"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Putting words in peoples mouths is wrong thing to do. Making
conclusions
as
such is wrong too. I am fed up with this BS and you lose
credibility
yourself in doing so.

Those are YOUR words, and it appears that you're now trying to
weasel
out
of
them by pointing the finger elsewhere.

Shape up, Nicholas. If you say something, either stand behind your
words
or bow out. You're sounding like Greybuns.

--
Ed Huntress

I stand by my words and dont appreciate people making assumptions from
them
as they have.

No no no no no. You're not getting away with that. Here are your words
again:

"Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking inocent civilians that
wont or cant fight back under the circumstances."

That covers a lot of territory. As anyone who knows history is well
aware,
you've just defined our attacks on Dresden, on Hiroshima, on Nagasaki,
and
many other places. We made a big splash with it early in the history of
modern warfare, when Sherman marched to the sea and burned Atlanta.

Dresden: Payback for the London Blitz, and an industrial center to boot.

Revenge, yes. Military target, no. And you don't intentionally start
firestorms in residential districts for military purposes. You start those
fires for the purpose of terror, as we also did in Tokyo.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Use of atomic weapons allowed WW2 to end
without requiring the physical invasion of the island of Japan.

Contemporary estimates were that, based on the scale of fighting
required as the Allies retook the Pacific islands one by one, taking
Japan itself would cost at least one million Allied dead. Civilian
deaths would have been far higher, at least ten million, as Japan has
about the population of the US compressed into an island the size of
California. And most of Japan would have been devastated, causing
agriculture to collapse, causing mass starvation. All this would have
made Normandy and Lenningrad look like picnics.

Everyone who graduated from high school knows about the predictions of
deaths of American soldiers if we had to invade Japan. And the state of
agriculture in Japan was not the reason we bombed those two cities. We
bombed them to terrorize the Japanese into surrendering. We succeeded, in
one of the most effective and impressive terror attacks in history.

We had no other military purpose in bombing them. If we had a military
purpose, we would have bombed Yokohama.


In the most basic terms, compared to a full-scale invasion, atomic
attack was a *very* good deal for the Japanese population -- it cost
only two smallish cities and 200,000 dead.

Wasn't that a fine thing for us to do, then? We only killed 200,000
civilians, including women and children.

Note that the gist of this argument, from the other side, is that
"cowardice" is based on killing civilians rather than military targets.
Personally, I make no such fine distinctions, so don't start an argument
with me about it.


And a very good deal for the Allied soldiers, the million who would have
died.


Atlanta: Sherman's objective was not terror, it was strategic, to
destroy the South's economy and thus her capacity to make war. Sherman
did things like tearing railroad tracks up, to block shipping between
the interior and the port of Atlanta. It worked.

Sherman was a fine general. He gave us the concept of "total war," total
destruction of the means of sustanence for the entire population, not just
for the opposing army.

But you don't burn every private home in your path, nor the residential
environs of Atlanta, in order to destroy the enemy's capacity to make war.
You do it to destory the enemy's *will* to make war. Destroying the enemy
army's capacity is one thing. Destroying the entire means of life for the
civilian population is another thing, and his objective was to totally
destroy the enemy's territory, military and civilian alike.

So he also gave us the progression from destroying means to destroying will.
Mass terrorism, in its first modern form.

--
Ed Huntress

"Guido" wrote in message
...

Except that at the time there was a country welcoming troops in glad
that Saddam was overthown. Botched planning of what to do afterwards
(there was no plan), inability to provide either security or
infrastructure, and heavy handed treatment of the locals have ****ed
up the place.

Hey, Guido, it looks like you're holding up your end very well. You'll have
to carry on without me for a while, because I just got a PROMOTION!
(whoopie!) and I'm going to be going like a one-armed paperhanger.

See you sooner or later. Make sure the boys play nice.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

tonyp wrote:

I don't think I have commented on the "morality" of the "ongoing war".
I
worry less that it's a crime, and more that it's a blunder.



We might have to come back in about 50 years and see what happened to
Iraq to know that.

