Re: Detained at the whim of the president

[None]

"mellstrr" > wrote in message
...

> > > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
> > > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic challengers
> > > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> > >
> > > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
>
> You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that one...I
> think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
things
> would be so much easier if he were one?

Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.

In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and for
the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot
easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW

He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been moving
the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.

For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be ****ED
OFF.

[RobbelothE]

This is way OT. Take it outside.

Ed
"The French couldn't hate us any
more unless we helped 'em out in another war."
--Will Rogers



(Delete text after dot com for e-mail reply.)

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:07:04 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:53:52 GMT, James Robinson >
>wrote:
>
>>Ken Davey wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems to me that the instant these 'detainees' arrived at Guantonamo they
>>> were on US soil and were therefore entitled to the *full* protection of the
>>> US constitution. If not that means that no one is protected. Tell me I am
>>> wrong; Someone?; Please?
>>
>>The Guantanamo base is leased from Cuba, and is therefore not US soil.
>>That is one of the reasons it is being used, since it doesn't come
>>directly under US law, at least that is the way Ashcroft is interpreting
>>it. The US Supreme Court is going to hear arguments in the new year
>>about that very subject.
>
> THe arguement is that the U.S. civil court system does not have
>jurisdiction over territory over which it is not "soverign". There is
>precedent on this from WWII.
> But the counter arguement is that we are the "de facto" soverigns in
>Guantanemo, since it's unlikely that if a Cuban judge issued a release
>order for any of the detainees, we'd obey it. That arguement also has
>some precedent-- the trial of General Yama****a, which the SC heard on
>the merits, even though it denied his appeal, indicating that the
>court system did indeed have jurisdiction.

I would have to disagree that this situation is analogous enough for
US v Yama****a to be considered a precedent. There was no doubt
that "War Crimes Tribunals" were a form of "Court", thus the Supremes
obviously had jurisdiction, however the situation in Cube is far
different. The detainees are "illegal combatants", and do not have
the right to petition for a writ of habeas corps, as they are not being
held as "criminals". Very complicated subject.

> THe problem is one of seperation of powers, and by some indications,
>the SC is not overly happy at having the Administration tell them they
>don't have jurisdiction, even if they eventually rule that way
>themselves.

It is IMHO a question not of separation of powers, but rather
a question of jurisdiction.

Al Minyard

[Jarg]

Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?

Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
than most of these people.

Jarg

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "mellstrr" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
> > > > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic
challengers
> > > > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> > > >
> > > > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second term.
> >
> > You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that
one...I
> > think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
> things
> > would be so much easier if he were one?
>
> Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.
>
> In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and for
> the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a
lot
> easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW
>
> He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been moving
> the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.
>
> For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be ****ED
> OFF.
>
>

[Jack Schidt®]

Would you mind taking rec.food.cooking off of the list of cross posted
groups? This has nothing to do with cooking.

Thanks,

Jack Schidt



"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
yourself?
>
> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
debate,
> and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
> than most of these people.
>
> Jarg
>
> "None" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "mellstrr" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going to
> > > > > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic
> challengers
> > > > > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second
term.
> > >
> > > You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that
> one...I
> > > think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say that
> > things
> > > would be so much easier if he were one?
> >
> > Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.
> >
> > In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and
for
> > the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a
> lot
> > easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW
> >
> > He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been
moving
> > the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.
> >
> > For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be
****ED
> > OFF.
> >
> >
>
>

[Jarg]

Sorry, I was just replying, didn't specify the groups. I will try to note
such in the future.

Jarg

"Jack Schidt®" > wrote in message
m...
> Would you mind taking rec.food.cooking off of the list of cross posted
> groups? This has nothing to do with cooking.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack Schidt
>
>
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
> yourself?
> >
> > Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
> debate,
> > and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly
brighter
> > than most of these people.
> >
> > Jarg
> >
> > "None" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "mellstrr" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > Listen, the little dicktater is worried that all this is going
to
> > > > > > hurt his chances of re-election, since all the democratic
> > challengers
> > > > > > are beating on these issues day in and day out in the press.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thankfully, that little prick won't be re-elected for a second
> term.
> > > >
> > > > You'd better hope Diebold doesn't have something to say about that
> > one...I
> > > > think Shrub likes the notion of being 'dicktater'. Didn't he say
that
> > > things
> > > > would be so much easier if he were one?
> > >
> > > Why, yes as a matter of fact, he did, more than once.
> > >
> > > In Washington, DC on Dec. 18, 2000, the texas tard opened his yap and
> for
> > > the second time said: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of
a
> > lot
> > > easier...just as long as I'm the dictator." -- GW
> > >
> > > He, along with the puppet masters Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, have been
> moving
> > > the U.S. steadily towards a dictatorship ever since.
> > >
> > > For more bushisms: http://www.dubyaspeak.com be prepared to be
> ****ED
> > > OFF.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[trotsky]

Jack Schidt® wrote:
> Would you mind taking rec.food.cooking off of the list of cross posted
> groups? This has nothing to do with cooking.


Yeah, but if none of the others know Jack Schidt, what difference does
it make?

[None]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
> They can ask but they can't do anything about it because the United States
> is there legally under the terms of the lease. And your rumour is just
> that, a rumour. I'm sure the presence of US forces in Cuba irritates
Castro
> (and his left wing buddies like you) to no end.
>
> Jarg

Anyone that doesn't agree with you is left wing? What are you, some kind of
communist? The land belongs to Cuba, they can tell the US to get the ****
out whether we like it or not. Leases can be broken. Where is the U.S.
going to sue to perfect their "lease" in the Cuban courts? Here in the
U.S.?

I laugh at your nonsense. Just because a so called lease exists doesn't
mean the U.S. government can lay claim to the lands and tenements of another
country. Whether or not the Gitmo irritates Castro or not, the land still
belongs to Cuba and if they want to break the lease, they can. You seem to
be implying that U.S. law extends to Cuba, I assure you, it does not. If
the lease calls for payment in gold, and the U.S. sends a check, then they
are, and have been in breach of contract for years and rightfully, Cuba
could easily evict them and abandon the "lease".

My point was very clear, and you attempted to subvert it. Cuba LIKES the
fact that Gitmo is there, but you shouldn't be surprised that they don't put
that fact up on billboards!

[None]

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...

> Oh, who flew the planes in to the twin towers?

Saudis, and don't you forget it!

[Jarg]

No, I would imagine that people who disagree with me hold a variety of
polical views. But am I far off about you? I doubt it.

You may laugh all you want but the fact remains the US will continue to
enforce this lease and there isn't a thing Castro can do about it.

