"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , RAM^3 says...

Has it? Where is the followup attack to 9/11 in the US?

7/7 in London.

I think this was where I came it. Dave said it was
"beneath me" to point this out. Our efforts in
iraq no matter how splendid at spending our tax
dollars have not stopped terrorism at all.

They seem to be concentrating all the insurgents
instead, so they can attend postgraduate terrorism
school in the universtity that we ourselves have
created.

Jim

You expected otherwise? g

One of the obvious trademarks of the Al Queda network is their penchant for
grandstanding: big operations on easily-remembered dates. They also tend to
use troops from a wide range of countries.

Now that their training camps in Afghanistan have been closed, they've been
sending their trainees to Iraq for some "stand-up-shoot-back target
practice" which has, also, culled their ranks of some of their dumber
recruits.

The recent events in Lebanon would seem to indicate that the Syrian-backed
training camps may ALSO be soon closed. This appearance is strengthened by
the increasing number of graduates of those camps being identified as being
within Iraq. [They knew better than to try going to Israel. G]

As to "concentrating" their forces, I'd guess that they, actually, have less
than 5,000 - excluding sympathizers - world-wide. (It doesn't take many: ask
the IRA how many "active" people that they have. G)

One good thing about their "concentration" in Iraq: there our personnel can
take effective action against them. If they're hiding out in the US or the
UK then the local laws are so rigged that they have to be caught AFTER they
commit an act - something difficult to do when the act eliminates the
perpetrator - and then provide them with lots of "Photo Opportunities",
Media Interviews, and other publicity for their "cause".

Another good thing about their "concentration" in Iraq: the attraction to
Iraq of extremist removes them from their "parent" countries thus reducing
the risk that they'll create havoc there. This contributes significantly to
the peace and stability of the region and, at the same time, allows their
"parent" government to legitimately disavow them and their actions to the
rest of the world while ALSO allowing them to disavow any complicity in the
death/capture/detainment of these "young" people.

A major turning point was passed when the so-called "insurgents" [aka
terrorists] shifted their focus from the Coalition troops to Iraqi troops
and civilians. This marked their recognition that their initial efforts to
return Saddam Hussein to power was dead and that they were in for a long,
drawn-out, war to take over the government of Iraq and, eventually, become
the preeminent power in the Middle East [Saddam's Dream] and the Muslim
World [Khomeni's Dream].

In case you've forgotten, to them, the Crusades are "current events"...

Far, far too many people, today, think that the 4-day attack is all that
there is to a war since that's about their attention span limit. They forget
that it took far longer than that just to take Okinawa - a much smaller
area - and that there were Japanese troops coming down from the hills for
over 25 years after their government had surrendered. They also forget the
hard-fought campaign in the US Territory of Alaska [along the Aleutian
Islands] and both the shelling of Southern California and the bombing of
Oregon and Washington by the Japanese.

Why should this war be any different?

Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on
Thu, 07 Jul 2005 03:33:47 GMT in misc.survivalism :

Will Gunner be changing addresses or forming a sub country?
If the former, please have him leave his heart surgery behind :)

He has a heart?

I sure do. Ripped from the chest of a dip **** mouthy liberal and kept
in a jar of Quevos Gold.

Eeew! What a waste of the Quevos.

--
pyotr filipivich
"MTV may talk about lighting fires and killing children,
but Janet Reno actually does something about it." --Spy Magazine

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:40:44 -0500, B.B.
. ru wrote:

Diplomacy. We're nice to the Canadians, so they don't try to hurt us.

There's also a bit of a military imbalance between the US and Canada
which might enter into it if they decided to be a problem, isn't there?

The idea that Canada tolerates us only out of fear of our military
strength is pretty silly. Especially now that our military is on the
other side of the planet, and a wee bit preoccupied.

Call it a wild idea, but I think if we'd stop blowing up people in
the Middle East, stop ****ing with their governments, and stop
threatening them with all kinds of trade sanctions the population at
large would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help
us find any actual terrorists that may stick around.

That's a _great_ idea. No, really. Let's all just give the terrorists
a big hug, and maybe they'll be nice to us. Yeah, that's it.

Where did I say hug? Be specific--don't just make up a bunch of ****.

Or maybe, they'd see it as an act of cowardice and weakness, just like
they saw all of Clinton's useless responses to the increasing level of
terrorist actions during his tenure. Had he responded strongly, they
wouldn't have escalated.

Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on the
rise since Bush began "responding strongly"?
From all that I've seen terrorism is more or less a byproduct of a
conflict. Trying to eliminate terrorism by warfare is akin to trying to
burn away ashes.

Not true. And speaking of treason...how are you Anti-Bush and anti-war
types doing about the terrorists?

Nothing--we can't.

Really? Nothing at all?

Nothing I can think of. Care to offer a few ideas?

The republican nutjobs have pretty much total
control of the US and therefore are the source of all the current
massive ****ups unfolding all of the US and Iraq. Congrats.

Tell me again how that congressional vote worked, please, you know, the
one to take action in Iraq? I seem to recall that a few people on
the blue side of the aisle voted for it too... and do you need to see
the quotes again?

So are you implying that the Iraq war is a ****up? But above you
said we needed to respond strongly. Could you explain that apparent
contradiction?
But if you noticed the mass protests after that vote you'll see that
the democratic wing of congress diverged from its base pretty wildly in
that case.

Only the touchy feely Leftists would consider there to be anything
resembling "safety" in any place outside of a police state.

