Edwards AFB 2004 air show cancelled

"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.

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

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.

"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

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

"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/ran...3/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

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/ran...3/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" 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

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

"Leadfoot" wrote in message
news8hTc.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