..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

..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.

>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.

>> 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 ...

Wow, what a president. You can be really 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?

>> 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.

>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 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.

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

Micha

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
==================