Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.
>

.......and a cow jumped over the moon.
and widespread use of global variables makes debugging code easier
and...

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
>>>> reminders:
>>>> [...]
>>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
>>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>>>
>>
>> How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
>> the terrorists.
>
> Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a buzz
> word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not condoned. The
> confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and vice-versa.
> Wether you agree or disagree with a governments actions, always be very
> sceptical about their propaganda.
>

Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
non-combatants, especially civilians. Those taken against the military,
like the confederates, and yanks, would not be terrorists.

Neither would those fighting the British during the Revolutionary war -
although I think you could call the Boston Tea Party a "terrorist act".

>>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>>
>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>
> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto you
> untill the bubble bursts .
>

Yea, and we love every minute of it!

>>>> Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
>>>> have vowed to destroy our civilization.
>>> There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
>>> don't
>>> support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
>>>
>>
>> Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
>> that means you support terrorism.
>
> That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify an
> answer.
>
> But this is getting way to offtopic for me....

No, I say that because he is supporting those who are ing the
terrorists - politically, if no other way.

Those who argue that we need to get out if Iraq before the job is done
are doing just what that terrorists want them to do. They're either too
stupid to realize that, or consciously supporting terrorists. Which is it?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> Michael Fesser wrote:
>>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>>
>>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some reminders:
>>>> [...]
>>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and poverty
>>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>> How many innocent civilians?
>
> Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.
>

Yes? And you have some proof of that? Or are you just talking out your
ass? I suspect the latter.

>> Far fewer than those killed every day by
>> the terrorists.
>
> Sure.
>
>>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>> We've made it safer.
>
> With war. Sure.
>
>> Just like we did in WW II.
>
> Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were absolutely safe after it was all over.
>

Yep, we kicked your buts but good. And the bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki saved lives. Estimates were to invade the Japanese homeland
would have cost over 1M lives on each side.

>>> Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
>>> cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.
>> ROFLMAO! We finally have a President with enough balls to stand up to
>> the terrorists.
>
> Elected by courts, not by the people. Started at least two new wars.
> Tries to restrict even _our_ European civil rights. Spits on freedom and
> personal rights. Failed to support his own people during natural
> disasters, at the same time ignores or even suppresses environmental
> protection issues. And many more ...
>

Sorry, you're wrong again. Every recount, even those taken by the NY
Times and CNN after the election showed that Bush won Florida in 2000.
And he beat Kerry's butt in 2004.

Try again - with some real facts.

And he isn't doing a thing to _your_ European civil rights. And all the
rest of your statements are full of even more crap.

I really suggest you get some facts before you pull your head out of
your ass again.

> Wow, what a president. You can be really proud of him.
>

You're damn right I'm proud of him.

>>>> If we would have
>>>> had that in 1993, we wouldn't be in this situation today.
>>> Correct. It could be even worse.
>> Nope, it would be much better.
>
> You mean then the US would even more rule the world than they do now.
> Maybe they would already have taken over and "freed" old Europe?
>

We rule 50 states and a half dozen territories. That's it. Not Europe,
not Iraq, no place else.

>>> The only reason to invade Iraq was the oil. When was the war finished
>>> "officially"? What's the situation now? Worse than ever.
>>>
>> You really believe that, huh? It was NOTHING about oil.
>
> Of course it was all just about a little ugly dictator and his WMD toys.
> But OK, oil was not the _only_ reason.
>

Nope, oil wasn't even part of it. Your ass is talking again.

>> Or, maybe you
>> can prove it.
>
> You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
>

And you think that's the truth? ROFLMAO. It's ONE PERSON'S (or maybe a
few people's) opinion.

I could write an article in wikipedia saying Michael Fesser is a horses
ass. It would have more creditability that what you're pointing out.

But I forget - you believe everything you read on the internet.

> And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
> more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
> article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.
>

Yep, and how "accurate" are those references? Most are other websites
with just as little credibility.

