Thrown out of an FBO...

mike regish wrote:

Not at the moment.

Though you might want to try snipping and top posting.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...

If you say so. Any other accusations that you would like to make from
your pulpit of "tolerance?" :-)



I believe top posting is poor form for Usenet posts.

mike regish wrote:

I don't believe the Dalai believes in an old guy in the clouds who watches
everything we do.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


Define "radical" then. The Dalai Lama is in your same category as bin
Laden?


How is that relevant? You said "No such thing as a non-radical in any
religion AFAIC," and didn't bring up any old guys, or young guys for that
matter (until now.)

Jessica Taylor wrote:

mike regish wrote:

I don't believe the Dalai believes in an old guy in the clouds who watches
everything we do.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...


Define "radical" then. The Dalai Lama is in your same category as bin
Laden?


How is that relevant? You said "No such thing as a non-radical in any
religion AFAIC," and didn't bring up any old guys, or young guys for that
matter (until now.)

Apparently Mike thinks that anyone who has a religion is a radical.
Seems somewhat "intolerant" or "bigoted" to me (according to Mike's
way of thinking).

Ron Lee

Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument cannot be
made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.

Anyone objective person can look at the words of liberals in the USA
and note that they are the true racists (along with many black folks
who spew venom and hatred). Plus liberals enact policies that
promote disfunctional black families that then leads to poverty,
crime, etc. People can improve their lives if they stay in committed
man/woman relationships, only raise kids that they can afford, take on
the responsibility to ensure that the kids are ejumakated and teach
them right from wrong.

Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.

Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
events?

Ron Lee

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

Judah wrote:
The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on
Iraq was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind
moving the war to Iraq put it on "their turf".

Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument
cannot be made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.

Oh please is right. Your immediate dismissal of my argument is based on the
fact that you have absolutely no evidence that there was anyone in Iraq who
was directly responsible for terrorism in the US.

Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is.

Even if that was singularily true, you missed that Afghanistan was
attacked (I know, how "racist"), Al queada is in Iraq, and suicide
bombers were funded by Iraq, and terrorists did in fact exist in Iraq.

Al Queda is in Iraq? Where? In Hussein's palace? In the streets of Baghdad?
Cause that's pretty much all we got.

The Suicide Bombers families who were awarded monies by Iraq were for Suicide
Bombers in Israel.

Afghanistan was attacked because that was where the enemy was hiding and
organizing. Instead of focusing our resources on the war there, though, GW
attempted to divert attention and win popularity with "a quick and easy win"
in Iraq. His superego let him think that he could walk in and finish the job
in a week and move on back to Afghanistan, and everyone would think he was a
hero for it.

All Arabs are not the same.

Sure, but I never said otherwise. Nice strawman.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is
testament to your belief, regardless of what you actually said.

I suspect you mean North Korea. So, what is your point, you wanted to
see a war against Korea first? Would that absolve your "racist" charges
above.

My point is that Iraq was not an immediate threat, and we had many more
immediate threats that we should have dealt with first, including North
Korea.

So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country.
How is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.

Laughing to the grave.

Sure, because the US has an exemplary record for finding and killing
terrorists who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, don't they.

If the enemy was so above ground and easy to find before 2003, why
wasn't the enemy found/destroyed in 1993? In 1996? In 1998? In 2000?

Because this country, including the Bush administration, didn't take them
seriously until 9/11.

In other words you have no legitimate argument. Yes, favoring brutal
murdering dictators --who use rape rooms and ear lobbing for population
control-- not being in power is "racist." I'll bet I'm a xenophobe and a
Nazi and a sexist too!

I don't know you well enough to call you names.

I personally don't favor brutal murdering dictators. But I don't believe it
is in this country's best interests to focus our limited military resources
on distractions that are being managed by our allies when we have more
important and immediate business to resolve.

Do you believe we should send troops to Cuba to get Castro now that he's
down? After all, he's a brutal murdering dictator, too. I hear there are lots
of brutal murdering dictators in African countries too, like Rwanda. Maybe
you believe we should send troops to the outer boundaries of the planet to
police all the brutal murdering dictators out there? Perhaps you should
enlist so you can go out and take care of this ASAP.

