 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / August 2007Cheney prior to his Machurian programing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I Isn't that interesting. Cheney knew exactly why this war was an un- winnable quagmire. Make$ you wonder why they went to $uch great length $ to cherry pick and fal$ify intelligence to make a ca$e for war? >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > > Isn't that interesting. Cheney knew exactly why this war was an un- > winnable quagmire. Make$ you wonder why they went to $uch great length > $ to cherry pick and fal$ify intelligence to make a ca$e for war? LOL, perfect. Did you know that of the top 10 profiteers in Iraq Haliburton is rated a lowly 7th? (as of 2004, they may have inched upward) http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=1029 > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=1029 What's really scary is all the ties with the Bush administration. How they have been granted no-bid contracts, or have won out over more qualified and even lower bidders with no justification ever given. Maybe the worst part is the total lack of accountability with these contractors. Watch the movie "Iraq for sale" if you want to get your blood to boil. http://iraqforsale.org/trailer.php >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > > Isn't that interesting. Cheney knew exactly why this war was an un- > winnable quagmire. Make$ you wonder why they went to $uch great length > $ to cherry pick and fal$ify intelligence to make a ca$e for war? I could only gue$$ at what would have made them do that... >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I could only gue$$ at what would have made them do that... As that song in CABARET goes "Money makes the world go around, world go around....etc" Just like any number of other wealthy men, Cheney wants more and more and more....at the cost of lives and billions lost. But he frankly doesn't give a damn. On another but similar subject, I've been looking (in vain) to find any evidence of the philanthropies of the late Merv Griffin...and have found none. Funny how people of much lesser wealth have found it in their hearts to endow seats of learning, contribute to their own foundations to help education, the arts, etc. and people of great wealth like Spielberg, Geffen, etc. have given away lots of dough to causes that interest them Evidently Griffin's only interest was in himself and his waistline. >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > more....at the cost of lives and billions lost. But he frankly doesn't > give a damn. Neither he nor Bush give a damn. It is unfortunate that their Kool-Aid drinking followers still don't get it. Maybe this video straight from the horse's mouth will help. No doubt the Kool-Aid drinkers have seen the video. Uncharacteristically silent aren't they? They are probably facing toward Crawford and going through their prayers over this! lol! >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> Isn't that interesting. Amazing, isn't it? Cheney knew exactly why this war was an un- >> winnable quagmire. Make$ you wonder why they went to $uch great length >> $ to cherry pick and fal$ify intelligence to make a ca$e for war? > > I could only gue$$ at what would have made them do that... Getting cynical in our older age? Yeah. Sigh. I wonder why... (rhetorical) Cathy > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I He said "if the Kurds spin loose..." Anyone catch the news today? >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > > He said "if the Kurds spin loose..." > > Anyone catch the news today? Anyone catch TIME this week? The Verbatim section on page 18 features a quote from "Dick" and his '94 video interview. It makes for a good sig line. -- "How many dead Americans is Saddam worth?" -Dick Cheney 4/15/94 > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > "How many dead Americans is Saddam worth?" -Dick Cheney 4/15/94 How can you compare something that someone said 13 years ago. The world has changed dude.  Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How can you compare something that someone said 13 years ago. The world > has changed dude. Yes, the world has changed. AQ attacked us on 9/11. <pause to absorb> Now back to Dick's question: How many dead Americans is Saddam worth? >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How can you compare something that someone said 13 years ago. The world > has changed dude. Keeping in mind that SH/Iraq were not behind 9/11, which parts of Cheney's '94 comments were no longer applicable by 2001 - or 2003? Or in '07? Cathy > >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Cathy I missed you. Where have you been lurking in the Bushes? :) Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I missed you. Where have you been lurking in the Bushes? :) Awwww. I was away, visiting w/ some old college friends. You didn't answer the question. Cathy > >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Cathy It's obvious that things have changed in the past 13 years. We got our a.ses kicked on 9/11 and now we are in the process of kicking a few our selves and for that I am quite pleased. I hope we keep up the good work. As for saddam the man, I would agree he wasn't worth a plug nickle but as long as we did get him I have no problem with it. He was a terrorist and liked to terrorize others and he liked to keep the company of terrorists. So we did good in getting him out of action. Tip a few and have some nice chats? Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > a terrorist and liked to terrorize others and he liked to keep the > company of terrorists. So we did good in getting him out of action. I don't think that really answered Cathy's question. Here it is again: "Keeping in mind that SH/Iraq were not behind 9/11, which parts of Cheney's '94 comments were no longer applicable by 2001 - or 2003? Or in '07?" >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > a terrorist and liked to terrorize others and he liked to keep the > company of terrorists. So we did good in getting him out of action. Which of Cheney's comments in that '94 video, re: the problems associated w/ waging a war in Iraq, were no longer applicable post 9/11? > Tip a few and have some nice chats? Yes. Cathy > >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Cathy I didn't see the video, if there was one so I can't comment on all. I feel I have answered your question. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > I didn't see the video, if there was one so I can't comment on all. I > feel I have answered your question. Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > I didn't see the video, if there was one The link is right there, above - has been all along! > so I can't comment on all. I feel I have answered your question. You haven't. It's a short video. If you either read a transcript of it (for which I have no link) or watch it - link above & now down here, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I, *then* perhaps you can explain the 180º re: Cheney's '94 comments & his more recent stance; relating which of his comments are no longer applicable. Cathy > >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Cathy Because you've already veiwed it why don't you give me a short rundown as to what he said, then maybe I'll comment. I think I've gave you my answer already. Are you attempting once again to pursuade me into agreeing with your position? If you are, then you are wasting mine and your time. :) Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > Because you've already veiwed it why don't you give me a short rundown > as to what he said, then maybe I'll comment. You can't sit still for one minute and twenty-two seconds, the length of the video??? >>I didn't see the video, if there was one >>>The link is right there, above - has been all along! >>so I can't comment on all. I feel I have answered your question. >>>You haven't. >>>It's a short video. If you either read a transcript of it (for which I >>>have no link) or watch it - link above & now down here, too: >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I, *then* perhaps >>>you can explain the 180º re: Cheney's '94 comments & his >>>more recent stance; relating which of his comments are no >>>longer applicable. >>>Cathy >>Because you've already veiwed it why don't you give me a short rundown >>as to what he said, then maybe I'll comment. >You can't sit still for one minute and twenty-two seconds, the length of the >video??? To paraphrase Colonel Jessep, he can't handle the one minute and twenty-two seconds! >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > Because you've already veiwed it why don't you give me a short rundown > as to what he said, then maybe I'll comment. By the time you open this msg., scroll down & read it, you could've watched the video. It is short, but quite illuminating. To say the least. Cathy > I think I've gave you my answer already. Are you attempting once again > to pursuade me into agreeing with your position? If you are, then you > are wasting mine and your time. :) >> Because you've already veiwed it why don't you give me a short rundown >> as to what he said, then maybe I'll comment. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cathy Getting warmed up for the children, Cathy? Why else would you be here? :-) >>> Because you've already veiwed it why don't you give me a short rundown >>> as to what he said, then maybe I'll comment. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Getting warmed up for the children, Cathy? Why else would you be here? :-) I think I need an Excedrin... that same ol' brick wall, ya know? Cathy > >>> Because you've already veiwed it why don't you give me a short rundown > >>> as to what he said, then maybe I'll comment. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Cathy I think you have a mind-set. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> >>> Because you've already veiwed it why don't you give me a short >> >>> rundown [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I think you have a mind-set. I am sure you are one of the most intellectually lazy things I've ever known. Shame isn't a good motivator for personal improvement, but in your case, there's an exception allowed. Hopefully your grandchildren never pick up your habits. >> >>> Because you've already veiwed it why don't you give me a short >> >>> rundown [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I think you have a mind-set. Oy vey... Just watch the video so that we're all on the same page, *then* contribute to the discussion. Cathy >>> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >>> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > Cathy Is there ANYONE here who still stands by EVERYTHING they said, back in 1994? I thought not. >>>> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >>>> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > Is there ANYONE here who still stands by EVERYTHING they said, back in > 1994? I thought not. No, because most of us don't have Cheney's accuracy. Why shouldn't Dick stand by it? It has turned out exactly as he predicted it would. > >>>> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > >>>> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > No, because most of us don't have Cheney's accuracy. Why shouldn't Dick > stand by it? It has turned out exactly as he predicted it would. You gonna vote for him in 08? Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >>>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > No, because most of us don't have Cheney's accuracy. Why shouldn't Dick > stand by it? It has turned out exactly as he predicted it would. Suggestion: Ignore this idiot. Shallow and redundant. Will *never* add anything to *any* conversation. >> It's a short video. If you either read a transcript of it (for which I >> have no link) or watch it - link above & now down here, too: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is there ANYONE here who still stands by EVERYTHING they said, back in > 1994? I thought not. After Cheney's comments in the video, made in 1994, what do you think changed about Iraq to make his words no longer of value? The 9/11 gang didn't come from Iraq, according to George Bush. >>Which of Cheney's comments in that '94 video, re: the problems associated w/ >>waging a war in Iraq, were no longer applicable post 9/11? >I didn't see the video, if there was one so I can't comment on all. I >feel I have answered your question. Here is a transcript: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- April 15, 1994, American Enterprise Institute interview with then former Secretary of Defense DickCheney: Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad? A: No. Q: Why not? A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > I didn't see the video, if there was one so I can't comment on all. I > feel I have answered your question. You've seen it, so cut the BS. How did it feel to see ol' Dick getting it EXACTLY right in his opposition to invading Iraq. I believe he used the word "quagmire" himself. > >> >> >> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > >> >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > EXACTLY right in his opposition to invading Iraq. I believe he used the > word "quagmire" himself. Dude, that was thirteen years prior. Lot happened post. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> > I didn't see the video, if there was one so I can't comment on all. I >> > feel I have answered your question. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dude, that was thirteen years prior. Lot happened post. Not really. The embargo and our no-fly enforcement kept Iraq **relatively** benign during those years. >> You've seen it, so cut the BS. How did it feel to see ol' Dick getting it >> EXACTLY right in his opposition to invading Iraq. I believe he used the >> word "quagmire" himself. > > Dude, that was thirteen years prior. Lot happened post. You're not going to win this one dbu. Cheney was right then, and if he'd have stuck to his guns, he'd have been correct now. >>> You've seen it, so cut the BS. How did it feel to see ol' Dick getting >>> it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You're not going to win this one dbu. Cheney was right then, and if he'd > have stuck to his guns, he'd have been correct now. That video makes what's happened since '03 even more frustrating. Here the guy *had* reasoned the whole thing out in a rational manner & clearly articulated point-by-point what his conclusions were; but then proceeded to do an about-face. Argh. Cathy >>>> You've seen it, so cut the BS. How did it feel to see ol' Dick getting >>>> it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > articulated point-by-point what his conclusions were; but then proceeded to > do an about-face. Argh. I used to have a link to a study done by the military in the late 80's (if I recall correctly) and it sounded like Cheney was quoting it. So the question (for me) is who all *did* read this study and how was it so easily ignored? > >> You've seen it, so cut the BS. How did it feel to see ol' Dick getting it > >> EXACTLY right in his opposition to invading Iraq. I believe he used the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You're not going to win this one dbu. Cheney was right then, and if > he'd have stuck to his guns, he'd have been correct now. I don't think so. Cheney don't think so either. Sorry. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >>>> You've seen it, so cut the BS. How did it feel to see ol' Dick getting it >>>> EXACTLY right in his opposition to invading Iraq. I believe he used the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I don't think so. Cheney don't think so either. Sorry. To use an old cliche, the proof is in the pudding. >> >> You've seen it, so cut the BS. How did it feel to see ol' Dick >> >> getting it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I don't think so. Cheney don't think so either. Sorry. He *can't* disagree. He's the vice president. What's he gonna do? Resign in protest? Skank that he is, it's entirely possible that other, spookier people blew the Iraq idea into Bush's head. Wolfowitz, for instance. > > You've seen it, so cut the BS. How did it feel to see ol' Dick getting it > > EXACTLY right in his opposition to invading Iraq. I believe he used the > > word "quagmire" himself. > > Dude, that was thirteen years prior. Lot happened post. And Cheney's predictions have turned out almost