Jarg


"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > They can ask but they can't do anything about it because the United
States
> > is there legally under the terms of the lease. And your rumour is just
> > that, a rumour. I'm sure the presence of US forces in Cuba irritates
> Castro
> > (and his left wing buddies like you) to no end.
> >
> > Jarg
>
> Anyone that doesn't agree with you is left wing? What are you, some kind
of
> communist? The land belongs to Cuba, they can tell the US to get the ****
> out whether we like it or not. Leases can be broken. Where is the U.S.
> going to sue to perfect their "lease" in the Cuban courts? Here in the
> U.S.?
>
> I laugh at your nonsense. Just because a so called lease exists doesn't
> mean the U.S. government can lay claim to the lands and tenements of
another
> country. Whether or not the Gitmo irritates Castro or not, the land still
> belongs to Cuba and if they want to break the lease, they can. You seem
to
> be implying that U.S. law extends to Cuba, I assure you, it does not. If
> the lease calls for payment in gold, and the U.S. sends a check, then they
> are, and have been in breach of contract for years and rightfully, Cuba
> could easily evict them and abandon the "lease".
>
> My point was very clear, and you attempted to subvert it. Cuba LIKES the
> fact that Gitmo is there, but you shouldn't be surprised that they don't
put
> that fact up on billboards!
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Olivers" > wrote in message
...
> Rick muttered....

(Snip)

> .....It's great to proipose that
> democratic institutions be emplced tomorrow in every Mideastern capital,
> but substantial social and cultural changes must inevitably preceded their
> success. The Palestinians, perhaps aside from the Lebanese the most
> "Westernized" and potentially "Democraticized" of Middle Easterners
> regularly demonstrate their short comings when it comes to Democracy. As
> misguided and paranoid as the Israelis may be, they can hardly match the
> Palestinians in the level of obnoxious stupidity which causes them to
> preserve that nasty little scrufty bearded cretin in a position of power,
> propped up by terror groups whom Palestinian society remains unwilling to
> confront and eliminate.

Have you ever noted the unfailing knack the Palestinians seem to have to snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory at every opportunity? They don't seem to have a
clue as to what it takes to achieve success in the current world as it is,
rather than as they dream it to be.

George Z.

[None]

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:30:28 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Pan Ohco wrote:
> >
> >> > Saddam Hussein and "the terrorists" didn't start
> >> >this fight.
> >> >
> >> >Rick
> >> >
> >> Oh, who flew the planes in to the twin towers?
> >
> >Saudis.
> >Duh
>
> Oh terrorist didn't fly the planes?
> Saddam didn't give aid to terrorist?
>
> Duh! You should at least remember your own posting.
> Pan Ohco

That wasn't the gist of the conversation as it was going. The conversation
was referring to the nationality of the "terrorists" which, in ALL but two
cases, were Saudi Arabian, born, raised and terrorist trained. The fact
that the U.S. Military, CIA and FBI have said that they had ties to, and
were directed by binLaden, and that binLaden was supported by Hussein with
money and use of Iraqi based training facilities has nothing to do with the
fact that those involved in the JetJacking were Saudi Arabian citizens, Not
Iraqi, Not Afghani, Not Iranian - they were Saudi Arabian. Since Saudi
Arabia is the source of the majority of the fossil fuels consumed by the
United States, the Shrub is content in ignoring that fact, blaming the
Saudi's competition, and overthrowing the governments of their competitors.

One might think, however, that now that the U.S. has it's hands on the Iraqi
oil fields, has handed their production over to Halliburton Industries, is
pumping their oil straight into Texas, and that said oil will continue to be
usurped until the cost of the American occupation of Iraq is recouped (see
the aforementioned reasonless overthrow) as well as the cost associated with
rebuilding the country we bombed the **** out of, Shrub may not need the
Saudis as much anymore, and we might actually look at the Saudis for what
they really are; American hating, women hating, loveless sonsofbitches who
can't make up their mind whether they want our revenues that come from our
purchase of oil, or if they want us all dead so they continue to support
terrorism against the United States and give the Saudi Prince and his band
of ****-ups diplomatic immunity to prosecution (I.E. the withholding of
evidence by the white house that Saudi Arabia had a LARGE hand in the twin
towers debacle) . . . . oh hell this whole mess with these rag heads has
caused me to loose my train of thought. . . .

Saudis are wholely the singlemost responsible party when it comes to
terrorist attacks against the united states, it's allies and other countries
around the world. The Saudis truly believe that their oil reserves are
going to give them control of the world and through terrorist attacks which
they blame on other nations and the oil buyers (read U.S.) buy their
bull****, they will, in short order, have more nations warring against one
another than we might imagine.

We don't want Iran to have the bomb, we don't want Iraq to have the bomb, we
don't want North Korea to have the bomb, yet we gave the bomb to India,
Pakistan AND Saudi Arabia, and say nothing. Three of the most unstable
minded governments in the world have been handed nukes from the U.S. and we
decide that Iraqis with rusty rifles and a few shoulder launch weapons are
more dangerous to the world.

The very fact that you seem to buy this binLaden/Hussein masterminded the
twin towers horse**** from Dubya and his band of liars, and the fact that
you seem to revel in his re-election tells me that you have jello for brains
and that you'll believe whatever makes you feel like waving a flag.

You're just a tragically misled republican. I wonder if we should feel
sorry for you, or advocate euthanasia of lost republican sheep and put you
all out of your misery!

Other groups snipped out because they are tired of your bull**** too! I
won't see your response, I don't read the groups you post to!

[George Z. Bush]

Oelewapper wrote:
>> How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is vague,
>> but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a self-evident
>> truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I absolutely
>> mislead?
>
> AMERICAN CONSTITUTION - Section. 9.
> Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States
> now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
> Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax
> or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for
> each Person.
>
> Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,
> unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require
> it.
>
> Amendment V
>
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
> crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
> cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
> service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
> the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
> compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
> deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
> shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
>
> Amendment XIII
>
> Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
> for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
>
>
> Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
> legislation.
>
> ----------------
>
> Well, well well. Back to future... What happened to the 5th and the 13th
> amendment ??? If what's going on at Guantanamo (i.e. 'the importation of
> people') is approved by the Supreme Court, this is more than a dangerous
> precedent. In fact it would be a repeat of a cruel antecedent in American
> history: slavery. Didn't Bush study history at Yale?

I believe the only thing he studied seriously as a student at Yale was the
quantity of alcoholic beverage it would take to reduce him to a state of
unconsciousness. The only reason Yale saw fit to issue a degree in his name was
that his father and grandfather were alumni and, both having been or being in
public life, they were in a position to do the university irreparable harm if it
failed to award him the degree, albeit academically unearned.

That's a process known throughout academe as "legacy" enrollments carried to its
normal conclusions. Many universities subscribe to the practice, however
unattractive it may seem, including those at the upper tier, like Yale and
Harvard.

