Edwards AFB 2004 air show cancelled

[Paul Hirose]

The 2004 Edwards AFB open house and air show has been cancelled.

According to the AFFTC commander, Maj. Gen. Pearson, "Our country is
currently engaged in a global war on terrorism, and all of our
military resources and efforts must go toward supporting that cause...
I assure you that the cancellation is not related to organizational
command changes within the Air Force Flight Test Center nor is it
related to any specific terrorist threat."

http://www.edwards.af.mil/oh.html

--

Paul Hirose >
To reply by email delete INVALID from address.

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Paul Hirose
> wrote:

> The 2004 Edwards AFB open house and air show has been cancelled.
>
> According to the AFFTC commander, Maj. Gen. Pearson, "Our country is
> currently engaged in a global war on terrorism, and all of our
> military resources and efforts must go toward supporting that cause...

So, is that admitting that the war on global terrorism was not
a priority when they held the 2001, 2002, and 2003 open house
and airshow? The excuse sounds like a white-wash to me.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Leadfoot]

"John A. Weeks III" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Paul Hirose
> > wrote:
>
>> The 2004 Edwards AFB open house and air show has been cancelled.
>>
>> According to the AFFTC commander, Maj. Gen. Pearson, "Our country is
>> currently engaged in a global war on terrorism, and all of our
>> military resources and efforts must go toward supporting that cause...
>
> So, is that admitting that the war on global terrorism was not
> a priority when they held the 2001, 2002, and 2003 open house
> and airshow? The excuse sounds like a white-wash to me.


The Oct 2005 show is still on. Maybe General Pearson knows something about
the war on terror ending soon that we don't?

>
> -john-
>
> --
> ================================================== ==================
> John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ================================================== ==================

[Billy Preston]

"Leadfoot" > wrote
>
> The Oct 2005 show is still on. Maybe General Pearson knows something about
> the war on terror ending soon that we don't?

I doubt it. Looks like the Marines just surrendered again in Iraq.

[Leadfoot]

"Billy Preston" > wrote in message
news:78bTc.342$ni.39@okepread01...
> "Leadfoot" > wrote
>>
>> The Oct 2005 show is still on. Maybe General Pearson knows something
>> about
>> the war on terror ending soon that we don't?
>
> I doubt it. Looks like the Marines just surrendered again in Iraq.

Actually I would blame the politicians not the Marines, besides the war in
iraq is not the war on terror.

>
>

[Yeff]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:35:28 -0700, Leadfoot wrote:

> "Billy Preston" > wrote in message
> news:78bTc.342$ni.39@okepread01...
>> "Leadfoot" > wrote
>>>
>>> The Oct 2005 show is still on. Maybe General Pearson knows something
>>> about
>>> the war on terror ending soon that we don't?
>>
>> I doubt it. Looks like the Marines just surrendered again in Iraq.
>
> Actually I would blame the politicians not the Marines, besides the war in
> iraq is not the war on terror.

It's one battle in the global war on terror.

--

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

[Denyav]

>It's one battle in the global war on terror.

Its a global war started by the Boston Brahmins to save their Masters on other
side of the Atlantic.
Similarities with Pearl Harbor are of course only coincidental.

[Leadfoot]

"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:35:28 -0700, Leadfoot wrote:
>
>> "Billy Preston" > wrote in message
>> news:78bTc.342$ni.39@okepread01...
>>> "Leadfoot" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> The Oct 2005 show is still on. Maybe General Pearson knows something
>>>> about
>>>> the war on terror ending soon that we don't?
>>>
>>> I doubt it. Looks like the Marines just surrendered again in Iraq.
>>
>> Actually I would blame the politicians not the Marines, besides the war
>> in
>> iraq is not the war on terror.
>
> It's one battle in the global war on terror.

Actually I consider it one battle that helps recruit terrorists

>
> --
>
> -Jeff B.
> yeff at erols dot com

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 22:09:45 -0700, "Leadfoot" >
wrote:

>
>"Yeff" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:35:28 -0700, Leadfoot wrote:
>>
>>> "Billy Preston" > wrote in message
>>> news:78bTc.342$ni.39@okepread01...
>>>> "Leadfoot" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> The Oct 2005 show is still on. Maybe General Pearson knows something
>>>>> about
>>>>> the war on terror ending soon that we don't?
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it. Looks like the Marines just surrendered again in Iraq.
>>>
>>> Actually I would blame the politicians not the Marines, besides the war
>>> in
>>> iraq is not the war on terror.
>>
>> It's one battle in the global war on terror.
>
>Actually I consider it one battle that helps recruit terrorists


Good. Makes them easier to find and kill.



>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Jeff B.
>> yeff at erols dot com
>

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:p8hTc.38381$Uh.11077@fed1read02...
>
> "Yeff" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:35:28 -0700, Leadfoot wrote:
> >
> >> "Billy Preston" > wrote in message
> >> news:78bTc.342$ni.39@okepread01...
> >>> "Leadfoot" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>> The Oct 2005 show is still on. Maybe General Pearson knows something
> >>>> about
> >>>> the war on terror ending soon that we don't?
> >>>
> >>> I doubt it. Looks like the Marines just surrendered again in Iraq.
> >>
> >> Actually I would blame the politicians not the Marines, besides the war
> >> in
> >> iraq is not the war on terror.
> >
> > It's one battle in the global war on terror.
>
> Actually I consider it one battle that helps recruit terrorists

If that is true, then the Iraq war has yet another justification, as far as
I'm concerned; it separates the peaceful muslims from the lunatic radicals.

Anyone who is so easily recruited to the terrorist 'cause' is one who we are
better off killing than trying to make peace with in the first place. And if
the war helps to draw that line, then all the better.

>
> >
> > --
> >
> > -Jeff B.
> > yeff at erols dot com
>
>

[Robey Price]

"Leadfoot" had written...[regarding the invasion of Iraq not really
being part of the war against terrorism]:

>>
>>Actually I consider it one battle that helps recruit terrorists

To which Scott Ferrin confessed the following:

>Good. Makes them easier to find and kill.

Perhaps...but pause a moment to consider that radical muslim cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr was NEVER ID'd as part of any terrorist cell/network
prior to they overthrow of Hussein.

But the US is faced with the prospect of killing several thousand
muslim followers of MaS...folks willing to die for their religion
and/or are really ****ed off that US forces still occupy Iraq.

