lack of sensitivity and caring.

That's because they exhibit a lack of sensitivity and caring. When did
right-wing critics get so thin-skinned?

Stephen

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 09:40 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >
>> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> > ps.com...
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> So why are we so concerned over Iran?
>> >>
>> >> Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.
>
>> > We had the exact same policy toward Iran before the current president was
>> > elected. Try harder.
>>
>> BS. Here is our stated policy toward Iran.
>>
>> http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2006/62779.htm
>
> Goody. You can Google. You can't see points too well though.
>
> How does your link radically differ from this one, published three
> months before he took office? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in
> August, 2005.
>
> http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2005/46528.htm

Doesn't. Thanks for making my point..our policy towards Iran
has not changed while Admadinejad has changed Irans
which is worthy of concern, don't you think?
>
> Moron.

Irrationality noted.

ScottW

ScottW

November 22nd 06, 09:43 PM

"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
>> >> to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
>> >> Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.
>> >
>> > Except that the 'victims' haven't avoided criticism.
>>
>> The people behind them use them as human shields.
>> Those who do criticize them are subject to attacks of
>> lack of sensitivity and caring.
>
> That's because they exhibit a lack of sensitivity and caring.

How should one oppose the rhetoric of a Cindy Sheehan
or the Jersey girls and remain sensitive and caring?

> When did
> right-wing critics get so thin-skinned?

Many are not....but does a thick skin contribut to
sensitivity?

ScottW

MiNe 109

November 22nd 06, 10:00 PM

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
> >> >> to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
> >> >> Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.
> >> >
> >> > Except that the 'victims' haven't avoided criticism.
> >>
> >> The people behind them use them as human shields.
> >> Those who do criticize them are subject to attacks of
> >> lack of sensitivity and caring.
> >
> > That's because they exhibit a lack of sensitivity and caring.
>
> How should one oppose the rhetoric of a Cindy Sheehan
> or the Jersey girls and remain sensitive and caring?

By addressing the issues, not attacking the sources.

> > When did
> > right-wing critics get so thin-skinned?
>
> Many are not....but does a thick skin contribut to
> sensitivity?

Thicker skins are less sensitive.

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 22nd 06, 10:51 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> >
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> >> > ps.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> So why are we so concerned over Iran?
> >> >>
> >> >> Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.
> >
> >> > We had the exact same policy toward Iran before the current president was
> >> > elected. Try harder.
> >>
> >> BS. Here is our stated policy toward Iran.
> >>
> >> http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2006/62779.htm
> >
> > Goody. You can Google. You can't see points too well though.
> >
> > How does your link radically differ from this one, published three
> > months before he took office? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in
> > August, 2005.
> >
> > http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2005/46528.htm
>
> Doesn't. Thanks for making my point..

So you were the one who said, "We had the exact same policy toward Iran
before the current president was elected. Try harder"?

And then, as a counter, who said, "BS. Here is our stated policy
toward Iran"?

Lo siento, toopid. LOL!

>our policy towards Iran
> has not changed while Admadinejad has changed Irans
> which is worthy of concern, don't you think?
> >
> > Moron.
>
> Irrationality noted.

Likewise, I'm sure.

Moron.

Eeyore

November 23rd 06, 12:17 AM

ScottW wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
> >>
> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
> >
> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
>
> You've fallen into the "references required" category.

Have you forgotten you posted this ? It was *your opinion* !

Graham

ScottW

November 23rd 06, 12:23 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> . ..
>> >> >
>> >> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
>> >> > ps.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> So why are we so concerned over Iran?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.
>> >
>> >> > We had the exact same policy toward Iran before the current president
>> >> > was
>> >> > elected. Try harder.
>> >>
>> >> BS. Here is our stated policy toward Iran.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2006/62779.htm
>> >
>> > Goody. You can Google. You can't see points too well though.
>> >
>> > How does your link radically differ from this one, published three
>> > months before he took office? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in
>> > August, 2005.
>> >
>> > http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2005/46528.htm
>>
>> Doesn't. Thanks for making my point..
>
> So you were the one who said, "We had the exact same policy toward Iran
> before the current president was elected. Try harder"?

Same as what? an Iraq policy of regime change?
That answer is no.
Remember the comparison of Iran policy to Iraq? Apparently not.
and we do have heightened levels of concern over admadinejads rhetoric.
I have heightened levels of concern over your senility.

ScottW

ScottW

November 23rd 06, 01:57 AM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>> >>
>> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>> >
>> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
>>
>> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
>
> Have you forgotten you posted this ? It was *your opinion* !

As I said...references required.
I don't recall ever saying US action against Iran was
imminent.

Pardon me for not accepting your recollection
of things when mine does not agree, but that is
the way of the world. You're making a claim.
Time to prove it or shut up.

BTW... a one year search of posts containing the
word "imminent" by me yields one hit.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/6bc45b4cd9ee7afd?hl=en&

or
http://tinyurl.com/ymbkoq

You are apparently....full of ****.

ScottW

Eeyore

November 23rd 06, 04:20 AM

ScottW wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
> >> >>
> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
> >> >
> >> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
> >>
> >> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
> >
> > Have you forgotten you posted this ? It was *your opinion* !
>
> As I said...references required.
> I don't recall ever saying US action against Iran was
> imminent.
>
> Pardon me for not accepting your recollection
> of things when mine does not agree, but that is
> the way of the world. You're making a claim.
> Time to prove it or shut up.
>
> BTW... a one year search of posts containing the
> word "imminent" by me yields one hit.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/6bc45b4cd9ee7afd?hl=en&
>
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/ymbkoq
>
> You are apparently....full of ****.

Are you completely mad ?

That post has nothing to do with me.

Graham

paul packer

November 23rd 06, 10:14 AM

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:54:24 -0800, > wrote:

>
>"MiNe 109" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
>>> > evidence
>>> > that
>>> > Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..
>>> >
>>> > Let's just repeat that !
>>> >
>>> > The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
>>> > evidence
>>> > that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.
>>> >
>>> > Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
>>> > Yorker,
>>> > cites a
>>> > secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.
>>>
>>> Well, if they haven't found "conclusive" evidence, what kind of evidence
>>> have they found? Have they found vague, suggestive evidence? Have they
>>> found anything above and beyond what the public already knows?
>>
>> How about suspect intelligence?
>>
>> Stephen
>
>I'm afraid I don't understand the term "suspect intelligence". Would you
>define it for me, please.
>
>Norm
>
>

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 23rd 06, 08:05 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
> >> >>
> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
> >> >
> >> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
> >>
> >> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
> >
> > I don't know about the 'imminent' comment, but I thought I'd dig out a
> > reference from RAO's resident military 'genius.'
> >
> > Too bad I wasn't around then, toopid. I might have been able to save
> > you some embarrassment (I think I have tried a few times to no avail.
> > Oh well. Never mind.):
> >
> > From: ScottW
> > Date: Wed, Aug 17 2005 10:41 pm
> > Email: "ScottW" >
> > Groups: rec.audio.opinion
> >
> > "Not really... Israel wasted Syria in 3 days last time they tangled.
> > We can open operations against Iran on 2 fronts now.
> > Interesting how militarily the Afghan Iraq strategy has pretty
> > well isolated both Syria and Iran."
> >
> > Message-ID: <bkUMe.42241$Ji.16667@lakeread02>
> >
> > I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
> > two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
> > that mission."
>
> Stop playing police men and go back to what your armies are trained
> for General....

You mean like cut-and-run from Iraq and go into combat operation on
your right and left flank without controlling your center?

Brilliant.

> Oh yeah..they'd hate that.

Whatever. toopid, you really best not discuss military strategy,
capabilities, etc.

You are too blind and dumb to look at it unemotionally. And we've
already seen the results of making military decisions based on
ideology, rather than reality.

> > I also wonder how you feel now that we'll likely need help from Syria
> > and Iran to extricate ourselves from the mess your folks have created.
>
> Kissinger has such a track record of success.
> Why not just let Iran take over and start the sunni purge now?

So when are you going over there to clean the mess up, toopid? I know
that you can do it!

BTW, were you 4F, or Section 8?

Just curious.

Moron.

ScottW

November 23rd 06, 08:59 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>> >> >
>> >> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
>> >>
>> >> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
>> >
>> > Have you forgotten you posted this ? It was *your opinion* !
>>
>> As I said...references required.
>> I don't recall ever saying US action against Iran was
>> imminent.
>>
>> Pardon me for not accepting your recollection
>> of things when mine does not agree, but that is
>> the way of the world. You're making a claim.
>> Time to prove it or shut up.
>>
>> BTW... a one year search of posts containing the
>> word "imminent" by me yields one hit.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/6bc45b4cd9ee7afd?hl=en&
>>
>> or
>> http://tinyurl.com/ymbkoq
>>
>> You are apparently....full of ****.
>
> Are you completely mad ?
>
> That post has nothing to do with me.

OMG...lets recap..you accuse me of saying something
I didn't. I deny it, and request references.

None are forthcoming and I am again accused of having forgotten.

So I run the google search of posts authored
by me with the key words "imminent" and "Iran"
No hits.
I then run the search on just "imminent".
One hit...that has nothing to do with Iran.

I show the result and Graham again accuses
me of madness cuz the post has nothing to do
with HIM.

Well, NFS. Graham, you're losing it.
Seriously and totally, losing it.

ScottW

ScottW

November 23rd 06, 09:21 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>> >> >
>> >> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
>> >>
>> >> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
>> >
>> > I don't know about the 'imminent' comment, but I thought I'd dig out a
>> > reference from RAO's resident military 'genius.'
>> >
>> > Too bad I wasn't around then, toopid. I might have been able to save
>> > you some embarrassment (I think I have tried a few times to no avail.
>> > Oh well. Never mind.):
>> >
>> > From: ScottW
>> > Date: Wed, Aug 17 2005 10:41 pm
>> > Email: "ScottW" >
>> > Groups: rec.audio.opinion
>> >
>> > "Not really... Israel wasted Syria in 3 days last time they tangled.
>> > We can open operations against Iran on 2 fronts now.
>> > Interesting how militarily the Afghan Iraq strategy has pretty
>> > well isolated both Syria and Iran."
>> >
>> > Message-ID: <bkUMe.42241$Ji.16667@lakeread02>
>> >
>> > I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
>> > two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
>> > that mission."
>>
>> Stop playing police men and go back to what your armies are trained
>> for General....
>
> You mean like cut-and-run from Iraq and go into combat operation on
> your right and left flank without controlling your center?

How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
from being able mount military operations impacting
harrassment?

You seem to think we would have to keep policing Baghdad
and Anbar if we were forced to mount a campaign against Iran.

Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
Can't do this..can't do that...can't do anything.
Just the kind of guy our military didn't need, good riddance.

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 24th 06, 02:00 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
> >> >>
> >> >> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
> >> >
> >> > I don't know about the 'imminent' comment, but I thought I'd dig out a
> >> > reference from RAO's resident military 'genius.'
> >> >
> >> > Too bad I wasn't around then, toopid. I might have been able to save
> >> > you some embarrassment (I think I have tried a few times to no avail.
> >> > Oh well. Never mind.):
> >> >
> >> > From: ScottW
> >> > Date: Wed, Aug 17 2005 10:41 pm
> >> > Email: "ScottW" >
> >> > Groups: rec.audio.opinion
> >> >
> >> > "Not really... Israel wasted Syria in 3 days last time they tangled.
> >> > We can open operations against Iran on 2 fronts now.
> >> > Interesting how militarily the Afghan Iraq strategy has pretty
> >> > well isolated both Syria and Iran."
> >> >
> >> > Message-ID: <bkUMe.42241$Ji.16667@lakeread02>
> >> >
> >> > I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
> >> > two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
> >> > that mission."
> >>
> >> Stop playing police men and go back to what your armies are trained
> >> for General....
> >
> > You mean like cut-and-run from Iraq and go into combat operation on
> > your right and left flank without controlling your center?
>
> How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
> from being able mount military operations impacting
> harrassment?

Just one, toopid: you.

Why don't you join up? CENTCOM would clearly see your 'leadership
potential.' They may even offer you a command slot. LOL!

> You seem to think we would have to keep policing Baghdad
> and Anbar if we were forced to mount a campaign against Iran.

I would not want to go into combat with chaos in my rear area. That's
where my logistics comes from. Logistics wins battles. We couldn't
'hunker down.' Lots more convoys, lots more exposure. More troops
required to secure them, or much higher casualty rates.

But you go, girl. Create yet more chaos with no plan. Good call and all
of that.

> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> Can't do this..can't do that...can't do anything.

Reality vs. ideology is a box that you can't seem to break out of,
toopid.

Whatever stability we have is based on current troop levels. Remove
those troops, or reduce them, and stability will reduce at least a like
amount.

Further, your arguments for staying in Iraq are suddenly shifting, or
are not as important to you. Which is it, toopid?

> Just the kind of guy our military didn't need, good riddance.

True, I was not a rummy kind of guy. Um, where is he again?

LOL!

Clearly (yet again) you prove that you do not know anything.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 24th 06, 02:23 AM

ScottW wrote:
> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".

BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.

Lo siento, but that's just how it is.

Moron.

ScottW

November 24th 06, 06:02 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't know about the 'imminent' comment, but I thought I'd dig out a
>> >> > reference from RAO's resident military 'genius.'
>> >> >
>> >> > Too bad I wasn't around then, toopid. I might have been able to save
>> >> > you some embarrassment (I think I have tried a few times to no avail.
>> >> > Oh well. Never mind.):
>> >> >
>> >> > From: ScottW
>> >> > Date: Wed, Aug 17 2005 10:41 pm
>> >> > Email: "ScottW" >
>> >> > Groups: rec.audio.opinion
>> >> >
>> >> > "Not really... Israel wasted Syria in 3 days last time they tangled.
>> >> > We can open operations against Iran on 2 fronts now.
>> >> > Interesting how militarily the Afghan Iraq strategy has pretty
>> >> > well isolated both Syria and Iran."
>> >> >
>> >> > Message-ID: <bkUMe.42241$Ji.16667@lakeread02>
>> >> >
>> >> > I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
>> >> > two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
>> >> > that mission."
>> >>
>> >> Stop playing police men and go back to what your armies are trained
>> >> for General....
>> >
>> > You mean like cut-and-run from Iraq and go into combat operation on
>> > your right and left flank without controlling your center?
>>
>> How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
>> from being able mount military operations impacting
>> harrassment?
>
> Just one, toopid: you.

We'll have to chalk this up as another question you can't answer.

ScottW

ScottW

November 24th 06, 06:07 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
>
> BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.

Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
underground nuclear facilities?

Try thinking outside the box....if we invaded Iran would it be to
hold territory and establish a new regime? No.

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 24th 06, 06:16 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> >
> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
>
> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
> underground nuclear facilities?
>
> Try thinking outside the box....if we invaded Iran would it be to
> hold territory and establish a new regime? No.

toopid, you miss the point. As usual.

It does not matter what the goal is. It's about a military stretched to
the limit. It's about securing your lines of administration. It's about
the basic concepts of military operations which you do not (and
seemingly cannot) grasp. It's about these basic precepts not changing
even the slightest amount in the history of warfare.

You seem to think that we could just mosey in, invade yet another
sovereign nation, destroy their nuclear facilities, and waltz out.
Wrong answer.

So why even discuss it with you? You are blinded by ideology and a
severe lack of military knowledge.

Sit in your cubicle, tap your shoes, and act tough. It may work with
your coworkers.

You're a moron.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 24th 06, 06:18 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't know about the 'imminent' comment, but I thought I'd dig out a
> >> >> > reference from RAO's resident military 'genius.'
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Too bad I wasn't around then, toopid. I might have been able to save
> >> >> > you some embarrassment (I think I have tried a few times to no avail.
> >> >> > Oh well. Never mind.):
> >> >> >
> >> >> > From: ScottW
> >> >> > Date: Wed, Aug 17 2005 10:41 pm
> >> >> > Email: "ScottW" >
> >> >> > Groups: rec.audio.opinion
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Not really... Israel wasted Syria in 3 days last time they tangled.
> >> >> > We can open operations against Iran on 2 fronts now.
> >> >> > Interesting how militarily the Afghan Iraq strategy has pretty
> >> >> > well isolated both Syria and Iran."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Message-ID: <bkUMe.42241$Ji.16667@lakeread02>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
> >> >> > two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
> >> >> > that mission."
> >> >>
> >> >> Stop playing police men and go back to what your armies are trained
> >> >> for General....
> >> >
> >> > You mean like cut-and-run from Iraq and go into combat operation on
> >> > your right and left flank without controlling your center?
> >>
> >> How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
> >> from being able mount military operations impacting
> >> harrassment?
> >
> > Just one, toopid: you.
>
> We'll have to chalk this up as another question you can't answer.

You must've missed this, toopid:

"Whatever stability we have is based on current troop levels. Remove
those troops, or reduce them, and stability will reduce at least a like

amount."

As I said.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 24th 06, 06:19 AM

Eeyore

November 24th 06, 06:51 AM

ScottW wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> >
> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
>
> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
> underground nuclear facilities?

Which underground nuclear facilities ?

Graham

Eeyore

November 24th 06, 06:52 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

> ScottW wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> > >
> > > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> > > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> > > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
> >
> > Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
> > underground nuclear facilities?
> >
> > Try thinking outside the box....if we invaded Iran would it be to
> > hold territory and establish a new regime? No.
>
> toopid, you miss the point. As usual.
>
> It does not matter what the goal is. It's about a military stretched to
> the limit. It's about securing your lines of administration. It's about
> the basic concepts of military operations which you do not (and
> seemingly cannot) grasp. It's about these basic precepts not changing
> even the slightest amount in the history of warfare.
>
> You seem to think that we could just mosey in, invade yet another
> sovereign nation, destroy their nuclear facilities, and waltz out.
> Wrong answer.
>
> So why even discuss it with you? You are blinded by ideology and a
> severe lack of military knowledge.
>
> Sit in your cubicle, tap your shoes, and act tough. It may work with
> your coworkers.
>
> You're a moron.

A dangerous moron.

Ignorance can indeed be very dangerous.

Graham

ScottW

November 24th 06, 07:14 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
>> >
>> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
>> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
>> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
>>
>> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
>> underground nuclear facilities?
>>
>> Try thinking outside the box....if we invaded Iran would it be to
>> hold territory and establish a new regime? No.
>
> toopid, you miss the point. As usual.

We'll take that as a NO, Montogomery does not have even a paragraph
on the subject.

>
> It does not matter what the goal is. It's about a military stretched to
> the limit. It's about securing your lines of administration. It's about
> the basic concepts of military operations which you do not (and
> seemingly cannot) grasp. It's about these basic precepts not changing
> even the slightest amount in the history of warfare.

Still in a box I see.

>
> You seem to think that we could just mosey in, invade yet another
> sovereign nation, destroy their nuclear facilities, and waltz out.
> Wrong answer.

Not like we'd need to hang around and find Saddam.
Irans conventional military capability is even less than Saddams
was which took us 3 days to get to Baghdad...were we planned
to stay.

Once again...all I hear is we can't do this, we can't do that.
Again...this wouldn't happen for at least 2 years anyway.

>
> So why even discuss it with you?

You're idea of discussion does leave much to be desired.
Anyway...apparently you've got nothing to discuss.

ScottW

ScottW

November 24th 06, 07:18 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>> >>
>> >> How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
>> >> from being able mount military operations impacting
>> >> harrassment?
>> >
>> > Just one, toopid: you.
>>
>> We'll have to chalk this up as another question you can't answer.
>
> You must've missed this, toopid:
>
> "Whatever stability we have is based on current troop levels. Remove
> those troops, or reduce them, and stability will reduce at least a like
>
> amount."

Is this going to be a major impediment to military operations?
I don't think so.

ScottW

ScottW

November 24th 06, 07:41 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
>> >
>> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
>> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
>> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
>>
>> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
>> underground nuclear facilities?
>
> Do tell how you would do this. LOL!

Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
decide what can't be done based upon
the rules of war since the dawn of time BS.

We both know neither of us is privy to the intel
to speculate on a meaningful plan. If it comes to
military action, I suspect air attack will be the method
of choice and it will certainly work against some key
facilities like Natanz. I can't know if it will work
for them all or even which are required and neither can you,
in spite of your arrogant blathering.

ScottW

Eeyore

November 24th 06, 08:40 AM

ScottW wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
> >> >> from being able mount military operations impacting
> >> >> harrassment?
> >> >
> >> > Just one, toopid: you.
> >>
> >> We'll have to chalk this up as another question you can't answer.
> >
> > You must've missed this, toopid:
> >
> > "Whatever stability we have is based on current troop levels. Remove
> > those troops, or reduce them, and stability will reduce at least a like
> >
> > amount."
>
> Is this going to be a major impediment to military operations?

What military operations ?

Graham

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 24th 06, 08:58 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> >> >
> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
> >>
> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
> >> underground nuclear facilities?
> >>
> >> Try thinking outside the box....if we invaded Iran would it be to
> >> hold territory and establish a new regime? No.
> >
> > toopid, you miss the point. As usual.
>
> We'll take that as a NO, Montogomery does not have even a paragraph
> on the subject.

In fact, if you want to go down that road, then he does. He has dozens
of invasions outlined. As I said, the goal, be it mineral wealth,
territory, or some temporary goal, does not matter.

Why do you suppose that Montgomery would even care to write a history
of warfare? Most of the battles he writes about do not include:

Aircraft
Cannon
Machine guns
Electronic communications
Rockets
Missiles
Submarines
Powered ships
Torpedoes
Computers
UAVs
Radar
Satellites
Tanks

And others. Yet he seemed to think it was pertinent.

