OT For Louie From Bob Kerrey

On Tue, 02 May 2006 00:24:11 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:

... I do
agree with you that this current brouhaha is an attempt by the mullahs(via
their puppet president) to rally the natives with a patriotic and popular
premise: that Iran deserves to be a nuclear power if we are going to allow
Pakistan, India and North Korea in.

You've missed the elephant in the living room. Israel is
a nuclear power and no amount of sanctions or bombing will
ever prevent "the natives" from becoming a nuclear power
so long as Israel has the bomb.

If the US is hell bent on nuking rogue nuclear states, we'd
be better off in terms of our own national interest nuking
Israel instead of Iran.

Well, maybe, but if we do, I see Dave "Col. Flagg" Snedecker riding in
on the bomb, waving his tinfoil beret and squealing like a Fire Island
fag at a Mizrahi trunk show...

Peace and love,
Dr. Strange

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

You've missed the elephant in the living room. Israel is
a nuclear power and no amount of sanctions or bombing will
ever prevent "the natives" from becoming a nuclear power
so long as Israel has the bomb.

If the US is hell bent on nuking rogue nuclear states, we'd
be better off in terms of our own national interest nuking
Israel instead of Iran.

that development is old history. Yes, the allowance of Israeli nukes is a
sore spot in the region. I forgot to mention them, but no doubt Israel is a
key ingredient driving Iranians to demand nuclear status. Whether Israel
could act with the impunity they showed with Iraq again would be an
interesting question. I, for some reason, doubt they would do much unless
there were clear evidence of near-bomb readiness, but frankly, that is just
a guess(commonplace on ROFF, just seldom admitted-to).
Tom

"Wolfgang" wrote in message

Yeah, otherwise they'd probably have a kiosk set up at the Mall of
America,
huh?

Wolfgang

Boy o Boy, is the midwest a cultural wasteland! They not only had a kiosk at
King of Prussia, but were set up for donations next to the Salvation Army
dudes......
don't bogart that..oh, nevermind,
Tom

That brings up an interesting point (to me anyways) is why we are not up in
arms about Israel's nuclear technology. They are not a charter nuclear
nation, but I doubt anyone would argue that they have nuclear weapons
technology.

Benjamin Turek wrote:
That brings up an interesting point (to me anyways) is why we are not up in
arms about Israel's nuclear technology. They are not a charter nuclear
nation, but I doubt anyone would argue that they have nuclear weapons
technology.

Jews invented nuclear physics. So you think they wouldn't have a bomb? Oy!

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Mon, 1 May 2006 19:53:19 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
...note that bin Laden (and al
Queda/Islamic nutcases in general) has kept a pretty low profile as far
as activity against the US since Afghanistan and Iraq, courtesy of Bush,
Cheney, and Co....

Yeah, otherwise they'd probably have a kiosk set up at the Mall of America,
huh?

Yep, pretty much - prior to the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and
Saddam in Iraq, but after 9/11, they were a lot more open and
confrontationally operational worldwide.

Now, even "Islamic" countries, whether they have secular or Islamic
governments, are at least distancing themselves, if not actively
containing the elements, resources, and activity of the al Queda-type
radicals.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 May 2006 19:53:19 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
...note that bin Laden (and al
Queda/Islamic nutcases in general) has kept a pretty low profile as far
as activity against the US since Afghanistan and Iraq, courtesy of Bush,
Cheney, and Co....

Yeah, otherwise they'd probably have a kiosk set up at the Mall of
America,
huh?

Yep, pretty much - prior to the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and
Saddam in Iraq, but after 9/11, they were a lot more open and
confrontationally operational worldwide.

My mistake. I thought we were talking about post 9/11.

Now, even "Islamic" countries, whether they have secular or Islamic
governments, are at least distancing themselves, if not actively
containing the elements, resources, and activity of the al Queda-type
radicals.

My mistake. I thought we were talking about Bush, Cheney, and Co.

Wolfgang
aaaand we're off!

