the third world - Heathrow airport

"Phil, Prince of the Belgians AKA chocolate teapot"
writes:

[the Iran hostage rescue mission]

: The aircraft weren't unreliable. They flew into a sandstorm. One of
: the remaining helicopters taxied into a C-130 because of reeduced
: visibility due to the same sandstorm. Haven't you ever read up on
: this?

I would call that un-reliable.

That's because you're an idiot. S'okay; we all have our crosses to bear.
I've actually flown professionally, and therefore have a realistic grasp
of what constitutes aircraft reliability and what doesn't. You?


: Ronnie didn't know anything about it at the time. But being a man's
: man, he stepped up to the proverbial plate and took responsibility
: for it once he'd learned.

Ronnie was in jail ?
I never knew.

Is that what I said?


[the cowardly British sailors and Marines]

By not resorting to force they are still alive, I would call that a
victory of common sense.

You're taking it as a given that resistance would've resulted in
their deaths. It quite likely would've prevented their capture. It
most certainly would not have emboldened Iran the way their surrender-
ing did.

Sometimes simply staying alive at all costs isn't properly a
military person's highest objective. 'Course, you've probably
never served in the military, which would go a long way toward
explaining your inability to grasp this. Moreover, the difference
in our views illustrates why my country is a superpower and yours
no longer is.


I should also add that I am slightly biased because there is an
Iranian branch to my family.

So piracy, lying and kidnapping are acceptable so long as they're
done by Iranians?


: I know of no foreign policy more decent than allying with an enemy
: of one's enemy.

thats because you are short sighted, like American foreign policy
(amongst other things).

You mean short-sighted like your own country was when it allied
with the USSR in order to defeat a more immediate threat from
Germany?


: Why is it that you Euroweenies believe America is the only country
: in the world that doesn't have the right to look out for its own
: interests? Your criticism is especially rich considering the way
: you all spent the Cold War cowering beneath the American nuclear
: umbrella.

but your own interests are not served by invading Iraq.

Of course they are. We wouldn't have invaded if they weren't.
Do you actually believe that you're in a better position to make
that evaluation than our government is?


Where there was sympathy after 9/11, now there is none.

You have it exactly backwards. It was the sympathy after
9/11 that was the aberration, not the hostility in the wake of
the Iraq invasion. 9/11 caused smug Europeans and other
America-haters to set aside their envy and petty resentment
for a time, and let their humanity shine through.


: Get back to me when you start paying for your own national
: defense, and then maybe we'll talk.

I doubt it. You will still be ranting blindly like George Dubya. (did
you see his speech about Wolfowitz......)

No. Why do you say he "ranted blindly?" Would that be "rant"
in the Usenet sense, as used to dismiss anything said by somebody
the poster happens not to like?


Your next president will be a Democrat and hopefully a woman.

Naah. No way we normal people will allow the Defeatocrats a
victory. Did you ever see that map of the U.S. following the
2004 presidential election, the one that depicted the "blue"
states along the coasts and in the Upper Midwest, separated
by a glorious sea of "red" states? That says it all. It's
still a bit early to make prognistications, but I suspect that
our next president will be Rudy Giuliani...a Republican.

As far as the next president being a woman is concerned, I'd
think you'd want the best candidate to get the job regardless
of the person's sex. You aren't a sexist, are you?



Geoff

--
"Miller is a member of the set of people who believe
their innate self-evident superiority puts them as
far above normal human beings as a Jane or Joe is
to an ant." -- Steve Thompson

On May 22, 9:31 am, (Geoff Miller) wrote:
"Phil, Prince of the Belgians AKA chocolate teapot"
writes:
: I know of no foreign policy more decent than allying with an enemy
: of one's enemy.

thats because you are short sighted, like American foreign policy
(amongst other things).

You mean short-sighted like your own country was when it allied
with the USSR in order to defeat a more immediate threat from
Germany?


So was the United States!

: Why is it that you Euroweenies believe America is the only country
: in the world that doesn't have the right to look out for its own
: interests? Your criticism is especially rich considering the way
: you all spent the Cold War cowering beneath the American nuclear
: umbrella.

but your own interests are not served by invading Iraq.

Of course they are. We wouldn't have invaded if they weren't.
Do you actually believe that you're in a better position to make
that evaluation than our government is?


They knew that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to terrorism, and invaded
anyway based on far-fetched schemes to remake the Middle East, and by
doing so diverted military and intelligence resources from the real
fight against terrorism in Afghanistan.

Your next president will be a Democrat and hopefully a woman.

Naah. No way we normal people will allow the Defeatocrats a
victory.


I thought there was an election in 2006. I might be wrong though.

Did you ever see that map of the U.S. following the
2004 presidential election, the one that depicted the "blue"
states along the coasts and in the Upper Midwest, separated
by a glorious sea of "red" states? That says it all.


It does say it all - all of the major cities went for the Democrats.

It's still a bit early to make prognistications, but I suspect that
our next president will be Rudy Giuliani...a Republican.


In national polls right now, any of Hillary, Obama or Edwards would
win any matchup with Giuliani, McCain or Romney, except for Hillary -
Giuliani, which is a tie. People are fed up with the Iraq war, with
the Republicans' corruption, and their inaction on poverty, health
care, and global warming.

