On Apr 28, 11:44 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:
Run along junior and play somewhere else. Saddam had nothing to do with
9-11, and was no threat to the US. It was all a right wing kook lie --
that you love, or you would not be here whining.

In <8795140c-9c1a-4169-8225-9d92b2a07...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
at 08:25 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:

On Apr 26, 10:55 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:
In <pan.2008.04.26.12.53...@X.net>, on 04/26/2008
at 12:34 PM, Zerkonx <Z...@X.net> said:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:17:14 -0400, Professor Irwin Corey wrote: >> A
well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a
building
in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is
producing propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
Actually, that's what they WANT you to believe
What they WANT you to believe is that this is something 'new' forced by
'new' demands.

That's correct. The right wign kooks no long have the commies to fight
forever, so they have created a new group; a bunch arab desert dweller
that have to be fought for the next 100 years... Not to mention the need
to capture their natural resources, so American companies can still steal
from the world's people.

The right wing kooks are begging for the chance to use nuclear weapons
too.
Let me guess you think the US was behind 9/11 also. Just want to see
which ward of the mental institute you escaped from.

I understand that old people get senile so I wont begrudge you the fact
that somehow you think I am your son, but I'm not. However, to address
another one of your "senior" moments I'll talk slow. The war on terrorism
is not to avenge 9/11 but to prevent it from happening again. Our
military actions are aimed towards that goal. It seem fairly obvious
after the fact but Iraq contains elements that are involved in
terroristic activities. Fortunately for us we can kill them over there
without having to wait until they come here. I know maybe you were
confused and thought we were talking about "a rack" instead of Iraq. I
hope this clears things up.

Please for all of our sakes make sure you dentures are firmly in place
before replying.

Professor Irwin Corey wrote:
In <w4-dnXVJLLQPq4zVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@toastnet>, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."
nada@nobull.com> wrote:

MichaelNJ@gmail.com wrote:

What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
for our failure in Vietnam.

1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.

Son, that was considered...very seriously and often.

It was decided to avoid the likely nuclear war.

...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...

;-)


(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)

Riiiiight. The Soviet and Chinese advisors, money and weaponry were all
mirages.

Son, obtaining support did not make the DRV a surrogate.

For your education, son, a surrogate is one who acts on another's behalf.
The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national independence.

HTH,

(OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the U.S.,
and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)

Run along and play right wing dumbass somwhere else junior. -->There was
no connection between 9-11 and iraq.

In <4fd99850-121a-49dc-ae76-a72a2e385...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
at 10:25 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:

On Apr 28, 11:44 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:
Run along junior and play somewhere else. Saddam had nothing to do with
9-11, and was no threat to the US. It was all a right wing kook lie --
that you love, or you would not be here whining.

In <8795140c-9c1a-4169-8225-9d92b2a07...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
at 08:25 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:

On Apr 26, 10:55 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:
In <pan.2008.04.26.12.53...@X.net>, on 04/26/2008
at 12:34 PM, Zerkonx <Z...@X.net> said:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:17:14 -0400, Professor Irwin Corey wrote: >> A
well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a
building
in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is
producing propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.
Actually, that's what they WANT you to believe
What they WANT you to believe is that this is something 'new' forced by
'new' demands.

That's correct. The right wign kooks no long have the commies to fight
forever, so they have created a new group; a bunch arab desert dweller
that have to be fought for the next 100 years... Not to mention the need
to capture their natural resources, so American companies can still steal
from the world's people.

The right wing kooks are begging for the chance to use nuclear weapons
too.
Let me guess you think the US was behind 9/11 also. Just want to see
which ward of the mental institute you escaped from.
I understand that old people get senile so I wont begrudge you the fact
that somehow you think I am your son, but I'm not. However, to address
another one of your "senior" moments I'll talk slow. The war on terrorism
is not to avenge 9/11 but to prevent it from happening again. Our
military actions are aimed towards that goal. It seem fairly obvious
after the fact but Iraq contains elements that are involved in
terroristic activities. Fortunately for us we can kill them over there
without having to wait until they come here. I know maybe you were
confused and thought we were talking about "a rack" instead of Iraq. I
hope this clears things up.
Please for all of our sakes make sure you dentures are firmly in place
before replying.