Certainly, we cannot learn anything from any battles that occurred
before these inventions, yes?

Now that I look at it, I am [moderately] ;-) certain that you are
correct: the 'old school' of military hstory has no place in modern
warfare. This will also cut officer training time down dramatically.

LOL!

Moron.

> > It does not matter what the goal is. It's about a military stretched to
> > the limit. It's about securing your lines of administration. It's about
> > the basic concepts of military operations which you do not (and
> > seemingly cannot) grasp. It's about these basic precepts not changing
> > even the slightest amount in the history of warfare.
>
> Still in a box I see.

toopid, McArthur went outside 'the box' at Inchon. Patton, to a lesser
degree, went outside 'the box' in Sicily. The common denominator was
that they both went 'outside the box' while quite aware of those silly
basic rules of warfare that you'd like to ignore.

You and your neocon cronies went 'outside the box' in Iraq. rummy
seemed to think we were in a new era where the old rules went out the
window. You know, where Shinskei was 'way off base.'

You seem to accept his flawed thinking. We can all see the results of
the wisdom of your neocon position in Iraq.

> > You seem to think that we could just mosey in, invade yet another
> > sovereign nation, destroy their nuclear facilities, and waltz out.
> > Wrong answer.
>
> Not like we'd need to hang around and find Saddam.
> Irans conventional military capability is even less than Saddams
> was which took us 3 days to get to Baghdad...were we planned
> to stay.

Do I trust your (as you are a proven clueless idiot) evaluation of
Iranian military capabilities, likely tactical responses, etc.or do I
trust people like this?

http://israelbehindthenews.com/Archives/Jun-21-06.htm

http://forums.stratfor.com/viewtopic.php?t=415&sid=fe73848fefd202105520956c44df8a83

"While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the
level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a
an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of
former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:

"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get
into that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in
Washington is seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National
Journal, 4 December 2004)."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

GEN Abazaid's assessment:

"The Iranian army, for instance, is practicing how to carry out
hit-and-run attacks on supply lines in enemy territory, he said." (Now
where have I heard that before? Oh yeah: from me.)

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Favors_Asymmetric_Strategy_In_Joust_With_US_9 99.html

Give it up, junior. You have no clue.

> Once again...all I hear is we can't do this, we can't do that.
> Again...this wouldn't happen for at least 2 years anyway.

What you hear from me is not that we 'can't' do something. Just that it
would be as ill-advised as Iraq was, if not moreso. The 2nd, 3rd, and
4th order effects would likely be far more disasterous. Even
'hit-and-run' airstrikes would have long-term consequences. Look beyond
the relatively simple military solution to the after-effects, toopid.
That's where you win or lose. You guys already made that mistake once.

No wonder history holds no clues for you: you're clueless. Even history
as recent as three years ago makes no dent in your cro-magnon skull.

Moron.

> > So why even discuss it with you?
>
> You're idea of discussion does leave much to be desired.
> Anyway...apparently you've got nothing to discuss.

LOL!

Yes, dear.

Moron.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 24th 06, 08:59 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
> >> >> from being able mount military operations impacting
> >> >> harrassment?
> >> >
> >> > Just one, toopid: you.
> >>
> >> We'll have to chalk this up as another question you can't answer.
> >
> > You must've missed this, toopid:
> >
> > "Whatever stability we have is based on current troop levels. Remove
> > those troops, or reduce them, and stability will reduce at least a like
> >
> > amount."
>
> Is this going to be a major impediment to military operations?
> I don't think so.

I'll bow to your superior training, experience, and intellect on the
matter.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 24th 06, 09:01 PM

Eeyore wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
> > >> >> from being able mount military operations impacting
> > >> >> harrassment?
> > >> >
> > >> > Just one, toopid: you.
> > >>
> > >> We'll have to chalk this up as another question you can't answer.
> > >
> > > You must've missed this, toopid:
> > >
> > > "Whatever stability we have is based on current troop levels. Remove
> > > those troops, or reduce them, and stability will reduce at least a like
> > >
> > > amount."
> >
> > Is this going to be a major impediment to military operations?
>
> What military operations ?

toopid, once again, is trying to argue military tactics.

He feels that we can invade Iran and be successful.

'Muddled thinking' on his part would be a very polite way to put it.

ScottW

November 24th 06, 09:17 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
>> >> >
>> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
>> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
>> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
>> >>
>> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
>> >> underground nuclear facilities?
>> >>
>> >> Try thinking outside the box....if we invaded Iran would it be to
>> >> hold territory and establish a new regime? No.
>> >
>> > toopid, you miss the point. As usual.
>>
>> We'll take that as a NO, Montogomery does not have even a paragraph
>> on the subject.
>
> In fact, if you want to go down that road, then he does.

LOL....this is getting very typical of you.

(snip more boring BS)
>
> Do I trust your (as you are a proven clueless idiot) evaluation of
> Iranian military capabilities, likely tactical responses, etc.or do I
> trust people like this?
>
> http://israelbehindthenews.com/Archives/Jun-21-06.htm

Wow...2nd strongest in the ME...that says NOTHING.

>
> http://forums.stratfor.com/viewtopic.php?t=415&sid=fe73848fefd202105520956c44df8a83

You're pulling anonymous posts off forums to make your case?

Thats enough to show you can't make a case.

I don't expect action against Iran any time soon...
but your pathetic naysaying is absurd.
Apparently your long years of service accomplished nothing.
Our military is impotent in your mind, but that was
your mission.

ScottW

ScottW

November 24th 06, 09:21 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
>> >> >> from being able mount military operations impacting
>> >> >> harrassment?
>> >> >
>> >> > Just one, toopid: you.
>> >>
>> >> We'll have to chalk this up as another question you can't answer.
>> >
>> > You must've missed this, toopid:
>> >
>> > "Whatever stability we have is based on current troop levels. Remove
>> > those troops, or reduce them, and stability will reduce at least a like
>> >
>> > amount."
>>
>> Is this going to be a major impediment to military operations?
>> I don't think so.
>
> I'll bow to your superior training, experience, and intellect on the
> matter.

All your supposed training didn't give you squat in the way of
problem solving skills. Pathetic whiner but what should we
expect from someone rip'ed?

ScottW

Eeyore

November 24th 06, 09:31 PM

ScottW wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
> >> >>
> >> >> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
> >> >
> >> > Have you forgotten you posted this ? It was *your opinion* !
> >>
> >> As I said...references required.
> >> I don't recall ever saying US action against Iran was
> >> imminent.
> >>
> >> Pardon me for not accepting your recollection
> >> of things when mine does not agree, but that is
> >> the way of the world. You're making a claim.
> >> Time to prove it or shut up.
> >>
> >> BTW... a one year search of posts containing the
> >> word "imminent" by me yields one hit.
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/6bc45b4cd9ee7afd?hl=en&
> >>
> >> or
> >> http://tinyurl.com/ymbkoq
> >>
> >> You are apparently....full of ****.
> >
> > Are you completely mad ?
> >
> > That post has nothing to do with me.
>
> OMG...lets recap..you accuse me of saying something
> I didn't. I deny it, and request references.
>
> None are forthcoming and I am again accused of having forgotten.
>
> So I run the google search of posts authored
> by me with the key words "imminent" and "Iran"
> No hits.
> I then run the search on just "imminent".
> One hit...that has nothing to do with Iran.
>
> I show the result and Graham again accuses
> me of madness cuz the post has nothing to do
> with HIM.
>
> Well, NFS. Graham, you're losing it.
> Seriously and totally, losing it.

Imminent was my interpretation of what you said.

You may have said 'in a few months' or whatever.

I didn't expect you take it quite so literally !

Graham

ScottW

November 24th 06, 09:47 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> >> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You've fallen into the "references required" category.
>> >> >
>> >> > Have you forgotten you posted this ? It was *your opinion* !
>> >>
>> >> As I said...references required.
>> >> I don't recall ever saying US action against Iran was
>> >> imminent.
>> >>
>> >> Pardon me for not accepting your recollection
>> >> of things when mine does not agree, but that is
>> >> the way of the world. You're making a claim.
>> >> Time to prove it or shut up.
>> >>
>> >> BTW... a one year search of posts containing the
>> >> word "imminent" by me yields one hit.
>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/6bc45b4cd9ee7afd?hl=en&
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/ymbkoq
>> >>
>> >> You are apparently....full of ****.
>> >
>> > Are you completely mad ?
>> >
>> > That post has nothing to do with me.
>>
>> OMG...lets recap..you accuse me of saying something
>> I didn't. I deny it, and request references.
>>
>> None are forthcoming and I am again accused of having forgotten.
>>
>> So I run the google search of posts authored
>> by me with the key words "imminent" and "Iran"
>> No hits.
>> I then run the search on just "imminent".
>> One hit...that has nothing to do with Iran.
>>
>> I show the result and Graham again accuses
>> me of madness cuz the post has nothing to do
>> with HIM.
>>
>> Well, NFS. Graham, you're losing it.
>> Seriously and totally, losing it.
>
> Imminent was my interpretation of what you said.
>
> You may have said 'in a few months' or whatever.

or I may have never said anything remotely like that.

Once again...for the reality challenged,
references are required.

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 24th 06, 10:05 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the
> >>> "most dangerous country".
> >>
> >>> 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
> >>> other country. At least not in modern times.
> >>
> >> I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Invasion_and_repulse
> >>
> >> "By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive
> >> had recovered the areas previously lost to Iraq.
> > " previously lost to Iraq " ?
>
> That, too.
>
> > Since when is it an invasion to reclaim your own land ?
>
> "By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
> popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
> territory and in well-established defensive positions."
>
> Note that Hussein fought Iran on Iraq's own territory. IOW, Iran invaded
> Iraq and fought Iraq on Iraq's ground.

LOL!

Simpleton.

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 25th 06, 12:43 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> >> >
> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
> >>
> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
> >> underground nuclear facilities?
> >
> > Do tell how you would do this. LOL!
>
> Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
> do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
> decide what can't be done based upon
> the rules of war since the dawn of time BS.

"Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
are different."
-- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

(Who, BTW, was an ardent student of military history. Even though he
hated Montgomery, he probably would've read his book had he lived...)
;-)

Frederick the Great once said, about his officers relying only on their
practical experience and not studying military history, that he had in
his Army two mules which had been through 40 campaigns, but they were
still mules.

That would place you below a mule, toopid, which seems accurate.

Field Marshal Montgomery: "Both study and practice are necessary:
first, a study of the science of war, and secondly, learning to apply
the study practically in battle. The first is always possible and there
is no excuse for its neglect..."

-and-

"By the very nature of things, skill in the profession of arms has to
be learnt mostly in theory by studying the science of war- since the
opportunity of practice in the art does not often come to the general.
For this reason the great captains have always been serious students of
military history."

