War on Terror deaths Vs other War

[Paul G.]

On May 30, 1:13 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > Ah, the Clinton years... I remember them fondly. $1.35/gal for gas, oral
> > sex, unprecedented prosperity, balanced budgets, and- did I mention the
> > oral sex?
>
> The nutsack shaving thing must be a throwback to those years.

Hell yeah! Chicks dig a shaved sack. They complain that an unshaved
sack makes them feel like they're flossing. "Fuzzy dice" are SO 50's.
-Paul

 

[Paul G.]

On May 30, 5:15 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 30, 2:23 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 29, 7:20 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > What is the correct amount of deaths for a war and/or by guvmint?
>
> > I'll have to start calling you "WARD OF THE STATE". Only a retard
> > would ask a question like that.
> > -Paul
>
> ********. The number of casualties likely to be taken is always a
> factor in any mission planning.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I essentially said he
asked a stupid question. I didn't bother to say why, but it was
because the answer is obvious. Your response isn't even an answer to
his question. Read his question again.
-Paul

 

[Andre]

On May 30, 9:43 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 30, 8:34 am, Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
> > themselves from the invasion.
>
>  WTF are you talking about?http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...obalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/navy.htm
>
>  This is EXACTLY my point.
> Bill C

I have no idea what your point is. I can't imagine a human mind
working like that. Is this your point?

http://www.unknownnews.org/050802a-cp.html

 

[Andre]

On May 30, 2:55 pm, Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 30, 9:43 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 8:34 am, Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
> > > themselves from the invasion.
>
> >  WTF are you talking about?http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground.htmhttp://ww...
>
> >  This is EXACTLY my point.
> > Bill C
>
> I have no idea what your point is. I can't imagine a human mind
> working like that. Is this your point?
>
> http://www.unknownnews.org/050802a-cp.html

Or is it this one?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html

 

[MagillaGorilla]

Paul G. wrote:
> On May 29, 5:23 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Earl <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>ST wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1900
>>
>>>>1-29-2008
>>
>>>> 7,500 Clinton Years
>>>> 3,824 War on Terror
>>
>>>You looked at that chart and found it worthy of posting? Guess that
>>>would explain our current state.
>>
>>>Total active military deaths from 1981-1988
>>>(Reagan) 17201 (avg 2150 per year). 58 from hostile action.
>>>That's 0.33%.
>>
>>>Total active military deaths from 1989-1992
>>>(Bush, Sr.) 6223 (avg 1555 per year). 170 from hostile action.
>>>That's 2.73%.
>>
>>>Total active military deaths from 1993-2000
>>>(Clinton) 7500 (avg 938 per year). 2 from hostile action.
>>>That's a 0.01%.
>>
>>>Total active military deaths from 2001-2004
>>>(Bush, Jr.) 5187 (avg 1296 per year). 1102 from hostile action.
>>>That's a 21.24%.
>>
>>>Or.....
>>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp
>>
>> Just thinking about this a bit more: I think that we should also include the
>>contractors (aka mercenaries) who've died in Iraq, as well as the regular civilian
>>contractors. Also the 2,974 casualties on 9-11. And why not include the Afghani and
>>Iraqi civilian deaths?
>>
>> Every time someone like SD Stevie tries to point out how much worse things were
>>under the Clinton admin., it seems to backfire. Fancy that.
>
>
> Ah, the Clinton years... I remember them fondly. $1.35/gal for gas,
> oral sex, unprecedented prosperity, balanced budgets, and- did I
> mention the oral sex? Those were the good old days. I say bring 'em
> back. This whole "death and destruction" Bush shtick is depressing.
> -Paul


So you think Clinton was reponsible for gas prices being $1.35? You're
one of those people who thinks whoever was president is responsible for
EVERYTHING that happened during their tenure.

Try thinking about that.


Magilla

 

[Paul G.]