What makes you think Bush and others are telling the truth about the
invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent debacle there?

What makes you think Bush and co are telling the whole truth about al queda,
and "terrorism" in general?

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe matters such as 9/11, Vietnam, and
Iraq are more the result of blatant USA incompetence than anything else?

I mean, even as a minute possibility, that you and many others might be
actually totally wrong about what you believe because of what you've been
told [sold]?

Think about it. Maybe even dig a little deeper and challenge yourself to
question "on what basis of fact/knowledge are you basing your beliefs upon"?

And why do you choose to believe it?

THX

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
Better have the person who changes your depends also start reading
these posts because it is apparent that you no longer can.

We are fighting over there so we don't have them attack us over there
again. We are not fighting 9/11 we are preventing the next one.

Will we be successfully? I hope so. Of course stalinist liberals
like yourself are doing your utmost to make us fail. Almost makes me
wonder what side you are on.

Stalinist liberals? Ha Ha Ha!!!

fail? what about the easy victory and "mission accomplished"

oh...you warmongering assholes "mis-calculated"...now blame "stalinists"...ha ha ha

whatafuckinmoron
;-)

Michae...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0ff908be-5aba-406b-83c0-b3db8045fb3a@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...



Better have the person who changes your depends also start reading
these posts because it is apparent that you no longer can.

We are fighting over there so we don't have them attack us over there
again. We are not fighting 9/11 we are preventing the next one.

LOL What's more scary than any potential terrorism, is that you and so many
others really believe what you just wrote.

Will we be successfully? I hope so. Of course stalinist liberals
like yourself are doing your utmost to make us fail. Almost makes me
wonder what side you are on.

If you really cared about your nation and it's people, you wouldn't be so
damn gullible and ill-informed, and you sure wouldn't be spreading this
mindless propaganda based on illusions and spin, imho.

But that's life on planet earth isn;t it? :-)

Here's another "trick" question.

Can you describe the Worldwide Organisational Structure of the Al Queda
Terrorist Organisation and how it operates - and point to clear evidence to
back up any claims as to it's existence and personell, and connections?

Furthermore .. how does one go to War against something that isn't really
there?

Here's a clue ... In Vietnam the USA was in a pitched battle to stop the
Dominoe Theory from becoming a reality.

The problem .... it was just a "theory" ... it wasn't really real. How can
one win a war against some entity or word or theory that isn't even real?

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:58 am, "Sean" <waz...@bro.org> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:0ff908be-5aba-406b-83c0-b3db8045fb3a@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...

Better have the person who changes your depends also start reading
these posts because it is apparent that you no longer can.

We are fighting over there so we don't have them attack us over there
again. We are not fighting 9/11 we are preventing the next one.

LOL What's more scary than any potential terrorism, is that you and so many
others really believe what you just wrote.

Will we be successfully? I hope so. Of course stalinist liberals
like yourself are doing your utmost to make us fail. Almost makes me
wonder what side you are on.

If you really cared about your nation and it's people, you wouldn't be so
damn gullible and ill-informed, and you sure wouldn't be spreading this
mindless propaganda based on illusions and spin, imho.

But that's life on planet earth isn;t it? :-)

Here's another "trick" question.

Can you describe the Worldwide Organisational Structure of the Al Queda
Terrorist Organisation and how it operates - and point to clear evidence to
back up any claims as to it's existence and personell, and connections?

Furthermore .. how does one go to War against something that isn't really
there?

Here's a clue ... In Vietnam the USA was in a pitched battle to stop the
Dominoe Theory from becoming a reality.

The problem .... it was just a "theory" ... it wasn't really real. How can
one win a war against some entity or word or theory that isn't even real?

It is not necessary that I make you stop hating me (hypothetically
speaking) it is only important that you fear me. The war on
terrorism will be won when the despots of the world fear the US more
then they hate us or more then the fear the terrorist active inside of
their borders. Terrorist organizations can be neutralized (although
not eliminated) by eliminating those that would fund them and those
that would allow them to operate without deterrent.

If we get into a mode were we only attempt to attack terrorist who are
in the act of attacking us we have already lost.

That is unless you have some better method?