> I wonder if you really mean what you say or if you're just trolling and
> stress testing our irony detectors.
>
> Micha

As Lenin once said - "Repeat a lie enough and it becomes the truth".
Well, your lies are not going to become the truth.

And hey - I didn't bring up the topic. And no one asked you to stick
your fat ass in here.

If there's anyone who's a troll, it's you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Shelly wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:iPCdncw7C8gBX3fbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.
>
> I guess that statement just about sums up your level of naivete of world
> events.
>
> Shelly
>
>

Yep. You just watch.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>
>> The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.
>
> Yep, like you were succeeding in Vietnam.
> You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?
>
> http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/jo...ver_again.html
>
> Micha

Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
you go back and study your history.

Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.

Crawl back in your hole, troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

ay beecee wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> The difference is - we are succeeding in Iraq.
>>
>
> ......and a cow jumped over the moon.
> and widespread use of global variables makes debugging code easier
> and...

Just watch.

They already have a democratically elected government. Peace doesn't
come overnight, but we're getting there.

Heck - it took over 30 years after the American Revolution for our
country to settle down. No one in their right mind expects Iraq to do
it overnight.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:52:49 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
>>>>> reminders:
>>>>> [...]
>>>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>>>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>>>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and
>>>> poverty
>>>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
>>> the terrorists.
>> Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a
>> buzz word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not
>> condoned. The confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and
>> vice-versa. Wether you agree or disagree with a governments actions,
>> always be very sceptical about their propaganda.
>>
>
> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
> non-combatants, especially civilians.

And the use of more and more 'smart weapons' (which are everything but)
has meant almost every military action of the united states could be
classified as terrorist acts. It's sementantics, I grant you. But the word
'terrorism' and everything related has been abused to many times to hold
any kind of justification. Every fighter with no or a not acknowledged
government has been called a terrorist, allthough some independance
struggles (like the Kurds for instance) seem to me entirely justified.

> Those taken against the military, like the confederates, and yanks,
> would not be terrorists.

There might be a language issue here. The definition here would be "those
who commit violant acts for political gain". (Which would mean almost
every government in the world is a terrorist government incidentally :P)
With todays weaponry, civil casualties always turn out very high.

>>>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>>>
>>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto
>> you untill the bubble bursts .
> Yea, and we love every minute of it!

Don't get me wrong, I love the consuming, we're just more debt-aware for
some reason. The mere existance of credit cards and their huge interest
rates still baffles me.

>>>>> Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
>>>>> have vowed to destroy our civilization.
>>>> There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
>>>> don't
>>>> support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
>>> that means you support terrorism.
>> That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify an
>> answer.
>> But this is getting way to offtopic for me....
>
> No, I say that because he is supporting those who are ing the
> terrorists - politically, if no other way.

I see no support whatsoever here. It's the old argument 'if you are not
with us you are against us', which is and has always been a flawed
argument. A disagreement with no interference is perfectly possible.
Actually, it's the way most people and governments disagree: some moaning
without action.

> Those who argue that we need to get out if Iraq before the job is done
> are doing just what that terrorists want them to do. They're either too
> stupid to realize that, or consciously supporting terrorists. Which is
> it?

Well, you're committed to Iraq now. I was against it from the start, but
the moment the US decided to invade it they made a commitment to leave it
socially at least as good as it was, preferably better. In Africa the US
has a history of fast military actions, and pulling out before anything
real was accomplished. I certainly hope that allthough the process is
going to be quite long an painfull, they'll ride this one out to the end.
--
Rik Wasmus

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:52:49 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
>>>>>> reminders:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>>>>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>>>>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and
>>>>> poverty
>>>>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day
>>>> by the terrorists.
>>> Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a
>>> buzz word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not
>>> condoned. The confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and
>>> vice-versa. Wether you agree or disagree with a governments actions,
>>> always be very sceptical about their propaganda.
>>>
>>
>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>
> And the use of more and more 'smart weapons' (which are everything but)
> has meant almost every military action of the united states could be
> classified as terrorist acts. It's sementantics, I grant you. But the
> word 'terrorism' and everything related has been abused to many times to
> hold any kind of justification. Every fighter with no or a not
> acknowledged government has been called a terrorist, allthough some
> independance struggles (like the Kurds for instance) seem to me entirely
> justified.
>

Yes, actions against innocent civilians are terrorist acts. Actions of
a military against the U.S. military are not.

