OT: Bin Laden In Iran?

According to the latest intelligence, that's where Osama bin Laden is
hiding. Well... maybe not hiding, after all with the Keystone Cops
after him, what has he to fear?

Anyone here think that Bush will go after him?

No way. "Dead or Alive" my keister. Bush won't go after him, and not
because it would be an unwise thing to do... but because Bush has
already flushed so much of our strength down the lavatory in Iraq, that
we don't have anything left to do the job.

Ain't that nice? I want a refund.

In article <1118990801.907053.257820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
[email]learningrichard@gmail.com[/email] says...[color=blue]
> According to the latest intelligence, that's where Osama bin Laden is
> hiding. Well... maybe not hiding, after all with the Keystone Cops
> after him, what has he to fear?
>
> Anyone here think that Bush will go after him?[/color]

After the quotes on the UK news from Bush about the "Undemocratic
election process" and "Iran spreading terror through out the west", it
wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't have those troops not actively
involved shooting women and children, waiting along the border to "smash
another tyranical regime" (my quotes).
[color=blue]
> No way. "Dead or Alive" my keister. Bush won't go after him, and not
> because it would be an unwise thing to do... but because Bush has
> already flushed so much of our strength down the lavatory in Iraq, that
> we don't have anything left to do the job.[/color]

Oh he will, just needs enough excuse, like a Muslim being elected again.

--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
[url]http://www.bouncing-czechs.com[/url]

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <1118990801.907053.257820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> [email]learningrichard@gmail.com[/email] says...[color=green]
> > According to the latest intelligence, that's where Osama bin Laden is
> > hiding. Well... maybe not hiding, after all with the Keystone Cops
> > after him, what has he to fear?
> >
> > Anyone here think that Bush will go after him?[/color]
>
> After the quotes on the UK news from Bush about the "Undemocratic
> election process" and "Iran spreading terror through out the west", it
> wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't have those troops not actively
> involved shooting women and children, waiting along the border to "smash
> another tyranical regime" (my quotes).
>[/color]

whoa whoa there ... I take issue with "shooting women and children"...
sure, out of the huge number of troops we have in Iraq I'm sure there's
the *very rare* crazy soldier with a gun in Iraq (just as there is in
the civilian population worldwide), but I can assure you that the
coalition troops aren't shooting women and children.

Its important, very important, that the negatives expressed are against
the United States and British Executive Administration (where they
squarely belong), and not towards the young men and women who are very
patrioticly serving their Commander in Chief.

Those kids deserve nothing but our support. They went there to
liberate the Iraqis, to follow orders, and they are in no way
responsible for our government leaders' wrongheaded policies.

After all it is the United States Military who have made it possible
for us to safely voice our dissent!!

This isn't the time of King David of Israel, where "my enemy's enemy is
my friend".
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > No way. "Dead or Alive" my keister. Bush won't go after him, and not
> > because it would be an unwise thing to do... but because Bush has
> > already flushed so much of our strength down the lavatory in Iraq, that
> > we don't have anything left to do the job.[/color]
>
> Oh he will, just needs enough excuse, like a Muslim being elected again.
>[/color]

God help us all if he takes that route.

>[color=blue]
> whoa whoa there ... I take issue with "shooting women and children"...
> sure, out of the huge number of troops we have in Iraq I'm sure there's
> the *very rare* crazy soldier with a gun in Iraq (just as there is in
> the civilian population worldwide), but I can assure you that the
> coalition troops aren't shooting women and children.
>
> Its important, very important, that the negatives expressed are against
> the United States and British Executive Administration (where they
> squarely belong), and not towards the young men and women who are very
> patrioticly serving their Commander in Chief.
>
> Those kids deserve nothing but our support. They went there to
> liberate the Iraqis, to follow orders, and they are in no way
> responsible for our government leaders' wrongheaded policies.
>
> After all it is the United States Military who have made it possible
> for us to safely voice our dissent!!
>
> This isn't the time of King David of Israel, where "my enemy's enemy is
> my friend".[/color]

Your comments here are somewhat redeeming Richard... I was really under the
impression that you are left of the left of the left...

Dan J.S. wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > whoa whoa there ... I take issue with "shooting women and children"...
> > sure, out of the huge number of troops we have in Iraq I'm sure there's
> > the *very rare* crazy soldier with a gun in Iraq (just as there is in
> > the civilian population worldwide), but I can assure you that the
> > coalition troops aren't shooting women and children.
> >
> > Its important, very important, that the negatives expressed are against
> > the United States and British Executive Administration (where they
> > squarely belong), and not towards the young men and women who are very
> > patrioticly serving their Commander in Chief.
> >
> > Those kids deserve nothing but our support. They went there to
> > liberate the Iraqis, to follow orders, and they are in no way
> > responsible for our government leaders' wrongheaded policies.
> >
> > After all it is the United States Military who have made it possible
> > for us to safely voice our dissent!!
> >
> > This isn't the time of King David of Israel, where "my enemy's enemy is
> > my friend".[/color]
>
> Your comments here are somewhat redeeming Richard... I was really under the
> impression that you are left of the left of the left...
>[/color]

I understand... with folks like Eric Dreher and Dbu constantly casting
stones... what else would one think?

In article <1119019397.848204.320880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
[email]learningrichard@gmail.com[/email] says...[color=blue]
> whoa whoa there ... I take issue with "shooting women and children"...
> sure, out of the huge number of troops we have in Iraq I'm sure there's
> the *very rare* crazy soldier with a gun in Iraq (just as there is in
> the civilian population worldwide), but I can assure you that the
> coalition troops aren't shooting women and children.
>[/color]
Not under orders, but the army will have a large percentage of people
who's only reason to be there is to have a gun, and kill people without
question.

War is not some clean thing. It's dirty, it's messy, and the rules are
only applied to the loser, by the victor after all killing. People who
come back, come back scared, physically, and mentally.

But even for an ordinary soldier
If you are underfire, do you check first whether it is a woman/child or
a serving enemy soldier?

Not that easy, revenge is strong enough set wives/sons/daughters against
their husband/fathers killer, and if all the men are dead/imprisoned or
under some kind of suspicion, who gets to fight off the enemy?

Do you suppose Saddams Secular country has women soldiers? Atheist
russia did, and and Christian america does, so why shouldn't Iraq. And
just because you can't sign up as a soldier until 16/17/18/21 (whatever
age of adulthood) in the US, doesn't mean you can become a soldier at 14
in other countries, for the poor, it is on of the only few secure
incomes going, and safe until a war breaks out..

Don't think for one minute, when I said women, and children, I only
meant civilians.
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
[url]http://www.bouncing-czechs.com[/url]

In article <1119019397.848204.320880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
[email]learningrichard@gmail.com[/email] says...[color=blue]
> After all it is the United States Military who have made it possible
> for us to safely voice our dissent!!
>[/color]
And the patriot act that made it illegal if you do it too loudly.
Please don't think that American soldiers fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan have done anything to improve on what was already there,
dead Saudis cannnot hurt you anymore.
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
[url]http://www.bouncing-czechs.com[/url]

Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <1119019397.848204.320880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> [email]learningrichard@gmail.com[/email] says...[color=green]
> > After all it is the United States Military who have made it possible
> > for us to safely voice our dissent!!
> >[/color]
> And the patriot act that made it illegal if you do it too loudly.
> Please don't think that American soldiers fighting in Iraq and
> Afghanistan have done anything to improve on what was already there,
>[/color]

I don't think that. The entire U.S. Middle East policy is based on
Noblesse Oblige, Hubris, Dominionist Christianity, and is completely
wrong-headed.

The soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are noble patriots who are simply
following orders.

