Rumsfeld's on Bravery

[Gene Storey]

CNN reports:

"In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld said.

About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and
special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid in
Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic ventilation
system and covered with bricks and dirt.

What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.

--
"You won't find me out waving a flag, but you may find my boot
up your ass"--Gunny Dobbs, USMC

[Ragnar]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:o8eDb.1882$6l1.1440@okepread03...
> CNN reports:
>
> "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld said.
>
> About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and
> special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid in
> Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
> hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic
ventilation
> system and covered with bricks and dirt.
>
> What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
> like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
> Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.

Saddam has always been characterized as a guy who would go down shooting.
He himself has professed many times his willingness to die for the Iraqi
people. Seems he'll get his chance after all.

[David Bromage]

Ragnar wrote:
> Saddam has always been characterized as a guy who would go down shooting.

Saddam been pretty consistent about not doing what everybody predicted
he would do.

Cheers
David

[M. J. Powell]

In message <o8eDb.1882$6l1.1440@okepread03>, Gene Storey
> writes
>CNN reports:
>
> "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld said.
>
> About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and
> special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid in
> Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
> hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic ventilation
> system and covered with bricks and dirt.
>
>What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
>like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
>Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.

He had an AK47 and a white-and-orange taxi. He could have made a
death-or-glory charge...

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[B2431]

>From: "Gene Storey"
>Date: 12/15/2003 2:19 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <o8eDb.1882$6l1.1440@okepread03>
>
>CNN reports:
>
> "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld said.
>
> About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and
> special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid in
> Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
> hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic ventilation
> system and covered with bricks and dirt.
>
>What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
>like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
>Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.
>
>--

Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, promised to go down fighting and
called on others to fight to the very end. He caved. If he was really smart he
would have made the U.S. soldiers kill him thereby making him a martyr.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Gene Storey]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote
> Gene Storey > writes
> >CNN reports:
> >
> > "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld said.
> >
> > About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and
> > special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid in
> > Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
> > hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic ventilation
> > system and covered with bricks and dirt.
> >
> >What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
> >like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
> >Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.
>
> He had an AK47 and a white-and-orange taxi. He could have made a
> death-or-glory charge...

Sure. Just like the 507th.

[Gene Storey]

"B2431" > wrote
> >From: "Gene Storey"
> >CNN reports:
> >
> > "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld said.
> >
> > About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and
> > special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid in
> > Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
> > hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic ventilation
> > system and covered with bricks and dirt.
> >
> >What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
> >like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
> >Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.
> >
> >--
>
> Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, promised to go down fighting and
> called on others to fight to the very end. He caved. If he was really smart he
> would have made the U.S. soldiers kill him thereby making him a martyr.

I think there's a difference between bravery and stupidity. He could have
booby-trapped the whole farm. It was nothing but a hide-out, and he didn't
suspect his final detail would sell him out. He'll be a martyr when they hang him.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

B2431 wrote:
> Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, promised to go down
> fighting and called on others to fight to the very end. He caved. If
> he was really smart he would have made the U.S. soldiers kill him
> thereby making him a martyr.


That reminds me of another brave Middle Eastern leader, Yasser Arafat. After
whining about the Israelis outside his door and how much he wanted to die and
become a martyr, he refused to open the door. I'm sure the Israelis would have
been happy to oblige him.

These guys are always braver than hell, particularly when they're talking about
someone else dying. No sacrifice is too great. Insha'h Allah.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Dav1936531]

>From: "Gene Storey"
><o8eDb.1882$6l1.1440@okepread03>

>>>>>>CNN reports: "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave,"
Rumsfeld said.

>What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
>like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
>Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.

I think Rumsfeld meant that Saddam could have/should have done a Hitler and
used his pistol to kill himself.....especially after Saddam's having made all
those glorious proclaimations to the Iraqi resistance to fight to the death.

Parading Saddam ALIVE in front of the video cameras after his capture sure
isn't doing "The Myth of Saddam: Earthly Reincarnation of Saladin and Grand
Unifier of the Greater Arabian Cause" any service. Not being captured alive,
however, may have at least created another martyr and rallying point for the
jihadis.

As it stands, Saddam was more interested in being arrested and negotiating a
deal for himself (reports from the arresting troops today said the first words
out of his mouth upon surrending mentioned trying to swap leniency for
information).

The problem with these dictator types is that they get so much blood on their
hands during this Earthly life that, when it comes time to face the transition
to the hereafter, they start to wonder about the real possibility of eternal
damnation.....and that possibility renders them cowards in the face of death.
Dave

[Jarg]

I think this was entirely predictable.

Jarg

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> Ragnar wrote:
> > Saddam has always been characterized as a guy who would go down
shooting.
>
> Saddam been pretty consistent about not doing what everybody predicted
> he would do.
>
> Cheers
> David
>

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:19:33 -0600, Gene Storey > wrote:
>CNN reports:
>
> "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld said.
>
> About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and
> special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid in
> Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
> hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic ventilation
> system and covered with bricks and dirt.
>
>What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
>like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
>Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.

Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Yama]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.com...
> B2431 wrote:
> > Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, promised to go down
> > fighting and called on others to fight to the very end. He caved. If
> > he was really smart he would have made the U.S. soldiers kill him
> > thereby making him a martyr.
>
>
> That reminds me of another brave Middle Eastern leader, Yasser Arafat.
After
> whining about the Israelis outside his door and how much he wanted to die
and
> become a martyr, he refused to open the door. I'm sure the Israelis would
have
> been happy to oblige him.
>

Actually, Israeli certainly wouldn't have been (though they may have
detained him in some humiliating way). They know very well that killing him
would also kill any attempt for peace for a very long time.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Yama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
> .com...
> > B2431 wrote:
> > > Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, promised to go down
> > > fighting and called on others to fight to the very end. He caved. If
> > > he was really smart he would have made the U.S. soldiers kill him
> > > thereby making him a martyr.
> >
> >
> > That reminds me of another brave Middle Eastern leader, Yasser Arafat.
After
> > whining about the Israelis outside his door and how much he wanted to
die and
> > become a martyr, he refused to open the door. I'm sure the Israelis
would have
> > been happy to oblige him.
> >
>
> Actually, Israeli certainly wouldn't have been (though they may have
> detained him in some humiliating way). They know very well that killing
him
> would also kill any attempt for peace for a very long time.

If not the West Bank, where would Christian Arabs go?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Yama wrote:
> Actually, Israeli certainly wouldn't have been (though they may have
> detained him in some humiliating way). They know very well that
> killing him would also kill any attempt for peace for a very long
> time.


Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what the
Israelis do. As long as Israel exists, the Arabs will always try to destroy it.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[George Z. Bush]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
>> Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what the
>> Israelis do. As long as Israel exists, the Arabs will always try to destroy
>> it.
>
> The recent "Geneva accords" prove that it is possible for
> moderate Israelis and moderate Palestinians to work out
> a fair and workable peace deal. What is patently missing
> is some way to force the radicals (in Gaza, in Jerusalem,
> in Washington, in Damascus) to accept such a deal.

It would probably be acceptable progress if someone could find an effective way
to keep those radicals from killing off their moderate brethren.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:19:33 -0600, Gene Storey > wrote:
> >CNN reports:
> >
> > "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld
said.
> >
> > About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and
> > special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid in
> > Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
> > hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic
ventilation
> > system and covered with bricks and dirt.
> >
> >What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
> >like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
> >Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.
>
> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
> courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?

He flew jets onto and off of carriers at one time--have you done that? And
FYI, being an assassin does not necessarily take a lot of guts--we just
finished trying one here in VA, and his accomplice is nearing the end of his
trial. I'd characterize niether of them as being particularly brave.

Brooks
>
> --

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:01:32 GMT, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:19:33 -0600, Gene Storey > wrote:
>> >CNN reports:
>> >
>> > "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld
>said.
>> >
>> > About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, and
>> > special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid in
>> > Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
>> > hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic
>ventilation
>> > system and covered with bricks and dirt.
>> >
>> >What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
>> >like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to think
>> >Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.
>>
>> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
>> courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?
>
>He flew jets onto and off of carriers at one time

Anywhere near a war zone?

>--have you done that?

Nope. The only thing I've ever flown is a glider.

>And
>FYI, being an assassin does not necessarily take a lot of guts

I suspect it probably does, in that it does seem to be a rather
dangerous activity, if one gets caught.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>--
>
>Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, promised to go down fighting and
>called on others to fight to the very end. He caved. If he was really smart he
>would have made the U.S. soldiers kill him thereby making him a martyr.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Does anyone really think that he gives a flying **** about his
country or countrymen?. After he killed how many hundreds of
them?...and of course it would have helped his cause if he had
become a martyr. It's only too bad that all the suicide bombers
couldn't see him for what he is...a muddy dirty rodent hiding in
a rathole...nust make the families of those poor deluded bombers
quite proud to see who their precious children were revering and
laying their lives down for. Miserable *******.

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 01:01:32 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:19:33 -0600, Gene Storey > wrote:
> >> >CNN reports:
> >> >
> >> > "In the last analysis, he seemed not terribly brave," Rumsfeld
> >said.
> >> >
> >> > About 600 soldiers of the 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division,
and
> >> > special operations forces of Task Force 121 conducted the raid
in
> >> > Ad Dawr, near a group of ramshackle buildings. They found Saddam
> >> > hiding in a 6- to 8-foot-deep hole, equipped with a basic
> >ventilation
> >> > system and covered with bricks and dirt.
> >> >
> >> >What's Saddam going to do? Use his pistol against anti-tank weapons
> >> >like his sons? He was never considered stupid. I'm beginning to
think
> >> >Rumsfeld might be talking through his ass again.
> >>
> >> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
> >> courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?
> >
> >He flew jets onto and off of carriers at one time
>
> Anywhere near a war zone?

IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it takes a
decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and rolling
deck IMO.

>
> >--have you done that?
>
> Nope. The only thing I've ever flown is a glider.

So you are somewhere beneath Rumsfeld then on this mythical
totem-pole-of-courage?

>
> >And
> >FYI, being an assassin does not necessarily take a lot of guts
>
> I suspect it probably does, in that it does seem to be a rather
> dangerous activity, if one gets caught.

Gee, you could say the same thing about the guy who specializes in snatching
purses from little old ladies in the shopping mall parking lot--but I still
don't consider that to be an example of bravery. Stupidity, sure...bravery,
no. Neither does assassination garner the laurels of bravery in most cases
(a few exceptions, like the guys who nailed Heydrich back during WWII). Lee
Harvey oswald was not "brave". John Wilkes Booth was not particularly
"brave". And those two slimeballs we are applying the rules of justice to
right now for shooting women in parking lots, killing men pumping gas into
their cars at service stations, etc., from the ass-end of a specially
configured sedan with a 5.56mm rifle sure as hell don't qualify as brave,
either.

Brooks
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>--
> >
> >Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, promised to go down fighting
and
> >called on others to fight to the very end. He caved. If he was really
smart he
> >would have made the U.S. soldiers kill him thereby making him a martyr.
> >
> >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> Does anyone really think that he gives a flying **** about his
> country or countrymen?. After he killed how many hundreds of
> them?...and of course it would have helped his cause if he had
> become a martyr. It's only too bad that all the suicide bombers
> couldn't see him for what he is...a muddy dirty rodent hiding in
> a rathole...nust make the families of those poor deluded bombers
> quite proud to see who their precious children were revering and
> laying their lives down for. Miserable *******.

One of the TV networks here reported this evening that he came darned close
to meeting his end in that spiderhole. According to the report, the special
operator on the open end was getting ready to chuck a grenade in the hole
when Saddam stuck his hands up and said, in english no less, "I am Saddam
Hussein. I am the President of Iraq. I want to negotiate." It appears he was
willing to fight to the death...the death of his last misguided follower,
that is. All of his past promises to go down fighting evaporated when it
came time to place himself in the suicidal situation he had sent so many
others into with such gusto and false bravado. Miserable ******* indeed.

Brooks

>
> -Gord.
>
> "I'm trying to get as old as I can,
> and it must be working 'cause I'm
> the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
> courage.
>

Why do you presume that assassination requires some courage?

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:07:33 GMT, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> >> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
>> >> courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?
>> >
>> >He flew jets onto and off of carriers at one time
>>
>> Anywhere near a war zone?
>
>IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it takes a
>decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and rolling
>deck IMO.
>
>>
>> >--have you done that?
>>
>> Nope. The only thing I've ever flown is a glider.
>
>So you are somewhere beneath Rumsfeld then on this mythical
>totem-pole-of-courage?

I've no idea whether I am or not. I've never claimed to be
courageous, BTW, and in any case it is irrelevant to the quewstion
of whether Saddam or Rumsfeld is more courageous.