These folks know nothing about the RAND study that shows we need
almost 500,000 combat troops/police/civil affairs bodies and roughly a
decade to turn Iraq into the "cradle of democracy" in the muslim
world. See:
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/nation1.html

Perhaps you simply believe we are in a war against Islam. In your
opinion is the seige of Najaf a clever ploy to gather all muslims in
one place where the US can kill them?

I do not envy Mr Kerry's task once he becomes our next President.

Robey

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Thomas J.
Paladino Jr." confessed the following regarding "Leadfoot's" comment
about the invasion of Iraq being a great tool to recruit terrorists:

>If that is true, then the Iraq war has yet another justification, as far as
>I'm concerned; it separates the peaceful muslims from the lunatic radicals.

And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
seen by muslims as a war against their religion?

Simply saying "we're here to help," sounds as truthful to muslims as
pre-invasion "Saddam has WMD and must be disarmed," pronouncements by
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. The WMD cover story turned out to be bull**** if
you recall...

>Anyone who is so easily recruited to the terrorist 'cause' is one who we are
>better off killing than trying to make peace with in the first place. And if
>the war helps to draw that line, then all the better.

You may get your wish. Hopefully John Kerry has not hired you to be
his Secretary of State.

Robey

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Thomas J.
> Paladino Jr." confessed the following regarding "Leadfoot's" comment
> about the invasion of Iraq being a great tool to recruit terrorists:
>
> >If that is true, then the Iraq war has yet another justification, as far
as
> >I'm concerned; it separates the peaceful muslims from the lunatic
radicals.
>
> And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
> seen by muslims as a war against their religion?

What about it?

>
> Simply saying "we're here to help," sounds as truthful to muslims as
> pre-invasion "Saddam has WMD and must be disarmed," pronouncements by
> Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

You mean England/France/Germany/Russia/Italy/Spain/Portugal/And The Rest Of
the UN?

Please, show me who, BEFORE the war, said that Iraq had no WMD? Even the
most vocal critics of the war believed he had them. If you recall, NOBODY
said not to invade Iraq because there were NO weapons there-- the argument
was that Saddam could be 'contained' and he would only use these weapons if
'provoked'. A far cry from saying that they don't exist.

There was not a single intelligence agency in the world (including the mid
east) that didn't think he had these weapons. Period.

> The WMD cover story turned out to be bull**** if
> you recall...

It turned out to be bad intelligence. Your post is bull****.

>
> >Anyone who is so easily recruited to the terrorist 'cause' is one who we
are
> >better off killing than trying to make peace with in the first place. And
if
> >the war helps to draw that line, then all the better.
>
> You may get your wish. Hopefully John Kerry has not hired you to be
> his Secretary of State.
>

LOL... why? Senators generally don't get their own secratary of state.

[Leadfoot]

">> You may get your wish. Hopefully John Kerry has not hired you to be
>> his Secretary of State.
>>
>
> LOL... why? Senators generally don't get their own secratary of state.
>

Generally starting an unnecessary war is a firing offense for a president...
kind of like fighting with your co-workers

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:LIPTc.45585$Uh.4888@fed1read02...
>
> ">> You may get your wish. Hopefully John Kerry has not hired you to be
> >> his Secretary of State.
> >>
> >
> > LOL... why? Senators generally don't get their own secratary of state.
> >
>
> Generally starting an unnecessary war is a firing offense for a
president...
> kind of like fighting with your co-workers
>

Well if he had started an 'unnecssary' war, then I might agree with you. But
as it stands now, I fail to see anything resembling that.

[Robey Price]

I had written:

>> And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
>> seen by muslims as a war against their religion?

To which "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." retorted:

>What about it?

OK...clearly you have no qualms about making this a religious war.
Guess you'll let god sort them out, huh?

>Please, show me who, BEFORE the war, said that Iraq had no WMD? Even the
>most vocal critics of the war believed he had them. If you recall, NOBODY
>said not to invade Iraq because there were NO weapons there-- the argument
>was that Saddam could be 'contained' and he would only use these weapons if
>'provoked'. A far cry from saying that they don't exist.

Scott Ritter...former Marine...weapons inspector.

>There was not a single intelligence agency in the world (including the mid
>east) that didn't think he had these weapons. Period.

Not according to what I'd read...the consensus was wrong. USAF
Intelligence was cited in published reports (NYT or WP, not FoxNews)
prior to the war as "guessing" the WMD had either been destroyed or
was unserviceable.

>It turned out to be bad intelligence. Your post is bull****.

Fair enough, if all you can be is a "yes" man, then yeah it's bull****
'cause you cannot take the time to be a skeptic about the
rationale/excuses for invading...and the unintended consequences.

BTW why aren't you over in the sandbox?

Robey

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:48:33 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>
>"Leadfoot" had written...[regarding the invasion of Iraq not really
>being part of the war against terrorism]:
>
>>>
>>>Actually I consider it one battle that helps recruit terrorists
>
>To which Scott Ferrin confessed the following:
>
>>Good. Makes them easier to find and kill.
>
>Perhaps...but pause a moment to consider that radical muslim cleric
>Muqtada al-Sadr was NEVER ID'd as part of any terrorist cell/network
>prior to they overthrow of Hussein.

Which proves my point. And just because he was never "ID'd" doesn't
mean he didn't have his hands in it. Think about it for more than
half a second. You have a country who is mighty ****ed off at
terrorism coming in to fight it and overthrow a brutal tyrant and you
OPPOSE it? The US didn't go in to fight *Islam* so basically he's
come out of the closet rather than traded in his colors. If nothing
else he's going to take himself out of the gene pool.





>
>But the US is faced with the prospect of killing several thousand
>muslim followers of MaS...folks willing to die for their religion
>and/or are really ****ed off that US forces still occupy Iraq.
>
>These folks know nothing about the RAND study that shows we need
>almost 500,000 combat troops/police/civil affairs bodies and roughly a
>decade to turn Iraq into the "cradle of democracy" in the muslim
>world. See:
>http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/nation1.html
>
>Perhaps you simply believe we are in a war against Islam. In your
>opinion is the seige of Najaf a clever ploy to gather all muslims in
>one place where the US can kill them?
>
>I do not envy Mr Kerry's task once he becomes our next President.


How hard is it to run home with your tail between your legs? We all
know that's what he'll do. No, his toughest task will be trying to
blame the subsequent rise in terrorism on Bush but I suspect with
followers like yourself at least he won't have any problems selling
it.





>
>Robey
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 04:26:04 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>I had written:
>
>>> And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
>>> seen by muslims as a war against their religion?
>
>To which "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." retorted:
>
>>What about it?
>
>OK...clearly you have no qualms about making this a religious war.
>Guess you'll let god sort them out, huh?


The only poeple trying to make this a religious war are the terrorists
and pacifists like yourself. Good company you're in eh?




>
>>Please, show me who, BEFORE the war, said that Iraq had no WMD? Even the
>>most vocal critics of the war believed he had them. If you recall, NOBODY
>>said not to invade Iraq because there were NO weapons there-- the argument
>>was that Saddam could be 'contained' and he would only use these weapons if
>>'provoked'. A far cry from saying that they don't exist.
>
>Scott Ritter...former Marine...weapons inspector.
>
>>There was not a single intelligence agency in the world (including the mid
>>east) that didn't think he had these weapons. Period.
>
>Not according to what I'd read...the consensus was wrong. USAF
>Intelligence was cited in published reports (NYT or WP, not FoxNews)
>prior to the war as "guessing" the WMD had either been destroyed or
>was unserviceable.
>
>>It turned out to be bad intelligence. Your post is bull****.
>
>Fair enough, if all you can be is a "yes" man, then yeah it's bull****
>'cause you cannot take the time to be a skeptic about the
>rationale/excuses for invading...and the unintended consequences.
>
>BTW why aren't you over in the sandbox?
>
>Robey

[Keith Willshaw]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:48:33 GMT, Robey Price >
> wrote:
>

> >
> >Perhaps...but pause a moment to consider that radical muslim cleric
> >Muqtada al-Sadr was NEVER ID'd as part of any terrorist cell/network
> >prior to they overthrow of Hussein.
>
> Which proves my point. And just because he was never "ID'd" doesn't
> mean he didn't have his hands in it. Think about it for more than
> half a second. You have a country who is mighty ****ed off at
> terrorism coming in to fight it and overthrow a brutal tyrant and you
> OPPOSE it?

No he didnt, Sadr didnt oppose the overthrow od Saddam.
Trouble is he believes that he has the god given right to
rule Iraq in his place.

> The US didn't go in to fight *Islam* so basically he's
> come out of the closet rather than traded in his colors. If nothing
> else he's going to take himself out of the gene pool.
>

Al Sadr is pitching for power in Iraq, he wants a major say
in running the place without having to bother with any of
that tedious 'winning an election' nonsense.

Keith

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Robey Price > writes:
> I had written:
>
>>> And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation of Iraq being
>>> seen by muslims as a war against their religion?
>
> To which "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." retorted:
>
>>What about it?
>
> OK...clearly you have no qualms about making this a religious war.
> Guess you'll let god sort them out, huh?
>
>>Please, show me who, BEFORE the war, said that Iraq had no WMD? Even the
>>most vocal critics of the war believed he had them. If you recall, NOBODY
>>said not to invade Iraq because there were NO weapons there-- the argument
>>was that Saddam could be 'contained' and he would only use these weapons if
>>'provoked'. A far cry from saying that they don't exist.
>
> Scott Ritter...former Marine...weapons inspector.
....
Paedophile, paid-off mouthpiece of the Saddam Hussein regime. (Seems
he got a bucket of money from the Iraqi Information Ministry to
produce "documentaries" about how nice Saddam was)
You don't think that there was some Elementary Sexual Blackmail going
on, do you?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

>Which proves my point. And just because he was never "ID'd" doesn't
>mean he didn't have his hands in it. Think about it for more than
>half a second.

By your logic...I can't prove you're not jerking off right now...so
you must be.

Further more...nobody in the gwb administration (including the
FBI/CIA/NSC) has claimed MaS is anything other than some radical
cleric. If your position is that MaS is really a terrorist, why
doesn't the US gov't use your argument? Fundamentalist religious
hardliners are simply that.

> You have a country who is mighty ****ed off at
>terrorism coming in to fight it and overthrow a brutal tyrant and you
>OPPOSE it?

Clearly you know nothing of me or my attitude regarding the fight
against islamist-**** terrorists.

gwb and company failed to "connect-the-dots" between terrorist acts
againt the US and the requirement to invade Iraq...that's all. No
hidden agenda. I flat out think the invasion of Iraq was ill-advised
and the post-combat portion (Phase IV in CENTCOM's Plan for Operation
Iraqi Freedom, See Tommy Franks' book for further review) was grossly
ignored.

I get ZERO enjoyment from the failure of the current occupant of the
Oval Office failing to put more effort into Phase IV planning. It
actually ****es me off.

> The US didn't go in to fight *Islam* so basically he's
>come out of the closet rather than traded in his colors.

Folks will fight against anybody they perceive as "occupiers." I
suspect the guerilla war being fought by muslims (vice terrorists) is
seen thru the prism of "Thanks for getting rid of Saddam...now get the
**** out of my country you infidel dog."

>>I do not envy Mr Kerry's task once he becomes our next President.
>
>
>How hard is it to run home with your tail between your legs? We all
>know that's what he'll do.

Well I don't know that. In a country that is deeply divided over the
"need" to invade Iraq, there will diverse POVs. This adventure in Iraq
may bring about more severe unintended consequences...say Iran.

> No, his toughest task will be trying to blame the subsequent rise in
> terrorism on Bush but I suspect with followers like yourself at least
> he won't have any problems selling it.

Indeed I honestly believe that gwb squandered all the international
good will from 9-11 (by invading Iraq), and has helped cultivate the
rise of more NOT less islamist **** terrorists.

Robey

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

>The only poeple trying to make this a religious war are the terrorists
>and pacifists like yourself. Good company you're in eh?

oh stop it...you're tickling me. What silly logic you try to use.
Muslims all over the world are viewing this as a religious war, are
you calling all muslims, terrorists? I suspect NOT, so it would appear
your theory is in error.

Don't know what you've done in the service of our country buckwheat,
nor do I suspect you ever strapped your ass to an ejection seat...but
I have. And I'm hardly a pacifist.