In 50 years, we'll be dead. However, I intend to enjoy what's left, but
unfortunately I have to head out now, because I have some traveling and a
hell of a lot of work ahead of me.

'Good talking to you, Gus. You're a good influence on the boyze. Keep 'em on
the up-and-up.

--
Ed Huntress

Which century's culture are _you_ in favor of, Gunner? g

-- TP

21st of course.


Well, I do admire your optimism. We've only seen about 5% of it so
far, and it doesn't seem to be off to an auspicious start. Let's talk
again in about 2050 :-)

-- TP



Actually..it looks pretty rosey to me. Peace though much of the world,
2 dictatorships overthrown, machine shops are hauling ass making
parts, the USSR is still dead and likely to remain that way, the
Democratic party is in its death throes, work is picking up for me, my
August invoices just got paid, rebuilt the engine in the truck, guy
just gave me a Rem 700 in 7 Mag, (shoulder surgery and he cant shoot
it anymore...), Ed appears to be imploding (well..thats actually very
sad), the Ice Age appears to be nearly over, Conservatives are now the
majority on the Supreme Court, there is an ongoing Federal effort to
give Full Faith and Credit to all states CCWs, my cat just had 5
kittens this morning, lots of good things happening.

Is there something I dont know about?

Gunner


Oh yes, the world is in a wonderful state, the US is in great shape, Iraq
and Afghanistan are proving to be examples of successful foreign policy.
Things have never been better in fact. With thoughts like that it's no
wonder that republicans have a blissful attitude. Of course, that
viewpoint is contrary to the majority of people's and to reality but hey,
don't we already know that republicans are in a world of their own where
reality isn't a permanent item?

And is there something Gunner doesn't know about? OBVIOUSLY!

Hawke

Ed Huntress wrote:

In 50 years, we'll be dead. However, I intend to enjoy what's left, but
unfortunately I have to head out now, because I have some traveling and a
hell of a lot of work ahead of me.

'Good talking to you, Gus. You're a good influence on the boyze. Keep 'em on
the up-and-up.


Best wishes in whatever you're up to, Ed.
GW

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
[snip]
No no no no no. You're not getting away with that. Here are your words
again:

"Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking innocent civilians that
wont or cant fight back under the circumstances."

That covers a lot of territory. As anyone who knows history is well aware,
you've just defined our attacks on Dresden, on Hiroshima, on Nagasaki, and
many other places. We made a big splash with it early in the history of
modern warfare, when Sherman marched to the sea and burned Atlanta.

Dresden: Payback for the London Blitz, and an industrial center to boot.

Revenge, yes. Military target, no. And you don't intentionally start
firestorms in residential districts for military purposes. You start those
fires for the purpose of terror, as we also did in Tokyo.

Dresden was a military target, if you count military production as
military.

The Nazis started the whole exchange by attacking London. Militarily,
they would have done far better to attack the RAF's airfields. But they
didn't. And, how better to convince the Nazis to stop attacking London
than to give them a taste of their own medicine? Sweet words weren't
going to do it.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Use of atomic weapons allowed WW2 to end
without requiring the physical invasion of the island of Japan.

Contemporary estimates were that, based on the scale of fighting
required as the Allies retook the Pacific islands one by one, taking
Japan itself would cost at least one million Allied dead. Civilian
deaths would have been far higher, at least ten million, as Japan has
about the population of the US compressed into an island the size of
California. And most of Japan would have been devastated, causing
agriculture to collapse, causing mass starvation. All this would have
made Normandy and Lenningrad look like picnics.

Everyone who graduated from high school knows about the predictions of
deaths of American soldiers if we had to invade Japan. And the state of
agriculture in Japan was not the reason we bombed those two cities. We
bombed them to terrorize the Japanese into surrendering. We succeeded, in
one of the most effective and impressive terror attacks in history.

We had no other military purpose in bombing them. If we had a military
purpose, we would have bombed Yokohama.

If stopping WW2 and avoiding the need to invade Japan (and the certain
deaths of millions) is not a military purpose, I don't know what would
be. Sweet words weren't going to do it.

