If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
"WalterM140" wrote in message ... Clinton's not running. No, but Clinton's record with regard to military service does illustrate how the Democrats can be, shall we say "creative, with an issue. No doubt the Kerry campaign now regrets raising it. Follow this link to see a document that shows conclusively that Bush did not get the requisite 50 points for a satisfctory year of service: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...-73arfspe1.pdf That link does not lead to anything conclusive. So the record shows that Bush was dodging his commitment in Texas, Kerry was in contact with the NVA in the Mekong Delta. Actually, the record shows that Bush fulfilled his commitment and Kerry served part of his Vietnam tour. So, Walter, are you attempting to spread the "big lie" or have you fallen for it? |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following: Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are controlled by others are not free. Examples of liberalism...(historical) giving women the right to vote, Lincoln's emancipation of slaves, desegregation of schools, the end of "separate but equal", (current) pro-choice (versus pro-life), gay rights, greater environmental protection (against industrial polluters), maintaining a separation of church and state (see Alabama's judge Moore)...and not believing everything the government says is true simply because gwb or Rumsfeld says it's so. These are all good things in my book. Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be fun. I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not. Oh, somehow I doubt you're open to illumination. sincerely...give it your best shot...feel free to use multi-syllabic words and compound complex sentences. Let the games begin! Robey |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... In message , Kevin Brooks writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Fine, let me know so I can laugh when a relative of yours becomes a casualty. Wouldn't *that* be funny? Or would you need your "humor switch" recalibrating? Odd how you turned your humor switch back on when it came to postulating about "parking tickets" below--I guess you and only you set the rules for when it is appropriate? Hey, you turn rules on and off as you see fit, why can't I? Or is it OK for you to make light of the situation, but noone else can? You need to recalibrare your humour switch. (Now, where did I recently hear something on those lines? ) Your dishonesty is growing-- you are the fellow who has taken the "this is no laughing matter" approach, yet when *you* see fit, you toss in the witty remarks. Double standard much? In other words, war with Iraq was inevitable and unstoppable because of one shell? Impressive. He was in violation. On more than one count. Deal with it. And the resolution authorised immediate invasion in the event of alleged violation? Trouble with resolutions is looking at what they actually say. The resolution passed by our congress did. Read the reports yourself, I've already cited them and given you URLs. I did read the reports--and oddly, I don't recall any discussion of true binary rounds being fabricated or unaccounted for. Can you point to the *specific* paragraph(s)? No? Yes (Again). Did you not read the last two times I showed you this, or did you just not bother to reply? First source found at http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/ucreport/dis_chem.htm +++++ 36. However, it was not possible to verify the full extent of several R& D projects carried out by Iraq from 1989 to 1990, due to the absence of sufficient data from documents and other verifiable evidence. Those include the research on new chemical warfare agents, BZ and Soman. These also include Iraq's efforts to develop new delivery means for CW-agents, such as special warheads other than for Al-Hussein missiles, i.e. FROG missile, and real binary artillery munitions and aerial bombs. Evidence of such studies was found in the documents from the Haider farm. On the other hand, the Commission did not find evidence that Iraq had reached the stage of industrial production of these materials and items. +++++ No production, that's agreed by the UN inspectors. (Mind you, apparently they're all useless incompetents, so who knows what pre-1991 projects they overlooked). Development alleged but not found, though pointers were certainly seen. Not proven, but strongly alleged, that research was underway: just stated confidence that "industrial production was not found". So what you are saying is that there is no mention of any production/fabrication--as I said. So your, "And the discrepancy was noted years ago" is a bit off, as the UN never noted any evidence of binary rounds *existing*, and the Iraqis never acknowledged their existance--again, as I have been saying. Of course, US search teams - much more honest and reliable than the UN, and free to move as they willed led by their excellent intelligence - would *surely* not miss such a significant project? I guess the shell found just materialized from thin air, then? How does Hussein pose a threat with weapons he does not know about? That would actually be your strawman--you have a totalitarian leader who played games with the inspection process through the years, and now that things like a sarin round, a ricin development program, hidden equipment/cultures/documents, and maybe a mustard round to boot turn up, you postulate that, "Well, Saddam may not have known about them..." Weak--very weak. No, simple fact. The ricin program? Let's assume it basked in the Glorious Leader's favour. So what is it going to _do_? If you can get an enemy soldier or civilian subdued enough to inject them with ricin, you could just have cut their throat much more cheaply and effectively. (And unless you're building James Bond-style autoloading umbrellas or Van Helsing-style dartguns, an AK-47 is just as effective for spray-and-pray on a crowd and suicide bombers' vests even more so). But it's a "deadly toxin" and you can boast - with complete truth - that you hold "the deaths of ten thousand Americans" in one test-tube and have succeeded where so many others have failed. (Administering it is the problem, but that's the difference between salesmanship and engineering) A violation, it is. A threat, it isn't. Finally, you admit it is a violation. Case closed. snip meaningless material, since you now admit he was in violation Absolutely not. Some were complete fantasy: "production programs" were cited at places that were just empty desert, because the officer in charge had grabbed the money and absconded. I guess you missed the examples of his having overlooked weapons and programs thet *were* in place and not disclosed, eh? Go and find a dictionary. Look up the definitions of "some" and "all". Notice that they are not identical. Then carry out a careful count of the WME production programs found to date in Iraq since the occupation. Having found that it tends towards a round number, count again to confirm. He was in violation, you mean. Glad you now understand that. Both - he was both dishonest and inept. And yet he didn't pose a WME threat. Was he in violation--yes or no? Simple question--even you should be able to answer it without too much quibbling. Of course he was in violation. Good. snip more materiel made meaningless by admission he was in violation That's the trouble with looking at real life rather than political slogans. LOL! The guy who has advocated that we HAVE to handle ALL international