On 22 May, 15:31, (Geoff Miller) wrote:
"Phil, Prince of the Belgians AKA chocolate teapot"

writes:

[the Iran hostage rescue mission]

: The aircraft weren't unreliable. They flew into a sandstorm. One of
: the remaining helicopters taxied into a C-130 because of reeduced
: visibility due to the same sandstorm. Haven't you ever read up on
: this?

I would call that un-reliable.

That's because you're an idiot. S'okay; we all have our crosses to bear.
I've actually flown professionally, and therefore have a realistic grasp
of what constitutes aircraft reliability and what doesn't. You?


a reliable aircraft reaches its destination, these did not.

: Ronnie didn't know anything about it at the time. But being a man's
: man, he stepped up to the proverbial plate and took responsibility
: for it once he'd learned.

Ronnie was in jail ?
I never knew.

Is that what I said?


I dont remember (thats what he said)


[the cowardly British sailors and Marines]

By not resorting to force they are still alive, I would call that a
victory of common sense.

You're taking it as a given that resistance would've resulted in
their deaths. It quite likely would've prevented their capture. It
most certainly would not have emboldened Iran the way their surrender-
ing did.

Sometimes simply staying alive at all costs isn't properly a
military person's highest objective. 'Course, you've probably
never served in the military, which would go a long way toward
explaining your inability to grasp this. Moreover, the difference
in our views illustrates why my country is a superpower and yours
no longer is.

I should also add that I am slightly biased because there is an
Iranian branch to my family.

So piracy, lying and kidnapping are acceptable so long as they're
done by Iranians?

or by the USA ??


: I know of no foreign policy more decent than allying with an enemy
: of one's enemy.

thats because you are short sighted, like American foreign policy
(amongst other things).

You mean short-sighted like your own country was when it allied
with the USSR in order to defeat a more immediate threat from
Germany?


which is my own country and does it matter ?

: Why is it that you Euroweenies believe America is the only country
: in the world that doesn't have the right to look out for its own
: interests? Your criticism is especially rich considering the way
: you all spent the Cold War cowering beneath the American nuclear
: umbrella.

but your own interests are not served by invading Iraq.

Of course they are. We wouldn't have invaded if they weren't.
Do you actually believe that you're in a better position to make
that evaluation than our government is?


no, like the Vietnam war it serves a couple of people in business very
well.

Where there was sympathy after 9/11, now there is none.

You have it exactly backwards. It was the sympathy after
9/11 that was the aberration, not the hostility in the wake of
the Iraq invasion. 9/11 caused smug Europeans and other
America-haters to set aside their envy and petty resentment
for a time, and let their humanity shine through.


and then the USA invaded Iraq and the humanity stopped.

: Get back to me when you start paying for your own national
: defense, and then maybe we'll talk.

I doubt it. You will still be ranting blindly like George Dubya. (did
you see his speech about Wolfowitz......)

No. Why do you say he "ranted blindly?" Would that be "rant"
in the Usenet sense, as used to dismiss anything said by somebody
the poster happens not to like?


you didnt see the speech, so you cant judge.


Your next president will be a Democrat and hopefully a woman.

Naah. No way we normal people will allow the Defeatocrats a
victory. Did you ever see that map of the U.S. following the
2004 presidential election, the one that depicted the "blue"
states along the coasts and in the Upper Midwest, separated
by a glorious sea of "red" states? That says it all. It's
still a bit early to make prognistications, but I suspect that
our next president will be Rudy Giuliani...a Republican.

As far as the next president being a woman is concerned, I'd
think you'd want the best candidate to get the job regardless
of the person's sex. You aren't a sexist, are you?


the US needs a change of tack, thats why it should be a woman.

Make credence recognised that on 22 May 2007 08:09:22 -0700, Iceman
has scripted:

On May 22, 9:31 am, (Geoff Miller) wrote:

Of course they are. We wouldn't have invaded if they weren't.
Do you actually believe that you're in a better position to make
that evaluation than our government is?


They knew that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to terrorism,

No one "knew" Iraq had no WMDs. That was all part of the ploy.

As Hans Blix said: "Personally, I found it peculiar that those who
wanted to take military action could - with 100 per cent certainty -
know that the weapons existed, and at the same time turn out to have
zero percent knowledge of where they were,"
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On 22 mei, 15:31, (Geoff Miller) wrote:

Sometimes simply staying alive at all costs isn't properly a
military person's highest objective. 'Course, you've probably
never served in the military, which would go a long way toward
explaining your inability to grasp this.

Tell us more about your military service Geoff - was it the Marines?

Or perhaps some other less perilous branch?

B;

Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
Make credence recognised that on 22 May 2007 08:09:22 -0700, Iceman
has scripted:

On May 22, 9:31 am, (Geoff Miller) wrote:

Of course they are. We wouldn't have invaded if they weren't.
Do you actually believe that you're in a better position to make
that evaluation than our government is?


They knew that Iraq had no WMDs and no ties to terrorism,

No one "knew" Iraq had no WMDs. That was all part of the ploy.

I personally know several who "knew" they had none. Blix replaced one of
them.

As Hans Blix said: "Personally, I found it peculiar that those who
wanted to take military action could - with 100 per cent certainty -
know that the weapons existed, and at the same time turn out to have
zero percent knowledge of where they were,"

Yep.



--
Don't try to email me;
I'm using the spammer
du jour's email addy