"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

If we ignore what's going on, the UK is likely to be the
first to have Muslim nuclear warhead detonated on their soil.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !

Are 'they' going to send it by pigeon post or something ?

Graham

Eyesore wrote:

MassiveProng wrote:

Eeyore Gave us:
John Fields wrote:

_Really_ polite people refrain from calling those with whom they
disagree "obnoxious idiots"

Given that you say far worse, that clearly makes you impolite.

Since the dialog between you and John is typically tit-for-tat, you
are referring to a different circumstance.

Show me where John has ever attacked a new poster or any on topic
poster that didn't act like the ass that the LionelTard does.

If that's what he meant he should have said so IMHO.

Graham

Eeyore + IMHO = "In My Hopeless Obsession".
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:53:12 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

You have no concept of WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE MISSION, so its
simply more you you braying like an overfed jackass.

Hey, Michael! Can you complete this sentence in 25 words or less?

The US Mission in Iraq is _________________________________________.

(or should I simplify it by making it a multiple-guess question?)

Good Luck!
Rich

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:22:43 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My point being however that there's currently no spare troops to hand to do
so, no matter how well advised such a course of action might be (or not even) in
the long term.

So, you expect us to believe that you are a world renowned expert in
military strategy?

If that's what tickles your fancy !

It rather seems to me that it's simply a statement of fact actually.

Actually, you're as believable as Rosie O’Donnell and her conspiracy
theories about why the world trade center building collapse.

You have no concept of WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE MISSION

I know exactly what would be required and an important element is MORE TROOPS ! Ours are
almost completely tied up with existing commitments.

If USAans are prepared to die for US for a change do let me know. Somehow I suspect you
lot wouldn't be up for that.

http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/t/toml...nes185498.html

Cheers!
Rich

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:04:08 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:57:12 +0100, Eeyore
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My point being however that there's currently no spare troops to hand to do so,
no matter how well advised such a course of action might be (or not even) in the
long term.

So, you expect us to believe that you are a world renowned expert in
military strategy?

If that's what tickles your fancy !

It rather seems to me that it's simply a statement of fact actually.

You seem to think that everything you say is simply a statement of
fact, when in actuality it's mostly just opinionated garbage.

And this is different from you because...?

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:57:54 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
MassiveProng wrote:

I firm;y believe that there were WMDs,

Your opinion isn't shared by the weapons inspectors. They were actually there and you're
just guessing. Guess whose opinion I take more seriously ?

and that they were spirited off to Syria, and that those trailers we saw pics of WERE in
fact mobile chem/bio weapon facilities.

UK weapons inspector Dr David Kelly (he of the 'sexed-up dossier' claim) for example found
an alleged Iraqi mobile chemical wepaons lab to be a facility for launching weather
balloons.

Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

Oh, come on, donkey. Trollfeeding MicroBrain is becoming quite boring.

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:06:46 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:11:12 +0100, Eeyore
ian field wrote:

It might be to the advantage of all coalition members to use this as an
excuse to enter Iran

With what troops ?

Ever hear of "conscription", dumb ass?

Ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation, nazi?

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:01:36 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:18:05 +0100, Eeyore
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:

It might be to the advantage of all coalition members to use this as an
excuse to enter Iran

With what troops ?

Ever hear of "conscription", dumb ass?

Conscripts make lousy soldiers you IDIOT.

They're what saved your ass in WW2, dumb ass.

Have you bothered to check the history, or are you just spouting dogma?

The conscripts let France fall - is this why you espouse such hatred for
France? And they were the ones who were responsible for "protecting"
Pearl Harbor - WWII was won by CIVILIANS who signed up VOLUNTARILY because
the drafted military was such a bunch of lame-asses.

But, I guess it's much, much easier to blindly follow orders than to
actually think for oneself, more's the pity.

Thanks,
Rich

Eeyore wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

If we ignore what's going on, the UK is likely to be the
first to have Muslim nuclear warhead detonated on their soil.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !

Are 'they' going to send it by pigeon post or something ?

Graham


They don't have to "SEND" it, they can deliver it by a small boat, or
even through the "Chunnel"


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:55:06 +0000, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Genome" wrote in message

And your contribution was a son who shat his cancerous arse.

I liked you better when you were incomprehensible.

Maybe you shouldn't take the meds after all.

I have the cure for cancer, but nobody wants it because it entails
changing one's mind.

Good Luck!
Rich
--
For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:27:45 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

ALL Anglo-Saxons have lost their balls :-(

Oh, bull****. If that were true, how do they keep breeding, you lame-brain?