problems in the EXACT same manner, regardless of individual circumstances, now wants to lecture about "real life"?! Now that's a good one! No, just the guy who wonders why "if violations of A, B, C and D are all 'urgent grounds for action' in Iraq, then why are more serious violations of all four not important elsewhere?" Obviously you are completely hung up on this "Standard Playbook for International Affairs", so pointing out to you that such an approach is completely and utterly unrealistic is a wasted effort. Don't worry about it, Kevin. Just call me "a liberal" and forget about it. I don't believe I have thus labled you (at least not in recent memory)--but don't let that stop you from claiming I have, or would, given your demonstrated ability to make false attributions. That's a very generous understatement. Was he in violation? You really don't want to answer that question, do you? Answered, repeatedly. Finally, you mean. snip more materiel made meaningless by belated admission that Saddam was indeed in violation There was supposed to be a imminent and serious threat. Those seem to be your words. Actually, our Prime Minister signed off on them, which may prove to have been unwise. I have not seen them attibuted to our own leader. So what you are saying is that your guy was wrong, and outrs was right? Not "cultures hidden in refrigerators", not "centrifuges buried for a decade", not single decade-old munitions. Actually, we said hidden biological warfare programs. That has proved to be true in the case of the ricin, not to mention those hidden cultures. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant... Indeed. Why, the US Army is regularly called upon to fend off hordes of umbrella-wielding assailants, is it not? You have already admitted he was in violation in this regard, as we claimed. Don't try backtracking now. Now, you seem to believe that if Saddam Hussein owned a pair of used nail scissors then those could qualify as a weapon of mass effect (just imagine what you could catch if someone jabbed you with them! Plus you could have someone's *eye* out with those!). I'm more minded to stick to realistic definitions of the threat. OH, GOD! You are using HUMOR! How DARE you--don't you know some of your family members could be dying over there right NOW? Again, I sarcastically note your use of humor is A-OK...but the rest of us can't use that approach, eh? Chose to mount *your* high horse? After you called me a cynical liar for such a thing? (I believe the phrase is 'Ker-CHING!') I can see that sarcasm is beyond your comprehension; you seem to keep forgetting it was you who lambasted me for bringing humor into the equation, but then you repeatedly do so yourself. Again, double standard much? snip a sidestep of the fact that he was in violation, which you have already admitted to I don't have access to the man to question him. Did he *know* he had binary sarin research underway? Or, just for giggles, what if it's a Syrian or Iranian import and not Iraqi at all? Yeah, he is obviously innocent of all charges because he had NO IDEA that his nation had been working on WMD efforts over the years, I'm impressed that you can say this with such certainty. I don't. I'd be more impressed if you could show me how what he *believed* he owned or might soon own, related to what he actually *did* possess. Meaningless--you have already admitted he was indeed in violation. snip more tapdancing around the fact that he was in violation Lots of possibilities: you're drawing extremely firm conclusions from very limited data. He had a ricin program--firm data (unless you want to call Kay and his inspectors liars). Your countrymen have called them much worse than liars - should I disbelieve them? Are you saying they are liars, or not? Given your own record of recent dishonesty, I'd say you might want to be a bit careful throwing stones from your glass house... snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed in violation That is a violation. He had a sarin round of a type that was never acknowledged as having been fabricated- Not in production quantities, on that we agree, but then we've only found one. he had cultures and equipment hidden away--another violation. snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed in violation Conclusion: He was in violation. You claim he did/may not know about any of this--too bad, they are still violations. End of story. snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed in violation Oh, but Saddam was in violation by their mere existence regardless of their date, remember? That is true. Sorry, but that is the case. snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed in violation Stop bull****ting, Kevin. You repeatedly claimed that it wasn't just about WMEs - but yet you won't say what it *was* about. (When asked, you go very, very shy) Bull****. You have REPEATEDLY been given the other reasons--I gave them to you again and again. Well, twice and eventually. (Overlapping requests, but mea culpa) I never did get the prioritisation or the sort of detail that turned them from "political manifesto" to "actually useful", but then I didn't expect to. You got them, repeatedly. ISTR giving them to you a few weeks ago after you pulled your "you said it had nothing to do with WMD's" bull****? Try my 18 May post in reponse to you--the subject was "Sarin in a 155mm Artillery Round". Now you claim I just gave them to you in "overlapping requests"? Nope. The wording I used then was: "Here are a few, though--desire to bring the whole Iraqi situation to a finite end, as opposed to continuing with the interminable inspection/NFZ/reinforce-Kuwait-every-time-Saddam-sends-IRGC-troops-in-stren gth-southwards, etc.; the terrorist connections (Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Al Zarqawi, etc.); oil supplies and removing a regional threat to same; other (non"WMD" proscribed weapons violations (i.e., that AS II missile), etc. And yes, WMD violations, both perceived (at the time) and actual (like that illegal ricin weaponization program). Etc." I gave you some more in this thread. But you *kept* claiming I never answered your question...tsk-tsk-tsk, that would be another false accusation on your part (unfortunately, that is getting to be about par for the course with you). Inventing false accusations is a poor distraction. This is the third time I've explained that if there isn't a name and attribution to let it be traced, it's not a quote: it's the third time I've apologised for the misunderstanding: and I'm beginning to believe that you're more interested in histrionics than facts. You have yet to acknowledge that you got it wrong when you claimed I have been saying that WMD's were not a factor. No, Kevin, I've said so three times at least. That you choose not to read, does not mean words are not posted. Now, the first time you called me a liar, I replied to you paragraph-by-paragraph, explained and apologised for the misunderstanding... only to find that at the end of the article, you claimed you would read no more on the matter. (In which case why bother making a significant accusation of untruth?) I've repeated the explanation and the apology twice already, and still you claim to have missed it. For a fourth time, I was about to repeat... but on a hunch, I checked the end of your message and realised you had fled the field *yet again*. I'd ask "Why are you so willing to fling accusations, yet so reluctant to even discuss apologies?" but apparently you won't read this either. Bull****. Is this your idea of an "apology"? ""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." (Both are direct quotes from your comments last month) Gee, that does not sound like much of an apology to me--more like a continued effort to falsely claim that I had made that very statement. Kevin, you're not a sockpuppet for Fred McCall, are you? Why, does Fred have you properly pegged as well? You are making me suspect Fred has more going for him than I gave him credit for... Too bad, how sad, because you're failing to distinguish yourself by the integrity of your conduct here. Unlike you, I have not played footloose and fancy free with your statements and twisted them to say something completely different from what you actually said--you did. Actually, you have, but I've accepted it as the rough-and-tumble of debate rather than using them as an excuse to avoid awkward issues. Please show me where I have done so in this (or last month's) debate. Show me where I have claimed, "You said..." something that you have not. Unlike you, I have not completely ignored your answer to a question and then repeatedly claimed you never answered it in the first place. Kevin, you're the one who has FOUR times made an accusation and then refused to respond to the reply. Which accusation? The one about you lying about what I actually said, or the one about my actually repeatedly answering what you claimed I had never answered? Those would be YOUR faults in this argument, not mine. The religious among us would say there's a higher power who will judge. In the here and now I have to go off of the record--and the record does not look very good for you right now. Remember, we've gone from "significant and imminent" Iraqi WMEs, the evidence of which was reliable and solid (but of course too secret to share)... to odds and ends buried in gardens, hidden in fridges and used by insurgents in roadside IEDs. Yet you're insisting that nothing has changed? That "significant and immenent" would apparently be your words? I did not see either of them in that report about our case for Iraq? If you were still reading this, I'd give you the URLs. Did you see those words in the White House's case for Iraq put out in late 2002? No? Then obviously you are not talking about attibuting those words to us in this case? Since you're apparently not, why bother? Of course - now, where are the threats? You are really going to avoid admitting he was in violation on numerous counts, aren't you? Yes. When "one shell" is a violation, then "violation" becomes meaningless. By that argument, most of Europe plus the USA would be "in violation" if you dug long enough in the right places. Nope. Only Iraq was subject to the proscriptions of 687. Nice try, though. . And as i said elsewhere, I see Saddam with any form of WMD program, or products thereof, as a serious threat. You don't. Luckily, you'll now never have to go through the agony of being proved wrong on that since Saddam has been removed from the equation. You complain about "high horses" and write this rubbish? Hypocrisy, 'Kevin Brooks' is thy name. What hypocrisy? Saddam has been removed, so he no longer poses any threat, present or future. A lot of folks think that is a "good thing". The only WME attack on the US to date has been home-grown: I earnestly hope there are no more (disbelieve that as much as it pleases you to do so) but I have neither belief nor evidence to show that the occupation of Iraq has reduced the risk in any detectable fashion. It has removed the possibility of Saddam supporting one. Case closed. In other words, pretty much business as ususal for the Middle East. Those are many of the reasons given in that White House report--you have repeatedly been given them , and you repeatedly claim I have not given any of them to you. And when you provided them, I explained how all were business as usual throughout the Middle East. Refute my points, or run away. Your points are meaningless; NFZ violations are not "business as usual in the Middle East"--they applied only to Iraq, as did the limitation on missile range. And as much as I dislike and distrust the Iranians and Syrians, I have yet to read any realistic accounts of mass graves attributed to their current leaders, nor to the leaders of any other nations in the Middle East. Neither have any of those governement's leaders been tied to an attempted assasination of a former US President. Again, your sophomoric observation about "business as usual" was therefore meaningless--it did not accurately address the points made by the White House in its case, or the ones I mentioned earlier to you. Oh, I forgot - I read ahead and you ran away. There is nothing to run away *from*. You are blowing hot air--as usual. Perhaps I should draw a conclusion from that? Sure. Is "a violation" a good enough reason to tie us down in Iraq for the next few years? See my comment above regarding Saddam and threat. snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed in violation Less than a 155mm HE in that particular case. Not sure about that. You're standing by it when it goes off? That seems to be the most usual description to date. It didn't detonate on command, it was found and defused or - this is my guess and only that - disabled by controlled detonation. I am assuming the IED was detonated as a convoy went by, as is the usual case. 155 HE round goes off and, if they were following a normal convoy interval, based upon lethal burst radius of a 155mm HE, one vehicle with occupants gets whacked. A 155mm sarin round with a few liters of fully-cooked sarin goes off, and you have to consider downwind effects Not from a proper binary round with no setback and centrifugal effects, actuated on the ground by a fuzewell full of plastic explosive. Poor mixing, poor performance. I said, "with fully cooked sarin"; i.e., the guys who did the deed would have been smart enough to remove the burster, remove the two chemical components and mix them seperately, and then reassemble the round with properly mixed sarin. The outcome could have been MUCH worse. Plus, how many US troops are in the "downwind effects" of a roadside IED whose owners didn't know what they had? The typical IED is targeted against a moving convoy. With no previous indication that chemical rounds might be used, it is easy to assume that the remaining vehicles would either herrringbone and dismount, or drive through the KZ. and you also have those folks who subsequently drove into the immediate area. These troops were not MOPPED up, and seeing what would appear (compared to the usual IED) to be a misfired IED going off (that burster charge is not that big) on the roadside would likely lead to them either immediately herringboning and dismounting, or even worse driving through the ambush point (which was our first choice when I was a CO--avoid stopping in the KZ at all costs). Which would have meant a fair number of exposed troops likely getting exposed to the agent. Now consider quantity of agent - produced by the munition, and exposure for the troops. You are basing this on what actually happened vis a vis the failure of the bad guys to account for this being a true binary weapon; I am looking at it in a worst case, but still realistic, scenario. I think your analysis of how bad this could have been is about as accurate as the rest of your analysis in this discussion--not very. I'm lowering my opinion of your competence, sadly, if this is *really* your opinion and not just bad temper. This shell didn't even kill the EOD team (not in NBC as far as I can tell) and yet it's meant to massacre a convoy? How much gas from a roadside source do you think passengers actually in moving vehicles absorb? You're absolutely right that the best protection for the intended victims would be to drive through at best speed, but the notion that this shell posed a serious threat to troops in fast-moving motor vehicles is just *ludicrous*. Again, we are looking at this from two different viewpoints. If you would care to go back and review my posts in the other threads on this subject, you will n ote that I said early on that the way this one was set off, versus the normal cannon launch, was to be thanked for the relatively low yield. If nothing else, there's a 50-50 chance that the shell (rigged as a HE IED, remember?) was planted *downwind* of the road. And then there's the problem that you may drive past someone's roadside rose... but how often do you smell them? Read the UK government dossiers. Compare them to the reality on the ground. Wonder at the discrepancies between the case made for the operation, and the facts made on the ground. Maybe your government based its whole claim solely on "massive stockpiles"--our's did not, as that report I cited to you indicates. Well, gee golly whillikers, Kevin, it might amaze you that we're run by the UK government not the US. Well, in that case stop acting as if we over here had to be claiming massive stockpiles of the stuff were required in order to justify our action--that is not what we claimed, as that White House report made clear. Seems just a little inattentive of you to overlook that detail, but never mind - you've gone off in a huff anyway. Uncle Tom Cobbley and all knew that Iraq was in violation of 687, would continue to try to violate 687, and even if by some miracle they renounced WME and tried to clean up their act, some stray munitions would still be adrift - therefore they could *never* fully, completely satisfy 687. The question is, were they so thoroughly in violation that they had produced workable weapons in effective quantities? No, that is YOUR question. snip more tapdancing around the fact that you have admitted he was indeed in violation I answer yours, however insultingly put. Oh, I forgot - if I hadn't read ahead I would still think this was a debate. No, I don't, and I'm tiring of explaining this to you. You paraphrased me inaccurately, and when called upon it you trotted out my correct quote and then argued that the inclusion of *all* in it really did not change what you had claimed I had been saying. No. I quoted you precisely complete with cite. I paraphrased you and when challenged that the paraphrase was distorting your actual position, I publicly withdrew the paraphrase and apologised for the error. To repeat what I wrote above: Bull****. Is this your idea of an "apology"? ""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." (Both are direct quotes from your comments last month) Both came after I told you that was not an accurate statement. I'd call that doctoring--it sure as hell was not honest. I'd call it considerably more honest than your tactics here, Mr Brooks. Be very wary of claiming "you never did X" when in fact you just chose to never find out. Odd way you have of "apologizing" after an inaccuracy is pointed out (see above quote of your response to my telling you that was an incorrect paraphrase). I'm noting your continued evasion on the "other factors". You are blind then. They have been given to you again..and again..and again. See the above: "...add to that the "other" reasons (missiles that exceeded the allowed range, Hey, you have been claiming I never gave any of these to you...but as we have seen, I did last month, and again in this thread... Where is your big "apology"? Oh, yeah--you offered a half-assed mea-culpa that neglected the fact that I gave you most of these a few weeks ago... With or without payload? That technicality aside, plot the 'allowed range' on a map and see where it gets Iraq. It is a violation. Even UNMOVIC reluctantly admitted as much. continual NFZ violations, Yep, that's a clear reason to invade. I mean, *look* how many aircraft and aircrew we've lost policing those No Fly Zones! They were violations. one assasination attempt on a former US President, Alleged or proven? Who was convicted for it, out of interest? Proven to the satisfaction of most, except for diehard Saddam apologists. (These issues are very mutable: the fact of the attempt is indisputable, the reality of the who and why much more difficult) harboring a couple of known terrorists, I offer you Brennan, Artt and Kirby. Then declare war on us. supporting suicide bombers, etc.)--you know, the ones I have given you before, but you claimed I never provided to you?" And have since accepted - in the very post to which you reply, if memory serves - that you have finally provided. (Since you've claimed you won't read this, it might be churlish to add 'after much prodding' and for a debator still on the floor, it would be downright rude to comment how you flung them behind you as you fled) They were "flung" last month, to you. Short memory, eh? The fact that you claim they have still not been given to you at this point is just an example now of you now lying, No, you have finally given them. I accepted them and thanked you for them, at least. Another lie. Not "finally"--they were given to you last month. You just conveniently forgot about that, huh? Odd, after you making such a big-to-do about supposedly asking the question *eighteen months* ago and (supposedly) "never getting an answer". 'cause sure as God made little green apples they have been given to you again, and again, and again... No, they have not: but they have at least been given. Ys, they have. Do a Google on the date and subject I gave to you earlier and you will find them just as I quoted. Shucks, I guess that makes you a liar--again? you, or insist it was your exact wording, because *even you* immediately recognised it as a paraphrase rather than a quotation. Bull****. You sure as heel did attribute that to me. Do I have to go and restate your exact words to you? Yes, you do. Which post of yours did I attribute it to? Where did I say that the words in those inverted commas were yours and yours alone? "It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." Your words. That seems like a pretty direct attribution to me. Which would make you a liar...again. The date was 18 May, the subject: "Sarin in a 155mm round". same thread that I *also* provided you some of those "other reasons" that you have coninued to claim up unitl today I never gave you. Please show any evidence at all that would suggest that those words were yours. When I quoted you, I left an audit trail: when I paraphrased the 'there wuz WMD!' crowd, I did not. Oh, I forgot - your case is so strong and your confidence so high, you already ran away. (See end of post) You claimed I said that WMD's were not a factor--that was wrong. You claimed they were not a major factor. I asked you to name and rank the major factors and got a laundry list, which I imagine will have to do. "I don't know" would, by the way, have been an honourable and acceptable response. Interestingly, you chose then - and continued to choose - to shriek about your wounded pride, rather than address the issue of "then what *were* the other factors"? You are lying again, I see--some of those other factors have repeatedly been given to you (see above). No, they have been finally extracted after much pressure and still in an unranked straggle. However, even that seems to be too much pressure for you to bear. See above. They were given to you on 18 May. Which puts you in the position of lying...again. I did. I apologised. Several times. Either you didn't read, or didn't reply. Bull****--you are still denying in this very message that you ever even attributed the incorrect statement to me! Indeed, because at no point did I claim to anyone that Kevin Brooks said at TIME on DATE that "QUOTE". See above. ""It's not about the WMD". I can only go by what you say, Kevin...Your claiming they were irrelevant was something of a hint." Liar. You then compound that by lying again and again that I have never provided you any of the "other reasons" for going to war--when lists of those reasons have been provided to you repeatedly! In this very same thread, no less! Well, eventually, though twice (overlapping) and without the prioritisation asked for. Again ignoring their provision last month...liar. But we must be grateful for what we get, and be grateful when we finally get it. Again ignoring their provision last month...liar. I'm beginning to consider that you're using this as an invented diversion. Why is that not surprising, given that you are repeatedly lying? There was an age when that allegation would have required you to bring a friend (if you could rent one - from your conduct here it seems you must have few) and a pair of good swords (assuming you owned them) to a discreet dawn rendezvous where the matter could be settled in a traditional style. You have by this point been proven to be a liar, to wit: in claiming that you never attributed those statements to me, which you did, by your own words, and in claiming that I have not given you those examples of "other reasons", which I did last month. Both have been presented to you. It is a bit late to close the barn door--the cows are out. Usenet would perhaps be a better place if it were less easy to fling accusations and run away. I am not running. I have given you your own words proving you are a liar regarding your inaccurate paraphrase attributed to me, along with my own words proving you also lied about supposedly not having given you those "other reasons". Your internal fantasy life must be very interesting to behold. Apparently I have a shrine to Saddam Hussein and worship the name of Brannigan? You have been acting a lot like him over this issue--if the shoe fits, wear it. I'm not even offering you a foot, Kevin. It is acvtually harder to catch Brannigan in a lie--he does a better job of obfuscating than you do, as we have seen above. Well, Kevin, let me tell you just how hurt, wounded and mortified I feel that in between accusing me of being a Hussein appeaser you've decided you don't like me as much as you once did. You just don't get it, do you? It is your lying that I find offensive--the fact that you can't seem to get beyond defending Saddam is trivial in comparison. Whereas I find your cowardice disappointing. Go cosy up to Fred McCall, he's more your type. What cowardice? Not that such an accusation from a proven liar is much to really worry about--your integrity is shot, Paul, and getting it back is going to be hard enough without your resorting to baseless accusations. Absolutely. I can decide when to ride it and when not to, not you. So you really DO think you have the right decide when humor is allowed and when it is not? Don't we all? Could you maybe post the rules the rest of us have to follow, since they don't apply to you? Sure. "Use humour when you want to. If people don't get it, be ready to explain." You did not ask for an explanation--you just declared it unacceptable in this thread...that is, until it suited you to try and use it. Simple easy rule. Which you apparently don't follow. And on that note I'll close this out; I can take only so much of your repetitive lies, your belief that it is OK for you to use tongue-in-cheek humor "but by-golly if the other guy does I'll set him straight!" bull****, You mean, "I can paraphrase but you are a liar"? That paraphrase is accurate; you yourself said, "I can decide when to ride it and when not to, not you." Which is a bit different from your paraphrase that has been in question, and was proven to be most inaccurate (not to mention that you did quite clearly attribute it directly to me, something you now deny, but which the record shows you did do). You mean "I can use humour for fun but you are evading"? your inane "I apoligized...but in actuality, I never said that, so no apology is due!" rants, You mean you *did* see the apologies? I thought you claimed I never mentioned it! I was referring to your inane claim that you apologized, while at the same time, as we can clearly see in this post, you continue to lie about ever attributing the paraphrase to me. Apparently, you can't hardly say much of anything lately without lying. etc. I could easily deal with you disagreeing with me as to the justifications for military action in this case--but I just can't stomach your lack of integrity, Brave words from someone who proclaims he's not even reading the reply. (And who trumpeted that he wouldn't read the replies to his previous allegations) Uhmmm... I did not say that. I was indeed fed up with you by that point when I posted my last response, but I did not say that I was not going to read your response or post in reply; I have slept and gotten my "second wind" now, though. Your claiming otherwise is apparently another lie on your part--you do have a proven track record of falsely, or at least incompletely, paraphrasing what others have said. "Integrity" my arse. Any cowardly chicken**** can fling false accusations and run for cover. Every accusation I have made has been covered with direct quotes of your own words, cited by day and subject, or by my offering proof that I did indeed give you an answer that you claimed I had not given you, again by day and subject. That means they are TRUE...but you would probably have a bit of a problem understanding that, given your now proven propensity to resort to lying. As to cowardly, the next time you are in the area drop me a line--I'll be more than happy to let you address that issue in person, in any form you may so choose, if that is what you really want. In my experience, a fellow like you who has to resort to repeatedly lying in order to try and cover his own missteps, usually is the sort who lacks the courage for such encounters--but you are welcome to prove otherwise. I'm here to talk about it and defend myself, I'm replying to your claims, you're running away as fast as you can. Shall we ask the audience to decide? If the audience has read your claims in this posts, and then compared them to the quotes I took from those 18 May exchanges, then I am pretty sure they can reach the same conclusion I have reached--you were lying on both counts. and I am really sorry I had misjudged you in that regard prior to the last couple of discussions revealing what you are truly like. Well, Kevin, I'm *really* worried about your bad opinion of me, because you've clearly shown how open to debate you are and how carefully you consider your positions, and your hostility could do *terrible* things to my career prospects - because you're *so* right on all these issues. Hey, it has thus been proven that you are a liar. First, you claimed I said something that I did not say. That was the first lie, which you say was just a misunderstanding and that you apologized about. Then you now claim that you never made such an attibution directly to me in the first place--but your quoted words show otherwise. Finally, you