But you go, girl. I'm moderately sure that you're correct. It's all BS.

Moron.

> We both know neither of us is privy to the intel
> to speculate on a meaningful plan. If it comes to
> military action, I suspect air attack will be the method
> of choice and it will certainly work against some key
> facilities like Natanz. I can't know if it will work
> for them all or even which are required and neither can you,
> in spite of your arrogant blathering.

So which is more arrogant IYO: understanding military reality based on
study, experience and training, or not understanding military reality
based on no study, no experience, and no training?

I'll leave you to make that call. I'm sure that we'll agree on your
decision, so no need to even post it!

As I said, the military part is the easy part. Only a moron would focus
exclusively on that. Even Led Zeppelin knew better than you: "The pain
of war cannot exceed the woe of aftermath."

Anyway, I'll take your word for it, toopid, over Patton, Montgomery,
Frederick the Great, and virtually every other great military leader,
based on your vast knowledge, experience and training. And we'll just
say, "Screw those lower-order effects! They're the hard part anyway!"
OK?

I'm with ya, girl! Let's go!

Let's kick some ass (again!)!

LOL!

Moron.

ScottW

November 25th 06, 01:11 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
>> >> >
>> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
>> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
>> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
>> >>
>> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
>> >> underground nuclear facilities?
>> >
>> > Do tell how you would do this. LOL!
>>
>> Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
>> do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
>> decide what can't be done based upon
>> the rules of war since the dawn of time BS.
>
> "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
> are different."
> -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
>
> (Who, BTW, was an ardent student of military history. Even though he
> hated Montgomery, he probably would've read his book had he lived...)
> ;-)

Same guy who said, " the politicians won't let us finish the job and
always leave us with another war to fight" ?
Or was that just in the movies?

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 25th 06, 01:15 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> >> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> >> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
> >> >> underground nuclear facilities?
> >> >
> >> > Do tell how you would do this. LOL!
> >>
> >> Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
> >> do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
> >> decide what can't be done based upon
> >> the rules of war since the dawn of time BS.
> >
> > "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
> > are different."
> > -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
> >
> > (Who, BTW, was an ardent student of military history. Even though he
> > hated Montgomery, he probably would've read his book had he lived...)
> > ;-)
>
> Same guy who said, " the politicians won't let us finish the job and
> always leave us with another war to fight" ?
> Or was that just in the movies?

As I said, I'm sure that you're right.

You, after all, have knowledge, experience, and training on your side.

ScottW

November 25th 06, 01:33 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> >> >> message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> >> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
>> >> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
>> >> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
>> >> >> underground nuclear facilities?
>> >> >
>> >> > Do tell how you would do this. LOL!
>> >>
>> >> Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
>> >> do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
>> >> decide what can't be done based upon
>> >> the rules of war since the dawn of time BS.
>> >
>> > "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
>> > are different."
>> > -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
>> >
>> > (Who, BTW, was an ardent student of military history. Even though he
>> > hated Montgomery, he probably would've read his book had he lived...)
>> > ;-)
>>
>> Same guy who said, " the politicians won't let us finish the job and
>> always leave us with another war to fight" ?
>> Or was that just in the movies?
>
> As I said, I'm sure that you're right.
>
> You, after all, have knowledge, experience, and training on your side.

Issue avoidance detected...maybe quoting Patton wasn't exactly
wise for a Rip'er.

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 25th 06, 03:28 AM

toopid, my groupie! HTH are you?

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> >> message
> >> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> >> >> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> >> >> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
> >> >> >> underground nuclear facilities?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do tell how you would do this. LOL!
> >> >>
> >> >> Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
> >> >> do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
> >> >> decide what can't be done based upon
> >> >> the rules of war since the dawn of time BS.
> >> >
> >> > "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
> >> > are different."
> >> > -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
> >> >
> >> > (Who, BTW, was an ardent student of military history. Even though he
> >> > hated Montgomery, he probably would've read his book had he lived...)
> >> > ;-)
> >>
> >> Same guy who said, " the politicians won't let us finish the job and
> >> always leave us with another war to fight" ?
> >> Or was that just in the movies?
> >
> > As I said, I'm sure that you're right.
> >
> > You, after all, have knowledge, experience, and training on your side.
>
> Issue avoidance detected...maybe quoting Patton wasn't exactly
> wise for a Rip'er.

How does what you quote in any way have bearing on the well-known (in
military circles, anyway) fact that strategy and tactics don't change,
and have not since the first time prehistoric man threw rocks at one
another?

Oh. It had absolutely nothing to do with the point, which is why I'm
sure that you're right. You very frequently make statements that have
no bearing on the topic. Why argue it?

Unless your point was that civilian control of the military is a good
thing, which I agree with. But I still fail to see how that contradicts
the original point.

Here's another quote for you, then: Patton also said, "Never make a
decision too early or too late."

I suppose that also somehow shoots down the point that "Strategy and
tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them are different."

BTW, I (just like you) never served, not even for one day (just like
you). I was incarcerated, kicked out, forced to leave for the good of
the service, and so on.

Here's another Patton quote which he may have said with you in mind,
toopid: "You're never beaten until you admit it." I think by this he
meant that you're too stupid to see when your ass has been handed to
you.

I'm sure this has been too long for your three-year-old attention span.

Moron.

ScottW

November 25th 06, 06:07 AM

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> toopid, my groupie! HTH are you?
>
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > ScottW wrote:
> > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > >> oups.com...
> > >> >
> > >> > ScottW wrote:
> > >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > >> >> ups.com...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> > >> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > >> >> >> message
> > >> >> >> oups.com...
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> > >> >> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> > >> >> >> >
> > >> >> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> > >> >> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> > >> >> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
> > >> >> >> underground nuclear facilities?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Do tell how you would do this. LOL!
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
> > >> >> do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
> > >> >> decide what can't be done based upon
> > >> >> the rules of war since the dawn of time BS.
> > >> >
> > >> > "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
> > >> > are different."
> > >> > -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
> > >> >
> > >> > (Who, BTW, was an ardent student of military history. Even though he
> > >> > hated Montgomery, he probably would've read his book had he lived...)
> > >> > ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Same guy who said, " the politicians won't let us finish the job and
> > >> always leave us with another war to fight" ?
> > >> Or was that just in the movies?
> > >
> > > As I said, I'm sure that you're right.
> > >
> > > You, after all, have knowledge, experience, and training on your side.
> >
> > Issue avoidance detected...maybe quoting Patton wasn't exactly
> > wise for a Rip'er.
>
> How does what you quote in any way have bearing on the well-known (in
> military circles, anyway) fact that strategy and tactics don't change,
> and have not since the first time prehistoric man threw rocks at one
> another?

I won a few rock fights as a kid....I must be a military genius,
or maybe just had a good arm.

>
> Oh. It had absolutely nothing to do with the point, which is why I'm
> sure that you're right.

You're sure those cave men were worried about air superiority?
Strategy AND tactics you know.

> You very frequently make statements that have
> no bearing on the topic. Why argue it?
>
> Unless your point was that civilian control of the military is a good
> thing, which I agree with.
> But I still fail to see how that contradicts
> the original point.
>
> Here's another quote for you, then: Patton also said, "Never make a
> decision too early or too late."

Good one...which is why I've been saying the Iran thing
won't come to a military head for a couple years.
>
> I suppose that also somehow shoots down the point that "Strategy and
> tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them are different."

Those cave boys sure perfected the art of MAD.

>
> BTW, I (just like you) never served, not even for one day (just like
> you). I was incarcerated, kicked out, forced to leave for the good of
> the service, and so on.
>
> Here's another Patton quote which he may have said with you in mind,
> toopid: "You're never beaten until you admit it."

Patton would be having a bit of difficulty operating in todays
environment...don't you think?

> I think by this he
> meant that you're too stupid to see when your ass has been handed to
> you.

Nope....you missed that one badly.

>
> I'm sure this has been too long for your three-year-old attention span.

What was your point in this re re rambling rant?

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 25th 06, 07:05 AM

ScottW wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> > toopid, my groupie! HTH are you?
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > ups.com...
> > > >
> > > > ScottW wrote:
> > > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > >> oups.com...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ScottW wrote:
> > > >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > > >> >> ups.com...
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> > > >> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> > > >> >> >> message
> > > >> >> >> oups.com...
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
> > > >> >> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
> > > >> >> >> >
> > > >> >> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not changed
> > > >> >> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_ by
> > > >> >> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can talk.
> > > >> >> >>
> > > >> >> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
> > > >> >> >> underground nuclear facilities?
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > Do tell how you would do this. LOL!
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
> > > >> >> do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
> > > >> >> decide what can't be done based upon
> > > >> >> the rules of war since the dawn of time BS.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
> > > >> > are different."
> > > >> > -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > (Who, BTW, was an ardent student of military history. Even though he
> > > >> > hated Montgomery, he probably would've read his book had he lived...)
> > > >> > ;-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Same guy who said, " the politicians won't let us finish the job and
> > > >> always leave us with another war to fight" ?
> > > >> Or was that just in the movies?
> > > >
> > > > As I said, I'm sure that you're right.
> > > >
> > > > You, after all, have knowledge, experience, and training on your side.
> > >
> > > Issue avoidance detected...maybe quoting Patton wasn't exactly
> > > wise for a Rip'er.
> >
> > How does what you quote in any way have bearing on the well-known (in
> > military circles, anyway) fact that strategy and tactics don't change,
> > and have not since the first time prehistoric man threw rocks at one
> > another?
>
> I won a few rock fights as a kid....I must be a military genius,
> or maybe just had a good arm.

Or you were incredibly lucky. The military genius part has been proven
impossible by...

....you.

> > Oh. It had absolutely nothing to do with the point, which is why I'm
> > sure that you're right.
>
> You're sure those cave men were worried about air superiority?
> Strategy AND tactics you know.

Like Patton didn't have tanks and aircraft and machine guns? WTF would
he say such a thing, the military ignoramous? He should have known
better.

"Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
are different."
-- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

He should've been listening to you. WTF would military people study Sun
Tzu, or any other old military ****? It's all different now. I can see
that now that you've pointed it out to me. Patton was wrong. Air power
changed all of that.

Don't forget the second part of the quote, toopid/Lebowski: "Only the
means of applying them
are different."

Am I surprised that you don't get it?

Not in the least. You are a moron, as has been proven here daily.

> > You very frequently make statements that have
> > no bearing on the topic. Why argue it?
> >
> > Unless your point was that civilian control of the military is a good
> > thing, which I agree with.
> > But I still fail to see how that contradicts
> > the original point.
> >
> > Here's another quote for you, then: Patton also said, "Never make a
> > decision too early or too late."
>
> Good one...which is why I've been saying the Iran thing
> won't come to a military head for a couple years.

Yet you've already made your decision.

And you wonder why I laugh at you.

> > I suppose that also somehow shoots down the point that "Strategy and
> > tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them are different."
>
> Those cave boys sure perfected the art of MAD.