Yes, son. Eliminate the reasons they want to attack us: our decades-long attacks on them.

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 29, 11:24 am, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

Better have the person who changes your depends also start reading
these posts because it is apparent that you no longer can.

We are fighting over there so we don't have them attack us over there
again. We are not fighting 9/11 we are preventing the next one.

Will we be successfully? I hope so. Of course stalinist liberals
like yourself are doing your utmost to make us fail. Almost makes me
wonder what side you are on.

Stalinist liberals? Ha Ha Ha!!!

fail? what about the easy victory and "mission accomplished"

oh...you warmongering assholes "mis-calculated"...now blame "stalinists"...ha ha ha

whatafuckinmoron
;-)

We have not failed and I'm fairly confident that we will succeed -
despite your best efforts.

Then you have nothing to be worried about, do you son...

Which side were you on again?

Son, I damn sure ain't on *your* side, you rightwing warmongering asshole...

;-)

In <0e66e10e-02ad-4525-ac44-e812c4d6f...@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, on
04/29/2008
at 10:41 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:



What makes you think Bush and others are telling the truth about the
invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent debacle there?
What issues of truth are in doubt in your mind? Do you question who was
behind 9/11?

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD THAT THERE WAS NO
CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9-11? --Or are you plina stupid?

Do you question whether there are still groups out there

like those that caused 9/11 that are seeking to do "us" harm? Do you
questions whether the areas being targeted by the US military harbor such
groups? Or do you question whether we are fighting them (or if it is all
a grand illusion)? The only debacle is the liberal response to our
efforts to preserve our way of life.

What makes you think Bush and co are telling the whole truth about al queda,
and "terrorism" in general?
please see above

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe matters such as 9/11, Vietnam, and
Iraq are more the result of blatant USA incompetence than anything else?
So if a mugger breaks into your house and kills your children and steals
your stuff, is it your fault that you did not have a good enough
"deterrent". <maybe> Do you consider this as a viable excuse for the
muggers actions? <I would think not> And ... what is most important ...
does the fact that your deterrent was not sufficient in the past dictate
that you not defend your home from here on out?
Certainly their have been issues with US foreign policy that have
fostered some of the conditions that we see today (the entire Jimmy
Carter fiasco in handling Iran comes to mind), but unless you belong to
the lunatic fringe that thinks the Jews/US were behind 9/11 that does not
mean we should role over and just give in to those who would use terror
against us. Primarily for two reasons: 1) they wont stop just because
we tell them we agree with them and 2) whether right or wrong our
political leaders need to protect American interests today irregardless
of the past.

I mean, even as a minute possibility, that you and many others might be
actually totally wrong about what you believe because of what you've been
told [sold]?
It appears that your argument is that your distrust of the current
political environment is greater then your fear of the what the terrorist
would do to the US. The view point assumes that our current political
leaders hate us and wish us harm (what other motives would they have).
You may believe that but I do not. It does not match their previous
actions.

Think about it. Maybe even dig a little deeper and challenge yourself to
question "on what basis of fact/knowledge are you basing your beliefs upon"?
Do you even see the world events that are happening. Do you see what is
happening in Europe, Asia, the Middle East. Their are forces at work
which hate western culture and that seek power. They are more then
willing to kill anyone that stands in their way and use the religion of
Islam to accomplish their goals. Do you somehow not see this? Do you
think the 9/11 bogeyman does not exist? If you do see this, what is your
plan to combat this evil?

And why do you choose to believe it?

THX

On Apr 25, 8:50 pm, "Sean" <waz...@bro.org> wrote:
Hi Michael,

Michae...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:404f9338-0ccc-48fb-9f83-21e3717190ed@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

What you have listed below is a prescription to lose every military
engagement ever fought and you have missed some of the biggest factors
for our failure in Vietnam.

1.) We failed to engage or consider engaging the real enemy.
North Vietnam was both the surrogates for both USSR and China.

Well this is why people like yourself really need to go and review some
of
the "real truths" about Vietnam, and re-jigg your historical knowledge
base.