Oh, by the way, bravado is not equal to "courage".

Thanks,
Rich

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

If we ignore what's going on, the UK is likely to be the
first to have Muslim nuclear warhead detonated on their soil.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !

Are 'they' going to send it by pigeon post or something ?

They don't have to "SEND" it, they can deliver it by a small boat, or
even through the "Chunnel"

Is that so ?

Graham

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

So, you expect us to believe that you are a world renowned expert in
military strategy?

If that's what tickles your fancy !

It rather seems to me that it's simply a statement of fact actually.

It's hard to believe that the stooges in the White House could be any less
competent than they are or any less able to come up with useful strategies.

If their answer to a bear in the outhouse is a bomb then it seems they
haven't grasped the question.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

Over in N America they have security in grocery stores.

"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:53:12 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

You have no concept of WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE MISSION, so its
simply more you you braying like an overfed jackass.

Hey, Michael! Can you complete this sentence in 25 words or less?

The US Mission in Iraq is _________________________________________.

(or should I simplify it by making it a multiple-guess question?)

The US Mission in Iraq is FUBARed.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:33:33 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:04:08 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:57:12 +0100, Eeyore
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

My point being however that there's currently no spare troops to hand to do so,
no matter how well advised such a course of action might be (or not even) in the
long term.

So, you expect us to believe that you are a world renowned expert in
military strategy?

If that's what tickles your fancy !

It rather seems to me that it's simply a statement of fact actually.

You seem to think that everything you say is simply a statement of
fact, when in actuality it's mostly just opinionated garbage.

And this is different from you because...?

---
That should be apparent to even someone like you.


--
JF

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:35:39 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:06:46 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:11:12 +0100, Eeyore
ian field wrote:

It might be to the advantage of all coalition members to use this as an
excuse to enter Iran

With what troops ?

Ever hear of "conscription", dumb ass?

Ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation, nazi?

---
Yeah. So what? I was talking about conscription as compulsory
military service. You know, the Draft. Go look it up, you ignorant
cocksucker.


--
JF

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 11:53:14 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:07:48 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Well, let's see...

He's the President of the United States of America, and you are...?

I'm a famous character.

In ten years from now, GWB will be thankfully forgotten whilst I'll still be a
popular and much loved character in several children's books and a film or two.

---
In ten years, neither Bush will have been forgotten while you'll
still be merely posing as a much-loved cartoon character wondering
why so little of it comes your way.

Bush won't be forgotten any more than Nixon or Reagan are forgotten.
Daniel Schorr can't order pancakes without mentioning Iran Contra, and
the press has managed to blame the Viet Nam war on Nixon. After the
Dems screw up the economy, they'll need somebody to blame it on.

John

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:01:27 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I'm a famous character.

---
No, you're not. You're merely _posing_ as a cartoon character.

God, I *love* Usenet !

Graham

Right. There's no way we can tell if you actually have a tail and big
hairy ears.

John

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:41:40 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:01:36 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:18:05 +0100, Eeyore
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:

It might be to the advantage of all coalition members to use this as an
excuse to enter Iran

With what troops ?

Ever hear of "conscription", dumb ass?

Conscripts make lousy soldiers you IDIOT.

They're what saved your ass in WW2, dumb ass.

Have you bothered to check the history, or are you just spouting dogma?

---
From:

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html


WWII Death Count Per Country:

Country Military Civilian Total

USSR 12 million 17 million 29 million
Poland 597,000 5.86 million 6.27 million
Germany 3.25 million 2.44 million 5.69 million
Yugoslavia 305,000 1.35 million 1.66 million
Romania 450,000 465,000 915,000
Hungary 200,000 600,000 800,000
France 245,000 350,000 595,000
Italy 380,000 153,000 533,000
Great Britain 403,000 92,700 495,000
United States 407,000 6,000 413,000
Czechoslovakia 7,000 315,000 322,000
Holland 13,700 236,000 249,000
Greece 19,000 140,000 159,000
Belgium 76,000 23,000 99,000

Note that 4000 more American military died than did Brits.
---

The conscripts let France fall - is this why you espouse such hatred for
France?

---
I don't hate France, I hated the stupid waiting game they played
before Iraq.
---

And they were the ones who were responsible for "protecting"
Pearl Harbor -

---
So, had an all-volunteer force been serving in Pearl Harbor the
Japanese wouldn't have invaded? You're out of your ****ing mind. Or
drunk. Or both.
---

WWII was won by CIVILIANS who signed up VOLUNTARILY because
the drafted military was such a bunch of lame-asses.

