|
America the Beautiful
At
http://www.aussieseek.com Where you get CASH for Comments -------------------------------------------------------------- The American Military is ideologically impotent. Had the 'military' been lead by intelligence rather than rhetoric, the Iraqis would have kept their water and electricity supplies going instead of having them bombed out. A social security system would have then ensured that all Iraqi families are fed, clothed and the kids can get to school. Special Military MASH hospitals could have delivered the health care that they have lacked. In this atmosphere, violent extremists would be well and truly upsetting the applecart. Instead of the above scenario, the Iraqi people have been subjected to the mentality of Columbine High School, wherein death is a random event on a daily basis; the hospitals aren't working, the social security system is almost non-existent. The violent have the argument over moderate Iraqis, because who can argue with the facts over Abu Graib Prison? What Iraqi in his right mind would trust an American? So armed with money and argument, the violent have an unlimited supply of suicide bombers, and all the time in the world. The money gets paid to the families of martyrs; the argument is the simple independence of a Nation, that has the right to it's independence, and it's resources. Had the American Military used Health and Humane Resource Delivery as a vehicle of influence WITH the Iraqi people, they would be greatly respected. Instead, they have denied Health for many years, killing the children of Iraq in particular, and have denied distribution of social funds leaving the male members of Iraqi households feeling impotent in a Nation run by men whose pride and vanity is a by word. The American Military is run by War-Mongers, rather than the organisers of victory. America's geopolitical aims would be far better served by a kiss from the organisers of victory than a kick from the warmongers of Abu Graib mentality. |
"AussieSeek.com Political Messageboards" wrote in message ups.com... Where you get CASH for Comments Send your cash to Sadamn Insane and his henchmen. |
AussieSeek.com Political Messageboards wrote: At http://www.aussieseek.com Where you get CASH for Comments -------------------------------------------------------------- The American Military is ideologically impotent. Had the 'military' been lead by intelligence rather than rhetoric, the Iraqis would have kept their water and electricity supplies going instead of having them bombed out. A social security system would have then ensured that all Iraqi families are fed, clothed and the kids can get to school. Special Military MASH hospitals could have delivered the health care that they have lacked. In this atmosphere, violent extremists would be well and truly upsetting the applecart. Instead of the above scenario, the Iraqi people have been subjected to the mentality of Columbine High School, wherein death is a random event on a daily basis; the hospitals aren't working, the social security system is almost non-existent. The violent have the argument over moderate Iraqis, because who can argue with the facts over Abu Graib Prison? What Iraqi in his right mind would trust an American? So armed with money and argument, the violent have an unlimited supply of suicide bombers, and all the time in the world. The money gets paid to the families of martyrs; the argument is the simple independence of a Nation, that has the right to it's independence, and it's resources. Had the American Military used Health and Humane Resource Delivery as a vehicle of influence WITH the Iraqi people, they would be greatly respected. Instead, they have denied Health for many years, killing the children of Iraq in particular, and have denied distribution of social funds leaving the male members of Iraqi households feeling impotent in a Nation run by men whose pride and vanity is a by word. The American Military is run by War-Mongers, rather than the organisers of victory. America's geopolitical aims would be far better served by a kiss from the organisers of victory than a kick from the warmongers of Abu Graib mentality. Let's discuss your message one ranting phrase at a time. Please tell me what ideologically impotent really means. I'm truly confused by that phrase since the military isn't usually an organization one would associate with an ideology. |
AS.C - So tell us what is right or wrong with Australia.
|
On 30 Aug 2005 09:10:43 -0700, "RHF"
wrote: AS.C - So tell us what is right or wrong with Australia. . AS.C - Sing the Praises of Australia ! { Or give Australia Hell ! } Post them on your own board = http://www.aussieseek.com . AS.C - But kindly allow Americans to comment on what is right or wrong about America (The USofA); and keep your unwanted comments about to yourself. . Hello Everyone - First we have the Cana-Duh-ians and now AS.C makes it look like we now have the Ozzy-Tales-Yas ! . as.c - to put it bluntly - bugger off mate ~ RHF . . This is an Australian board, you twit. |
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:38:34 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: *PLENTY* of Iraqis, in their right mind no less, trust Americans and other coalition forces. But, you won't hear that via main-stream-media, where good-news is no-news and bad-news is great-news. Like the well worn axiom, "Dog Bites Man" doesn't sell, but "Man Bites Dog" will go to press every time. -=jd=- Besides the Kurds and pro-Iranian Shiites we are installing? |
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 22:41:42 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: On Tue 30 Aug 2005 06:36:05p, David wrote in message : On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:38:34 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: *PLENTY* of Iraqis, in their right mind no less, trust Americans and other coalition forces. But, you won't hear that via main-stream-media, where good-news is no-news and bad-news is great-news. Like the well worn axiom, "Dog Bites Man" doesn't sell, but "Man Bites Dog" will go to press every time. -=jd=- Besides the Kurds and pro-Iranian Shiites we are installing? You betcha! Iraqis across all demographics! Apologies, that probably burns your hide to hear. I know you hope and wish for America to fail, if only to spite Bush... -=jd=- Fail at what? What is success? |
John S. wrote:
Please tell me what ideologically impotent really means. It means it is directed by the whims of a power hungry lunatic who sold his soul in order to become President and is now slowly starting to pay the price. Notice how the weasels that got him where he is are keeping a very low profile? mike |
It is Australia that is Impotent.
cuhulin |
What BURNS! me is that report that Impotent Aussieseek posted that says
American Military is ideology impotent.Our Troops go where they are sent and they do their JOB very well. cuhulin |
In article .com,
"RHF" wrote: AS.C - So tell us what is right or wrong with Australia. Snip Who cares. Just put him in the kill file. Please stop reposting Trolls I've kill filed. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Im not Anti American. I Just think the IRAQ thing is
something America has to get out of. I hate the PBS Death List on TV ====================== Hi Keith Red cross are already on the spot. http://www.redcross.org/ DON'T GIVE TO WORLD VISION Zappy |
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:04:16 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: Fail at what? What is success? Fail to succeed in it's military efforts, whether in large part or in small part, regardless of the various goals of those efforts. Rather, in your blind hatred for Bush, you would probably go so far as to sacrifice (in every sense of the word) the entire Republic to slake your thirst for spite and vengeance at being marginalized and rejected politically. Ain't that so... -=jd=- Military efforts to accomplish what? You are the blind Bubba. |
Iraq is much more than about wmd's and or oil.U.S.A.is in the process of
establishing Military Bases all over the World in Foreign Countries and near Foreign Countries.We HAVE to show the World who is BOSS. cuhulin |
Opium production is down? That means one or two of two things,ONLY.They
have already harvested all of the Opium crops for this year or winter time is coming on over there.Both things are the most likely,ONLY.bush got "his". cuhulin |
|
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 04:17:52 GMT, Telamon
wrote: In article .com, "RHF" wrote: AS.C - So tell us what is right or wrong with Australia. Snip Who cares. Just put him in the kill file. Please stop reposting Trolls I've kill filed. By what right do you direct the activities of others on this newsgroup? |
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:09:25 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: How am I blind? Can *you* name one of the Bush administrations military goals? You have to be able to define what you are protesting, right? Otherwise, I've just outed you as a phony. Now, I've stated one or the goals in another message I posted a few minutes ago. But, before you go peeking, let's see if *you* can name one. Or, say "Uncle" and I'll post it in my next reply in this thread. -=jd=- Now you are just plain demented. What defines military success in Iraq? |
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:10:14 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: On Wed 31 Aug 2005 08:59:38p, wrote in message news:910- : Opium production is down? That means one or two of two things,ONLY.They have already harvested all of the Opium crops for this year or winter time is coming on over there.Both things are the most likely,ONLY.bush got "his". cuhulin It appears from the information provided that you would be incorrect on both presumptions. -=jd=- It means the Taliban are regaining control of Afghanistan. |
We Americans,real Americans,are Hunting down and Killing the raghead
terrorist.That's Good Enough for ME. cuhulin |
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:19:01 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: *sigh*... And you even replied to the post where I stated it previously! What defines military success in Iraq? Succintly: Replacing Saddam Hussein and his regime with a democratic styled govt that can stand on it's own. We've removed Saddam. We've removed his regime. They have already had free and open elections once. They are about to ratify their constitution. I'd say we are well on the way to acheiving our goal there. I can't wait to hear your dissappointment! -=jd=- By ''democratic styled govt'' you of course mean an Islamic Theocracy aligned with Iran. OK. We did it. Now let's flee. Peace with honor. |
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:20:32 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: It means the Taliban are regaining control of Afghanistan. That would be incorrect as well. Any other guesses? Or, would you rather just visit the U.N. site and read it for yourself? -=jd=- The UN is not to be trusted. |
David wrote: On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:19:01 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: *sigh*... And you even replied to the post where I stated it previously! What defines military success in Iraq? Succintly: Replacing Saddam Hussein and his regime with a democratic styled govt that can stand on it's own. We've removed Saddam. We've removed his regime. They have already had free and open elections once. They are about to ratify their constitution. I'd say we are well on the way to acheiving our goal there. I can't wait to hear your dissappointment! -=jd=- By ''democratic styled govt'' you of course mean an Islamic Theocracy aligned with Iran. OK. We did it. Now let's flee. Peace with honor. 'Tard boy... you wouldn't know honour if it crawled up your mentally retarded ass and decided to spend the winter. Now get on out there and tote it whilst you still have a little daylight left. dxAce Michigan USA |
He would probally trust a 'snow snake' though.