Get used to the idea that people are going to get killed--has
happened ever since the beginning of history, and probably since far
before that. Traditionally, the easiest way to keep yourself from
getting killed is to just make friends with everyone around you.

Or, to have a bigger stick than the gorilla who is trying to steal your
stuff or kill you.

The terrorists are not gorillas. They are people and think pretty
much the same way all other people think. What works for controlling
one group will likewise work for controlling terrorists.
Trying to pretend otherwise has only caused problems so far.

Easy
and cheap and comes with a lot of fringe benefits.

Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that
they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive.

It won't stop them, and I allowed for that: "population at large
would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help us
find any actual terrorists that may stick around."

OTOH, beating down everyone who might become a threat has never
worked for long. Eventually people get tired of it and fight back.

And yet, when we do that to the terrorists, you want us to stop so we
can have a group-hug.

You're the only one talking about hugging, bub.

Even those who don't want to fight against you also won't want to help.
Terrorism breeds pretty quickly in that sort of environment. In the
end, people get killed anyway, the only difference is that their lives
sucked before they died in a police state.

And who do you feel lives in a police state, exactly?

Singapore, for one.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:40:44 -0500, "B.B."
. ru wrote:

Diplomacy. We're nice to the Canadians, so they don't try to hurt us.
Call it a wild idea, but I think if we'd stop blowing up people in
the Middle East, stop ****ing with their governments, and stop
threatening them with all kinds of trade sanctions the population at
large would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help
us find any actual terrorists that may stick around.

Lets see again, what you Leftist fringe kooks and terrorist supporters

Does it cause you physical pain to be civil?

are claiming the US/Bush etc etc is responsible for, shall we? Below
are only attacks committed by Islamic extremists......
If you would like, Id be happy to reinsert those attacks by drug
cartels, communists and so forth...however the list gets quite
large....

[...snip...]

What was your point with that list?
I'm only arguing that our interference with the middle east
exacerbates the terrorist problem. That includes Bush's war in Iraq.
It stands to reason that removing that element that is making the
problem worse would allow the problem to get better. Perhaps not solve
it entirely, but it would be helpful.
Your list of crimes the terrorists have committed doesn't have any
bearing on that one way or another, as far as I can tell.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

On 8 Jul 2005 13:12:51 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Making the connection between WW2 and this kind of war..one no one has
ever fought before, is whats pathetic, Jim.

No, making a connection between a terrorist who blew us up,
and a war in a country that had nothing to do with that, is
pathetic. As is, saying, "oh, we don't care about finding
him after all."

Jim

Blink blink?///// You have been living in a cave..right?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On 8 Jul 2005 13:15:34 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Dave Hinz says...

Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that
they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive.

Which is more dangerous, spending billions of dollars to get us
to stop attacking us, or not spending the money to get them
to stop attacking us?

Because honestly the two approaches seem to have about the
same effect. They're still attacking us. Our war has
failed.

A pragmatist would say why spend the money?

Jim

The last terrorist attack on US soil was when again?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:57:39 -0500, "RAM^3"
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...


Has it? Where is the followup attack to 9/11 in the US?


7/7 in London.

Which US state is that in?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On 8 Jul 2005 15:15:29 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Perhaps you would wish to channel the spirit of Neville Chamberlain

Hmm. "We have achieved peace in our time." Compare and
contrast that with "Mission Accomplished" if you please.

Christ..you are going to try that lame tactic? Its well known that
that poster was for the ****ING SHIP..not the war effort.

Roosevelt and Truman won a tough war. Bush has been dicking
around for years and accomplished nothing. Even his own
trained pony says we're gonna be in there for about 12 more
years.

As Bush stated quite clearly, when we have an enemy that compasses
many nations, with no clear organizational structure..the war is
likely to last for generations. Need me to post the transcript of that
TV speech? It will only make you look the fool however.

Who's gonna fly the helicopters off of *this* embassy roof?
Your *grand*children?

Jim

It would depend on if the Left does the same thing this time, as they
did the last time....lose the war via the media and not on the battle
field.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on Sat,
09 Jul 2005 05:51:17 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:57:39 -0500, "RAM^3"
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote:
Has it? Where is the followup attack to 9/11 in the US?


7/7 in London.

Which US state is that in?

You know how it is with kids these days, don't know enough Geometry
tell the difference between New England and Britain.
--
pyotr filipivich
Denial is not a river in Egypt, "Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme,
a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level." LTC Grossman.

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:36:00 -0500, "B.B."
u wrote:

Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on the
rise since Bush began "responding strongly"?


Given the cites I posted earlier...it would appear terrorism has been
on the rise since the 1960s.

But as it doesnt fit your world view and bias..it didnt exist before
January 17, 2001. Correct?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:36:01 -0500, "B.B."
u wrote:

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:40:44 -0500, "B.B."
.ru wrote:

Diplomacy. We're nice to the Canadians, so they don't try to hurt us.
Call it a wild idea, but I think if we'd stop blowing up people in
the Middle East, stop ****ing with their governments, and stop
threatening them with all kinds of trade sanctions the population at
large would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help
us find any actual terrorists that may stick around.

Lets see again, what you Leftist fringe kooks and terrorist supporters

Does it cause you physical pain to be civil?

Calling a spade a spade, a phillips #2 a screwdriver or a leftist
fringe kook a leftist fringe kook is not being civil? Accuracy is not
civil? Damn.

are claiming the US/Bush etc etc is responsible for, shall we? Below
are only attacks committed by Islamic extremists......
If you would like, Id be happy to reinsert those attacks by drug
cartels, communists and so forth...however the list gets quite
large....