I mentioned agriculture as part of the probable effect of a full-scale
invasion on the Japanese population. It would be almost impossible for
ordinary food production to continue in the midst of the invasion, so
where was the food to feed the population to come from?

One can argue about target choices, but in any case the Japanese were
going to be short two cities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen over
Tokyo and Kyoto et al precisely because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
isolated and relatively unimportant, yet sufficient to demonstrate to
the Japanese Government the hopelessness of their situation. Surrender
ensued shortly after.


In the most basic terms, compared to a full-scale invasion, atomic
attack was a *very* good deal for the Japanese population -- it cost
only two smallish cities and 200,000 dead.

Wasn't that a fine thing for us to do, then? We only killed 200,000
civilians, including women and children.

Don't forget the context. WW2 was not going to end until Japan
surrendered, and doing nothing was not going to end WW2. The choices
were invasion or atomic attack. Atomic attack was by far the better
option, for all concerned. Sweet words weren't going to do it.

Not that many in the US cared much about the Japanese side of the
calculus. The main point was to reduce Allied losses.


Note that the gist of this argument, from the other side, is that
"cowardice" is based on killing civilians rather than military targets.
Personally, I make no such fine distinctions, so don't start an argument
with me about it.

I don't recall making any such point.


And a very good deal for the Allied soldiers, the million who would have
died.


Atlanta: Sherman's objective was not terror, it was strategic, to
destroy the South's economy and thus her capacity to make war. Sherman
did things like tearing railroad tracks up, to block shipping between
the interior and the port of Atlanta. It worked.

Sherman was a fine general. He gave us the concept of "total war," total
destruction of the means of sustanence for the entire population, not just
for the opposing army.

Exactly.


But you don't burn every private home in your path, nor the residential
environs of Atlanta, in order to destroy the enemy's capacity to make war.
You do it to destory the enemy's *will* to make war. Destroying the enemy
army's capacity is one thing. Destroying the entire means of life for the
civilian population is another thing, and his objective was to totally
destroy the enemy's territory, military and civilian alike.

Exactly. Destroying property isn't terrorism - that requires killing
people, the more random and senseless the better. The South was
primarily an agricultural power, so it's agriculture that one would
destroy. Sweet words weren't going to do it. So, the plantations were
burned.


So he also gave us the progression from destroying means to destroying will.
Mass terrorism, in its first modern form.

The intent is not to destroy the will, it's to destroy the means. When
the means are gone, the will may also flag, but who cares? The means
are gone.


Joe Gwinn

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Nicholas Anthony" wrote in message
...

Putting words in peoples mouths is wrong thing to do. Making
conclusions
as
such is wrong too. I am fed up with this BS and you lose
credibility yourself in doing so.

Those are YOUR words, and it appears that you're now trying to
weasel
out
of
them by pointing the finger elsewhere.

Shape up, Nicholas. If you say something, either stand behind your
words or
bow out. You're sounding like Greybuns.

--
Ed Huntress

I stand by my words and dont appreciate people making assumptions
from
them
as they have.

No no no no no. You're not getting away with that. Here are your words
again:

"Hold up Ed. The act of cowardness was attacking inocent civilians
that wont or cant fight back under the circumstances."

That covers a lot of territory. As anyone who knows history is well
aware, you've just defined our attacks on Dresden, on Hiroshima, on
Nagasaki, and many other places. We made a big splash with it early in
the history of modern warfare, when Sherman marched to the sea and
burned Atlanta.

You've made a twisted and blatantly incorrect definition of cowardice.
Killing innocent civilians is a perverse act that's usually done to
inflict terror. It has nothing to do with bravery or cowardice. That's
what we did in Dresden. That's what we did in Hiroshima. That's what
we did in Nagasaki. That's what we did in Atlanta.

Our purpose was to terrorize those populations into surrender. Don't
give us some silly moralizing revisionism. That was intentional
terror, which we did to shorten the wars and to save the lives of many
of our own soldiers. IMO, it was entirely justified terrorism. It was
perverse. But I'd do it myself, under the same circumstances. Humans
often do perverse things out of necessity.

