Edwards AFB 2004 air show cancelled

"Leadfoot" had written...[regarding the invasion of Iraq not really
being part of the war against terrorism]:


Actually I consider it one battle that helps recruit terrorists

To which Scott Ferrin confessed the following:

Good. Makes them easier to find and kill.

Perhaps...but pause a moment to consider that radical muslim cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr was NEVER ID'd as part of any terrorist cell/network
prior to they overthrow of Hussein.

But the US is faced with the prospect of killing several thousand
muslim followers of MaS...folks willing to die for their religion
and/or are really ****ed off that US forces still occupy Iraq.

These folks know nothing about the RAND study that shows we need
almost 500,000 combat troops/police/civil affairs bodies and roughly a
decade to turn Iraq into the "cradle of democracy" in the muslim
world. See:
http://www.rand.org/publications/ran...3/nation1.html

Perhaps you simply believe we are in a war against Islam. In your
opinion is the seige of Najaf a clever ploy to gather all muslims in
one place where the US can kill them?

I do not envy Mr Kerry's task once he becomes our next President.

Robey

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Thomas J.
Paladino Jr." confessed the following regarding "Leadfoot's" comment
about the invasion of Iraq being a great tool to recruit terrorists:

If that is true, then the Iraq war has yet another justification, as far as
I'm concerned; it separates the peaceful muslims from the lunatic radicals.

And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
seen by muslims as a war against their religion?

Simply saying "we're here to help," sounds as truthful to muslims as
pre-invasion "Saddam has WMD and must be disarmed," pronouncements by
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. The WMD cover story turned out to be bull**** if
you recall...

Anyone who is so easily recruited to the terrorist 'cause' is one who we are
better off killing than trying to make peace with in the first place. And if
the war helps to draw that line, then all the better.

You may get your wish. Hopefully John Kerry has not hired you to be
his Secretary of State.

Robey

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Thomas J.
Paladino Jr." confessed the following regarding "Leadfoot's" comment
about the invasion of Iraq being a great tool to recruit terrorists:

If that is true, then the Iraq war has yet another justification, as far
as
I'm concerned; it separates the peaceful muslims from the lunatic
radicals.

And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
seen by muslims as a war against their religion?

What about it?


Simply saying "we're here to help," sounds as truthful to muslims as
pre-invasion "Saddam has WMD and must be disarmed," pronouncements by
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

You mean England/France/Germany/Russia/Italy/Spain/Portugal/And The Rest Of
the UN?

Please, show me who, BEFORE the war, said that Iraq had no WMD? Even the
most vocal critics of the war believed he had them. If you recall, NOBODY
said not to invade Iraq because there were NO weapons there-- the argument
was that Saddam could be 'contained' and he would only use these weapons if
'provoked'. A far cry from saying that they don't exist.

There was not a single intelligence agency in the world (including the mid
east) that didn't think he had these weapons. Period.

The WMD cover story turned out to be bull**** if
you recall...

It turned out to be bad intelligence. Your post is bull****.


Anyone who is so easily recruited to the terrorist 'cause' is one who we
are
better off killing than trying to make peace with in the first place. And
if
the war helps to draw that line, then all the better.

You may get your wish. Hopefully John Kerry has not hired you to be
his Secretary of State.


LOL... why? Senators generally don't get their own secratary of state.

" You may get your wish. Hopefully John Kerry has not hired you to be
his Secretary of State.


LOL... why? Senators generally don't get their own secratary of state.


Generally starting an unnecessary war is a firing offense for a president...
kind of like fighting with your co-workers

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news:LIPTc.45585$Uh.4888@fed1read02...

" You may get your wish. Hopefully John Kerry has not hired you to be
his Secretary of State.


LOL... why? Senators generally don't get their own secratary of state.


Generally starting an unnecessary war is a firing offense for a
president...
kind of like fighting with your co-workers


Well if he had started an 'unnecssary' war, then I might agree with you. But
as it stands now, I fail to see anything resembling that.

I had written:

And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
seen by muslims as a war against their religion?

To which "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." retorted:

What about it?

OK...clearly you have no qualms about making this a religious war.
Guess you'll let god sort them out, huh?

Please, show me who, BEFORE the war, said that Iraq had no WMD? Even the
most vocal critics of the war believed he had them. If you recall, NOBODY
said not to invade Iraq because there were NO weapons there-- the argument
was that Saddam could be 'contained' and he would only use these weapons if
'provoked'. A far cry from saying that they don't exist.

Scott Ritter...former Marine...weapons inspector.

There was not a single intelligence agency in the world (including the mid
east) that didn't think he had these weapons. Period.

Not according to what I'd read...the consensus was wrong. USAF
Intelligence was cited in published reports (NYT or WP, not FoxNews)
prior to the war as "guessing" the WMD had either been destroyed or
was unserviceable.

It turned out to be bad intelligence. Your post is bull****.