On May 30, 4:30 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > On May 29, 5:23 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>In article <[email protected]>, Earl <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>ST wrote:
>
> >>>>http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1900
>
> >>>>1-29-2008
>
> >>>> 7,500 Clinton Years
> >>>> 3,824 War on Terror
>
> >>>You looked at that chart and found it worthy of posting? Guess that
> >>>would explain our current state.
>
> >>>Total active military deaths from 1981-1988
> >>>(Reagan) 17201 (avg 2150 per year). 58 from hostile action.
> >>>That's 0.33%.
>
> >>>Total active military deaths from 1989-1992
> >>>(Bush, Sr.) 6223 (avg 1555 per year). 170 from hostile action.
> >>>That's 2.73%.
>
> >>>Total active military deaths from 1993-2000
> >>>(Clinton) 7500 (avg 938 per year). 2 from hostile action.
> >>>That's a 0.01%.
>
> >>>Total active military deaths from 2001-2004
> >>>(Bush, Jr.) 5187 (avg 1296 per year). 1102 from hostile action.
> >>>That's a 21.24%.
>
> >>>Or.....
> >>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp
>
> >> Just thinking about this a bit more: I think that we should also include the
> >>contractors (aka mercenaries) who've died in Iraq, as well as the regular civilian
> >>contractors. Also the 2,974 casualties on 9-11. And why not include the Afghani and
> >>Iraqi civilian deaths?
>
> >> Every time someone like SD Stevie tries to point out how much worse things were
> >>under the Clinton admin., it seems to backfire. Fancy that.
>
> > Ah, the Clinton years... I remember them fondly. $1.35/gal for gas,
> > oral sex, unprecedented prosperity, balanced budgets, and- did I
> > mention the oral sex? Those were the good old days. I say bring 'em
> > back. This whole "death and destruction" Bush shtick is depressing.
> > -Paul
>
> So you think Clinton was reponsible for gas prices being $1.35? You're
> one of those people who thinks whoever was president is responsible for
> EVERYTHING that happened during their tenure.
>
> Try thinking about that.
>
> Magilla

That was supposed to be humorous, but yes, the president CAN affect
gas prices. Not so much to the downside, absolutely to the upside.
And that's what we've seen. Here's a graph of the price of oil:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

Note that the price of oil ALWAYS shoots up when someone starts a war
in the mideast, because it threatens the supply side. Note that the
price of oil shot up as soon as Bush started talking about invading
Iraq. Note that the price of oil is global, so if you can get someone
to start a war in the mideast, the price of oil from Texas and the
Gulf of Mexico will shoot up, even though the production cost stays
the same. Wow, some lucky people are going to get rich! And the best
part? The longer the war drags on, the more money those people make!
Try thinking about that.
-Paul

 

[Paul G.]

On May 30, 4:23 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You trot out ignorant, inaccurate **** like this:
>
> > > Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
> > > themselves from the invasion.
>

That's called hyperbole. He just means they were WAY outgunned, and
they were. During the invasion, Iraqis were charging M1A1 tanks with
AK-47's. There is little practical difference between charging a tank
with a stick and charging a tank with small arms. Either way you are
going to get mowed down.


> They were very well equipped before the first fiasco, and pretty well
> equipped going into this one. they are still well equipped, and
> getting more sophisticated weapons every day.

Um... we're a superpower. They were a bombed-out third world country.
Both wars were like shooting fish in a barrel.
-Paul

 

[Bill C]

On May 30, 8:05 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 30, 4:23 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You trot out ignorant, inaccurate **** like this:
>
> > > > Why do they call it a war? Iraqis only had sticks and stones to defend
> > > > themselves from the invasion.
>
> That's called hyperbole. He just means they were WAY outgunned, and
> they were. During the invasion, Iraqis were charging M1A1 tanks with
> AK-47's. There is little practical difference between charging a tank
> with a stick and charging a tank with small arms. Either way you are
> going to get mowed down.
>
> >  They were very well equipped before the first fiasco, and pretty well
> > equipped going into this one. they are still well equipped, and
> > getting more sophisticated weapons every day.
>
> Um... we're a superpower. They were a bombed-out third world country.
> Both wars were like shooting fish in a barrel.
> -Paul

