| |
Main
Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:17:46
From: annika1980
Subject: Who Saw This Coming?
|
I wrote this two months ago:
=================================
Here is what will likely happen. After the elections Bush will send a
shitload of troops over to Iraq. He'll make some bullshit speech about
how new developments now demand that we have more boots on the ground.
He might even say that his Generals requested more troops. He'll
forget that they wanted them 4 years ago but Rummy knew better.
If this happens all of America should ask why the troops weren't sent
earlier and how many Americans died over there because Bush waited
until it was politically expedient to send what was needed.
=================================
This is a news story from today:
=================================
CNN: Bush Is 'Very Seriously' Considering Sending More Troops To
Iraq
CNN's John King reported this afternoon that President Bush is
planning a "substantial policy shift" on Iraq and is "very
seriously considering...agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing
U.S. troop levels in the short-term."
King said the White House has postponed the announcement of the policy
shift to January because Bush "has asked for more advice about" how
he could send 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and administration
officials "need more time to put all that on the table."
King said the White House sees a political benefit to delaying the
announcement. "If you are going to disagree with the Iraq Study Group
and not accept its major recommendations, then let some time go by, let
the American people forget about that a little bit" and "buy some
time for critics" to attack the ISG.
==================================
My point is that if we need more troops then he should send them now
(or 4 years ago would've been better) instead of waiting until after
the elections and now after Christmas and the New Years.
I'm sick of this cocksucker's administration worrying more about how to
spin something than about what needs to be done.
Somebody impeach this fool now!
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 15:52:10
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > The Crusades says hi.
>
> But how are you going to blame the Crusades on W?
Well, it makes about as much sense to blame W for the Crusades as it
does to blame my friend, Raj, for the actions of a few brainwashed
idiots in Iraq.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 15:50:18
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
John B. wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> >
> > > I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
> > > believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
> > > being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
> > > converting to another religion.
> >
> > The Crusades says hi.
>
>
> Oh, come on. That was almost 1,000 years ago.
Well, you stated that you've never heard of any. Now you have.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 12:31:09
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
multi wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2006 11:30:00 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >annika1980 wrote:
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
> >> > believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
> >> > being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
> >> > converting to another religion.
> >>
> >> The Crusades says hi.
> >
> >Oh, come on. That was almost 1,000 years ago.
>
> Same Bible, same Church, same papal authority. And NOBODY expects the
> Spanish Inquisition.
OK, fine, but I think my point is still valid. Remember the so-called
artwork entitled "Piss Christ"? Or the one depicting the Virgin y
covered with shit? What do you suppose would have happened if the
crucifix standing in a beaker of urine had been a copy of the Koran? Or
if it had been Muhammad instead of y?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 15:15:58
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166128269.522905.20690@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
> multi wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2006 11:30:00 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >annika1980 wrote:
>> >> John B. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
>> >> > believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of
>> >> > anyone
>> >> > being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or
>> >> > for
>> >> > converting to another religion.
>> >>
>> >> The Crusades says hi.
>> >
>> >Oh, come on. That was almost 1,000 years ago.
>>
>> Same Bible, same Church, same papal authority. And NOBODY expects the
>> Spanish Inquisition.
>
>
> OK, fine, but I think my point is still valid. Remember the so-called
> artwork entitled "Piss Christ"? Or the one depicting the Virgin y
> covered with shit? What do you suppose would have happened if the
> crucifix standing in a beaker of urine had been a copy of the Koran? Or
> if it had been Muhammad instead of y?
>
Ask Salamon Rushdie(sp?)
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:30:00
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
> > I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
> > believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
> > being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
> > converting to another religion.
>
> The Crusades says hi.
Oh, come on. That was almost 1,000 years ago.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 14:18:16
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 11:30:00 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>
>annika1980 wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>
>> > I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
>> > believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
>> > being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
>> > converting to another religion.
>>
>> The Crusades says hi.
>
>
>Oh, come on. That was almost 1,000 years ago.
The bible supposedly relates history of several thousand years, and
it's quoted quite often.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:52:21
From: multi
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 11:30:00 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>annika1980 wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>
>> > I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
>> > believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
>> > being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
>> > converting to another religion.
>>
>> The Crusades says hi.
>
>Oh, come on. That was almost 1,000 years ago.