What bravery and cowardice are about is individual sacrifice, putting
oneself at risk of possible or certain death--or shrinking from it,
even when the coward knows that risking his life could save many more,
by winning a battle, or by terrorizing the enemy, if it comes to that.
The WTC attackers were not cowards. And your definition of cowardice
is ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

Ed you are better then this. Here is what I am annoyed about.
No it isnt something we are doing regulary in Iraq, nor do imply that
we
are
cowards, that is what I am talking about putting words in other
peoples mouth quit the ****!

What to you MEAN we aren't doing it regularly in Iraq?? We bomb some
place, killing a lot of people, and we usually don't even apologize
for killing the civilians. We puff up some words about how unfortunate
the "collateral damage" is. But we killed those civilians. You can
argue all you want about whether it's necessary or not, or about how
unfortunate it all is, but what you CAN'T do is moralize and hide from
the fact that we've killed thousands of them ourselves. And we knew we
were going to wind up killing them, going in, just like we knew we'd
kill tens of thousands of civilians in Dresden, or in the two cities
in Japan.

And to put it in the context of bravery or cowardice displays a lack
of clear-headed thinking about what those words MEAN. They mean
something. They don't mean what you're claiming they mean. If you let
yourself fall into that kind of self-delusion, you've become
irrelevant to the issue. If you can't think straight about these
things, you can't do anything that contributes to understanding the
subject.

--
Ed Huntress




Anyone with half a brain can understand that over the years the US has
killed innocent people by the thousands. The only difference is that some
Americans can't accept that we do the same thing terrorists do so they
concoct some kind of goofy fantasy where our killing innocents is
acceptable but when others do it's a horrendous crime. Any reasonable
mind understands that the only difference between what we do and what
others do is the excuses we use are different.

Hawke

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:04:06 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

You are corrupting facts to try and make both instances the same.

Did you have any "facts"? You had lots of BS & propaganda
somone else happily stuffed down your willing throat while
robbing you but "facts"?

It will
never happen in history. A world war is not the same thing as a terrorist
attacking innocent people.

The "Homeland" Insecurty folks will be watching you now.
--
Cliff

On 28 Feb 2006 05:01:02 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

If that's true then we're no better than they are.

Good point.

I don't think I can buy that.

Because you killed so many more & did so much more damage?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:26:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

They aren't clear thinkers.

They can be wingers.

They can't be leaders.

How much money can they get?
Can they hire Rove & let Cheney run things?
--
Cliff

On 28 Feb 2006 20:11:11 -0800, "Gus" wrote:

Clinton

See: Monica Envy
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:20:40 -0500, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Use of atomic weapons allowed WW2 to end
without requiring the physical invasion of the island of Japan.

Japan was already trying to surrender.
Worst case: Interdict ship transport of oil & materials to Japan.
They had no Navy left to speak of.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:20:40 -0500, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Contemporary estimates were that, based on the scale of fighting
required as the Allies retook the Pacific islands one by one, taking
Japan itself would cost at least one million Allied dead.

This ASSumes that an invasion of Japan was needed to halt the war.
It clearly was not.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:20:40 -0500, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In the most basic terms, compared to a full-scale invasion, atomic
attack was a *very* good deal for the Japanese population -- it cost
only two smallish cities and 200,000 dead.

And every year they thank the US, right?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:55:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Dresden: Payback for the London Blitz, and an industrial center to boot.

Revenge, yes. Military target, no. And you don't intentionally start
firestorms in residential districts for military purposes. You start those
fires for the purpose of terror, as we also did in Tokyo.

Let slip the bats of war ....
Operation X-Ray ...
http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...982_3_88.shtml
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:55:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

But you don't burn every private home in your path, nor the residential
environs of Atlanta, in order to destroy the enemy's capacity to make war.
You do it to destory the enemy's *will* to make war. Destroying the enemy
army's capacity is one thing. Destroying the entire means of life for the
civilian population is another thing, and his objective was to totally
destroy the enemy's territory, military and civilian alike.