Robey

[Leadfoot]

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:LIPTc.45585$Uh.4888@fed1read02...
>>
>> ">> You may get your wish. Hopefully John Kerry has not hired you to be
>> >> his Secretary of State.
>> >>
>> >
>> > LOL... why? Senators generally don't get their own secratary of state.
>> >
>>
>> Generally starting an unnecessary war is a firing offense for a
> president...
>> kind of like fighting with your co-workers
>>
>
> Well if he had started an 'unnecssary' war, then I might agree with you.
> But
> as it stands now, I fail to see anything resembling that.

Will the Shareholders will get a chance to fire the CEO in November and
about half are seeing an unnecessary war.

No WMD

No operational links to al-queda

1000 or so dead, thousands more wounded or maimed

200 billion spent so far with tax cuts for the top 1% continuing

The US army in the midst of a prisoner abuse scandal whose primary cause is
the administrations unwillingness to properly occupy Iraq with enough
troops.

An administration that has a reputation for intimidating naysayers.

Need I go on?


>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:38:44 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
>Ferrin confessed the following:
>
>>The only poeple trying to make this a religious war are the terrorists
>>and pacifists like yourself. Good company you're in eh?
>
>oh stop it...you're tickling me.

No thanks, I'll leave the stick-driving to you.





>What silly logic you try to use.
>Muslims all over the world are viewing this as a religious war,


Oh puLEASE. What are the religions that are doing battle?



>Don't know what you've done in the service of our country buckwheat,
>nor do I suspect you ever strapped your ass to an ejection seat...but
>I have. And I'm hardly a pacifist.

Which doesn't mean much more than jack and ****. What was the term
for those who were too stupid/lazy to be draft-dodgers? "Concientious
Objector" was the term I think they used. Simply having served in the
military HARDLY means you're not a pacificst. For all I know you
went in because you were too stoopid to flip burgers.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:32:15 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
>Ferrin confessed the following:
>
>>Which proves my point. And just because he was never "ID'd" doesn't
>>mean he didn't have his hands in it. Think about it for more than
>>half a second.
>
>By your logic...I can't prove you're not jerking off right now...so
>you must be.
>
>Further more...nobody in the gwb administration (including the
>FBI/CIA/NSC) has claimed MaS is anything other than some radical
>cleric.

"Radical cleric" and "terrorist" are virtually synonomous.




> If your position is that MaS is really a terrorist, why
>doesn't the US gov't use your argument? Fundamentalist religious
>hardliners are simply that.
>
>> You have a country who is mighty ****ed off at
>>terrorism coming in to fight it and overthrow a brutal tyrant and you
>>OPPOSE it?
>
>Clearly you know nothing of me or my attitude regarding the fight
>against islamist-**** terrorists.


And clearly you need to take a course in reading comprehension.







>> The US didn't go in to fight *Islam* so basically he's
>>come out of the closet rather than traded in his colors.
>
>Folks will fight against anybody they perceive as "occupiers." I
>suspect the guerilla war being fought by muslims (vice terrorists) is
>seen thru the prism of "Thanks for getting rid of Saddam...now get the
>**** out of my country you infidel dog."

Which nicely sums up the whole problem of that asshole of the world
known as The Middle East.




>
>>>I do not envy Mr Kerry's task once he becomes our next President.
>>
>>
>>How hard is it to run home with your tail between your legs? We all
>>know that's what he'll do.
>
>Well I don't know that. In a country that is deeply divided over the
>"need" to invade Iraq, there will diverse POVs. This adventure in Iraq
>may bring about more severe unintended consequences...say Iran.


And I suppose if there ends up being a problem with Iran you'll
naturally assume it wouldn't have happened had we left Saddam to his
devices? You'd think they'd all learn to get along or at least leave
the West and it's interests the **** alone but nope. They fight and
kick and scrape to be the next to have their dicks stomped into the
dirt.





>
>> No, his toughest task will be trying to blame the subsequent rise in
>> terrorism on Bush but I suspect with followers like yourself at least
>> he won't have any problems selling it.
>
>Indeed I honestly believe that gwb squandered all the international
>good will from 9-11 (by invading Iraq), and has helped cultivate the
>rise of more NOT less islamist **** terrorists.


Like I said before: it makes them easier to find. Better they line up
to be shot (or bombed) over THERE than to have to hunt them down HERE.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

> For all I know you went in because you were too stoopid to flip burgers.

LOL...indeed flying Phantoms and Vipers pales in comparsion to YOUR
life's work. Flying a Boeing 757 with the MEANS and the WILLINGNESS to
kill ANYBODY that might breach the cockpit door, yep color me
pacifist.

Scott, I'm pretty sure we're all anxious to hear you volunteering for
active duty and service in Iraq. Send us pictures when you get there.

Robey

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin confessed the following:

>Which nicely sums up the whole problem of that asshole of the world
>known as The Middle East.

And this...

>Like I said before: it makes them easier to find. Better they line up
>to be shot (or bombed) over THERE than to have to hunt them down HERE.

[click...light comes on...] Oh ****, I broke the code...scott, you're
just a racist. **** that explains it all. Let's all hope you're not a
cop.

Robey

[Leadfoot]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
> Ferrin confessed the following:
>
>> For all I know you went in because you were too stoopid to flip burgers.
>
> LOL...indeed flying Phantoms and Vipers pales in comparsion to YOUR
> life's work. Flying a Boeing 757 with the MEANS and the WILLINGNESS to
> kill ANYBODY that might breach the cockpit door, yep color me
> pacifist.
>
> Scott, I'm pretty sure we're all anxious to hear you volunteering for
> active duty and service in Iraq. Send us pictures when you get there.

And if the military won't take him I'm sure Haliburton or some company like
that has an opening.

>
> Robey

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:48:05 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
>Ferrin confessed the following:
>
>>Which nicely sums up the whole problem of that asshole of the world
>>known as The Middle East.
>
>And this...
>
>>Like I said before: it makes them easier to find. Better they line up
>>to be shot (or bombed) over THERE than to have to hunt them down HERE.
>
>[click...light comes on...] Oh ****, I broke the code...scott, you're
>just a racist. **** that explains it all. Let's all hope you're not a
>cop.
>
>Robey


Yeah that's it, I'm a racist. If you can prove that today's
terrorists are made up from a uniform distribution of people from all
countries of the world I'll agree with your statement. Unfortunately
(well for you anyway) I'm correct. I don't seem to recall any
Japanese terrorists behind the wheel on 9-11. I don't recall there
being a band of Brazilians in '93. The fact that you can even attempt
to claim I'm being a racist by saying the majority of terrorism
against the US originates in the Middle East suggests you're either a
frickin' imbecil or a limp-wristed, let's-all-hug-a-tree-
they-were-just-expressing-freedom-of-religion, pacifist.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 04:44:11 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
>Ferrin confessed the following:
>
>> For all I know you went in because you were too stoopid to flip burgers.
>
>LOL...indeed flying Phantoms and Vipers pales in comparsion to YOUR
>life's work. Flying a Boeing 757 with the MEANS and the WILLINGNESS to
>kill ANYBODY that might breach the cockpit door, yep color me
>pacifist.