dead-on. Dbu, the proof here is so undeniable that it's obvious that even YOU don't believe the BS replies you're giving. >As for saddam the man, I would agree he wasn't worth a plug >nickle but as long as we did get him I have no problem with it. He was >a terrorist and liked to terrorize others and he liked to keep the >company of terrorists. So we did good in getting him out of action. We did more bad than good, and there will be blowback because of it. > >As for saddam the man, I would agree he wasn't worth a plug > >nickle but as long as we did get him I have no problem with it. He was > >a terrorist and liked to terrorize others and he liked to keep the > >company of terrorists. So we did good in getting him out of action. > > We did more bad than good, and there will be blowback because of it. Had we done nothing, we would be much worse off, if not now in the years to come. If you are an American it is in your best interests. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> >As for saddam the man, I would agree he wasn't worth a plug >> >nickle but as long as we did get him I have no problem with it. He was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Had we done nothing, we would be much worse off, if not now in the years > to come. If you are an American it is in your best interests. It's not polite to patronize people that way. >>> As for saddam the man, I would agree he wasn't worth a plug >>> nickle but as long as we did get him I have no problem with it. He was >>> a terrorist and liked to terrorize others and he liked to keep the >>> company of terrorists. So we did good in getting him out of action. >> We did more bad than good, and there will be blowback because of it. > Had we done nothing, we would be much worse off, if not now in the years > to come. If you are an American it is in your best interests. Depends on your portfolio. > As for saddam the man, I would agree he wasn't worth a plug > nickle but as long as we did get him I have no problem with it. He was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Had we done nothing, we would be much worse off, if not now in the years > to come. If you are an American it is in your best interests. But we weren't doing nothing. We had half of Iraq under military air patrols, there was a trade embargo, and on the occasions Saddam got out of line, we launched attacks against his military facilities, the biggest such attack being Operation Desert Fox in 1998, which hit Iraq with 400 cruise missiles, or more than had been used in the Gulf War. That attack took out the last vestiges of Saddam's weapons programs, except for rockets, and nearly caused Saddam to be overthrown in a coup. Furthermore having a weak, contained dictator like Saddam in power was to our advantage because he prevented terrorists from using Iraq as a base, and he was a convenient counterforce against Iraq's fundamentalist government. You haven't thought this out very well. > > As for saddam the man, I would agree he wasn't worth a plug > > nickle but as long as we did get him I have no problem with it. He was [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > You haven't thought this out very well. The world and it's inhabitants are not static moe, this is a dynamic place we live in, changing all the time. If you are a rock then I can see how you feel. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder The more the lefty kook post the goofier they get. Thank goodness they are not influencing anybody but the other lefty kooks in this NG. Our friend Moe reminds one of Neville Chamberlain, he thought Hitler was "contained" as well. LOL mike . > Furthermore having a weak, contained dictator like Saddam in power was > to our advantage because he prevented terrorists from using Iraq as a > base, and he was a convenient counterforce against Iraq's > fundamentalist government. > > You haven't thought this out very well. I see Mike has gotten his glass refilled. What flavor are they serving today? lol > The more the lefty kook post the goofier they get. Thank goodness they > are not influencing anybody but the other lefty kooks in this NG. Our [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> You haven't thought this out very well. Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left kook.. Good thing nobody is influenced by their opinions LOL >I see Mike has gotten his glass refilled. What flavor are they serving >today? lol [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> >>> You haven't thought this out very well. > Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left kook.. > Good thing nobody is influenced by their opinions LOL Mike, you really do need some new material. Get in the game, dude. Say WHY they're kooks. Use proper grammar, spelling, and syntax. Stop top-posting. Maybe you'll then be taken seriously. >> Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left kook.. >> Good thing nobody is influenced by their opinions LOL [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe you'll then be taken seriously. He probably LOLs when his friends pass away. Thanks for pointing out what everybody else knows. The left kooks do a good job of proving WHY they're kooks. The lefty kooks have no idea they are kooks, they actually believe the crap they post. LOL mike >>> Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left kook.. >>> Good thing nobody is influenced by their opinions LOL >> >> Say WHY they're kooks. > > He probably LOLs when his friends pass away. > Thanks for pointing out