"...Only the means of applying them are different."

Can you think of an example in history where there were two armies that
were so strong, neither country wanted to fight one another, so they
stalemated? I can. Do a little research, toopid/Lebowski. You might
learn something.

MAD was not a new concept with the advent of nuclear weapons.

> > BTW, I (just like you) never served, not even for one day (just like
> > you). I was incarcerated, kicked out, forced to leave for the good of
> > the service, and so on.
> >
> > Here's another Patton quote which he may have said with you in mind,
> > toopid: "You're never beaten until you admit it."
>
> Patton would be having a bit of difficulty operating in todays
> environment...don't you think?

No, I don't, depending on his chain-of-command. Since you've already
watched the movie, you know some other things about him:

1. He studied the area he was operating in intensely, as well as
studying his opponent in detail.
2. He planned for several contingencies simultaneously (remember the
scene just prior to telling Bradley he could have his troops in
Bastogne in (whatever it was. 36 hours)? He had his staff planning
three different contingencies, IIRC. He frequently did this. He foresaw
the possibilities.
3. When he was in Bavaria he took heat for employing Nazis in the
administration of the area. He clearly knew (or intuited) something
that Bremer/bushie did not.

Now if bushie handled it the exact same way that he did, then yes, I
can see where Patton would've been frustrated, much like GEN Zinni has
been, I would guess.

> > I think by this he
> > meant that you're too stupid to see when your ass has been handed to
> > you.
>
> Nope....you missed that one badly.

No, I'm pretty sure that he had you in mind. You'll keep fighting no
matter what.

That's a good quality for a soldier in armed combat to have. For
someone getting their ass handed to them in a debate in an area they
know nothing about, well, let's just say that it's a less admireable
quality.

> > I'm sure this has been too long for your three-year-old attention span.
>
> What was your point in this re re rambling rant?

How little you know ( a given), and how nothing that you've said
effectively counters the fact that strategy and tactics have not
changed.

But since you know absolutely nothing about either strategy or tactics,
or really anything else concerning the military, I can easily see how
you lost the point.

Moron.

ScottW

November 25th 06, 06:13 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>> > toopid, my groupie! HTH are you?
>> >
>> > ScottW wrote:
>> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> > > message
>> > > ups.com...
>> > > >
>> > > > ScottW wrote:
>> > > >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> > > >> message
>> > > >> oups.com...
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > ScottW wrote:
>> > > >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> > > >> >> message
>> > > >> >> ups.com...
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote
>> > > >> >> >> in
>> > > >> >> >> message
>> > > >> >> >> oups.com...
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> > ScottW wrote:
>> > > >> >> >> >> Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
>> > > >> >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >> > BTW, toopid, basic successful military principles have not
>> > > >> >> >> > changed
>> > > >> >> >> > since man started fighting men. Go read _A History of Warfare_
>> > > >> >> >> > by
>> > > >> >> >> > Montgomery as a primer and a few others and maybe then we can
>> > > >> >> >> > talk.
>> > > >> >> >>
>> > > >> >> >> Did Montgomery have a paragraph on how to destroy the enemy's
>> > > >> >> >> underground nuclear facilities?
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > Do tell how you would do this. LOL!
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
>> > > >> >> do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
>> > > >> >> decide what can't be done based upon
>> > > >> >> the rules of war since the dawn of time BS.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
>> > > >> > are different."
>> > > >> > -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > (Who, BTW, was an ardent student of military history. Even though he
>> > > >> > hated Montgomery, he probably would've read his book had he
>> > > >> > lived...)
>> > > >> > ;-)
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Same guy who said, " the politicians won't let us finish the job and
>> > > >> always leave us with another war to fight" ?
>> > > >> Or was that just in the movies?
>> > > >
>> > > > As I said, I'm sure that you're right.
>> > > >
>> > > > You, after all, have knowledge, experience, and training on your side.
>> > >
>> > > Issue avoidance detected...maybe quoting Patton wasn't exactly
>> > > wise for a Rip'er.
>> >
>> > How does what you quote in any way have bearing on the well-known (in
>> > military circles, anyway) fact that strategy and tactics don't change,
>> > and have not since the first time prehistoric man threw rocks at one
>> > another?
>>
>> I won a few rock fights as a kid....I must be a military genius,
>> or maybe just had a good arm.
>
> Or you were incredibly lucky. The military genius part has been proven
> impossible by...
>
> ...you.
>
>> > Oh. It had absolutely nothing to do with the point, which is why I'm
>> > sure that you're right.
>>
>> You're sure those cave men were worried about air superiority?
>> Strategy AND tactics you know.
>
> Like Patton didn't have tanks and aircraft and machine guns?

Was Patton a "prehistoric man" who "threw rocks"?
I don't think so..... apparently you've debunked your own point.
Good job.

> WTF would
> he say such a thing, the military ignoramous? He should have known
> better.
>
> "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
> are different."
> -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

tactics
1 a : the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat

I'm gonna have to disagree a bit with old George here.

>
> He should've been listening to you. WTF would military people study Sun
> Tzu, or any other old military ****? It's all different now.

Just the tactics. Try not get all carried away...again.

> I can see
> that now that you've pointed it out to me. Patton was wrong. Air power
> changed all of that.
>
> Don't forget the second part of the quote, toopid/Lebowski: "Only the
> means of applying them
> are different."
>
> Am I surprised that you don't get it?
>
> Not in the least. You are a moron, as has been proven here daily.

So much for proof.

>
>> > You very frequently make statements that have
>> > no bearing on the topic. Why argue it?
>> >
>> > Unless your point was that civilian control of the military is a good
>> > thing, which I agree with.
>> > But I still fail to see how that contradicts
>> > the original point.
>> >
>> > Here's another quote for you, then: Patton also said, "Never make a
>> > decision too early or too late."
>>
>> Good one...which is why I've been saying the Iran thing
>> won't come to a military head for a couple years.
>
> Yet you've already made your decision.

I did? Tell me...what did I decide? LOL.

>
> And you wonder why I laugh at you.

to drown out the voices in your head?

>
>> > I suppose that also somehow shoots down the point that "Strategy and
>> > tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them are different."
>>
>> Those cave boys sure perfected the art of MAD.
>
> "...Only the means of applying them are different."

I'm sure they stood around and said ..if you throw a rock, we're gonna
throw ALL our rocks and then you can throw all your rocks....
and then we'll pick up the rocks you threw and throw them back
until we all drop dead of exhaustion.
Maybe you have a point...MADs been here since the dawn of time.

>
> Can you think of an example in history where there were two armies that
> were so strong, neither country wanted to fight one another, so they
> stalemated? I can. Do a little research, toopid/Lebowski. You might
> learn something.
>
> MAD was not a new concept with the advent of nuclear weapons.

I see that now. Rocks are assuredly destructive.

>
>> > BTW, I (just like you) never served, not even for one day (just like
>> > you). I was incarcerated, kicked out, forced to leave for the good of
>> > the service, and so on.
>> >
>> > Here's another Patton quote which he may have said with you in mind,
>> > toopid: "You're never beaten until you admit it."
>>
>> Patton would be having a bit of difficulty operating in todays
>> environment...don't you think?
>
> No, I don't, depending on his chain-of-command.

So if George could do it, why can't you?

> Since you've already
> watched the movie, you know some other things about him:
>
> 1. He studied the area he was operating in intensely, as well as
> studying his opponent in detail.
> 2. He planned for several contingencies simultaneously (remember the
> scene just prior to telling Bradley he could have his troops in
> Bastogne in (whatever it was. 36 hours)? He had his staff planning
> three different contingencies, IIRC. He frequently did this. He foresaw
> the possibilities.
> 3. When he was in Bavaria he took heat for employing Nazis in the
> administration of the area. He clearly knew (or intuited) something
> that Bremer/bushie did not.
>
> Now if bushie handled it the exact same way that he did, then yes, I
> can see where Patton would've been frustrated, much like GEN Zinni has
> been, I would guess.
>
>> > I think by this he
>> > meant that you're too stupid to see when your ass has been handed to
>> > you.
>>
>> Nope....you missed that one badly.
>
> No, I'm pretty sure that he had you in mind. You'll keep fighting no
> matter what.
>
> That's a good quality for a soldier in armed combat to have. For
> someone getting their ass handed to them in a debate in an area they
> know nothing about, well, let's just say that it's a less admireable
> quality.

How about claiming fictitious victory? You and Bush have something
in common there. Ouch. I'm feeling your pain. LOL.

ScottW

November 25th 06, 06:19 PM

>
> Imminent was my interpretation of what you said.
>
> You may have said 'in a few months' or whatever.
>
> I didn't expect you take it quite so literally !
>
> Graham

When you put quotes around a word one expects to see that word in your
reference. Same goes for all caps. IOW, don't draw explicit attention to
a word unless that word itself appears. So yes, I took it literally.

Norm Strong

November 25th 06, 06:41 PM

>> >>> 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
>> >>> other country. At least not in modern times.
>> >>
>> >> I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Invasion_and_repulse
>> >>
>> >> "By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive
>> >> had recovered the areas previously lost to Iraq.
>> > " previously lost to Iraq " ?
>>
>> That, too.
>>
>> > Since when is it an invasion to reclaim your own land ?
>>
>> "By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
>> popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
>> territory and in well-established defensive positions."
>>
>> Note that Hussein fought Iran on Iraq's own territory. IOW, Iran invaded
>> Iraq and fought Iraq on Iraq's ground.

What we have here is disagreement over the meaning of the term "invasion".

What Iraq did to Iran was clearly an invasion; that the Iranian
counter-offensive was fought inside Iraq, I don't consider an
invasion--althogh you're free to disagree. Nor do I consider cross-border
small unit raids to be invasions. The Israelis definitely DID, however,
invade Lebanon.

When a country sends spies to another country, I don't consider that an
invasion either. When Hamas shoots rockets into Israel, I don't consider
that an invasion of Israel. The Israeli response to said rockets could
conceivably be considered an invasion. It's a close call.

When one nation sends large units into another with the intention of
substituting its law for that of the invaded country, I call that an
invasion.

I'd be interested in your response.

Norm Strong

ScottW

November 25th 06, 06:49 PM

> wrote in message
. ..
>
>>> >>> 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
>>> >>> other country. At least not in modern times.
>>> >>
>>> >> I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Invasion_and_repulse
>>> >>
>>> >> "By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive
>>> >> had recovered the areas previously lost to Iraq.
>>> > " previously lost to Iraq " ?
>>>
>>> That, too.
>>>
>>> > Since when is it an invasion to reclaim your own land ?
>>>
>>> "By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
>>> popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
>>> territory and in well-established defensive positions."
>>>
>>> Note that Hussein fought Iran on Iraq's own territory. IOW, Iran invaded
>>> Iraq and fought Iraq on Iraq's ground.
>
> What we have here is disagreement over the meaning of the term "invasion".
>
> What Iraq did to Iran was clearly an invasion; that the Iranian
> counter-offensive was fought inside Iraq, I don't consider an
> invasion--althogh you're free to disagree.

How about the first gulf war? Did the US invade Iraq?

> Nor do I consider cross-border small unit raids to be invasions. The
> Israelis definitely DID, however, invade Lebanon.
>
> When a country sends spies to another country, I don't consider that an
> invasion either. When Hamas shoots rockets into Israel, I don't consider that
> an invasion of Israel. The Israeli response to said rockets could conceivably
> be considered an invasion. It's a close call.
>
> When one nation sends large units into another with the intention of
> substituting its law for that of the invaded country, I call that an
> invasion.
>
> I'd be interested in your response.

Seems like people are implying that all invasions are bad
and unjustifiable. I think Israeli invasions in response to
Hamas and Hezbollah actions are legitimate responses.

ScottW

George M. Middius

November 25th 06, 07:02 PM

Sleepy Normy said:

> that the Iranian
> counter-offensive was fought inside Iraq, I don't consider an
> invasion--althogh you're free to disagree.

Only Krooglish speakers disagree, Normy.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 25th 06, 07:25 PM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> >> > toopid, my groupie! HTH are you?
> >> >
> >> > ScottW wrote:
> >> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in

> >> > Oh. It had absolutely nothing to do with the point, which is why I'm
> >> > sure that you're right.
> >>
> >> You're sure those cave men were worried about air superiority?
> >> Strategy AND tactics you know.
> >
> > Like Patton didn't have tanks and aircraft and machine guns?
>
> Was Patton a "prehistoric man" who "threw rocks"?
> I don't think so..... apparently you've debunked your own point.
> Good job.

You have no clue what you are talking about. That much is clear.

It is a waste of time discussing this with you. That much is also
clear.

The point has only been debunked in your 'mind.'

> > WTF would
> > he say such a thing, the military ignoramous? He should have known
> > better.
> >
> > "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
> > are different."
> > -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.
>
> tactics
> 1 a : the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat
>
> I'm gonna have to disagree a bit with old George here.

Based on your vast knowledge, study, and experience, why would that
surprise me?

LOL!

> > He should've been listening to you. WTF would military people study Sun
> > Tzu, or any other old military ****? It's all different now.
>
> Just the tactics. Try not get all carried away...again.

Sorry, toopid. Read something, perhaps even something related to what
you are attempting to talk about.

Then let's get back together and talk about what you've learned.

> > I can see
> > that now that you've pointed it out to me. Patton was wrong. Air power
> > changed all of that.
> >
> > Don't forget the second part of the quote, toopid/Lebowski: "Only the
> > means of applying them
> > are different."
> >
> > Am I surprised that you don't get it?
> >
> > Not in the least. You are a moron, as has been proven here daily.
>
> So much for proof.

Air power adds a third dimension, toopid, but does not conquer
territory or objectives. Air power is combat support.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that only armor and
infantry can do capture territory or objectives. In the old days it
would've been spearmen and knights in armor (Wow. Why call tanks
'armor'? LOL!) Before that, clubmen.

Successful tactics have not essentially changed. Only the means of
applying them.

> >> > You very frequently make statements that have
> >> > no bearing on the topic. Why argue it?
> >> >
> >> > Unless your point was that civilian control of the military is a good
> >> > thing, which I agree with.
> >> > But I still fail to see how that contradicts
> >> > the original point.
> >> >
> >> > Here's another quote for you, then: Patton also said, "Never make a
> >> > decision too early or too late."
> >>
> >> Good one...which is why I've been saying the Iran thing
> >> won't come to a military head for a couple years.
> >
> > Yet you've already made your decision.
>
> I did? Tell me...what did I decide? LOL.

That the military will no doubt have to get involved.

> > And you wonder why I laugh at you.
>
> to drown out the voices in your head?

Are you always a moron, or do you put on an act when you post here?

> >> > I suppose that also somehow shoots down the point that "Strategy and
> >> > tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them are different."
> >>
> >> Those cave boys sure perfected the art of MAD.
> >
> > "...Only the means of applying them are different."
>
> I'm sure they stood around and said ..if you throw a rock, we're gonna
> throw ALL our rocks and then you can throw all your rocks....
> and then we'll pick up the rocks you threw and throw them back
> until we all drop dead of exhaustion.
> Maybe you have a point...MADs been here since the dawn of time.

Did the voices in your head plant that thought?

Please show where any discussion of cavemen and MAD occurred (other
than in your 'mind').

> > Can you think of an example in history where there were two armies that
> > were so strong, neither country wanted to fight one another, so they
> > stalemated? I can. Do a little research, toopid/Lebowski. You might
> > learn something.
> >
> > MAD was not a new concept with the advent of nuclear weapons.
>
> I see that now. Rocks are assuredly destructive.

Moron.

Is it redundant to say, 'obtuse moron'?

> >> > BTW, I (just like you) never served, not even for one day (just like
> >> > you). I was incarcerated, kicked out, forced to leave for the good of
> >> > the service, and so on.
> >> >
> >> > Here's another Patton quote which he may have said with you in mind,
> >> > toopid: "You're never beaten until you admit it."
> >>
> >> Patton would be having a bit of difficulty operating in todays
> >> environment...don't you think?
> >
> > No, I don't, depending on his chain-of-command.
>
> So if George could do it, why can't you?

If I could do it, how come you never could, toopid? Not even for a day?
Just one single eight-hour day?

At least I meade it to MEPS before they kicked me out/incarcerated
me/rejected me. Did you get lost on the way there, toopid, due to
misfiring synapses? Or did the voices in your head give you the wrong
directions?

LOL!

> > Since you've already
> > watched the movie, you know some other things about him:
> >
> > 1. He studied the area he was operating in intensely, as well as
> > studying his opponent in detail.
> > 2. He planned for several contingencies simultaneously (remember the
> > scene just prior to telling Bradley he could have his troops in
> > Bastogne in (whatever it was. 36 hours)? He had his staff planning
> > three different contingencies, IIRC. He frequently did this. He foresaw
> > the possibilities.
> > 3. When he was in Bavaria he took heat for employing Nazis in the
> > administration of the area. He clearly knew (or intuited) something
> > that Bremer/bushie did not.
> >
> > Now if bushie handled it the exact same way that he did, then yes, I
> > can see where Patton would've been frustrated, much like GEN Zinni has
> > been, I would guess.

No idiotic comment here, toopid? Or do you feel that you've damaged
your position enough for one post?

> >> > I think by this he
> >> > meant that you're too stupid to see when your ass has been handed to
> >> > you.
> >>
> >> Nope....you missed that one badly.
> >
> > No, I'm pretty sure that he had you in mind. You'll keep fighting no
> > matter what.
> >
> > That's a good quality for a soldier in armed combat to have. For
> > someone getting their ass handed to them in a debate in an area they
> > know nothing about, well, let's just say that it's a less admireable
> > quality.
>
> How about claiming fictitious victory? You and Bush have something
> in common there. Ouch. I'm feeling your pain. LOL.

The only fiction here is that you can hang with me in this discussion.

How can you feel pain and not see the falsity of your 'points'?

Feeling pain requires at least some brain function. I have seen no
evidence of that in you.

That's a true puzzler, yes?

Moron.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 25th 06, 07:28 PM

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> >>> >>> 3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
> >>> >>> other country. At least not in modern times.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Invasion_and_repulse
> >>> >>
> >>> >> "By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive
> >>> >> had recovered the areas previously lost to Iraq.
> >>> > " previously lost to Iraq " ?
> >>>
> >>> That, too.
> >>>
> >>> > Since when is it an invasion to reclaim your own land ?
> >>>
> >>> "By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
> >>> popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
> >>> territory and in well-established defensive positions."
> >>>
> >>> Note that Hussein fought Iran on Iraq's own territory. IOW, Iran invaded
> >>> Iraq and fought Iraq on Iraq's ground.
> >
> > What we have here is disagreement over the meaning of the term "invasion".
> >
> > What Iraq did to Iran was clearly an invasion; that the Iranian
> > counter-offensive was fought inside Iraq, I don't consider an
> > invasion--althogh you're free to disagree.
>
> How about the first gulf war? Did the US invade Iraq?

No.

> > Nor do I consider cross-border small unit raids to be invasions. The
> > Israelis definitely DID, however, invade Lebanon.
> >
> > When a country sends spies to another country, I don't consider that an
> > invasion either. When Hamas shoots rockets into Israel, I don't consider that
> > an invasion of Israel. The Israeli response to said rockets could conceivably
> > be considered an invasion. It's a close call.
> >
> > When one nation sends large units into another with the intention of
> > substituting its law for that of the invaded country, I call that an
> > invasion.
> >
> > I'd be interested in your response.
>
> Seems like people are implying that all invasions are bad
> and unjustifiable. I think Israeli invasions in response to
> Hamas and Hezbollah actions are legitimate responses.

No, people are laughing at Arns' butchering of a relatively simple
question.

Clyde Slick

November 25th 06, 08:05 PM

Eeyore a scris:

Seymour Hersh,
yadda,yadda,yadda

Eeyore

November 25th 06, 11:39 PM

wrote:

> >
> > Imminent was my interpretation of what you said.
> >
> > You may have said 'in a few months' or whatever.
> >
> > I didn't expect you take it quite so literally !
> >
> > Graham
>
> When you put quotes around a word one expects to see that word in your
> reference. Same goes for all caps. IOW, don't draw explicit attention to
> a word unless that word itself appears. So yes, I took it literally.

They weren't quote mark like this " " ! They were inverted commas.

When I write 'imminent' it means imminent or a phrase with a similar meaning .
When I write "imminent" it means IMMINENT.

Graham

November 26th 06, 06:33 PM

>> Seems like people are implying that all invasions are bad
>> and unjustifiable. I think Israeli invasions in response to
>> Hamas and Hezbollah actions are legitimate responses.

I don't. Hamas and Hezbollah operations are small scale; Israeli responses
are out of all proportion. They are so enormous that one must assume that
they were long time planned operations awaiting only a suitable excuse to
launch.

Do you really think that the assassination of Ferdinand was the reason for
the first World War?

Norm Strong

November 26th 06, 06:36 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Imminent was my interpretation of what you said.
>> >
>> > You may have said 'in a few months' or whatever.
>> >
>> > I didn't expect you take it quite so literally !
>> >
>> > Graham
>>
>> When you put quotes around a word one expects to see that word in your
>> reference. Same goes for all caps. IOW, don't draw explicit attention
>> to
>> a word unless that word itself appears. So yes, I took it literally.
>
> They weren't quote mark like this " " ! They were inverted commas.
>
> When I write 'imminent' it means imminent or a phrase with a similar
> meaning .
> When I write "imminent" it means IMMINENT.
>
> Graham

I'll try to keep that in mind, Graham, but I would suggest that the general
public will not.