Same Bible, same Church, same papal authority. And NOBODY expects the
Spanish Inquisition.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 01:49:17
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On 14-Dec-2006, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2006 11:30:00 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >annika1980 wrote:
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
> >> > believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of
> >> > anyone
> >> > being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or
> >> > for
> >> > converting to another religion.
> >>
> >> The Crusades says hi.
> >
> >Oh, come on. That was almost 1,000 years ago.
>
> Same Bible, same Church, same papal authority. And NOBODY expects the
> Spanish Inquisition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO68fUMWx3g
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:47:47
From:
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
> > I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
> > believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
> > being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
> > converting to another religion.
>
> The Crusades says hi.
But how are you going to blame the Crusades on W?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:32:14
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166111267.505179.279830@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>
>> > I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
>> > believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
>> > being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
>> > converting to another religion.
>>
>> The Crusades says hi.
>
> But how are you going to blame the Crusades on W?
>
He'll find a way.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:43:11
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
John B. wrote:
>> I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
> believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
> being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
> converting to another religion.
I think we can agree that killing in the name of ANY religion is bad.
Killing should only be done for important reasons, like national
security, oil rights, defense contractors, etc. You know, the almighty
dollar.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:20:19
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
John B. wrote:
> I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
> believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
> being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
> converting to another religion.
The Crusades says hi.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:31:42
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1166109618.927156.26000@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
> John B. wrote:
>
>> I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
>> believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
>> being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
>> converting to another religion.
>
> The Crusades says hi.
>
And how long ago were they??? Take your time, don't hurt yourself.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:09:10
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you think she'll really be worse than the previous Speaker, who had
> > > knowledge of a perverted Congressman and sat on it.
> >
> > She is going to be a problem from the other direction.
>
> Lesbian Congresswomen?
>
>
> > She and the other liberals (make peace with Islam) will not be able to confront the
> > real enemy when it appears........
>
> "Make peace with Islam? What does that mean?
> Islam is a peaceful religion. Perhaps you were thinking about
> Christianity?
I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
converting to another religion. A friend of mine recently converted
from Catholicism to Judaism. Nobody seemed to mind. In some parts of
the Muslim world, convering to Judaism or Christianity is a death
sentence.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 09:48:46
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 07:09:10 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>I have to say, annika, that I've never heard of any Christians who
>believe all non-Christians should be killed. I've never heard of anyone
>being murdered for saying something negative about Christianity, or for
>converting to another religion. A friend of mine recently converted
>from Catholicism to Judaism. Nobody seemed to mind. In some parts of
>the Muslim world, convering to Judaism or Christianity is a death
>sentence.
This changes over time. At one time, your chances of survival with
the "wrong" religion was better in Muslim countries than in Christian
countries. Who knows which will be more tolerant a century from
now?
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 18:52:22
From:
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> "Make peace with Islam? What does that mean?
> Islam is a peaceful religion. Perhaps you were thinking about
> Christianity?
Islam is a peaceful religion. Islam is a peaceful religion. Islam is a
peaceful religion.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 13:51:43
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
Bill wrote:
> >> O J SImpson had a pretty good round at my course today...
> >
> > Details please.
>
> Well he still hasnt found you know who...but he got some $$$ from that
> cancelled deal
When I worked at the golf course I always knew that if O.J. ever showed
up I'd send him on his way, telling him, "We don't allow your kind
here."
When he asked, "What, you don't allow blacks to play?"
I'd say, "No, we have plenty of black golfers. We don't allow murdering
bastards."
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 13:15:35
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > Do you think she'll really be worse than the previous Speaker, who had
> > knowledge of a perverted Congressman and sat on it.
>
> She is going to be a problem from the other direction.
Lesbian Congresswomen?
> She and the other liberals (make peace with Islam) will not be able to confront the
> real enemy when it appears........
"Make peace with Islam? What does that mean?
Islam is a peaceful religion. Perhaps you were thinking about
Christianity?
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 13:13:24
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
Bill wrote:
> O J SImpson had a pretty good round at my course today...
What? Only two bad slices?
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 16:47:14
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1166044404.669671.27830@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill wrote:
>> O J SImpson had a pretty good round at my course today...
>
> What? Only two bad slices?
>
Yup two or three
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 13:08:23
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
Bill wrote:
> O J SImpson had a pretty good round at my course today...
Details please.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 16:45:54
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1166044103.612318.25250@t46g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill wrote:
>> O J SImpson had a pretty good round at my course today...