[...snip...]

What was your point with that list?
I'm only arguing that our interference with the middle east
exacerbates the terrorist problem. That includes Bush's war in Iraq.
It stands to reason that removing that element that is making the
problem worse would allow the problem to get better. Perhaps not solve
it entirely, but it would be helpful.
Your list of crimes the terrorists have committed doesn't have any
bearing on that one way or another, as far as I can tell.


But you leftist fringe kooks have been claiming its all Bush's fault.
So I mearly demonstrated all the acts of terrorism that he was
responsible for. You should thank me for backing you up.


Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

Lets see again, what you Leftist fringe kooks and terrorist supporters

Does it cause you physical pain to be civil?

Calling a spade a spade, a phillips #2 a screwdriver or a leftist
fringe kook a leftist fringe kook is not being civil? Accuracy is not
civil? Damn.

In that case you were inaccurate.

are claiming the US/Bush etc etc is responsible for, shall we? Below
are only attacks committed by Islamic extremists......
If you would like, Id be happy to reinsert those attacks by drug
cartels, communists and so forth...however the list gets quite
large....

[...snip...]

What was your point with that list?
I'm only arguing that our interference with the middle east
exacerbates the terrorist problem. That includes Bush's war in Iraq.
It stands to reason that removing that element that is making the
problem worse would allow the problem to get better. Perhaps not solve
it entirely, but it would be helpful.
Your list of crimes the terrorists have committed doesn't have any
bearing on that one way or another, as far as I can tell.


But you leftist fringe kooks have been claiming its all Bush's fault.
So I mearly demonstrated all the acts of terrorism that he was
responsible for. You should thank me for backing you up.

Is your goal in this discussion to make a point or act like a child?

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:36:00 -0500, "B.B."
. ru wrote:

Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on the
rise since Bush began "responding strongly"?


Given the cites I posted earlier...it would appear terrorism has been
on the rise since the 1960s.

But as it doesnt fit your world view and bias..it didnt exist before
January 17, 2001. Correct?

No, it has no relation. So it was on the rise since the 60's, should
that rise have abated after Bush's war if the war were effective?

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

In article , Gunner says...

Roosevelt and Truman won a tough war. Bush has been dicking
around for years and accomplished nothing. Even his own
trained pony says we're gonna be in there for about 12 more
years.

As Bush stated quite clearly, when we have an enemy that compasses
many nations, with no clear organizational structure..the war is
likely to last for generations. Need me to post the transcript of that
TV speech? It will only make you look the fool however.

So you agree there is no exit strategy then.

It's a conflict that was ill-conceived, poorly executed,
and will go on basically forever. In the meantime it
is not hampering the terrorists one bit.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:33:55 -0500, "B.B."
u wrote:

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 23:36:00 -0500, "B.B."
.ru wrote:

Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on the
rise since Bush began "responding strongly"?


Given the cites I posted earlier...it would appear terrorism has been
on the rise since the 1960s.

But as it doesnt fit your world view and bias..it didnt exist before
January 17, 2001. Correct?

No, it has no relation. So it was on the rise since the 60's, should
that rise have abated after Bush's war if the war were effective?


The war is on going. So the US were winners from the moment they
entered WW2?

History is not..not your strong suit is it?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:32:06 -0500, "B.B."
u wrote:

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

Lets see again, what you Leftist fringe kooks and terrorist supporters

Does it cause you physical pain to be civil?

Calling a spade a spade, a phillips #2 a screwdriver or a leftist
fringe kook a leftist fringe kook is not being civil? Accuracy is not
civil? Damn.

In that case you were inaccurate.

Odd..from my persective..it would appear quite accurate.

are claiming the US/Bush etc etc is responsible for, shall we? Below
are only attacks committed by Islamic extremists......
If you would like, Id be happy to reinsert those attacks by drug
cartels, communists and so forth...however the list gets quite
large....

[...snip...]

What was your point with that list?
I'm only arguing that our interference with the middle east
exacerbates the terrorist problem. That includes Bush's war in Iraq.
It stands to reason that removing that element that is making the
problem worse would allow the problem to get better. Perhaps not solve
it entirely, but it would be helpful.
Your list of crimes the terrorists have committed doesn't have any
bearing on that one way or another, as far as I can tell.


But you leftist fringe kooks have been claiming its all Bush's fault.
So I mearly demonstrated all the acts of terrorism that he was
responsible for. You should thank me for backing you up.

Is your goal in this discussion to make a point or act like a child?

You seem to be missing the points (unable to refute?) and going on
like a child who just learned a new word.

Care to respond to the content, or are you going to dance around
shouting "****" in joy?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On 9 Jul 2005 09:05:10 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Roosevelt and Truman won a tough war. Bush has been dicking
around for years and accomplished nothing. Even his own
trained pony says we're gonna be in there for about 12 more
years.

As Bush stated quite clearly, when we have an enemy that compasses
many nations, with no clear organizational structure..the war is
likely to last for generations. Need me to post the transcript of that
TV speech? It will only make you look the fool however.

So you agree there is no exit strategy then.

Exit strategy? Sure there is. When we win, and when Iraq is fully
able to self govern. Blink blink...

exit strategy...oddly enough..there was no such thing except in the
commercial world, until the Left decided they needed another talking
point. Google is your friend btw..feel free to check out my statement.


Exit strategy..hummm thats like announcing to the tangos that on Jan
1, we are going to pack up our toys and go home, no matter what.