Norm

ScottW

November 26th 06, 07:36 PM

> wrote in message
. ..
>>> Seems like people are implying that all invasions are bad
>>> and unjustifiable. I think Israeli invasions in response to
>>> Hamas and Hezbollah actions are legitimate responses.
>
> I don't. Hamas and Hezbollah operations are small scale;

A murder here, a kidnapping there....small stuff.
I find your attitude toward crimes of Hamas and Hezbelloh
reprehensible.

> Israeli responses are out of all proportion.

Tell it to the dead and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. IMO, the one responsibility
of a nation is to protect its citizens, all of them.

> They are so enormous that one must assume that they were long time planned
> operations awaiting only a suitable excuse to launch.

Thats ridiculous. Israel still went through a mobilization process before
invading Lebanon. Just because the live at a higher state of readiness
due to the constant threats they face is no reason to assume they
planned anything.
>
> Do you really think that the assassination of Ferdinand was the reason for the
> first World War?

Do I think that is relevant at all? No.

ScottW

ScottW

November 26th 06, 07:42 PM

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Imminent was my interpretation of what you said.
>> >
>> > You may have said 'in a few months' or whatever.
>> >
>> > I didn't expect you take it quite so literally !
>> >
>> > Graham
>>
>> When you put quotes around a word one expects to see that word in your
>> reference. Same goes for all caps. IOW, don't draw explicit attention to
>> a word unless that word itself appears. So yes, I took it literally.
>
> They weren't quote mark like this " " ! They were inverted commas.
>
> When I write 'imminent' it means imminent or a phrase with a similar meaning .
> When I write "imminent" it means IMMINENT.

Sigh...isn't usenet wonderful? Graham claims I made a statement.
I deny it .....he can't substantiate the claim from the archives....

and instead of discussing the falseness of his claim....you're debating
punctuation.

Don't you remember the second middiot rule?
He who debates punctuation....loses! Try not to be a couple of losers.

ScottW

[email protected]

November 26th 06, 07:52 PM

> wrote:
> >> Seems like people are implying that all invasions are bad
> >> and unjustifiable. I think Israeli invasions in response to
> >> Hamas and Hezbollah actions are legitimate responses.
>
> I don't. Hamas and Hezbollah operations are small scale; Israeli responses
> are out of all proportion. They are so enormous that one must assume that
> they were long time planned operations awaiting only a suitable excuse to
> launch.
>
> Do you really think that the assassination of Ferdinand was the reason for
> the first World War?
>
> Norm Strong

I promised myself not to take part in the RAO OT. debates but
your coolheadedness about other countries' dilemmas fascinates.

What would you consider a "proportionate response" if a Canadian
grouping, backed by foreign money and arms , kept for years lobbing
bombs into the streets, homes, schools and preschools of Bellingham,
Washington State. Without any interference and a tacit support of the
Canadian and British Columbia governments?
Ludovic Mirabel

ScottW

November 26th 06, 08:12 PM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>>

(snip numerous paragraphs of insubstantial ranting and insults)

>> So much for proof.
>
> Air power adds a third dimension, toopid, but does not conquer
> territory or objectives. Air power is combat support.

So the destruction of the Iraqi reactor at Osirak was
not an "objective". I'm sure that would be news to the Israelis
who carried out the attack.

You remain stuck in the must conquer and capture box.

>
> If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that only armor and
> infantry can do capture territory or objectives.

In english please?

BTW...is it not reasonable to have as an objective the destruction
of something rather than it's capture?
Was Osama successful in some of his 9/11 objectives?

> In the old days it
> would've been spearmen and knights in armor (Wow. Why call tanks
> 'armor'? LOL!) Before that, clubmen.
>
> Successful tactics have not essentially changed. Only the means of
> applying them.

You keep saying that...is this why Clinton was successful in
accomplishing his military objectives on Al Qaeda?

(snip the remaining contentless rants of derangement).

There's is an interesting thought on future wars in the ME.
In the second gulf war the US made clear efforts to minimize
destruction of infrastructure as we maintained a goal of regime
change. Mass destruction would make nation building more
difficult....however it is clear the US lacks the willpower for
extended nation building efforts, particularly when the
inhabitants are determined to kill each other.
So...if the next war is in Lebanon and Syria (including Israel),
or an invasion of Iran to eliminate their nuclear facilities
and take out the mullahs and Admadinejad.
Would we bother with a conquer and rebuild strategy?
It seems far cheaper to sweep through and destroy their
military/nuclear capabilities and leave.
The cost of occupation
is far greater than the cost of their annihilation.

I think the strategy of US as benefactor to the people
is the real victim in this gulf war. I doubt any US leader
will ever propose we take on a task like that in the next
millennium.

ScottW

George M. Middius

November 26th 06, 08:16 PM

Uncle Normy said:

> Hamas and Hezbollah operations are small scale; Israeli responses
> are out of all proportion. They are so enormous that one must assume that
> they were long time planned operations awaiting only a suitable excuse to
> launch.

uh-huh...

> Do you really think that the assassination of Ferdinand was the reason for
> the first World War?

I do believe you just rebutted your first point. Do you really believe
Hezbollah's recent "small scale" attack on Israel was a minor eruption by a
repressed people? If you can see the multifarious array of forces that drove
Europe to WWI, you should be able to see a similar pattern in the Middle
East. If you need a clue, reflect on what Ahmadinejad recently said about
removing Israel from maps of the world.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Sander deWaal

November 26th 06, 11:49 PM

> said:

>I don't. Hamas and Hezbollah operations are small scale; Israeli responses
>are out of all proportion. They are so enormous that one must assume that
>they were long time planned operations awaiting only a suitable excuse to
>launch.

And why would Israel always be in a red alert status?
Could that be because the intention of (almost) every Arab nation is
to sweep them back into the sea?
And if not the nation, it's one or more pressure groups with influence
in the government of said states.

>Do you really think that the assassination of Ferdinand was the reason for
>the first World War?

If you can understand that, you can understand why Israel is always
prepared for a full-scale attack by joined Arab forces.

The only thing they can not prepare for is some whacko with a car
bomb.

--
- Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? -

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 27th 06, 05:11 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message

> (snip numerous paragraphs of insubstantial ranting and insults)

Insubstantial, insulting, maybe. Pertinent and on-target? Absolutely.

> >> So much for proof.
> >
> > Air power adds a third dimension, toopid, but does not conquer
> > territory or objectives. Air power is combat support.
>
> So the destruction of the Iraqi reactor at Osirak was
> not an "objective". I'm sure that would be news to the Israelis
> who carried out the attack.

Was it conquered? Nope. (We can quibble over definitions, but I'm
pretty sure you know the definition I was using given the context.)

conquer

Main Entry: con·quer
Pronunciation: 'kä[ng]-k&r
Function: verb

1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms

Air power cannot conquer territory or objectives. Air power is combat
support. As I said. So are FA, engineers, and so on, BTW. All support
the infantry or the armor.

Was the reactor destroyed? Sure. Could Saddam have rebuilt it if he'd
wanted to? I would say probably yes. Even with our sanctions and/or the
world watching, Iran and NK seem to be able to get what they need.

You've dishonestly snipped (yet again) the essence of the 'point' you
are trying to make: That essence is captured here:

******************************************

You:
"Let me take your tactic and tell you what I wouldn't
do. I wouldn't let a run out on a rail aging artilleryman
decide what can't be done based upon
the rules of war since the dawn of time BS."

Me:
> "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only the means of applying them
> are different."
> -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

You:
tactics
1 a : the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat

(i.e. Actually, BTW, "Tactics is the employment of units in combat. It
includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to
each other, the terrain and the enemy to translate potential combat
power into victorious battles and engagements" But I won't quibble with
your 1/5 correct definition of tactics. And to stop you from
preemptively butchering another definition, "Strategy is the art and
science of developing and employing armed forces and other instruments
of national power in a sychronized fashion to secure national or
multinational objectives.")

You (Continued):
I'm gonna have to disagree a bit with old George here.
******************************************

You have yet to show where Patton was wrong.

> You remain stuck in the must conquer and capture box.

For long-term success, yes. For short-term delays or disruptions, no.

You want to disrupt or delay Iran's nuclear capability for a time. How
is bombing a target from an aircraft different from hitting a target
with an FA raid different from a small-unit action to infiltrate and
blow a target different from hitting a target with a rocket or missile
attack?

As Patton said, once again, "Strategy and tactics do not change. Only
the means of applying them are different."

> > If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that only armor and
> > infantry can do capture territory or objectives.
>
> In english please?

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that only armor and
infantry can/do capture territory or objectives.

Most idiots could've figured it out, toopid. Either 'can' or 'do'
without the other would also be fine, as would deleting both.

> BTW...is it not reasonable to have as an objective the destruction
> of something rather than it's capture?

Sure. To what strategic end? In the case of Iran's nuclear capability,
to delay it for awhile? To disrupt it for awhile? That's what you'll
get. A delay or a disruption. If you don't own the ground, back they'll
come to rebuild if that is their long-term plan. Probably deeper,
better protected and more secretive too. That also assumes that we
currently have accurate locations, dispositions, etc. for all of their
facilities. I personally kind of doubt that we do.

Look above the horizon, toopid. This is exactly as stupid as saying
that we are safer in the US because there have been no large-scale
attacks on US soil since 9/11. Short-sighted vision works really great
in the short-term.

Examples of militarily destroying something without retaining the
ground might include dropping troops behind the lines to blow
telegraph/telephone lines prior to the Normandy invasion, blowing a
bridge, etc. But everybody knows that's a temporary deal if you don't
own the land. It merely delays or disrupts.

There are lots of military missions where the goal isn't necessarily to
capture the territory: delay, disrupt, deny, suppress, fix, and so on.

> Was Osama successful in some of his 9/11 objectives?

Probably. I'm not sure what all of his strategic objectives were. Are
you?

History will probably give us a better perspective, but since we're in
some new era militarily where the past doesn't really matter (BS was
your exact quote), there's no sense studying it, yes?;-)

> > In the old days it
> > would've been spearmen and knights in armor (Wow. Why call tanks
> > 'armor'? LOL!) Before that, clubmen.
> >
> > Successful tactics have not essentially changed. Only the means of
> > applying them.
>
> You keep saying that...is this why Clinton was successful in
> accomplishing his military objectives on Al Qaeda?

Which were...?

The Tomahawk strikes?

I'm not sure which military objectives that you are referring to, nor
how whatever it is disproves Patton's statement. I'm sure that you'll
fill me in though.

> There's is an interesting thought on future wars in the ME.
> In the second gulf war the US made clear efforts to minimize
> destruction of infrastructure as we maintained a goal of regime
> change. Mass destruction would make nation building more
> difficult....however it is clear the US lacks the willpower for
> extended nation building efforts, particularly when the
> inhabitants are determined to kill each other.

