Leading on the last lap

Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the race isnt going quite as perfectly as you would have hoped? Of course not, you would make adjustments and continue on for a possible win. Right? Maybe "Florida" should have just walked off the field yesterday in the 3rd quarter? Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to quit while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means something for the future of the USA. (all big words removed so even Freddy and DGF can understand) Mitch

Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you > QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the race isnt going quite as > perfectly as you would have hoped? Of course not, you would make > adjustments and continue on for a possible win. Right? > > Maybe "Florida" should have just walked off the field yesterday in the 3rd > quarter? > > Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to quit > while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means something for > the future of the USA. > > (all big words removed so even Freddy and DGF can understand) > > Mitch > > >

Mitch, baby, you live in a democracy. That means you won't always get your own way. What country are you going to move to when the Dems get in? Now take your meds and move a-w-a-y f-r-o-m t-h-e c-o-m-p-u-t-e-r.

Holy Shit - what a propaganda sponge you are That's ok, you're bush's target audience. But please - don't "share" these ridiculous fabrications with the rest of us. Go hang out at a forum that cares; alt.I.hate.pot.smokers or maybe alt.I.am.a.total.sheep.who's.thoughts.are.completely.controlled.by.the gov-media or maybe alt.I.can't.think.for.myself.so.will.continue.to.assist.in.the.lining-of-pockets.of.my.wealthy.corrupt.leaders They love your crapola over there at those forums ;) Bring the boys home.... let Bush and his cronies go do what they want over there. ==--== "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LYRoh.14559$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you > QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the race isnt going quite as > perfectly as you would have hoped? Of course not, you would make > adjustments and continue on for a possible win. Right? > > Maybe "Florida" should have just walked off the field yesterday in the 3rd > quarter? > > Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to quit > while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means something > for the future of the USA. > > (all big words removed so even Freddy and DGF can understand) > > Mitch > > >

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LYRoh.14559$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you > QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the race isnt going quite as > perfectly as you would have hoped? Of course not, you would make > adjustments and continue on for a possible win. Right? > > Maybe "Florida" should have just walked off the field yesterday in the 3rd > quarter? > > Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to quit > while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means something > for the future of the USA. > > (all big words removed so even Freddy and DGF can understand) > > Mitch >

What is it that you're winning exactly?

Mitch_A wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you > QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the race isnt going quite as > perfectly as you would have hoped? Of course not, you would make > adjustments and continue on for a possible win. Right? > > Maybe "Florida" should have just walked off the field yesterday in the 3rd > quarter? > > Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to quit > while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means something for > the future of the USA.

Please explain exactly how the war is being won? Iraq is now a perfect anarchic terrorist training ground, Ahmadinejad is even more annoyed with the West than he was, making the likely outcome of this round of superbly managed diplomacy that either Iran builds its own nukes or Israel nukes Iran to stop them. Yay for us, we managed to back the region into an even more unstable corner than it was 5 years ago. -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

Im sorry, I would've ignored the posts but 4 in a row, pointing that people know more because they listen to Letterman, and nightly local news, and shit like that, than some of us that have been there or have family that have been there, really doesn't surprise me, considering the sources above... Phil, your question if nothing other than an astonishing resume on "duh, I dunno," for yourself. And after reading it, begs the question, so it changed because the U.S. went there how EXACTLY? "is now a perfect anarchist state" as if it wasn't a state that was worse where people were killed to fulfill the whims of a guy who didn't even think the Jews were slaughtered in WW2? You think the USA is lying about the Holocaust? Tell us smarty pants, how many schools, and other things are being built and protected by U.S troops trying to win a war for the people of Iraq, against 99% NON Iraqi killers and terrorists? You cant be that dumb to not even google this shit, then post like that. "US governmental Propaganda", yeah fking right, our Press is free to print what they choose, doesn't mean they choose to print the "WHOLE TRUTH and nothing but the truth." they can and do get it wrong. educate yourself on the facts, not the puff and bullshit. Phil Newnham enlightened us with:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Mitch_A wrote: >> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you >> QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the race isnt >> going quite as perfectly as you would have hoped? Of course not, >> you would make adjustments and continue on for a possible win. Right? >> Maybe "Florida" should have just walked off the field yesterday in >> the 3rd quarter? >> >> Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to >> quit while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means >> something for the future of the USA. > > Please explain exactly how the war is being won? Iraq is now a perfect > anarchic terrorist training ground, Ahmadinejad is even more annoyed > with the West than he was, making the likely outcome of this round of > superbly managed diplomacy that either Iran builds its own nukes or > Israel nukes Iran to stop them. Yay for us, we managed to back the > region into an even more unstable corner than it was 5 years ago. > > -- > Phil > > http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