This means what to the grand scheme of things? Oh..ya..I forgot..they
simply back off, conserve their resources and as the last man gets on
the airplane..the fireworks start in ernest. Thats like telling the
burglar exactly what time you are leaving on vacation. And letting
him know where you keep the spare door key.

Gods blood..that is one of the Dumbist things Ive every heard you
spew...exit strategy indeed. The only people that use that term is the
anti-Bush Left, as it seems to mean something important. A great Lib
buzz term.

It's a conflict that was ill-conceived, poorly executed,
and will go on basically forever. In the meantime it
is not hampering the terrorists one bit.

The last tango attack on US soil was when again?

Gunner

Jim

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

In article , Gunner says...

Exit strategy? Sure there is. When we win, and when Iraq is fully
able to self govern. Blink blink...

So you *do* recognize that we have basically used up all
of our armed forces fighting this war. So that we're
hamstrung everywhere else in the world at this point
because of the tar baby.

Exit strategy..hummm thats like announcing to the tangos that on Jan
1, we are going to pack up our toys and go home, no matter what.

Umm, no, an exit strategy means we have a plan for WINNING
the war. Or at least not losing too badly. If we have to
stay there "for generations" it sounds to me like we never
*did* learn anything from vietnam, that we never *did* realize
there is no way to win a war against a dedicated band of
entrenched fanatics.

Hint, Iraq is now a virtual *magnet* for dedicated fanatics.

And no, we can't kill them faster than they show up in the
country.

Gods blood..that is one of the Dumbist things Ive every heard you
spew...exit strategy indeed.

Exit strategy means we've won the war and can go home. What
the hell is so dumb about that - aside from the fact that
our bumbling leaders can't seem to do it?

Gunner you are starting to sound like the NY state governor.

He's a *real* big booster of the dweeb's war. Lotta support
given there. But when push comes to shove, Mr. Pataki kinda
comes up short. If he likes the war so much, then how come
george is doing all he can to see that his son (ROTC in the
marines) gets a three-year deferment to go to law school.

Basically if you like that war so much and think it's a
great idea, why not go and help win it yourself?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 8 Jul 2005 15:10:31 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

You know, it's funny. I _still_ wouldn't know that there is something
called Karl Rove, if not for people like you who go on and on and on
about him.

You should get out more. The man's running the
country. What was gunner's *favorite* saying...?

I know who he is, Jim, but you people are freaking obsessed over him.
If he's running the country, Jim, who is he working for?

Why am I bothering? I need to go finish up the aluminum maul head I'm
making. Nevermind, pretend I didn't ask.

On 8 Jul 2005 17:35:34 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , RAM^3 says...

Has it? Where is the followup attack to 9/11 in the US?

7/7 in London.

I think this was where I came it. Dave said it was
"beneath me" to point this out.

Yes, and I still stand by that. People who bitch about what's being
done here, pointing to London and saying "See? It didn't do
anything!!1!!!!eleven!111!"? Can you see a _bit_ of a logic gap there?

Our efforts in
iraq no matter how splendid at spending our tax
dollars have not stopped terrorism at all.

Have not stopped all terrorism. Huge difference and you should know it.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on Sat,
09 Jul 2005 05:51:17 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:57:39 -0500, "RAM^3"
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote:
Has it? Where is the followup attack to 9/11 in the US?


7/7 in London.

Which US state is that in?

You know how it is with kids these days, don't know enough Geometry
tell the difference between New England and Britain.


Given the lack of difference in accent, attitudes, and politics it's easy to
confuse Boston with Dublin and New York with London. G

Of course, there WAS the minor matter of having missed the "in the US"...
G

FWIW, the "followup attack" is being carried out POLITICALLY by the DNC
since they have deemed any physical effort to be Politically Incorrect.
VBG After all - if the DNC's intention was REALLY to get GWB out of office
then they wouldn't have to be antagonizing anyone since he's term-limited
with only 3.5 years to go! Of course, that doesn't mean that any of their
Howard Stern rejects will get the job...

In article , Dave Hinz says...

I think this was where I came it. Dave said it was
"beneath me" to point this out.

Yes, and I still stand by that. People who bitch about what's being
done here, pointing to London and saying "See? It didn't do
anything!!1!!!!eleven!111!"? Can you see a _bit_ of a logic gap there?

Ah, dave, I see that we've spend a potful of money in iraq.
I can see that it doesn't seem to slow down terrorists at
all. The terrorists weren't *in* Iraq.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

Lets see again, what you Leftist fringe kooks and terrorist supporters

Does it cause you physical pain to be civil?

Calling a spade a spade, a phillips #2 a screwdriver or a leftist
fringe kook a leftist fringe kook is not being civil? Accuracy is not
civil? Damn.

In that case you were inaccurate.

Odd..from my persective..it would appear quite accurate.

Well, your comment was about me, and from my perspective it was not.
Who knows more about me? Me, here in Texas, or you, over in California?
I strongly suspect that your perspective is worthless, to be nice about
it.

[...]

But you leftist fringe kooks have been claiming its all Bush's fault.
So I mearly demonstrated all the acts of terrorism that he was
responsible for. You should thank me for backing you up.

Is your goal in this discussion to make a point or act like a child?

You seem to be missing the points (unable to refute?) and going on
like a child who just learned a new word.

Care to respond to the content, or are you going to dance around
shouting "****" in joy?