>> >And
>> >FYI, being an assassin does not necessarily take a lot of guts
>>
>> I suspect it probably does, in that it does seem to be a rather
>> dangerous activity, if one gets caught.
>
>Gee, you could say the same thing about the guy who specializes in snatching
>purses from little old ladies in the shopping mall parking lot--but I still
>don't consider that to be an example of bravery.

Well, then, you'll have to define bravery.

I was using it to mean deliberately taking an action that knowingly
places oneself at a risk of death or serious injury.

By that criterion, I guess I'm not a particularly brave person; for
example, I've never done anything that I thought was reasonably
likely to kill me.

How brave are you, by that criterion?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:35:31 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
>> courage.
>
>Why do you presume that assassination requires some courage?

Because the assassin is deliberately doing an action that he knows
is likely to increase the probability of his death or serious
injury.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Don Harstad]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Because the assassin is deliberately doing an action that he knows
> is likely to increase the probability of his death or serious
> injury.
>
I seem to recollect that Sadam's "assassination" activity was more on the
lines of the thug killing rivals for his boss. In most cases that involves
a group thing against an un-armed victim.

A killer, especially of the bullying sort (and that he is) is merely
pathological. Bravery involves much more than a physical act that can have
unpleasant consequences.

The only assassin I ever met fact to face was one I arrested for murder. He
was not brave, only sociopathic.

Don H.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>

> The recent "Geneva accords" prove that it is possible for
> moderate Israelis and moderate Palestinians to work out
> a fair and workable peace deal. What is patently missing
> is some way to force the radicals (in Gaza, in Jerusalem,
> in Washington, in Damascus) to accept such a deal.

Just FYI - the number of radicals in Washington
has been slowly but steadily declining since
1992 or '94. Their numbers should be further
reduced after the 2004 elections here.

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>

> One of the TV networks here reported this evening that he came darned close
> to meeting his end in that spiderhole. According to the report, the special
> operator on the open end was getting ready to chuck a grenade in the hole
> when Saddam stuck his hands up and said, in english no less, "I am Saddam
> Hussein. I am the President of Iraq. I want to negotiate." It appears he was
> willing to fight to the death...the death of his last misguided follower,
> that is. All of his past promises to go down fighting evaporated when it
> came time to place himself in the suicidal situation he had sent so many
> others into with such gusto and false bravado. Miserable ******* indeed.

It's actually a lucky thing he did.
Had he not, the grenade goes down the hole, and
no one would go down to see whose blood and brains
were painting the walls afterward.

Then we'd be in the same situation as we are with
Osama: dead somewhere, and unidentified.

[MichaelJP]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
>
> > One of the TV networks here reported this evening that he came darned
close
> > to meeting his end in that spiderhole. According to the report, the
special
> > operator on the open end was getting ready to chuck a grenade in the
hole
> > when Saddam stuck his hands up and said, in english no less, "I am
Saddam
> > Hussein. I am the President of Iraq. I want to negotiate." It appears he
was
> > willing to fight to the death...the death of his last misguided
follower,
> > that is. All of his past promises to go down fighting evaporated when it
> > came time to place himself in the suicidal situation he had sent so many
> > others into with such gusto and false bravado. Miserable ******* indeed.
>
> It's actually a lucky thing he did.
> Had he not, the grenade goes down the hole, and
> no one would go down to see whose blood and brains
> were painting the walls afterward.
>
> Then we'd be in the same situation as we are with
> Osama: dead somewhere, and unidentified.

Even if they had, I think they would have collected a few scraps of Saddam
flesh and DNA tested them.

Interesting to see him pleading for his life, I wonder if he offered the
troops any of the $750K in cash he had with him to let him go?

- Michael

[Keith Willshaw]

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
>
> > One of the TV networks here reported this evening that he came darned
close
> > to meeting his end in that spiderhole. According to the report, the
special
> > operator on the open end was getting ready to chuck a grenade in the
hole
> > when Saddam stuck his hands up and said, in english no less, "I am
Saddam
> > Hussein. I am the President of Iraq. I want to negotiate." It appears he
was
> > willing to fight to the death...the death of his last misguided
follower,
> > that is. All of his past promises to go down fighting evaporated when it
> > came time to place himself in the suicidal situation he had sent so many
> > others into with such gusto and false bravado. Miserable ******* indeed.
>
> It's actually a lucky thing he did.
> Had he not, the grenade goes down the hole, and
> no one would go down to see whose blood and brains
> were painting the walls afterward.
>

DNA would have provided evidence to ID him
but I'll agree that having him shown live on
TV looking rather bedraggled and meek was better.

Keith

> Then we'd be in the same situation as we are with
> Osama: dead somewhere, and unidentified.

[Gene Storey]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
>
> IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it takes a
> decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and rolling
> deck IMO.

Women don't have testicles, and they operate off of carriers.

Rumsfeld's bravery instinct made sure he was in the Reserves during Vietnam,
and he never even went there TDY for a day, not even as a Congressman.

Very brave.

[C Knowles]

What's amazing is that some in the Arab world are amazed he surrendered.
They must have really bought his line of BS.
Curt

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (B2431) wrote:
>
> >>--
> >
> >Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, promised to go down fighting
and
> >called on others to fight to the very end. He caved. If he was really
smart he
> >would have made the U.S. soldiers kill him thereby making him a martyr.
> >
> >Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> Does anyone really think that he gives a flying **** about his
> country or countrymen?. After he killed how many hundreds of
> them?...and of course it would have helped his cause if he had
> become a martyr. It's only too bad that all the suicide bombers
> couldn't see him for what he is...a muddy dirty rodent hiding in
> a rathole...nust make the families of those poor deluded bombers
> quite proud to see who their precious children were revering and
> laying their lives down for. Miserable *******.
>
> -Gord.
>
> "I'm trying to get as old as I can,
> and it must be working 'cause I'm
> the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:XTCDb.2071$6l1.999@okepread03...
>
> Rumsfeld's bravery instinct made sure he was in the Reserves during
Vietnam,
> and he never even went there TDY for a day, not even as a Congressman.
>
> Very brave.
>

Right. Just another coward whose active duty service occurred when there
was no conflict.

[George Z. Bush]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:XTCDb.2071$6l1.999@okepread03...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> >
> > IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it takes a
> > decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and rolling
> > deck IMO.
>
> Women don't have testicles, and they operate off of carriers.
>
> Rumsfeld's bravery instinct made sure he was in the Reserves during Vietnam,
> and he never even went there TDY for a day, not even as a Congressman.
>
> Very brave.
>
This is what I got from www.defenselink.mil concerning his military service. I
think I read somewhere that his flying for the Navy consisted of being an
instructor pilot.

"Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships
(A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight
instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval
service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until
1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense
in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989."

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:XTCDb.2071$6l1.999@okepread03...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote
> >
> > IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it takes
a
> > decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and
rolling
> > deck IMO.
>
> Women don't have testicles, and they operate off of carriers.
>
> Rumsfeld's bravery instinct made sure he was in the Reserves during
Vietnam,
> and he never even went there TDY for a day, not even as a Congressman.

He did his active service before the Vietnam War ever came about--way
before. He continued to serve in the USNR afterwards. If you are somehow
claiming that service in an active component during the Cold War, followed
by reserve service for long years, is something to be ashamed of, you need a
serious attitude adjustment, not to mention a visit to the clue department.

Brooks

>
> Very brave.
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:07:33 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> >> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
> >> >> courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?
> >> >
> >> >He flew jets onto and off of carriers at one time
> >>
> >> Anywhere near a war zone?
> >
> >IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it takes
a
> >decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and rolling
> >deck IMO.
> >
> >>
> >> >--have you done that?
> >>
> >> Nope. The only thing I've ever flown is a glider.
> >
> >So you are somewhere beneath Rumsfeld then on this mythical
> >totem-pole-of-courage?
>
> I've no idea whether I am or not. I've never claimed to be
> courageous, BTW, and in any case it is irrelevant to the quewstion
> of whether Saddam or Rumsfeld is more courageous.

I just find it comical when folks start besmirching someone else's courage,
when their own demonstrations have not exhibited anything superlative to the
individual they are commenting about.

>
> >> >And
> >> >FYI, being an assassin does not necessarily take a lot of guts
> >>
> >> I suspect it probably does, in that it does seem to be a rather
> >> dangerous activity, if one gets caught.
> >
> >Gee, you could say the same thing about the guy who specializes in
snatching
> >purses from little old ladies in the shopping mall parking lot--but I
still
> >don't consider that to be an example of bravery.
>
> Well, then, you'll have to define bravery.
>
> I was using it to mean deliberately taking an action that knowingly
> places oneself at a risk of death or serious injury.
>
> By that criterion, I guess I'm not a particularly brave person; for
> example, I've never done anything that I thought was reasonably
> likely to kill me.
>
> How brave are you, by that criterion?

I always hate this kind of dick-measuring--it is a tool of the misinformed
and the Walter Mitty crowd. If you really care to know, I had exactly one
situation where I was scared ****less (almost literally) but managed to
handle it while safeguarding a young E-5 who was with me at the time.
Suffice it to say that it involved an old M151 jeep sans rollover
protection, a dirt road which was axle deep in mud, a very steep dropoff
into the valley below, the failure of said roadway edge, and telling said
E-5 to get out of the jeep even though we both thought that the act may
result in it going over the edge. I don't consider it particularly brave
(there was not much to be gained by both of us going over that roadside),
but it did go some way towards meeting the best criteria I have ever
personally heard describing that quality--my old college boxing instructor
once told us that bravery was doing what had to be done in spite of your own
natural fears. Using that definition, I don't think your assassins make the
grade--unless you think those women sitting at busstops or loading their
packages in the car just HAD to be shot by those miscreants I described
earlier. Now, are you about done with the dick-measuring?

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:37:46 GMT, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:07:33 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >> >> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
>> >> >> courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?
>> >> >
>> >> >He flew jets onto and off of carriers at one time
>> >>
>> >> Anywhere near a war zone?
>> >
>> >IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it takes
>a
>> >decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and rolling
>> >deck IMO.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >--have you done that?
>> >>
>> >> Nope. The only thing I've ever flown is a glider.
>> >
>> >So you are somewhere beneath Rumsfeld then on this mythical
>> >totem-pole-of-courage?
>>
>> I've no idea whether I am or not. I've never claimed to be
>> courageous, BTW, and in any case it is irrelevant to the quewstion
>> of whether Saddam or Rumsfeld is more courageous.
>
>I just find it comical when folks start besmirching someone else's courage,

I haven't besmirched *anyone's* courage, merely asked about it.

>when their own demonstrations have not exhibited anything superlative to the
>individual they are commenting about.

Thgat's like saying only tall people have a right to comment on the
height of others.

>> Well, then, you'll have to define bravery.
>>
>> I was using it to mean deliberately taking an action that knowingly
>> places oneself at a risk of death or serious injury.
>>
>> By that criterion, I guess I'm not a particularly brave person; for
>> example, I've never done anything that I thought was reasonably
>> likely to kill me.
>>
>> How brave are you, by that criterion?
>
>I always hate this kind of dick-measuring

It's not dick-measuring; look, some people might have a big ego
thing about others considering them courageous, but I don't. It's
just another property about people that some have more than others.

>--it is a tool of the misinformed
>and the Walter Mitty crowd. If you really care to know, I had exactly one
>situation where I was scared ****less (almost literally) but managed to
>handle it while safeguarding a young E-5 who was with me at the time.
>Suffice it to say that it involved an old M151 jeep sans rollover
>protection, a dirt road which was axle deep in mud, a very steep dropoff
>into the valley below, the failure of said roadway edge, and telling said
>E-5 to get out of the jeep even though we both thought that the act may
>result in it going over the edge. I don't consider it particularly brave
>(there was not much to be gained by both of us going over that roadside),
>but it did go some way towards meeting the best criteria I have ever
>personally heard describing that quality--my old college boxing instructor
>once told us that bravery was doing what had to be done in spite of your own
>natural fears. Using that definition, I don't think your assassins make the
>grade--unless you think those women sitting at busstops or loading their
>packages in the car just HAD to be shot by those miscreants I described
>earlier. Now, are you about done with the dick-measuring?
>
>Brooks
>
>


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:03:55 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

>Yama wrote:
>> Actually, Israeli certainly wouldn't have been (though they may have
>> detained him in some humiliating way). They know very well that
>> killing him would also kill any attempt for peace for a very long
>> time.
>
>
>Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what the
>Israelis do. As long as Israel exists, the Arabs will always try to destroy it.

And the Israelis will try to destroy the Palestinians. There are no "clean
hands" in that mess.

Al Minyard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> And the Israelis will try to destroy the Palestinians. There are no "clean
> hands" in that mess.
>

Maybe not, but one side's hands are significantly dirtier than the other
side's. The majority of Israelis are willing to live alongside a peaceful
Palestinian state, few Palestinians are willing to live in peace alongside
Israel.