To understand our President's true academic skills and aptitudes, one has merely
to look at the action taken by his home state university, the University of
Texas, who, upon receiving his application for entry into their law school,
politely declined the honor and suggested that his educational future undoubted
rested in some area other than the one in which he expressed interest.

I believe that was the event that prompted him to apply to Harvard University
for entry into their Masters program. His progress through that program was
completely undistinguished, as he candidly admits, and ended in its award of an
unearned degree to him that other students without influential parents or
grandparents would ever have received.

George Z.

[Jarg]

Even if he were as undeserving as your subjective judgment deems, that was
some time ago. I would say that President Bush has demonstrated himself to
be a successful individual and a very competent leader (much to the dismay
of those who oppose him).

Jarg

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> Oelewapper wrote:
> >> How is it by the way that the US constitution beings? My memory is
vague,
> >> but I believe that it says something to the effect that it is a
self-evident
> >> truth that certain rights and freedoms are for everyone? Or am I
absolutely
> >> mislead?
> >
> > AMERICAN CONSTITUTION - Section. 9.
> > Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
States
> > now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
> > Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a
Tax
> > or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars
for
> > each Person.
> >
> > Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended,
> > unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may
require
> > it.
> >
> > Amendment V
> >
> > No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
> > crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
> > cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual
> > service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject
for
> > the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall
be
> > compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
> > deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
> > shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
> >
> > Amendment XIII
> >
> > Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment
> > for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
> > within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
> >
> >
> > Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate
> > legislation.
> >
> > ----------------
> >
> > Well, well well. Back to future... What happened to the 5th and the
13th
> > amendment ??? If what's going on at Guantanamo (i.e. 'the importation
of
> > people') is approved by the Supreme Court, this is more than a dangerous
> > precedent. In fact it would be a repeat of a cruel antecedent in
American
> > history: slavery. Didn't Bush study history at Yale?
>
> I believe the only thing he studied seriously as a student at Yale was the
> quantity of alcoholic beverage it would take to reduce him to a state of
> unconsciousness. The only reason Yale saw fit to issue a degree in his
name was
> that his father and grandfather were alumni and, both having been or being
in
> public life, they were in a position to do the university irreparable harm
if it
> failed to award him the degree, albeit academically unearned.
>
> That's a process known throughout academe as "legacy" enrollments carried
to its
> normal conclusions. Many universities subscribe to the practice, however
> unattractive it may seem, including those at the upper tier, like Yale and
> Harvard.
>
> To understand our President's true academic skills and aptitudes, one has
merely
> to look at the action taken by his home state university, the University
of
> Texas, who, upon receiving his application for entry into their law
school,
> politely declined the honor and suggested that his educational future
undoubted
> rested in some area other than the one in which he expressed interest.
>
> I believe that was the event that prompted him to apply to Harvard
University
> for entry into their Masters program. His progress through that program
was
> completely undistinguished, as he candidly admits, and ended in its award
of an
> unearned degree to him that other students without influential parents or
> grandparents would ever have received.
>
> George Z.
>
>

[Bogart]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:54:35 -0600, Olivers >
wrote:

rec.aviation.military.

I read this response before seeing the ng line and TMO as your sig.
Thought I recognized your writing style. :)


>Jarg muttered....
>
>> When I was growing up in Iran, the Shah was usually refered to
>> formally as Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. Not sure why though.
>>
>
>Any pretense to royal lineage wasa modern illusion. The Shah's father had
>been a sergeant in the army, a bit short of royal rank, long short of even
>the aristocratic pretense of Mustafa Kemal "Attaturk" next door. I've seen
>the name transliterated as both Pahlavi (seemingly the current popula
>version) and Pahlevi, but like Baghdad/Bagdad, only the _New York Times- is
>the arbiter for us 'Merkins.
>
>I would be interested in that $3 per barrel oil price differential which
>sent Saddam Hussein galloping into Kuwait. He may have wanted Kuwait's
>oil, but the bottom line was that only outlaws were going to purchase it -
>or Iraqi oil either - in the face of a boycott by the civilized nations
>(less France where the veneer of civilization has never interfered with
>self-interest).
>
>Of course, those worried about the Coalition invasion of Iraq conveniently
>ignore a dozen years (and 250,000 combat missions by coalition pilots)
>waiting for Iraq to do what it swore it would do at the Gulf war "cease
>fire" (no treaty, no end, just a temporary halt to allow Iraq to disarm,
>quit murdering domestic opponents, Shia and Kurds and messing about with
>WMD which, if you've used in the past and continue to tell the world you
>have - as Saddam Hussein did, you might ought to count on portions of it
>believing you).
>
>TMO
>
>As for the US invading Iraq for its oil, Mexico and Venezuala are closer
>and easier, and Hell's Bells, a Canadian Invasion (with current Canadian
>forces roughly equivalent to a fedayeen battalion with organic arms) would
>provide vast natural gas, potential oil reserves, nice resorts, improved
>hunting and fishing, and we could sell Quebec and the Kebekkers to France
>on a long slow note, gift the UK with Newfoundland for a resettlement
>scheme for the Prods of NIreland and allow walt Disney to develop the
>Labrador.
>
>TMO

[B2431]

>From: john
>
>Mabe you can tell me how many troops were supplied by the following
>
>coalition countries:
>
>
> Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the
>Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
>Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania,
>Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland,
>Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
>
>I doubt if you will have to take your shoes off to count over 10.
>
>The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
>of the troops in Iraq.
>
I suggest you check your figures. Spain, Italy and Poland have lost personnel
for example. How about you do some research before you spout off?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?

> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
> and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
> than most of these people.

A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
an insult, its a simple fact.

[The Wolf]

On 12/15/2003 5:48 AM, in article ,
" > opined:

> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?
>
>> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
>> and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
>> than most of these people.
>
> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
> an insult, its a simple fact.
>

Come on! Even for you that's out in left field.

[B2431]

>From:
>Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?
>
>> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
>> and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
>> than most of these people.
>
>A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
>the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
>an insult, its a simple fact.
>

Please cite a verifiable source.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[George Z. Bush]

B2431 wrote:
>> From:
>> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
>>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up yourself?
>>
>>> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent debate,
>>> and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
>>> than most of these people.
>>
>> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
>> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
>> an insult, its a simple fact.
>>
>
> Please cite a verifiable source.

Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:



Newsday
Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders on
Capitol Hill
Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE
UPDATED.

FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about George W.
Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals, it's the day
the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned, the electors
will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.

He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the nation's
capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional leaders.

CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.

CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Frank, President- elect George W.
Bush came to Capitol Hill today for the first time since the election intending
to listen to congressional leaders, the bipartisan congressional leadership. But
he also made it clear to them, in more than two and a half hours of meetings,
that he intends to stand by his tax cut proposal and other planks in his
campaign agenda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were
going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If
this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm
the dictator.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

George Z.




>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 12/15/2003 5:57 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>B2431 wrote:
>>> From:
>>> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
>>>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
>yourself?
>>>
>>>> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
>debate,
>>>> and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly brighter
>>>> than most of these people.
>>>
>>> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
>>> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
>>> an insult, its a simple fact.
>>>
>>
>> Please cite a verifiable source.
>
>Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:
>
>
>
>Newsday
>Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders on
>Capitol Hill
>Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
>THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE
>UPDATED.
>
>FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about George W.
>Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals, it's the day
>the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned, the
>electors
>will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.
>
>He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the nation's
>capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional leaders.
>
>CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.
>
>CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Frank, President- elect George
>W.
>Bush came to Capitol Hill today for the first time since the election
>intending
>to listen to congressional leaders, the bipartisan congressional leadership.
>But
>he also made it clear to them, in more than two and a half hours of meetings,
>that he intends to stand by his tax cut proposal and other planks in his
>campaign agenda.
>
>(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
>
>GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were
>going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK.
>If
>this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm
>the dictator.
>
>(END VIDEO CLIP)
>
>George Z.
>
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
Well, if you took that seriously you were probably the only one.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "George Z. Bush"
> >Date: 12/15/2003 5:57 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >B2431 wrote:
> >>> From:
> >>> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
> >>> Message-id: >
> >>>
> >>> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
> >>>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
> >yourself?
> >>>
> >>>> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
> >debate,
> >>>> and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly
brighter
> >>>> than most of these people.
> >>>
> >>> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
> >>> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
> >>> an insult, its a simple fact.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Please cite a verifiable source.
> >
> >Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:
> >
> >
> >
> >Newsday
> >Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional
Leaders on
> >Capitol Hill
> >Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
> >THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE
> >UPDATED.
> >
> >FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about George
W.
> >Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals, it's the
day
> >the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned, the
> >electors
> >will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.
> >
> >He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the nation's
> >capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional leaders.
> >
> >CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.
> >
> >CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Frank, President- elect
George
> >W.
> >Bush came to Capitol Hill today for the first time since the election
> >intending
> >to listen to congressional leaders, the bipartisan congressional
leadership.
> >But
> >he also made it clear to them, in more than two and a half hours of
meetings,
> >that he intends to stand by his tax cut proposal and other planks in his
> >campaign agenda.
> >
> >(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
> >
> >GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there
were
> >going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's
OK.
> >If
> >this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as
I'm
> >the dictator.
> >
> >(END VIDEO CLIP)
> >
> >George Z.
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
> Well, if you took that seriously you were probably the only one.

Nothing new here--George has a demonstrated tendancy to stretch things a bit
when it comes to tarring Bush, just as he leans in the other direction to
defend his hero, the former occupant of the White House. It is therefore not
a bit surprising that he would trot out such a weak attempt at twisting
Bush's light humor into a serious statement. He is still in mourning over
the demise of Gore/Lieberman...er, or is that Gore/Dean...uhmmm, maybe
Dean/Gore?

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

[George Z. Bush]

B2431 wrote:
>> From: "George Z. Bush"
>> Date: 12/15/2003 5:57 PM Central Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> B2431 wrote:
>>>> From:
>>>> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>
>>>> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
>>>>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
>>>>> yourself?
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
>>>>> debate, and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly
>>>>> brighter than most of these people.
>>>>
>>>> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
>>>> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
>>>> an insult, its a simple fact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please cite a verifiable source.
>>
>> Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:
>>
>>
>>
>> Newsday
>> Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders on
>> Capitol Hill
>> Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
>> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE
>> UPDATED.
>>
>> FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about George W.
>> Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals, it's the day
>> the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned, the
>> electors
>> will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.
>>
>> He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the nation's
>> capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional leaders.
>>
>> CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.
>>
>> CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Frank, President- elect George
>> W.
>> Bush came to Capitol Hill today for the first time since the election
>> intending
>> to listen to congressional leaders, the bipartisan congressional leadership.
>> But
>> he also made it clear to them, in more than two and a half hours of meetings,
>> that he intends to stand by his tax cut proposal and other planks in his
>> campaign agenda.
>>
>> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
>>
>> GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were
>> going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK.
>> If
>> this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm
>> the dictator.
>>
>> (END VIDEO CLIP)
>>
>> George Z.
>>
>>>
>>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>
> Well, if you took that seriously you were probably the only one.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

If you think that quote was inaccurate, it's your turn to provide a verifiable
source. You didn't ask me to provide only verifiable sources I took
seriously....merely to provide a verifiable source, which I believe I did.
Whether or not I took it seriously has nothing to do with it.

You know the old saying, "be careful what you wish for, you may just get it".
Maybe you just didn't ask the right question.....but that'd be your problem, not
mine.

George Z.

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"
>
>B2431 wrote:
>>> From: "George Z. Bush"
>>> Date: 12/15/2003 5:57 PM Central Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> B2431 wrote:
>>>>> From:
>>>>> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
>>>>> Message-id: >
>>>>>
>>>>> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
>>>>>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
>>>>>> yourself?
>>>>>
<snip>
>>>>> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
>>>>> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
>>>>> an insult, its a simple fact.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please cite a verifiable source.
>>>
>>> Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:
>>>
>>>> Newsday
>>> Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders
>on
>>> Capitol Hill
>>> Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
>>> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
>BE
>>> UPDATED.
>>>
>>> FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about George W.
>>> Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals, it's the
>day
>>> the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned, the
>>> electors
>>> will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.
>>>
>>> He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the nation's
>>> capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional leaders.
>>>
>>> CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.
>>>

>>> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
>>>
>>> GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there
>were
>>> going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's
>OK.
>>> If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long
as
>I'm the dictator.
>>>
>>> (END VIDEO CLIP)
>>>
>>> George Z.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>> Well, if you took that seriously you were probably the only one.
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>If you think that quote was inaccurate, it's your turn to provide a
>verifiable
>source. You didn't ask me to provide only verifiable sources I took
>seriously....merely to provide a verifiable source, which I believe I did.
>Whether or not I took it seriously has nothing to do with it.
>

I never said it was inaccurate. I simply implied it was probably intended to be
humourous.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Michael Williamson]

B2431 wrote:

>>If you think that quote was inaccurate, it's your turn to provide a
>>verifiable
>>source. You didn't ask me to provide only verifiable sources I took
>>seriously....merely to provide a verifiable source, which I believe I did.
>>Whether or not I took it seriously has nothing to do with it.
>>
>
>
> I never said it was inaccurate. I simply implied it was probably intended to be
> humourous.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Implication is probably beyond his ability to grasp.