Fair enough, if all you can be is a "yes" man, then yeah it's bull****
'cause you cannot take the time to be a skeptic about the
rationale/excuses for invading...and the unintended consequences.

BTW why aren't you over in the sandbox?

Robey

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:48:33 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:


"Leadfoot" had written...[regarding the invasion of Iraq not really
being part of the war against terrorism]:


Actually I consider it one battle that helps recruit terrorists

To which Scott Ferrin confessed the following:

Good. Makes them easier to find and kill.

Perhaps...but pause a moment to consider that radical muslim cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr was NEVER ID'd as part of any terrorist cell/network
prior to they overthrow of Hussein.

Which proves my point. And just because he was never "ID'd" doesn't
mean he didn't have his hands in it. Think about it for more than
half a second. You have a country who is mighty ****ed off at
terrorism coming in to fight it and overthrow a brutal tyrant and you
OPPOSE it? The US didn't go in to fight *Islam* so basically he's
come out of the closet rather than traded in his colors. If nothing
else he's going to take himself out of the gene pool.






But the US is faced with the prospect of killing several thousand
muslim followers of MaS...folks willing to die for their religion
and/or are really ****ed off that US forces still occupy Iraq.

These folks know nothing about the RAND study that shows we need
almost 500,000 combat troops/police/civil affairs bodies and roughly a
decade to turn Iraq into the "cradle of democracy" in the muslim
world. See:
http://www.rand.org/publications/ran...3/nation1.html

Perhaps you simply believe we are in a war against Islam. In your
opinion is the seige of Najaf a clever ploy to gather all muslims in
one place where the US can kill them?

I do not envy Mr Kerry's task once he becomes our next President.


How hard is it to run home with your tail between your legs? We all
know that's what he'll do. No, his toughest task will be trying to
blame the subsequent rise in terrorism on Bush but I suspect with
followers like yourself at least he won't have any problems selling
it.






Robey

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:26:04 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

I had written:

And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
seen by muslims as a war against their religion?

To which "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." retorted:

What about it?

OK...clearly you have no qualms about making this a religious war.
Guess you'll let god sort them out, huh?


The only poeple trying to make this a religious war are the terrorists
and pacifists like yourself. Good company you're in eh?





Please, show me who, BEFORE the war, said that Iraq had no WMD? Even the
most vocal critics of the war believed he had them. If you recall, NOBODY
said not to invade Iraq because there were NO weapons there-- the argument
was that Saddam could be 'contained' and he would only use these weapons if
'provoked'. A far cry from saying that they don't exist.

Scott Ritter...former Marine...weapons inspector.

There was not a single intelligence agency in the world (including the mid
east) that didn't think he had these weapons. Period.

Not according to what I'd read...the consensus was wrong. USAF
Intelligence was cited in published reports (NYT or WP, not FoxNews)
prior to the war as "guessing" the WMD had either been destroyed or
was unserviceable.

It turned out to be bad intelligence. Your post is bull****.

Fair enough, if all you can be is a "yes" man, then yeah it's bull****
'cause you cannot take the time to be a skeptic about the
rationale/excuses for invading...and the unintended consequences.

BTW why aren't you over in the sandbox?

Robey

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:48:33 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:



Perhaps...but pause a moment to consider that radical muslim cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr was NEVER ID'd as part of any terrorist cell/network
prior to they overthrow of Hussein.

Which proves my point. And just because he was never "ID'd" doesn't
mean he didn't have his hands in it. Think about it for more than
half a second. You have a country who is mighty ****ed off at
terrorism coming in to fight it and overthrow a brutal tyrant and you
OPPOSE it?

No he didnt, Sadr didnt oppose the overthrow od Saddam.
Trouble is he believes that he has the god given right to
rule Iraq in his place.

The US didn't go in to fight *Islam* so basically he's
come out of the closet rather than traded in his colors. If nothing
else he's going to take himself out of the gene pool.


Al Sadr is pitching for power in Iraq, he wants a major say
in running the place without having to bother with any of
that tedious 'winning an election' nonsense.

Keith

In article ,
Robey Price writes:
I had written:

And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
seen by muslims as a war against their religion?

To which "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." retorted:

What about it?

OK...clearly you have no qualms about making this a religious war.
Guess you'll let god sort them out, huh?

Please, show me who, BEFORE the war, said that Iraq had no WMD? Even the
most vocal critics of the war believed he had them. If you recall, NOBODY
said not to invade Iraq because there were NO weapons there-- the argument
was that Saddam could be 'contained' and he would only use these weapons if
'provoked'. A far cry from saying that they don't exist.

Scott Ritter...former Marine...weapons inspector.
....
Paedophile, paid-off mouthpiece of the Saddam Hussein regime. (Seems
he got a bucket of money from the Iraqi Information Ministry to
produce "documentaries" about how nice Saddam was)
You don't think that there was some Elementary Sexual Blackmail going
on, do you?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster