Ron wrote:
On Apr 2, 9:23 pm, gregz wrote:
Ron wrote:

He is still using Windows 98...... seriously.

I have one computer, dual boot win98 se, win 2k. Win 98 is very nice, it's
just that some current things will not handle it.
I'm frustrated at win 7 64 bit, and vista. Would rather go back to xp.

What don't you like about W7?

It's not just w7 . My hp assist always wants to update something. It also
seems to control win update. I say no automatic updates in windows. Hp
comes on and I click off. I work, ready to shut down, says do not shut off
computer, updating. 1 of 3
That night. In the morning still in same spot. One time nothing would work
after update. I'll try to figure a way out. Some of my programs don't load
in w7. I had to update 64 bit printer driver. 32 bit without the hp assist
should be ok. I had a free edition of semantic virus protect, that semantic
would not allow to load, so I use com casts. I had having to reload new
windows all the time. Of course the old windows has no updates, your good
to go.

Greg

On Monday, April 2, 2012 8:23:40 PM UTC-5, Gz wrote:
Ron wrote:
On Apr 2, 5:40 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message

news:30402786.514.1333299965879.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbjk8...









On Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:50:53 AM UTC-6, Steve B wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in message
...
Steve B wrote:

Just thought that you might want to know that since Tuesday this
week, that if you use google-groups to access (read and post)
to usenet, that your posts haven't been leaving the google
server and hence all the rest of us that use REAL NNTP servers
haven't been seeing your posts.

where does that put us aioe users on the scale?

There's no scale here.

There continues to be real NNTP servers peered together in a world-wide
network, and there is Google with their pathetically inferior server
which provides a service branded as "google-groups" which for the past
week (the second time in the past month or two) has allowed users to
post messages but has not transmitted those messages to the outside
usenet world.

AIOE is one of many real NNTP servers. Posts made via AIOE or any
other
real server continue to be propagated between each other - and also to
google's server. So google-group users will see those posts, but
nobody
outside of google will see their posts.

That's fine. You have done what I wanted done. You validated me. Now I
feel much more a part of this group, and don't fear castigation by the
netnannies any more. Or any less.

Just one more question. How does this make a difference in your daily
life,
and what do you do to cope with it?

Steve

His daily life is devoted to being a self-righteous dinosaur.
He would like Google-groups to disappear so that only
dedicated news server users would prevail.

I'm really surprised that he doesn't have one of those sig lines that list
their expensive computer by name, model, and serial number. Makes it hard
for those who configure their own computers, or have them built from
component parts, and which will "blow the doors off" regular computers. Or
those of us who just use what we got.


He is still using Windows 98...... seriously.

I have one computer, dual boot win98 se, win 2k. Win 98 is very nice, it's
just that some current things will not handle it.
I'm frustrated at win 7 64 bit, and vista. Would rather go back to xp.

Greg

At least you can make W7 look and handle a little like XP (I did ^J^)

http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/features.html

Robert Green wrote:

HG's most useless posts are when he accuses Americans of things
that people are doing all over the world

Like illegally invading other countries on the pretext of
"preemtive war"

Weren't Canadian forces fighting with us, shoulder to shoulder?

Not in Iraq. We were not part of that "coalition of the co-opted".

I'm not sure what we did was pre-emptive warfare.

That was how you rationalized it to yourselves.

The pretext was taking WMD out of the hands of a lunatic.

There were no WMD's, and he was not a lunatic.

Saddam Hussein was a strong-man who was keeping islamic fundamentalism
in check in his country. By assassinating him, and by removing Kadaffi
in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt you have insured that radical islamist
fundamentalism will thrive in the middle east - a huge setback for the
goals of global political and military stability.

Do you know that the single largest group of foreign jihaddist fighters
in Afghanistan came from the so-called "freedom fighters" in Libya?
Those same people that you helped "liberate" in Libya are the same ones
that were killing your troops and setting IED's in Afghanistan.

And the same thing is happening in Syria. Those same "freedom fighters"
in Syria that are being attacked by Assad are the ones that are burning
christian churches and killing greek-orthodox christians in Syria.

US foreign policy in the middle east over the past 10 years is playing
right into the hands of islamists and their goal of wiping out
christianity from that region. Put that in your born-again evangelical
pipe and smoke it.

More importantly, how does your attitude and calling people morons
help convert the attitudes of Americans who continually indicate
their desire to play world cop by electing politicians that do so?

First of all, there are morons among you who are anally focused on
whether or not women have access to birth control or abortion and have
no clue and don't ask where candidates stand on foreign policy.

Second, you're not wimpering children. You can handle some harsh and
direct language from time to time. Your media shields you like children
from how you're perceived in the outside world - particularly from other
western countries - and even your friggen next-door-neighbor. It's
really amazing how ignorant you are in that regard.

Propose a path to a better world and I'd have a lot more positive
things to say.

Ron Paul.

On 4/2/2012 8:37 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...
On 4/2/2012 1:10 PM, Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

Some very interesting metal thefts are going on in Californiastan.
Illegal immigrants are suspected for a slightly unusual reason. ^_^



http://www.indystar.com/usatoday/article/53421518?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Home/Garden|s

http://preview.tinyurl.com/6paz97v

At least they're not being melted down. That gives some hope that the
original owners can get their tubas back. I really despise the thieves
that
take historically valuable stuff and melt it down for a fraction of its
worth. Too bad you can't melt down and recycle criminal personalities.
IIRC, there was an episiode of Babylon Five where they did just that -
but
vigilantes hunted down and killed the "erased" guy anyway.

--
Bobby G.


I finally, actually got to watch all the episodes online a few years
ago. Now, I rarely watch broadcast or cable/sat TV because of my high
speed data connection and rather large monitors. I may have a half dozen
computers running at the same time here engaged in simple things like
taking over the world but usually I'm watching movies or TV shows on MY
schedule. I can't recall the last time I went to a movie theater because
I'm so used to watching movies online, even the newest ones.

With HDTV's getting cheaper and cheaper, there's not much point to suffering
behind someone with a beehive or afro that blocks the lower part of the
screen. No rancid popcorn smell, no captive advertising, no popcorn priced
as if it were silver-plated. The only reason people go to the movies is
because they're dating. That leaves me out. I just built a DVR with a 2TB
internal and 2TB external drive. I used to have to record to my Panasonic
DVR and then offload all the video to DVD's. The worst part was labeling
the recordings using a handheld remote and not a keyboard. God, that sucks!
No more of that!

Before you call me a slime ball, I'm disabled to a point where I can't sit
through
a movie in a theater anyway and tomorrow, I'll be on a roof with another
disabled fellow straightening out some commercial refrigeration and AC
equipment. If I can get everything done tomorrow, it will be next week
before I can recover enough to work again. Darn! Everybody I work with
has something physically wrong but at least most of them are sane. o_O

OK - your disability is acknowledged so now I can say "You're a slime ball"
Dufe, but you're *our* slimeball which protects you from insulting
Canadians, boisterous Brits and a few other malcontents.

--
Bobby G.



Why thank you cousin Bobby. ^_^

TDD

"Ron" wrote in message news:011aa3ed-be48-404e-9f4a-

stuff snipped

With HDTV's getting cheaper and cheaper, there's not much point to
suffering
behind someone with a beehive or afro that blocks the lower part of the
screen. No rancid popcorn smell, no captive advertising, no popcorn priced
as if it were silver-plated. The only reason people go to the movies is
because they're dating. That leaves me out.

I go very rarely, but when I do it's something that I really want to
see on a huge IMAX screen and now in 3D. I think the last movie I saw
in a theater was Avatar IMAX 3D. I'm going to see Titanic in IMAX 3D.

I missed Avatar. I'm surprised it hasn't made a return engagement. I've
been thinking about getting a 3D LED TV, but will hold off until the current
non-3D one fails. The prices always drop. (-:

--
Bobby G.

Duesenberg wrote:

I may be wrong but Mozilla 4.79 is Netscape Communicator and 4.79
was the final release of Netscape 4, back in I think 2001.

And a damn-sight better news-reader than google-gropes.

Here's what the user-interface looks like:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/.../navigator.gif

On Apr 3, 12:02*am, gregz wrote:
Ron wrote:
On Apr 2, 9:23 pm, gregz wrote:
Ron wrote:

He is still using Windows 98...... seriously.

I have one computer, dual boot win98 se, win 2k. Win 98 is very nice, it's
just that some current things will not handle it.
I'm frustrated at win 7 64 bit, and vista. Would rather go back to xp.

What don't you like about W7?

It's not just w7 . My hp assist always wants to update something. It also
seems to control win update. I say no automatic updates in windows. Hp
comes on and I click off. I work, ready to shut down, says do not shut off
computer, updating. 1 of 3
That night. In the morning still in same spot. One time nothing would work
after update. I'll try to figure a way out. Some of my programs don't load
in w7. I had to update 64 bit printer driver. 32 bit without the hp assist
should be ok. I had a free edition of semantic virus protect, that semantic
would not allow to load, so I use com casts. I had having to reload new
windows all the time. Of course the old windows has no updates, your good
to go.

I know Comcast offers Norton for free to it's customers, but there are
at least 4 other good antivirus programs that you can use.

Avast! Free
http://www.avast.com/index

Avira Free
http://www.avira.com/en/avira-free-antivirus

AVG Free
http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage

Microsoft Security Essentials Free
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/w...ity-essentials

On Apr 3, 1:34*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Robert Green wrote:
HG's most useless posts are when he accuses Americans of things
that people are doing all over the world

Like illegally invading other countries on the pretext of
"preemtive war"

Weren't Canadian forces fighting with us, shoulder to shoulder?

Not in Iraq. *We were not part of that "coalition of the co-opted".

I'm not sure what we did was pre-emptive warfare.

That was how you rationalized it to yourselves.

The pretext was taking WMD out of the hands of a lunatic.

There were no WMD's, and he was not a lunatic.

Saddam Hussein was a strong-man who was keeping islamic fundamentalism
in check in his country. *By assassinating him, and by removing Kadaffi
in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt you have insured that radical islamist
fundamentalism will thrive in the middle east - a huge setback for the
goals of global political and military stability.

Do you know that the single largest group of foreign jihaddist fighters
in Afghanistan came from the so-called "freedom fighters" in Libya?
Those same people that you helped "liberate" in Libya are the same ones
that were killing your troops and setting IED's in Afghanistan.

And the same thing is happening in Syria. *Those same "freedom fighters"
in Syria that are being attacked by Assad are the ones that are burning
christian churches and killing greek-orthodox christians in Syria.

US foreign policy in the middle east over the past 10 years is playing
right into the hands of islamists and their goal of wiping out
christianity from that region. *Put that in your born-again evangelical
pipe and smoke it.

More importantly, how does your attitude and calling people morons
help convert the attitudes of Americans who continually indicate
their desire to play world cop by electing politicians that do so?

First of all, there are morons among you who are anally focused on
whether or not women have access to birth control or abortion and have
no clue and don't ask where candidates stand on foreign policy.

Second, you're not wimpering children. *You can handle some harsh and
direct language from time to time. *Your media shields you like children
from how you're perceived in the outside world - particularly from other
western countries - and even your friggen next-door-neighbor. *It's
really amazing how ignorant you are in that regard.

Propose a path to a better world and I'd have a lot more positive
things to say.

Ron Paul.

The weapons sent to Libya have now found their way into Mali. already
we have a revolution there.
Next, Niger and Mauretania. Maybe even Algeria and Morocco

On Apr 3, 2:18*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Duesenberg wrote:
I may be wrong but Mozilla 4.79 is Netscape Communicator and 4.79
was the final release of Netscape 4, back in I think 2001.

And a damn-sight better news-reader than google-gropes.

Here's what the user-interface looks like:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/.../navigator.gif

The problem with Google seems to have gone away fort he moment at
least.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:06:05 -0700, Roy wrote:

He would like Google-groups to disappear so that only dedicated news
server users would prevail.

I use the aioe USENET news server simply because my ISP doesn't provide
an NNTP server as part of any service plan. So I'm relieved it's a 'real'
NNTP news server.

However, what bothers me (if I may regress) is the fact that a Google
groups (groups.google.com) search for information is so clouded with the
'other' google groups that I can never find anything anymore.

I can't even find posts I know exist ... simply because they are clouded
by the many groups that aren't USENET newsgroups. Sigh.

BTW, if it's not groups.google.com, what do 'you' use for keyword
searching for only nntp newsgroup articles?

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:06:05 -0700, Roy wrote:

He would like Google-groups to disappear so that only dedicated news
server users would prevail.

I use the aioe USENET news server simply because my ISP doesn't provide
an NNTP server as part of any service plan. So I'm relieved it's a 'real'
NNTP news server.

However, what bothers me (if I may regress) is the fact that a Google
groups (groups.google.com) search for information is so clouded with the
'other' google groups that I can never find anything anymore.

I can't even find posts I know exist ... simply because they are clouded
by the many groups that aren't USENET newsgroups. Sigh.

BTW, if it's not groups.google.com, what do 'you' use for keyword
searching for only nntp newsgroup articles?

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:06:05 -0700, Roy wrote:

He would like Google-groups to disappear so that only dedicated news
server users would prevail.

I use the aioe USENET news server simply because my ISP doesn't provide
an NNTP server as part of any service plan. So I'm relieved it's a 'real'
NNTP news server.

However, what bothers me (if I may regress) is the fact that a Google
groups (groups.google.com) search for information is so clouded with the
'other' google groups that I can never find anything anymore.

I can't even find posts I know exist ... simply because they are clouded
by the many groups that aren't USENET newsgroups. Sigh.

BTW, if it's not groups.google.com, what do 'you' use for keyword
searching for only nntp newsgroup articles?

On Apr 3, 12:24*pm, "Martin C."
wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 10:06:05 -0700, Roy wrote:
He would like Google-groups to disappear so that only dedicated news
server users would prevail.

I use the aioe USENET news server simply because my ISP doesn't provide
an NNTP server as part of any service plan. So I'm relieved it's a 'real'
NNTP news server.

However, what bothers me (if I may regress) is the fact that a Google
groups (groups.google.com) search for information is so clouded with the
'other' google groups that I can never find anything anymore.

I can't even find posts I know exist ... simply because they are clouded
by the many groups that aren't USENET newsgroups. Sigh.

BTW, if it's not groups.google.com, what do 'you' use for keyword
searching for only nntp newsgroup articles?

Set up a GG account and you can search for something in a particular
group.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 21:25:32 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:10:11 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Too bad you can't melt down and recycle criminal personalities.

ow, ow, ow... I have some ideas...!

Oh, they melt alright. It's the recycling that gets sticky.

Many things get sticky when you melt them down but criminal personalities?

On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:23:52 -0700, "Steve B" wrote:


"Ron" wrote

He is still using Windows 98...... seriously.

Are you saying that he is using it in a serious studious manner, or is it
that you are saying that you are positive that he is still using it?

