Mission accomplished +5

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On May 4, 4:47 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Incidentally, we have not dealt a crushing blow to
> >Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan
> >doing God-knows-what (probably more strikes in
> >someplace like Indonesia, an easier target than the
> >continental US).
>
> So far, they seem to be good at making video tapes which makes threats
> that never happen.  Bottom line there have been no attacks in the US
> and credit for that goes to Bush and his aggressive anti-terrorist
> policies.




Dumbass -


Al Qaeda changed strategy once we invaded Iraq. It's easier for them
to attack us there.

Duh.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[Paul G.]

On May 4, 4:33 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a1666a59-075a-442c-9c9c-bce2075c10cc@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I was a radar technician. I'd have given my eye teeth to fly
> > fighters.
>
> Ahh yes, all of that great insight of a radar technician.
>
> > I've wondered what real fighter pilots think of Bush's
> > pathetic record as a "fighter pilot". What kind of "fighter pilot"
> > stops flying as Bush did in April of 1972, refuses to take a required
> > flight physical and is grounded, as happened in August of 1972?
>
> About 20% of the pilots reacted like that for reasons you seem unable to
> comprehend. But no matter. You've demonstrated that you are unwilling to
> think about anything.

Whatever. You deadenders can post any ******** you want. Doesn't
matter. It's all over for Bush. He's just smashed Nixon's record for
the highest disapproval percentage of any president in history.
Where'd you get that 20% figure, out of your ass? That's a lie and an
insult to all the real pilots who showed up for duty.
-Paul

 

[Paul G.]

On May 4, 4:47 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Incidentally, we have not dealt a crushing blow to
> >Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan
> >doing God-knows-what (probably more strikes in
> >someplace like Indonesia, an easier target than the
> >continental US).
>
> So far, they seem to be good at making video tapes which makes threats
> that never happen. Bottom line there have been no attacks in the US
> and credit for that goes to Bush and his aggressive anti-terrorist
> policies.

No attacks in the US... now why did you say "in the US"? Oh yeah,
that's right, there have been THOUSANDS of attacks and THOUSANDS of
Americans killed, just not in the US. More Americans have died in the
Iraq fiasco than died on 9/11- way more, due to Bush's incompetence.
Post all the propaganda you want. The American people have wised up.
You deadenders are an ever-shrinking minority.
-Paul

 

[Paul G.]

On May 4, 6:00 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:52:19 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
> >Iraq was directly in the middle of everything with a leader capable of just
> >about anything.
>
> Saddam, when he controlled Iraq, was easily the most dangerous man in
> the world from the US point of view.

That's absurd. He was a danger to his own people and his neighbors,
but never to us. The Iranians are the dangerous ones. They have
working reactors, reactors under construction, uranium mines, refined
uranium, and centrifuges. Plus they are religious fanatics where
Saddam was a secular thug. They also have far better missiles than
Saddam had in his hey day. By 2003 Iraq was a bombed out wreck.

>
> This is why Bush will go down in history as a great President.

Losers are never regarded as "great". Bush is going down in history
as a monumental screwup and a coward. Just watch the video of him
cowering after he was told "the nation is under attack." That's
"leadership" Republican-style. You probably identify with him, bet you
wet yourself too in a crisis.
-Paul

 

[Paul G.]

On May 4, 7:27 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:a1666a59-075a-442c-9c9c-bce2075c10cc@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > I was a radar technician. I'd have given my eye teeth to fly
> > > fighters.
>
> > Ahh yes, all of that great insight of a radar technician.
>
> As opposed to the great insight of a guy who refueled planes on Okinawa for a few
> months?

Heh heh... you take a lot of tests and based on your scores they offer
you some jobs. They offered me jobs in electronic warfare and foreign
languages. Needless to say those aren't jobs they offer to recruits
with low test scores, and you have to be worth spending a lot of money
to train. The dummies got offered **** jobs like bomb loading and
refueling.
-Paul

 

[Paul G.]

On May 4, 8:50 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 4, 6:00 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:52:19 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Iraq was directly in the middle of everything with a leader capable of just
> > >about anything.
>
> > Saddam, when he controlled Iraq, was easily the most dangerous man in
> > the world from the US point of view. As you said, he was capable of
> > anything and his two sons were of the same cloth.
>
> When I read sentences like this, a vivid image
> flashes into my mind.
>
> I see Kim Jong Il slumped on the NK Presidential
> Sofa, one hand on a bottle of Scotch, another on
> a mockup of the NK nuclear device that he keeps
> on the coffee table. He's dropped the remote on
> the floor as "On the Waterfront" plays - it's
> a little-known fact that Kim loves Brando movies -
> on the flat-screen Sony (Kim don't buy no Samsung).
>
> He's muttering to himself, over and over again,
> "I coulda been a contender."
>

That's hillarious!