repeatedly claimed that I never gave you those "other reasons"; but the record shows you were given a list of them last month, and again during this exchange. Three lies right there. I get *paid* to do this ****, and Usenet is light relief from it. I'm actually genuinely sorry that someone I thought was an irascible but intelligent poster turned out to be a mindless political knee-jerker, but that's life. Does any of that change the fact that you are a proven liar? You say that does not bother you-- to have such a "disposable" view in regards to one's reputation with others is kind of a sad situation. Oh, **** off and die, Kevin. I can take a lot but this sort of sanctimonious rant should be posted at the top, not the bottom. Ah. So proving you are a liar is "sanctimonious"? Shouldn't be surprised, I guess--anyone who can claim they do indeed have the right to declare when humor is allowed in a thread and when it is not, and their opponent does not have the same right, would indeed likely be apt to be of that belief as well...especially if he was a proven liar, as you have been shown to be. Besides, isn't your entire paragraph redundant if you're just going to run away? Uhmmm...who's running? Brooks |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Ron
confessed the following: I think I will have to chime in on Stevens side here. Okey dokey... Sure liberals like freedom at home, but to some of us, freedom is not just something for domestic consumption, but something that everyone deserves, no matter what their country. Its not just something you are glad you have, but lament the fact that others in the world do not have it, while having your wine and cheese. Ture...in the ideal world every citizen is free. The problem is the world is not simply black & white, yes or no. Today we're tied down in Iraq trying provide those blessings of freedom. And hopefully in the long run things will work out for those folks. Sincerely how do you reconcile your desire for freedom for Iraqi citizens now and 20 years ago when Rumsfeld went to Iraq and met with Saddam Hussein and gave him the blessing and backing of the US gov't (but not getting too pushy about chem warfare vs the Kurds or Iranians)? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm The Iranians had released the American hostages when Reagan took office...why not be consistant? My answer? **** happens. And where do you draw the line at which countries will benefit from our liberating their people? Do we go into Iran next? Syria? Saudi Arabia (and kill all those wahabi islamist ****s)? Then on to North Korea...and the PRC. Do you think Vietnam needs to be liberated now? We spent a whole lot of money and got a whole lot of guys killed, and by all appearances Vietnam is a pretty peaceful place these days (and the citizens are happy and like Americans). The American and Euro leftists were content, even at times even happy with conditions in countries such as the USSR and its enslaved Baltic and Eastern European countries, Cuba, Nicaragua. People like Marx, Lenin, Ortega and Castro were and have been darlings of the USA leftists for that matter. Look at the ongoing love affair between Hollywood leftists (redunant) and Castro. I have no answer for that...I can't think of any US liberal leaders (politicians) that were ever happy about the conditions on the otherside of the Iron Curtain. Try to use Tom Hayden The left and liberals were thought it was foolish to confront the USSR, and just plain stupid to have such folly ideas as rolling back Communist/Marxist totalitarian states in the world. As a blanket statement that is incorrect. I strapped my ass to a jet ready to "kill a commie for christ" (so to speak) and never once thought it was foolish to defend western europe against the WP, or defend the RoK against Kim Il-Sung (that ****). Sincerely, without meaning to sound insulting...looking at the war in SEA with all the secrecy (the war in Laos, the bombing of Cambodia) and tell me what it accomplished in terms of spreading freedom? Personally I think liberals object to the secrecy aspect..and de facto lying about motives...and many are simply morally opposed to war. Sen Kerry opposed every, or nearly every Reagan initative that helped roll defeat the USSR. Not a Kerry scholar...help me out here. How many, or simply what were the specifics. Surely you recognize that blanket statements don't make it so. No political party or person has a perfect record in these matters. No argument from me. I don't think Iran-Contra was Reagan's finest moment in office, but he was successful (unless you think more in terms of the huge federal deficit at the end of his 2d term). And before anybody howls in protest...Reagan was the MAN, he was at the helm when the wall came down. May he rest in peace. But when it comes to trying to help countries that were under totalitarian or marxist rule, the American and Euro left has a pretty abyssmal record. Hmmm, Truman defending the RoK (along with our UN friends) against those godless ****s north of the 38th parallel, JFK facing down the soviets over Berlin, JFK facing down the soviets over IRBMs in Cuba, LBJ sending more troops to SEA because of the (bogus 2d attack) Gulf of Tonkin...OK you got me there. I notice you write "totalitarian or marxist rule," are other form of non-democratic government acceptable? King Hussein of Jordan, the House of Saud? Where do you personally draw the line? Over the years the US has supported folks with names like Batista, Boun Oum, Chiang Kai Shek, Franco, Salazar, Ngo Diem, Trujillo, the Somozas, Verwoerd, Ydigoras. Paticipatory democracy (which I think you're addressing) was not a hallmark of these clients. I appreciate the debate. Robey |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Dargan" wrote in message news:6fwwc.8380$HG.475@attbi_s53... Clinton's real daddy was dead and his step-daddy a dud. Without a sponsor, what chance did he have of getting a cushy billet in TANG or any other country club? Clinton's sponsor was Senator J. William Fulbright. Clinton used his brains and work ethic to get ahead. Clinton's grades got him into graduate school and earned a Rhodes scholarship. No doubt young Clinton was counting on a graduate school deferment to keep him out of the draft. Unfortunately, the Johnson administration unexpectedly abolished graduate on February 16, 1968. Clinton became eligible for the draft when he graduated from Georgetown the following June. |
#397