What point were you making? All I've seen is a list of past attacks.
Yes, **** has happened, and it does show a disturbing trend, but it does
not indicate in any way what the motive is, unless you want to latch on
to a common theme that they're all Muslim. But that's a worthless
argument. I can go swing by the Klan and get an equally comprehensive
list of crimes committed by blacks. I could even pick a specific class
of crime, like murder or rape. It shows that black people are criminals
by nature no more than your list shows that Muslims are terrorists by
nature.
OTOH, if that wasn't what you were trying to show then I honestly
have no idea what your point was, so please, enlighten me.
BTW, do you think you could drop the childish insults you like to
sprinkle your posts with? Or am I asking too much?

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

Then how do you explain that terrorism all over the world is on the
rise since Bush began "responding strongly"?


Given the cites I posted earlier...it would appear terrorism has been
on the rise since the 1960s.

But as it doesnt fit your world view and bias..it didnt exist before
January 17, 2001. Correct?

No, it has no relation. So it was on the rise since the 60's, should
that rise have abated after Bush's war if the war were effective?


The war is on going. So the US were winners from the moment they
entered WW2?

So how long do we need to hold out faith in Bush before we can expect
the war to turn around and no longer be a failure? If you don't know
when, then what makes you think it will turn around?

History is not..not your strong suit is it?

Whoo hoo, way to really put me in my place. Words simply cannot
describe how impressed I am with that wit.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

On 9 Jul 2005 18:43:23 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Dave Hinz says...

I think this was where I came it. Dave said it was
"beneath me" to point this out.

Yes, and I still stand by that. People who bitch about what's being
done here, pointing to London and saying "See? It didn't do
anything!!1!!!!eleven!111!"? Can you see a _bit_ of a logic gap there?

Ah, dave, I see that we've spend a potful of money in iraq.
I can see that it doesn't seem to slow down terrorists at
all. The terrorists weren't *in* Iraq.

Jim

Prove its not slowed down the tangos.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:35:52 -0500, "B.B."
u wrote:


No, it has no relation. So it was on the rise since the 60's, should
that rise have abated after Bush's war if the war were effective?


The war is on going. So the US were winners from the moment they
entered WW2?

So how long do we need to hold out faith in Bush before we can expect
the war to turn around and no longer be a failure? If you don't know
when, then what makes you think it will turn around?

Failure? How so? Saddam is in custody, 85% of Iraq is pacified, the
infrastructure is being rebuilt, tango cells all over the world are
being rolled up and so forth.

What do you base you "war is a failure" claim on?

Btw...you have 3.5 yrs left on Bush's watch. At 3.6, we can talk about
how long.

Ill bet you drink instant coffee and last about 30 seconds in bed too.

When fighting a war of this nature..instant gratification is going to
be a heart breaker for you.

History is not..not your strong suit is it?

Whoo hoo, way to really put me in my place. Words simply cannot
describe how impressed I am with that wit.


Simple observation on my part. Not intended as a major slam actually
(minor one), but your ignorance of military history is obvious.

Regretable since you make wild claims based on profound ignorance, but
regretable non the less.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:32:40 -0500, "B.B."
u wrote:

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

Lets see again, what you Leftist fringe kooks and terrorist supporters

Does it cause you physical pain to be civil?

Calling a spade a spade, a phillips #2 a screwdriver or a leftist
fringe kook a leftist fringe kook is not being civil? Accuracy is not
civil? Damn.

In that case you were inaccurate.

Odd..from my persective..it would appear quite accurate.

Well, your comment was about me, and from my perspective it was not.
Who knows more about me? Me, here in Texas, or you, over in California?
I strongly suspect that your perspective is worthless, to be nice about
it.

And of course from my point of view,after reviewing your posts..Id
have to say your persective is so badly flawed as to require demoliton
and rebuilding. So I guess its mutual heh?
[...]

But you leftist fringe kooks have been claiming its all Bush's fault.
So I mearly demonstrated all the acts of terrorism that he was
responsible for. You should thank me for backing you up.

Is your goal in this discussion to make a point or act like a child?

You seem to be missing the points (unable to refute?) and going on
like a child who just learned a new word.

Care to respond to the content, or are you going to dance around
shouting "****" in joy?

What point were you making? All I've seen is a list of past attacks.
Yes, **** has happened, and it does show a disturbing trend, but it does
not indicate in any way what the motive is, unless you want to latch on
to a common theme that they're all Muslim. But that's a worthless
argument. I can go swing by the Klan and get an equally comprehensive
list of crimes committed by blacks. I could even pick a specific class
of crime, like murder or rape. It shows that black people are criminals
by nature no more than your list shows that Muslims are terrorists by
nature.
OTOH, if that wasn't what you were trying to show then I honestly
have no idea what your point was, so please, enlighten me.
BTW, do you think you could drop the childish insults you like to
sprinkle your posts with? Or am I asking too much?


You and the rest of the Left have continued to make the claim that the
attacks by Radical Islam are Bush's fault. Ive REPEATEDLY pointed out
a very long series of cites on muslim attacks that pre-dated Bush.
Hence your claims are not worth the greenie stickem caps required to
perforate and sink them.

Do you understand now? Your bias and anti-Bush sentiment has colored
your world view and mindset, turned off your higher brain functions
and logical thought processes and stained your brain like rust in the
toilet. Not an insult, but an observation.

Do get a grip, ok?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On 9 Jul 2005 16:55:47 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Exit strategy? Sure there is. When we win, and when Iraq is fully
able to self govern. Blink blink...

So you *do* recognize that we have basically used up all
of our armed forces fighting this war. So that we're
hamstrung everywhere else in the world at this point
because of the tar baby.


Actually no..we have not used up all of our armed forces. And as long
as you on the Left and the media keep demonizing the war effort,
recruiting levels will remain low. And for that I blame you and your
ilk directly.