---
You don't know what the **** you're talking about.

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_Act

"By the end of WWI, some 24 million men had registered, and some 2.8
million had been drafted.[1] In fact, more than half of the almost
4.8 million Americans who served in the armed forces were drafted."
---

But, I guess it's much, much easier to blindly follow orders than to
actually think for oneself, more's the pity.

---
I guess when you were in the service you did a lot of thinking for
yourself, huh? Especially with that UCMJ staring you in the face,
huh?



--
JF

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:57:26 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

If we ignore what's going on, the UK is likely to be the
first to have Muslim nuclear warhead detonated on their soil.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !

Are 'they' going to send it by pigeon post or something ?

They don't have to "SEND" it, they can deliver it by a small boat, or
even through the "Chunnel"

Is that so ?

---
Isn't it?


--
JF

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message
...
For Eeyore and Friends......

http://www.al.com/opinion/birmingham...07_stantis.jpg

...Jim Thompson

Yes - "multi-culti" Britain does not know which way to jump: Take sides against
Iran and there will again be riots in the ghettos and, more importantly BAE
might loose contracts with the saudi's, Accept "negociation" on Iran's terms and
be seen as a pushover setting the scene for more of the same (as well as loosing
the next election to whatever anti-immigration party that bothers to stand).

Nero was right: Let them hate us as long as they fear us!

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:01:27 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:


Eeyore wrote:

I'm a famous character.

---
No, you're not. You're merely _posing_ as a cartoon character.

God, I *love* Usenet !

Graham


Right. There's no way we can tell if you actually have a tail and big
hairy ears.

John


I think the evidence he is a sizeable ass is fairly convincing though.

Cheers
Terry

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:57:54 +0100, Eeyore
Gave us:


Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

You didn't see the pictures that were shown to the UN? What were you
sleeping that day too?

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:17:26 +0200,
"
. dk wrote:
[snip]

Nero was right: Let them hate us as long as they fear us!


That is one of the fundamental rules of survival.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

MassiveProng wrote:

Eeyore Gave us:

Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

You didn't see the pictures

Me personally? No.


that were shown to the UN?

By whom ? Were they good snaps ?

Graham

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:35:01 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
Gave us:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:57:54 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
MassiveProng wrote:

I firm;y believe that there were WMDs,

Your opinion isn't shared by the weapons inspectors. They were actually there and you're
just guessing. Guess whose opinion I take more seriously ?

and that they were spirited off to Syria, and that those trailers we saw pics of WERE in
fact mobile chem/bio weapon facilities.

UK weapons inspector Dr David Kelly (he of the 'sexed-up dossier' claim) for example found
an alleged Iraqi mobile chemical wepaons lab to be a facility for launching weather
balloons.

Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

Oh, come on, donkey. Trollfeeding MicroBrain is becoming quite boring.

Said the utter retard that only comments third party.

You're a total pussified asswipe, and I just cam't wait till your
liver gives out. **** off, asswipe.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:35:39 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
Gave us:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:06:46 -0500, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 00:11:12 +0100, Eeyore
ian field wrote:

It might be to the advantage of all coalition members to use this as an
excuse to enter Iran

With what troops ?

Ever hear of "conscription", dumb ass?

Ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation,

You're an idiot.

nazi?

As well as being a total retard.


Thanks,
Rich

No problem, asswipe.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:08:08 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

If you
aren't willing to defend yourself, why should we?

If you're that paranoid and terrified of a terrorist under every bed,
then, maybe you and your fellow neonazis don't deserve to be defended.
--
Cheers!
Rich^H^H^H^HBoBo

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:13:56 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

If we ignore what's going on, the UK is likely to be the
first to have Muslim nuclear warhead detonated on their soil.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha !

Are 'they' going to send it by pigeon post or something ?

Graham

Nah, they'll just sneak it in behind his blinders. ;-)
--
Cheers!
Rich^H^H^H^HBoBo

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:13:32 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
Gave us:


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

So, you expect us to believe that you are a world renowned expert in
military strategy?

If that's what tickles your fancy !

It rather seems to me that it's simply a statement of fact actually.

It's hard to believe that the stooges in the White House could be any less
competent than they are or any less able to come up with useful strategies.

If their answer to a bear in the outhouse is a bomb then it seems they
haven't grasped the question.


That is the answer. You just cover it with a big bowl first. Your
skull would work nicely, were it not for its puny size.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:43:56 -0800, John Larkin
Gave us:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:01:27 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I'm a famous character.