Allow me to be more specific. The statement WAS a jest, and it would
take a complete idiot to believe otherwise.

Mike

[George Z. Bush]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "George Z. Bush"
> >
> >B2431 wrote:
> >>> From: "George Z. Bush"
> >>> Date: 12/15/2003 5:57 PM Central Standard Time
> >>> Message-id: >
> >>>
> >>> B2431 wrote:
> >>>>> From:
> >>>>> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
> >>>>> Message-id: >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
> >>>>>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
> >>>>>> yourself?
> >>>>>
> <snip>
> >>>>> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
> >>>>> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
> >>>>> an insult, its a simple fact.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please cite a verifiable source.
> >>>
> >>> Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:
> >>>
> >>>> Newsday
> >>> Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders
> >on
> >>> Capitol Hill
> >>> Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
> >>> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
> >BE
> >>> UPDATED.
> >>>
> >>> FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about George W.
> >>> Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals, it's the
> >day
> >>> the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned, the
> >>> electors
> >>> will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.
> >>>
> >>> He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the nation's
> >>> capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional leaders.
> >>>
> >>> CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.
> >>>
>
> >>> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
> >>>
> >>> GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there
> >were
> >>> going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's
> >OK.
> >>> If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long
> as
> >I'm the dictator.
> >>>
> >>> (END VIDEO CLIP)
> >>>
> >>> George Z.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >>>
> >> Well, if you took that seriously you were probably the only one.
> >>
> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >If you think that quote was inaccurate, it's your turn to provide a
> >verifiable
> >source. You didn't ask me to provide only verifiable sources I took
> >seriously....merely to provide a verifiable source, which I believe I did.
> >Whether or not I took it seriously has nothing to do with it.
> >
>
> I never said it was inaccurate. I simply implied it was probably intended to
be
> humourous.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

And I didn't say anything.....one way or the other, so I don't know what made
you think I took it seriously. It wouldn't have been that you didn't think that
anything existed at all by way of a cite and felt obliged to make light of it
when one turned up, would it? Nah, of course not! You were just making
funnies. Yeah....that must be it. Sure it was.


George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: "George Z. Bush"
> > >
> > >B2431 wrote:
> > >>> From: "George Z. Bush"
> > >>> Date: 12/15/2003 5:57 PM Central Standard Time
> > >>> Message-id: >
> > >>>
> > >>> B2431 wrote:
> > >>>>> From:
> > >>>>> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
> > >>>>> Message-id: >
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
> > >>>>>> yourself?
> > >>>>>
> > <snip>
> > >>>>> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush
said
> > >>>>> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
> > >>>>> an insult, its a simple fact.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please cite a verifiable source.
> > >>>
> > >>> Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Newsday
> > >>> Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional
Leaders
> > >on
> > >>> Capitol Hill
> > >>> Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
> > >>> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM
AND MAY
> > >BE
> > >>> UPDATED.
> > >>>
> > >>> FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about
George W.
> > >>> Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals,
it's the
> > >day
> > >>> the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned,
the
> > >>> electors
> > >>> will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.
> > >>>
> > >>> He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the
nation's
> > >>> capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional
leaders.
> > >>>
> > >>> CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
> > >>>
> > >>> GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that
there
> > >were
> > >>> going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But
that's
> > >OK.
> > >>> If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just
so long
> > as
> > >I'm the dictator.
> > >>>
> > >>> (END VIDEO CLIP)
> > >>>
> > >>> George Z.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> > >>>
> > >> Well, if you took that seriously you were probably the only one.
> > >>
> > >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> > >
> > >If you think that quote was inaccurate, it's your turn to provide a
> > >verifiable
> > >source. You didn't ask me to provide only verifiable sources I took
> > >seriously....merely to provide a verifiable source, which I believe I
did.
> > >Whether or not I took it seriously has nothing to do with it.
> > >
> >
> > I never said it was inaccurate. I simply implied it was probably
intended to
> be
> > humourous.
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> And I didn't say anything.....one way or the other, so I don't know what
made
> you think I took it seriously. It wouldn't have been that you didn't
think that
> anything existed at all by way of a cite and felt obliged to make light of
it
> when one turned up, would it? Nah, of course not! You were just making
> funnies. Yeah....that must be it. Sure it was.

One could doubtless find an example of some President making a humorous
reference to space aliens--that does not make it germane to the issue of
whether or not said President actually believes in space aliens. Face it,
Georgie--you were stretching for another opportunity to try and make Bush
look bad, or in this case someone who has the temerity to defend Bush's real
policies which are not reflected by such a humorous remark. You just
stretched too far (again). Kind of like your incorrect assertion recently
that Bush never volunteered for service overseas, which was also a bit of a
stretch to say the least, since he reportedly did volunteer for Palace Alert
duty (http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm).
Which was one hell of a lot more than your hero Clinton ever volunteered
for.

Brooks

>
>
> George Z.
>
>

[RogerM]

None wrote:

>
> I laugh at your nonsense. Just because a so called lease exists doesn't
> mean the U.S. government can lay claim to the lands and tenements of another
> country. Whether or not the Gitmo irritates Castro or not, the land still
> belongs to Cuba and if they want to break the lease, they can. You seem to
> be implying that U.S. law extends to Cuba, I assure you, it does not. If
> the lease calls for payment in gold, and the U.S. sends a check, then they
> are, and have been in breach of contract for years and rightfully, Cuba
> could easily evict them and abandon the "lease".
>

How, exactly could Cuba enforce that eviction notice?

[Jarg]

Humor. Not meant to be taken literally. Surely you knew that?!

Jarg

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> B2431 wrote:
> >> From:
> >> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
> >> Message-id: >
> >>
> >> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
> >>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
yourself?
> >>
> >>> Interesting how the left's true believers are incapable of coherent
debate,
> >>> and must resort to personal insult. I bet Bush is significantly
brighter
> >>> than most of these people.
> >>
> >> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush said
> >> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
> >> an insult, its a simple fact.
> >>
> >
> > Please cite a verifiable source.
>
> Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:
>
>
>
> Newsday
> Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional Leaders
on
> Capitol Hill
> Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE
> UPDATED.
>
> FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about George W.
> Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals, it's the
day
> the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned, the
electors
> will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.
>
> He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the nation's
> capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional leaders.
>
> CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.
>
> CHRIS BLACK, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Frank, President- elect
George W.
> Bush came to Capitol Hill today for the first time since the election
intending
> to listen to congressional leaders, the bipartisan congressional
leadership. But
> he also made it clear to them, in more than two and a half hours of
meetings,
> that he intends to stand by his tax cut proposal and other planks in his
> campaign agenda.
>
> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
>
> GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there
were
> going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's
OK. If
> this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as
I'm
> the dictator.
>
> (END VIDEO CLIP)
>
> George Z.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>

[None]

You need to get with the program here. By NOT presenting the "check" for
payment, the Cuban government is stating that they no longer recognize the
lease/contract.