> > There was no outcome in Iraq that could be worse than leaving Saddam
> > in power. Luckily, as it looks now, the US just might pull off a
> > triple victory. Saddam gone, Al Qaeda in Iraq defeated and a pro-West
> > democratic government in Iraq with a US military presence to insure
> > stability in the region.
>
> > This is why Bush will go down in history as a great President.
>
> Also, I want a pony.
>

Heh heh! I guess what he's saying is that Bush's father WON'T go down
in history as a great president, since he had an army on Saddam's
doorstep and yet left Saddam in power.

I think we all know that Bush's father will be regarded as a FAR, FAR
better president than his worthless son.
-Paul

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <8bcf1f62-26aa-42cd-bdb6-fde37a637338@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 4, 6:00 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 May 2008 16:52:19 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Iraq was directly in the middle of everything with a leader capable of just
> > >about anything.
> >
> > Saddam, when he controlled Iraq, was easily the most dangerous man in
> > the world from the US point of view.
>
> That's absurd. He was a danger to his own people and his neighbors,
> but never to us. The Iranians are the dangerous ones. They have
> working reactors, reactors under construction, uranium mines, refined
> uranium, and centrifuges. Plus they are religious fanatics where
> Saddam was a secular thug. They also have far better missiles than
> Saddam had in his hey day. By 2003 Iraq was a bombed out wreck.

I'm not really all that sure that Iran is a serious threat to anyone. Yeah, their
president is a nutcase, but he would likely not have been elected if Bush hadn't made
such a big deal about telling the Iranian people to elect a different bunch back in
'05. For another thing, he doesn't control the military, so he can't make them attack
anyone. We know they are working on atomic power but there is no serious proof that
they're working on weapons. I think that if they did develop atomic weapons, it would
be used as a deterrent, rather than as offensive weapons. One problem with any of
that is that the Bush admin. considers countries like Iran developing the capability
to deter attacks is the same as an offensive attack on the US (Israel certainly
subscribes to this theory too).

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Donald Munro]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> You obviously have zero unredstanding of what's going on in Iraq.

A very Kunichian response. Is this evidence that bots can replicate
like virii ?

 

[Donald Munro]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>> Don't be a partisan ideologue. It will make you stupid. This
>> administration's conduct has been especially egregious.

Michael Press wrote:
> Unnecessary to qualify egregious.
> egregious: Surpassing; extraordinary; distinguished (in a bad sense);

Perhaps justified in this case.

 

[Donald Munro]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> Saddam gone, Al Qaeda in Iraq defeated and a pro-West democratic
> government in Iraq with a US military presence to insure stability in the
> region.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is a US creation in the first place, it would never have
existed without an invasion of Iraq, and as the Shia outnumber the Sunni's
3 to 1 so Al Qaeda in Iraq(tm) was always doomed, the only difference is
the US did all the work for the Shia.

The "pro-west" government leader has been more than friendly with Iran
despite US pressure on him to be critical of Ahmadinejad. And thats not
even counting the fact that it is a coalition government with several
sectarian Shia parties involved.

In the end the only thing that unites Iraq is hatred of the US:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/patrick-cockburn-only-one-thing-unites-iraq-hatred-of-the-us-764307.html>
"A detailed opinion poll carried out by ABC News, BBC and NTV of Japan in
August found that 57 percent of Iraqis believe that attacks on US forces
are acceptable." And that percentage is likely to rise when hospitals
and ambulances get hit by US helicopters.

Oh yes and the US military presence "insuring stability" is going to cost
trillions of dollars, always a good idea when you have a record deficit
and an economy in recession. A few tax cuts for fat billionaires and
oil companies might solve the problem though.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 04 May 2008 21:00:27 -0400, Jack Hollis <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Saddam, when he controlled Iraq, was easily the most dangerous man in
>the world from the US point of view.

<snip>

>This is why Bush will go down in history as a great President.

These are both so rich

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 4 May 2008 22:46:55 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On May 4, 4:47 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 May 2008 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Incidentally, we have not dealt a crushing blow to
>> >Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan
>> >doing God-knows-what (probably more strikes in
>> >someplace like Indonesia, an easier target than the
>> >continental US).
>>
>> So far, they seem to be good at making video tapes which makes threats
>> that never happen. Bottom line there have been no attacks in the US
>> and credit for that goes to Bush and his aggressive anti-terrorist
>> policies.
>
>No attacks in the US... now why did you say "in the US"? Oh yeah,
>that's right, there have been THOUSANDS of attacks and THOUSANDS of
>Americans killed, just not in the US. More Americans have died in the
>Iraq fiasco than died on 9/11- way more, due to Bush's incompetence.
>Post all the propaganda you want. The American people have wised up.
>You deadenders are an ever-shrinking minority.
>-Paul
Yeah.

PS, there have been at least one set of unsolved terrorists attacks in
the US since 9/11 -- the anthrax attacks.

