The implication was perfectly clear. I get disgusted by the implict arrogance of that assumption. Especially when its undeserved.
On 3/17/06, Kevin Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not denying that, but if all of the British then "grew out" of > playing with guns, and became pacifists there would've been no one to > defend the country, thus the Germans would've been able to walk right > in. Kind of like with France, only they did have guns, they're just > terrible fighters.. > > And you're reaching Larry. Just admit that you misread my statement and > were so quick to prove me wrong that you really didn't think about what > I said, you just fired off your reply. > > It's ok, I understand. > > > Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > Are you denying that you stated the following? > > > > "Wayne, just be glad your fellow countrymen a generation ago didn't "grow > > out", otherwise, you'd probably be speaking German." > > > > > > > > On 3/17/06, Kevin Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> That's not what I said Larry, you're putting words in my mouth. Trying > >> to make it look as though I know nothing about WWII, which I would > >> venture I know more than you do, particulary the European theater. > >> > >> I said that if no one in Britain defended the country, Germany would've > >> had no problem at all. > >> > >> > >> Larry C. Lyons wrote: > >> > >>> It really is the height of arrogance to assume that if not for the > >>> American intervention the Germans would have successfully invaded and > >>> conquered Britain. > >>> > >>> Kevin, look at military history and look at what was required for that > >>> to happen. German did not have what it took to successfully stage an > >>> invasion of Britain, even immediate after the Dunkirk invasion. They > >>> did not control the air, and definitely did not control the Channel. > >>> The plans for Sealion had the German forces go over in river barges. > >>> Those barges are also known as sitting targets. There's the is the > >>> matter of resupply, reinforcements etc. > >>> > >>> Given the situation, most likely the defeat of Nazi Germany would have > >>> taken longer, but would have happened. Neither Britain, nor the > >>> Commonwealth countries were sitting on their asses scratching their > >>> nether regions. Most likely the war would have taken an extra 3 to 5 > >>> years and by that time would have involved atomic bombs in the end. > >>> The US was not the only country with a nuclear program - the British > >>> also were working on one - and when it was subsumed into Manhattan, > >>> the Manhattan project got a big boost in uranium refining and > >>> expertise in electronics. > >>> > >>> larry > >>> > >>> On 3/17/06, Kevin Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> I suppose that's better than your height of pussy. I'm guessing the > >>>> Germans would've improved your families gene pool. > >>>> > >>>> You get what you give there Waynie, tit for tat. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Wayne Putterill wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Just what the conversation needed . six foot seven of stupid :) > >>>>> > >>>>> On 3/17/06, Kevin Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Wayne, just be glad your fellow countrymen a generation ago didn't > >>>>>> "grow > >>>>>> out", otherwise, you'd probably be speaking German. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Wayne Putterill wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm not anti american, I'm anti anyone who makes this world a worse > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> place to be. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm not bashing america, my own country had a large part in this > >>>>>>> disgusting affair. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As for calling me antisemetic, anyone who knows me would laugh out > >>>>>>> loud at that - particularly my jewish friends. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would lay down my life for something I believed in, but I grew out > >>>>>>> of playing with guns when I started wearing long trousers. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 3/17/06, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There were no weapons found, there is no was to ever prove they did > >>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> did > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> not exist at this point. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> BTW Why is that "spin"? Are all of my statements true? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> How about you stop with America bashing bullshit? And the > >>>>>>>> anti-Semitic > >>>>>>>> bullshit that you lefties like to spout. It makes me sick. How > >>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>> instead of sitting around bitching you actually stand for something, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> not only your principles, but your life on the line? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Tim Heald > >>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>>> 703-300-3911 > >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>> From: Wayne Putterill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:51 AM > >>>>>>>> To: CF-Community > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Saddam Pretended to have Weapons to prevent Attack > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> how about you actually deal with the point being discussed instead of > >>>>>>>> spouting another load of spin. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 3/17/06, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> How about the violations of the cease fire? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> How about the UN resolutions allowing us to use force to enforce the > >>>>>>>>> sanctions that were being violated? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> How about the attacks against American Aircraft? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> How about the fact that oil is actually of vital importance to the > >>>>>>>>> national security of the United States? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Tim Heald > >>>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>>>> 703-300-3911 > >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>> From: Wayne Putterill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 3:16 AM > >>>>>>>>> To: CF-Community > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Saddam Pretended to have Weapons to prevent Attack > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That's what blows all the "this means we were right to go in" > >>>>>>>>> arguments apart. We had ways of finding out if he did have WMD and > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> UK and US governments didn't let the people involved finish their > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> work. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 3/17/06, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Just a reminder the people on the ground, the UN inspectors who > >>>>>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>>> in Iraq, and the IAEA always said that there were no WMD's. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/16/06, Nick McClure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> When you have your own guys, plus other countries all agreeing > >>>>>>>>>>> that they have them, then the risk factor seems within the bounds. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If you try it and you turn out wrong, then people second guess, > >>>>>>>>>>> which is good if it makes us better, but when the point is just to > >>>>>>>>>>> belittle then it doesn't help anybody. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Were mistakes made? Clearly. However I don't think they could have > >>>>>>>>>>> done this any other way. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 7:13 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>> To: CF-Community > >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Saddam Pretended to have Weapons to prevent Attack > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dino wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel only attacked Iraq when they were building a nuclear > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reactor > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> express purpose of gaining nukes to attack Israel. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Combine that with what gMoney said and you have: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1.) If we thought there was a threat, why didn't we just bomb > >>>>>>>>>>>> the shit out of it w/o having to go in? Lame Answer: mobile > >>>>>>>>>>>> labs. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently REALLY mobile. So mobile they don't exist. Which > >>>>>>>>>>>> brings > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> us to ... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2.) Why don't we know how reliable our intelligence is? From > >>>>>>>>>>>> the beginning the whole everybody-thought-blah-blah-blah strikes > >>>>>>>>>>>> me as absolutely moronic. It's called risk management - I know > >>>>>>>>>>>> they offer classes at HBS on the topic. Bush must've skipped > >>>>>>>>>>>> them. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever you have intelligence you have a reliability factor on > >>>>>>>>>>>> it. Either ours was low and we went in anyway or we haven't > >>>>>>>>>>>> learned shit about intelligence in the last 50 years. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:200561 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