"Learning Richard" <learningrichard@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119019397.848204.320880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
>
> Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:[color=green]
> > In article <1118990801.907053.257820@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > [email]learningrichard@gmail.com[/email] says...[color=darkred]
> > > According to the latest intelligence, that's where Osama bin Laden is
> > > hiding. Well... maybe not hiding, after all with the Keystone Cops
> > > after him, what has he to fear?
> > >
> > > Anyone here think that Bush will go after him?[/color]
> >
> > After the quotes on the UK news from Bush about the "Undemocratic
> > election process" and "Iran spreading terror through out the west", it
> > wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't have those troops not actively
> > involved shooting women and children, waiting along the border to "smash
> > another tyranical regime" (my quotes).
> >[/color]
>
> whoa whoa there ... I take issue with "shooting women and children"...
> sure, out of the huge number of troops we have in Iraq I'm sure there's
> the *very rare* crazy soldier with a gun in Iraq (just as there is in
> the civilian population worldwide), but I can assure you that the
> coalition troops aren't shooting women and children.[/color]

Well I hate to be the one to inform you, but they have shot woman and
children. Anyone holding a gun that's a threat. They arent left much of a
choice, tough thing for those soldiers to go though.
[color=blue]
> Its important, very important, that the negatives expressed are against
> the United States and British Executive Administration (where they
> squarely belong), and not towards the young men and women who are very
> patrioticly serving their Commander in Chief.
>
> Those kids deserve nothing but our support. They went there to
> liberate the Iraqis, to follow orders, and they are in no way
> responsible for our government leaders' wrongheaded policies.[/color]

No, but they are responsible for their own wrong-doings to a degree.
[color=blue]
> After all it is the United States Military who have made it possible
> for us to safely voice our dissent!!
>
> This isn't the time of King David of Israel, where "my enemy's enemy is
> my friend".
>[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> > > No way. "Dead or Alive" my keister. Bush won't go after him, and not
> > > because it would be an unwise thing to do... but because Bush has
> > > already flushed so much of our strength down the lavatory in Iraq,[/color][/color][/color]
that[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > we don't have anything left to do the job.[/color]
> >
> > Oh he will, just needs enough excuse, like a Muslim being elected again.
> >[/color]
>
> God help us all if he takes that route.
>[/color]

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:11:58 +0100, Sleeker GT Phwoar
<carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In article <1119019397.848204.320880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>learningrichard@gmail.com says...[color=green]
>> whoa whoa there ... I take issue with "shooting women and children"...
>> sure, out of the huge number of troops we have in Iraq I'm sure there's
>> the *very rare* crazy soldier with a gun in Iraq (just as there is in
>> the civilian population worldwide), but I can assure you that the
>> coalition troops aren't shooting women and children.
>>[/color]
>Not under orders, but the army will have a large percentage of people
>who's only reason to be there is to have a gun, and kill people without
>question.[/color]

That is complete bull shit![color=blue]
>
>War is not some clean thing. It's dirty, it's messy, and the rules are
>only applied to the loser, by the victor after all killing. People who
>come back, come back scared, physically, and mentally.
>
>But even for an ordinary soldier
>If you are underfire, do you check first whether it is a woman/child or
>a serving enemy soldier?[/color]

Hell no....you kill the people that are shooting at you...
[color=blue]
>
>Not that easy, revenge is strong enough set wives/sons/daughters against
>their husband/fathers killer, and if all the men are dead/imprisoned or
>under some kind of suspicion, who gets to fight off the enemy?
>
>Do you suppose Saddams Secular country has women soldiers? Atheist
>russia did, and and Christian america does, so why shouldn't Iraq. And
>just because you can't sign up as a soldier until 16/17/18/21 (whatever
>age of adulthood) in the US, doesn't mean you can become a soldier at 14
>in other countries, for the poor, it is on of the only few secure
>incomes going, and safe until a war breaks out..
>
>Don't think for one minute, when I said women, and children, I only
>meant civilians.[/color]

--

Scott in Florida

To say one country or another harbors terrorists is just plain bunk.
All countries in the middle east harbor terrorists including Iraq. They
have been for many years. Anyone who is not aware of that has had their
head in the dirt for a long time or was just born in the last 10 or 15
years like our youngster josh.
--

Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:11:58 +0100, Sleeker GT Phwoar
> <carl.robson@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >In article <1119019397.848204.320880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >learningrichard@gmail.com says...[color=darkred]
> >> whoa whoa there ... I take issue with "shooting women and children"...
> >> sure, out of the huge number of troops we have in Iraq I'm sure there's
> >> the *very rare* crazy soldier with a gun in Iraq (just as there is in
> >> the civilian population worldwide), but I can assure you that the
> >> coalition troops aren't shooting women and children.
> >>[/color]
> >Not under orders, but the army will have a large percentage of people
> >who's only reason to be there is to have a gun, and kill people without
> >question.[/color]
>
> That is complete bull shit!
>[/color]

Sure, statistically there are some crazy ass Marines... but that is
pretty rare.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> >War is not some clean thing. It's dirty, it's messy, and the rules are
> >only applied to the loser, by the victor after all killing. People who
> >come back, come back scared, physically, and mentally.
> >
> >But even for an ordinary soldier
> >If you are underfire, do you check first whether it is a woman/child or
> >a serving enemy soldier?[/color]
>
> Hell no....you kill the people that are shooting at you...
>[/color]

that's right
[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> >Not that easy, revenge is strong enough set wives/sons/daughters against
> >their husband/fathers killer, and if all the men are dead/imprisoned or
> >under some kind of suspicion, who gets to fight off the enemy?
> >
> >Do you suppose Saddams Secular country has women soldiers? Atheist
> >russia did, and and Christian america does, so why shouldn't Iraq. And
> >just because you can't sign up as a soldier until 16/17/18/21 (whatever
> >age of adulthood) in the US, doesn't mean you can become a soldier at 14
> >in other countries, for the poor, it is on of the only few secure
> >incomes going, and safe until a war breaks out..
> >
> >Don't think for one minute, when I said women, and children, I only
> >meant civilians.[/color]
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

"Dbu+^" <ntspam@spc.om> wrote in message
news:ntspam-F4DCFC.20270217062005@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> To say one country or another harbors terrorists is just plain bunk.
> All countries in the middle east harbor terrorists including Iraq. They
> have been for many years. Anyone who is not aware of that has had their
> head in the dirt for a long time or was just born in the last 10 or 15
> years like our youngster josh.[/color]

I was born in the last 15 years? Whatever you say 'dbu' You make a good
troll and better dummy.

Dan J.S. wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>whoa whoa there ... I take issue with "shooting women and children"...
>>sure, out of the huge number of troops we have in Iraq I'm sure there's
>>the *very rare* crazy soldier with a gun in Iraq (just as there is in
>>the civilian population worldwide), but I can assure you that the
>>coalition troops aren't shooting women and children.
>>
>>Its important, very important, that the negatives expressed are against
>>the United States and British Executive Administration (where they
>>squarely belong), and not towards the young men and women who are very
>>patrioticly serving their Commander in Chief.[/color][/color]

That is a given. Our leaders are corrupt bums who deserve to
be eventually tried for what they have done.

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7RPse.5991$jX6.5712@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
>
> Dan J.S. wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>whoa whoa there ... I take issue with "shooting women and children"...
>>>sure, out of the huge number of troops we have in Iraq I'm sure there's
>>>the *very rare* crazy soldier with a gun in Iraq (just as there is in
>>>the civilian population worldwide), but I can assure you that the
>>>coalition troops aren't shooting women and children.
>>>
>>>Its important, very important, that the negatives expressed are against
>>>the United States and British Executive Administration (where they
>>>squarely belong), and not towards the young men and women who are very
>>>patrioticly serving their Commander in Chief.[/color][/color]
>
> That is a given. Our leaders are corrupt bums who deserve to
> be eventually tried for what they have done.
>[/color]

Strangely I've never seen you complain about DEMONcrap presidents.