Exit strategy..hummm thats like announcing to the tangos that on Jan
1, we are going to pack up our toys and go home, no matter what.

Umm, no, an exit strategy means we have a plan for WINNING
the war. Or at least not losing too badly. If we have to
stay there "for generations" it sounds to me like we never
*did* learn anything from vietnam, that we never *did* realize
there is no way to win a war against a dedicated band of
entrenched fanatics.

Blink blink...I see your grasp of the situation and military history
in general is so flawed or non existant as to be moot. Tell you
what..read von Clauswitz, the works of Sun Tzu and the History of
Europe from 1400-1957, then get back to me after you have a better
grounding on the subject.

Hint, Iraq is now a virtual *magnet* for dedicated fanatics.

Excellent. Works like a Roach motel

And no, we can't kill them faster than they show up in the
country.

Sure we can. And have been doing exactly that.

Gods blood..that is one of the Dumbist things Ive every heard you
spew...exit strategy indeed.

Exit strategy means we've won the war and can go home. What
the hell is so dumb about that - aside from the fact that
our bumbling leaders can't seem to do it?

Again your terms are flawed. Words means something. Please educate
yourself and we shall discuss the finer points.

Gunner you are starting to sound like the NY state governor.

Whos that? I dont pay any attention to anything west of the
Mississipi. There be dragons.

He's a *real* big booster of the dweeb's war. Lotta support
given there. But when push comes to shove, Mr. Pataki kinda
comes up short. If he likes the war so much, then how come
george is doing all he can to see that his son (ROTC in the
marines) gets a three-year deferment to go to law school.

Three year deferment? Ah..there is no draft. Get real.

Basically if you like that war so much and think it's a
great idea, why not go and help win it yourself?

Jim

Jim, I checked with Blackwater, and a local recruiter. Im too old, to
dinged up and have a medical disability on my DD214 from the last war
I VOLUNTEERED for..both times. I also have 3 chevrons on the old
Purple ****up.

And your military history is what again?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

[...]

Ill bet you drink instant coffee and last about 30 seconds in bed too.

I'm done with you. Feel free to ignore the remainder of my posts if
you like.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/

In article , Gunner says...

Actually no..we have not used up all of our armed forces. And as long
as you on the Left and the media keep demonizing the war effort,
recruiting levels will remain low. And for that I blame you and your
ilk directly.

Ah, it's now *my* fault that folks are beginning to see that
joining the army means you've signed your life away because
of the 'stop loss' orders, and even the folks who ordinarily
would consider the military a decent leg-up are now staying
away in droves.

What would you do, institute censorship to prevent any bad
news from being reported here in the US? Think long and
hard - if you said 'yes' then the "tangos" (your term)
have just won. You gave them what they wanted.

Exit strategy..hummm thats like announcing to the tangos that on Jan
1, we are going to pack up our toys and go home, no matter what.

Blink blink...I see your grasp of the situation

It's simple. YOu don't need to be a rhodes scholar to
see that things are pretty much stagnant there. What
did your buddy say, an army should declare victory
and then seek battle? Well, your leaders did the
opposite. They got involved in a CF and then said,
"huh, what do we do now?"

And no, we can't kill them faster than they show up in the
country.

Sure we can. And have been doing exactly that.

Is this what you think the total purpose of the US military
should be for the next 12 years? You need to revist that
river thing for yourself.

Exit strategy means we've won the war and can go home.
Again your terms are flawed.

I thought it was pretty simple. We win or we don't.
We're not WINNING gunner. I hate to be the one to
break this to you but the winning part is still missing.

And your military history is what again?

I'm not the one joining the marine's ROTC program.

I'm not the one spouting off on usenet about how great the
dweeb's war's been going.

I'm not the one suggesting that invading a country that
had nothing to do with 9/11 was a good idea.

I haven't been drafted (yet).

You seem to be awful gullible for a smart person.


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 00:18:32 -0500, "B.B."
u wrote:

In article ,
Gunner wrote:

[...]

Ill bet you drink instant coffee and last about 30 seconds in bed too.

I'm done with you. Feel free to ignore the remainder of my posts if
you like.


If you cant take the heat, and the humor, stay out of the kitchen.

Say..your new to usenet arnt you?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On 9 Jul 2005 22:59:32 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Actually no..we have not used up all of our armed forces. And as long
as you on the Left and the media keep demonizing the war effort,
recruiting levels will remain low. And for that I blame you and your
ilk directly.

Ah, it's now *my* fault that folks are beginning to see that
joining the army means you've signed your life away because
of the 'stop loss' orders, and even the folks who ordinarily
would consider the military a decent leg-up are now staying
away in droves.

Jimmmy...if you lads supported the war..we would have enough
volunteers to avoid needing any stop loss orders. You havent figured
this out yet? The stop loss orders are YOUR fault..or at least your
ilks.

What would you do, institute censorship to prevent any bad
news from being reported here in the US? Think long and
hard - if you said 'yes' then the "tangos" (your term)
have just won. You gave them what they wanted.

Censorship is profoundly in effect Jim. All Good news is banned.

Go look at the blogs from Iraqis who actually LIVE in Iraq..then get
back to me as to the comparison of what they report..and what your
media reports ok?


Exit strategy..hummm thats like announcing to the tangos that on Jan
1, we are going to pack up our toys and go home, no matter what.