---
No, you're not. You're merely _posing_ as a cartoon character.

God, I *love* Usenet !

Graham

Right. There's no way we can tell if you actually have a tail and big
hairy ears.



Or whether he was colored in using dyes or opaques.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:05:25 +0100, Eeyore
Gave us:



MassiveProng wrote:

Eeyore Gave us:

Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

You didn't see the pictures

Me personally? No.


that were shown to the UN?

By whom ? Were they good snaps ?


If you don't even remember the photos that were shown to the UN
prior to deposing Saddam's murderous regime, you have no business
discussing whether or not they had WMDs in house or in process.

MassiveProng wrote:

Eeyore Gave us:
MassiveProng wrote:
Eeyore Gave us:

Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

You didn't see the pictures

Me personally? No.

that were shown to the UN?

By whom ? Were they good snaps ?

If you don't even remember the photos that were shown to the UN
prior to deposing Saddam's murderous regime, you have no business
discussing whether or not they had WMDs in house or in process.

All the bogus intelligence.

It was bogus.

Graham

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:50:00 +0100, Eeyore
Gave us:



MassiveProng wrote:

Eeyore Gave us:
MassiveProng wrote:
Eeyore Gave us:

Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

You didn't see the pictures

Me personally? No.

that were shown to the UN?

By whom ? Were they good snaps ?

If you don't even remember the photos that were shown to the UN
prior to deposing Saddam's murderous regime, you have no business
discussing whether or not they had WMDs in house or in process.

All the bogus intelligence.

It was bogus.


They didn't draw the photos, you ****ing retard. Your logic is
bogus.

MassiveProng wrote:

Eeyore Gave us:
MassiveProng wrote:
Eeyore Gave us:
MassiveProng wrote:
Eeyore Gave us:

Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

You didn't see the pictures

Me personally? No.

that were shown to the UN?

By whom ? Were they good snaps ?

If you don't even remember the photos that were shown to the UN
prior to deposing Saddam's murderous regime, you have no business
discussing whether or not they had WMDs in house or in process.

All the bogus intelligence.

It was bogus.


They didn't draw the photos, you ****ing retard. Your logic is
bogus.

The interpretation was bogus.

Graham

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:10:44 GMT, Bobo The Chimp
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:08:08 +0000, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

If you
aren't willing to defend yourself, why should we?

If you're that paranoid and terrified of a terrorist under every bed,
then, maybe you and your fellow neonazis don't deserve to be defended.

---
I guess you've never heard that eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty.



--
JF

John Fields wrote:

Bobo The Chimp wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:

If you aren't willing to defend yourself, why should we?

If you're that paranoid and terrified of a terrorist under every bed,
then, maybe you and your fellow neonazis don't deserve to be defended.

---
I guess you've never heard that eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty.

Yet eternal paranoia is what we actually have.

Graham

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 18:13:32 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
wrote:


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...

So, you expect us to believe that you are a world renowned expert in
military strategy?

If that's what tickles your fancy !

It rather seems to me that it's simply a statement of fact actually.

It's hard to believe that the stooges in the White House could be any less
competent than they are or any less able to come up with useful strategies.

---
As opposed to your strategy, which is to get rid of the US, and then
to quote from many sources (as you seem wont to do, not being able
to defend your position on your own) as to why that was _such_ a
good thing, while your throat is being slit?

Or, perhaps, to try to bend the US to your will by virtue of your
weak, self serving arguments?

Try again, loser.
---

If their answer to a bear in the outhouse is a bomb then it seems they
haven't grasped the question.

Dumbass, if you're speaking literally, a single bullet into the bear
would solve the outhouse problem _and_ provide food for a long time.

If you're speaking figuratively, you shouldn't, since you're far too
stupid to understand the intricacies of innuendo.



--
JF

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:50:00 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



MassiveProng wrote:

Eeyore Gave us:
MassiveProng wrote:
Eeyore Gave us:

Why would they have posted perimeter and guards around them if they
were mere "aspirin factories"?

Cite ?

You didn't see the pictures

Me personally? No.

that were shown to the UN?

By whom ? Were they good snaps ?

If you don't even remember the photos that were shown to the UN
prior to deposing Saddam's murderous regime, you have no business
discussing whether or not they had WMDs in house or in process.

All the bogus intelligence.

It was bogus.

---
Oh, now I understand...

You were there and had the chance to analyze the photos, and came up
with your condemnation of the evidence because...???


--
JF