[Jarg]

But to suggest that both sides are equally to blame does Israel an
injustice.

Jarg


"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:03:55 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote:
>
> >Yama wrote:
> >> Actually, Israeli certainly wouldn't have been (though they may have
> >> detained him in some humiliating way). They know very well that
> >> killing him would also kill any attempt for peace for a very long
> >> time.
> >
> >
> >Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what
the
> >Israelis do. As long as Israel exists, the Arabs will always try to
destroy it.
>
> And the Israelis will try to destroy the Palestinians. There are no "clean
> hands" in that mess.
>
> Al Minyard

[[email protected]]

"Gene Storey" > wrote:

>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote
>>
>> IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it takes a
>> decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and rolling
>> deck IMO.
>
>Women don't have testicles, and they operate off of carriers.
>
Testicles?...testicles!...I thought people meant watches...

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Ron]

>>Why do you presume that assassination requires some courage?
>
>Because the assassin is deliberately doing an action that he knows
>is likely to increase the probability of his death or serious
>injury.
>

By that same logic however, murderers, rapists, thieves, bank robbers, and drug
abusers are all courageous.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[John Keeney]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message
om...
> What's amazing is that some in the Arab world are amazed he surrendered.
> They must have really bought his line of BS.

The tendency to buy in to the glorious myths of individuals is
pretty common amongst Muslims and Arabs in particular
it would seem.
Hmm, probably the case for most dictatorially governed people,
what they are raised to.

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:37:46 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:07:33 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >> >> >> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
> >> >> >> courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >He flew jets onto and off of carriers at one time
> >> >>
> >> >> Anywhere near a war zone?
> >> >
> >> >IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it
takes
> >a
> >> >decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and
rolling
> >> >deck IMO.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >--have you done that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope. The only thing I've ever flown is a glider.
> >> >
> >> >So you are somewhere beneath Rumsfeld then on this mythical
> >> >totem-pole-of-courage?
> >>
> >> I've no idea whether I am or not. I've never claimed to be
> >> courageous, BTW, and in any case it is irrelevant to the quewstion
> >> of whether Saddam or Rumsfeld is more courageous.
> >
> >I just find it comical when folks start besmirching someone else's
courage,
>
> I haven't besmirched *anyone's* courage, merely asked about it.

Then forgive me, because the way it sounded from your post it was a case of
"Saddam demonstrated courage by being an assassin (or more accurately,
assassin-wanna-be--IIRC he screwed up his attempts, at least until he got to
the position from which he could merely order the murder of those he
disliked), and just what in heck has Rumsfeld ever done that required
bravery?"

>
> >when their own demonstrations have not exhibited anything superlative to
the
> >individual they are commenting about.
>
> Thgat's like saying only tall people have a right to comment on the
> height of others.

No, that is like saying that commenting upon another's alleged demonstrated
lack of courage verges on hypocrisy.

>
> >> Well, then, you'll have to define bravery.
> >>
> >> I was using it to mean deliberately taking an action that knowingly
> >> places oneself at a risk of death or serious injury.
> >>
> >> By that criterion, I guess I'm not a particularly brave person; for
> >> example, I've never done anything that I thought was reasonably
> >> likely to kill me.
> >>
> >> How brave are you, by that criterion?
> >
> >I always hate this kind of dick-measuring
>
> It's not dick-measuring; look, some people might have a big ego
> thing about others considering them courageous, but I don't. It's
> just another property about people that some have more than others.

It's dick measuring. From your statement it was apparent you wanted to cast
doubt on Rumsfeld's personal bravery versus that of Saddam--had you really
been interested in finding out what Rummy has done during his life a simple
google search would have answered that question quite easily. You got an
answer anyway, and then you tried to pursue it with that ridiculous "was it
anywhere near a war zone" crap, and with that you opened yourself to the
stinging question of just what the hell you have done that exceeds his
already demonstrated willingness to accept more risk than the majority us
have on behalf of his nation. You flunked that one, so you might as well
keep your attempts to downplay Rumsfeld's personal courage to yourself.

Brooks

>
> >--it is a tool of the misinformed
> >and the Walter Mitty crowd. If you really care to know, I had exactly one
> >situation where I was scared ****less (almost literally) but managed to
> >handle it while safeguarding a young E-5 who was with me at the time.
> >Suffice it to say that it involved an old M151 jeep sans rollover
> >protection, a dirt road which was axle deep in mud, a very steep dropoff
> >into the valley below, the failure of said roadway edge, and telling said
> >E-5 to get out of the jeep even though we both thought that the act may
> >result in it going over the edge. I don't consider it particularly brave
> >(there was not much to be gained by both of us going over that roadside),
> >but it did go some way towards meeting the best criteria I have ever
> >personally heard describing that quality--my old college boxing
instructor
> >once told us that bravery was doing what had to be done in spite of your
own
> >natural fears. Using that definition, I don't think your assassins make
the
> >grade--unless you think those women sitting at busstops or loading their
> >packages in the car just HAD to be shot by those miscreants I described
> >earlier. Now, are you about done with the dick-measuring?
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
> the last two letters).
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And the Israelis will try to destroy the Palestinians. There are no
"clean
> > hands" in that mess.
> >
>
> Maybe not, but one side's hands are significantly dirtier than the other
> side's. The majority of Israelis are willing to live alongside a peaceful
> Palestinian state, few Palestinians are willing to live in peace alongside
> Israel.

I am not sure about the veracity of that. It would appear that a significant
number of Israelis have no real interest in seeing a Palestinian state under
any realistic conditions, hence the fact that they have their current PM in
office. My wife visited the area at the end of '98, before the situation
heated up to its current level of violence--she departed here pro-Israel,
and returned sympathetic to the Palestinians. A CSM I served with had a
similar revalation after his visit. Both sides have more than enough blame
at their doorstep and blood on their hands.

Brooks
>
>

[Gene Storey]

Are you serious? Israel was founded under terrorism. Their biggest founding
terrorist (Irgun murderers) became Prime Minister: Menachem Begin.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/begin.html

Jesus H. Christ! This thread is full of ****ing idiots!

"Jarg" > wrote
> But to suggest that both sides are equally to blame does Israel an
> injustice.
>
> Jarg

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:18:28 -0600, Don Harstad > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Because the assassin is deliberately doing an action that he knows
>> is likely to increase the probability of his death or serious
>> injury.
>>
>I seem to recollect that Sadam's "assassination" activity was more on the
>lines of the thug killing rivals for his boss. In most cases that involves
>a group thing against an un-armed victim.

According to Wikipedia:

In 1959, Saddam was involved in a CIA-supported assassination plot
against Prime Minister Qassim. Saddam was shot in the leg, but
managed to flee on foot (after removing the bullet from his own
leg) to Syria, from where he would later move to Nasser's Egypt. He
was sentenced to death in absentia.

So clearly he was shooting armed people (or at least, people with
armed bodyguards).

>A killer, especially of the bullying sort (and that he is) is merely
>pathological. Bravery involves much more than a physical act that can have
>unpleasant consequences.

Why does it?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:35:30 -0500, Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote:
>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>
>> One of the TV networks here reported this evening that he came darned close
>> to meeting his end in that spiderhole. According to the report, the special
>> operator on the open end was getting ready to chuck a grenade in the hole
>> when Saddam stuck his hands up and said, in english no less, "I am Saddam
>> Hussein. I am the President of Iraq. I want to negotiate." It appears he was
>> willing to fight to the death...the death of his last misguided follower,
>> that is. All of his past promises to go down fighting evaporated when it
>> came time to place himself in the suicidal situation he had sent so many
>> others into with such gusto and false bravado. Miserable ******* indeed.
>
>It's actually a lucky thing he did.
>Had he not, the grenade goes down the hole, and
>no one would go down to see whose blood and brains
>were painting the walls afterward.
>
>Then we'd be in the same situation as we are with
>Osama: dead somewhere, and unidentified.

I'm sure they're get a sample of DNA.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:37:46 GMT, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>Using that definition, I don't think your assassins make the
>grade--unless you think those women sitting at busstops or loading their
>packages in the car just HAD to be shot by those miscreants I described
>earlier.

Saddam was involved in assassinating politicians who had bodyguards,
a task rather more difficult than the scenario you suggest.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On 16 Dec 2003 20:04:59 GMT, Ron > wrote:
>>>Why do you presume that assassination requires some courage?
>>
>>Because the assassin is deliberately doing an action that he knows
>>is likely to increase the probability of his death or serious
>>injury.
>
>By that same logic however, murderers, rapists, thieves, bank robbers, and drug
>abusers are all courageous.

Perhaps a better word would be "more than averagely predisposed
towards risk-taking behavior". I'm not sure that's true about drug
addicts, mind, since they aren't entirely rational.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Jarg]

I'm not suggesting Israel is blameless, merely that they have made
reasonable efforts to change the situation and the Palestinians have not.
And incidentally, calling people idiots does not constitute an debate and in
fact demonstrates the weakness of your argument.
Jarg



"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:jBNDb.2104$6l1.305@okepread03...
> Are you serious? Israel was founded under terrorism. Their biggest
founding
> terrorist (Irgun murderers) became Prime Minister: Menachem Begin.
>
> http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/begin.html
>
> Jesus H. Christ! This thread is full of ****ing idiots!
>
> "Jarg" > wrote
> > But to suggest that both sides are equally to blame does Israel an
> > injustice.
> >
> > Jarg
>
>

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:22:35 GMT, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> >>
>> >> I've no idea whether I am or not. I've never claimed to be
>> >> courageous, BTW, and in any case it is irrelevant to the quewstion
>> >> of whether Saddam or Rumsfeld is more courageous.
>> >
>> >I just find it comical when folks start besmirching someone else's
>> >courage,
>>
>> I haven't besmirched *anyone's* courage, merely asked about it.
>
>Then forgive me, because the way it sounded from your post it was a case of
>"Saddam demonstrated courage by being an assassin (or more accurately,
>assassin-wanna-be--IIRC he screwed up his attempts, at least until he got to
>the position from which he could merely order the murder of those he
>disliked), and just what in heck has Rumsfeld ever done that required
>bravery?"

I'm not saying he hasn't done anything, merely asking.

>> >when their own demonstrations have not exhibited anything superlative to
>> >the
>> >individual they are commenting about.
>>
>> Thgat's like saying only tall people have a right to comment on the
>> height of others.
>
>No, that is like saying that commenting upon another's alleged demonstrated
>lack of courage verges on hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is when one pretends to have higher moral values than one
actuall y has; I don't recall stating anywhere that I have high
moral values, consequently I am not a hypocrite.

>> >I always hate this kind of dick-measuring
>>
>> It's not dick-measuring; look, some people might have a big ego
>> thing about others considering them courageous, but I don't. It's
>> just another property about people that some have more than others.
>
>It's dick measuring. From your statement it was apparent you wanted to cast
>doubt on Rumsfeld's personal bravery versus that of Saddam

Only if he hasn't done anything that requires bravery. My
understanding of Saddam's life is that he has in the past done
things that do require bravery (of course, people in their 60s are
likely to be less brave than they were in their 20s). Has Rumsfled
done anything that requires as much bravery as some of the things
Saddam has done?

>--had you really
>been interested in finding out what Rummy has done during his life a simple
>google search would have answered that question quite easily. You got an
>answer anyway, and then you tried to pursue it with that ridiculous "was it
>anywhere near a war zone" crap,

Please don't confuse my comments with other posters'.

> and with that you opened yourself to the
>stinging question of just what the hell you have done that exceeds his
>already demonstrated willingness to accept more risk than the majority us
>have on behalf of his nation. You flunked that one,

I don't consider it "stinging" nor do I consider i have "flunked"
it; if you wish to consider things that way, that's your
priviledge, but I was merely giving an honest answer.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Kevin Brooks]

"Jarg" > wrote in message
. com...
> I'm not suggesting Israel is blameless, merely that they have made
> reasonable efforts to change the situation and the Palestinians have not.

OK. What are these "reasonable efforts"? And just list the ones the Israelis
have actually accomplished, please.

Brooks

> And incidentally, calling people idiots does not constitute an debate and
in
> fact demonstrates the weakness of your argument.
> Jarg
>
>
>
> "Gene Storey" > wrote in message
> news:jBNDb.2104$6l1.305@okepread03...
> > Are you serious? Israel was founded under terrorism. Their biggest
> founding
> > terrorist (Irgun murderers) became Prime Minister: Menachem Begin.
> >
> > http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/begin.html
> >
> > Jesus H. Christ! This thread is full of ****ing idiots!
> >
> > "Jarg" > wrote
> > > But to suggest that both sides are equally to blame does Israel an
> > > injustice.
> > >
> > > Jarg
> >
> >
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Because the assassin is deliberately doing an action that he knows
> is likely to increase the probability of his death or serious
> injury.
>

Hmmm......, that description would seem to apply to many activities that
probably few people would find courageous. Drug running, gang activities,
armed robbery, etc.