"Jarg" > wrote in message
...
> I see, so you go to the store, pick up some merchandise, write a check
which
> the merchant decides not to cash. By your logic you have not paid and are
a
> thief!
>
> Jarg
>
>
> "Nik" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On 12/10/2003 10:18 PM, in article
,
> > > "Nik" > opined:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't
> paid
> > > > rent. One might actually argue that the base is occupied land.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nik.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hey asshole, get your facts straight.
> > >
> > > The U.S. HAS paid the rent every year. Castro doesn't cash the checks.
> > >
> >
> > Which means that they haven't paid!
> >
> > Nik.
> >
> >
>
>

[The Wolf]

On 12/16/2003 1:32 PM, in article
et, "None"
> opined:

> You need to get with the program here. By NOT presenting the "check" for
> payment, the Cuban government is stating that they no longer recognize the
> lease/contract.
>

No ****wad, YOU need to get with the program. The Cuban government has no
legal right to "no longer recognized the lease."

If they don't cash the check it means they don't get paid.

[Jarg]

Perhaps you should try reading my post. I was address the idea that by not
accepting the checks they were not being paid which is silly. As for Cuba
not accepting the contract, too bad for them.

Jarg

"None" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> You need to get with the program here. By NOT presenting the "check" for
> payment, the Cuban government is stating that they no longer recognize the
> lease/contract.
>
>
> "Jarg" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I see, so you go to the store, pick up some merchandise, write a check
> which
> > the merchant decides not to cash. By your logic you have not paid and
are
> a
> > thief!
> >
> > Jarg
> >
> >
> > "Nik" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On 12/10/2003 10:18 PM, in article
> ,
> > > > "Nik" > opined:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And since the good old Fidel took over power in Cuba the US hasn't
> > paid
> > > > > rent. One might actually argue that the base is occupied land.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nik.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey asshole, get your facts straight.
> > > >
> > > > The U.S. HAS paid the rent every year. Castro doesn't cash the
checks.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Which means that they haven't paid!
> > >
> > > Nik.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >From: "George Z. Bush"
> > > >
> > > >B2431 wrote:
> > > >>> From: "George Z. Bush"
> > > >>> Date: 12/15/2003 5:57 PM Central Standard Time
> > > >>> Message-id: >
> > > >>>
> > > >>> B2431 wrote:
> > > >>>>> From:
> > > >>>>> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
> > > >>>>> Message-id: >
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that one up
> > > >>>>>> yourself?
> > > >>>>>
> > > <snip>
> > > >>>>> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush
> said
> > > >>>>> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's not
> > > >>>>> an insult, its a simple fact.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Please cite a verifiable source.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Newsday
> > > >>> Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With Congressional
> Leaders
> > > >on
> > > >>> Capitol Hill
> > > >>> Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
> > > >>> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM
> AND MAY
> > > >BE
> > > >>> UPDATED.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about
> George W.
> > > >>> Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals,
> it's the
> > > >day
> > > >>> the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as planned,
> the
> > > >>> electors
> > > >>> will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the
> nation's
> > > >>> capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional
> leaders.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now -- Chris.
> > > >>>
> > >
> > > >>> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that
> there
> > > >were
> > > >>> going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But
> that's
> > > >OK.
> > > >>> If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just
> so long
> > > as
> > > >I'm the dictator.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> (END VIDEO CLIP)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> George Z.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> > > >>>
> > > >> Well, if you took that seriously you were probably the only one.
> > > >>
> > > >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> > > >
> > > >If you think that quote was inaccurate, it's your turn to provide a
> > > >verifiable
> > > >source. You didn't ask me to provide only verifiable sources I took
> > > >seriously....merely to provide a verifiable source, which I believe I
> did.
> > > >Whether or not I took it seriously has nothing to do with it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I never said it was inaccurate. I simply implied it was probably
> intended to
> > be
> > > humourous.
> > >
> > > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
> > And I didn't say anything.....one way or the other, so I don't know what
> made
> > you think I took it seriously. It wouldn't have been that you didn't
> think that
> > anything existed at all by way of a cite and felt obliged to make light of
> it
> > when one turned up, would it? Nah, of course not! You were just making
> > funnies. Yeah....that must be it. Sure it was.
>
> One could doubtless find an example of some President making a humorous
> reference to space aliens--that does not make it germane to the issue of
> whether or not said President actually believes in space aliens. Face it,
> Georgie--you were stretching for another opportunity to try and make Bush
> look bad,.....

You sure do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you. Try to follow the
bouncing ball:
1. I was asked to provide a verifiable cite regarding a comment Bush was
supposed to make regarding being a dictator.
2. I provided the source that contained such a remark supposedly made by
him.
3. I was not asked to, nor did I certify that the remark was accurate, or
to describe the context in which it was made and I did NOT, in fact, make any
such certification or description.
4. Now, if you've followed it that far, then you need to pick a fight with
somebody else if that's what you're trying to do, because I had nothing else to
say during this exchange, one way or the other.
5. That's all there is.....I'm not stretching, or making any claims, or for
that matter, taking part in the exchange. All I did was to provide a cite for
the remark. If you think it was inaccurate, take it up with Newsday (since they
provided the CNN transcript).

Now, if you want to keep on arguing, find someone else with whom to take it up.
I provided a source for a comment.....that's all. If you want to pick nits,
pick them with someone who's in the argument, and that's not me. Got it?