I believe we have limited military resources, and we better start using them
wisely. IMHO Iraq was not a demonstration of prudent use of military
resources. I'm not disappointed with some of the results, certainly. But
because of poor planning and poor use of resources by this administration,
we've got unfinished jobs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now potentially North
Korea as well. We would have been better off letting the UN Inspectors play
cat and mouse with Hussein for a few more years until we demolished Al Queda
in Afghanistan, and put the face of fear back into the terrorists for f^*%ing
with the USA, whose concentrated powers are impregnable.

IMHO, the President of the most powerful country in the world shouldn't do
things half-assed. It weakens the country.

Judah wrote:

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

Judah wrote:
The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on
Iraq was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind
moving the war to Iraq put it on "their turf".

Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument
cannot be made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.

Oh please is right. Your immediate dismissal of my argument is based on the
fact that you have absolutely no evidence that there was anyone in Iraq who
was directly responsible for terrorism in the US.

You didn't put forth an argument, other than make an unsubstantiated claim that
"Iraq was about racism."



Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is.

Even if that was singularily true, you missed that Afghanistan was
attacked (I know, how "racist"), Al queada is in Iraq, and suicide
bombers were funded by Iraq, and terrorists did in fact exist in Iraq.

Al Queda is in Iraq? Where? In Hussein's palace? In the streets of Baghdad?
Cause that's pretty much all we got.

Apparently you never had heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.



The Suicide Bombers families who were awarded monies by Iraq were for Suicide
Bombers in Israel.

I believe Israel is an ally of the United States.



Afghanistan was attacked because that was where the enemy was hiding and
organizing. Instead of focusing our resources on the war there, though, GW
attempted to divert attention and win popularity with "a quick and easy win"
in Iraq. His superego let him think that he could walk in and finish the job
in a week and move on back to Afghanistan, and everyone would think he was a
hero for it

And Iraq was attacked for numerous reasons. Depending on far distances and
oceans to protect America from threatening regimes, no matter what their name,
was no longer seen as an option. Iraq had been breaking numerous UN resolutions
and also a cease-fire. Numerous intelligence agencies, American and from around
the globe were pointing to Iraq as building mass weapons. Iraq (and not anyone
else) ended the war cease-fire.






All Arabs are not the same.

Sure, but I never said otherwise. Nice strawman.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is
testament to your belief, regardless of what you actually said.

I certainly "tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan" and never said
otherwise. Your remark is a strawman.



I suspect you mean North Korea. So, what is your point, you wanted to
see a war against Korea first? Would that absolve your "racist" charges
above.

My point is that Iraq was not an immediate threat, and we had many more
immediate threats that we should have dealt with first, including North
Korea.

Noboydy said it was an immediate threat, least of all me. How would you have
dealt with North Korea? Hopefully not in a "racist" way!



So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country.
How is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.

Laughing to the grave.

Sure, because the US has an exemplary record for finding and killing
terrorists who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, don't they.

Ask Zarqawi and Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah



If the enemy was so above ground and easy to find before 2003, why
wasn't the enemy found/destroyed in 1993? In 1996? In 1998? In 2000?

Because this country, including the Bush administration, didn't take them
seriously until 9/11.

Perhaps, but the Bush administration was just getting started in 2001, and
cabinet appointees had been stalled earlier in the year as well.



In other words you have no legitimate argument. Yes, favoring brutal
murdering dictators --who use rape rooms and ear lobbing for population
control-- not being in power is "racist." I'll bet I'm a xenophobe and a
Nazi and a sexist too!

I don't know you well enough to call you names.

Didn't stop you from using the "racism" card!



I personally don't favor brutal murdering dictators. But I don't believe it
is in this country's best interests to focus our limited military resources
on distractions that are being managed by our allies when we have more
important and immediate business to resolve.

Hmm., I didn't see you complain about the previous administration bombing Baghdad
in 1998 with more bombs than the 1991 gulf war! Perhaps I just missed that. Did
you object to Israel's aerial bombing of Iraq circa 1981? Imagine what the
results would be today if military action had not been taken.



Do you believe we should send troops to Cuba to get Castro now that he's
down? After all, he's a brutal murdering dictator, too. I hear there are lots
of brutal murdering dictators in African countries too, like Rwanda. Maybe
you believe we should send troops to the outer boundaries of the planet to
police all the brutal murdering dictators out there? Perhaps you should
enlist so you can go out and take care of this ASAP.

I believe that John Kennedy did send ships around Cuba. Nowadays, he hasn't
broken any major UN agreements or cease-fires, that I'm aware of. S. Hussein's
Iraq did. If you want to go into Rwanda, perhaps we can put that on the to-do
list.