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 00:22:35 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> >>
> >> >> I've no idea whether I am or not. I've never claimed to be
> >> >> courageous, BTW, and in any case it is irrelevant to the quewstion
> >> >> of whether Saddam or Rumsfeld is more courageous.
> >> >
> >> >I just find it comical when folks start besmirching someone else's
> >> >courage,
> >>
> >> I haven't besmirched *anyone's* courage, merely asked about it.
> >
> >Then forgive me, because the way it sounded from your post it was a case
of
> >"Saddam demonstrated courage by being an assassin (or more accurately,
> >assassin-wanna-be--IIRC he screwed up his attempts, at least until he got
to
> >the position from which he could merely order the murder of those he
> >disliked), and just what in heck has Rumsfeld ever done that required
> >bravery?"
>
> I'm not saying he hasn't done anything, merely asking.

Sure.

>
> >> >when their own demonstrations have not exhibited anything superlative
to
> >> >the
> >> >individual they are commenting about.
> >>
> >> Thgat's like saying only tall people have a right to comment on the
> >> height of others.
> >
> >No, that is like saying that commenting upon another's alleged
demonstrated
> >lack of courage verges on hypocrisy.
>
> Hypocrisy is when one pretends to have higher moral values than one
> actuall y has; I don't recall stating anywhere that I have high
> moral values, consequently I am not a hypocrite.

I'd think that questioning the contributions of Rumsfeld, when one has not
himself dared to even match that level of contribution, is hypocritical.

>
> >> >I always hate this kind of dick-measuring
> >>
> >> It's not dick-measuring; look, some people might have a big ego
> >> thing about others considering them courageous, but I don't. It's
> >> just another property about people that some have more than others.
> >
> >It's dick measuring. From your statement it was apparent you wanted to
cast
> >doubt on Rumsfeld's personal bravery versus that of Saddam
>
> Only if he hasn't done anything that requires bravery. My
> understanding of Saddam's life is that he has in the past done
> things that do require bravery (of course, people in their 60s are
> likely to be less brave than they were in their 20s). Has Rumsfled
> done anything that requires as much bravery as some of the things
> Saddam has done?

You know, there are a lot of people besides me who have noted that your
assigning the quality of bravery to thougs and assassins is way off
base--you might consider that a clue that you are a bit off-track.

>
> >--had you really
> >been interested in finding out what Rummy has done during his life a
simple
> >google search would have answered that question quite easily. You got an
> >answer anyway, and then you tried to pursue it with that ridiculous "was
it
> >anywhere near a war zone" crap,
>
> Please don't confuse my comments with other posters'.

YOUR post on 15 DEC: "Anywhere near a war zone?" Short term memory problem?

Brooks

>
> > and with that you opened yourself to the
> >stinging question of just what the hell you have done that exceeds his
> >already demonstrated willingness to accept more risk than the majority us
> >have on behalf of his nation. You flunked that one,
>
> I don't consider it "stinging" nor do I consider i have "flunked"
> it; if you wish to consider things that way, that's your
> priviledge, but I was merely giving an honest answer.
>
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
> the last two letters).
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C Knowles" > wrote in message
> om...
> > What's amazing is that some in the Arab world are amazed he surrendered.
> > They must have really bought his line of BS.
>
> The tendency to buy in to the glorious myths of individuals is
> pretty common amongst Muslims and Arabs in particular
> it would seem.
> Hmm, probably the case for most dictatorially governed people,
> what they are raised to.

When you stop and think about it, might it be nothing more than an expression of
an inferiority complex of an entire culture? Can you think of a Muslim/Arab who
made a recent contribution in the world of science? Medicine? Technology?
Music? Art? Do you know of anyone of them by name who's accomplished anything
in recent years that's made life better, easier or more comfortable in any way
for people as a whole?

Other than Queen Noor of Jordan, who's an American by birth and who happens to
be a bright, compassionate and gracious lady, not to mention beautiful, the only
thing that comes to mind by way of answer is a bunch of old, radical Muslim
farts sitting around a hovel somewhere teaching a dumb kid how to commit suicide
by blowing up a car bomb, or maybe just himself or herself. How sad that the
only thing they seem able to claim credit for doing well is destruction.

Perhaps they just delude themselves to keep from having to look at themselves
realistically.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C Knowles" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > What's amazing is that some in the Arab world are amazed he
surrendered.
> > > They must have really bought his line of BS.
> >
> > The tendency to buy in to the glorious myths of individuals is
> > pretty common amongst Muslims and Arabs in particular
> > it would seem.
> > Hmm, probably the case for most dictatorially governed people,
> > what they are raised to.
>
> When you stop and think about it, might it be nothing more than an
expression of
> an inferiority complex of an entire culture? Can you think of a
Muslim/Arab who
> made a recent contribution in the world of science?

How about the 1999 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, Dr. Ahmed Zewail? And he
is the SECOND Muslim Laureate in the chemistry field from the 1990's.

> Medicine? Technology?

Two Nobel Laureates in medicine (1960 and 1998).

The historical Islamic impact on those fields cannot be slighted. Muslim
doctors were at one time significantly advanced over their European
counterparts, and some of their advances were adopted by western
practitioners during the middle ages. They also made some significant
headway in the area of mathematics (life would be hard without "zero"),
astronomy, etc., and IIRC they were one of the early users of gunpowder,
well before Europeans stumbled upon it.

> Music?

Music is dependent upon the listener's ear--there are plenty of contemporary
Islamic musicians who are all the rage to their listeners. You really need
to be careful here--unless you consider Michael Jackson a wonderful example
of our own musical artists?

> Art?

Salman Rushdie ring a bell? And FYI, there is that pesky Nobel thing
again...yep, two Muslim Nobel Laureates in Literature (1957 and 1988). As to
other artists, that would be another field you might wish to stay clear
of--a couple of the more notable western artists of late are that whacko who
enjoys draping fabric over vast distances of countryside and the other bozo
who has been traveling around the world taking photos of naked people laying
in streets, etc. Neither exactly make me want to beat my chest with pride in
their accomplishments.

> Do you know of anyone of them by name who's accomplished anything
> in recent years that's made life better, easier or more comfortable in any
way
> for people as a whole?

What, you don't consider a Nobel good enough? Three Nobels in the Peace
category, including the 2003 Peace Prize, won by Shirin Ebadi of Iran.

>
> Other than Queen Noor of Jordan, who's an American by birth and who
happens to
> be a bright, compassionate and gracious lady, not to mention beautiful,
the only
> thing that comes to mind by way of answer is a bunch of old, radical
Muslim
> farts sitting around a hovel somewhere teaching a dumb kid how to commit
suicide
> by blowing up a car bomb, or maybe just himself or herself. How sad that
the
> only thing they seem able to claim credit for doing well is destruction.
>
> Perhaps they just delude themselves to keep from having to look at
themselves
> realistically.

Perhaps you are just not looking in the right places. Nine Nobel Laureates
since 1957 have been Muslims. Your whole post here is rather nauseating in
terms of its bigoted tone.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "C Knowles" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > What's amazing is that some in the Arab world are amazed he
> surrendered.
> > > > They must have really bought his line of BS.
> > >
> > > The tendency to buy in to the glorious myths of individuals is
> > > pretty common amongst Muslims and Arabs in particular
> > > it would seem.
> > > Hmm, probably the case for most dictatorially governed people,
> > > what they are raised to.
> >
> > When you stop and think about it, might it be nothing more than an
> expression of
> > an inferiority complex of an entire culture? Can you think of a
> Muslim/Arab who
> > made a recent contribution in the world of science?
>
> How about the 1999 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, Dr. Ahmed Zewail? And
he
> is the SECOND Muslim Laureate in the chemistry field from the 1990's.
>
> > Medicine? Technology?
>
> Two Nobel Laureates in medicine (1960 and 1998).
>
> The historical Islamic impact on those fields cannot be slighted. Muslim
> doctors were at one time significantly advanced over their European
> counterparts, and some of their advances were adopted by western
> practitioners during the middle ages. They also made some significant
> headway in the area of mathematics (life would be hard without "zero"),
> astronomy, etc., and IIRC they were one of the early users of gunpowder,
> well before Europeans stumbled upon it.
>
> > Music?
>
> Music is dependent upon the listener's ear--there are plenty of
contemporary
> Islamic musicians who are all the rage to their listeners. You really need
> to be careful here--unless you consider Michael Jackson a wonderful
example
> of our own musical artists?
>
> > Art?
>
> Salman Rushdie ring a bell? And FYI, there is that pesky Nobel thing
> again...yep, two Muslim Nobel Laureates in Literature (1957 and 1988). As
to
> other artists, that would be another field you might wish to stay clear
> of--a couple of the more notable western artists of late are that whacko
who
> enjoys draping fabric over vast distances of countryside and the other
bozo
> who has been traveling around the world taking photos of naked people
laying
> in streets, etc. Neither exactly make me want to beat my chest with pride
in
> their accomplishments.
>
> > Do you know of anyone of them by name who's accomplished anything
> > in recent years that's made life better, easier or more comfortable in
any
> way
> > for people as a whole?
>
> What, you don't consider a Nobel good enough? Three Nobels in the Peace
> category, including the 2003 Peace Prize, won by Shirin Ebadi of Iran.
>
> >
> > Other than Queen Noor of Jordan, who's an American by birth and who
> happens to
> > be a bright, compassionate and gracious lady, not to mention beautiful,
> the only
> > thing that comes to mind by way of answer is a bunch of old, radical
> Muslim
> > farts sitting around a hovel somewhere teaching a dumb kid how to commit
> suicide
> > by blowing up a car bomb, or maybe just himself or herself. How sad
that
> the
> > only thing they seem able to claim credit for doing well is destruction.
> >
> > Perhaps they just delude themselves to keep from having to look at
> themselves
> > realistically.
>
> Perhaps you are just not looking in the right places. Nine Nobel Laureates

Ooops! Make that ten--the '79 Physics prize was also shared by a Muslim.

> since 1957 have been Muslims. Your whole post here is rather nauseating in
> terms of its bigoted tone.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > George Z.
> >
> >
>
>

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> The historical Islamic impact on those fields cannot be slighted.
> Muslim doctors were at one time significantly advanced over their
> European counterparts, and some of their advances were adopted by
> western practitioners during the middle ages. They also made some
> significant headway in the area of mathematics (life would be hard
> without "zero"), astronomy, etc., and IIRC they were one of the early
> users of gunpowder, well before Europeans stumbled upon it.


Sometimes I think that the historical impact is the problem with the Arabs
today: they had a glorious past and led the world 1000 years ago in so many
fields. Now they want to return to those days, but have done little to warrant
it. They got left in the dust and don't like it. I can't blame them, but time
marches on.

There is something fundamentally (pardon the pun) wrong with a society that
hates another more than they love life itself. How sad.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > The historical Islamic impact on those fields cannot be slighted.
> > Muslim doctors were at one time significantly advanced over their
> > European counterparts, and some of their advances were adopted by
> > western practitioners during the middle ages. They also made some
> > significant headway in the area of mathematics (life would be hard
> > without "zero"), astronomy, etc., and IIRC they were one of the early
> > users of gunpowder, well before Europeans stumbled upon it.
>
>
> Sometimes I think that the historical impact is the problem with the Arabs
> today: they had a glorious past and led the world 1000 years ago in so
many
> fields. Now they want to return to those days, but have done little to
warrant
> it. They got left in the dust and don't like it. I can't blame them, but
time
> marches on.
>
> There is something fundamentally (pardon the pun) wrong with a society
that
> hates another more than they love life itself. How sad.

There may also be something wrong with those who take the actions and rants
of the radical element and ascribe them to the majority.

Brooks

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> There may also be something wrong with those who take the actions and
rants
> of the radical element and ascribe them to the majority.
>

I don't see much condemnation of the radical element from the majority.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > There may also be something wrong with those who take the actions and
> rants
> > of the radical element and ascribe them to the majority.
> >
>
> I don't see much condemnation of the radical element from the majority.

Maybe you are suffering a bit of myopia, then. I guess you consider all of
the Muslims in Turkey to be radicals? We have garnered the support of a
number of predominantly Muslim nations during our recent fight against the
Taliban and AQ--Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and Turkey
all contributed to that fight, as did IIRC Jordan with non-combat support.
I'd think that qualifies as "condemnation" of the radicals, IMO. Not to
mention that lady who just picked up the Nobel Peace Prize.