Check his headers:

X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U)

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
Robert Green wrote:

HG's most useless posts are when he accuses Americans of things
that people are doing all over the world

Like illegally invading other countries on the pretext of
"preemtive war"

Weren't Canadian forces fighting with us, shoulder to shoulder?

Not in Iraq. We were not part of that "coalition of the co-opted".

http://www.arabamericannews.com/news...da&article=984

Says differently.

I'm not sure what we did was pre-emptive warfare.

That was how you rationalized it to yourselves.

The pretext was taking WMD out of the hands of a lunatic.

There were no WMD's, and he was not a lunatic.

You do know what "pretext" means?

Saddam Hussein was a strong-man who was keeping islamic fundamentalism
in check in his country. By assassinating him, and by removing Kadaffi
in Libya and Mubarak in Egypt you have insured that radical islamist
fundamentalism will thrive in the middle east - a huge setback for the
goals of global political and military stability.

No dispute there. You think we would have learned when we encouraged the
Palestinians to be democratic and they elected Hamas. But I am not
convinced "we" did all those things. It may be the Wikileaks got that ball
rolling.

Do you know that the single largest group of foreign jihaddist fighters
in Afghanistan came from the so-called "freedom fighters" in Libya?
Those same people that you helped "liberate" in Libya are the same ones
that were killing your troops and setting IED's in Afghanistan.

Wouldn't doubt it.

And the same thing is happening in Syria. Those same "freedom fighters"
in Syria that are being attacked by Assad are the ones that are burning
christian churches and killing greek-orthodox christians in Syria.

I'm convinced that it's a local problem and not ours. So is the Iran nuke
issue. Saudi Arabia has enough of our petrodollars to deal with the issue,
but they'd rather have us do it. So would Israel.

US foreign policy in the middle east over the past 10 years is playing
right into the hands of islamists and their goal of wiping out
christianity from that region. Put that in your born-again evangelical
pipe and smoke it.

You must have me confused with what my Aussie friends call "a God botherer."

More importantly, how does your attitude and calling people morons
help convert the attitudes of Americans who continually indicate
their desire to play world cop by electing politicians that do so?

First of all, there are morons among you who are anally focused on
whether or not women have access to birth control or abortion and have
no clue and don't ask where candidates stand on foreign policy.

Doesn't seem to answer my question. How does calling people "morons" help
change, and not harden, their attitudes?

Second, you're not wimpering children. You can handle some harsh and
direct language from time to time. Your media shields you like children
from how you're perceived in the outside world - particularly from other
western countries - and even your friggen next-door-neighbor. It's
really amazing how ignorant you are in that regard.

I'm pretty well aware of how my relatives in Italy, my friends in England,
Canada, Oz, NZ and Japan think of the US. Again, you must mean some other
"you."

Propose a path to a better world and I'd have a lot more positive
things to say.

Ron Paul.

Propose a *viable* path to a better world. A guy who could only get elected
if all other Presidential candidates were suddenly kidnapped by aliens isn't
going to get you to that better world.

--
Bobby G.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:15:26 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Weren't Canadian forces fighting with us, shoulder to shoulder?

Not in Iraq. We were not part of that "coalition of the co-opted".

http://www.arabamericannews.com/news...da&article=984

Says differently.

They fought in Afghanistan -- SNIPERS from Princess Patricia's
Canadian Light Infantry.

Video:

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/afghanistan-conflict/canadian-snipers-world-record-kill/1123560164001/

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 14:15:26 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Weren't Canadian forces fighting with us, shoulder to shoulder?

Not in Iraq. We were not part of that "coalition of the co-opted".


http://www.arabamericannews.com/news...t=Canada&artic
le=984

Says differently.

They fought in Afghanistan -- SNIPERS from Princess Patricia's
Canadian Light Infantry.

So, you're saying that Canadians are good at sniping. (-: Who woulda
guessed?

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

Weren't Canadian forces fighting with us, shoulder to shoulder?

Not in Iraq. We were not part of that "coalition of the co-opted".

http://www.arabamericannews.com/news...da&article=984

Says differently.

Read this:

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

This probably sums it up nicely:

============
Military participation

Though no declaration of war was issued, the Governor General-in-Council
did order the mobilization of a number of Canadian Forces personnel to
serve actively in Iraq.[1] On 31 March 2003, it was reported in
Maclean's that in the previous month Canadian officers, aboard three
frigates and a destroyer, had been placed in command of the
multinational naval group Task Force 151, which patrolled the Persian
Gulf region. A further 30 Canadians worked at the US Central Command in
Qatar, and 150 troops were on exchange with US and British forces in
proximity to combat.[3] North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)
stationed Canadian Air Force pilots also flew combat missions with the
US Air Force E-3 Sentry, and exchange officers fought with US units. In
all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict.

It was claimed by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang in The Unexpected
War that people from Canadian ministries were in Washington, D.C.,
openly vaunting Canada's participation in Iraq;[1] as Stein and Lang put
it: "in an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly
about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it
violated core principles of multilateralism and support for the United
Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers
and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling
anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by
some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort
in Iraq– three ships and 100 exchange officers– exceeded that of all but
three other countries that were formally part of the coalition."[5][1]
===============

If your idea of participation includes soldiers with boots on the
ground, riding in tanks or APC's and actually firing a few bullets, then
no - Canada was not an active participant in the illegal US-led invasion
of Iraq.