(Chip on shoulder snipped for brevity)

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >From: "George Z. Bush"
> > > > >
> > > > >B2431 wrote:
> > > > >>> From: "George Z. Bush"
> > > > >>> Date: 12/15/2003 5:57 PM Central Standard Time
> > > > >>> Message-id: >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> B2431 wrote:
> > > > >>>>> From:
> > > > >>>>> Date: 12/15/2003 7:48 AM Central Standard Time
> > > > >>>>> Message-id: >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> In rec.food.cooking Jarg > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> Hhahahahahah "Texas Tard" Hahahahahah Did you think that
one up
> > > > >>>>>> yourself?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > <snip>
> > > > >>>>> A personal insult? It is a matter of historical fact that Bush
> > said
> > > > >>>>> the world would be a better place if he was dictator. That's
not
> > > > >>>>> an insult, its a simple fact.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Please cite a verifiable source.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Your wish is my command, courtesy of Google:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Newsday
> > > > >>> Transition of Power: President-Elect Bush Meets With
Congressional
> > Leaders
> > > > >on
> > > > >>> Capitol Hill
> > > > >>> Aired December 18, 2000 - 12:00 p.m. ET
> > > > >>> THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL
FORM
> > AND MAY
> > > > >BE
> > > > >>> UPDATED.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> FRANK SESNO, CNN ANCHOR: In the nation's capital, it's all about
> > George W.
> > > > >>> Bush -- he's here and doing business -- while in state capitals,
> > it's the
> > > > >day
> > > > >>> the Electoral College meets and votes. And if all goes as
planned,
> > the
> > > > >>> electors
> > > > >>> will certify Bush's narrow victory in last month's election.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> He's already looking forward as he makes the rounds here in the
> > nation's
> > > > >>> capital. A key item on his agenda today: meeting congressional
> > leaders.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> CNN's Chris Black joins us from Capitol Hill with more now --
Chris.
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >>> (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four
that
> > there
> > > > >were
> > > > >>> going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But
> > that's
> > > > >OK.
> > > > >>> If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier,
just
> > so long
> > > > as
> > > > >I'm the dictator.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> (END VIDEO CLIP)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> George Z.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Well, if you took that seriously you were probably the only one.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> > > > >
> > > > >If you think that quote was inaccurate, it's your turn to provide a
> > > > >verifiable
> > > > >source. You didn't ask me to provide only verifiable sources I
took
> > > > >seriously....merely to provide a verifiable source, which I believe
I
> > did.
> > > > >Whether or not I took it seriously has nothing to do with it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I never said it was inaccurate. I simply implied it was probably
> > intended to
> > > be
> > > > humourous.
> > > >
> > > > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> > >
> > > And I didn't say anything.....one way or the other, so I don't know
what
> > made
> > > you think I took it seriously. It wouldn't have been that you didn't
> > think that
> > > anything existed at all by way of a cite and felt obliged to make
light of
> > it
> > > when one turned up, would it? Nah, of course not! You were just
making
> > > funnies. Yeah....that must be it. Sure it was.
> >
> > One could doubtless find an example of some President making a humorous
> > reference to space aliens--that does not make it germane to the issue of
> > whether or not said President actually believes in space aliens. Face
it,
> > Georgie--you were stretching for another opportunity to try and make
Bush
> > look bad,.....
>
> You sure do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you. Try to
follow the
> bouncing ball:
> 1. I was asked to provide a verifiable cite regarding a comment Bush
was
> supposed to make regarding being a dictator.
> 2. I provided the source that contained such a remark supposedly made
by
> him.
> 3. I was not asked to, nor did I certify that the remark was
accurate, or
> to describe the context in which it was made and I did NOT, in fact, make
any
> such certification or description.
> 4. Now, if you've followed it that far, then you need to pick a fight
with
> somebody else if that's what you're trying to do, because I had nothing
else to
> say during this exchange, one way or the other.
> 5. That's all there is.....I'm not stretching, or making any claims,
or for
> that matter, taking part in the exchange. All I did was to provide a cite
for
> the remark. If you think it was inaccurate, take it up with Newsday
(since they
> provided the CNN transcript).
>
> Now, if you want to keep on arguing, find someone else with whom to take
it up.
> I provided a source for a comment.....that's all. If you want to pick
nits,
> pick them with someone who's in the argument, and that's not me. Got it?
>
> (Chip on shoulder snipped for brevity)

LOL! "Chip on shoulder" equates to "embarassing example of George publishing
erroneous information" being snipped, huh? About par for your course,
Georgie.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> LOL! "Chip on shoulder" equates to "embarassing example of George
> publishing erroneous information" being snipped, huh? About par for
> your course, Georgie.


Does anybody here know how to edit quotes?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > LOL! "Chip on shoulder" equates to "embarassing example of George
> > publishing erroneous information" being snipped, huh? About par for
> > your course, Georgie.
>
>
> Does anybody here know how to edit quotes?

Eh?


>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
> http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
>
>

[None]

"~consul" > wrote in message
...
> john wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch >
> > The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
> > of the troops in Iraq.
>
> The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
That's why
> the other nations don't bother to.
That's because the UN knows the US and UK have the deepest pockets with the
most well funded military programs. The UN spends more of the US/UK
military budgets doing their bidding than the respective countries do
themselves. This is why the "New World Order" is such a dangerous path to
take.

The UN should be disbanded and all of those "diplomats" with their messy
immunity need to be tossed out of New York with their hats in their hands!

(un-related groups removed)

[B2431]

>From: ~consul
>Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>john wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch >
>> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
>> of the troops in Iraq.
>
>The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event. That's
>why
>the other nations don't bother to.
>--

I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War is an
exception to that.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Gregory Baker]

RogerM wrote:

>
>
> None wrote:
>
> >
> > I laugh at your nonsense. Just because a so called lease exists doesn't
> > mean the U.S. government can lay claim to the lands and tenements of another
> > country. Whether or not the Gitmo irritates Castro or not, the land still
> > belongs to Cuba and if they want to break the lease, they can. You seem to
> > be implying that U.S. law extends to Cuba, I assure you, it does not. If
> > the lease calls for payment in gold, and the U.S. sends a check, then they
> > are, and have been in breach of contract for years and rightfully, Cuba
> > could easily evict them and abandon the "lease".
> >
>
> How, exactly could Cuba enforce that eviction notice?
>
They tried that before when they cut off Gitmo's water. The U.S. built
desalinization plants.

[Sunny]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: ~consul
> >Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >john wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch >
> >> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
> >> of the troops in Iraq.
> >
> >The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
That's
> >why
> >the other nations don't bother to.
> >--
>
> I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War is
an
> exception to that.

True,
Our 3RAR didn't get awarded your Presidential Unit Citation, for sitting at
home in Australia.

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: ~consul
> >Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >john wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch >
> >> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
> >> of the troops in Iraq.
> >
> >The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
That's
> >why
> >the other nations don't bother to.
> >--
>
> I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War is
an
> exception to that.

I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly the
single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of troops
sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored regiment,
and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates that
the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm

Brooks

>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Sunny]

Read some more please,
http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/origins/commits/commits.htm
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/malaya-korea/korea.htm

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: ~consul
> > >Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
> > >
> > >john wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch
>
> > >> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
> > >> of the troops in Iraq.
> > >
> > >The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
> That's
> > >why
> > >the other nations don't bother to.
> > >--
> >
> > I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War
is
> an
> > exception to that.
>
> I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly
the
> single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
> surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of troops
> sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored regiment,
> and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates
that
> the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
> http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Sunny" > wrote in message
...
> Read some more please,
> http://www.awm.gov.au/korea/origins/commits/commits.htm
>
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-conflicts-periods/malaya-korea/korea.htm

I believe you need to read those cites; neither claims that the Australian
contingent, as valuable and professional as it was, ever outnumbered that of
Great Britain. Australia provided a max of two battalions of infantry at any
given time, along with CS elements; OTOH, the Turks and Canadians each
provided a full brigade (reinforced in the case of the Canadians). But the
fact remains that the greatest number of troops (outside the ROK) came from
the US (multiple corps) and Great Britain (two infantry brigades plus
various other units), in order.