>
> Details please.
>
> -Greg
Well he still hasnt found you know who...but he got some $$$ from that
cancelled deal
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:31:04
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
O J SImpson had a pretty good round at my course today...
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:00:25
From:
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
multi wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2006 11:08:52 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >annika1980 wrote:
> >> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >> > I am not a fan of W but wait till you see what Pelosi et al is going to bring to town in January.
> >>
> >> Who do you think that President Pelosi will start a war with?
> >
> >ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. People of her mind set would not protect herself
> >(much less her country) if she was about to be beheaded by a muslim
> >with a rusty machete.
>
> What complete horseshit. I can't think of any politicians for whom I
> have unreserved admiration, but none of them would fail to defend the
> country from an overt attack.
>
> >> Do you think she'll really be worse than the previous Speaker, who had
> >> knowledge of a perverted Congressman and sat on it.
> >
> >She is going to be a problem from the other direction. She and the
> >other liberals (make peace with Islam) will not be able to confront the
> >real enemy when it appears........and that is going to be Iran with
> >nukes. THEN you will look back and wish someone had the balls to send
> >them back to the stone-age where they belong before they had the
> >ability to hurt us.
>
> Forget Pelosi; I don't think Michael Moore would have bungled things
> as badly as Bush has. Bush has way more balls than brains, yet he has
> let at least three countries make him their bitch: N. Korea and Iran
> are developing nukes with no consequences other than US hand-wringing,
> and Pakistan sold nuclear and other technology to terrorist states,
> and even now is effectively allied with the Taliban, but Bush just
> bends over and spreads for them.
>
> More to the point, people like Pelosi would not have let things get
> to the crisis stage with N. Korea and Iran, because she doesn't
> consider negotiation the tool of Satan like Bush does. If Bush
> weren't so afraid to talk to people, we could have bought off both
> countries for way less money, and infinitely less danger to the US,
> than anyone will be able to now.
>
Bought them off? LOL That is exactly what Clinton tried. All he
succeeded in doing was pushing the problem down the road into someone
else's administration. You dont buy these extremists off. You kill
them. Extreme? History will show that we can do it now or later. In any
event our national survival will involve killing them and if we fail to
have the resolve then they will kill us. They do not want to co-exist
with us. Liberals need to get that through their heads.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 13:08:49
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On 13 Dec 2006 12:00:25 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>All he
>succeeded in doing was pushing the problem down the road into someone
>else's administration.
This differs from the present administration... how?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:22:59
From: multi
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On 13 Dec 2006 12:00:25 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
><multi wrote:>
>> More to the point, people like Pelosi would not have let things get
>> to the crisis stage with N. Korea and Iran, because she doesn't
>> consider negotiation the tool of Satan like Bush does. If Bush
>> weren't so afraid to talk to people, we could have bought off both
>> countries for way less money, and infinitely less danger to the US,
>> than anyone will be able to now.
>>
>
>Bought them off? LOL That is exactly what Clinton tried.
Tried, and succeeded. N Korea turned their weapons-grade materials
over to the UN on Clinton's watch, but took them back and kicked the
UN out after Bush wouldn't negotiate.
> All he
>succeeded in doing was pushing the problem down the road into someone
>else's administration.
But that's the best you can hope for with nuclear proliferation ---
you keep countries from acquiring nukes, a year at a time.
Eventually, Kim will die, or he may be deposed. It's not that hard to
understand --- N Korea without nukes is better than N Korea with
nukes, even if we have to (shudder) talk to them.
> You dont buy these extremists off. You kill
>them. Extreme?
You flatter yourself. I wouldn't say it's extreme, I'd say it's
insane. Whether it's for offense or defense, every country wants to
increase its military power. As you dimly perceive, the only two ways
to prevent this is to buy them off, or kill them all. What kind of
person sees the latter as the best choice?
> History will show that we can do it now or later.
What history shows is exactly what I said above --- that if you can
postpone conflict long enough, the situation may change. That's
exactly what happened with the Soviet Union, which was an infinitely
greater threat to us than Korea or Iran. And people who say that the
Iranians are crazier than the Soviets are too young (or ignorant) to
remember Kruschev beating the table at the UN with his shoe, and
shouting, "We will bury you!"
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 17:01:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:22:59 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>Tried, and succeeded. N Korea turned their weapons-grade materials
>over to the UN on Clinton's watch, but took them back and kicked the
>UN out after Bush wouldn't negotiate.