This paragraph explains the political argument:

===============
While Canada had previously participated military action against Iraq in
the Gulf War of 1991, it refused to declare war against Iraq without
United Nations approval. Even so, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said on
October 10, 2002 that Canada would, in fact, be part of a military
coalition to invade Iraq if it were sanctioned by the United Nations.
However, when the United States and the United Kingdom subsequently
withdrew their diplomatic efforts to gain that UN sanction, Jean
Chrétien announced in Parliament on March 17, 2003 that Canada would NOT
participate in the pending invasion.
===============

During Bush's last press conference before the invasion, he was asked if
the US was going to ask for a security council vote authorizing military
action against Iraq.

Bush responded to the question by stating yes, that he was going to call
for a "whip vote" on the WMD issue. This was during the time that the
US was bugging the offices of certain UN member states that were sitting
on the security council, trying to determine how they would vote on the
issue.

In the end, the US did not call for the "whip vote", and decided to
invade Iraq on it's own accord - not as a UN-sanctioned operation.

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 20:31:48 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

In the end, the US did not call for the "whip vote", and decided to
invade Iraq on it's own accord - not as a UN-sanctioned operation.

Fu ck the UN

Oren wrote:

In the end, the US did not call for the "whip vote", and
decided to invade Iraq on it's own accord - not as a UN-
sanctioned operation.

Fu ck the UN

The jokes on you. You (the US) Fu cked yourself (over Iraq).

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

If your idea of participation includes soldiers with boots on the
ground, riding in tanks or APC's and actually firing a few bullets, then
no - Canada was not an active participant in the illegal US-led invasion
of Iraq.

I use the "felony accomplice" rule in rating participation. That's where
the driver AND the shooter get the death penalty even if the driver was
waiting outside in the car. You don't have to shoot a gun to help in the
war effort.

In the end, the US did not call for the "whip vote", and decided to
invade Iraq on it's own accord - not as a UN-sanctioned operation.

If you read some of my past posts, you'll see I didn't believe in either of
the two latest wars. It's foolish to believe you can "deny terrorists a
base to operate" when they can simply move one country over. We forget that
Timothy McVeigh operated freely in the US. Under Bush logic, we should
invade any US state that harbored McVeigh. We blamed the Afghanis for
allowing the Taliban to train terrorists yet WE couldn't remove the Taliban
after ten years of effort by the world's strongest military. We expected of
them what we couldn't do ourselves. US public opinion is now shifted quite
strongly against the war. Took them long enough.

As for Iraq, I would have pressed the Saudis *hard* for reparations. The
terrorists were mostly Saudis backed by Saudi money. Iraq had little or
nothing to do with 9/11 although apologists will draw connections so tenuous
it would make a climate change zealot blush.

--
Bobby G.

On Apr 4, 4:33*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in ....
Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

If your idea of participation includes soldiers with boots on the
ground, riding in tanks or APC's and actually firing a few bullets, then
no - Canada was not an active participant in the illegal US-led invasion
of Iraq.

I use the "felony accomplice" rule in rating participation. *That's where
the driver AND the shooter get the death penalty even if the driver was
waiting outside in the car. *You don't have to shoot a gun to help in the
war effort.

In the end, the US did not call for the "whip vote", and decided to
invade Iraq on it's own accord - not as a UN-sanctioned operation.

If you read some of my past posts, you'll see I didn't believe in either of
the two latest wars. *It's foolish to believe you can "deny terrorists a
base to operate" when they can simply move one country over. *We forget that
Timothy McVeigh operated freely in the US. *Under Bush logic, we should
invade any US state that harbored McVeigh. *We blamed the Afghanis for
allowing the Taliban to train terrorists yet WE couldn't remove the Taliban
after ten years of effort by the world's strongest military. *We expected of
them what we couldn't do ourselves. *US public opinion is now shifted quite
strongly against the war. *Took them long enough.

As for Iraq, I would have pressed the Saudis *hard* for reparations. *The
terrorists were mostly Saudis backed by Saudi money. *Iraq had little or
nothing to do with 9/11 although apologists will draw connections so tenuous
it would make a climate change zealot blush.

--
Bobby G.

Ah well, the next war will be Iran. More taxpayer's dollars.
It's all whipped up by these ****ing Zionists.

Robert Green wrote:

If you read some of my past posts, you'll see I didn't believe in
either of the two latest wars. It's foolish to believe you can "deny
terrorists a base to operate" when they can simply move one country
over. We forget that Timothy McVeigh operated freely in the US.
Under Bush logic, we should invade any US state that harbored
McVeigh. We blamed the Afghanis for allowing the Taliban to train
terrorists yet WE couldn't remove the Taliban after ten years of
effort by the world's strongest military. We expected of them what
we couldn't do ourselves. US public opinion is now shifted quite
strongly against the war. Took them long enough.

You misunderstand our goal in Afghanistan. Our goal is not to "win;" our
goal is "not to lose."