On Mon, 1 May 2006 20:32:11 -0500, "Wolfgang" wrote:


Wolfgang
aaaand we're off!

Well, duh...you (and your imaginary "we") have been "off" in at least
two senses for as long as you've been posting to ROFF...and while I'd
guess long before that, I've found no evidence...well, you know...

Excuse me for butting in, but . . . . . .

Dave LaCourse wrote:
On 1 May 2006 11:42:03 -0700, "
wrote:

[a lot of venomous slander]


Point it out, please.

The charity thingy? Read all about it in the Boston Globe.

First PH: His crew said there was no action. The doc that removed it
said it was US.

The crew said no such thing.

The doc said no such thing. He did say that is was a very small piece
of metal, and that he removed/treated it.

Second PH: First ever issued for rice in the buttocks. Too funny!

Actually, you are talking about the PH that was awarded during the
Bronze Star incident, on March 13, 1969.

He did not get a PH for the wound you mentioned. It was for another
wound.

Third: Again, the crew said there was no action.

You mean the second (I am going chronologically, not by the dates on
the award itself) PH. The crew said no such thing. One person (two?) on
another boat made that claim.

Bronze Star ? Read the story. A group of boats (4 or 5)

Five. . . .

where in the
river, one hit a mine. All the boats except Kerry's came forward to
rescue the men in the water. The Army dude who Kerry saved was
knocked overboard when Kerry made a brief turn *away* from the action
(which wasn't even an action, just a mine explostion).

Again, not quite.

When that boat hit the mine, Kerry's boat was all the way on the other
side of the river -- perhaps 150-200 yards away. He initially did what
he's supposed to do -- told his guy to accelerate. He then thought he
hit a mine himself (later they figured the boat probably just hit a
stump or a piece of wood floating in the river) . . . . . . and he
didn't "turn" away from the action. He went forward momentarily, before
turning back.

Of the 32-35 guys present on those five boats, at least 11 have come
forward to say there was fire from the shoreline.

Only four have come forward to say there wasn't. One of those four
tried to keep anyone from seeing the Bronze Star citation he received
for that same action, so it was obtained by a FOIA request. And guess
what? It says there was fire coming from the shoreline.

SS? For shooting a wounded un-armed teen-ager fleeing the scene?
Riiiight!

Another falsehood. His name was Ba Thanh, and he was 27 years old. He
was armed with a B-40. He was a threat to the boat and the crew.

Oh, and I believe earlier in this thread you said he was shot in the
back. That is not correct.

Furthermore, that (shooting Ba Thanh) is but a small, minor part of the
reason he received that award.

You might consider looking further than Unfit for Command (or
anti-Kerry websites) for information on Kerry, as some of what you have
said above is provably false.

His actions at home after the war? He lied to Congress. He lied to
the American people. He threw away his medals, *that's* how much they
meant to him. But, they are now displayed in his Senate office. Liar
and hypocrite.

His medals are not in his senate office. Please find one first-hand
account of someone who says the have seen them there -- just one.

What you will find is a repeated rumor that began, well, who knows
where, that states the medals are up on the wall of his office.

Common knowledge he went to Paris to speak to the Communists at the
peace talks, without authorization.

Discharge (and medals) were probably changed when Carter gave amnesty
to all after he got in office. Kerry's discharge papers were signed
by a "board of officers" as stated on his web site. He more than
likely lost his medals and was given an undesirable or bad conduct
discharge which was later changed under Carter. The date on his
discharge papers coincides with the Carter presidency.

Once again, an unproven slur, founded on nothing more than the word of
the anti-Kerry crowd. Strangely enough, no one has come forward to say
they were involved in any of this. I guess all that paperwork and
decision-making process, over all those years, was done by the hand of
God, not a series of clerks, officers, etc.

Doug Reese

OTT, Bunky, how's your day going? d;o)

Sort of discouraging to know Bush has three more years, eh? d;o)

I did a google search on it, I didn't get any results that I could
understand.