First of all he needs a reading lesson. Maybe his english is as bad as
my french and german, In that case he has an excuse, but that's the
only one. Anyone who has read anything I've written here in years
would find nothing but my problems with our criminal President.
This is one I love, and should be called "The Lafferty Gambit" since
he first made this argument; When it's by someone who shares your
philosophy and views it's "hyperbole", and pefectly acceptable, even
welcomed, but when they don't they are a goddamned liar.
Thanks
Bill C
Who still thinks a liar is a liar, and propaganda is just that.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 30, 10:23 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

> I essentially said he
> asked a stupid question. I didn't bother to say why, but it was
> because the answer is obvious. Your response isn't even an answer to
> his question. Read his question again.

Big Dumb Paul,

This is your chance to put the obvious answer into the form of a
question.

Thanks,
SoTS

 

[Paul G.]

On May 31, 8:51 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 30, 10:23 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I essentially said he
> > asked a stupid question. I didn't bother to say why, but it was
> > because the answer is obvious. Your response isn't even an answer to
> > his question. Read his question again.
>
> Big Dumb Paul,
>
> This is your chance to put the obvious answer into the form of a
> question.
>
> Thanks,
> SoTS

The answer is simple, grasshopper. Your question was:
> What is the correct amount of deaths for a war and/or by guvmint?

The answer is the same as the answer to this question:
What is the correct number of missing teeth for a bike racer?

-Paul

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 31, 11:02 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 31, 8:51 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 10:23 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I essentially said he
> > > asked a stupid question. I didn't bother to say why, but it was
> > > because the answer is obvious. Your response isn't even an answer to
> > > his question. Read his question again.
>
> > Big Dumb Paul,
>
> > This is your chance to put the obvious answer into the form of a
> > question.
>
> > Thanks,
> > SoTS
>
> The answer is simple, grasshopper. Your question was:
>  > What is the correct amount of deaths for a war and/or by guvmint?
>
> The answer is the same as the answer to this question:
> What is the correct number of missing teeth for a bike racer?

Big Dumb Paul,

This was funny:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/25e1aef5551470e0?

--SoTS

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 31, 11:02 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 31, 8:51 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 10:23 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I essentially said he
> > > asked a stupid question. I didn't bother to say why, but it was
> > > because the answer is obvious. Your response isn't even an answer to
> > > his question. Read his question again.
>
> > Big Dumb Paul,
>
> > This is your chance to put the obvious answer into the form of a
> > question.
>
> > Thanks,
> > SoTS
>
> The answer is simple, grasshopper. Your question was:
>  > What is the correct amount of deaths for a war and/or by guvmint?
>
> The answer is the same as the answer to this question:
> What is the correct number of missing teeth for a bike racer?

Big Dumb Paul,

I don't know if Gaggioli still lives in town, but he might have some
spare 2x4's. http://www.cyclingforums.com/t117784.html

Regarding Starbucks, I don't so much care if you bring a 2x4, but it
would be nice if you brought Gaggioli's wife for some lattes.
http://www.pbase.com/sdukes/lynn_gaggioli

Thanks,
SoTS

 

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Regarding Starbucks, I don't so much care if you bring a 2x4, but it would
> be nice if you brought Gaggioli's wife for some lattes.
> http://www.pbase.com/sdukes/lynn_gaggioli

People dressed in purple standing in a puddle rarely make much impression
when hitting on a hot chick.

 

[Paul G.]