Plowboy wrote: > Phil, your question if nothing other than an astonishing resume on "duh, I > dunno," for yourself. And after reading it, begs the question, so it > changed because the U.S. went there how EXACTLY? Before the US went there, it was a vicious dictatorship (with no links to Al Qaeda) with a history of bluffing lots to save face whilst at the same time bowing to the UN whilst dragging its feet (also, to save face). Everyone knew that Saddam was a threat to the region, and had a nasty habit of attacking his own people, which is why we were enforcing no-fly zones in the north and south. Do you even know when the crimes he was executed for were committed? 1982. The second trial, in which, incidentally, all charges against Hussein have now been dropped, was for crimes committed in 1988. So clearly it was imperative that we attacked in 2003, and absolutely no later, to remove this vicious dictator, whose major crimes against humanity were already more than a decade old, and who didn't look like doing it again any time soon. Now, it's a living hell, and a haven for exactly the kind of terrorists that will attack America (and probably Britain too) as soon as we withdraw our troops. Or they will simply continue to bomb and kill our troops in small numbers for as long as we decide to leave them there. > "is now a perfect > anarchist state" as if it wasn't a state that was worse where people were > killed to fulfill the whims of a guy who didn't even think the Jews were > slaughtered in WW2? You think the USA is lying about the Holocaust? How many people did Saddam kill? How many have died since we invaded? I think you'll find that more have died as a result of the invasion and subsequent insurgency, by a margin, by any serious count. I think, incidentally, that you may have invoked Godwin's Law there - the Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion. > Tell us > smarty pants, how many schools, and other things are being built and > protected by U.S troops trying to win a war for the people of Iraq, against > 99% NON Iraqi killers and terrorists? You cant be that dumb to not even > google this shit, then post like that. US troops did not go there for the benefit of the Iraqi people. They went there on the basis of the existence of WMDs, which patently don't exist, and to remove a dictator who was seen as a threat to the US people (not to his own - if we'd been that concerned about the crimes he committed in the late 80s we'd have removed him in 91). And, that they are building stuff must be great for the directors and major shareholders of the companies doing the building, but how can it benefit the Iraqi people while the insurgency continues, and continues to get worse and not better? You're right, much of the insurgency is sourced from outside the Iraq - now, who do you think is responsible for invading the country and leaving the borders fucking wide open so these people could come in? It sure as hell wasn't Saddam Hussein. > "US governmental Propaganda", yeah fking right, our Press is free to print > what they choose, doesn't mean they choose to print the "WHOLE TRUTH and > nothing but the truth." they can and do get it wrong. I don't read the US press. In the UK press today I read that even Bush admits that we are not winning. Good for us, unable to learn anything from history but very good at losing guerilla wars in multiple foreign theatres. > educate yourself on the facts, not the puff and bullshit. The facts are that Iraq is a mess, we are not winning the war, and we have not achieved an increase in security for the world, instead, we have done the opposite, and the only reason it hasn't bitten you on the arse yet is time - over here we already saw the repercussions of our aggressive foreign policy last summer. -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

Some of these folks remind me of that couch-material wearing 'assistant' that followed around the evil Dr. Cockteau in the movie Demolition Man. Be Well :) -Larry "==--==" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xqUoh.591042$5R2.80511@pd7urf3no...