Brooks

>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "B2431" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >From: ~consul
> > > >Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
> > > >Message-id: >
> > > >
> > > >john wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch
> >
> > > >> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied
99%
> > > >> of the troops in Iraq.
> > > >
> > > >The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
> > That's
> > > >why
> > > >the other nations don't bother to.
> > > >--
> > >
> > > I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War
> is
> > an
> > > exception to that.
> >
> > I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly
> the
> > single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
> > surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of
troops
> > sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored
regiment,
> > and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates
> that
> > the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
> > http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "Kevin Brooks"
>Date: 12/18/2003 1:07 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: ~consul
>> >Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >john wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch >
>> >> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
>> >> of the troops in Iraq.
>> >
>> >The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
>That's
>> >why
>> >the other nations don't bother to.
>> >--
>>
>> I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War is
>an
>> exception to that.
>
>I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly the
>single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
>surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of troops
>sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored regiment,
>and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates that
>the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
>http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>

I was referring to the ROKs. The statement made was "The US and GB always
supply the highest # of troops in any UN event" and I was making an exception.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Kevin Brooks"
> >Date: 12/18/2003 1:07 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: ~consul
> >> >Date: 12/17/2003 12:54 PM Central Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >john wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:36:32 +1000, Craig Welch
>
> >> >> The fact of the matter is that the US and Great Britain supplied 99%
> >> >> of the troops in Iraq.
> >> >
> >> >The US and GB always supply the highest # of troops in any UN event.
> >That's
> >> >why
> >> >the other nations don't bother to.
> >> >--
> >>
> >> I don't know the actual numbers, but I'd venture to say the Korean War
is
> >an
> >> exception to that.
> >
> >I doubt it. The US commitment to the UN forces in Korea was undoubtedly
the
> >single largest outside (perhaps) that of the ROK itself, and I'd be very
> >surprised if the other participating nations exceeded the number of
troops
> >sent by the UK, which provided two infantry brigades, an armored
regiment,
> >and three CS regiments (arty or engineers). The site I found indicates
that
> >the UK was indeed the top contributor outside the US and ROK:
> >http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/un.htm
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
> >
>
> I was referring to the ROKs. The statement made was "The US and GB always
> supply the highest # of troops in any UN event" and I was making an
exception.

I would not strongly disagree with you, but even then it might not actually
be completely correct, at least not throughout the war. IIRC by the time the
UN forces were settled in around Pusan the US was shouldering the burden of
a significant chunk of the perimeter, and the ROK Army, which had started
the war with some eight understrength divisions, had already lost some 76K
casualties. I don't have the raw numbers available, but I would imagine that
if you looked at the number of US troops in the fight shortly after the
Inchon landing, and maybe as late as the X Corps movement into the eastern
ports later, which was likely before the ROK's had a chance to flesh their
depleted forces back out, you'd find that the US was top dog. This would
have remained the case until such time as the ROK's could take advantage of
their restored recruiting pool from among those areas retaken from the
former DPRK forces that had occupied them. It may also depend upon what we
consider "troops"--IIRC the ROK's were in the situation of having to take in
recruits who were issued a rifle and uniform and sent almost immediately
into their line units.

Brooks
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking None > wrote:
> You need to get with the program here. By NOT presenting the "check" for
> payment, the Cuban government is stating that they no longer recognize the
> lease/contract.

Perhaps, but that still does not nullify the lease.

[[email protected]]

In rec.food.cooking The Wolf > wrote:

> Come on! Even for you that's out in left field.

Yeh, you extreme conservatives have a lot of trouble
dealing with reality.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >, RogerM
> says...
>
>
> None wrote:
>
> >
> > I laugh at your nonsense. Just because a so called lease exists doesn't
> > mean the U.S. government can lay claim to the lands and tenements of another
> > country. Whether or not the Gitmo irritates Castro or not, the land still
> > belongs to Cuba and if they want to break the lease, they can. You seem to
> > be implying that U.S. law extends to Cuba, I assure you, it does not. If
> > the lease calls for payment in gold, and the U.S. sends a check, then they
> > are, and have been in breach of contract for years and rightfully, Cuba
> > could easily evict them and abandon the "lease".
> >
>
> How, exactly could Cuba enforce that eviction notice?

Stomp their feet and pout.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[None]

"Merlin Dorfman" > wrote in message
...
> RogerM ) wrote:
> : Pan Ohco wrote:
> : >
> : > I think your wrong about this, and I think you will find out how wrong
> : > when Bush is reelected.
> : >
>
> : As I have said before, America loves a winner. Whether the cause was
> : just or not.
>
> : --
>
> : "Homer, I'll tell you what I told Redford - 'It ain't gonna happen'" -
> : Paul Newman, The Simpsons
>
> To the extent that voters only care whether the invasion of Iraq
> is successful, not whether it was right, Bush will be re-elected in a
> landslide. But the other side of the coin is that many opponents of
> the war primarily voiced concern that the effort would fail rather
> than that it was wrong.
>

Thats what his daddy thought after Kuwait too . . . He was a one termer
also.

[Merlin Dorfman]

IBM ) wrote:
: (Darryl) wrote in
: om:

: > "Jarg" > wrote in message
: > >...
: >> Of course he will win. I wonder how many of the Bush haters will
: >> blow a gasket when he is reelected!
: >
: > You misspelled 'elected'.

: And you need to sue your school board for failing to teach you
: to read.
: And as a Sore-Looserman Democrap you need to get over it.

Ooooh, a bit touchy, aren't we? But you will note that the
Bush campaign is smarter than you are...there are and will be no
"Re-Elect Bush/Cheney" signs.

[IBM]

Merlin Dorfman > wrote in
:

[snip]

> Ooooh, a bit touchy, aren't we? But you will note that the
> Bush campaign is smarter than you are...there are and will be no
> "Re-Elect Bush/Cheney" signs.

Touchy?
Moi?
Perish the thought!
Just merrily stirring the pot and rounding up goats....
And you are correct, Bush/Cheney re-election signs would
be superfluous since there ain't gonna be no stinkin elections.
I mean, sheesh you have your VRWC de-coder ring didn't you get
the memo to staff?

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>