Actions by non-military personnel against military personnel seems to be
a gray area - some people call them acts of terrorism, some don't.

But I'm more referring to the suicide bombers blowing themselves up in
marketplaces full of civilians, flying planes into buildings and the
like - not attacks against our military.

>> Those taken against the military, like the confederates, and yanks,
>> would not be terrorists.
>
> There might be a language issue here. The definition here would be
> "those who commit violant acts for political gain". (Which would mean
> almost every government in the world is a terrorist government
> incidentally :P) With todays weaponry, civil casualties always turn out
> very high.
>

No, I consider it more on the order of committing violent acts with the
intention of causing the death, injury, etc. of innocent civilians.
With that in mind, neither the yanks nor the rebs were terrorists.
Germany and Japan were not terrorists. Timothy McVay was a terrorist.

>>>>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>>>>
>>>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>>> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto
>>> you untill the bubble bursts .
>> Yea, and we love every minute of it!
>
> Don't get me wrong, I love the consuming, we're just more debt-aware for
> some reason. The mere existance of credit cards and their huge interest
> rates still baffles me.
>

Yep, I do understand that point! Fortunately we're able to keep ours
pretty well paid off. :-)

Got a little on one right now only because I had an unexpected $2K car
repair bill last month :-(.

>>>>>> Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
>>>>>> have vowed to destroy our civilization.
>>>>> There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
>>>> that means you support terrorism.
>>> That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify
>>> an answer.
>>> But this is getting way to offtopic for me....
>>
>> No, I say that because he is supporting those who are ing the
>> terrorists - politically, if no other way.
>
> I see no support whatsoever here. It's the old argument 'if you are not
> with us you are against us', which is and has always been a flawed
> argument. A disagreement with no interference is perfectly possible.
> Actually, it's the way most people and governments disagree: some
> moaning without action.
>

No, he's calling Bush a terrorist, saying we shouldn't be in Iraq...
Hmmm... exactly the same things bin Laden is saying. When you're
agreeing with someone so much, that's supporting them - indirectly, if
not directly.

>> Those who argue that we need to get out if Iraq before the job is done
>> are doing just what that terrorists want them to do. They're either
>> too stupid to realize that, or consciously supporting terrorists.
>> Which is it?
>
> Well, you're committed to Iraq now. I was against it from the start, but
> the moment the US decided to invade it they made a commitment to leave
> it socially at least as good as it was, preferably better. In Africa the
> US has a history of fast military actions, and pulling out before
> anything real was accomplished. I certainly hope that allthough the
> process is going to be quite long an painfull, they'll ride this one out
> to the end.

Yep, the previous administration didn't have the balls to stick around.
As soon as there was the slightest scent of an action becoming
unpopular, he would pull us out - to hell with the locals.

And that's what emboldened the terrorists - they didn't think we'd take
any real action against them, because they had done so many other things
in the past - and we never did anything.

They found out we now have a President who was interested in more than
his interns. And this one has real balls.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>>> Or maybe you want to see IED's along the roads. Maybe you'd like to
>>> see suicide bombers in Times Square. Maybe you'd like to see our
>>> bridges and buildings blown up and our civilians killed.
>>
>> We've already had a lot of that.
>> In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.
>
> Yea, right. Name EVEN ONE.

Oh, gosh - you got me. I'm busted. You're right.