Blink blink...I see your grasp of the situation

It's simple. YOu don't need to be a rhodes scholar to
see that things are pretty much stagnant there. What
did your buddy say, an army should declare victory
and then seek battle? Well, your leaders did the
opposite. They got involved in a CF and then said,
"huh, what do we do now?"

Stagnant? Perhaps you should not watch so much Big 3 Tv.

And no, we can't kill them faster than they show up in the
country.

Sure we can. And have been doing exactly that.

Is this what you think the total purpose of the US military
should be for the next 12 years? You need to revist that
river thing for yourself.

Why do you think it will take 12 yrs?

Exit strategy means we've won the war and can go home.
Again your terms are flawed.

I thought it was pretty simple. We win or we don't.
We're not WINNING gunner. I hate to be the one to
break this to you but the winning part is still missing.

See comment about not watching so much Big 3 tv.

And your military history is what again?

I'm not the one joining the marine's ROTC program.

Yes and? I asked you a question. Please answer it.

I'm not the one spouting off on usenet about how great the
dweeb's war's been going.

Yes and? I asked you a question. Please answer it.

I'm not the one suggesting that invading a country that
had nothing to do with 9/11 was a good idea.

Only the Left claimed it had anything to do with 9/11 except
peripherally. Need me to provide transcripts of Bush's speeches?

I assume you are refering to Iraq, as Afghanistand had everything to
do with 9/11, being the defacto home of Al Quada

I haven't been drafted (yet).

Yes and? I asked you a question. Please answer it.

I wasnt drafted either.

You seem to be awful gullible for a smart person.

You seem to be awfully programmed for a smart person.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

In article , Gunner says...

Jimmmy...if you lads supported the war..we would have enough
volunteers to avoid needing any stop loss orders. You havent figured
this out yet? The stop loss orders are YOUR fault..or at least your
ilks.

Ah, Gunnny, there it is. The right-wingers perfect solution
to any task at hand. "Have somebody else (not me) do it."
*You* can't fight *your* war because somebody else isn't
stupid enough to buy into the zany, whacky world you live in.
Perfect solution: draft 'em into it. Oops, no, that would
be political suicide for the dweeb. The republican's endless
frustration loop. g

Stagnant? Perhaps you should not watch so much Big 3 Tv.

Ah, sorry to remind you, but your memory seems to be
grinding some gears there. I don't watch *any* TV. So
you need to figure out some other devil antichrist that's
affecting my thoughs. Besides, you've known that for years.

Why do you think it will take 12 yrs?

That was the number used by Mr. BUshe's spokesman.

I thought it was pretty simple. We win or we don't.
We're not WINNING gunner. I hate to be the one to
break this to you but the winning part is still missing.

See comment about not watching so much Big 3 tv.

See comment about no TV in use in rozen's life. Also
see comment about maybe getting your memory checked.

If we WIN the war then it's OVER and those guys can
COME HOME. This isn't happening is it? Censor it
all you like, the war is stil a failure.

And your military history is what again?

I'm not the one joining the marine's ROTC program.

Yes and? I asked you a question. Please answer it.

I don't *pretend* to be a booster of that war. I'm
not hypocritical. Pataki *is* hypocritical because
he says one thing, and does something 180* off kilter
when it comes time to act.

And I don't understand what specific question you
are asking. History in what sense?


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Upstate NY (not NY City) has been trying to dump NY City and the welfare
rolls for years. I find it amazing how many southern state minorities,
Puerto Ricans and illegal Mexicans know about the freebies available
here in NY. What a joke Border Patrol is. I'll show you plenty of
illegal people right here in my little city.

I hurt my back, then a few years later I brain hemorrhaged. No freebies
for this white guy. I tried. Wife earns too much. Land of opportunity
Work or die!


{:{

=================



OT - Blue & Red

Group: rec.crafts.metalworking Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2005, 7:18pm From:
(Cliff)
[
Dear Red States:
We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided
we're leaving.
We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue
States with us.
In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the entire Northeast. We
believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to
the people of the new country of New California.
To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.
We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.
We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand. We get Intel and
Microsoft. You get WorldCom and Enron. We get Harvard. You get Ole'
Miss.
We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.
You get Alabama.
We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay
their fair share.
Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian
Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families.
You get a bunch of single moms.
Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war,
and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you
need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're
apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they
don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming
home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up,
but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.
With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of
the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and
lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's
quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent
of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S.
low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy
League and Seven Sister schools, plus UCLA, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.
With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88
percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs),
92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes,
90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists,
virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones
University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.
We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was
actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless
we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that
evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11
and 61 percent of you crazy *******s believe you are people with higher
morals then we lefties.
By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed
they grow in Mexico.
Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California.

On 10 Jul 2005 09:40:14 -0700, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Jimmmy...if you lads supported the war..we would have enough
volunteers to avoid needing any stop loss orders. You havent figured
this out yet? The stop loss orders are YOUR fault..or at least your
ilks.

Ah, Gunnny, there it is. The right-wingers perfect solution
to any task at hand. "Have somebody else (not me) do it."
*You* can't fight *your* war because somebody else isn't
stupid enough to buy into the zany, whacky world you live in.
Perfect solution: draft 'em into it. Oops, no, that would
be political suicide for the dweeb. The republican's endless
frustration loop. g


Failure to address the point raised. -5 points.

Stagnant? Perhaps you should not watch so much Big 3 Tv.

Ah, sorry to remind you, but your memory seems to be
grinding some gears there. I don't watch *any* TV. So
you need to figure out some other devil antichrist that's
affecting my thoughs. Besides, you've known that for years.


Then perhaps you have a fax line from the DNC?