Where do you think all the Jets and SAMs that the North Vietnamese
used came from? Surely you are not going to say they made them (or
even that they bought them on the open market). And this is just an
obvious example of support from their over lords. I'm not saying that
the relationship was not a contentious one. However, there is no such
thing as a fair war. We should have knocked out their ability to re-
supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.

eg go watch the Doco you're commenting on, before commenting would be a
good
start Michael.

remember this in my post?
Two points made in the doco are
7.. Belief and seeing are both often wrong.
8.. Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.

It applies to you perfectly.

There's a line in the doco from a nth viernamese general ... goes
something
like "didn't you know anything about history, we have been fighting the
Chinese for 1000 years. we were fighting for our survival as a nation."

Michael, be prepared to re-examine your reasoning!! :-)

2.) We failed to use the level of force required (in the areas where
it was required) to win.
Taking the battle to North early in the war could have ended it
all right away.

One can never end something the right way, when they never started it the
right way. The whole "premise" for the war was flawed from the start ...
and
that continued to the bitter end. That's why it was so "bitter".

Same goes for Iraq .... just another pattern repeat untill someone "gets
the
lessons".

3.) The political leaders directing the war were more concerned with
how US strategy would be perceived in the Media (and how it would
affect their electability) then in how it would help the military
defeat the enemy.
Ironic that this is exactly what certain people in Washington
are doing today.

Wrong again ... but I won't belabour the point.

eg

7.. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full
and
frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale
military
involvement . before we initiated the action.

NOTE : .... "before" ... and full and frank discussion vs hyped up
bullshit
about WMD that never existed in the first place.

Ever played "shadows on the wall" Michael ..... as a child we all knew it
was make believe .... grown-ups often degenerate with age. ;-)

Sorry your precious dearly held beliefs seem so easily rattled. [ albeit
understandable ] I suggest you DON'T watch the doco or anything else like
it. Not good for your health and overall balance.

On Apr 28, 12:51 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:
Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
We should have knocked out their ability to re-
supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.

ha ha ha!!!

...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to
blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...

ya fuckin Crybaby Vet moron
;-)

There is no such thing as cheating with regards to War. We lost
because of our leadership. I don't begrudge the enemy doing
everything it could do to win, I just wish our side had the same
resolve.

(btw, the DRV, "North" Vietnam, was not a surrogate.)

Riiiiight. The Soviet and Chinese advisors, money and weaponry were all
mirages.

Son, obtaining support did not make the DRV a surrogate.

For your education, son, a surrogate is one who acts on another's behalf.
The DRV was acting on their own behalf, for their own national
independence.

HTH,
;-)

(OTOH, "South" Vietnam definitely was a puppet and surrogate for the
U.S.,
and would *never* have existed at all without the U.S. propping it up)

I'm not your son (thank goodness), and surrogate is the correct term
to use. Vietnam was a cold war stand off between the forces of free
western society led by the US against Communist (and their now proven
failed system) led by the USSR and China.

MichaelNJ@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b57c35f8-0802-47e0-bfed-e9ed1de9c799@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 28, 12:51 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

We should have knocked out their ability to re-
supply early on. This meant bombing North Vietnam.

ha ha ha!!!

...the fate of a losing side...explainin...endless explainin...who to
blame...
...how they were cheated (yes CHEATED!!) out of victory...if they could
only have one more chance...

ya fuckin Crybaby Vet moron
;-)

There is no such thing as cheating with regards to War. We lost
because of our leadership. I don't begrudge the enemy doing
everything it could do to win, I just wish our side had the same
resolve.


15 year involvement, up to 500,000 troops at one time, ... US trained and
supplied, more bombs dropped on nth vietnam than the entire WWII, most
powerful nation on earth bar none, gung-ho Generals itching to win,
Political leaders itching to win, secret bombing & infiltrations into Laos
and Cambodia, and you put it all down to a "lack of resolve"????????????

Um, ok, if that's what you want to believe.

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:30 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

On Apr 23, 6:59 pm, "Dr. James West, Ph.D." <n...@nobull.com> wrote:

Michae...@gmail.com wrote:

While I appreciate Immortalist dissection of the argument (something
that he is very adept at doing). I find it hard to read such an
article without primarily seeing it political/social implication.

It seems obvious (at least to me) that Laurence is judging the
mentioned participants (soldiers) by the social connotation with
which
he associates the events they participated it.