PPS -- actually, there is another: the 9/11 attacks themselves. The
leader of that attack has not been brought to justice. So the worst
terrorist attack in US history occurred under GWB and the leader is
still at large. Well done GW! Well done.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 4 May 2008 22:52:38 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On May 4, 4:52 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Sun, 04 May 2008 20:59:24 +0200, Donald Munro
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>I expect Bush has a higher approval rating in Iran than he does in the US,
>> >>after all he first removed the major obstacle to them becoming a regional
>> >>superpower and now he does their dirty work for them defeating their Sunni
>> >>opponents in Iraq while Al Sadr declares a temporary truce to allow the
>> >>US to finish his (and Iran's) enemies off. Now the jobs done the truce
>> >>is over, and the shia control Iran and Iraq. Bush and co are the
>> >>stateman's equivalent of the keystone cops.
>>
>> > You obviously have zero understanding of what's going on in Iraq.
>>
>> What's more, he is more than willing to lie about it and fight any successes
>> there to the end of time.
>>
>> Iraq was directly in the middle of everything with a leader capable of just
>> about anything.
>
>What a liar. You're a joke, Kuntitch.

Kunich is just a joke. Saddam Hussein may have wanted to and been
willing to do any crazy evil stuff to other countries, but the word
"capable" means having the ability to do it. It's obvious now that he
did not that have that ability.

For people like Kunich and Cheney to cling to the idea that he was
"capable" on attacking the US shows delusions or disengenousness on
their part.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:19:14 -0700, Howard Kveck
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm not really all that sure that Iran is a serious threat to anyone. Yeah, their
>president is a nutcase, but he would likely not have been elected if Bush hadn't made
>such a big deal about telling the Iranian people to elect a different bunch back in
>'05.

Wise you are.

 

[[email protected]]

On May 5, 1:22 am, "Paul G." wrote:

(just so we don't forget what TK did in the war):
> >    As opposed to the great insight of a guy [Tom Kunich] who refueled planes on Okinawa for a few
> > months?

> Heh heh... you take a lot of tests and based on your scores they offer
> you some jobs. They offered me jobs in electronic warfare and foreign
> languages.  Needless to say those aren't jobs they offer to recruits
> with low test scores, and you have to be worth spending a lot of money
> to train.  The dummies got offered **** jobs like bomb loading and
> refueling.

Undoubtedly a ploy, to get more library time. --D-y

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:436096c2-9b5c-4b33-9d58-6a823a7f898e@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 4, 7:27 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> As opposed to the great insight of a guy who refueled planes on
>> Okinawa for a few
>> months?
>
> Heh heh... you take a lot of tests and based on your scores they offer
> you some jobs. They offered me jobs in electronic warfare and foreign
> languages. Needless to say those aren't jobs they offer to recruits
> with low test scores, and you have to be worth spending a lot of money
> to train. The dummies got offered **** jobs like bomb loading and
> refueling.

Psst - SAC Bomb/Nav. Which led to a career as an electronics engineer
including making major medical monitoring instruments which luckily you'll
be using if you end up in an ICU.

But then since Kveck is one of those really intelligent people who run an
automated machine, he's more reliable.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8bcf1f62-26aa-42cd-bdb6-fde37a637338@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Losers are never regarded as "great".

I see you understand yourself a great deal better than I thought.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> For people like Kunich and Cheney to cling to the idea that he was
> "capable" on attacking the US shows delusions or disengenousness on
> their part.

For someone like John, who is a normally intelligent person, to believe
something like this he has had to have undergone a great deal of twisting of
the mind.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 4, 12:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:

> Name one thing that Clinton, Bush Sr. or Reagan did that was as
> corrupt as the FERC doing nothing while Enron created the "California
> Energy Crisis".

What about CA "deregulation" [which was not deregulation] passed by
Pete Wilson and a democrat legislature? It would have never come down
to FERC needing to "do this or that" had it not been for the CA
politician boneheads.

They made an agar nutrient medium and big surprise: mold grew on it.

 

[Paul G.]

On May 5, 6:42 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:436096c2-9b5c-4b33-9d58-6a823a7f898e@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 4, 7:27 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> As opposed to the great insight of a guy who refueled planes on
> >> Okinawa for a few
> >> months?
>
> > Heh heh... you take a lot of tests and based on your scores they offer
> > you some jobs. They offered me jobs in electronic warfare and foreign
> > languages. Needless to say those aren't jobs they offer to recruits
> > with low test scores, and you have to be worth spending a lot of money
> > to train. The dummies got offered **** jobs like bomb loading and
> > refueling.
>
> Psst - SAC Bomb/Nav. Which led to a career as an electronics engineer
> including making major medical monitoring instruments which luckily you'll
> be using if you end up in an ICU.
>

SAC Bomb/Nav... SAC Bomb/Nav.... Oh yeah, didn't Slim Pickens play
a "bomb navigator" in "Dr. Strangelove"?
http://www.ixbt.com/dvd/films/strangelove/strangelove_ridenuke_large.jpg

YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAW! Ride 'em, SAC Bomb/Nav!

I can picture medical equipment designed by a nut case like you- when
someone with a heart attack is connected to the machine, it ignores
the patient and attacks Iraq, right?

-Paul