True, we've been there eleven years. We've been in Korea for fifty and in
Germany for even longer. Because of these deployments, at leat partially,
Russia hasn't invaded the West, North Korea hasn't invaded the South, and
the Taliban, or their buddies, hasn't wreaked havoc here.

HeyBub wrote:

You misunderstand our goal in Afghanistan. Our goal is not to
"win;" our goal is "not to lose."

True, we've been there eleven years. We've been in Korea for fifty
and in Germany for even longer. Because of these deployments, at
leat partially, Russia hasn't invaded the West, North Korea hasn't
invaded the South, and the Taliban, or their buddies, hasn't
wreaked havoc here.

It wasn't the taliban that "wreaked" havoc on 9/11.

It was 19 Saudis.

Yet you had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia at the time, and for a
decade prior. That didn't seem to help anything.

"Home Guy" wrote in message ...
HeyBub wrote:

You misunderstand our goal in Afghanistan. Our goal is not to
"win;" our goal is "not to lose."

True, we've been there eleven years. We've been in Korea for fifty
and in Germany for even longer. Because of these deployments, at
leat partially, Russia hasn't invaded the West, North Korea hasn't
invaded the South, and the Taliban, or their buddies, hasn't
wreaked havoc here.

It wasn't the taliban that "wreaked" havoc on 9/11.

It was 19 Saudis.


Who were PART of the Taliban
Talk about being superficial


Yet you had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia at the time, and for a
decade prior. That didn't seem to help anything.

Since it wasn't an attack by the Saudi government, but by individuals who
were members of the NOT-NATIONALIST Taliban, the point that the attackers
were mostly Saudi citizens, like the leader of the Taliban, is a red herring
to distract the idiots.
Clearly it worked with you.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 4:33 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Home Guy" wrote in
...
Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

If your idea of participation includes soldiers with boots on the
ground, riding in tanks or APC's and actually firing a few bullets,
then
no - Canada was not an active participant in the illegal US-led
invasion
of Iraq.

I use the "felony accomplice" rule in rating participation. That's where
the driver AND the shooter get the death penalty even if the driver was
waiting outside in the car. You don't have to shoot a gun to help in the
war effort.

In the end, the US did not call for the "whip vote", and decided to
invade Iraq on it's own accord - not as a UN-sanctioned operation.

If you read some of my past posts, you'll see I didn't believe in either
of
the two latest wars. It's foolish to believe you can "deny terrorists a
base to operate" when they can simply move one country over. We forget
that
Timothy McVeigh operated freely in the US. Under Bush logic, we should
invade any US state that harbored McVeigh. We blamed the Afghanis for
allowing the Taliban to train terrorists yet WE couldn't remove the
Taliban
after ten years of effort by the world's strongest military. We expected
of
them what we couldn't do ourselves. US public opinion is now shifted
quite
strongly against the war. Took them long enough.

As for Iraq, I would have pressed the Saudis *hard* for reparations. The
terrorists were mostly Saudis backed by Saudi money. Iraq had little or
nothing to do with 9/11 although apologists will draw connections so
tenuous
it would make a climate change zealot blush.

--
Bobby G.

Ah well, the next war will be Iran. More taxpayer's dollars.
It's all whipped up by these ****ing Zionists.

The little Brit NAZI surfaces like a zit.

Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

You misunderstand our goal in Afghanistan. Our goal is not to
"win;" our goal is "not to lose."

True, we've been there eleven years. We've been in Korea for fifty
and in Germany for even longer. Because of these deployments, at
leat partially, Russia hasn't invaded the West, North Korea hasn't
invaded the South, and the Taliban, or their buddies, hasn't
wreaked havoc here.

It wasn't the taliban that "wreaked" havoc on 9/11.

It was 19 Saudis.

Yet you had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia at the time, and for a
decade prior. That didn't seem to help anything.

Correction: We had NO troops in Saudi Arabia (except for the Marine Guard at
the consulates and embassy and a handful of military trainers) prior to
9/11. We have none now.

HeyBub wrote:

It wasn't the taliban that "wreaked" havoc on 9/11.

It was 19 Saudis.

Yet you had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia at the time, and
for a decade prior. That didn't seem to help anything.

Correction: We had NO troops in Saudi Arabia (except for the Marine
Guard at the consulates and embassy and a handful of military
trainers) prior to 9/11. We have none now.

Here is where I prove you wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...m_Saudi_Arabia

===============
Beginning during Operation Desert Shield in August 1990, while preparing
for the Gulf War, the United States sent a troop contingent to Saudi
Arabia. After the war, the troops remained, under Operation Southern
Watch.

Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina)
— many Muslims were upset at the permanent military presence. The
continued presence of US troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was
one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist
attacks[1] and the Khobar Towers bombing. The date of the 1998 United
States embassy bombings was eight years to the day (August 7) that
American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia.[2] Bin Laden interpreted the
Prophet Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in
Arabia".[3]

On April 29, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would be
withdrawing US troops from the country stating that the Iraq War no
longer required the support. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
had earlier said that the continuing US presence in the kingdom was
putting American lives in danger. The announcement came one day after
the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) was shifted from Prince Sultan
Air Base to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

The move was controversial, as some said that it was a needless
contingent that only enraged Muslim populations, while others said that
the United States were caving to the demands of Osama bin Laden.