Ultra-right wing, White Militant Christians have always been men among
men; the ones to look to for spiritual guidance and heroic virtue.

I doff my Yamulkah to ya on that one.

Sheesh!

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle

>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>
> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto you
> untill the bubble bursts .

Perhaps the US should change it's slogan from "United We Stand" to "Do
you want fries with that?".

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
> non-combatants, especially civilians.

And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
"nation-building".

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
> you go back and study your history.
>
> Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.
> Crawl back in your hole, troll.

I've noticed that the low-lifes who behaved so poorly during that
illegal war are the same ones who insist the Iraqis must be slaughtered
as well.

I just thank GOD y'all are a dying breed, and that your leaders are
being tried and convicted for what they do.

Michael Fesser wrote:

> Bush is one of the worst terrorist himself. A dangerous criminal Texan
> cowboy with a big daddy and a lot of money behind him.

FULL ACK

So long, Ulf

--
_,
_(_p> Ulf [Kado] Kadner
\<_)
^^

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>>>> Or maybe you want to see IED's along the roads. Maybe you'd like to
>>>> see suicide bombers in Times Square. Maybe you'd like to see our
>>>> bridges and buildings blown up and our civilians killed.
>>>
>>> We've already had a lot of that.
>>> In nearly every case, it was white, Christian, right-wingers.
>>
>> Yea, right. Name EVEN ONE.
>
> Oh, gosh - you got me. I'm busted. You're right.
>
> Ultra-right wing, White Militant Christians have always been men among
> men; the ones to look to for spiritual guidance and heroic virtue.
>
> I doff my Yamulkah to ya on that one.
>
> Sheesh!

ROFLMAO! You make an outrageous claim, then when you're called on it,
can't even show one example.

It makes all the rest of the crap you espouse even less credible.

You really should learn to think for yourself, instead of letting others
to do the thinking for you.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>
> And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
> then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
> "nation-building".

Sigh. This bullshit again. I wondered when you would come up with it.

These guys were tried and convicted of their crimes. Maybe we should
hold you accountable for everything anyone in your city did. After all,
you live there, also.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
>
>>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>>
>> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto
>> you untill the bubble bursts .
>
> Perhaps the US should change it's slogan from "United We Stand" to "Do
> you want fries with that?".

Yea, or maybe we should just kill all the idiots like you and make this
world a better place.

"Would you like to be fried with that"?

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I
>> suggest you go back and study your history.
>>
>> Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.
>> Crawl back in your hole, troll.
>
> I've noticed that the low-lifes who behaved so poorly during that
> illegal war are the same ones who insist the Iraqis must be slaughtered
> as well.
>
> I just thank GOD y'all are a dying breed, and that your leaders are
> being tried and convicted for what they do.
>
>
>

Got it wrong again, idiot. We never said anything about slaughtering
Iraqis. In fact, we saved them from being slaughtered by a tyrant - one
who was convicted of killing millions of his own citizens.

And by who's definition is this war illegal? Yours? We already know
where your head is. The U.S.? Which laws. The U.N.? Why haven't they
charged us?

Just more bullshit, Sanders.

We are the strongest country in the world because we are the best
country in the world. And unlike your chicken-shit leaders, we will
stand up to terrorists.

Every time you post a message here you're sounding more and more like
the terrorists. So maybe we need to hold you responsible for the
bombings in Madrid, London, New York....

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>We are the strongest country in the world because we are the best
>country in the world. And unlike your chicken-shit leaders, we will
>stand up to terrorists.

*ROFL*

Sigged.

And you're wondering why you have been attacked? With such an attitude
the next 9/11 is just a question of time, that's for sure.

Micha

--
"We are the strongest country in the world because we are the best
country in the world. And unlike your chicken-shit leaders, we will
stand up to terrorists." (Jerry Stuckle in clp)

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>
>> You know the song "Deja Vu" by John Fogerty?
>>
>> http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/jo...ver_again.html
>>
>Oh, you don't know the difference between Iraq and Viet Nam? I suggest
>you go back and study your history.