Actually, if it's true that's great to hear and I apologize about the
"pacifist" crack. What I don't get is how you can claim this is a
religious war. We don't really give a rat's ass what religion they
are, it's the fact that they (the terrorists) want us dead and will do
whatever they can to do it. The terrorists happen to be Islamic and
are using their religion to try to justify it. We couldn't care less
if they were Catholic, Buddist, or Holy Rollers. It's their actions
not their religion that is causing the problem.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin > confessed the following:

> What I don't get is how you can claim this is a
>religious war.

Try re-reading my original statement:

[quote to TJP] And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation
of Iraq being seen ******by muslims**** as a war against their
religion? [unquote]

Now let's review. I don't claim this is a religious war. I claim that
muslims now view our continued occupation of Iraq as a war against
islam. You and I don't get to frame their perception of US occupation
of Iraq...they do.

You claim this is simply one campaign in the war against terror. But
that claim is BS to most people on the planet. Here's what we all
know.

Saddam had ZERO to do with 9/11, he had been "contained" since 1991,
the almost uniformly ****ty intel [USAF Intel held a dissenting
opinion from what I read] was wrong about WMD, the 9/11 Commission
concludes that there was ZERO operational cooperation between
Hussein's despotic regime and al-****ing-qaeda. ZERO evidence that
Saddam Hussein was planning any terrorist attack against the US.

The events since gwb declared "mission accomplished" indicate gwb was
GROSSLY in error. But hey, he was grossly in error about exporting
good ole uhmurikan democracy smack dap in the middle of the arab
world.

The current fighting around Najaf is against men demonstrating loyalty
(or getting paid) to a guy that was anti-Saddam Hussein (just like
george bush). But this guy want's part of the "action" WRT running
Iraq. He wants to form an islamic state. This guy would be supremely
happy to never see an american face again...if we would just leave.
But that ain't gonna happen.

> We don't really give a rat's ass what religion they
>are, it's the fact that they (the terrorists) want us dead and will do
>whatever they can to do it.

Well since there were no al-Qaeda camps in Iraq before we invaded your
point is irrelevant WRT the fight around Najaf. And fortunately the
military commanders in Iraq do not share your binary [black/white,
on/off, "with us" (patriot)/"against us" (terrorist)] POV.

Last night I read a quote from a USMC Col or Gen commanding some
troops near Najaf. Paraphrasing (cause I'll be damned if I will take
the time to hunt for it now) he said..."WRT to fighting a guerilla war
against insurgents [NOT TERRORISTS] around Najaf, we [USMC good guys]
must be sensitive to the religious implications of attacking forces
hiding in a holy muslim shrine."

My point? ****** *******

The officers and men fighting in Iraq characterize the combat as
guerilla war against insurgents...not some monolithic terrorist cabal.
Nor do they paint a picture of a religious war. But they also must
take steps to mitigate any appearance of making this a war against
islam. The latter clearly acknowledges what many muslims already
think.
[i]
> The terrorists happen to be Islamic and
>are using their religion to try to justify it. We couldn't care less
>if they were Catholic, Buddist, or Holy Rollers. It's their actions
>not their religion that is causing the problem.

Here's your logic, al-qaeda terrorists attacked us, we're fighting
terrorism, ergo ANYBODY that attacks americans inside Iraq must be a
terrorist.

Elegantly simple...but oh so simplistic, and simply faulty logic.

If you truly think MaS and his followers are terrorists, why hasn't
gwb or his dick [cheney] ever mentioned MaS as a terrorist? Answer?
They know MaS is an extremist cleric NOT a terrorist.

In April 2004 the stated policy (articulated by the US General
briefing the press in Baghdad) was to capture or kill ANYBODY killing
US forces or inciting others to kill US troops. But this policy is on
hold as we try to get MaS to leave the shrine in Najaf.

Our occupation of Iraq will be lengthy. It will tie up resources that
could have been used in the real war against terrorists, and limit our
options elsewhere. It must...finite resources...most resources tied up
in Iraq or stateside reconstituting for a return to Iraq...means you
have limited your options for any other crisis.

Robey

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin > confessed the following:

>Yeah that's it, I'm a racist.

I think you are. Hitler and the Nazis blamed the jews, James L Hart in
the 8th District of TN vows if elected to work toward keeping "less
favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States.

>The fact that you can even attempt to claim I'm being a racist by
> saying the majority of terrorism against the US originates in the Middle East...

The problem is that isn't what you said. And you know it.

>>>Which nicely sums up the whole problem of that asshole of the world
>>>known as The Middle East.

Clearly not all muslims are terrorists. I think there are smarter ways
to hunt down and kill the real terrorist islamist [note the i-s-t vice
i-c] ****s rather than invade an arab country and impose our will.

> suggests you're either a frickin' imbecil or a limp-wristed,
> let's-all-hug-a-tree-they-were-just-expressing-freedom-of-religion, pacifist.

Wanna compare MENSA scores? Does card carrying atheist, former Sierra
Club member with gay friends count?

Robey

[Venik]

Paul Hirose wrote:

> The 2004 Edwards AFB open house and air show has been cancelled.
>
> According to the AFFTC commander, Maj. Gen. Pearson, "Our country is
> currently engaged in a global war on terrorism, and all of our
> military resources and efforts must go toward supporting that cause...
> I assure you that the cancellation is not related to organizational
> command changes within the Air Force Flight Test Center nor is it
> related to any specific terrorist threat."
>
> http://www.edwards.af.mil/oh.html
>
Running short on flying things, eh?

--
Regards,

Venik

Visit my site: http://www.aeronautics.ru
If you need to e-mail me, please use the following subject line:
?Subject="Newsgr0ups resp0nse"

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 05:02:55 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
>Ferrin > confessed the following:
>
>>Yeah that's it, I'm a racist.
>
>I think you are.

It's a free country.



> Hitler and the Nazis blamed the jews, James L Hart in
>the 8th District of TN vows if elected to work toward keeping "less
>favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States.
>
>>The fact that you can even attempt to claim I'm being a racist by
>> saying the majority of terrorism against the US originates in the Middle East...
>
>The problem is that isn't what you said. And you know it.
>
>>>>Which nicely sums up the whole problem of that asshole of the world
>>>>known as The Middle East.
>
>Clearly not all muslims are terrorists.

No, but a pretty high percentage of terrorists are Muslim. And Muslim
is a religion not a race. IT so happens the Middle East has a high
percentage of Muslims. If for some reason 99% of the terrorists came
from Brazil then I'd have said Brazil was the asshole of the world.
It has absolutley *nothing* to do with race and trying to make the
debate about race actually weakens your position. It comes across
like a desperate attempt to play the race card.




> I think there are smarter ways
>to hunt down and kill the real terrorist islamist [note the i-s-t vice
>i-c] ****s rather than invade an arab country and impose our will.
>
>> suggests you're either a frickin' imbecil or a limp-wristed,
>> let's-all-hug-a-tree-they-were-just-expressing-freedom-of-religion, pacifist.
>
>Wanna compare MENSA scores?


Sure.



>Does card carrying atheist, former Sierra
>Club member with gay friends count?


Nothing wrong with being an atheist. I wouldn't criticize someone for
not believing in Santa Claus either.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:39:46 GMT, Robey Price >
wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
>Ferrin > confessed the following:
>
>> What I don't get is how you can claim this is a
>>religious war.
>
>Try re-reading my original statement:
>
>[quote to TJP] And what about the notion that our "lengthy" occupation
>of Iraq being seen ******by muslims**** as a war against their
>religion? [unquote]
>
>Now let's review. I don't claim this is a religious war. I claim that
>muslims now view our continued occupation of Iraq as a war against
>islam.


I think a more accurate statement would be "accoding to what the media
tells us. . . " and unfortunately we rarely get an objective story it
seems these days.




> You and I don't get to frame their perception of US occupation
>of Iraq...they do.
>
>You claim this is simply one campaign in the war against terror. But
>that claim is BS to most people on the planet. Here's what we all
>know.
>
>Saddam had ZERO to do with 9/11, he had been "contained" since 1991,
>the almost uniformly ****ty intel [USAF Intel held a dissenting
>opinion from what I read] was wrong about WMD, the 9/11 Commission
>concludes that there was ZERO operational cooperation between
>Hussein's despotic regime and al-****ing-qaeda. ZERO evidence that
>Saddam Hussein was planning any terrorist attack against the US.
>
>The events since gwb declared "mission accomplished" indicate gwb was
>GROSSLY in error. But hey, he was grossly in error about exporting
>good ole uhmurikan democracy smack dap in the middle of the arab
>world.
>
>The current fighting around Najaf is against men demonstrating loyalty
>(or getting paid) to a guy that was anti-Saddam Hussein (just like
>george bush). But this guy want's part of the "action" WRT running
>Iraq. He wants to form an islamic state. This guy would be supremely
>happy to never see an american face again...if we would just leave.
>But that ain't gonna happen.
>
>> We don't really give a rat's ass what religion they
>>are, it's the fact that they (the terrorists) want us dead and will do
>>whatever they can to do it.
>
>Well since there were no al-Qaeda camps in Iraq before we invaded your
>point is irrelevant WRT the fight around Najaf. And fortunately the
>military commanders in Iraq do not share your binary [black/white,
>on/off, "with us" (patriot)/"against us" (terrorist)] POV.
>
>Last night I read a quote from a USMC Col or Gen commanding some
>troops near Najaf. Paraphrasing (cause I'll be damned if I will take
>the time to hunt for it now) he said..."WRT to fighting a guerilla war
>against insurgents [NOT TERRORISTS] around Najaf, we [USMC good guys]
>must be sensitive to the religious implications of attacking forces
>hiding in a holy muslim shrine."
>
>My point? ****** *******
>
>The officers and men fighting in Iraq characterize the combat as
>guerilla war against insurgents...not some monolithic terrorist cabal.
>Nor do they paint a picture of a religious war. But they also must
>take steps to mitigate any appearance of making this a war against
>islam. The latter clearly acknowledges what many muslims already
>think.
>[i]
>> The terrorists happen to be Islamic and
>>are using their religion to try to justify it. We couldn't care less
>>if they were Catholic, Buddist, or Holy Rollers. It's their actions
>>not their religion that is causing the problem.
>
>Here's your logic, al-qaeda terrorists attacked us, we're fighting
>terrorism, ergo ANYBODY that attacks americans inside Iraq must be a
>terrorist.


YOu have to ask yourself "why *would* anybody attack the US froces in
Iraq?" Do they want the US to leave? Well attacking our forces
isn't going to speed THAT process up. Are you saying those who kidnap
Americans and behead them on video aren't terrorists? Are those guys
with the bandanas wrapped wround their heads and holding the machine
guns in the videos merely "religious zealots"? And if so then what
*is* the difference between a religious zealot and a terrorist? And
if the legitimate Iraqi government is on your side and you have a
group of people shooting at you do you wave the "time-out" card in the
middle of a fire-fight so you can check to see if they're
card-carrying "religious zealots" rather than terrorists? They know
why we're there, if they chose to fight on the same side as the
terrorists then they'll reap their rewards. Let's put it another way:
Say there is a guy who's holding up a convenience store and has shot
one of the clerks. I'm just a customer who was in the wrong place at
the wrong time. When the cops bust in to take the killer in-hand, if
I jump one of the them and start beating him up do you think they'd
stop and say "oh, he's not with the killer we should let him go"?
Hell no. Likely they'd shoot my ass.










>
>Elegantly simple...but oh so simplistic, and simply faulty logic.
>
>If you truly think MaS and his followers are terrorists, why hasn't
>gwb or his dick [cheney] ever mentioned MaS as a terrorist? Answer?
>They know MaS is an extremist cleric NOT a terrorist.
>
>In April 2004 the stated policy (articulated by the US General
>briefing the press in Baghdad) was to capture or kill ANYBODY killing
>US forces or inciting others to kill US troops. But this policy is on
>hold as we try to get MaS to leave the shrine in Najaf.


Only because he's in the shrine. If he'd been holed up in some
warehouse they'd have just dropped a bomb on it.