U.S. officials transferred control of portions of Prince Sultan Air Base
to Saudi officials at a ceremony on August 26, 2003. The base had been
home to about 60,000 US personnel over time.
===============

How do you respond to that?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Robert Green wrote:

If you read some of my past posts, you'll see I didn't believe in
either of the two latest wars. It's foolish to believe you can "deny
terrorists a base to operate" when they can simply move one country
over. We forget that Timothy McVeigh operated freely in the US.
Under Bush logic, we should invade any US state that harbored
McVeigh. We blamed the Afghanis for allowing the Taliban to train
terrorists yet WE couldn't remove the Taliban after ten years of
effort by the world's strongest military. We expected of them what
we couldn't do ourselves. US public opinion is now shifted quite
strongly against the war. Took them long enough.

You misunderstand our goal in Afghanistan. Our goal is not to "win;" our
goal is "not to lose."

Arf, arf. Whatever that means. I am sure it's a comfort to all the widows
and orphans of US soldiers that have died there.

True, we've been there eleven years. We've been in Korea for fifty and in
Germany for even longer. Because of these deployments, at leat partially,
Russia hasn't invaded the West,

I care why? We've shouldered the cost of defending Europe and the Middle
East for way too long. It's not like they're grateful for it either. Look
at Harry, for chrissakes. Let them pay their own way. As for invading
Europe, Russia's having a hard enough time holding on to Chechnya and
Georgia. They have left Europe alone because it would be foolish not to.
If you can't hang on to what you have, what sense is there in grabbing more?

North Korea hasn't invaded the South, and

North Korea hasn't invaded the south because they're bankrupt and China's
probably far less likely to come to their aid than they were in the 50's.
NK's likelihood of fighting against the SK's and their American allies and
winning is just about zero. They could make a mess, but that's about it.

the Taliban, or their buddies, hasn't wreaked havoc here.

It's hard to simply move into the next country over when there's an Atlantic
Ocean in the way. I think the ocean, the NoFly list, increased security and
increased suspicion of anyone looking remotely Arabic has had the most to do
with keeping the Taliban and their agents out. A great deal of their animus
is related to the fact that we're over there occupying their countries. We
would react the same way if China decided we were a threat to them and tried
to station troops here. We would obviously try to kick them the fu& out in
a NY second. The only difference is that the Afghanis have no hope of
resisting us the way we could resist a Chinese invasion force. They've done
a remarkable job of denying us victory for over a decade, though.

FWIW, there's an office in the basement of the Pentagon behind thick steel
walls that has detailed plans of how China (and every other major power)
might invade the US. Just a few Chinese super freighters or oil tankers
modified into stealth troop ships, Trojan Horse style, could land enough
troops in key California cities to make it a very bloody deal to try to
drive them out. The spending cuts that two wars of choice have lead us to
will come just in time to cripple us in the face of real enemies and wars
that we have NO choice but to engage in. Heckuva a job, Bush, the President
who cried "wolf!"

--
Bobby G.

Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

It wasn't the taliban that "wreaked" havoc on 9/11.

It was 19 Saudis.

Yet you had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia at the time, and
for a decade prior. That didn't seem to help anything.

Correction: We had NO troops in Saudi Arabia (except for the Marine
Guard at the consulates and embassy and a handful of military
trainers) prior to 9/11. We have none now.

Here is where I prove you wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...m_Saudi_Arabia

===============
Beginning during Operation Desert Shield in August 1990, while
preparing for the Gulf War, the United States sent a troop contingent
to Saudi Arabia. After the war, the troops remained, under Operation
Southern Watch.


How do you respond to that?

That was for the First Gulf War and we were there at the invitation of the
Saudis. After the 1st Gulf War, all our troops were withdrawn. By the time
of 911, we had only a skeleton crew in country.

HeyBub wrote:

Yet you had thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia at the time,

Correction: We had NO troops in Saudi Arabia (except for the
Marine Guard at the consulates and embassy and a handful of
military trainers) prior to 9/11. We have none now.

Here is where I prove you wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...m_Saudi_Arabia

How do you respond to that?

That was for the First Gulf War and we were there at the
invitation of the Saudis. After the 1st Gulf War, all our
troops were withdrawn. By the time of 911, we had only a
skeleton crew in country.

Again, you are either intentionally making false statements or you are
hopelessly ignorant of the history of the military deployments made by
your own country.

I suggest you look at this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/30/usa.iraq

================
America signals withdrawal of troops from Saudi Arabia

Oliver Burkeman in Washington
The Guardian, Wednesday 30 April 2003 08.31 BST

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, yesterday signalled a
transformation in the US military presence in the Gulf region by
announcing that all but a handful of American troops will be pulled out
of Saudi Arabia by summer's end.

Despite vociferously insisting this week that the US is not "pulling
out" of the country, the defence secretary's announcement amounted to
that, reducing the 5,000 troops there to 400, who will mainly be there
to train Saudi soldiers.