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Really? Really. In that case, would you mind producing some proof that there was a court proceeding that found Clinton guilty of violating some portion of the Selective Service Act? You know, my dictionary defines "allege" as "to declare or assert without proof". If you have no proof, there's no other word you could use about the object of your affections than allege. You can't turn him into a criminal just because you don't like his politics or sex life. My dictionary defines "draft dodger" as " someone who is drafted and illegally refuses to serve". Doesn't say anything about court proceedings or convictions. By way of example, many of Bush's critics think he was an unprosecuted AWOL or maybe even a deserter but, lacking proof and/or evidence of a successful prosecution, many amongst them refrain from making unsubstantiated charges like that. Don't you think it's time both Bush and Clinton got a vacation from having mud thrown at them for stuff nobody has yet proved that they did? Well, I'm certainly not one who makes unsubstantiated charges. Bill Clinton's Draft Record: A Chronology Aug 19 1964: Clinton registers for the draft [Washington _Post_ Sep 13 92] Sep 1964: Clinton, age 18, enters Georgetown University [The Comeback Kid, CF Allen and J Portis, p. 20] Nov 17 64: Clinton is classified 2-S (student deferment) "which would shield him from the draft throughout his undergraduate years." [Wash Post Sep 13 92] Feb 16 68: "The Johnson administration unexpectedly abolished graduate deferments." [Wash Post Sep 13 92] Mar 20 68: Clinton, age 21, is classified 1-A, eligible for induction, as he nears graduation from Georgetown. [Wash Post Sep 13 92] Comment: "The [Los Angeles] _Times_ found that the future Arkansas governor was the only man of his prime draft age classified 1-A by that board in 1968 whose pre-induction physical examination was put off for 10.5 months -- more than twice as long as anyone else and more than five times longer than most area men of comparable eligibility." [Los Angeles _Times_ Sep 02 92] Summer 68: Political and family influence keeps Clinton out of the draft. "Robert Corrado -- the only surviving Hot Springs draft board member from that period -- concluded that Clinton's [draft] statement" (the long delays) was the result of "some form of preferential treatment." According to the _Times_, "Corrado recalled that the chairman of the three-man draft panel .... once held back Clinton's file with the explanation that 'we've got to give him time to [go] to Oxford,' where the term began in the fall of 1968. "Corrado also complained that he was called by an aide to then-Sen. J. William Fulbright urging him and his fellow board members to 'give every consideration' to keep Clinton out of the draft so he could attend Oxford. "Throughout the remainder of 1968, Corrado said, Clinton's draft file was routinely held back from consideration by the full board. Consequently, although he was classified 1-A on Mar 20 68, he was not called for his physical exam until Feb 3, 1969, when he was at Oxford." Clinton's Uncle Raymond Clinton personally lobbied Sen Fulbright, William S. Armstrong, the chairman of the three-man Hot Springs draft board, and Lt. Cmdr. Trice Ellis, Jr., commanding officer of the local Navy reserve unit, to obtain a slot for Clinton in the Naval Reserve. Clinton secured a "standard enlisted man's billet, not an officer's slot [which] would have required Clinton to serve two years on active duty beginning within 12 months of his acceptance." This Navy Reserve assignment was "created especially for the young Clinton at a time in 1968 when no existing reserve slots were open in his hometown unit." According to the LA Times, "after about two weeks waiting for Bill Clinton to arrive for his preliminary interview and physical exam, Ellis said he called [Clinton's uncle] Raymond to inqui 'What happened to that boy?' According to Ellis, Clinton's uncle replied: 'Don't worry about it. He won't be coming down. It's all been taken care of.' " [LA Times Sep 02 92] Fall 68: Because of the local draft board's continuing postponement of his pre-induction physical, Clinton is able to enroll at Oxford Univ. [Wash Post Sep 13 92] Feb 02 69: While at Oxford, Clinton finally takes and passes a military physical examination. [Washington _Times_ Sep 18 92] Comment: Clinton avoided being called for his pre-induction physical for more than 10 months after becoming eligible for the draft. According to some accounts, the delay was "five times longer than most area men of comparable eligibility." [LA Times Sep 02 92] Apr 1969: Clinton receives induction notice from the Hot Springs AR draft board. Clinton, however claims that the draft board told him to ignore the notice because it arrived after the deadline for induction. [Wash Post Sep 13 92] Comment: This notice set off the chain of events which led to Clinton's efforts to avoid the draft. Jun-Jul 69: Clinton receives a second induction notice with a Jul 28 induction date and returns home. [Wash Times Sep 18 92] Jul 11 69: Clinton's friend at Oxford, Cliff Jackson, writes that "[Clinton] is feverishly trying to find a way to avoid entering the Army as a drafted private. I have had several of my friends in influential positions trying to pull strings on Bill's behalf." [LA Times Sep 26 92] Clinton benefited from yet another lobbying campaign in order to evade this induction notice. "Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, who has said he did not pull strings to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, was able to get his Army induction notice canceled in the summer of 1969 after a lobbying effort directed at the Republican head of the state draft agency." Arrangements were made for Clinton to meet with Col. Willard A. Hawkins who "was the only person in Arkansas with authority to rescind a draft notice. ... The apparently successful appeal to Hawkins was planned while Clinton was finishing his first year as a Rhodes scholar in England. Clinton's former friend and Oxford classmate, Cliff Jackson -- now an avowed political critic of the candidate -- said it was pursued immediately upon Clinton's return to AR in early July [1969] to beat a Jul 28 deadline for induction." [LA Times Sep 26 92] Comment: Jackson's statement is contrary to Clinton's repeated assertions that he received no special treatment in avoiding military service. "(I) never received any unusual or favorable treatment." [LA Times Sep 02 92] Aug 07 69: Clinton is reclassified 1-D after he arranges to enter the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. [Wash Post Sep 13 92] According to Cliff Jackson, Clinton's Oxford classmate, Clinton used the ROTC program to "kill the draft notice, to avoid reporting on the Jul 28 induction date, which had already been postponed. And he did that by promising to serve his country in the ROTC, number one, to enroll in the law school that fall ... and he never enrolled." [Wash Times Sep 17 92] Comment: Clinton's admission into the ROTC program again runs contrary to his repeated statements that he received no special treatment in order to evade military service. Col Eugene Holmes, commander of the UArk ROTC program, said Clinton was admitted after pressure from the Hot Springs draft board and the office of Sen J. William Fulbright (D-AR). Again, Clinton was receiving preferential treatment. In addition, records from the Army reveal that Clinton was not legally eligible for the ROTC program at that time. Army regulations required recruits to be enrolled at the university and attending classes full-time before being admitted to an ROTC program. [Wash Times Sep 17 92] Fall 1969: Clinton returns to Oxford for a second year. [Wash Post Sep 13 92] Clinton was supposed to be at the Arkansas Law School. However, according to Cliff Jackson, "Sen. Fulbright's office and Bill himself continued to exert tremendous pressure on poor Col. Holmes to get him [Clinton] to go back to Oxford." [Wash Times Sep 17 92] Sep 14 69: The _Arkansas Gazette_, published in Little Rock, headlined a draft suspension was reportedly planned by the President. Comment: The article, citing a source, said Selective Service reforms when implemented, would only permit the conscription of 19-year-old men. In addition, the source said "the Army would send to Vietnam only enlistees, professional soldiers, and those draftees who volunteered to go." The source contended that these reforms, combined with troop withdrawals, "would put pressure on the Congress to enact draft legislation already proposed by the President ... and set up a