So we went to war over crude sketches on paper:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan6.html

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
So we went to war over crude sketches on paper:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan6.html

Anticipated kneejerk response:

The Bush administration KNEW where those weapons were, they were tracking
them, remember? They had missiles capable of reaching the East Coast,
remember? The Washington Post's intelligence is WAY off. I believe in
President Bush. He would never lie in an attempt to grab those Iraqi oil
fields, never! I smell the Liberal Media doing a hatchet job on our finest
President since Ronald Reagan!

This is blatant partisan politics. Aren't we safer with Saddam in captivity?
If Mr. Gellman so loves Iraq, why doesn't he move there? He has no right to
question our great leader or his subordinates. He's a Liberal Media shill
and isn't fit to write obituaries!

"Sandman" wrote in message

So we went to war over crude sketches on paper:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan6.html

An interesting paper that ironically enough does not talk about plans on
paper. Instead the plans were on computer discs. Many interesting insights
can be developed from this article, but Sander's rigid partisan view keeps
him from seeing them.

If it won't elect Dean, it doesn't exist in Sanders' world.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

I believe in
President Bush. He would never lie in an attempt to grab those Iraqi oil
fields, never!

I am still waiting.
He hasn't grabbed them yet. Though he did prevent the French
from taking an untoward advantage of them!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :
"Sandman" wrote in message
...

I believe in

President Bush. He would never lie in an attempt to grab those Iraqi oil
fields, never!

I am still waiting.
He hasn't grabbed them yet. Though he did prevent the French
from taking an untoward advantage of them!


Petty jerk it as cause the death of 20,000 Iraqis

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
So we went to war over crude sketches on paper:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan6.html

Anticipated kneejerk response:

The Bush administration KNEW where those weapons were, they were tracking
them, remember?

Based on the best info we had at the time.

They had missiles capable of reaching the East Coast,
remember?

Based on the best info we had at the time.

The Washington Post's intelligence is WAY off. I believe in
President Bush. He would never lie in an attempt to grab those Iraqi oil
fields, never!

If we were going to grab their oil, why haven't we?
Could it be just more left wing bull****?


I smell the Liberal Media doing a hatchet job on our finest
President since Ronald Reagan!

The media is mostly leftist and want to sell the product.

This is blatant partisan politics.

Bingo!

Aren't we safer with Saddam in captivity?

Yes.

If Mr. Gellman so loves Iraq, why doesn't he move there? He has no right
to
question our great leader or his subordinates.

He has every right. He should however base his opinions on the whole truth.

He's a Liberal Media shill
and isn't fit to write obituaries!


Has written anything about all the good things that are happening?

New poll numbers out today show Bush beating Dean 54% to 38% and an un-named
democrat 54% to 37%.

No President with good polling numbers on the economy has ever failed to get
re-elected.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :
"Sandman" wrote in message
...

I believe in

President Bush. He would never lie in an attempt to grab those Iraqi oil
fields, never!

I am still waiting.
He hasn't grabbed them yet. Though he did prevent the French
from taking an untoward advantage of them!


Petty jerk it as cause the death of 20,000 Iraqis

Sources?

How many Iraqi's are now safer?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sandman" wrote in message

So we went to war over crude sketches on paper:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan6.html

An interesting paper that ironically enough does not talk about plans on
paper. Instead the plans were on computer discs. Many interesting insights
can be developed from this article, but Sander's rigid partisan view keeps
him from seeing them.

If it won't elect Dean, it doesn't exist in Sanders' world.


Then his world is pretty empty. Dean is an idiot and stands no chance of
being elected.

"Lionel" excrete:
wrote in message
...
Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :
"Sandman" wrote in message
...

I believe in

President Bush. He would never lie in an attempt to grab those Iraqi oil
fields, never!

I am still waiting.
He hasn't grabbed them yet. Though he did prevent the French
from taking an untoward advantage of them!


Petty jerk it as cause the death of 20,000 Iraqis


How many of those were soldiers?
Hey, right now Saddam is telling us all about you nice Frenchies




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :
"Lionel" excrete:
wrote in message
...

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

I believe in


President Bush. He would never lie in an attempt to grab those Iraqi oil
fields, never!

I am still waiting.
He hasn't grabbed them yet. Though he did prevent the French
from taking an untoward advantage of them!


Petty jerk it as cause the death of 20,000 Iraqis



How many of those were soldiers?

How many of them were fathers with wife and children, how many of them
were hating Saddam ?

Hey, right now Saddam is telling us all about you nice Frenchies

And he will surely tell that WMD are hidden in my cellar...

Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.
I'm not really surprise that this politic is seducing you.

"Lionel" excrete:

wrote in message
...
Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in '45






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :
"Lionel" excrete:

wrote in message
...

Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.


As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in '45

1944 ;-)

"=(8888)=" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" emitted :

Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in '45

Please stop living in the past.


Things don't look any brighter for the future of France, either.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" excrete:

wrote in message
...
Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in '45


People forget that they saved our butt in 1781. Battle of Yorktown would
never have been successful without the French.

Patrick Castelvecchi a écrit :

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" excrete:

wrote in message
...

Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in '45



People forget that they saved our butt in 1781. Battle of Yorktown would
never have been successful without the French.

When you know Yustabe posting history you don't waste your time to bring
him evidences. You'd better discuss philosophy with your dog. :-)

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" excrete:

wrote in message
...
Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in '45


People forget that they saved our butt in 1781. Battle of Yorktown would
never have been successful without the French.



What happenned to them in the intervening 223 years?
Yeah, a long time ago we were friends and allies. I think
maybe that they aligned themselves with us only because the English
were there primary rivals, and we were fighting against England.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Lionel" excreted:


wrote in message
...

When you know Yustabe posting history you don't waste your time to bring
him evidences. You'd better discuss philosophy with your dog. :-)


Read my reply to Patrick.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe a écrit :

"Lionel" excreted:


wrote in message
...

When you know Yustabe posting history you don't waste your time to bring
him evidences. You'd better discuss philosophy with your dog. :-)



Read my reply to Patrick.

I have, you are justifying *all* revisionisms.
Understand ?

"=(8888)=" wrote in message
...
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :

The Bush administration KNEW where those weapons were, they were
tracking
them, remember?

Based on the best info we had at the time.

Repugnant.

Only one of your many faults.

--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" excrete:

wrote in message
...
Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in
'45


People forget that they saved our butt in 1781. Battle of Yorktown
would
never have been successful without the French.



What happenned to them in the intervening 223 years?
Yeah, a long time ago we were friends and allies.

[snip]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are
to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt

Although the French did not "stand" with us in the war on Iraq, I don't
believe they or anyone who questions the war should be ostracized from
society (or contracts) because they do not agree with the majority. It's
called discrimination. This is (supposedly) still a democracy where
everyone has the right to voice their opinion without fear of retribution.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your
blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his lungs
that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." - The
American President (although it's only a movie, I think this quote perfectly
sums up free speech)

[snip]

I think
maybe that they aligned themselves with us only because the English
were there primary rivals, and we were fighting against England.


That probably was the only reason they fought with us. The only reason we
fought against Hitler was because the Japanese attacked us. If I recall
correctly, the British and the French had been fighting on opposite side of
the war since the early 1000's. The only time they fought together was WWI.

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" excrete:

wrote in message
...
Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt in
'45


People forget that they saved our butt in 1781. Battle of Yorktown
would
never have been successful without the French.



What happenned to them in the intervening 223 years?
Yeah, a long time ago we were friends and allies.

[snip]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are
to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt

Although the French did not "stand" with us in the war on Iraq, I don't
believe they or anyone who questions the war should be ostracized from
society (or contracts) because they do not agree with the majority.

IMo the reason the French are being held in low esteem over the Iraq war is,
they knew what we and the British knew, that Saddam was a threat and there
was a Bin Ladin connection.


It's
called discrimination.

In this case I believe it was cowardice and fear of embarassment over their
support of a terrorist regime.

This is (supposedly) still a democracy where
everyone has the right to voice their opinion without fear of retribution.

Unless of course you happen to be a conservative.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make
your
blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his lungs
that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." - The
American President (although it's only a movie, I think this quote
perfectly
sums up free speech)

[snip]

I think
maybe that they aligned themselves with us only because the English
were there primary rivals, and we were fighting against England.


That probably was the only reason they fought with us. The only reason
we
fought against Hitler was because the Japanese attacked us.

I have read that FDR wanted desparately to get into WWII and would have
found a reason to get in even without Pearl Harbor.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" excrete:

wrote in message
...
Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt
in
'45


People forget that they saved our butt in 1781. Battle of Yorktown
would
never have been successful without the French.



What happenned to them in the intervening 223 years?
Yeah, a long time ago we were friends and allies.

[snip]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we
are
to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt

Although the French did not "stand" with us in the war on Iraq, I don't
believe they or anyone who questions the war should be ostracized from
society (or contracts) because they do not agree with the majority.

IMo the reason the French are being held in low esteem over the Iraq war
is,
they knew what we and the British knew, that Saddam was a threat and there
was a Bin Ladin connection.


It wasn't but a little over 20 years ago we supported Saddam and bin Ladin
in their fights against our enemy at that time. We trained bin Ladin in the
School of the Americas in Georgia. BTW, maybe you've read something I
haven't, but I've yet to read about a solid connection between Iraq and Bin
Ladin



It's
called discrimination.

In this case I believe it was cowardice and fear of embarassment over
their
support of a terrorist regime.

This is (supposedly) still a democracy where
everyone has the right to voice their opinion without fear of
retribution.

Unless of course you happen to be a conservative.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make
your
blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his
lungs
that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." -
The
American President (although it's only a movie, I think this quote
perfectly
sums up free speech)

[snip]

I think
maybe that they aligned themselves with us only because the English
were there primary rivals, and we were fighting against England.


That probably was the only reason they fought with us. The only
reason
we
fought against Hitler was because the Japanese attacked us.

I have read that FDR wanted desparately to get into WWII and would have
found a reason to get in even without Pearl Harbor.

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" excrete:

wrote in message
...
Actually USA act like a predator and are inventing a new form
of
colonialism.

As much as we were colonialist predators when we saved your butt
in
'45


People forget that they saved our butt in 1781. Battle of
Yorktown
would
never have been successful without the French.



What happenned to them in the intervening 223 years?
Yeah, a long time ago we were friends and allies.

[snip]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we
are
to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt

Although the French did not "stand" with us in the war on Iraq, I
don't
believe they or anyone who questions the war should be ostracized from
society (or contracts) because they do not agree with the majority.

IMo the reason the French are being held in low esteem over the Iraq war
is,
they knew what we and the British knew, that Saddam was a threat and
there
was a Bin Ladin connection.


It wasn't but a little over 20 years ago we supported Saddam and bin Ladin
in their fights against our enemy at that time.

Things change.

We trained bin Ladin in the
School of the Americas in Georgia. BTW, maybe you've read something I
haven't, but I've yet to read about a solid connection between Iraq and
Bin
Ladin

They've found Al Qaeda literature in Iraq. I can't recall where, but I
beleive it was in possession of Saddam's people.


It's
called discrimination.

In this case I believe it was cowardice and fear of embarassment over
their
support of a terrorist regime.

This is (supposedly) still a democracy where
everyone has the right to voice their opinion without fear of
retribution.

Unless of course you happen to be a conservative.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words
make
your
blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his
lungs
that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." -
The
American President (although it's only a movie, I think this quote
perfectly
sums up free speech)

[snip]

I think
maybe that they aligned themselves with us only because the English
were there primary rivals, and we were fighting against England.


That probably was the only reason they fought with us. The only
reason
we
fought against Hitler was because the Japanese attacked us.

I have read that FDR wanted desparately to get into WWII and would have
found a reason to get in even without Pearl Harbor.

Michael McKelvy a écrit :

I have read that FDR wanted desparately to get into WWII and would have
found a reason to get in even without Pearl Harbor.

100% agree with you...
....except that you have a revisionist conception of the history.

What ? Auswitch ? Just a kind village in Polland... :-(

http://home.no.net/mapman/auswitch_1...usoggjerde.htm

"Patrick Castelvecchi" wrote in message
...

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we
are
to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt

Although the French did not "stand" with us in the war on Iraq, I don't
believe they or anyone who questions the war should be ostracized from
society (or contracts) because they do not agree with the majority. It's
called discrimination. This is (supposedly) still a democracy where
everyone has the right to voice their opinion without fear of retribution.


Why not, doesn't free speech extend to 'your' enemies?
If the French have the right to disagree with us, we have the
right to ostracize them for (what we believe tobe) their
arrogance and ignorance. If they decline to participate in the
costs (money and blood) of liberating Iraq, than it is perfectly
reasonable for us to exclude them from prime contracts.

The only discrimination I participate in is the discrimination
between good and evil.


"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make
your
blood boil who is standing center stage advocating at the top of his lungs
that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." - The
American President (although it's only a movie, I think this quote
perfectly
sums up free speech)


To you, that would be President Bush or Rush Limbaugh.

[snip]

I think
maybe that they aligned themselves with us only because the English
were there primary rivals, and we were fighting against England.


That probably was the only reason they fought with us. The only reason
we
fought against Hitler was because the Japanese attacked us. If I recall
correctly, the British and the French had been fighting on opposite side
of
the war since the early 1000's. The only time they fought together was
WWI.


I would say Pearl harbor was the primary reason, or the reason that
we participated much earlier than we otherwise would have.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy a écrit :

I have read that FDR wanted desparately to get into WWII and would have
found a reason to get in even without Pearl Harbor.

100% agree with you...
...except that you have a revisionist conception of the history.

What ? Auswitch ? Just a kind village in Polland... :-(

http://home.no.net/mapman/auswitch_1...usoggjerde.htm


What the **** are you trying to say? That I didn't know about Auswitch?
You'd be wrong. If you're trying to say that FDR knew about the death camps
and still didn't enter the war, then I hold him in even lower esteem than
previously.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:36:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They've found Al Qaeda literature in Iraq. I can't recall where, but I
beleive it was in possession of Saddam's people.