Brooks

>
>

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:11:39 GMT, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>>
>> Please don't confuse my comments with other posters'.
>
>YOUR post on 15 DEC: "Anywhere near a war zone?" Short term memory problem?

Evidently. I got that wrong. Sorry.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Tarver Engineering]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:07:33 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> >> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
> >> >> courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?
> >> >
> >> >He flew jets onto and off of carriers at one time
> >>
> >> Anywhere near a war zone?
> >
> >IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it takes
a
> >decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and rolling
> >deck IMO.
> >
> >>
> >> >--have you done that?
> >>
> >> Nope. The only thing I've ever flown is a glider.
> >
> >So you are somewhere beneath Rumsfeld then on this mythical
> >totem-pole-of-courage?
>
> I've no idea whether I am or not. I've never claimed to be
> courageous, BTW, and in any case it is irrelevant to the quewstion
> of whether Saddam or Rumsfeld is more courageous.

Ooops, Kevin may as well surrender, a personal attack didn't work. :)

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 14:26:24 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>> There may also be something wrong with those who take the actions and
>>rants
>> of the radical element and ascribe them to the majority.
>
>I don't see much condemnation of the radical element from the majority.

How about <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3230206.stm>?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:07:33 GMT, Kevin Brooks >
> wrote:
> > >
> > >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >> >> Saddam was an assassin in his youth, which presumably took osme
> > >> >> courage. What's the bravest thing Rumsfeld has personally done?
> > >> >
> > >> >He flew jets onto and off of carriers at one time
> > >>
> > >> Anywhere near a war zone?
> > >
> > >IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it
takes
> a
> > >decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching and
rolling
> > >deck IMO.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >--have you done that?
> > >>
> > >> Nope. The only thing I've ever flown is a glider.
> > >
> > >So you are somewhere beneath Rumsfeld then on this mythical
> > >totem-pole-of-courage?
> >
> > I've no idea whether I am or not. I've never claimed to be
> > courageous, BTW, and in any case it is irrelevant to the quewstion
> > of whether Saddam or Rumsfeld is more courageous.
>
> Ooops, Kevin may as well surrender, a personal attack didn't work. :)

That was hardly a "personal attack"--it was merely an observation regarding
the danger of belittling the courage of others. A bit like "observing" that
you have a habit of making things up, Tarvernaut--things like "optical
nukes", alleged carriage of AIM-7 and AIM-9 by F-106's, "recoiless" cannon
in AC-130's, the supposed absence of pitot tubes in modern aircraft, etc.

Brooks
>
>

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:45:13 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> And the Israelis will try to destroy the Palestinians. There are no "clean
>> hands" in that mess.
>>
>
>Maybe not, but one side's hands are significantly dirtier than the other
>side's. The majority of Israelis are willing to live alongside a peaceful
>Palestinian state, few Palestinians are willing to live in peace alongside
>Israel.
>
And you know this how?? From Israeli polls? I am not saying that you are
incorrect, I am simply saying that I, and I believe you, do not really know.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:30 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> t...
>> >
>> > There may also be something wrong with those who take the actions and
>> rants
>> > of the radical element and ascribe them to the majority.
>> >
>>
>> I don't see much condemnation of the radical element from the majority.
>
>Maybe you are suffering a bit of myopia, then. I guess you consider all of
>the Muslims in Turkey to be radicals? We have garnered the support of a
>number of predominantly Muslim nations during our recent fight against the
>Taliban and AQ--Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and Turkey
>all contributed to that fight, as did IIRC Jordan with non-combat support.
>I'd think that qualifies as "condemnation" of the radicals, IMO. Not to
>mention that lady who just picked up the Nobel Peace Prize.
>
>Brooks

You mean the "lady" who viciously attacked the US and the west during
her acceptance rant (oops, speech)??

Hardly a peaceful person. The prize was an anti-American statement
on the part of the "committee".

Al Minyard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> And you know this how?? From Israeli polls? I am not saying that you are
> incorrect, I am simply saying that I, and I believe you, do not really
know.
>

I base it on adherence to the Camp David Accords by Egypt and Israel. There
has been peace between Egypt and Israel since Egyptians decided to live in
peace alongside Israel. When Palestinians decide they can live in peace
alongside Israel there will be a peaceful Palestine alongside Israel.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:30 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >>
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> >> t...
> >> >
> >> > There may also be something wrong with those who take the actions and
> >> rants
> >> > of the radical element and ascribe them to the majority.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't see much condemnation of the radical element from the majority.
> >
> >Maybe you are suffering a bit of myopia, then. I guess you consider all
of
> >the Muslims in Turkey to be radicals? We have garnered the support of a
> >number of predominantly Muslim nations during our recent fight against
the
> >Taliban and AQ--Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and
Turkey
> >all contributed to that fight, as did IIRC Jordan with non-combat
support.
> >I'd think that qualifies as "condemnation" of the radicals, IMO. Not to
> >mention that lady who just picked up the Nobel Peace Prize.
> >
> >Brooks
>
> You mean the "lady" who viciously attacked the US and the west during
> her acceptance rant (oops, speech)??
>
> Hardly a peaceful person. The prize was an anti-American statement
> on the part of the "committee".

I missed that. Regardless, there are plenty of Muslims who have not joined
the radical bandwagon, and as pointed out above there are quite a few Muslim
nations that have supported us over the last couple of years--add Qatar and
Kuwait to that list, as I apparently left them out. Turning this into a "us
versus Islam-at-large" confrontation does little good, and is in fact
incorrect.

Brooks

>
> Al Minyard

[Gene Storey]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote
> >
> > And you know this how?? From Israeli polls? I am not saying that you are
> > incorrect, I am simply saying that I, and I believe you, do not really
> know.
> >
>
> I base it on adherence to the Camp David Accords by Egypt and Israel. There
> has been peace between Egypt and Israel since Egyptians decided to live in
> peace alongside Israel. When Palestinians decide they can live in peace
> alongside Israel there will be a peaceful Palestine alongside Israel.

Actually they don't. U.S. Forces are deployed in the Sinai between the two.
A few years ago they all got killed in a plane crash in Newfoundland on a
cheap two-bit airline because MAC didn't have enough crews to support
the worldwide deployments.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
news:%Y9Eb.2174$6l1.184@okepread03...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> > "Alan Minyard" > wrote
> > >
> > > And you know this how?? From Israeli polls? I am not saying that you
are
> > > incorrect, I am simply saying that I, and I believe you, do not really
> > know.
> > >
> >
> > I base it on adherence to the Camp David Accords by Egypt and Israel.
There
> > has been peace between Egypt and Israel since Egyptians decided to live
in
> > peace alongside Israel. When Palestinians decide they can live in peace
> > alongside Israel there will be a peaceful Palestine alongside Israel.
>
> Actually they don't. U.S. Forces are deployed in the Sinai between the
two.
> A few years ago they all got killed in a plane crash in Newfoundland on a
> cheap two-bit airline because MAC didn't have enough crews to support
> the worldwide deployments.

No, they (and it was not "all of them"--the MNF-Sinai is a battalion sized
force, and you are not fitting a battalion on a single DC-8) died in the
crash of that charter DC-8 at Gander because that is the way we routinely
move large numbers of troops--the AMC cargo haulers are better utilized
carrying the heavy boxes and rolling stock. And what's more, had you asked
any of those troops who unfortunately were onboard that aircraft which they
would prefer to make a trans-Atlantic redeployment on, a charter airliner or
a C-141, I guarandamntee you it would have been the former. Having done a
few long range deployments by both methods of conveyance, I'd have agreed
with them.

Brooks
>
>

[weary]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
.com...
> B2431 wrote:
> > Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers, promised to go down
> > fighting and called on others to fight to the very end. He caved. If
> > he was really smart he would have made the U.S. soldiers kill him
> > thereby making him a martyr.
>
>
> That reminds me of another brave Middle Eastern leader, Yasser Arafat.
After
> whining about the Israelis outside his door and how much he wanted to die
and
> become a martyr, he refused to open the door. I'm sure the Israelis would
have
> been happy to oblige him.
>
> These guys are always braver than hell, particularly when they're talking
about
> someone else dying. No sacrifice is too great. Insha'h Allah.

Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents to his
troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location he slunk
in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.

[Stephen Harding]

weary wrote:

> Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents to his
> troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location he slunk
> in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.

And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
the north Atlantic?

Those cowardly American Presidents!


SMH

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:30:35 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> And you know this how?? From Israeli polls? I am not saying that you are
>> incorrect, I am simply saying that I, and I believe you, do not really
>know.
>>
>
>I base it on adherence to the Camp David Accords by Egypt and Israel. There
>has been peace between Egypt and Israel since Egyptians decided to live in
>peace alongside Israel. When Palestinians decide they can live in peace
>alongside Israel there will be a peaceful Palestine alongside Israel.
>
Dream on, Israel has violated every accord signed with the Palestinians
(which is not to say that the Palestinians have not). Illegal Israeli
settlements are routinely encouraged by the GOI.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 04:08:07 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 16:05:30 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> >> t...
>> >> >
>> >> > There may also be something wrong with those who take the actions and
>> >> rants
>> >> > of the radical element and ascribe them to the majority.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't see much condemnation of the radical element from the majority.
>> >
>> >Maybe you are suffering a bit of myopia, then. I guess you consider all
>of
>> >the Muslims in Turkey to be radicals? We have garnered the support of a
>> >number of predominantly Muslim nations during our recent fight against
>the
>> >Taliban and AQ--Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and
>Turkey
>> >all contributed to that fight, as did IIRC Jordan with non-combat
>support.
>> >I'd think that qualifies as "condemnation" of the radicals, IMO. Not to
>> >mention that lady who just picked up the Nobel Peace Prize.
>> >
>> >Brooks
>>
>> You mean the "lady" who viciously attacked the US and the west during
>> her acceptance rant (oops, speech)??
>>
>> Hardly a peaceful person. The prize was an anti-American statement
>> on the part of the "committee".
>
>I missed that. Regardless, there are plenty of Muslims who have not joined
>the radical bandwagon, and as pointed out above there are quite a few Muslim
>nations that have supported us over the last couple of years--add Qatar and
>Kuwait to that list, as I apparently left them out. Turning this into a "us
>versus Islam-at-large" confrontation does little good, and is in fact
>incorrect.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
You also left out Bahrain :-) I agree that one cannot characterize an entire
nation/religeon/etc based on the actions of a few, I was merely commenting
on the idiocy of the Nobel committee. Radicals, no matter what their "cause"
do not deserve "peace" prizes.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:34:38 GMT, "Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>
>"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
>news:%Y9Eb.2174$6l1.184@okepread03...
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>> > "Alan Minyard" > wrote
>> > >
>> > > And you know this how?? From Israeli polls? I am not saying that you
>are
>> > > incorrect, I am simply saying that I, and I believe you, do not really
>> > know.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I base it on adherence to the Camp David Accords by Egypt and Israel.
>There
>> > has been peace between Egypt and Israel since Egyptians decided to live
>in
>> > peace alongside Israel. When Palestinians decide they can live in peace
>> > alongside Israel there will be a peaceful Palestine alongside Israel.
>>
>> Actually they don't. U.S. Forces are deployed in the Sinai between the
>two.
>> A few years ago they all got killed in a plane crash in Newfoundland on a
>> cheap two-bit airline because MAC didn't have enough crews to support
>> the worldwide deployments.
>
>No, they (and it was not "all of them"--the MNF-Sinai is a battalion sized
>force, and you are not fitting a battalion on a single DC-8) died in the
>crash of that charter DC-8 at Gander because that is the way we routinely
>move large numbers of troops--the AMC cargo haulers are better utilized
>carrying the heavy boxes and rolling stock. And what's more, had you asked
>any of those troops who unfortunately were onboard that aircraft which they
>would prefer to make a trans-Atlantic redeployment on, a charter airliner or
>a C-141, I guarandamntee you it would have been the former. Having done a
>few long range deployments by both methods of conveyance, I'd have agreed
>with them.
>
>Brooks
>>
Roger that, the drinks served on military a/c do not even come close to
what the civvies serve :-))

Al Minyard

[weary]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> weary wrote:
>
> > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents to
his
> > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location he
slunk
> > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
>
> And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
> the north Atlantic?
>
> Those cowardly American Presidents!

Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was being
specific.
>
>
> SMH
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"weary" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > weary wrote:
> >
> > > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents to
> his
> > > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location he
> slunk
> > > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
> >
> > And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
> > the north Atlantic?
> >
> > Those cowardly American Presidents!
>
> Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was being
> specific.

Specifically off-target, you mean...