Quoted text (42 lines)

> Holy Shit - what a propaganda sponge you are > That's ok, you're bush's target audience. > > But please - don't "share" these ridiculous fabrications with the rest of > us. > Go hang out at a forum that cares; > alt.I.hate.pot.smokers or maybe > alt.I.am.a.total.sheep.who's.thoughts.are.completely.controlled.by.the > gov-media or maybe > alt.I.can't.think.for.myself.so.will.continue.to.assist.in.the.lining-of-pockets.of.my.wealthy.corrupt.leaders > > They love your crapola over there at those forums ;) > > Bring the boys home.... let Bush and his cronies go do what they want over > there. > > ==--== > > > > "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:LYRoh.14559$[email hidden]... >> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you >> QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the race isnt going quite as >> perfectly as you would have hoped? Of course not, you would make >> adjustments and continue on for a possible win. Right? >> >> Maybe "Florida" should have just walked off the field yesterday in the >> 3rd quarter? >> >> Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to quit >> while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means something >> for the future of the USA. >> >> (all big words removed so even Freddy and DGF can understand) >> >> Mitch >> >> >> > >

Mitch_A a crit : > Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to quit > while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means something for > the future of the USA. Hi, it's me, back from the grave, telling you to please : Shut the fuck up. Thank you for your cooperation :)

Mitch_A a crit : Hi, it's me, back from the grave, telling you to please : Shut the *** up. Thank you for your cooperation :)

Phil Newnham enlightened us with:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Plowboy wrote: >> Phil, your question if nothing other than an astonishing resume on >> "duh, I dunno," for yourself. And after reading it, begs the >> question, so it changed because the U.S. went there how EXACTLY? > > Before the US went there, it was a vicious dictatorship (with no links > to Al Qaeda) with a history of bluffing lots to save face whilst at > the same time bowing to the UN whilst dragging its feet (also, to save > face).

How the fuck did you know he was bluffing? Nobody did, except his and his minions. jesus freaking chrysler. if you call my house, or tell someone your are going to kill me, and I act on it (call police) you think they gonna say, aw he just bluffing!? Everyone knew that Saddam was a threat to the region, and had a

Quoted text (66 lines)

> nasty habit of attacking his own people, which is why we were > enforcing no-fly zones in the north and south. Do you even know when > the crimes he was executed for were committed? 1982. The second > trial, in which, incidentally, all charges against Hussein have now > been dropped, was for crimes committed in 1988. So clearly it was > imperative that we attacked in 2003, and absolutely no later, to > remove this vicious dictator, whose major crimes against humanity > were already more than a decade old, and who didn't look like doing > it again any time soon. > Now, it's a living hell, and a haven for exactly the kind of > terrorists that will attack America (and probably Britain too) as > soon as we withdraw our troops. Or they will simply continue to bomb > and kill our troops in small numbers for as long as we decide to > leave them there. >> "is now a perfect >> anarchist state" as if it wasn't a state that was worse where people >> were killed to fulfill the whims of a guy who didn't even think the >> Jews were slaughtered in WW2? You think the USA is lying about the >> Holocaust? > > How many people did Saddam kill? How many have died since we invaded? > I think you'll find that more have died as a result of the invasion > and subsequent insurgency, by a margin, by any serious count. I think, > incidentally, that you may have invoked Godwin's Law there - the > Holocaust is irrelevant to this discussion. > >> Tell us >> smarty pants, how many schools, and other things are being built and >> protected by U.S troops trying to win a war for the people of Iraq, >> against 99% NON Iraqi killers and terrorists? You cant be that dumb >> to not even google this shit, then post like that. > > US troops did not go there for the benefit of the Iraqi people. They > went there on the basis of the existence of WMDs, which patently don't > exist, and to remove a dictator who was seen as a threat to the US > people (not to his own - if we'd been that concerned about the crimes > he committed in the late 80s we'd have removed him in 91). And, that > they are building stuff must be great for the directors and major > shareholders of the companies doing the building, but how can it > benefit the Iraqi people while the insurgency continues, and > continues to get worse and not better? You're right, much of the > insurgency is sourced from outside the Iraq - now, who do you think > is responsible for invading the country and leaving the borders > fucking wide open so these people could come in? It sure as hell > wasn't Saddam Hussein. >> "US governmental Propaganda", yeah fking right, our Press is free to >> print what they choose, doesn't mean they choose to print the "WHOLE >> TRUTH and nothing but the truth." they can and do get it wrong. > > I don't read the US press. In the UK press today I read that even Bush > admits that we are not winning. Good for us, unable to learn anything > from history but very good at losing guerilla wars in multiple foreign > theatres. > >> educate yourself on the facts, not the puff and bullshit. > > The facts are that Iraq is a mess, we are not winning the war, and we > have not achieved an increase in security for the world, instead, we > have done the opposite, and the only reason it hasn't bitten you on > the arse yet is time - over here we already saw the repercussions of > our aggressive foreign policy last summer. > > -- > Phil > > http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

