Deny it if you will, but such arrogance is disgusting. YOU definately don't know what you are talking about.
If you are so gung ho then join up. Quit being such a chicken hawk. Its all great to be so violently pro war especially when you're sitting on your butt not risking anything. On 3/18/06, Kevin Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Larry, you're so full of shit you must attract flies. > > I made no implication and you know it. At least I admit it when I'm > wrong. You seem to be so hard headed perhaps a profession of smashing > batteries with your forehead would be more fitting. > > > > Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > 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:5:200565 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