On May 31, 10:54 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 31, 11:02 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 8:51 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On May 30, 10:23 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I essentially said he
> > > > asked a stupid question. I didn't bother to say why, but it was
> > > > because the answer is obvious. Your response isn't even an answer to
> > > > his question. Read his question again.
>
> > > Big Dumb Paul,
>
> > > This is your chance to put the obvious answer into the form of a
> > > question.
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > SoTS
>
> > The answer is simple, grasshopper. Your question was:
> > > What is the correct amount of deaths for a war and/or by guvmint?
>
> > The answer is the same as the answer to this question:
> > What is the correct number of missing teeth for a bike racer?
>
> Big Dumb Paul,
>
> This was funny:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/25e1aef5551470e0?
>
> --SoTS

Glad you're amused... but aren't you a little slow?
-Paul

 

[Ted van de Weteringe]

Paul G. wrote:
> I think Gen. Patton said it best:
> "No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by
> making the other poor dumb ******* die for his country."
>
> Patton knew what "the correct amount of deaths" was.

Less than the other side's?

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On May 29, 8:47 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 29, 8:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 11:25 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On May 27, 8:45 pm, Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > ST wrote:
> > > > >http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1900
>
> > > > > 1-29-2008
>
> > > > >       7,500      Clinton Years
> > > > >       3,824      War on Terror
>
> > > > You looked at that chart and found it worthy of posting? Guess that
> > > > would explain our current state.
>
> > > > Total active military deaths from 1981-1988
> > > > (Reagan) 17201 (avg 2150 per year). 58 from hostile action.
> > > > That's 0.33%.
>
> > > Those "hostile action" numbers don't include the 1983 "Marine Barracks
> > > Down" incident in Beirut, which killed 241 American servicemen: 220
> > > Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers.
>
> > > "Cut and Run Reagan" put his tail between his legs and pulled out of
> > > Lebanon after that.
> > > -Paul
>
> > Not before exacting some manly revenge against the French:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/15/politics/15REAG.html
>
> > --D-y
>
> Cut-and-Run Reagan has some interesting quotes in that article on his
> April 14, 1986 attack on Libya:
>
> "I warned that there should be no place on earth where terrorists can
> rest and train and practice their deadly skills,'' he said. ''I meant
> it. I said that we should act with others, if possible, and alone, if
> necessary, to insure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere.
> ''Tonight we have,'' he said. Mr. Reagan and his ranking aides
> delivered an unmistakable warning to Colonel Qaddafi. ''When our
> citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, we will respond
> in self-defense,'' Mr. Reagan said. ''If necessary, we will do it
> again.''
>
> Then the Libyans blew up Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21 1988  over
> Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people including 180 Americans.
>
> Reagan never did a damn thing about that.   So much for ''If
> necessary, we will do it again.''
> -Paul



Dumbass -


That is incorrect.

They bombed Ghaddafi's house. Missed Ghadaffi, but killed his infant
daughter.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[Paul G.]

On May 31, 7:55 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 29, 8:47 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 8:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On May 27, 11:25 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 27, 8:45 pm, Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > ST wrote:
> > > > > >http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1900
>
> > > > > > 1-29-2008
>
> > > > > > 7,500 Clinton Years
> > > > > > 3,824 War on Terror
>
> > > > > You looked at that chart and found it worthy of posting? Guess that
> > > > > would explain our current state.
>
> > > > > Total active military deaths from 1981-1988
> > > > > (Reagan) 17201 (avg 2150 per year). 58 from hostile action.
> > > > > That's 0.33%.
>
> > > > Those "hostile action" numbers don't include the 1983 "Marine Barracks
> > > > Down" incident in Beirut, which killed 241 American servicemen: 220
> > > > Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers.
>
> > > > "Cut and Run Reagan" put his tail between his legs and pulled out of
> > > > Lebanon after that.
> > > > -Paul
>
> > > Not before exacting some manly revenge against the French:
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/15/politics/15REAG.html
>
> > > --D-y
>
> > Cut-and-Run Reagan has some interesting quotes in that article on his
> > April 14, 1986 attack on Libya:
>
> > "I warned that there should be no place on earth where terrorists can
> > rest and train and practice their deadly skills,'' he said. ''I meant
> > it. I said that we should act with others, if possible, and alone, if
> > necessary, to insure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere.
> > ''Tonight we have,'' he said. Mr. Reagan and his ranking aides
> > delivered an unmistakable warning to Colonel Qaddafi. ''When our
> > citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, we will respond
> > in self-defense,'' Mr. Reagan said. ''If necessary, we will do it
> > again.''
>
> > Then the Libyans blew up Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21 1988 over
> > Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people including 180 Americans.
>
> > Reagan never did a damn thing about that. So much for ''If
> > necessary, we will do it again.''
> > -Paul
>
> Dumbass -
>
> That is incorrect.
>
> They bombed Ghaddafi's house. Missed Ghadaffi, but killed his infant
> daughter.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