lottery to conscript only 19-year-old men," the _Gazette_ reported. From his letter to Col. Holmes, it is very likely that Clinton was in the US on Sep 14 69. He was 23 years old. Sep 19 69: "President Nixon, facing turmoil on college campuses, suspended draft calls for November and December of [1969] and said the October call would be spread out over three months." [Wash Post Sep 13 92] The President also indicated that if the Congress did not act to establish a lottery system, he would remove by executive order the vulnerability to the draft of all men age 20 to 26. [Ark Gaz Sep 19 69] Comment: Again, Clinton was 23 years old. Sep-Oct 69: "At some point, Clinton decided to make himself eligible for the draft and said in February [1992] his stepfather had acted in his behalf to accomplish this. _Newsweek_, attributing the information to campaign officials, said this all happened in Oct 1969. [Clinton spokesperson Betsey] Wright ... said she believed it took place in September. The difference is potentially significant. ... If Clinton did not act to give up his deferment until October, he could have known he faced no liability from the draft until the following summer, that he could take his chances with the lottery and find alternative service if he got a low number." [Wash Post Sep 13 92] Oct 01 69: "[Nixon] announced that anyone in graduate school could complete the full year." [Wash Post Sep 13 92] Comment: Clinton is now safe from the draft through June 1970. Oct 1969: President Nixon suspends call-up of additional draftees until a draft lottery is held in December. [Wash Times Sep 18 92] Oct 15 69: Clinton organized and let anti-war demonstrations in London. [Clinton's letter to Col. Holmes, and _Peace Eyes_ by Father Richard McSorley] Comment: According to McSorley, Clinton's demonstrations "had the support of British peace organizations" such as the British Peace Council, an arm of the KGB-backed World Peace Council. [_The Revolution Lobby_ by JM Waller and AC Brownfield, for more information on the World Peace Council, p.28] Oct 30 69: Clinton is reclassified 1-A, eligible for induction. [Wash Times Sep 28 92] Comment: "Clinton said he put himself into the draft by contacting his draft board in September or October and asking to be reclassified 1-A. .... It is not clear, however, whether that occurred at Clinton's urging or whether his failure to enroll at UArk automatically cancelled his 1-D deferment." [LA Times Sep 02 92] Clinton has never produced any evidence to substantiate his claim that he initiated his reclassification. Nov 16 69: Clinton organized and led anti-war demonstrations in London. [Clinton's letter to Col. Holmes] "I was glad to see a Georgetown student [Clinton] leading in the religious service for peace. After the service, Bill introduced me to some of his friends. With them, we paraded over to the American Embassy carrying white crosses made of wood about one foot high. There we left the crosses as an indication of our desire to end the agony of Vietnam." [Peace Eyes by Fath. Richard McSorley] Comment: Again, Clinton acted with the support of the British Peace Council. Dec 01 69: Clinton draws #311 in the first draft lottery. [Wash Times Sep 18 92] Comment: Clinton was virtually assured that he would not be drafted because of the high lottery number. Dec 02 69: Clinton writes to Col. Eugene Holmes, commander of the UArk ROTC program and states, "From my work I came to believe that the draft system is illegitimate ... I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability." [Clinton letter to Col. Holmes] Dec 12 69 (approximately): Clinton visits Norway where he meets with various "peace" organizations. [Peace Eyes] Dec 12 69 (approx.) - Dec 31 69: ??? Comment: After visiting Norway with Father McSorley, Clinton's movements and activities are unknown until he arrives in Moscow on Dec 31 69. Where did he go, what did he do, and who did he meet with? Dec 31 69 - Jan 06 70: Clinton travels to Moscow. He later said "relations between our two countries were pretty good then." He then described his visit as "a very friendly time, a good atmosphere." [Ark Gaz Jun 12 89, Knight-Ridder Newspapers Sep 25 92] Comment: Despite Clinton's claim that Jan 1970 was "a time of dtente," relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were anything but warm. The Soviets were supplying the North Vietnamese with advisors and anti-aircraft weapons, and the KGB was secretly running the war from Moscow. Sep 07 92: Col. Eugene Holmes, USA Ret., signs a notarized statement in which he asserts that "there is the imminent danger to our country of a draft dodger becoming Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States." He later writes that "I believe that he (Clinton) purposefully deceived me, using the possibility of joining the ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft reclassification." [Letter reprinted in Wash Times Sep 17 92] |
#398
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... Many classifications list libertarianism as an "anti-government" ideology. While less government is almost everyone's goal, few can support the basic assumptions of libertarianism--that man is inherently good and doesn't need government. You don't find many on the left who's goal is less government. Certainly privatization is gaining favor... Is it? Not so long ago private sector airline passenger and baggage screeners were federalized. And, which constitution would that be? Most who pattern themselves as "American Constitutionalists" seem to ignore the 216 years of Constitutional case-law that has adjusted the document to the current world. The Constitution can be adjusted only by the amendment process provided for. |
#399
|
|||
|
|||
"ArtKramr" wrote in message ... As is made painfully clear in Amar's brilliant tour de force on constitutional interpretation in his "THE BILL OF RIGHTS" Yale University press or Rakov's superb Pulitzer Prize winning " ORIGINAL MEANINGS" published by Random House. The discussioins and arguments of what the founders had in mind on any given issue is never ending. They're never-ending only because there are those that insist the founders meant something other than what they wrote. |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
"Robey Price" wrote in message ... Examples of liberalism...(historical) giving women the right to vote, Lincoln's emancipation of slaves, desegregation of schools, the end of "separate but equal", (current) pro-choice (versus pro-life), gay rights, greater environmental protection (against industrial polluters), maintaining a separation of church and state (see Alabama's judge Moore)...and not believing everything the government says is true simply because gwb or Rumsfeld says it's so. These are all good things in my book. You're confusing classic liberalism with modern liberalism. When people speak of liberals or liberalism today they're referring to modern liberalism. Feel free to give me as many examples (as you can) think of that demonstrate liberalism "is about controlling people." This should be fun. Medicare, Social Security, minimum wage laws, national health care, welfare, race-based quotas, income redistribution, etc., etc., etc. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Home Built | 3 | May 14th 04 11:55 AM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Highest-Ranking Black Air Force General Credits Success to Hard Work | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 10th 04 11:06 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |