Re: Nuke 'Em Again!!

Peter Allen said:

Larry Hodges said:

No. We won. So, it was a win / lose situation. We won, they lost.
I like that outcome.

So when did the war end?

As far as Japan is concerned, Sept. 2, 1945 at 0904 hours when they signed
the surrender papers aboard the US battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Quoted message said:

If it's over why are soldiers still being killed?

umm...it's a new war? Was that a trick question or are you that slow?

Quoted message said:

You're in good company here anyway, Larry - the Nobel committee
thought the way you did. They awarded the 1973 Peace Prize to
Kissinger for bringing peace to Vietnam, but now people put the end
of the war as 1975 when America pulled out.

Contact me in 10 years and £10 is yours if the current Iraq war
hasn't gone down broadly similar lines.

I only hope you're wrong, but I won't take that bet. We don't have the
balls to do what it takes anymore to win a war. We're trying to win a
politically correct war and we will never prevail that way.

Understand I am no proponent of war. War is ugly. But, in the case of the
Muslin Extremists, it is the only option we have. We can extend a had of
peace, and they'll just chop it off. The only thing that would prevent them
from attempting to destroy us would be for us to become a Muslim nation.
That isn't going to happen. So, for our own survival, we need to be less
concerned about collateral damage and kick some ass so we don't end up
fighting a war like Vietnam. Unfortunately, we'll have to take another big
hit before people are willing to accept that.

Quoted message said:

Peter

--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer

Larry Hodges said:

Peter Allen said:

Larry Hodges said:

No. We won. So, it was a win / lose situation. We won, they lost.
I like that outcome.

So when did the war end?

As far as Japan is concerned, Sept. 2, 1945 at 0904 hours when they
signed the surrender papers aboard the US battleship Missouri in
Tokyo Bay.

Quoted message said:

If it's over why are soldiers still being killed?

umm...it's a new war? Was that a trick question or are you that slow?

I thought you were referring to the current Iraq war at that point in your
post - if not then obviously my point's invalid.

Peter

Larry Hodges said:

Understand I am no proponent of war. War is ugly. But, in the case of the
Muslin Extremists, it is the only option we have.

No, actually, it's not. You just have a limited imagination and poor
concept of statesmanship.

Just because you haven't thought of any other option doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Fact is, hardly any Americans anywhere ever have been
killed by your so-called Muslin Extremists. 800,000 Iranians died in a
10 year war with Iraq (who lost 200,000 to it - a million muslims dead
in the 80's) and only a few handful of Americans were involved.

London is fairly overrun with Muslims. The South of France is seriously
trying to legislate hijabs in schools. Islam co-exists with
Christianity and Buddhism in thousands of places.

Bloodthirsty young men remain the same the world over, though. You want
to fight so you think up a reason.

Quoted message said:

We can extend a had of
peace, and they'll just chop it off. The only thing that would prevent them
from attempting to destroy us would be for us to become a Muslim nation.
That isn't going to happen. So, for our own survival, we need to be less
concerned about collateral damage and kick some ass so we don't end up
fighting a war like Vietnam. Unfortunately, we'll have to take another big
hit before people are willing to accept that.

You are bloodthirsty. In other words, if they extend the hand of peace,
you'll just chop it off. You want to attempt to destroy them without
regard to "collateral" damage. You don't mind using atomic weapons if
there's a strategic reason.

And you're so sure they're the bad guys.

Dally

Larry Hodges said:

Understand I am no proponent of war. War is ugly. But, in the case of the
Muslin Extremists, it is the only option we have.

No, actually, it's not. You just have a limited imagination and poor
concept of statesmanship.

Just because you haven't thought of any other option doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Fact is, hardly any Americans anywhere ever have been
killed by your so-called Muslin Extremists. 800,000 Iranians died in a
10 year war with Iraq (who lost 200,000 to it - a million muslims dead
in the 80's) and only a few handful of Americans were involved.

London is fairly overrun with Muslims. The South of France is seriously
trying to legislate hijabs in schools. Islam co-exists with
Christianity and Buddhism in thousands of places.

Bloodthirsty young men remain the same the world over, though. You want
to fight so you think up a reason.

Quoted message said:

We can extend a had of
peace, and they'll just chop it off. The only thing that would prevent them
from attempting to destroy us would be for us to become a Muslim nation.
That isn't going to happen. So, for our own survival, we need to be less
concerned about collateral damage and kick some ass so we don't end up
fighting a war like Vietnam. Unfortunately, we'll have to take another big
hit before people are willing to accept that.

You are bloodthirsty. In other words, if they extend the hand of peace,
you'll just chop it off. You want to attempt to destroy them without
regard to "collateral" damage. You don't mind using atomic weapons if
there's a strategic reason.

And you're so sure they're the bad guys.

Dally

Larry Hodges said:

Understand I am no proponent of war. War is ugly. But, in the case of the
Muslin Extremists, it is the only option we have.

But Iraq had nothing to do with cracking down on religious fundamentalists.

Saddam was a ruthless military dictator, but not a fundamentalist (in fact he
was arguably one of the fundies worst enemies in the region). The fundies in
Iraq will probably gain more influence as a result of Saddam's departure.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Dally said:

Larry Hodges said:

Understand I am no proponent of war. War is ugly. But, in the case
of the Muslin Extremists, it is the only option we have.

No, actually, it's not. You just have a limited imagination and poor
concept of statesmanship.

Just because you haven't thought of any other option doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Fact is, hardly any Americans anywhere ever have been
killed by your so-called Muslin Extremists. 800,000 Iranians died in
a 10 year war with Iraq (who lost 200,000 to it - a million muslims
dead in the 80's) and only a few handful of Americans were involved.

I'll remember you said that after they nuke Chicago.

Quoted message said:

London is fairly overrun with Muslims. The South of France is
seriously trying to legislate hijabs in schools. Islam co-exists with
Christianity and Buddhism in thousands of places.

So? Was there a point in this? How many Buddhists are blowing up
themselves on buses?

Quoted message said:

Bloodthirsty young men remain the same the world over, though. You
want to fight so you think up a reason.

You want to be a pacifist, so you think up excuses not to fight. Even if it
means losing your Country. How sad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We can extend a had of
peace, and they'll just chop it off. The only thing that would
prevent them from attempting to destroy us would be for us to become
a Muslim nation. That isn't going to happen. So, for our own
survival, we need to be less concerned about collateral damage and
kick some ass so we don't end up fighting a war like Vietnam.
Unfortunately, we'll have to take another big hit before people are
willing to accept that.

You are bloodthirsty. In other words, if they extend the hand of
peace, you'll just chop it off. You want to attempt to destroy them
without regard to "collateral" damage. You don't mind using atomic
weapons if there's a strategic reason.

First of all, they are not extending a hand of peace. If you think that,
you're even more stupid that I thought, which would be an accomplishment.

And no, I don't mind using an atomic solution if it means the survival of
the US.

Quoted message said:

And you're so sure they're the bad guys.

Yep. Absolutely sure. The problem is you Libs can't see that even with the
facts right in front of your face. You have a sad existence shouldering all
that guilt for being an American.

Quoted message said:

Dally

--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer

Larry Hodges said:

Dally said:

Larry Hodges said:

Understand I am no proponent of war. War is ugly. But, in the case
of the Muslin Extremists, it is the only option we have.

No, actually, it's not. You just have a limited imagination and poor
concept of statesmanship.

Just because you haven't thought of any other option doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. Fact is, hardly any Americans anywhere ever have been
killed by your so-called Muslin Extremists. 800,000 Iranians died in
a 10 year war with Iraq (who lost 200,000 to it - a million muslims
dead in the 80's) and only a few handful of Americans were involved.

I'll remember you said that after they nuke Chicago.

Quoted message said:

London is fairly overrun with Muslims. The South of France is
seriously trying to legislate hijabs in schools. Islam co-exists with
Christianity and Buddhism in thousands of places.

So? Was there a point in this? How many Buddhists are blowing up
themselves on buses?

I don't recall any. However, Muslims have been busily beheading
Buddhists in Southern Thailand -- ten in the last 18 months -- in
addition to small arms, explosive, and arson attacks. Maybe Dally
wasn't aware of that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bloodthirsty young men remain the same the world over, though. You
want to fight so you think up a reason.

You want to be a pacifist, so you think up excuses not to fight. Even if it
means losing your Country. How sad.

Sad, but too often true.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Larry Hodges said:

Unfortunately, we'll have to take another big
hit before people are willing to accept that.

You're an [censored] Larry, but a correct [censored] in this case, and that
really sucks...

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Larry Hodges said:

Unfortunately, we'll have to take another big
hit before people are willing to accept that.

You're an [censored] Larry, but a correct [censored] in this case, and that
really sucks...

I wish I were wrong....
--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Larry Hodges said:

Unfortunately, we'll have to take another big
hit before people are willing to accept that.

You're an [censored] Larry, but a correct [censored] in this case, and that
really sucks...

I wish I were wrong....
--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-08-08, Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Understand I am no proponent of war. War is ugly. But,
in the case of the Muslin Extremists, it is the only option
we have.

Quoted message said:

But Iraq had nothing to do with cracking down on religious fundamentalists.
Saddam was a ruthless military dictator, but not a fundamentalist (in fact he
was arguably one of the fundies worst enemies in the region). The fundies in
Iraq will probably gain more influence as a result of Saddam's departure.

Good luck using facts, logic, or reason with Larry. His
"thought" process is dominated by fear, ignorance, and hate,
and he seems to have the same mentality as his enemies minus
the spine to fight for his convictions. He, like the macho
"men" on the bu$h regime, lets 18 year old kids do that for
him....

-

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country,
that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf [censored]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Donovan Rebbechi said:

On 2005-08-08, Larry Hodges <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Understand I am no proponent of war. War is ugly. But,
in the case of the Muslin Extremists, it is the only option
we have.

Quoted message said:

But Iraq had nothing to do with cracking down on religious fundamentalists.
Saddam was a ruthless military dictator, but not a fundamentalist (in fact he
was arguably one of the fundies worst enemies in the region). The fundies in
Iraq will probably gain more influence as a result of Saddam's departure.

Good luck using facts, logic, or reason with Larry. His
"thought" process is dominated by fear, ignorance, and hate,
and he seems to have the same mentality as his enemies minus
the spine to fight for his convictions. He, like the macho
"men" on the bu$h regime, lets 18 year old kids do that for
him....

-

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/pol/80315675.html

In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken
directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not
involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media.
McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl
Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion"
and "It's not true."
Yet another in the endless stirng of bu$h's lies.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country,
that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq would increase the
threat of terrorist attack in Britain. Tragically Londoners
have now paid the price of the Government ignoring such
warnings." Respect MP George Galloway 7-7-05

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook and blatant liar, on the rape,
torture and murder at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf [censored]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...