Putting aside my own view of the value that these participants
efforts
afforded our country, I would say the concept of hero is based more
upon the action performed in view of the risk involved and the reward
that was promised.

I.E. Someone who risks their life doing that which they (and society
as a whole) thinks is right with little regard to reward that it
provides is a hero.

By this definition every soldier who served honorably when faced with
the enemy (or the possibility of the enemy) is a hero.

Yep. By your definition every soldier in every army throughout
history
is a hero. American soldiers, Nazi soldiers, Huns, Vikings...all
equally heros.

Not every soldier. Every soldier who performed the legal directives
given to him by his leaders in an honorable way.

This is where we differ. Performing an immoral act, regardless of how
"legal"
it is, is not ever honorable and not ever heroic.

I assume you are also providing your own definition of what morality
is?

Yes, just as we all do...every one of us. As you will now demonstrate...

Just because an action is distasteful does not mean it is immoral.

See...your own personal definition of morality.

And who in the fuck ever said distasteful and immoral were
equivalent...they are not...you are either a moron or attempting to
obfuscate.

I claim that killing innocent Iraqi people is immoral...murder.
I claim that the *continued* killing of innocent people is
immoral...murder.

I like dogs, but if a dog threatened my children (or was

perceived to threaten my children), I would remove it as a threat by
any means necessary. The level and imminence of the threat would be a
factor in my actions.

I perceive that your argument is based around that idea that the US
has no moral authority to act in its own defense in other parts of the
world unless we are reacting to actions already committed by others.

Son, you perceive incorrectly. The U.S. may defend itself. The U.S. may
not make up fictitious and hysterical reasons to invade other countries.

Michael said:

Better have the person who changes your depends also start reading
these posts because it is apparent that you no longer can.

We are fighting over there so we don't have them attack us over there
again. We are not fighting 9/11 we are preventing the next one.

Will we be successfully? I hope so. Of course stalinist liberals
like yourself are doing your utmost to make us fail. Almost makes me
wonder what side you are on.

On Apr 28, 4:41 pm, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:

Run along and play right wing dumbass somwhere else junior. -->There was
no connection between 9-11 and iraq.

In <4fd99850-121a-49dc-ae76-a72a2e385...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
at 10:25 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:


On Apr 28, 11:44 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:

Run along junior and play somewhere else. Saddam had nothing to do with
9-11, and was no threat to the US. It was all a right wing kook lie --
that you love, or you would not be here whining.

In <8795140c-9c1a-4169-8225-9d92b2a07...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, on
04/28/2008
at 08:25 AM, Michae...@gmail.com said:

On Apr 26, 10:55 am, gfnaj...@nospam.net wrote:

In <pan.2008.04.26.12.53...@X.net>, on 04/26/2008
at 12:34 PM, Zerkonx <Z...@X.net> said:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:17:14 -0400, Professor Irwin Corey wrote: >> A
well learned lesson. Early in this Iraq war I read there is a
building

in Washington for 1200 employees whose job is psyops. Psyops is
producing propaganda lies for both the enemy and the American people.

Actually, that's what they WANT you to believe

What they WANT you to believe is that this is something 'new' forced by
'new' demands.

That's correct. The right wign kooks no long have the commies to fight
forever, so they have created a new group; a bunch arab desert dweller
that have to be fought for the next 100 years... Not to mention the need
to capture their natural resources, so American companies can still steal
from the world's people.

The right wing kooks are begging for the chance to use nuclear weapons
too.

Let me guess you think the US was behind 9/11 also. Just want to see
which ward of the mental institute you escaped from.

I understand that old people get senile so I wont begrudge you the fact
that somehow you think I am your son, but I'm not. However, to address
another one of your "senior" moments I'll talk slow. The war on terrorism
is not to avenge 9/11 but to prevent it from happening again. Our
military actions are aimed towards that goal. It seem fairly obvious
after the fact but Iraq contains elements that are involved in
terroristic activities. Fortunately for us we can kill them over there
without having to wait until they come here. I know maybe you were
confused and thought we were talking about "a rack" instead of Iraq. I
hope this clears things up.
Please for all of our sakes make sure you dentures are firmly in place
before replying.