cuhulin |
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:04:16 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: Fail to succeed in it's military efforts, whether in large part or in small part, regardless of the various goals of those efforts. Rather, in your blind hatred for Bush, you would probably go so far as to sacrifice (in every sense of the word) the entire Republic to slake your thirst for spite and vengeance at being marginalized and rejected politically. Ain't that so... I'm sorry, you must not have gotten the word that purple prose is no longer allowed on usenet. Please cancel your posting. |
|
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:22:26 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: On Sat 03 Sep 2005 02:26:32a, wrote in message : On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:35:44 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: On Thu 01 Sep 2005 10:05:35p, wrote in message : On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 00:04:16 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: Fail to succeed in it's military efforts, whether in large part or in small part, regardless of the various goals of those efforts. Rather, in your blind hatred for Bush, you would probably go so far as to sacrifice (in every sense of the word) the entire Republic to slake your thirst for spite and vengeance at being marginalized and rejected politically. Ain't that so... I'm sorry, you must not have gotten the word that purple prose is no longer allowed on usenet. Please cancel your posting. If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to camoflage your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted! -=jd=- Note my ass -- it's pointed in our general direction. As I said, and which you so un-subtly evaded yet again, "If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to camoflage your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!" Now, are ya' done yet or would you like another drubbing? -=jd=- Maybe, when you're through drubbing your dick. The corrct construction, by the way, is sine ad hominem. slopping a bt if French before a Latin phrase only makes you look dumb. But you continue to do pompous well. "Noted" -- how ****ing superior. |
You need to learn how to operate a spelling book and learn how to spell.
cuhulin |
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:01:35 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: So nice to see we have another college poseur on staff here in R.R.S. "Sans" is a perfectly acceptable when used to indicate a "lack of" or "without". If you would like to get technical, there's this: [Sans: Middle English, from Old French, blend of Latin sine, without, and absenti, in the absence of, ablative of absentia, absence from absns, absent- present participle of abesse, to be away. See absent.] Also, since you are now resorting to a "grammer-dodge", I won't mention your substandard spelling. I'll leave the desperate "grammer-dodge" tactic to you. Now, where were we. Oh Yes! As I said, and which you so un-subtly evaded yet again AND AGAIN, "If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to camoflage your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!" Now, would you like YET ANOTHER drubbing or are ya' done yet? Spank you very much, Your pal, -=jd=- You just stood there screaming Fearing no one was listening to you They say the empty can rattles the most The sound of your voice must soothe you Hearing only what you want to hear And knowing only what you’ve heard You you’re smothered in tragedy You’re out to save the world Misery You insist that the weight of the world Should be on your shoulders Misery There’s much more to life than what you see My friend of misery You still stood there screaming No one caring about these words you tell My friend before your voice is gone One man’s fun is another’s hell These times are sent to try men’s souls But something’s wrong with all you see You you’ll take it on all yourself Remember, misery loves company Misery You insist that the weight of the world Should be on your shoulders Misery There’s much more to life than what you see My friend of misery You just stood there creaming My friend of misery -Hetfield/Ulrich |