Brooks

> >
> >
> > SMH
> >
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "C Knowles" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>> What's amazing is that some in the Arab world are amazed he surrendered.
>>>> They must have really bought his line of BS.
>>>
>>> The tendency to buy in to the glorious myths of individuals is
>>> pretty common amongst Muslims and Arabs in particular
>>> it would seem.
>>> Hmm, probably the case for most dictatorially governed people,
>>> what they are raised to.
>>
>> When you stop and think about it, might it be nothing more than an
>> expression of an inferiority complex of an entire culture? Can you think of
>> a Muslim/Arab who made a recent contribution in the world of science?
>
> How about the 1999 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, Dr. Ahmed Zewail? And he
> is the SECOND Muslim Laureate in the chemistry field from the 1990's.
>
>> Medicine? Technology?
>
> Two Nobel Laureates in medicine (1960 and 1998).
>
> The historical Islamic impact on those fields cannot be slighted. Muslim
> doctors were at one time significantly advanced over their European
> counterparts, and some of their advances were adopted by western
> practitioners during the middle ages. They also made some significant
> headway in the area of mathematics (life would be hard without "zero"),
> astronomy, etc., and IIRC they were one of the early users of gunpowder,
> well before Europeans stumbled upon it.
>
>> Music?
>
> Music is dependent upon the listener's ear--there are plenty of contemporary
> Islamic musicians who are all the rage to their listeners. You really need
> to be careful here--unless you consider Michael Jackson a wonderful example
> of our own musical artists?
>
>> Art?
>
> Salman Rushdie ring a bell? And FYI, there is that pesky Nobel thing
> again...yep, two Muslim Nobel Laureates in Literature (1957 and 1988). As to
> other artists, that would be another field you might wish to stay clear
> of--a couple of the more notable western artists of late are that whacko who
> enjoys draping fabric over vast distances of countryside and the other bozo
> who has been traveling around the world taking photos of naked people laying
> in streets, etc. Neither exactly make me want to beat my chest with pride in
> their accomplishments.
>
>> Do you know of anyone of them by name who's accomplished anything
>> in recent years that's made life better, easier or more comfortable in any
>> way for people as a whole?
>
> What, you don't consider a Nobel good enough? Three Nobels in the Peace
> category, including the 2003 Peace Prize, won by Shirin Ebadi of Iran.
>
>>
>> Other than Queen Noor of Jordan, who's an American by birth and who happens
>> to be a bright, compassionate and gracious lady, not to mention beautiful,
>> the only thing that comes to mind by way of answer is a bunch of old,
>> radical Muslim farts sitting around a hovel somewhere teaching a dumb kid
>> how to commit suicide by blowing up a car bomb, or maybe just himself or
>> herself. How sad that the only thing they seem able to claim credit for
>> doing well is destruction.
>>
>> Perhaps they just delude themselves to keep from having to look at themselves
>> realistically.
>
> Perhaps you are just not looking in the right places. Nine Nobel Laureates
> since 1957 have been Muslims. Your whole post here is rather nauseating in
> terms of its bigoted tone.

You're probably right.....I haven't been looking in the right places. OTOH,
nine Muslim Nobel Laureates during the last almost half century is a totally
unimpressive accomplishment coming from a people who make up roughly one third
of the human beings on earth. You can look for more if that's what it takes to
keep your nausea under control, but I think I can rest my case on the numbers
you furnished. You can call it bigoted if you wish, but I prefer to think of it
as being painfully realistic.

George Z.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:14:00 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>
>"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
>> weary wrote:
>>
>> > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents to
>his
>> > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location he
>slunk
>> > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
>>
>> And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
>> the north Atlantic?
>>
>> Those cowardly American Presidents!
>
>Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was being
>specific.
>>
>>
>> SMH
>>
>
No, you were being an idiot, and you still are.

Al Minyard

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Maybe you are suffering a bit of myopia, then.
>

No, that's not it.


>
> I guess you consider all of the Muslims in Turkey to be radicals?
>

Nope.


>
> We have garnered the support of a
> number of predominantly Muslim nations during our recent fight against the
> Taliban and AQ--Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, and Turkey
> all contributed to that fight, as did IIRC Jordan with non-combat support.
> I'd think that qualifies as "condemnation" of the radicals, IMO. Not to
> mention that lady who just picked up the Nobel Peace Prize.
>

I said I don't see much condemnation of the radical element from the
majority, I didn't say I saw none.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> How about <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3230206.stm>?
>

I said I don't see much condemnation of the radical element from the
majority, I didn't say I saw none.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"weary" > wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > weary wrote:
> >
> > > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents to
> his
> > > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location he
> slunk
> > > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
> >
> > And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
> > the north Atlantic?
> >
> > Those cowardly American Presidents!
>
> Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was being
> specific.

Specifically wrong, too.

[Thomas Schoene]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it
> takes a decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching
> and rolling deck IMO.

Without getting into debates about his personal bravery, I've been trying to
figure out exactly what Rumsfeld did fly. He's mentioned flying S2Fs in the
reserves, and he was a flight instructor after completing flight school
(SNJs or maybe T-28s, right?). But despite several biographies calling him a
Navy fighter pilot, I can't find any reference to him flying a specific type
of fighter.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it
> > takes a decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a pitching
> > and rolling deck IMO.
>
> Without getting into debates about his personal bravery, I've been trying
to
> figure out exactly what Rumsfeld did fly. He's mentioned flying S2Fs in
the
> reserves, and he was a flight instructor after completing flight school
> (SNJs or maybe T-28s, right?). But despite several biographies calling him
a
> Navy fighter pilot, I can't find any reference to him flying a specific
type
> of fighter.

I am not sure it matters. Don't (or maybe now the operative word is
"didn't") all fixed wing naval aviators go through carrier quals as part of
their flight training before moving on to their specialty airframes,
whatever they may be?

Brooks

>
> --
> Tom Schoene

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> link.net...

> I am not sure it matters. Don't (or maybe now the operative word is
> "didn't") all fixed wing naval aviators go through carrier quals as part of
> their flight training before moving on to their specialty airframes,
> whatever they may be?

I believe that you're right. I think I read somewhere that carrier
qualification was a prerequisite for the initial award of the USN pilot's
rating.

George Z.

[Thomas Schoene]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>> IIRC his service was just after the Korean Conflict. That said, it
>>> takes a decent pair to land a high performance aircraft on a
>>> pitching and rolling deck IMO.
>>
>> Without getting into debates about his personal bravery, I've been
>> trying to figure out exactly what Rumsfeld did fly.
[snip]
> I am not sure it matters. Don't (or maybe now the operative word is
> "didn't") all fixed wing naval aviators go through carrier quals as
> part of their flight training before moving on to their specialty
> airframes, whatever they may be?

Which is why I said "without getting into" the bravery issue. I'm just
curious what planes he flew. Call it a matter of historical interest.


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[weary]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:14:00 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> weary wrote:
> >>
> >> > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents
to
> >his
> >> > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location he
> >slunk
> >> > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
> >>
> >> And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
> >> the north Atlantic?
> >>
> >> Those cowardly American Presidents!
> >
> >Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was being
> >specific.
> >>
> >>
> >> SMH
> >>
> >
> No, you were being an idiot, and you still are.

I know I've made the point when I get personal abuse.

[weary]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "weary" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > weary wrote:
> > >
> > > > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents
to
> > his
> > > > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location
he
> > slunk
> > > > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
> > >
> > > And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
> > > the north Atlantic?
> > >
> > > Those cowardly American Presidents!
> >
> > Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was being
> > specific.
>
> Specifically off-target, you mean...

No I know I hit the target. The same one that displayed his courage
when Sept 11 happened.

[Stephen Harding]

weary wrote:
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>"weary" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>weary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents
>
> to
>
>>>his
>>>
>>>>>troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location
>
> he
>
>>>slunk
>>>
>>>>>in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
>>>>
>>>>And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
>>>>the north Atlantic?
>>>>
>>>>Those cowardly American Presidents!
>>>
>>>Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was being
>>>specific.
>>
>>Specifically off-target, you mean...
>
> No I know I hit the target. The same one that displayed his courage
> when Sept 11 happened.

Your "targets" seem to be moving.

Where you expecting the President of the United States to be
involved in the rescue attempts of 9/11? Was not being involved
with them an act of cowardess?

Should the President have arrived in Baghdad with an accompanying
band and a motorcade? Why would Roosevelt not be cowardly being
so secretive in the face of the U boat dangers of the time? Pretty
similar to the conditions for the Bush trip to Baghdad actually.

Bush may be a coward. Can't really say. But if I was so concerned
with my health in the face of real danger, I'd just pass up the
trip to Iraq altogether.


SMH

[George Z. Bush]

"weary" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:14:00 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> weary wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of insurgents
> to
> > >his
> > >> > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same location he
> > >slunk
> > >> > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
> > >>
> > >> And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
> > >> the north Atlantic?
> > >>
> > >> Those cowardly American Presidents!
> > >
> > >Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was being
> > >specific.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> SMH
> > >>
> > >
> > No, you were being an idiot, and you still are.
>
> I know I've made the point when I get personal abuse.

Exactly! It's one of the rules for survival on the Internet, i.e. - even when
you're wrong, when your supply of facts is depleted, feel free to draw on your
cache of invective. If that's really not one of the rules, then I've just made
one up. If it needs a name, call it "George's Rule". (^-^)))

George Z.
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "weary" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:14:00 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> weary wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of
insurgents
> > to
> > > >his
> > > >> > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same
location he
> > > >slunk
> > > >> > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
> > > >>
> > > >> And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
> > > >> the north Atlantic?
> > > >>
> > > >> Those cowardly American Presidents!
> > > >
> > > >Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was
being
> > > >specific.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> SMH
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > No, you were being an idiot, and you still are.
> >
> > I know I've made the point when I get personal abuse.
>
> Exactly! It's one of the rules for survival on the Internet, i.e. - even
when
> you're wrong, when your supply of facts is depleted, feel free to draw on
your
> cache of invective. If that's really not one of the rules, then I've just
made
> one up. If it needs a name, call it "George's Rule". (^-^)))

I thought "George's Rule" was along the lines of: "If you make a false
accusation and are called on it and provided evidnce to the contrary, just
ignore it or respond with a personal attack against the individual who
brought it to your attention, but under no circumstances admit your error"?

Brooks

>
> George Z.
> >
> >
>
>

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"weary" > wrote:

> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > > > Those cowardly American Presidents!
> > >
> > > Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was being
> > > specific.
> >
> > Specifically off-target, you mean...
>
> No I know I hit the target. The same one that displayed his courage
> when Sept 11 happened.

You *do* know, don't you, that there are mandatory procedures set out
for handling the president, along with a boatload of other items?

The president had no discretion whatsoever on 9/11.

Too bad that trashes your silly little fantasy.

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "weary" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:14:00 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> weary wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of
> insurgents
> > > to
> > > > >his
> > > > >> > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same
> location he
> > > > >slunk
> > > > >> > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill in
> > > > >> the north Atlantic?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Those cowardly American Presidents!
> > > > >
> > > > >Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was
> being
> > > > >specific.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> SMH
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > No, you were being an idiot, and you still are.
> > >
> > > I know I've made the point when I get personal abuse.
> >
> > Exactly! It's one of the rules for survival on the Internet, i.e. - even
> when
> > you're wrong, when your supply of facts is depleted, feel free to draw on
> your
> > cache of invective. If that's really not one of the rules, then I've just
> made
> > one up. If it needs a name, call it "George's Rule". (^-^)))
>
> I thought "George's Rule" was along the lines of: "If you make a false
> accusation and are called on it and provided evidnce to the contrary, just
> ignore it or respond with a personal attack against the individual who
> brought it to your attention, but under no circumstances admit your error"?
>
> Brooks

As old Ronnie once said, "There you go again!" You're thinking and getting it
all wrong because you persist in translating everything into Brookspeak, which
everybody knows to be the height of fantasy. You may not like it, but "George's
Rule" is what I said it was and not what you want it to be. If you don't like
my rules, make up your own and put your own name on them so that no one will
confuse them with fact.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "weary" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:14:00 GMT, "weary" >
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >> weary wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> > Brings to mind another who when discussing the threat of
> > insurgents
> > > > to
> > > > > >his
> > > > > >> > troops said "Bring them on", but when he went to the same
> > location he
> > > > > >slunk
> > > > > >> > in and out under cover of darkness like a thief.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> And don't forget Roosevelt sneaking off to meet with Churchill
in
> > > > > >> the north Atlantic?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Those cowardly American Presidents!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Dont't try to put words in my mouth. I wasn't generalising, I was
> > being
> > > > > >specific.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> SMH
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > No, you were being an idiot, and you still are.
> > > >
> > > > I know I've made the point when I get personal abuse.
> > >
> > > Exactly! It's one of the rules for survival on the Internet, i.e. -
even
> > when
> > > you're wrong, when your supply of facts is depleted, feel free to draw
on
> > your
> > > cache of invective. If that's really not one of the rules, then I've
just
> > made
> > > one up. If it needs a name, call it "George's Rule". (^-^)))
> >
> > I thought "George's Rule" was along the lines of: "If you make a false
> > accusation and are called on it and provided evidnce to the contrary,
just
> > ignore it or respond with a personal attack against the individual who
> > brought it to your attention, but under no circumstances admit your
error"?
> >
> > Brooks
>
> As old Ronnie once said, "There you go again!" You're thinking and
getting it
> all wrong because you persist in translating everything into Brookspeak,
which
> everybody knows to be the height of fantasy. You may not like it, but
"George's
> Rule" is what I said it was and not what you want it to be. If you don't
like
> my rules, make up your own and put your own name on them so that no one
will
> confuse them with fact.