This is complete nonsense. NK never turned over any weapons grade
material to anyone. They also never stopped their nuclear weapons
program, they simply continued it covertly. Basically, Clinton got
nothing (except being played for a fool) and gave NK aid. At least
Bush was st enough to stop giving NK aid for not doing what they
agreed to do.
http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm
You might also take a look at a fellow named Abdul Qadeer Khan the
father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb. During the late 1990s after the
Clinton deal, he made 13 trips to NK. He supplied uranium enrichment
equipment and perhaps even warhead designs to North Korea.
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=mj05norris
NK has never stopped their quest for a nuclear bomb.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 15:18:07
From: multi
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:01:11 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:22:59 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>>Tried, and succeeded. N Korea turned their weapons-grade materials
>>over to the UN on Clinton's watch, but took them back and kicked the
>>UN out after Bush wouldn't negotiate.
>
>This is complete nonsense. NK never turned over any weapons grade
>material to anyone.
Yes, they did. The spent fuel rods from the reactors that they shut
down as a result of the Clinton agreement were easily convertible to
weapons use, and they "canned" them under UN (IAEA) supervision,
starting in 1996.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframework.asp
They kicked the UN out, restarted the reactors, and withdrew from the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at the end of 2002.
> They also never stopped their nuclear weapons
>program, they simply continued it covertly
They stopped the plutonium program, as called for in the treaty.
However, they began a uranium enrichment program at an indeterminate
time. Although this violated the spirit of the treaty to keep Korea
nuke-free, there was no explicit provision of the treaty referring to
uranium enrichment. In other words, they exploited a loophole, and we
should have closed that loophole with further negotiation, rather than
simply refusing further contacts.
> Basically, Clinton got
>nothing (except being played for a fool) and gave NK aid.
Clinton got the cessation of an active plutonium program that had
already produced weapons-grade material. In its place, NK covertly
began a uranium enrichment program that your own source says was five
years away from producing weapons grade material in 2003. That is a
major improvement, if you didn't notice. It gave us until at least
2008 to negotiate the uranium program away, and any sane person would
have done that. Instead, Bush chose to throw a hissy fit and hold his
breath, and now both programs are active, and NK has nukes. All hail
our glorious leader, making us safer.
> At least
>Bush was st enough to stop giving NK aid for not doing what they
>agreed to do.
I guess he showed them.
>You might also take a look at a fellow named Abdul Qadeer Khan the
>father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb. During the late 1990s after the
>Clinton deal, he made 13 trips to NK. He supplied uranium enrichment
>equipment and perhaps even warhead designs to North Korea.
Correct. And what did Bush do about it? Nothing. He's all hat.
Pakistan might as well be Israel; it seems there is absolutely nothing
they can do to make us stop giving them aid.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 20:26:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:18:07 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>
>Yes, they did. The spent fuel rods from the reactors that they shut
>down as a result of the Clinton agreement were easily convertible to
>weapons use, and they "canned" them under UN (IAEA) supervision,
>starting in 1996.
Can you read? NK never turned over any materials to anyone.
This is from your own source.
"The canning process, conducted with U.S. financing, began April 27,
1996 and was finished in April 2000. The spent fuel, however, remains
in North Korea, and Pyongyang may have reprocessed it into
weapons-grade plutonium."
The Clinton deal accomplished nothing other than to allow NK to get
further along in the process of making nuclear weapons and at the same
time get paid by the US for not doing what they were doing. Clinton
was a fool. At least Bush stopped the aid to NK.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 21:00:44
From: multi
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:26:04 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:18:07 -0800, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes, they did. The spent fuel rods from the reactors that they shut
>>down as a result of the Clinton agreement were easily convertible to
>>weapons use, and they "canned" them under UN (IAEA) supervision,
>>starting in 1996.
>
>
>Can you read?
Yes.
> NK never turned over any materials to anyone.
They turned them over to UN/IAEA supervision. That doesn't mean they
were shipped out of the country; it means that they were stored under
UN seal, just like the weapons in the depots in Iraq. When Bush
repudiated the deal, NK kicked the UN out and took the material back.
>This is from your own source.
>
>"The canning process, conducted with U.S. financing, began April 27,
>1996 and was finished in April 2000. The spent fuel, however, remains
>in North Korea, and Pyongyang may have reprocessed it into
>weapons-grade plutonium."
