"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote
The events of September 11, 2001 changed the face of warfare forever.
This is a fact.

No it is not. (you must be very young or lived in a dream). Radical
Islamic terrorism has been with us long before 9/11. That's just when a
few fools woke up.

After that heinous terrorist attack any responsible and sensible leader
of a country that had been attacked had no choice but to assume a
proactive stance against ANY EMINENT source of a new attack. Saddam
Hussein was one such source.

No, he was not! Quite the opposite. Saddam, while not a nice guy, was
perhaps the biggest deterrent to the expansion of the real enemy - radical
Islam - in the region. He had no ties to the religious radicals who
perp'ed 9/11 - rather he and his secular regime were their bitter enemies.

It's that simple and it's been stated about a million times but you fools
still stick your fool heads up your asses and ignore the facts.

What "facts" Will? Bush's WMD bull****? Bin Ladin and al Qaeda are still
around only because that idiot of yours deverted the resources needed to
catch and eliminate them so as to forward a personal family vendetta
against Saddam. That's the fact.


What an idiot you are! Do you really think the United States' military is
incapable of fighting a war or two and looking for one renegade at the same
time? Do you really think it takes the resources of the entire U.S. military
to go after and catch one man like Bin Laden who probably isn't even alive
any more? Get real you pathetic liberal jerk!

Because you hate the U.S. military and think it should be nothing but a
meals-on-wheels organization like your hero B.J. Clinton did it doesn't mean
the military is as inept as you seem to think or wish it would be. You are a
leech riding freedom won by the military and at the same time trying to
knock the wheels out from under the freedom wagon with your pathetic little
plastic play hammer. You and your ignorant pacifist ilk are pathetic jokes.

Wilbur Hubbard

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


What an idiot you are! Do you really think the United States' military is
incapable of fighting a war or two and looking for one renegade at the same
time? Do you really think it takes the resources of the entire U.S. military
to go after and catch one man like Bin Laden

That would be why Bin Laden is in US custody.


Because you hate the U.S. military and think it should be nothing but a
meals-on-wheels organization

I thought you were an english major and could understand common prose.

like your hero B.J. Clinton did it doesn't mean
the military is as inept as you seem to think or wish it would be. You are a
leech riding freedom won by the military

Do tell us about your glorious military career. Wearing the uniform of
a city sanitation worker does not count.

and at the same time trying to
knock the wheels out from under the freedom wagon with your pathetic little
plastic play hammer. You and your ignorant pacifist

Pacifist? Once again your misguided imagination runs wild.

Cheers
Marty

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:15:02 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

You are a
leech riding freedom won by the military

This statement has me pondering.
When was the US not free?
What are these freedoms that have been won?




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

Just a side bar. Today in history;

In 1937, Japanese aircraft sank the U.S. gunboat Panay on China's
Yangtze River. (Japan apologized, and paid $2.2 million in reparations.)

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Just a side bar. Today in history;

In 1937, Japanese aircraft sank the U.S. gunboat Panay on China's
Yangtze River. (Japan apologized, and paid $2.2 million in reparations.)

In that case, we should have attacked Sweden.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Just a side bar. Today in history;

In 1937, Japanese aircraft sank the U.S. gunboat Panay on China's
Yangtze River. (Japan apologized, and paid $2.2 million in reparations.)

In that case, we should have attacked Sweden.



You're just a tad off there, Lichtenstein would have been better, no navy!

Cheers
Marty

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:33:48 -0500, Marty wrote this
crap:

You're just a tad off there, Lichtenstein would have been better, no navy!

No army, either.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

Bloody Horvath wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:33:48 -0500, Marty wrote this
crap:

You're just a tad off there, Lichtenstein would have been better, no navy!

No army, either.

Perfect!

Cheers
Marty

You are a
leech riding freedom won by the military

OzOne wrote:
This statement has me pondering.
When was the US not free?
What are these freedoms that have been won?


Well, we are free to not pay taxes to King George III

Of course, technically it was not the U.S. military but the
Continental Army and lots of state militias which won that for us

Prior to 1865, about 20% of the population were slaves... freedom for
them was won by the U.S. military

Prior to 1920, about 51% of the population were not allowed to vote.
The U.S. military had nothing to do with winning that freedom.

So 1 out of 3 ain't bad

DSK

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:41:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You are a
leech riding freedom won by the military

OzOne wrote:
This statement has me pondering.
When was the US not free?
What are these freedoms that have been won?


Well, we are free to not pay taxes to King George III

Of course, technically it was not the U.S. military but the
Continental Army and lots of state militias which won that for us

That's right...and weren't the French that you 'hate' instrumental in
setting the colony free

Prior to 1865, about 20% of the population were slaves... freedom for
them was won by the U.S. military

Depends on which US military you're talking about...the norther US or
the southern US

Prior to 1920, about 51% of the population were not allowed to vote.
The U.S. military had nothing to do with winning that freedom.

So 1 out of 3 ain't bad

DSK




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.