Mitch_A wrote: <snip> Jesus christ, at least stick an {OT} in the topic so I don't accidentally read this bullshit.

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:23:23 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: <crap snipped> Fucking hell, there's nothing worse than insane analogies. Jesus.

<***snipped> ***ing hell, there's nothing worse than insane analogies. Jesus.

> How the fuck did you know he was bluffing? Nobody did, except his and his > minions. jesus freaking chrysler. if you call my house, or tell someone > your are going to kill me, and I act on it (call police) you think they > gonna say, aw he just bluffing!? I guess you forgot about those years and years of UN inspectors finding absolutely nothing, and the 18,000 page report detailing the destruction of the weapons in accordance with UN mandates. Oh but who needs facts when you have Fox.

> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the > race isnt going quite as perfectly as you would have hoped? Bad analogy, you left out the part about the fans taking pot shots at racers with rifles and bombs. > Difference is this WAR actually means something for the future of the USA. Not sure if it will be good or bad. I'm from the USA (California), and I've noticed based on our previous bad experiences, we "cherry pick" which wars we fight. Atrocities occur in many countries throughtout the world, but we rarely get involved. In terms of Iraq, we picked a war we could win easily with regards to Saddams troops, but we underestimated the near civil war that would result once the dictatorship was ended. It's happened before in soviet block countries where genocide was the result of the ending of communist rule. The genocide in Rwanda between the Tutsis and Hutus was worse, yet the UN did little to invervene. Getting back to Iraq, in my opinion, once we got Saddam out of power (or later captured him), we should have armed every houshold with a weapon (pistol or rifle, sort of like living in some cities in Arizona and/or Texas), then left and let them handle things themselves until they begged us to come back if things didn't work out.

timmy thompson wrote: > > I guess you forgot about those years and years of UN inspectors finding > absolutely nothing, and the 18,000 page report detailing the destruction > of the weapons in accordance with UN mandates. Oh but who needs facts > when you have Fox. When did they have time to look? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2167933.stm

Plowboy wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Phil Newnham enlightened us with: >> Plowboy wrote: >>> Phil, your question if nothing other than an astonishing resume on >>> "duh, I dunno," for yourself. And after reading it, begs the >>> question, so it changed because the U.S. went there how EXACTLY? >> Before the US went there, it was a vicious dictatorship (with no links >> to Al Qaeda) with a history of bluffing lots to save face whilst at >> the same time bowing to the UN whilst dragging its feet (also, to save >> face). > > How the fuck did you know he was bluffing? Nobody did, except his and his > minions. jesus freaking chrysler. if you call my house, or tell someone > your are going to kill me, and I act on it (call police) you think they > gonna say, aw he just bluffing!?

You could always ask the weapons inspectors, who knew there were no weapons, because they had been there looking for them. Or you could do what Bush did, which was to fire the head of the weapons inspectors because they disagreed with him, and wilfully misinterpret the intelligence to claim that he did have weapons and they were a clear and present danger to the security of the US and her interests. If someone told you that there was a remote chance that I might call your house and tell you I'm going to kill you, and you call the police, and it turns out that someone had based their intelligence about me on one report by one guy with no corroboration and no history of giving them useful intel, and it turns out they were wrong and I had no intention of doing anything, the police would tell you they were wasting their time. Saddam did not phone up Bush and threaten to launch chemical attacks against America. If you must use analogies try to base them on what actually happened. -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

Dont bother the dumbass with the facts, TW... Tim Wheatley enlightened us with:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> timmy thompson wrote: >> >> I guess you forgot about those years and years of UN inspectors >> finding absolutely nothing, and the 18,000 page report detailing the >> destruction of the weapons in accordance with UN mandates. Oh but >> who needs facts when you have Fox. > > When did they have time to look? > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2167933.stm

Tim Wheatley wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> timmy thompson wrote: >> I guess you forgot about those years and years of UN inspectors finding >> absolutely nothing, and the 18,000 page report detailing the destruction >> of the weapons in accordance with UN mandates. Oh but who needs facts >> when you have Fox. > > When did they have time to look? > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2167933.stm

It was entirely the fault of Bush's impatience that they only had 5 months between November and the invasion in March. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/2967764.stm "The UN's chief weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix has criticised the quality of intelligence provided by Britain and America, when his teams returned to Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction. Working on the information, the inspectors examined scores of sites. But Hans Blix has told the BBC that only at three sites did they find anything, and none contained weapons of mass destruction. " So, based on the intelligence that there were weapons, they went and had a look, and there weren't any. And then we invaded on the pretext that there were weapons, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. -- Phil http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/31307.html

The belief in the reality of WMDs in Iraq was virtually universally held at the time of the invasion. A belief shared by the French and British secret services, the CIA and Bill and Hillary Clinton. The imputation that GWB deliberatey mislead the public for the sake of his cronies in Big Oil attests to the paranoia on the Left and, if true, would certainly make him the most evil individual in American history. But he's too moronic for such deviousness, right?

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> The belief in the reality of WMDs in Iraq was virtually universally > held at the time of the invasion. A belief shared by the French and > British secret services, the CIA and Bill and Hillary Clinton. The > imputation that GWB deliberatey mislead the public for the sake of his > cronies in Big Oil attests to the paranoia on the Left and, if true, > would certainly make him the most evil individual in American history. > But he's too moronic for such deviousness, right? >

The Bullshit Meter is pegged. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/23/60-minutes-cia-official-reveals-bush-cheney-rice-were-personally-told-iraq-had-no-wmd-in-fall-2002 -- Fester God Bless the USA does *not* mean God Damn the rest of the world

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> The belief in the reality of WMDs in Iraq was virtually universally > held at the time of the invasion. A belief shared by the French and > British secret services, the CIA and Bill and Hillary Clinton. The > imputation that GWB deliberatey mislead the public for the sake of his > cronies in Big Oil attests to the paranoia on the Left and, if true, > would certainly make him the most evil individual in American history. > But he's too moronic for such deviousness, right? >

The link to the main story. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml -- Fester God Bless the USA does *not* mean God Damn the rest of the world.

"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LYRoh.14559$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you > QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the race isnt going quite as > perfectly as you would have hoped? Of course not, you would make > adjustments and continue on for a possible win. Right? > > Maybe "Florida" should have just walked off the field yesterday in the 3rd > quarter? > > Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to quit > while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means something > for the future of the USA

Then why are you sitting on your ass over here playing video games? Fucking loudmouthed pussy. WS

So...... not one response from you Mitch-a-for-asswipe ?!? Are you just trolling Mitch-a-I'm-a-Bozo? Why re-propagate the "slanted-media-take" without supporting it?? Poor old "MitchA-for-Asswipe" - spouting propaganda without a brain to argue it's validity..... LOL What "wastage" you are mitch-a-for-ass-dirt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wastage Call me from Iraq - you"klingon" ;) ==--== "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LYRoh.14559$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Say you were in a race and leading the pack by a large margin. Would you > QUIT the race with 10 to go just because the race isnt going quite as > perfectly as you would have hoped? Of course not, you would make > adjustments and continue on for a possible win. Right? > > Maybe "Florida" should have just walked off the field yesterday in the 3rd > quarter? > > Now consider what the fn POS dems want to do in Iraq. They want to quit > while winning this War. Difference is this WAR actually means something > for the future of the USA. > > (all big words removed so even Freddy and DGF can understand) > > Mitch > > >