You assume a cause-and-effect here that I do not agree with. I think
there is a better case for Americans not supporting a war long-term
that is more ideologically-based than you'd care to admit, or one where
the line between national security and cost is blurry at best.

> So...if the next war is in Lebanon and Syria (including Israel),
> or an invasion of Iran to eliminate their nuclear facilities
> and take out the mullahs and Admadinejad.
> Would we bother with a conquer and rebuild strategy?
> It seems far cheaper to sweep through and destroy their
> military/nuclear capabilities and leave.
> The cost of occupation
> is far greater than the cost of their annihilation.

Study the airstrike on Monte Cassino in Italy in WWII for my answer to
this question. The effects might not be what you intend.

"On February 15 the monastery, high on a peak overlooking the town of
Cassino, was destroyed by American B17 and B26 bombers. Two days after
the bombing crack German paratroopers poured into the ruins to defend
it. From January 12 to May 18, it was assaulted four times by Allied
troops, for a loss of over 54,000 Allied and 20,000 German soldiers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino

Oooops.

Again, if your strategy is for a disruption or a delay of something,
your scenario works. But if you want something of permanence and don't
control the land, control the points of entry, control the scientists,
control the politics, control the infrastructure and so on, I strongly
doubt your strategy will work long-term.

And don't ignore those nasty lower-order effects. If you do they will,
without question, come back to haunt you. Just like our ignoring (or
ignorance) of them has in Iraq.

> I think the strategy of US as benefactor to the people
> is the real victim in this gulf war. I doubt any US leader
> will ever propose we take on a task like that in the next
> millennium.

I think we made our decision to attack Iraq far too early (as in
'during the 1990s'). Once again, Patton was correct.

Here are a couple of other Patton quotes that I like:

"Each form of specialist, like the aviators, the artillerymen, or the
tanks, talk as if theirs was the only useful weapon and that if there
were enough of them used, the war would soon end. As a matter of fact,
it is the doughboy, in the final analysis, who does the trick."

rummy should've read that one, don't you agree?

And one more just for you, toopid, perhaps the most pertinent of all in
this discussion:

"In view of the prevalent opinion in America that soldiers are, of all
persons, the least capable of discussing military matters and that
their years of special training is nil compared to the innate military
knowledge of lawyers, doctors, and preachers, I am probably guilty of a
great heresy in daring to discuss tanks from the viewpoint of a tank
officer."

And no, BTW, I am not comparing myself to Patton.

LOL!

Moron.

ScottW

November 27th 06, 06:10 AM

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message

> (snip numerous paragraphs of insubstantial ranting and insults)

:Insubstantial, insulting, maybe. Pertinent and on-target? Absolutely.

Thanks for admitting insubstantial insults is your target.

> >> So much for proof.
> >
> > Air power adds a third dimension, toopid, but does not conquer
> > territory or objectives. Air power is combat support.
>
> So the destruction of the Iraqi reactor at Osirak was
> not an "objective". I'm sure that would be news to the Israelis
> who carried out the attack.

:Was it conquered?

If we can't conquer...why bother?
Still stuck in Atilla's box, eh?

ScottW

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 27th 06, 08:22 AM

ScottW wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
>
> > (snip numerous paragraphs of insubstantial ranting and insults)
>
> :Insubstantial, insulting, maybe. Pertinent and on-target? Absolutely.

> Thanks for admitting insubstantial insults is your target.

Thanks for proving (once again) that you cannot read.

> > >> So much for proof.
> > >
> > > Air power adds a third dimension, toopid, but does not conquer
> > > territory or objectives. Air power is combat support.
> >
> > So the destruction of the Iraqi reactor at Osirak was
> > not an "objective". I'm sure that would be news to the Israelis
> > who carried out the attack.
>
> :Was it conquered?
>
> If we can't conquer...why bother?

Thanks for proving (once again) that you cannot read.

> Still stuck in Atilla's box, eh?

If your desired strategy is nothing more than a temporary action, go
for it. The delay/disruption of their program with an air strike will
probably work short-term. That's exactly what I said. You (of course)
dishonestly snipped again. There was probably too much there for your
three-year-old attention span to digest, yes?

BTW, what do you suppose the second, third, and fourth order effects of
such an attack might be, toopid? We can't forget those (again), can we?
We don't want the modern equivalent of the unintended consequences of
another Monte Cassino, do we?

Don't forget that the war in Iraq was started primarily because of the
"continuing [i.e. terrorist] threat" Iraq posed to us, as well as WMD
and WMD production. When no WMD or WMD production (and, BTW, no
terrorist threat) were found, bushie and crew stated that Saddam's
intent re: WMD was there and that he could've restarted the program at
any time. That was the primary justification for an invasion of a
sovereign nation.

So, on the one hand, that's reason enough for you re: Iraq. But, OTOH,
when I point out that all you will likely do with an airstrike/missile
strike (aside from it being another act of war on another sovereign
nation) is a temporary disruption of Iran's nuclear program, which
could then be restarted at any time, and that it would not reduce any
"continuing threat" posed by Iran, then I am 'stuck in some box.' LOL!
Great 'logic' toopid. Really special. Your 'mind' is working as well
for you as it ever has.

Your dishonest snipping shows your utter lack of a viable argument.

(And you wonder why I laugh at you.)

If you want a long-term military solution to the Iran nuclear program,
then yes: you must invade and conquer. If you don't deny the enemy the
use of terrain, then they can use it as they see fit. That's one of
those "BS" lessons from history that you might consider. Otherwise,
you're just giving a very expensive fireworks demonstration with
temporary effects. Shock and awe indeed.

You are really ignorant, toopid. One of those 'tough guys' that reads
_Soldier of Fortune_ and dreams of how good you might've been as a
military strategist/tactician/commander instead of doing the
dissatisfying, unimportant little job that you do.

But here is a fact: you (and the military) are much better off with you
staying in your little cubicle reading Dilbert, SOF and Malkin. You'd
be a complete disaster as a military commander. You're far too
emotional, and further, you show absolutely *no* ability to think
clearly.

Clear thinking is essential in the military, toopid. Perhaps it's even
more essential than tactical and technical proficiency, which you also,
BTW, lack in spades. Congrats, toopid! You've nailed the perfect
trifecta of utter military incompetence!

LOL!

Moron.

P.S. I hope you like my new signature for use when discussing military
matters with you. LOL!
_________________________________

"In view of the prevalent opinion in America that soldiers are, of all
persons, the least capable of discussing military matters and that
their years of special training is nil compared to the innate military
knowledge of lawyers, doctors, and preachers, I am probably guilty of a

great heresy in daring to discuss tanks from the viewpoint of a tank
officer." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

November 28th 06, 07:34 AM

toopid, you've commented today on thongs and news articles. I'm still
awaiting your wisdom, based on your years of military experience, your
vast military training, and your amazing military knowledge, to shoot
down this post.

You're not crying 'uncle,' are you, you stupid spineless worm?

LOL!

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >
> >
> > ScottW wrote:[i]
> > > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> >
> > > (snip numerous paragraphs of insubstantial ranting and insults)
> >
> > :Insubstantial, insulting, maybe. Pertinent and on-target? Absolutely.
>
> > Thanks for admitting insubstantial insults is your target.
>
> Thanks for proving (once again) that you cannot read.
>
> > > >> So much for proof.
> > > >
> > > > Air power adds a third dimension, toopid, but does not conquer
> > > > territory or objectives. Air power is combat support.
> > >
> > > So the destruction of the Iraqi reactor at Osirak was
> > > not an "objective". I'm sure that would be news to the Israelis
> > > who carried out the attack.
> >
> > :Was it conquered?
> >
> > If we can't conquer...why bother?
>
> Thanks for proving (once again) that you cannot read.
>
> > Still stuck in Atilla's box, eh?
>
> If your desired strategy is nothing more than a temporary action, go
> for it. The delay/disruption of their program with an air strike will
> probably work short-term. That's exactly what I said. You (of course)
> dishonestly snipped again. There was probably too much there for your
> three-year-old attention span to digest, yes?
>
> BTW, what do you suppose the second, third, and fourth order effects of
> such an attack might be, toopid? We can't forget those (again), can we?
> We don't want the modern equivalent of the unintended consequences of
> another Monte Cassino, do we?
>
> Don't forget that the war in Iraq was started primarily because of the
> "continuing threat" Iraq posed to us, as well as WMD
> and WMD production. When no WMD or WMD production (and, BTW, no
> terrorist threat) were found, bushie and crew stated that Saddam's
> intent re: WMD was there and that he could've restarted the program at
> any time. That was the primary justification for an invasion of a
> sovereign nation.
>
> So, on the one hand, that's reason enough for you re: Iraq. But, OTOH,
> when I point out that all you will likely do with an airstrike/missile
> strike (aside from it being another act of war on another sovereign
> nation) is a temporary disruption of Iran's nuclear program, which
> could then be restarted at any time, and that it would not reduce any
> "continuing threat" posed by Iran, then I am 'stuck in some box.' LOL!
> Great 'logic' toopid. Really special. Your 'mind' is working as well
> for you as it ever has.
>
> Your dishonest snipping shows your utter lack of a viable argument.
>
> (And you wonder why I laugh at you.)
>
> If you want a long-term military solution to the Iran nuclear program,
> then yes: you must invade and conquer. If you don't deny the enemy the
> use of terrain, then they can use it as they see fit. That's one of
> those "BS" lessons from history that you might consider. Otherwise,
> you're just giving a very expensive fireworks demonstration with
> temporary effects. Shock and awe indeed.
>
> You are really ignorant, toopid. One of those 'tough guys' that reads
> _Soldier of Fortune_ and dreams of how good you might've been as a
> military strategist/tactician/commander instead of doing the
> dissatisfying, unimportant little job that you do.
>
> But here is a fact: you (and the military) are much better off with you
> staying in your little cubicle reading Dilbert, SOF and Malkin. You'd
> be a complete disaster as a military commander. You're far too
> emotional, and further, you show absolutely *no* ability to think
> clearly.
>
> Clear thinking is essential in the military, toopid. Perhaps it's even
> more essential than tactical and technical proficiency, which you also,
> BTW, lack in spades. Congrats, toopid! You've nailed the perfect
> trifecta of utter military incompetence!
>
> LOL!
>
> Moron.
>
> P.S. I hope you like my new signature for use when discussing military
> matters with you. LOL!
> _________________________________
>
> "In view of the prevalent opinion in America that soldiers are, of all
> persons, the least capable of discussing military matters and that
> their years of special training is nil compared to the innate military
> knowledge of lawyers, doctors, and preachers, I am probably guilty of a
> great heresy in daring to discuss tanks from the viewpoint of a tank
> officer." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

Go, girl, go!

I really can't wait to see what tripe you post next!

And let me state this again for the record: Your dishonest snipping
shows your utter lack of a viable argument.

Oh, and also for the record: (And you wonder why I laugh at you.)

Moron.