>
>Our occupation of Iraq will be lengthy. It will tie up resources that
>could have been used in the real war against terrorists, and limit our
>options elsewhere.


In marked contrast to what Northern and Southern watch were tying up
over the last ten years? Not to mention going in and bombing ****
every six months anyway because Saddam started acting up. Better to
go in and spend a year or two and put the problem to rest rather than
tying up resources on it for another 30 years.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin > confessed the following:

>I think a more accurate statement would be "accoding to what the media
>tells us. . . " and unfortunately we rarely get an objective story it
>seems these days.

Geez Scott...the ****ing 9/11 commission confirmed my statements,
they're not Fox News or the vast liberal media conspiritors that
O'Reilly always whines about.

>YOu have to ask yourself "why *would* anybody attack the US froces in
>Iraq?"

Easy answer...Iraqi citizen says, "Hey America, thanks for getting rid
of that ****ing Saddam Hussein...why are you still here? Leave my
country NOW." Some Iraqi factions maneuvering for power are equally
thankful for getting rid of SH, absent the Baathists and Tikritis.
According to a RAND study, the US "****ed up" (my word) by not having
enough troops/police/civil affairs folks on the ground to ensure
domestic tranquility. Result? Guerilla war as competing factions vie
for power amongst themselves and against the US which they now see as
NOTHING MORE than an occupier that's killing muslims that might or
might not have been Hussein thugs.

>Do they want the US to leave? Well attacking our forces
>isn't going to speed THAT process up.

You're probably right. Not having a better ratio of US/allied
personnel to Iraqi citizens (according to RAND) will certainly make
this a long slog!

> Are you saying those who kidnap Americans and behead them on video aren't terrorists?

Never said that...never even suggested that. You may recall (but
probably don't) that those ****s claimed the original beheading was in
DIRECT RETALIATION for the Abu Ghraib **** storm. Again you and I
don't get to color an Iraqi's perception of what happens or gets
reported on arab TV.

[FWIW, prior to our invasion I think the number of al-qaeda asswipes
in Iraq totaled the square root of negative 1, but NOW there maybe
hundreds or thousands of those ****s in-country...the borders are so
damn porous. Which is NOT to say MaS and his merry band are al-qaeda.]

We're doing lots of great things in Iraq WRT to civil affairs outside
of the Sunni triangle, Najaf, etc. But all those attaboys mean the
square root of **** all to the folks competing for power, or that
simply want us to leave.

There was a great article on 8/15 in the Philly Inquirer about a USMC
outfit in western Iraq written by an imbedded reporter. Lots of
heroism, and lots of deadly combat against well trained, well
coordinated, sharpshooting Iraqi guerillas (the Marines even say so).

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/ you'll have to register then look
for http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/9401925.htm?1c
titled The Battle of Rimadi.

> They know why we're there, if they chose to fight on the same side as the
>terrorists then they'll reap their rewards.

Again you presume to think Iraqis must think like you, and perceive
the occupation of their country by friggin INFIDELS as a good thing.
Jesus ****ing christ Scott...are you really that dense? Sure as
americans, our troops are going to shoot first and sort it out later.
No uniforms and no team jerseys for insurgents or terrorists.
Classifying ALL opposition fighters as terrorists is the zenith of
ignorance.

> Let's put it another way:

No look at it this way. Muslims invade America to remove George Bush
(yeah he's an asshole, but he's our asshole) from power, AND they want
to establish a religious form of government. Here it is 18+ months
after they removed george from power, and they're still here. I bet
every bible thumping anti-abortion knucklehead and every ACLU member
would be fighting the occupation of our nation.

>Only because he's in the shrine. If he'd been holed up in some
>warehouse they'd have just dropped a bomb on it.

Wanna bet? MaS is literally asking the US to make him a martyr (like
some really famous islamic dude) when he isn't saying, "Oh yeah, we'll
leave the shrine and have a cease-fire." If we kill him we are so
****ed. The PR from such an event will not be good.

>In marked contrast to what Northern and Southern watch were tying up
>over the last ten years?

Dumb question Scott... yes! NW and SW were principally USAF
operations...NO Army Guard or Reserves. There were no ANG units
activated (AFAIK) for two years at a time to support NW/SW.
Containment worked!

The ANG unit at Jackson MS recently switched from 141s to C-17s. They
are not even close to being MR (you know what that means since you
were in the USAF), but they are flying "training sorties" into Iraq
and Afghanistan because there are not enough resources. Guys (read
aircrew) cannot resign from some units because of the "stop loss"
provisions. "Stop Loss" WAS NOT in effect during NW/SW. I was never
notified that I was affected by "Stop Loss" for NW/SW...but was for
Bosnia/Kosovo...guess what?

> Better to go in and spend a year or two and put the problem to rest rather than
>tying up resources on it for another 30 years.

A year or two? How about ten or twelve?

I encourage you to join the military and get over there to help them
out. I've heard they're looking for volunteers, and you've got the
"right" attitude. Whata-ya-say? Sign up today...

[Scott Ferrin]

>>YOu have to ask yourself "why *would* anybody attack the US froces in
>>Iraq?"
>
>Easy answer...Iraqi citizen says, "Hey America, thanks for getting rid
>of that ****ing Saddam Hussein...why are you still here? Leave my
>country NOW." Some Iraqi factions maneuvering for power are equally
>thankful for getting rid of SH, absent the Baathists and Tikritis.
>According to a RAND study, the US "****ed up" (my word) by not having
>enough troops/police/civil affairs folks on the ground to ensure
>domestic tranquility.


In this I am in total agreement. I think Rumsfeld was so anxious to
sell "transformation" that the US military got the shaft in a huge way
over there. About half the people they ought to have had and no plan
for after the war.




>[FWIW, prior to our invasion I think the number of al-qaeda asswipes
>in Iraq totaled the square root of negative 1, but NOW there maybe
>hundreds or thousands of those ****s in-country...the borders are so
>damn porous. Which is NOT to say MaS and his merry band are al-qaeda.]


Never said MaS is al-qaeda. It was pretty obvious from the first time
he opened his mouth and praised 9/11 that he was bad news though.




>
>We're doing lots of great things in Iraq WRT to civil affairs outside
>of the Sunni triangle, Najaf, etc. But all those attaboys mean the
>square root of **** all to the folks competing for power, or that
>simply want us to leave.