Oooh! I got a live one! Nope. Check the dates, which I generously
supplied. Ghadaffi blew up Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21 1988.
Reagan killed Ghadaffi's daughter on April 14, 1986. The downing of
Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie was retaliation for the attack that
killed Ghadaffi's daughter, not the other way around.

-Paul

 

[[email protected]]

On May 31, 5:46 pm, Ted van de Weteringe
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul G. wrote:
> > I think Gen. Patton said it best:
> > "No ******* ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by
> > making the other poor dumb ******* die for his country."
>
> > Patton knew what "the correct amount of deaths" was.
>
> Less than the other side's?


The correct amount of deaths is enough. Plus a few hundred thousand
extra burned to death for PR purposes.

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jun 1, 9:23 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 31, 7:55 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 8:47 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 8:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 27, 11:25 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 27, 8:45 pm, Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > ST wrote:
> > > > > > >http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1900
>
> > > > > > > 1-29-2008
>
> > > > > > >       7,500      Clinton Years
> > > > > > >       3,824      War on Terror
>
> > > > > > You looked at that chart and found it worthy of posting? Guess that
> > > > > > would explain our current state.
>
> > > > > > Total active military deaths from 1981-1988
> > > > > > (Reagan) 17201 (avg 2150 per year). 58 from hostile action.
> > > > > > That's 0.33%.
>
> > > > > Those "hostile action" numbers don't include the 1983 "Marine Barracks
> > > > > Down" incident in Beirut, which killed 241 American servicemen: 220
> > > > > Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers.
>
> > > > > "Cut and Run Reagan" put his tail between his legs and pulled out of
> > > > > Lebanon after that.
> > > > > -Paul
>
> > > > Not before exacting some manly revenge against the French:
>
> > > >http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/15/politics/15REAG.html
>
> > > > --D-y
>
> > > Cut-and-Run Reagan has some interesting quotes in that article on his
> > > April 14, 1986 attack on Libya:
>
> > > "I warned that there should be no place on earth where terrorists can
> > > rest and train and practice their deadly skills,'' he said. ''I meant
> > > it. I said that we should act with others, if possible, and alone, if
> > > necessary, to insure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere.
> > > ''Tonight we have,'' he said. Mr. Reagan and his ranking aides
> > > delivered an unmistakable warning to Colonel Qaddafi. ''When our
> > > citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, we will respond
> > > in self-defense,'' Mr. Reagan said. ''If necessary, we will do it
> > > again.''
>
> > > Then the Libyans blew up Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21 1988  over
> > > Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people including 180 Americans.
>
> > > Reagan never did a damn thing about that.   So much for ''If
> > > necessary, we will do it again.''
> > > -Paul
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > That is incorrect.
>
> > They bombed Ghaddafi's house. Missed Ghadaffi, but killed his infant
> > daughter.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Oooh! I got a live one!   Nope. Check the dates, which I generously
> supplied. Ghadaffi blew up Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21 1988.
> Reagan killed Ghadaffi's daughter on April 14, 1986.   The downing of
> Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie was retaliation for the attack that
> killed Ghadaffi's daughter, not the other way around.
>
> -Paul



Dumbass -


You are correct.