The Prince Sultan air base, largely rebuilt at a great cost to the US,
will be largely abandoned, with none of the 200 American planes
currently there remaining by the end of August.

But behind the military considerations, the move is a major positive
gesture by Washington towards the Saudi royal family, for whom a
high-profile US military presence creates internal pressure, stoking
militant opposition.

"The US will have greater freedom of action, the Saudis will feel more
comfortable, and neither of them will have to mention that it was a key
demand of Osama bin Laden."
==============

This article is more direct:

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defc...smanbases.html

==============
Contrary to original U.S. promises to its Arab allies, the 1991 Gulf War
left behind large military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and basing
rights in the other Gulf states of Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and the United
Arab Emirates. The war also heightened the profile of existing U.S. air
bases in Turkey.

The war completed the American inheritance of the oil region from which
the British had withdrawn in the early 1970s. Yet the U.S. itself only
imports about 5 percent of its oil from the Gulf; the rest is exported
mainly to Europe and Japan. French President Jacques Chirac correctly
viewed the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf as securing control over oil
sources for the European and East Asian economic powers.

The U.S. decided to permanently station bases around the Gulf after 1991
not only to counter Saddam Hussein, and to support the continued bombing
against Iraq, but to quell potential internal dissent in the oil-rich
monarchies.
==============

Any web-search on the topic will reveal that the US (and the UK) kept
significant military resources and thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia
well after the first gulf war.

This started after the US showed Saudi Arabia fabricated evidence that
Saddam Hussein was staging tanks along SA's boarder. This trickery
motived SA to "invite" the US to establish a military presence in SA to
protect it from an Iraqi invasion that was never going to happen.

It's obvious that you want to actively deny the facts here as you
continue to assert that the US had no significant military presence in
SA after Gulf War 1.

For an excellent explanation of US - Saudi Arabian relations and
history, you might want to educate yourself by reading this:

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a7.html

You can just skip down about 1/3 to this section:

THE U.S. MILITARY RETURNS TO SAUDI ARABIA

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

I censor myself all the time

Careful, do it too much and you'll go blind and get arthritis in you hand.
(-:

--
Bobby G.

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:10:36 AM UTC-6, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

I censor myself all the time

Careful, do it too much and you'll go blind and get arthritis in you hand.
(-:

--
Bobby G.

He can always change hands.

On Apr 12, 12:11*pm, Roy wrote:
On Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:10:36 AM UTC-6, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...

I censor myself all the time

Careful, do it too much and you'll go blind and get arthritis in you hand.
(-:

--
Bobby G.

He can always change hands.

Do you have to cut them off first?

On 4/12/2012 3:10 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"The Daring wrote in message
...

I censor myself all the time

Careful, do it too much and you'll go blind and get arthritis in you hand.
(-:

--
Bobby G.



I already have arthritis in my hands but no matter, my balls itch and I
must take action. o_O

TDD

On Mar 30, 5:52*pm, Home Guy wrote:
Just thought that you might want to know that since Tuesday this week,
all of you Klowns (that don't know how to use a proper usenet client
paired with any two-bit REAL usenet server) that if you use
google-groups to access (read and post) to usenet, that your posts
haven't been leaving the google server and hence all the rest of us that
use REAL NNTP servers haven't been seeing your posts.

So if you throw a tantrum and post a wise-ass response to this - we
won't see it.

YEAH RIGHT...
THESE SHENANIGANS LOST YOU THE UNIVERSITY ACCESS SERVER PRIVILEGES.
KEEP THIS LOWLIFE VINDICTIVE CRAP UP AND YOU'LL LOSE MORE.

PATECUM
TGITM

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

YEAH RIGHT...
THESE SHENANIGANS LOST YOU THE UNIVERSITY ACCESS SERVER PRIVILEGES.

WTF are you talking about?

KEEP THIS LOWLIFE VINDICTIVE CRAP UP AND YOU'LL LOSE MORE.

You've obviously lost your mind.

And - your caps-lock is stuck you bone-head.

By the way, how are things in Doylestown PA?

On Apr 19, 8:02*pm, Home Guy wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

YEAH RIGHT...
THESE SHENANIGANS LOST YOU THE UNIVERSITY ACCESS SERVER PRIVILEGES.

WTF are you talking about?

KEEP THIS LOWLIFE VINDICTIVE CRAP UP AND YOU'LL LOSE MORE.

You've obviously lost your mind.

And - your caps-lock is stuck you bone-head.

By the way, how are things in Doylestown PA?

LISTEN UP HOMO GUY.
YOU GOT AN F IN BASIC USENET.
NOW SHUT UP AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK, FOOL.

TGITM

On Friday, March 30, 2012 5:52:19 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:
Just thought that you might want to know that since Tuesday this week,

all of you Klowns (that don't know how to use a proper usenet client

paired with any two-bit REAL usenet server) that if you use

google-groups to access (read and post) to usenet, that your posts

haven't been leaving the google server and hence all the rest of us that

use REAL NNTP servers haven't been seeing your posts.



So if you throw a tantrum and post a wise-ass response to this - we

won't see it.