So the choice is to leave and leave the Iraq people at the mercy of
those trying to grab power or stay to finish the job. Which would you
choose?






>
>There was a great article on 8/15 in the Philly Inquirer about a USMC
>outfit in western Iraq written by an imbedded reporter. Lots of
>heroism, and lots of deadly combat against well trained, well
>coordinated, sharpshooting Iraqi guerillas (the Marines even say so).
>
>http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/ you'll have to register then look
>for http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/9401925.htm?1c
>titled The Battle of Rimadi.
>
>> They know why we're there, if they chose to fight on the same side as the
>>terrorists then they'll reap their rewards.
>
>Again you presume to think Iraqis must think like you, and perceive
>the occupation of their country by friggin INFIDELS as a good thing.


And you do the same by presuming that since those grabbing for power
are ****ed that there is opposition the entire population of Iraq
would prefer we leave.




>Jesus ****ing christ Scott...are you really that dense? Sure as
>americans, our troops are going to shoot first and sort it out later.
>No uniforms and no team jerseys for insurgents or terrorists.
>Classifying ALL opposition fighters as terrorists is the zenith of
>ignorance.


I've stated that they aren't all terrorists. HOWEVER, fighting on the
side of the terrorists, even if not FOR them. . .well when it gets
down to it WTF does it matter what their motivation is? You shoot at
US soldiers your going to get shot back at. Period. Saddam is gone
and there's a power vaccum and every asshole with delusions of
granduer in Iraq is trying to fill it. Should we let them? Should we
turn a blind eye while they shoot at our soldiers? Sure sounds like
that's what you're saying.





>
>> Let's put it another way:
>
>No look at it this way. Muslims invade America to remove George Bush
>(yeah he's an asshole, but he's our asshole)

Ah NOW it begins to make sense.




>from power, AND they want
>to establish a religious form of government. Here it is 18+ months
>after they removed george from power, and they're still here. I bet
>every bible thumping anti-abortion knucklehead and every ACLU member
>would be fighting the occupation of our nation.

Well the ACLU would be holding protests I'm sure but they'd probably
**** their pants at the thought of even touching a gun.



>I encourage you to join the military and get over there to help them
>out. I've heard they're looking for volunteers, and you've got the
>"right" attitude. Whata-ya-say? Sign up today...

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Scott
Ferrin > confessed the following:

>In this I am in total agreement...

As Dan Patrick used to say on ESPN Sports Center, "That deserves a
'Wow.'"...WOW!

>Never said MaS is al-qaeda. It was pretty obvious from the first time
>he opened his mouth and praised 9/11 that he was bad news though.

Ummm, I'm pretty sure I've been trying to state that MaS was NOT a
terrorist, and you'e been arguing the opposite. But hey, again we're
apparently in agreement.

>So the choice is to leave and leave the Iraq people at the mercy of
>those trying to grab power or stay to finish the job. Which would you
>choose?

First...I would NEVER have invaded. Containment was working. But that
is no longer an option. Second, I would not have taken down the
despotic SH regime without international consensus, including "old
europe."

WRT to the current situation? Tough call, I find no compelling reason
that Iraq should not be broken up into several ethnic states. But that
has a host of problems too. I'd try damn hard to get our friends in
europe in on the problem (stability and reconstruction) and knock off
the purely BS situation of Halliburton et al (KB&R) running the
contracting. I'd have gwb admit publically, "Hey, I ****ed
up...sorry."

>>Again you presume to think Iraqis must think like you, and perceive
>>the occupation of their country by friggin INFIDELS as a good thing.
>
>
>And you do the same by presuming that since those grabbing for power
>are ****ed that there is opposition the entire population of Iraq
>would prefer we leave.

No, I do think those fighting us want us out...I suspect every Iraqi
wants stability, and many embrace the security our troops offer. My
whole issue with your statements has to do with "lumping" all
opposition as terrorists, which clearly you've backed away from.

>I've stated that they aren't all terrorists. HOWEVER, fighting on the
>side of the terrorists, even if not FOR them. . .well when it gets
>down to it WTF does it matter what their motivation is?

To a grunt it makes no difference, to commander? Big difference.

>Well the ACLU would be holding protests I'm sure but they'd probably
>**** their pants at the thought of even touching a gun.

No, I'm pretty sure I'd be shooting.

[Qman]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> No he didnt, Sadr didnt oppose the overthrow od Saddam.
> Trouble is he believes that he has the god given right to
> rule Iraq in his place.

Problem is that US is thinking they can rule Iraq, it is WRONG. Have we
heard of Sadr before the invasion? NO, so US has created his resistance
himself.



Qman

[Qman]

Scott Ferrin wrote:

> I don't seem to recall any
> Japanese terrorists behind the wheel on 9-11. I don't recall there
> being a band of Brazilians in '93.


Scott, you sound like 10 year old, stop it.


And get the grip on "terrorism", US has great responsibility that such a
thing ever exists as it is. Admit it.


Qman

[Keith Willshaw]

"Qman" <qman@solo_punkt_ee> wrote in message
...
> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
> > No he didnt, Sadr didnt oppose the overthrow od Saddam.
> > Trouble is he believes that he has the god given right to
> > rule Iraq in his place.
>
> Problem is that US is thinking they can rule Iraq, it is WRONG.

Its a good job it doesnt think that then isnt it


> Have we
> heard of Sadr before the invasion? NO,

Yes actually

> so US has created his resistance
> himself.
>

Only in the sense that Saddam thoroughly repressed ALL
Shia groups including Sadr. The others have joined the new
interim ruling authority and plan to take part in elections.
Sadr believes he has a divine right to rule Iraq without
such tiresome measures.

We call such people tyrants.

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[TJ]

Venik > wrote in message >...
> Paul Hirose wrote:
>
> > The 2004 Edwards AFB open house and air show has been cancelled.
> >
> > According to the AFFTC commander, Maj. Gen. Pearson, "Our country is
> > currently engaged in a global war on terrorism, and all of our
> > military resources and efforts must go toward supporting that cause...
> > I assure you that the cancellation is not related to organizational
> > command changes within the Air Force Flight Test Center nor is it
> > related to any specific terrorist threat."
> >
> > http://www.edwards.af.mil/oh.html
> >
> Running short on flying things, eh?

Venik, it must be all those aircraft lost over Yugoslavia during 1999?

How is it going with the research on all those lost/missing airframes?

TJ