I think it took awhile for them to figure out who did it. It seemed
like Reagan enjoyed having an excuse to go after Ghadaffi and if he
still would have been in office by the time they figured it out, he
may have had another go at it.

He did "cut and run" in Beirut which gave people like Osama bin Laden
the idea that terrorism would work vs. the US, but Reagan did not have
the same mentality when it came to Ghadaffi.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[Paul G.]

On Jun 1, 2:49 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 9:23 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 7:55 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On May 29, 8:47 am, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 29, 8:23 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 27, 11:25 pm, "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 27, 8:45 pm, Earl <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > ST wrote:
> > > > > > > >http://milind.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=1900
>
> > > > > > > > 1-29-2008
>
> > > > > > > > 7,500 Clinton Years
> > > > > > > > 3,824 War on Terror
>
> > > > > > > You looked at that chart and found it worthy of posting? Guess that
> > > > > > > would explain our current state.
>
> > > > > > > Total active military deaths from 1981-1988
> > > > > > > (Reagan) 17201 (avg 2150 per year). 58 from hostile action.
> > > > > > > That's 0.33%.
>
> > > > > > Those "hostile action" numbers don't include the 1983 "Marine Barracks
> > > > > > Down" incident in Beirut, which killed 241 American servicemen: 220
> > > > > > Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers.
>
> > > > > > "Cut and Run Reagan" put his tail between his legs and pulled out of
> > > > > > Lebanon after that.
> > > > > > -Paul
>
> > > > > Not before exacting some manly revenge against the French:
>
> > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/15/politics/15REAG.html
>
> > > > > --D-y
>
> > > > Cut-and-Run Reagan has some interesting quotes in that article on his
> > > > April 14, 1986 attack on Libya:
>
> > > > "I warned that there should be no place on earth where terrorists can
> > > > rest and train and practice their deadly skills,'' he said. ''I meant
> > > > it. I said that we should act with others, if possible, and alone, if
> > > > necessary, to insure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere.
> > > > ''Tonight we have,'' he said. Mr. Reagan and his ranking aides
> > > > delivered an unmistakable warning to Colonel Qaddafi. ''When our
> > > > citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, we will respond
> > > > in self-defense,'' Mr. Reagan said. ''If necessary, we will do it
> > > > again.''
>
> > > > Then the Libyans blew up Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21 1988 over
> > > > Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people including 180 Americans.
>
> > > > Reagan never did a damn thing about that. So much for ''If
> > > > necessary, we will do it again.''
> > > > -Paul
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > That is incorrect.
>
> > > They bombed Ghaddafi's house. Missed Ghadaffi, but killed his infant
> > > daughter.
>
> > > thanks,
>
> > > K. Gringioni.
>
> > Oooh! I got a live one! Nope. Check the dates, which I generously
> > supplied. Ghadaffi blew up Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21 1988.
> > Reagan killed Ghadaffi's daughter on April 14, 1986. The downing of
> > Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie was retaliation for the attack that
> > killed Ghadaffi's daughter, not the other way around.
>
> > -Paul
>
> Dumbass -
>
> You are correct.
>
> I think it took awhile for them to figure out who did it. It seemed
> like Reagan enjoyed having an excuse to go after Ghadaffi and if he
> still would have been in office by the time they figured it out, he
> may have had another go at it.
>
> He did "cut and run" in Beirut which gave people like Osama bin Laden
> the idea that terrorism would work vs. the US, but Reagan did not have
> the same mentality when it came to Ghadaffi.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

Thank you. How refreshing to have someone simply admit an error and
move on. You are correct that Reagan may not have known that the
Libyans did it before he left office, but my statement "Reagan never
did a damn thing about that" is still true. The Libyans were also
behind the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking on September 5, 1986, in which
19 Americans died. Reagan had several years to respond to that, and
didn't. Bush's father also did not respond to these attacks with
military force.

The Republican propaganda machine has been very effective at rewriting
history to delete Reagan's colossal failures, and give him credit for
things he had little or nothing to do with.
-Paul