what everybody else knows. The left kooks do a > good job of proving WHY they're kooks. The lefty kooks have no idea > they are kooks, they actually believe the crap they post. LOL > > mike That was cut & paste #11, one we don't see very often. So says the guy who is in a perpetual state of "yeah, but", just like the other bush-kool-aid drinkers. > Thanks for pointing out what everybody else knows. The left kooks do a > good job of proving WHY they're kooks. The lefty kooks have no idea [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> Say WHY they're kooks. > >> He probably LOLs when his friends pass away. > > Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left kook.. > > Good thing nobody is influenced by their opinions LOL [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe you'll then be taken seriously. Not sniping is far worse than top posting. I have no problem with top posting. Why do you? Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >>> Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left kook.. >>> Good thing nobody is influenced by their opinions LOL [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not sniping is far worse than top posting. I have no problem with top > posting. Why do you? Continuity. You don't read a book from the top down, then switch directions only to go back down to where you left off earlier, do you? > >>> Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left kook.. > >>> Good thing nobody is influenced by their opinions LOL [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Continuity. You don't read a book from the top down, then switch > directions only to go back down to where you left off earlier, do you? I think it is a horse apiece. Far more relevant is the art of sniping. Nobody does it, but it would make following much easier if everybody did. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> >>> Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left >> >>> kook.. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Nobody does it, but it would make following much easier if everybody > did. There's plenty of sniping! Snipping... not so much. Cathy > >> >>> Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left > >> >>> kook.. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Cathy True, but I'm soooo glad you made the correction in your last post because I was, like you about to pounce. :) Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder <snipped, you'll notice!> >> > I think it is a horse apiece. Far more relevant is the art of sniping. >> > Nobody does it, but it would make following much easier if everybody >> > did. >> >> There's plenty of sniping! Snipping... not so much. > True, but I'm soooo glad you made the correction in your last post > because I was, like you about to pounce. :) A-ha! But you spelled it "sniping" in two different posts! I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time. But then it showed up again... which is when I ever-so-nicely made the correction - with a bit of humor. ;-P Cathy P.S. And if you tell me you spelled it incorrectly, just to see if I'm awake - sorry, not falling for it. > <snipped, you'll notice!> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > P.S. And if you tell me you spelled it incorrectly, just to see if I'm > awake - sorry, not falling for it. Well I'll concede to you that I spelled it wrong and continued to do so. I don't use a spell checker and I never claimed to be a champion speller. So what do I get, 20 lashes from a bamboo stick or a cat-o'-nine-tails? If I have a choice I'll take the bamboo. :) Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> <snipped, you'll notice!> >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Well I'll concede to you that I spelled it wrong and continued to do so. Thunk.... (fell off my chair!) > I don't use a spell checker and I never claimed to be a champion > speller. So what do I get, 20 lashes from a bamboo stick or a > cat-o'-nine-tails? If I have a choice I'll take the bamboo. :) How about a short lesson on when to double final consonants & when to drop the final 'e' when adding an "ing" (or whatever) ending? More useful. ;-) -- short vowel followed by one consonant: dble. the consonant (snip -> snipping) -- short vowel followed by 2 consonants: don't double the consonant (lack -> lacking) <-as long as there are already 2 cons., don't need more -- long (digraph) vowel: don't dble. (leak -> leaking) -- long vowel created by the final "e": don't dble., but drop the "e" & adding "ing" - or whatever... (snipe -> sniping) Cathy > >> <snipped, you'll notice!> > >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Cathy So when does school start? Can I have the bamboo or do you have some other form of punishment in mind? Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> >> <snipped, you'll notice!> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > So when does school start? Day after Labor Day. Can I have the bamboo or do you have some > other form of punishment in mind? You need to practice the above lesson at home & bring it back, signed by a parent. Cathy >>> <snipped, you'll notice!> >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Cathy You expect him to actually read that? He has bad eyes, remember? Too many floaters or some crap excuse like that. > -- short vowel followed by one consonant: dble. the consonant (snip -> > snipping) Knowing that rule has really benefitted me. > > -- short vowel followed by one consonant: dble. the consonant (snip -> > > snipping) > > Knowing that rule has really benefitted me. Me too!! Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >>> Not sniping is far worse than top posting. I have no problem with top >>> posting. Why do you? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nobody does it, but it would make following much easier if everybody > did. Assuming you mean "snipping", I do it all the time. Have a look at any thread wherein I participated. But it in no way "cures" the laziness or lack of continuity in top posting. > >>> Not sniping is far worse than top posting. I have no problem with top > >>> posting. Why do you? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But it in no way "cures" the laziness or lack of continuity in top posting. Well, again I have no problem with top posting. It's just not a major for me. :) & cheers Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >>>> Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left >>>> kook.. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Continuity. You don't read a book from the top down, then switch > directions only to go back down to where you left off earlier, do you? You're asking a guy who does not read books. No need to influence people. President "Mission Accomplished" is taking care of the job himself. lol > Yet another of the NGs left kooks speaks out in support of a left kook.. > Good thing nobody is influenced by their opinions LOL [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>>> >>>> You haven't thought this out very well. > The more the lefty kook post the goofier they get. Thank goodness they are > not influencing anybody but the other lefty kooks in this NG. Our friend > Moe reminds one of Neville Chamberlain, he thought Hitler was "contained" as > well. LOL > > mike Amazing how these lefties keep regurgitating the same slime day after day. > . > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > You haven't thought this out very well. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder > The more the lefty kook post the goofier they get. Thank goodness they > are not influencing anybody but the other lefty kooks in this NG. Our > friend Moe reminds one of Neville Chamberlain, he thought Hitler was > "contained" as well. LOL > > mike Oh good. Hunter's back with his small assortment of cut & paste responses. That was #2, right? Actually it is your posts, Neville Chamberlain Moe, that are the cut and paste responses offered by all of the lefty kook wed sites. Thank goodness you are not influencing anybody but the other lefty kooks in this NG. LOL mike >> The more the lefty kook post the goofier they get. Thank goodness they >> are not influencing anybody but the other lefty kooks in this NG. Our [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oh good. Hunter's back with his small assortment of cut & . That was #2, > right? Moe? Who's Moe? > Actually it is your posts, Neville Chamberlain Moe, that are the cut and > paste responses offered by all of the lefty kook wed sites. Thank [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Oh good. Hunter's back with his small assortment of cut & . That was #2, >> right? > The more the lefty kook post the goofier they get. Thank goodness they are > not influencing anybody but the other lefty kooks in this NG. Our friend > Moe reminds one of Neville Chamberlain, he thought Hitler was "contained" as > well. LOL Squawk! Your comparison is nonsense because the US and UK had half of Iraq under control of its air power, while Chamberlain didn't do anything like that with Germany. And Saddam, unlike Hitler, had already been defeated in a war and left greatly weakened. . The real Chamberlain here is GW Bush, who took his father's victory in the Middle East and has turned it into a defeat of much larger proportions and worse consequences, but fools don't know that. > Your comparison is nonsense because the US and UK had half of Iraq > under control of its air power, while Chamberlain didn't do anything > like that with Germany. And Saddam, unlike Hitler, had already been > defeated in a war and left greatly weakened. His end was certain. Accelerating it was far too expensive. > The real Chamberlain here is GW Bush, who took his father's victory in > the Middle East and has turned it into a defeat of much larger > proportions and worse consequences, but fools don't know that. I wouldn't use Chamberlain as a valid comparison. Better would be Pyrrhus or possibly Leonidas. >> Your comparison is nonsense because the US and UK had half of Iraq >> under control of its air power, while Chamberlain didn't do anything [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I wouldn't use Chamberlain as a valid comparison. Better would be > Pyrrhus or possibly Leonidas. Close. The most accurate however is Caligula. Most the dims are the modern day Chamberlains, they are all appeasers. They think if we will be nice to the radial Islamic terrorists and stop killing them, they will love us LOL mike >> I wouldn't use Chamberlain as a valid comparison. > Most the dims are the modern day Chamberlains, they are all appeasers. > They think if we will be nice to the radial Islamic terrorists and stop > killing them, they will love us LOL > > mike Not even close, genius. > Most the dims are the modern day Chamberlains, they are all appeasers. > They think if we will be nice to the radial Islamic terrorists and stop > killing them, they will love us LOL > > mike Agreed. I find it incredible that there are so many NAIVE NAIVE NAIVE LIEbrawls