Correct. I hope you understand it now. And I hope you note that what
they gave up under Clinton was easily and quickly converted to
weapons-grade material, while what they gained under Clinton is still
years away from it.
>The Clinton deal accomplished nothing other than to allow NK to get
>further along in the process of making nuclear weapons and at the same
>time get paid by the US for not doing what they were doing. Clinton
>was a fool.
If you think that it is "further along" to go from actual possession
of weapons grade material (pre-Clinton deal) to a program that COULD
produce weapons grade material by 2008, then there is no point in
wasting further time on you.
> At least Bush stopped the aid to NK
Swell. He saved us a few million (which might pay for a couple hours
of the Iraq War), and now they have nukes. What a great deal for us.
I don't know whether it's native stupidity or your hatred of Clinton
that keeps you from understanding such simple concepts, but I'm done
with you.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:08:52
From:
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > I am not a fan of W but wait till you see what Pelosi et al is going to bring to town in January.
>
> Who do you think that President Pelosi will start a war with?
ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. People of her mind set would not protect herself
(much less her country) if she was about to be beheaded by a muslim
with a rusty machete.
>
> Do you think she'll really be worse than the previous Speaker, who had
> knowledge of a perverted Congressman and sat on it.
She is going to be a problem from the other direction. She and the
other liberals (make peace with Islam) will not be able to confront the
real enemy when it appears........and that is going to be Iran with
nukes. THEN you will look back and wish someone had the balls to send
them back to the stone-age where they belong before they had the
ability to hurt us.
All congressmen are perverted.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 11:36:08
From: multi
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On 13 Dec 2006 11:08:52 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>annika1980 wrote:
>> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> > I am not a fan of W but wait till you see what Pelosi et al is going to bring to town in January.
>>
>> Who do you think that President Pelosi will start a war with?
>
>ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. People of her mind set would not protect herself
>(much less her country) if she was about to be beheaded by a muslim
>with a rusty machete.
What complete horseshit. I can't think of any politicians for whom I
have unreserved admiration, but none of them would fail to defend the
country from an overt attack.
>> Do you think she'll really be worse than the previous Speaker, who had
>> knowledge of a perverted Congressman and sat on it.
>
>She is going to be a problem from the other direction. She and the
>other liberals (make peace with Islam) will not be able to confront the
>real enemy when it appears........and that is going to be Iran with
>nukes. THEN you will look back and wish someone had the balls to send
>them back to the stone-age where they belong before they had the
>ability to hurt us.
Forget Pelosi; I don't think Michael Moore would have bungled things
as badly as Bush has. Bush has way more balls than brains, yet he has
let at least three countries make him their bitch: N. Korea and Iran
are developing nukes with no consequences other than US hand-wringing,
and Pakistan sold nuclear and other technology to terrorist states,
and even now is effectively allied with the Taliban, but Bush just
bends over and spreads for them.
More to the point, people like Pelosi would not have let things get
to the crisis stage with N. Korea and Iran, because she doesn't
consider negotiation the tool of Satan like Bush does. If Bush
weren't so afraid to talk to people, we could have bought off both
countries for way less money, and infinitely less danger to the US,
than anyone will be able to now.
>All congressmen are perverted.
I'll defer to your personal knowledge on that.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 10:01:09
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> I wrote this two months ago:
> =================================
> Here is what will likely happen. After the elections Bush will send a
> shitload of troops over to Iraq. He'll make some bullshit speech about
>
> how new developments now demand that we have more boots on the ground.
> He might even say that his Generals requested more troops. He'll
> forget that they wanted them 4 years ago but Rummy knew better.
>
> If this happens all of America should ask why the troops weren't sent
> earlier and how many Americans died over there because Bush waited
> until it was politically expedient to send what was needed.
> =================================
>
> This is a news story from today:
> =================================
> CNN: Bush Is 'Very Seriously' Considering Sending More Troops To
> Iraq
>
> CNN's John King reported this afternoon that President Bush is
> planning a "substantial policy shift" on Iraq and is "very
> seriously considering...agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing
> U.S. troop levels in the short-term."
>
> King said the White House has postponed the announcement of the policy
> shift to January because Bush "has asked for more advice about" how
> he could send 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq, and administration
> officials "need more time to put all that on the table."