Why do you think it will take 12 yrs?

That was the number used by Mr. BUshe's spokesman.

Actually it was "generations"

I thought it was pretty simple. We win or we don't.
We're not WINNING gunner. I hate to be the one to
break this to you but the winning part is still missing.

See comment about not watching so much Big 3 tv.

See comment about no TV in use in rozen's life. Also
see comment about maybe getting your memory checked.

Fax line from the DNC working overtime?

If we WIN the war then it's OVER and those guys can
COME HOME. This isn't happening is it? Censor it
all you like, the war is stil a failure.

The war is hardly begun.

And your military history is what again?

I'm not the one joining the marine's ROTC program.

Yes and? I asked you a question. Please answer it.

I don't *pretend* to be a booster of that war. I'm
not hypocritical. Pataki *is* hypocritical because
he says one thing, and does something 180* off kilter
when it comes time to act.

And I don't understand what specific question you
are asking. History in what sense?

Failure to address the clear question. -5 points.

Snippage of uncomfortable questions -20 points

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

In article , Gunner says...

Why do you think it will take 12 yrs?

That was the number used by Mr. BUshe's spokesman.

Actually it was "generations"

No, there was a specific number of years stated,
by Carl Rove IIRC. It was 5 to 12. I think we
are refering to two different press releases.

I suggest you re-work your grading plan because
it is supremely unimpressive.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Gunner says...

Why do you think it will take 12 yrs?

That was the number used by Mr. BUshe's spokesman.

Actually it was "generations"

No, there was a specific number of years stated,
by Carl Rove IIRC. It was 5 to 12. I think we
are refering to two different press releases.



US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave the first indication Sunday
that some members of the Bush administration recognize that the insurgency
may not be in its "last throes," as Vice President Dick Cheney said
recently. Mr. Rumsfeld told Fox News Sunday: "Insurgencies tend to go on
five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

In article , J. R. Carroll says...

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave the first indication Sunday
that some members of the Bush administration recognize that the insurgency
may not be in its "last throes," as Vice President Dick Cheney said
recently. Mr. Rumsfeld told Fox News Sunday: "Insurgencies tend to go on
five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

Thank you, yes it was rumsfeld, not rove who came up with
numbers in years.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , J. R. Carroll
says...

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave the first indication Sunday
that some members of the Bush administration recognize that the
insurgency
may not be in its "last throes," as Vice President Dick Cheney said
recently. Mr. Rumsfeld told Fox News Sunday: "Insurgencies tend to go on
five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

Thank you, yes it was rumsfeld, not rove who came up with
numbers in years.

Jim



You are welcome Jim.
Rumsfeld has it wrong though. The US bought the Philippine Islands from
Spain for 20 million in 1898 as part of the treaty negotiated in Paris to
end a war with Spain. There was an insurgent group committing acts of
"terrorism" from the get go. Theodore Roosevelt ended up suppressing it
during his presidency with what amounted to a slaughter of the local
populace. In 1952, Philippine "insurgents" shot up the US Capitol building
before being killed themselves, and we finally got thrown out of the
Philippines nearly 100 years after our occupation, er ah, acquisition.
Iran is another example. The natives deposed the Shah after nearly 40 years
of insurgent activity. That the Palavi family was propped up by the US is
and remains the reason they love Americans and hate the US government and
the policies it employs.
Vietnam achieved self rule after decades of occupation, the last - as you
are no doubt aware, was American.
I don't know where Don Rumsfeld comes up with his numbers but it certainly
isn't from history texts.

When you think about what is happening in the world today, it is a good idea
to keep history in mind and forget partisanship.
Those we now face as enemies are neither Democrat or Republican. They are
surely nor, for the most part, motivated by their faith in Islam. Their
faith has been leveraged and perverted in the same manner that many in the
US televangelist community pray on their congregations for ends far removed
from the teaching of any faith.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

A couple of things wrong with that. First it was Puerto Rican separatist
that shot up Congress and it was in 1954. Also The Philippine insurrection
ended in 1902, 3 years after the Treaty of Paris and William Howard Taft is
credited with negotiating it's end peacefully. We gave the Philippines
their independence in 1946, 47 years after the Treaty of Paris. Not 100
years.

Other than that, we are in agreement.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"J. R. Carroll" wrote

You are welcome Jim.
Rumsfeld has it wrong though. The US bought the Philippine Islands from
Spain for 20 million in 1898 as part of the treaty negotiated in Paris to
end a war with Spain. There was an insurgent group committing acts of
"terrorism" from the get go. Theodore Roosevelt ended up suppressing it
during his presidency with what amounted to a slaughter of the local
populace. In 1952, Philippine "insurgents" shot up the US Capitol building
before being killed themselves, and we finally got thrown out of the
Philippines nearly 100 years after our occupation, er ah, acquisition.
Iran is another example. The natives deposed the Shah after nearly 40
years
of insurgent activity. That the Palavi family was propped up by the US is
and remains the reason they love Americans and hate the US government and
the policies it employs.
Vietnam achieved self rule after decades of occupation, the last - as you
are no doubt aware, was American.
I don't know where Don Rumsfeld comes up with his numbers but it certainly
isn't from history texts.

When you think about what is happening in the world today, it is a good
idea
to keep history in mind and forget partisanship.
Those we now face as enemies are neither Democrat or Republican. They are
surely nor, for the most part, motivated by their faith in Islam. Their
faith has been leveraged and perverted in the same manner that many in the
US televangelist community pray on their congregations for ends far
removed
from the teaching of any faith.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com