You and fact have demonstrated little in common of late. Just so you can
review it again, here is the source that makes your earlier statement that
GWB never volunteered for Palace Alert an incorrect statement on your part
(and note that the reporters who concluded GWB did indeed volunteer came
from the Washington Post, hardly a sympathetic outlet to GWB):

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm

It really gauls you to have to admit you were wrong on that one, huh?

Brooks

> George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
(Snip)

> You and fact have demonstrated little in common of late. Just so you can
> review it again, here is the source that makes your earlier statement that
> GWB never volunteered for Palace Alert an incorrect statement on your part
> (and note that the reporters who concluded GWB did indeed volunteer came
> from the Washington Post, hardly a sympathetic outlet to GWB):
>
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm
>
> It really gauls you to have to admit you were wrong on that one, huh?

I've already explained how a rated ANG pilot can ground himself by letting his
flight physical expire without renewing it with a fresh physical exam. I didn't
say it because I thought it pretty obvious that you could do that a minute, a
day, a month or whatever after you've volunteered to fly to the moon, safe in
the knowledge that without a current physical you weren't going to be allowed to
fly anything anywhere. Anybody who was motivated to doing any combat flying had
only to make an appointment with his flight surgeon and take and pass his flight
physical in order to be eligible for selection. Without taking that exam, all
the volunteering in the world would only fool those dummies who don't fly into
thinking that it was for anything but show. Volunteering for an assignment that
you've deliberately made yourself ineligible for is dishonest and worthy only of
scorn from the flying community of military pilots.

It doesn't gall (please note the correct spelling of the word) me at all to
admit that I'm wrong, but on this subject the one who knows nothing about it is
you. But, of course, you wouldn't admit that, would you. No, I thought not.

George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> (Snip)
>
> > You and fact have demonstrated little in common of late. Just so you can
> > review it again, here is the source that makes your earlier statement
that
> > GWB never volunteered for Palace Alert an incorrect statement on your
part
> > (and note that the reporters who concluded GWB did indeed volunteer came
> > from the Washington Post, hardly a sympathetic outlet to GWB):
> >
> > http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm
> >
> > It really gauls you to have to admit you were wrong on that one, huh?
>
> I've already explained how a rated ANG pilot can ground himself by letting
his
> flight physical expire without renewing it with a fresh physical exam. I
didn't
> say it because I thought it pretty obvious that you could do that a
minute, a
> day, a month or whatever after you've volunteered to fly to the moon, safe
in
> the knowledge that without a current physical you weren't going to be
allowed to
> fly anything anywhere. Anybody who was motivated to doing any combat
flying had
> only to make an appointment with his flight surgeon and take and pass his
flight
> physical in order to be eligible for selection. Without taking that exam,
all
> the volunteering in the world would only fool those dummies who don't fly
into
> thinking that it was for anything but show. Volunteering for an
assignment that
> you've deliberately made yourself ineligible for is dishonest and worthy
only of
> scorn from the flying community of military pilots.

No, you are dodging again. You said he never volunteered, when in fact he
did, and it was well before his flight physical ran out, it was actually
reportedly done as he was finishing his training:

"Toward the completion of his training Bush volunteered for overseas duty as
part of the "Palace Alert" program which sent qualified F-102 pilots in the
Guard to Europe, the Far East, and occasionally to Vietnam." (from
previously cited source)

Your continual dodging about trying to rejustify yourself is pointless. He
volunteered. He had a valid flight physical at that time. Admit it, George,
you were wrong.

Brooks
>
> It doesn't gall (please note the correct spelling of the word) me at all
to
> admit that I'm wrong, but on this subject the one who knows nothing about
it is
> you. But, of course, you wouldn't admit that, would you. No, I thought
not.
>
> George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > t...
> > >
> > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > (Snip)
> >
> > > You and fact have demonstrated little in common of late. Just so you can
> > > review it again, here is the source that makes your earlier statement
> that
> > > GWB never volunteered for Palace Alert an incorrect statement on your
> part
> > > (and note that the reporters who concluded GWB did indeed volunteer came
> > > from the Washington Post, hardly a sympathetic outlet to GWB):
> > >
> > > http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm
> > >
> > > It really gauls you to have to admit you were wrong on that one, huh?
> >
> > I've already explained how a rated ANG pilot can ground himself by letting
> his
> > flight physical expire without renewing it with a fresh physical exam. I
> didn't
> > say it because I thought it pretty obvious that you could do that a
> minute, a
> > day, a month or whatever after you've volunteered to fly to the moon, safe
> in
> > the knowledge that without a current physical you weren't going to be
> allowed to
> > fly anything anywhere. Anybody who was motivated to doing any combat
> flying had
> > only to make an appointment with his flight surgeon and take and pass his
> flight
> > physical in order to be eligible for selection. Without taking that exam,
> all
> > the volunteering in the world would only fool those dummies who don't fly
> into
> > thinking that it was for anything but show. Volunteering for an
> assignment that
> > you've deliberately made yourself ineligible for is dishonest and worthy
> only of
> > scorn from the flying community of military pilots.
>
> No, you are dodging again. You said he never volunteered, when in fact he
> did, and it was well before his flight physical ran out, it was actually
> reportedly done as he was finishing his training:
>
> "Toward the completion of his training Bush volunteered for overseas duty as
> part of the "Palace Alert" program which sent qualified F-102 pilots in the
> Guard to Europe, the Far East, and occasionally to Vietnam." (from
> previously cited source)


>
> Your continual dodging about trying to rejustify yourself is pointless. He
> volunteered. He had a valid flight physical at that time. Admit it, George,
> you were wrong.

I'm sorry, but whether or not you agree, what I said was essentially accurate.
He may have had a valid flight physical when he volunteered but when he allowed
it to expire without taking the trouble of renewing it, he knew that he wasn't
even going to be tapped for one of those fat non-combat berths he wanted in
Europe or the Far East, much less for one in VN where people were exposed to the
possibility of dying. Those are facts and they are accurate and it was
dishonest to volunteer and then remove himself from eligibility by an overt act
on his part. He volunteered and then made sure that nothing would come of it by
letting his flight physical expire and not doing anything about replacing it
with a current one.

If I'm too hard on him, it's because I was a military pilot and I know what he
did and I can't make excuses for him under those circumstances.

I can't stop you from thinking it wasn't like that, but it's naive and
unrealistic on your part to hold that view.

George Z.

> It doesn't gall (please note the correct spelling of the word) me at all
> to
> > admit that I'm wrong, but on this subject the one who knows nothing about
> it is
> > you. But, of course, you wouldn't admit that, would you. No, I thought
> not.
> >
> > George Z.

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > t...
> > > >
> > > > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > (Snip)
> > >
> > > > You and fact have demonstrated little in common of late. Just so you
can
> > > > review it again, here is the source that makes your earlier
statement
> > that
> > > > GWB never volunteered for Palace Alert an incorrect statement on
your
> > part
> > > > (and note that the reporters who concluded GWB did indeed volunteer
came
> > > > from the Washington Post, hardly a sympathetic outlet to GWB):
> > > >
> > > > http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/09-13-99/vo15no19_bush.htm
> > > >
> > > > It really gauls you to have to admit you were wrong on that one,
huh?
> > >
> > > I've already explained how a rated ANG pilot can ground himself by
letting
> > his
> > > flight physical expire without renewing it with a fresh physical exam.
I
> > didn't
> > > say it because I thought it pretty obvious that you could do that a
> > minute, a
> > > day, a month or whatever after you've volunteered to fly to the moon,
safe
> > in
> > > the knowledge that without a current physical you weren't going to be
> > allowed to
> > > fly anything anywhere. Anybody who was motivated to doing any combat
> > flying had
> > > only to make an appointment with his flight surgeon and take and pass
his
> > flight
> > > physical in order to be eligible for selection. Without taking that
exam,
> > all
> > > the volunteering in the world would only fool those dummies who don't
fly
> > into
> > > thinking that it was for anything but show. Volunteering for an
> > assignment that
> > > you've deliberately made yourself ineligible for is dishonest and
worthy
> > only of
> > > scorn from the flying community of military pilots.
> >
> > No, you are dodging again. You said he never volunteered, when in fact
he
> > did, and it was well before his flight physical ran out, it was actually
> > reportedly done as he was finishing his training:
> >
> > "Toward the completion of his training Bush volunteered for overseas
duty as
> > part of the "Palace Alert" program which sent qualified F-102 pilots in
the
> > Guard to Europe, the Far East, and occasionally to Vietnam." (from
> > previously cited source)
>
>
> >
> > Your continual dodging about trying to rejustify yourself is pointless.
He
> > volunteered. He had a valid flight physical at that time. Admit it,
George,
> > you were wrong.
>
> I'm sorry, but whether or not you agree, what I said was essentially
accurate.
> He may have had a valid flight physical when he volunteered but when he
allowed
> it to expire without taking the trouble of renewing it, he knew that he
wasn't
> even going to be tapped for one of those fat non-combat berths he wanted
in
> Europe or the Far East, much less for one in VN where people were exposed
to the
> possibility of dying. Those are facts and they are accurate and it was
> dishonest to volunteer and then remove himself from eligibility by an
overt act
> on his part. He volunteered and then made sure that nothing would come of
it by
> letting his flight physical expire and not doing anything about replacing
it
> with a current one.
>
> If I'm too hard on him, it's because I was a military pilot and I know
what he
> did and I can't make excuses for him under those circumstances.
>
> I can't stop you from thinking it wasn't like that, but it's naive and
> unrealistic on your part to hold that view.

George, his flight phsical did not run out until sometime in 1972--he
volunteered for Palace Alert while he was finishing training in early 1970.
By the time his physical ran out Palace Alert was no longer sending ANG
F-102 pilots to Vietnam/Thailand, and in fact the ANG was already starting
to dump its F-102's entirely (IIRC the majority were retired by mid 1974).
So I still don't see what you are griping about--he volunteered while he was
completing his Combat Crew training in the F-102, and he remained qualified
in the F-102 throughout the remaining period that Palace Alert was sending
ANG folks overseas. Apparently he was told upon volunteering, "Thanks, but
no thanks--we have enough experienced (1000 hour plus) F-102 pilots asking
for this duty so wea re not taking LT's straight out of the schoolhouse."
You admitted earlier that you had never even heard of Palace Alert, but now
you are in a position to judge GWB's volunteer status in that regard without
realizing that you apparently had your timeline out of whack? If you want to
condemn him for not being the best officer they ever had in the 111th FG
based upon his overall service record, fine, that is a matter of opinion for
you to decide--but trying to claim that he never volunteered, or that he
volunteered and then figuratively shot himself in the foot via his flight
physical to avoid having to meet that voluntary requirement, is just plain
false, and the factual timeline does not support that assertion.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
> > It doesn't gall (please note the correct spelling of the word) me at all
> > to
> > > admit that I'm wrong, but on this subject the one who knows nothing
about
> > it is
> > > you. But, of course, you wouldn't admit that, would you. No, I
thought
> > not.
> > >
> > > George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...

(Snip)

> George, his flight phsical did not run out until sometime in 1972--he
> volunteered for Palace Alert while he was finishing training in early 1970.
> By the time his physical ran out Palace Alert was no longer sending ANG
> F-102 pilots to Vietnam/Thailand, and in fact the ANG was already starting
> to dump its F-102's entirely (IIRC the majority were retired by mid 1974).
> So I still don't see what you are griping about--he volunteered while he was
> completing his Combat Crew training in the F-102, and he remained qualified
> in the F-102 throughout the remaining period that Palace Alert was sending
> ANG folks overseas. Apparently he was told upon volunteering, "Thanks, but
> no thanks--we have enough experienced (1000 hour plus) F-102 pilots asking
> for this duty so wea re not taking LT's straight out of the schoolhouse."
> You admitted earlier that you had never even heard of Palace Alert, but now
> you are in a position to judge GWB's volunteer status in that regard without
> realizing that you apparently had your timeline out of whack? If you want to
> condemn him for not being the best officer they ever had in the 111th FG
> based upon his overall service record, fine, that is a matter of opinion for
> you to decide--but trying to claim that he never volunteered, or that he
> volunteered and then figuratively shot himself in the foot via his flight
> physical to avoid having to meet that voluntary requirement, is just plain
> false, and the factual timeline does not support that assertion.