Is Cheney still looking for "WMDs"?
Bin Laden? Bush cares not.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:45:52 -0500, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

If stopping WW2 and avoiding the need to invade Japan (and the certain
deaths of millions) is not a military purpose, I don't know what would
be. Sweet words weren't going to do it.

So destroying Iraq & Afghanistan .... ?
Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:45:52 -0500, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Destroying property isn't terrorism -

http://tinyurl.com/ecl4t

"Homeland" Insecurty is after such as PETA & Greenpeace.
The US Army is after the Quakers .... and most are after the ACLU.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:45:52 -0500, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Exactly. Destroying property isn't terrorism - that requires killing
people, the more random and senseless the better. The South was
primarily an agricultural power, so it's agriculture that one would
destroy.

Let me guess. They were going to beat the yankees to death with bolls
of cotton?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 23:45:52 -0500, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

The intent is not to destroy the will, it's to destroy the means. When
the means are gone, the will may also flag, but who cares? The means
are gone.

So, as there were no "WMDs" to begin with ....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:52:20 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

I guess I know plenty more then you.

Care to rephrase that in English?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:52:20 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Suicide bombers are cowards too face it! You are the
ignorant one who is trying to use every tactic available to not allow
thinking that is different from your political stance.

Care to rephrase that in English too?
In a linear manner?

I used the dictionary
yet you quote yourself.

Well, he was right the first time so why not?
OTOH He probably quoted you as well .....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:52:20 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Suicide bombers are cowards too face it!

How could that be??
They would seem to be dead. Do you dispute this?

You are the
ignorant one who is trying to use every tactic available to not allow
thinking that is different from your political stance.

Care to rephrase that in English too?
In a linear manner?

I used the dictionary
yet you quote yourself.

Well, he was right the first time so why not?
OTOH He probably quoted you as well .....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:38:38 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

I really have to assume that you have a mental disorder at this point so why
should I bother with your like and kind. You compare a WW with fundemental
terrorist, intentional killings of innocence versus unintentional (30k),

So all those bombs & all that gunfire were just another little
accident of Cheney's?

there was no sacrifice for those of 911 they had little risk and all to
gain,

AFAIK Only the neocons gained .. and they got LOTS of power.

no need to go on spinmaster you will only do whatever you can to make
it seem different and twisted like your mind.

Guess where Cheney had the North American air defense forces on 9-11.
Under his *personal* management & supervision.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:38:33 +0000, Guido wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:19:14 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
. ..

So the heros were in the Pentagon plane?

With the other exceptions you overlooked. IMO if you want to put it that way
yes it was less of a cowardly target.



???

Was your dictionary written by the Ministry of Truth?

He probably needs to do some Google searching ....
What happened to the last batch of wingers? They seemed
just a bit brighter.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

If I said everyone and mentioned Americans that must mean I am talking about
our government and country.

Which was it?
You were & are confused or you lied?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

However I will expand to say all
the countries in that area also wanted Saddam removed they even opened up
new bases to allow us to overthrow him!

Which explains why Turkey refused to allow US forces and the Saudi's
forced the US to close it's bases there, just for starters.

Good going, Sherlock.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

However I will expand to say all
the countries in that area also wanted Saddam removed they even opened up
new bases to allow us to overthrow him!

Which explains why Turkey refused to allow US forces and the Saudi's
forced the US to close it's bases there, just for starters.

Actions speak louder then words.

Good going, Sherlock.
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

The
other reason they didnt want us to invade was because they knew they wouldnt
get the billions of dollars back owed to them by Iraq!

Did they hire Bush & Co. in advance?