out there who have been sucked in Al Queda (sp) propaganda. >>> I wouldn't use Chamberlain as a valid comparison. >> Most the dims are the modern day Chamberlains, they are all appeasers. >> They think if we will be nice to the radial Islamic terrorists and stop [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Agreed. I find it incredible that there are so many NAIVE NAIVE NAIVE > LIEbrawls out there who have been sucked in Al Queda (sp) propaganda. I find it incredible that a bush worshipper is accusing others of being naive. How'd you like the Cheney video, genius? lol >>> Most the dims are the modern day Chamberlains, they are all appeasers. >>> They think if we will be nice to the radial Islamic terrorists and stop [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I find it incredible that a bush worshipper is accusing others of being > naive. How'd you like the Cheney video, genius? lol It was great. How'd ya like the Swift Boat video, non-genius? lol >>> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >>> >> > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Awwww. I was away, visiting w/ some old college friends. Emphasis on "old". Hopefully they were not all naive LIEbrawls. > You didn't answer the question. > > Cathy >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Keeping in mind that SH/Iraq were not behind 9/11..... And that the invasion was planned prior to 911. >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>-- >>"How many dead Americans is Saddam worth?" -Dick Cheney 4/15/94 >How can you compare something that someone said 13 years ago. The world >has changed dude. The world has changed in that those predictions Cheney made 13 years ago have all come true. > >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I > >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The world has changed in that those predictions > Cheney made 13 years ago have all come true. Cheney didn't know at that time there were those who would kill 3000 of our innocent citizens at the WTC. Everybody was taken off guard with this brazen attack. I'm quite sure Cheney had a wake-up. Thankfully GWB has taken this fight over there and we are cleaning their clock and with the right president chosen in 08 we will continue to clean their clock. If however the wrong one gets elected then we will once again be fighting them over here. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder > If however the wrong one gets elected then we will once again be > fighting them over here. But, the 9/11 gang didn't come from Iraq. And, they were funded with Saudi money. >> If however the wrong one gets elected then we will once again be >> fighting them over here. > > But, the 9/11 gang didn't come from Iraq. And, they were funded with Saudi > money. *And* the invasion was planned prior to 911. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/ >> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Cheney didn't know at that time there were those who would kill 3000 of > our innocent citizens at the WTC. Iraquis? No? Huh, what about that... (incl. the Pentagon & the flight that went down over PA?) Everybody was taken off guard with > this brazen attack. GWB wasn't. Not if he read his memos. I'm quite sure Cheney had a wake-up. Thankfully > GWB has taken this fight over there and we are cleaning their clock Since you haven't seen the video, & therefore don't know what Cheney had said about starting a war in Iraq & its repercussions, you aren't even addressing what the rest of us are talking about. Cathy and > with the right president chosen in 08 we will continue to clean their > clock. If however the wrong one gets elected then we will once again be > fighting them over here. > > >How can you compare something that someone said 13 years ago. The world > > >has changed dude. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cheney didn't know at that time there were those who would kill 3000 of > our innocent citizens at the WTC. That had nothing to do with Saddam. > Everybody was taken off guard with this brazen attack. Not our intelligence agencies, which predicted an attack: "Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the US", remember? > I'm quite sure Cheney had a wake-up. Only to see that 9/11 was an opportunity to implement his grand plan for the Middle East: weaken Saudi power by turning Iraq into a friendly, anti-Saudi oil power that would eventually grab the oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia, which was mostly Shia. > Thankfully GWB has taken this fight over there and we are cleaning > their clock So well that we're in what Cheney described as a "quagmire". What else would you call a situation where 90% of the casualties occurred after "Mission Accomplished"? > and with the right president chosen in 08 we will continue to clean their > clock. If however the wrong one gets elected then we will once again be > fighting them over here. You sound like Smithers talking about Mr. Burns. The fact is that GW Bush has never given our troops in Iraq a fighting chance for victory because he sent in far too few of them. But instead of owning up to his mistake and either tripling the number of troops or withdrawing from Iraq, he's decided to let our troops die in vain so he can continue to prove his manhood to his daddy. . > > > >How can you compare something that someone said 13 years ago. The world > > > >has changed dude. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > . Again you post your opinions, which is fine, but I don't agree with them. If you think you are going to pursuade me to agree with your opinions then you are wasting your time and mine. Cheers. Signature"Fire up a colortini, sit back, relax, and watch the pictures, now, as they fly through the air." Tom Snyder >> The fact is that GW Bush has never given our troops in Iraq a fighting >> chance for victory because he sent in far too few of them. But [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > them. If you think you are going to pursuade me to agree with your > opinions then you are wasting your time and mine. Cheers. What finally stopped the killing in Northern Ireland? > The fact is that GW Bush has never given our troops in Iraq a fighting > chance for victory because he sent in far too few of them. Almost true. It's more the ROE that limit our troops, not their numbers. But imagine for a moment having the ROE removed. CNN delivered a metaphorical cow over Abu Ghraib prisoners' humiliation having to wear underwear on their heads. What would they say if we actually started fighting the way our military was trained to fight? >> The fact is that GW Bush has never given our troops in Iraq a fighting >> chance for victory because he sent in far too few of them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > underwear on their heads. What would they say if we actually started > fighting the way our military was trained to fight? I'm sure they're trained (nowadays) to fight in urban environments, and are doing the best they can in situations which real military commanders describe as the worst possible place to fight. >> But imagine for a moment having the ROE removed. CNN delivered a >> metaphorical cow over Abu Ghraib prisoners' humiliation having to wear [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doing the best they can in situations which real military commanders > describe as the worst possible place to fight. Now they are. This fight migrated into the urban environment BECAUSE it wasn't fought properly years ago. Door-knocking is not fun. > > The fact is that GW Bush has never given our troops in Iraq a fighting > > chance for victory because he sent in far too few of them. > > Almost true. It's more the ROE that limit our troops, not their numbers. How should the rules have been different? Should they have allowing unlimited carpet bombing and shooting anybody? I thought the ROE were chosen for winning urban warfare against a much larger force that could hide anywhere. Also if the problem was more with the ROE than the troop numbers, why did a US military exercise in 1999 or 2000 indicate that we couldn't control Iraq even with 400,000 GIs? > But imagine for a moment having the ROE removed. CNN delivered a > metaphorical cow over Abu Ghraib prisoners' humiliation having to wear > underwear on their heads. What would they say if we actually started > fighting the way our military was trained to fight? If you had been a prisoner there, underwear on your head would have been the least of your worries, but death would have been. >> Almost true. It's more the ROE that limit our troops, not their numbers. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the troop numbers, why did a US military exercise in 1999 or 2000 > indicate that we couldn't control Iraq even with 400,000 GIs? You missed, or don't remember, my posts several weeks ago detailing how when fired upon soldiers must radio for permission to return fire. I can't imagine WWII being fought that way. Policital correctness run amok. >> But imagine for a moment having the ROE removed. CNN delivered a >> metaphorical cow over Abu Ghraib prisoners' humiliation having to wear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you had been a prisoner there, underwear on your head would have > been the least of your worries, but death would have been. Yeah, right. Our media complains about such harsh treatment there and at Gitmo, where prisoners are given everything including a 7 pound weight gain due to food better than they're used to. The same media which went completely silent when our guys were beheaded, along with the hangings from bridges of contractors there to rebuild infrastructure. It's a good thing this "mind" set (quotes for sarcasm) wasn't present during WWII. The Axis powers would have won the propaganda war without their onw efforts. >>> Almost true. It's more the ROE that limit our troops, not their >>> numbers. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > when fired upon soldiers must radio for permission to return fire. I > can't imagine WWII being fought that way. Policital correctness run amok. Did you document that at the time? I don't recall. >> You missed, or don't remember, my posts several weeks ago detailing how >> when fired upon soldiers must radio for permission to return fire. I >> can't imagine WWII being fought that way. Policital correctness run amok. > > Did you document that at the time? I don't recall. Straight from the horse's mouth. A soldier. No middle-man or media between him and me. >>> You missed, or don't remember, my posts several weeks ago detailing how >>> when fired upon soldiers must radio for permission to return fire. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Straight from the horse's mouth. A soldier. No middle-man or media > between him and me. Too bad he can't go to the media with the information. That's absurd. I wonder what the Pentagon would say about it. Might be fun to watch the spokesperson squirm. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message