I suggest you go back and study the lyrics.

>Unlike you, I know first hand about View Nam.

The artist _also_ knows first hand about it. Otherwise he wouldn't have
written the song (which BTW was written after the Iraq war began).

Micha

..oO(Jerry Stuckle)

>Michael Fesser wrote:
>> .oO(Jerry Stuckle)
>>
>>> How many innocent civilians?
>>
>> Not many. Just some millions. Nothing special.
>
>Yes? And you have some proof of that? Or are you just talking out your
>ass? I suspect the latter.

Of course you do, because offending people is the only you can do. Not
only here, but in nearly every third thread. Everyone who doesn't agree
with you or doesn't want to sleep with your president in his Or^Hval
Office is a troll, an ass hole or something like that.

When God handed out social competence, was it you who shouted the
loudest "Not me, not me!"?

>Try again - with some real facts.
>
>And he isn't doing a thing to _your_ European civil rights. And all the
>rest of your statements are full of even more crap.
>
>I really suggest you get some facts before you pull your head out of
>your ass again.

As I said - you could find proof if you _want_ to find it (for all the
things I said). There are enough resources available. But of course
since they are just websites written by one person or maybe a few, they
don't have any credibility and are not worth the bytes. In fact the only
real source of truth is whitehouse.gov. Sorry, I should have known that.

Just wondering - if the US would ever get a black president - would he
leave the White House as it is?

>> You can find enough resources in the web if you _want_ to find them.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
>
>And you think that's the truth? ROFLMAO. It's ONE PERSON'S (or maybe a
>few people's) opinion.

I wouldn't call 150 references "a few people's opinions". And obviously
you think that even Amnesty International, Washington Post, CNN, BBC,
CBS, UN and whatever they're called don't have any credibility.

>I could write an article in wikipedia saying Michael Fesser is a horses
>ass. It would have more creditability that what you're pointing out.

Of course you can do that, I don't have a problem with that.
Of course you would also have to accept the consequences.

>But I forget - you believe everything you read on the internet.

Obviously you believe everything you see on TV. And just in case you
still live back in the 1850's - even reputable and credible news paper
magazines, scientific articles and such are available on the net. You
just have to know _where_ to search.

>> And before you laugh at Wikipedia or deny their credibility - there are
>> more than 150 references for all the claims and statements made in that
>> article. "Oil" is a major section in it - and it is proved.
>
>Yep, and how "accurate" are those references? Most are other websites
>with just as little credibility.

I knew you would say that.

>And hey - I didn't bring up the topic.

Neither did I. I just can't stand your damn arrogance and egoism.

>And no one asked you to stick
>your fat ass in here.
>
>If there's anyone who's a troll, it's you.

Thanks for that, old man. If arrogance would squeak, you would have to
walk around with an oil can all day.

Micha

ay beecee wrote:
>
>
> Bush is a moron.
What took you so long?

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>
> And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
> then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
> "nation-building".
Yup. Like the Russkies did to East Germany, and the Germans did to Poland.

Spreads the genes around a bit.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
>>> non-combatants, especially civilians.
>>
>> And when a squad of US soldiers rapes a girl and murders her family,
>> then sets fire to the house and threatens the neighbors - that's
>> "nation-building".
> Yup. Like the Russkies did to East Germany, and the Germans did to Poland.
>
> Spreads the genes around a bit.

Yea, right.

The Russians took over East Germany. The Germans took over Poland.

The U.S. has no intention of taking over Iraq. Just the opposite.
That's why they have a government freely elected by Iraqis, and we are
still there at their request. It's also why we are training their
security and defense personnel, with the goal of leaving there as soon
as they can handle things themselves.

And if their government told us to leave tomorrow, we would pull out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================