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...

(Snip)

> George, his flight phsical did not run out until sometime in 1972--he
> volunteered for Palace Alert while he was finishing training in early 1970.
> By the time his physical ran out Palace Alert was no longer sending ANG
> F-102 pilots to Vietnam/Thailand, and in fact the ANG was already starting
> to dump its F-102's entirely (IIRC the majority were retired by mid 1974).
> So I still don't see what you are griping about--he volunteered while he was
> completing his Combat Crew training in the F-102, and he remained qualified
> in the F-102 throughout the remaining period that Palace Alert was sending
> ANG folks overseas. Apparently he was told upon volunteering, "Thanks, but
> no thanks--we have enough experienced (1000 hour plus) F-102 pilots asking
> for this duty so wea re not taking LT's straight out of the schoolhouse."
> You admitted earlier that you had never even heard of Palace Alert, but now
> you are in a position to judge GWB's volunteer status in that regard without
> realizing that you apparently had your timeline out of whack? If you want to
> condemn him for not being the best officer they ever had in the 111th FG
> based upon his overall service record, fine, that is a matter of opinion for
> you to decide--but trying to claim that he never volunteered, or that he
> volunteered and then figuratively shot himself in the foot via his flight
> physical to avoid having to meet that voluntary requirement, is just plain
> false, and the factual timeline does not support that assertion.

On the subject of volunteering, when he first joined the Texas ANG, he filled
out a form and checked a box on that form indicating that he did not wish to
serve overseas. When asked about it, he later said that he didn't remember it,
and a member of his staff subsequently offered the imaginative explanation that
a personnel clerk must have done it for him. Even if it was true, it didn't
matter who did what.....he signed the form and was responsible for the accuracy
of everything in it.

About Palace Alert, Bush apparently applied for it some time during his Combat
Crew Training program, and also apparently was promptly told that he didn't have
a snowball's chance in hell of being selected for it because of his lack of
flying experience. In any case, I learned that the program was discontinued
exactly one week after Bush had completed his Combat Crew Training Course. The
fact of his volunteering for that program hardly signified any serious interest
in making that kind of contribution, since he was told up front that it wasn't
going to happen for him.

Regarding the business about his flight physical, they normally expire a month
following the birth month of the flyer, which would make it August of '72 in his
case. In April of '72, it apparently became common knowledge that flight
physicals were going to routinely include drug screenings. It wouldn't have
stopped me one way or the other, but it must have bothered him enough to
manufacture an excuse for not making his appointment by saying that his
physician resided in Houston, Texas while he was ostensibly serving with an
Alabama ANG unit. He abandoned that excuse when it was pointed out that any
rated flight surgeon was authorized to conduct such examinations, and there were
numerous ones available for his use at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He chose not to
renew his physical knowing full well that it would end his flying career, which
it did. Doesn't it make you wonder what the impetus might have been to do
something like that? I think we both know what the reality of the situation
was.

I'm sure that you're thoroughly unimpressed with all of this, and perhaps it's
time to lay it to rest and move on, since it looks like neither of us is going
to change our views of the man. In any event, he's still our President and CIC,
and belaboring the details of his service isn't really going to change anything.

George Z.

[B2431]

>From: "George Z. Bush"

>"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>>
>> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
(Snip)

>On the subject of volunteering, when he first joined the Texas ANG, he filled
>out a form and checked a box on that form indicating that he did not wish to
>serve overseas.

<snip>

>George Z.

A great many young GIs filled out dream sheets with postings near home. They
are probably still doing it. Bush simply could have wanted to stay near
family.

I wouldn't read anymore into it whether or not he remembers ever having done
it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> (Snip)
>
> > George, his flight phsical did not run out until sometime in 1972--he
> > volunteered for Palace Alert while he was finishing training in early
1970.
> > By the time his physical ran out Palace Alert was no longer sending ANG
> > F-102 pilots to Vietnam/Thailand, and in fact the ANG was already
starting
> > to dump its F-102's entirely (IIRC the majority were retired by mid
1974).
> > So I still don't see what you are griping about--he volunteered while he
was
> > completing his Combat Crew training in the F-102, and he remained
qualified
> > in the F-102 throughout the remaining period that Palace Alert was
sending
> > ANG folks overseas. Apparently he was told upon volunteering, "Thanks,
but
> > no thanks--we have enough experienced (1000 hour plus) F-102 pilots
asking
> > for this duty so wea re not taking LT's straight out of the
schoolhouse."
> > You admitted earlier that you had never even heard of Palace Alert, but
now
> > you are in a position to judge GWB's volunteer status in that regard
without
> > realizing that you apparently had your timeline out of whack? If you
want to
> > condemn him for not being the best officer they ever had in the 111th FG
> > based upon his overall service record, fine, that is a matter of opinion
for
> > you to decide--but trying to claim that he never volunteered, or that he
> > volunteered and then figuratively shot himself in the foot via his
flight
> > physical to avoid having to meet that voluntary requirement, is just
plain
> > false, and the factual timeline does not support that assertion.
>
> On the subject of volunteering, when he first joined the Texas ANG, he
filled
> out a form and checked a box on that form indicating that he did not wish
to
> serve overseas. When asked about it, he later said that he didn't
remember it,
> and a member of his staff subsequently offered the imaginative explanation
that
> a personnel clerk must have done it for him. Even if it was true, it
didn't
> matter who did what.....he signed the form and was responsible for the
accuracy
> of everything in it.

If you read the (not very pro-GWB at that) article I provided you with,
you'd realize that this is a non-starter. The source of the "clerk" bit was
the following (not a "member of his staff" as you stated): "...the
Washington Post reported on July 28th that "two weeks later, his office
provided a statement from a former, state-level Air Guard personnel officer,
asserting that since Bush 'was applying for a specific position with the
147th Fighter Group, it would have been inappropriate for him to have
volunteered for an overseas assignment and he probably was so advised by the
military personnel clerk assisting him in completing the form.'"

Note that this was written during the campaign and reported by a
none-too-pro-Bush source. If you have any doubt as to the likelihood of that
explanation, I can assure you that as late as the early 1990's we went
through the practice of having every member of our ARNG "contingency force
pool" (high priority for deployment) unit sign a specific "volunteer"
statement which was to be used if our unit was required for contingency
operations overseas. The legal hurdles over employing Guard forces overseas
now are not nearly what they were before ODS. You spent a career in the USAF
and never had a clerk tell you, "No, sir, I know that is what you think that
means, but you need to answer XXX" (usually followed by the ominous, "..or
it might take months to get your pay straightened out")? :)

>
> About Palace Alert, Bush apparently applied for it some time during his
Combat
> Crew Training program, and also apparently was promptly told that he
didn't have
> a snowball's chance in hell of being selected for it because of his lack
of
> flying experience. In any case, I learned that the program was
discontinued
> exactly one week after Bush had completed his Combat Crew Training Course.
The
> fact of his volunteering for that program hardly signified any serious
interest
> in making that kind of contribution, since he was told up front that it
wasn't
> going to happen for him.

He volunteered and was then told no. He had no way of knowing the program
was going to be tubed when he volunteered. And you think that is something
he should be ashamed of? I think you have to keep in mind that, unlike his
predecesor, who you go to equal or even greater extremes to defend his utter
lack of military service, not to mention his outright "loathing of the
military", there is no (none, zilch, zero) evidence that GWB had the lofty
ambition of being President, so why he would have carried out such a complex
and carefully calculated scheme to "volunteer without volunteering" is
beyond me. Clinton, on the other hand, clearly enunciated his ambition in
his letter to that PMS: "The decision not to be a resister and the related
subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept
the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political
viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a
political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern
for rapid social progress." As if that were not enough, he had to also say,
"I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you
to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find
themselves still loving their country but loathing the military..." How you
can defend Clinton for such a coldly calculating approach to not only
actively avoiding service while protecting his political viability,
something he readily admitted to, while trying to tear down Bush based upon
your interpretation of what you think he MIGHT have meant by volunteering
for Palace Alert is frankly beyond me.

>
> Regarding the business about his flight physical, they normally expire a
month
> following the birth month of the flyer, which would make it August of '72
in his
> case. In April of '72, it apparently became common knowledge that flight
> physicals were going to routinely include drug screenings. It wouldn't
have
> stopped me one way or the other, but it must have bothered him enough to
> manufacture an excuse for not making his appointment by saying that his
> physician resided in Houston, Texas while he was ostensibly serving with
an
> Alabama ANG unit. He abandoned that excuse when it was pointed out that
any
> rated flight surgeon was authorized to conduct such examinations, and
there were
> numerous ones available for his use at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He chose not
to
> renew his physical knowing full well that it would end his flying career,
which
> it did. Doesn't it make you wonder what the impetus might have been to do
> something like that? I think we both know what the reality of the
situation
> was.

I don't think that is anything you can corroborate as factual. I find it a
bit surprising that you build an entire case against Bush based solely upon
supposition, inuendo, and a strangely skewed timeline (though I at least am
now happy that you have at last realized he DID volunteer for Palace Alert),
and are convinced it is fact, but the very mention of Clinton as being
anti-military, or of his REAL draft dodging, brings you springing to his
defense.

>
> I'm sure that you're thoroughly unimpressed with all of this, and perhaps
it's
> time to lay it to rest and move on, since it looks like neither of us is
going
> to change our views of the man. In any event, he's still our President
and CIC,
> and belaboring the details of his service isn't really going to change
anything.

True enough. And you might find it a bit surprising, but I am none too
enamored of some of his policies. I've even been known to vote for a
democrat upon occasion. Best wishes for the holidays (and don't get the idea
I have given up if you receive no further response from me for a while--on
the way to the in-laws down south tomorrow morning).

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "George Z. Bush"
>
> >"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >>
> >> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >
> (Snip)
>
> >On the subject of volunteering, when he first joined the Texas ANG, he filled
> >out a form and checked a box on that form indicating that he did not wish to
> >serve overseas.
>
> <snip>
>
> >George Z.
>
> A great many young GIs filled out dream sheets with postings near home. They
> are probably still doing it. Bush simply could have wanted to stay near
> family.
>
> I wouldn't read anymore into it whether or not he remembers ever having done
> it.

I don't. I accept his explanation at face value. He just didn't
remember.....but he did sign the form and was responsible for everything on it.
He didn't want to go overseas while a war was raging in Viet Nam. He wanted to
be close to his family, just like countless others, many of whom were
conveniently labeled draft dodgers.

BTW, family for him in those days was just Mom, Dad and a couple of brothers.
He didn't get married until long after those days.....1977 to be precise.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...

(Snip)

> True enough. And you might find it a bit surprising, but I am none too
> enamored of some of his policies. I've even been known to vote for a
> democrat upon occasion. Best wishes for the holidays (and don't get the idea
> I have given up if you receive no further response from me for a while--on
> the way to the in-laws down south tomorrow morning).

It's probably just as well, since we seem to be going around in circles, anyway.
Just be sure to take your passport along when you cross into my part of the
country.....we sometimes allow Yankees to roam our countryside without keepers
if they have their passports with them, but never Damn Yankees! (^-^)))

Enjoy the holidays and have a safe trip.

George Z.


>
> Brooks
>
> >
> > George Z.
> >
> >
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> (Snip)
>
> > True enough. And you might find it a bit surprising, but I am none too
> > enamored of some of his policies. I've even been known to vote for a
> > democrat upon occasion. Best wishes for the holidays (and don't get the
idea
> > I have given up if you receive no further response from me for a
while--on
> > the way to the in-laws down south tomorrow morning).
>
> It's probably just as well, since we seem to be going around in circles,
anyway.
> Just be sure to take your passport along when you cross into my part of
the
> country.....we sometimes allow Yankees to roam our countryside without
keepers
> if they have their passports with them, but never Damn Yankees! (^-^)))

LOL! George, I'm a Virginian; I hope that still counts as southern, with the
possible exception of that part of the state that lies north of the
Rappahannock (the emphasis in the expression "Northern Viginia" should be on
the first word). My wife however was born in NY, so I'll make sure she
brings her Green Card along! Gotta go, but in a vague effort to keep this
somewhere close to topical, I'll mention that the inlaws live outside
Daytona in one of the very few "fly in" communities in the country--they
have an airfield (originally an old Naval Air Station), and many of the
homes have hangars attached; aircraft can taxi down the "streets". Neat
place!

Brooks

>
> Enjoy the holidays and have a safe trip.
>
> George Z.
>
>
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > George Z.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>