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:01:35 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: So nice to see we have another college poseur Not a poseur -- I have the degree to prove it. on staff here in R.R.S. "Sans" is a perfectly acceptable when used to indicate a "lack of" or "without". If you would like to get technical, there's this: [Sans: Middle English, from Old French, blend of Latin sine, without, and absenti, in the absence of, ablative of absentia, absence from absns, absent- present participle of abesse, to be away. See absent.] The fact remains that you couldn't be consistent in using a single language throughout a simple three-word phrase. Also, since you are now resorting to a "grammer-dodge", I won't mention your substandard spelling. At least I know how to spell "grammar". I'll leave the desperate "grammer-dodge" Still. tactic to you. Now, where were we. Oh Yes! As I said, and which you so un-subtly evaded yet again AND AGAIN, "If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to camoflage I also know how to spell "camouflage", o perfesser of grammer. your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!" Now, would you like YET ANOTHER drubbing or are ya' done yet? Yeah, drub me again -- you've already used this one twice. Spank you very much, I am not your monkey -- it's obviously very much spanked. Your pal, -=jd=- |
|
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:59:22 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: On Sat 10 Sep 2005 07:48:58p, wrote in message : On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:21:54 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: On Wed 07 Sep 2005 07:16:52p, wrote in message : On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:01:35 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: So nice to see we have another college poseur Not a poseur -- I have the degree to prove it. Yeah, the other poseur kept insisting the same... on staff here in R.R.S. "Sans" is a perfectly acceptable when used to indicate a "lack of" or "without". If you would like to get technical, there's this: [Sans: Middle English, from Old French, blend of Latin sine, without, and absenti, in the absence of, ablative of absentia, absence from absns, absent- present participle of abesse, to be away. See absent.] The fact remains that you couldn't be consistent in using a single language throughout a simple three-word phrase. Still resorting to a "grammer-dodge"? Also, since you are now resorting to a "grammer-dodge", I won't mention your substandard spelling. At least I know how to spell "grammar". Apparently, it affords you the opportunity to keep dodging the issue. I'll leave the desperate "grammer-dodge" Still. Same. tactic to you. Now, where were we. Oh Yes! As I said, and which you so un-subtly evaded yet again AND AGAIN, "If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to camoflage I also know how to spell "camouflage", o perfesser of grammer. I never claimed to have such a worthless degree. What can you do with it? Open a shop for "Paragraph Repair", be a "Hymn Coach"? I've only claimed that you can't support your own assertions on the issue at hand. your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted!" Now, would you like YET ANOTHER drubbing or are ya' done yet? Yeah, drub me again -- you've already used this one twice. Which *STILL* stands. There's no need to camoflage (Ha!) your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. So just to make sure you have no wiggle room, here is what you are incapable of refuting: I accused rickets of the following: I know you hope and wish for America to fail, if only to spite Bush... rickets, in his usual fumblimg, flailing manner, replied via question: Fail at what? What is success? I answered by overstating the obvious, as regards rickets Fail to succeed in it's military efforts, whether in large part or in small part, regardless of the various goals of those efforts. Rather, in your blind hatred for Bush, you would probably go so far as to sacrifice (in every sense of the word) the entire Republic to slake your thirst for spite and vengeance at being marginalized and rejected politically. Ain't that so... Then you, our newest college poseur, decided to chime in with the following dribble: I'm sorry, you must not have gotten the word that purple prose is no longer allowed on usenet. Please cancel your posting. You were then smacked back into your corner with the following note from me: If you can't deny my truths, just say so. There's no need to camoflage your lack of a substantive reply by ignoring the issue. That you feel too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted! Which still stands to this day! I have single-handedly reduced you to nothing more than "grammer-flames" (Oh Professor Poseur) as you continually attempt to dodge the issue. Though I should expect it, since you have nothing of substance to offer. In any event, that you feel too inadequate to frame a response, sans ad-hominem, is duly noted! Spank you yet again, Are ya done yet? -=jd=- Pardon me if I gave you the impression I give a rat's ass about your self-serving drivel. I'll consider that a resounding "No". -=jd=- Consider it your diseased snatch for all I care. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com