I believe we have limited military resources, and we better start using them
wisely. IMHO Iraq was not a demonstration of prudent use of military
resources. I'm not disappointed with some of the results, certainly. But
because of poor planning and poor use of resources by this administration,
we've got unfinished jobs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now potentially North
Korea as well. We would have been better off letting the UN Inspectors play
cat and mouse with Hussein for a few more years

Can't do that if they are kicked out of country.

until we demolished Al Queda
in Afghanistan, and put the face of fear back into the terrorists for f^*%ing
with the USA, whose concentrated powers are impregnable.

IMHO, the President of the most powerful country in the world shouldn't do
things half-assed. It weakens the country.

Again, what would you had done to prevent "unfinished jobs" in N Korea? The
previous administration had attempted to make deals with a dictator there, which
we've learned from experience doesn't work. So the "peaceful" nuclear
engineering soon became another war machine, predicatable to many but not the
then President. So now we have to deal with that.

Carrying around 300 pounds of extra weight in Iowa (is the "Field of Dreams"
still there?)

Yep, it's still in Dyersville, about a 2 hour motorcycle ride from
here. Each year when I take my kids cycle camping, we always try to
stop there. Each time we have, there's been a pick-up baseball game in
progress. It's a cool place. (Dyersville is also home of ERTL,
makers of metal die-cast airplanes, tractors and cars. There are a
couple of die-cast toy outlet stores in town that are a lot of fun to
visit.)

When you finally come out west you and Mary should stop here on the way.
Flight plan to land here with 1.5 hrs gas.
http://www.ruralnetwork.net/johnsoncreek/
Your 235 would be right at home here and the grass is kept like a golf
course. They even split wood for your campfire.

Sounds wonderful! Some day...

I know you don't see much difference in the handling of your Cherokee, but
that's because it's tactile flying qualities are low. My Cessna isn't much
better, but reducing weight significantly improves feel. A light airplane is
not only more fun to fly, but also safer. If you REALLY, TRULY were
concerned about fuel you'd install a fuel flow transducer and connect it to
the GPS. Once calibrated, these devices are uncannily accurate.

I believe you. (And we do have the JPI FS450 fuel-flow meter in the
plane. It's a nice gauge...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:37:20 -0500, Gary Drescher wrote:
You are beneath contempt.

Thank you...

Female superior?

Wherever I happened to be that day, I would just find a hotel for the
night... I encountered hotels who would not give me the same rate that I
could get via booking their room via one of the online sites... So, I
drove around the neighborhood, found an open wireless internet connection
and booked it... In one case, the online site brought up a competitor that
was an even better deal, so the hotel actually lost my business... Maybe I
wasn't speaking to the owner or manager, but since they appeared to be
Indian, I at least had a good reason to assume that they were... grin

This is a sign of dealing with an econobox chain McMotel. The chains
will often offer cheaper rates on line than the local "manager" (really
just a clerk) can offer. Whenever this is the case, run.

Real, owner-run hotels will always offer you a better deal -- because
they *can*.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

You didn't put forth an argument, other than make an unsubstantiated
claim that "Iraq was about racism."

No, I said that the attack on Iraq was about racism and vengence.

Apparently you never had heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Heard of him. He wasn't Al Qaeda until 2004, though...

The Suicide Bombers families who were awarded monies by Iraq were for
Suicide Bombers in Israel.

I believe Israel is an ally of the United States.

Indeed. But suicide bombings started in Israel with the Intifada in 1989.
And Israel does a perfectly fine job of arresting and assassinating
terrorist leaders. Are you saying that the war in Iraq was an event that
had been planned since 1989 to assist our ally Israel?

And Iraq was attacked for numerous reasons. Depending on far distances
and oceans to protect America from threatening regimes, no matter what
their name, was no longer seen as an option. Iraq had been breaking
numerous UN resolutions and also a cease-fire. Numerous intelligence
agencies, American and from around the globe were pointing to Iraq as
building mass weapons. Iraq (and not anyone else) ended the war
cease-fire.

Iraq had been breaking UN Resolutions for some time. But the fact is that
the period just prior to the attack was a period during which Iraq showed
the most diplomacy with the UN and specifically UNMOVIC since 1991. Sure it
wasn't perfect, but certainly it wasn't leading to an imminent attack by
Iraq on the US.