>
> King said the White House sees a political benefit to delaying the
> announcement. "If you are going to disagree with the Iraq Study Group
> and not accept its major recommendations, then let some time go by, let
> the American people forget about that a little bit" and "buy some
> time for critics" to attack the ISG.
> ==================================
>
> My point is that if we need more troops then he should send them now
> (or 4 years ago would've been better) instead of waiting until after
> the elections and now after Christmas and the New Years.
> I'm sick of this cocksucker's administration worrying more about how to
> spin something than about what needs to be done.
> Somebody impeach this fool now!
20K more troops probably would be able to pacify Iraq for long enough
for Bush to slink out of DC in 2 yrs. like the slimy worm that he is,
and claim credit for bringing "peace" to Iraq. But as soon as you bring
those troops back from Iraq, whether it's in two yrs. or 10 yrs., the
carnage and chaos start anew. And whoever replaces Bush in the White
House will be stuck with his mess.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 01:41:13
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1166032869.511012.319430@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 20K more troops probably would be able to pacify Iraq for long enough
> for Bush to slink out of DC in 2 yrs. like the slimy worm that he is,
> and claim credit for bringing "peace" to Iraq. But as soon as you bring
> those troops back from Iraq, whether it's in two yrs. or 10 yrs., the
> carnage and chaos start anew. And whoever replaces Bush in the White
> House will be stuck with his mess.
I tend to doubt that any level of deployment would pacify Iraq. It's an
asymmetrical warfare situation, and it cannot be won by simply adding more
force to an already overwhelmingly superior force. As long as there are
combatants in Iraq willing to die for their various causes - and a populace
willing to support their own faction - Iraq will remain a chaotic nighte.
Another 100,000 American troops couldn't change that, much less 20,000.
That doesn't even consider that the US military is already finding it
difficult to maintain the current deployment level.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:41:44
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> I am not a fan of W but wait till you see what Pelosi et al is going to bring to town in January.
Who do you think that President Pelosi will start a war with?
Do you think she'll really be worse than the previous Speaker, who had
knowledge of a perverted Congressman and sat on it.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 19:28:05
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> I am not a fan of W but wait till you see what Pelosi et al is going to bring to town in January.
>
> Who do you think that President Pelosi will start a war with?
>
> Do you think she'll really be worse than the previous Speaker, who had
> knowledge of a perverted Congressman and sat on it.
>
We put up with a perverted poster every day and we would rather not
actually sit on you, especially your lap.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 10:11:48
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:Z9WdnSCtNv4LBx3YnZ2dnUVZ_qzinZ2d@comcast.com...
> annika1980 wrote:
> > lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >> I am not a fan of W but wait till you see what Pelosi et al is going to
bring to town in January.
> >
> > Who do you think that President Pelosi will start a war with?
> >
> > Do you think she'll really be worse than the previous Speaker, who had
> > knowledge of a perverted Congressman and sat on it.
This may be a moot point if Senator Tim Johnson doesn't pull through. If
the brain damage is significant we could likely see Democrats and
Republicans switch sides on a Terri Schiavo type case.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:23:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:11:48 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>This may be a moot point if Senator Tim Johnson doesn't pull through. If
>the brain damage is significant we could likely see Democrats and
>Republicans switch sides on a Terri Schiavo type case.
This could turn out like "Weekend at Bernies."
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 12:10:28
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
Your prediction was about as difficult as predicting that your food will
become shit.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:02:17
From:
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > CNN's John King reported this afternoon that President Bush is
> > planning a "substantial policy shift" on Iraq and is "very
> > seriously considering...agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing
> > U.S. troop levels in the short-term."
>
> Keating Five McCain? That asshole should be in a prison, and not the
> Senate.
Yep, same one. The great American Public has a very short memory yet
when it comes to what they think via opinion polls, pundits point to
the polls as if they are holy scripture (especially when they are
against W).
The American Public is stupid. They cannot find Iraq on the map, they
dont know anything about Islam, they dont know anything about terrorism
except what they see on 60 minutes and they keep re-electing people
like Kennedy. I am not a fan of W but wait till you see what Pelosi et
al is going to bring to town in January.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 21:30:29
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Who Saw This Coming?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> CNN's John King reported this afternoon that President Bush is
> planning a "substantial policy shift" on Iraq and is "very
> seriously considering...agreeing with Sen. John McCain and increasing
> U.S. troop levels in the short-term."
Keating Five McCain? That asshole should be in a prison, and not the
Senate.
|
|