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:36:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They've found Al Qaeda literature in Iraq. I can't recall where, but I
beleive it was in possession of Saddam's people.

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:01:49 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:36:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They've found Al Qaeda literature in Iraq. I can't recall where, but I
beleive it was in possession of Saddam's people.

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

What a dickhead.

dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and what
you can learn? To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:28:44 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and what
you can learn? To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.

What I can't figure out is why he isn't advocating invading Saudi
Arabia. Hell, they'd be easy prey as well...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:01:49 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:36:21 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

They've found Al Qaeda literature in Iraq. I can't recall where, but I
beleive it was in possession of Saddam's people.

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

What a dickhead.

Yes, you are.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and what
you can learn?

As do I. You seem to be the more dogmatic one here. Anybody that doesn't
toe your line, is in for endless harrassment.

To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

No, just another asshole, like you.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.


On RAO! LOL.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:28:44 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and what
you can learn? To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.

What I can't figure out is why he isn't advocating invading Saudi
Arabia. Hell, they'd be easy prey as well...

Well they are one of, if not the most repressive regimes on earth, but the
brilliance of our actions in Iraq is that other nations like N. Korea and
Libya, seem to paying closer attention to their possible fates.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:54:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:28:44 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and what
you can learn? To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.

What I can't figure out is why he isn't advocating invading Saudi
Arabia. Hell, they'd be easy prey as well...

Well they are one of, if not the most repressive regimes on earth, but the
brilliance of our actions in Iraq is that other nations like N. Korea and
Libya, seem to paying closer attention to their possible fates.

Not too bright, are you? I note that you avoided the issue. Well,
maybe you *are* smarter than I give you credit for, since you don't
bother to address the *real* issue.

How many people who killed 3,000 people in NYC, Washington DC and
Pennsylvania were Saudis? How many were Iraquis?

How many al-Qaeda cells have been identified in Saudi Arabia? How many
in Iraq?

Nahhhh, your grasp of geopolitics is on par with your ability to
maintain a commercial speaker manufacturing concern.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.


I remember seeing some movie (a Dudley Moore comedy?)
where a waiter delivers a bomb (for assasination attempt)
hidden in a giant torte!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

I remember seeing some movie (a Dudley Moore comedy?)
where a waiter delivers a bomb (for assasination attempt)
hidden in a giant torte!

"Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?"

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:57:26 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.


I remember seeing some movie (a Dudley Moore comedy?)
where a waiter delivers a bomb (for assasination attempt)
hidden in a giant torte!

I delivered several chocolate bombes last night, so maybe I should
report to Langley immediately.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:54:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:28:44 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and what
you can learn? To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.

What I can't figure out is why he isn't advocating invading Saudi
Arabia. Hell, they'd be easy prey as well...

Well they are one of, if not the most repressive regimes on earth, but
the
brilliance of our actions in Iraq is that other nations like N. Korea and
Libya, seem to paying closer attention to their possible fates.

Not too bright, are you? I note that you avoided the issue. Well,
maybe you *are* smarter than I give you credit for, since you don't
bother to address the *real* issue.

How many people who killed 3,000 people in NYC, Washington DC and
Pennsylvania were Saudis? How many were Iraquis?

How many al-Qaeda cells have been identified in Saudi Arabia? How many
in Iraq?

Nahhhh, your grasp of geopolitics is on par with your ability to
maintain a commercial speaker manufacturing concern.

I see, so you're advocating we invade Saudi Arabia.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 08:54:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:28:44 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

They've found al Qaeda literature in America as well.

Your place or Trotsky's?

I see. So now I'm a terrorist.

To creatures like Mikey, maybe you are. Don't you advocate
evaluating people and and situations based on what you know and what
you can learn? To duh-Mikey's heavily religious and dogmatic way of
behaving, you might very well be an apocalyptic horseman.

What a dickhead.

Mikey has his reputation to protect.

What I can't figure out is why he isn't advocating invading Saudi
Arabia. Hell, they'd be easy prey as well...

Well they are one of, if not the most repressive regimes on earth, but
the
brilliance of our actions in Iraq is that other nations like N. Korea
and
Libya, seem to paying closer attention to their possible fates.

Not too bright, are you? I note that you avoided the issue. Well,
maybe you *are* smarter than I give you credit for, since you don't
bother to address the *real* issue.

How many people who killed 3,000 people in NYC, Washington DC and
Pennsylvania were Saudis? How many were Iraquis?

How many al-Qaeda cells have been identified in Saudi Arabia? How many
in Iraq?

Nahhhh, your grasp of geopolitics is on par with your ability to
maintain a commercial speaker manufacturing concern.

I see, so you're advocating we invade Saudi Arabia.


According to your simplisitc thinking.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---