"Bush special envoy embroiled in controversy over Iraq debt "
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...326037,00.html
[
President Bush's special envoy, James Baker, who has been trying to persuade the
world to forgive Iraq's crushing debts, is simultaneously working for a
commercial concern that is trying to recover money from Iraq, according to
confidential documents.
Mr Baker's Carlyle Group is in a consortium secretly proposing to try to collect
$27bn (£15bn) on behalf of Kuwait, one of Iraq's biggest creditors, by using
high-level political influence.
.......
]

Corruption & cronyism all the way !!!
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

As I recall Bush and Blair went into a hissy fit because Chirac said
"Give the inspectors a few more weeks to do their job"

All the WMD were leaking into Syria give them more time gees.

You are a lying winger.
HTH
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

All the spy photos documenting the WMD were mysteriously gone by the
time we got in, no coincidence.

Bush probably burned them, right?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:15:11 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

They weren't the people doing the planning, nor were they deciding
the make up the forces, nor were they directing what happened after
the fall of Saddam.

No and why would they be one and the same? If that was the case war hawks
would get away with murder literally

Good point. 100,000 ++ murdered & no "WMDs" ...
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:12:53 -0500, "tonyp" wrote:


"D Murphy" wrote

When a lion picks the weak member of the heard,
is it beacause the lion is a coward?
Or is it because it conserves energy and increases
the likelyhood that he'll get a meal?


The lion kills without warning. So does the terrorist.

The lion kills innocent victims. So does the terrorist.

The lion kills those who are not out to kill _him_. So does the terrorist.

Draw your own conclusion about the relative cowardice of lions and
terrorists.

Lions are an endangered species .... except on "hunting" dude ranches that
Cheney likes in Texas. Cage raised ... petted .. here kitty, kitty ....
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:17:33 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:

Lions are carniverous and henceforth need to kill animals that are plant
eaters in order to survive on their nutrients otherwise you would see this
happening. Sigh back to basics.

Feed them a few fundies?
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:35:37 -0500, "tonyp" wrote:

Is there something I dont know about?

Your personal share of the national debt is now about $27,500.

As a household though it's MUCH higher indeed.
IIRC Even the $27,500 figure is low.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:22:03 GMT, zadoc wrote:

How about the Crusades of the Middle Ages? Were the participants
heroes or cowards?

Well, they ate the children of other Xtians ....
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:22:03 GMT, zadoc wrote:


Is killing civilians in any war a heroic or cowardly act?

Do the dead care which they were?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 03:36:24 -0000, Smithers wrote:

Is there something I dont know about?

Gunner


Oh yes, the world is in a wonderful state, the US is in great shape, Iraq
and Afghanistan are proving to be examples of successful foreign policy.
Things have never been better in fact. With thoughts like that it's no
wonder that republicans have a blissful attitude.

All 30 chapters it seems: http://www.online-literature.com/voltaire/candide/
--
Cliff

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:57:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
.. .

Except that at the time there was a country welcoming troops in glad
that Saddam was overthown. Botched planning of what to do afterwards
(there was no plan), inability to provide either security or
infrastructure, and heavy handed treatment of the locals have ****ed
up the place.

Hey, Guido, it looks like you're holding up your end very well.


This new batch are challenged to say the least.

I hear the GWB has been talking up victory in Afghanistan today. Pity
its so dangerous out there that he can't tour the country.

Meanwhile back at home the intel staff having been telling the
Senate/Congress that the Taliban and AQ are on a roll, with their
activities 20% up on last year.



You'll have
to carry on without me for a while, because I just got a PROMOTION!
(whoopie!) and I'm going to be going like a one-armed paperhanger.


Good for you. Keep punching out the words.


See you sooner or later. Make sure the boys play nice.


Its more amusing when they try not to.

On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:48:41 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:38:33 +0000, Guido wrote:

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:19:14 -0500, "Nicholas Anthony"
wrote:


"Guido" wrote in message
...

So the heros were in the Pentagon plane?

With the other exceptions you overlooked. IMO if you want to put it that way
yes it was less of a cowardly target.



???

Was your dictionary written by the Ministry of Truth?

He probably needs to do some Google searching ....
What happened to the last batch of wingers? They seemed
just a bit brighter.


Must be a new group just out of HS. The result of 5 years of
conservative education.