The proof of this lies in the lack of WMDs.

I certainly "tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan" and never
said otherwise. Your remark is a strawman.

You seem to think they are both the turf of Al Qaeda just because they are
both Arab countries that harbor terrorism.

Noboydy said it was an immediate threat, least of all me. How would you
have dealt with North Korea? Hopefully not in a "racist" way!

I'm not sure what you mean by a "racist" way. That doesn't make sense.

We are going to have to deal with North Korea as a threat, since they are
testing nuclear weapons. Certainly threats from our weakened military
haven't worked, and we're just lucky that they didn't get it right the
first time.

So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's
Sure, because the US has an exemplary record for finding and killing
terrorists who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, don't they.

Ask Zarqawi and Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah

Zarqawi wasn't killed in Afghanistan. And Atwah wasn't either, but it
should be noted that Atwah was killed by Pakistani, not American forces.

Perhaps, but the Bush administration was just getting started in 2001,
and cabinet appointees had been stalled earlier in the year as well.

Talk about your lame excuses.

Didn't stop you from using the "racism" card!

I don't believe I called you a racist. I just said that the attack was
motivated by racism, among other things. I separately indicated that you
made comments that seemed racist.

Hmm., I didn't see you complain about the previous administration
bombing Baghdad in 1998 with more bombs than the 1991 gulf war! Perhaps
I just missed that. Did you object to Israel's aerial bombing of Iraq
circa 1981? Imagine what the results would be today if military action
had not been taken.

The Israel attack in 1981 was on a Nuclear Power Plant believed to be
designed to build Nuclear Weapons. It was a single attack on a strategic
target. It was not designed to convert the entire country to a Democracy.

The 1991 gulf war had a very specific purpose of pushing Iraq out of
Kuwait. The 42 day war involved strategic attacks on military and
infastructural targets. It was not an attempt to convert the entire country
to a Democracy.

The 1998 attacks were specifically to force Iraq to allow inspectors in,
which they did. It was not an attempt to convert the entire country to a
Democracy.

Those attacks were successful! They were strategic, targetted attacks that
resulted in compliance and fear by the enemy. None of them were designed to
overthrow a government or force a government to convert to democracy.

The attack in 2003 was essentially an American Jihad on Iraq. An attempt by
the United States and Britian to convert Iraq to a democracy by the
sword... It almost worked - they have a democratically elected government
and a constitution. But not everyone there wants it, and the government
that we installed isn't actually more powerful than the insurgents.

I believe that John Kennedy did send ships around Cuba. Nowadays, he
hasn't broken any major UN agreements or cease-fires, that I'm aware of.
S. Hussein's Iraq did. If you want to go into Rwanda, perhaps we can
put that on the to-do list.

Nope. Not me. I don't see Rwanda as a threat. But I also don't believe it
is our job to convert every non-democratic nation to be like us, in the way
that Christians did in the Crusades, or Islamic Militants do in a Jihad.

Can't do that if they are kicked out of country.

They were let back in following UN Security Council Resolution 1441 in
November 2002. On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix issued a report indicating that
Iraq was essentially cooperating.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/spr...anscript.blix/

Again, what would you had done to prevent "unfinished jobs" in N Korea?
The previous administration had attempted to make deals with a dictator
there, which we've learned from experience doesn't work. So the
"peaceful" nuclear engineering soon became another war machine,
predicatable to many but not the then President. So now we have to deal
with that.

Yes. We have to deal with that. But not by converting North Korea into a
democratic country. Instead by attacking the strategic targets appropriate
to disarm their nuclear program. Unfortunately, so much of our military and
intelligence has been stuck in Iraq that we may as well have had our heads
up the Koreans' asses.


Look. This argument is pointless. You said it yourself - you "believe the
only good terrorist is a [sic] good terrorist." (Although I think you meant
dead terrorist.)

You seem to believe that it is OK for a nation to be vigilantes in the name
of Democracy.

I believe that Due Process is one of the significant differences between us
and the terrorists.

You seem to believe as a country, we are better off after 2003 than we were
before 2003 because of our position in Iraq.

I believe we are not better off, and in short order it will become very
obvious. Partly because we are weakened by the situation in Iraq in terms
of military strength. But more importantly because other countries (both
friends and enemies) no longer respect us as a nation of power and reason,
but fear us as a nation of cowboys and hotheads, and one day may decide
that we are the terrorists.