JFK

"Rachel Carlson" wrote in message
...
Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:31:07 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Thousands of innocent Iraqis have been
saved.

Saved from what? From beeing hit by allied bombs?

From a regime which filled barrels with the chopped off ears of those just
accused of infidelity to the regime while wives and children were raped.
But
those were the lucky ones, by the accounts that the Wall Street Journal
has
reported. Perhaps where you are from, placing pins in the eyes of
"dissidents"
is standard practice not worthy of being saved from. But I don't think
so.



So they started all this right after 9/11/01, right?

And that was the reason for the war, right? It had nothing to do with the
WTC or WMD's at all, did it. We were just using thiose reasons to cover up
our humanitarian side, huh?

mike regish

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rachel Carlson"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: JFK






Takes action myass. He wanted this war for oil and business.

Huh? We don't need to go to Iraq to get oil. Are you saying that we went
to
Afghanistan "for oil" too?

No. We went to Afghanistan to get Osama. We went to Iraq because we didn't.

He doesn't give
a flying fig about the Iraqi people.

His actions show otherwise.

How. By bombing the crap out of them. How can he claim surgical strike
capability when he's dropping thousands of bombs a day.


The inspectors were going in. This war
is unnecessary.

The inspectors hadn't been in for over half a decade. Why did they
suddenly go
back?

Because Buhs had to divert attention from the fact that he couldn't get
Osama.

The threat of force was the ONLY reason Hussein was going to let them in
at all, even as he was hiding his programs.

See below.


The stern threat was probably necessary to get the
inspectors in,

It's obvious that they were not going anywhere without credible threat of
force,
because they didn't go anywhere without a credible threat of force.

Nor, evidently, were they going anywhere at all. Talk about unrestricted
access. Where are the WMD's and don't give me any crap about saving the F
ing Iraqis in your answer.



but once they were, Buhs had no reason to wage this war
beyond the almighty dollar. Even Rummy said that if we didn't find
weapons
in "x" months, which have long passed, we would have a credibility
problem.



Do tell us what x really is.

I believe x=6. I don't record every word these people say. I have better
things to do.


Speaking of credibility problem, you seem to have
no problem with Clinton's brutual bombing of Baghdad in 1998, the strikes
in
1995, the Belgrade calamities caused by bombing in 1999, the bloody
excursions
in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia. But whenever there was terrorism (World Trade
Center bombing 1993, Cole Bombing, US Embassy bombings, and so on), there
was no
response except the message that America will not respond.

And you do seem to have a problem with them. Why is it that anything Clinton
did was impeachable, but Buhs can do no wrong?

And we do-except for those who refuse to face reality.

Don't take my word, Click here to hear Clinton say it in his own words:
http://tinyurl.com/67rz (small audio file)

Seems Bill was wrong here. Even with nobody watching, he never rebuilt his
arsenal, did he?

Andrew Gideon wrote:

I thought I'd been taught this story to help ameliorate what I do to the
German language.

Nothing can ameliorate what *I* do to the German language.

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

"Tom S." wrote:

Should have said "Wo bis der Bahnhof".

Well, that wouldn't have helped us, since the bus was parked in front of the
"New Palace".

George Patterson
The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians (ie. inducting a gay
bishop) are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that
the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his
wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves,
and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer
here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriages.

in article , Big John at
wrote on 11/17/03 1:08 PM:

Comment on postings.

This is the longest thread I've ever seen on r.a.h. It started with me
flying during the event so was on thread for r.a.h.

Don't know if the length is good or bad?

Houston Chronicle has a big spread on front page every day (I'm
assuming they will continue until the 22nd?)

Interesting event in history for those of us who lived at that time
and saw what happened in the media, Congress and every other place.

Big John

John, your original post (quoted below) was eloquent and genuine. Only on
Usenet would a simple, heartfelt sentiment such as "May he rest in peace"
provoke such an onslaught as we've seen.

I'd be curious to see how many of the people currently railing against
Kennedy were also complaining about the "hatchet job" on Saint Ronald
Reagan. I guess only some presidents are fair game.


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:38:22 -0600, Big John
wrote:

40 years ago today I was ferrying a F-89J from the Maine Air Guard at
Bangor, ME to the Oregon Air Guard at Portland OR. Chugging along at
20K, keeping under the big jet stream blowing east, I was about 150
out of Oklahoma City, my next refueling stop, when ATC came up on
frequency and announced that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas
and was dead.

May he rest in peace.

Big John

FWIW, I've enjoyed this thread, and evidently a lot of others did as well.
R.A.P. seems to survive an occasional off-topic thread just fine.

Michael

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
John, your original post (quoted below) was eloquent and genuine. Only on
Usenet would a simple, heartfelt sentiment such as "May he rest in peace"
provoke such an onslaught as we've seen.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:38:32 +0100, Martin Hotze
wrote:

It's better than that. It means that Germany need not field a large
defense force,


would Germany _*NEED*_ a larger defense force without NATO or the US?

Until Europe is more united than it is now, yes. EU member nations
haven't given up their national military forces in favor of a common
defense force.

well, not the stupiedst of ideas one can have. :-)

Of course. But only if you can get the thugs to play along.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Rachel Carlson wrote:


Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message,
but takes action.

It's just a shame that the only message he "gets" comes from the oil
industry.

--
Frank....H

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:38:32 +0100, Martin Hotze
wrote:

It's better than that. It means that Germany need not field a large
defense force,


would Germany _*NEED*_ a larger defense force without NATO or the US?

Until Europe is more united than it is now, yes. EU member nations
haven't given up their national military forces in favor of a common
defense force.

I was going to point out that having the states' economies so interdependent
is a powerful disincentive, in terms of pure self-interest, to make war, so
we needn't worry about independent armies so much.

Then I remembered what happened in the US in 1861.

-- David Brooks

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 12:19:21 -0600, Frank
wrote:

Rachel Carlson wrote:


Thank goodness we finally have a President who not only gets the message,
but takes action.

It's just a shame that the only message he "gets" comes from the oil
industry.

That's a point I just don't get. The Texas oil industry stands to lose
its shirt if the market is flooded with cheap Iraqi oil, since more
supply equals a lower price.

Not correct?

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card