|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
15 Sep 2007 08:37:29 PM |
|
|
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
Do you still beat your wife and rape your children - and why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "never@million" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
15 Sep 2007 10:43:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:37:29 -0500, Sanders Kaufman
<bucky@kaufman.net> wrote:
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
Do you still beat your wife and rape your children - and why?
Hey! you are very original. Are you married and have children?
DCI
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
17 Sep 2007 10:21:47 AM |
|
|
<never@million> wrote in message
news:nh9pe3da6cb2fese96bccrrfffm4v685lp@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:37:29 -0500, Sanders Kaufman
<bucky@kaufman.net> wrote:
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
Do you still beat your wife and rape your children - and why?
Hey! you are very original. Are you married and have children?
DCI
Hey! Why don't you define success.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Canoza" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
15 Sep 2007 04:36:23 PM |
|
|
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
You can't define any "success" for Iraq. Whatever
***** you come up with to call "success" now is not
important.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Okamura" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
15 Sep 2007 07:51:21 PM |
|
|
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13eok2b85diq500@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
You can't define any "success" for Iraq. Whatever ***** you come up
with to call "success" now is not important.
I asked the question, is success in Iraq important or is it not important,
and why? So, once again, is success important or is it not important, and
why? And in direct response to your point, why is success now not
important?
.
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
17 Sep 2007 10:20:09 AM |
|
|
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46ec7e08$0$32492$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13eok2b85diq500@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
You can't define any "success" for Iraq. Whatever ***** you come up
with to call "success" now is not important.
I asked the question, is success in Iraq important or is it not important,
and why? So, once again, is success important or is it not important, and
why? And in direct response to your point, why is success now not
important?
In order to answer your question you will have to pick one of the 9
different reasons that have been developed over the last 5 years for being
in Iraq.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rip" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
17 Sep 2007 12:57:13 AM |
|
|
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46ec7e08$0$32492$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13eok2b85diq500@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
You can't define any "success" for Iraq. Whatever ***** you come up
with to call "success" now is not important.
I asked the question, is success in Iraq important or is it not important,
and why? So, once again, is success important or is it not important, and
why? And in direct response to your point, why is success now not
important?
You're not defining the word "success". That's the problem. What is the goal
of your "success". When did we start working to achieve it? Are you sure
your "success" is the same as the president's? (Watch out there)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Canoza" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
15 Sep 2007 08:08:00 PM |
|
|
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13eok2b85diq500@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
You can't define any "success" for Iraq. Whatever ***** you come
up with to call "success" now is not important.
I asked the question,
It was a typically sleazy jerry question, jerry. See
below.
is success in Iraq important or is it not
important, and why? So, once again, is success important or is it not
important, and why?
What do you mean by "success", jerry? Why are you
leaving that undefined, jerry? Do you think you're
being cute or clever by leaving it undefined, shitbag?
And in direct response to your point, why is
success now not important?
Define "success in Iraq", jerry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rip" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
17 Sep 2007 01:00:32 AM |
|
|
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13ep0f3rh0jvaf6@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13eok2b85diq500@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
You can't define any "success" for Iraq. Whatever ***** you come up
with to call "success" now is not important.
I asked the question,
It was a typically sleazy jerry question, jerry. See below.
is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why? So, once
again, is success important or is it not important, and why?
What do you mean by "success", jerry? Why are you leaving that undefined,
jerry? Do you think you're being cute or clever by leaving it undefined,
shitbag?
And in direct response to your point, why is success now not important?
Define "success in Iraq", jerry.
Jez, Rudy. I just answered him the same way you did. You're becoming more
like me every day :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rudy Canoza" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
17 Sep 2007 10:24:21 AM |
|
|
Rip wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13ep0f3rh0jvaf6@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13eok2b85diq500@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
You can't define any "success" for Iraq. Whatever ***** you come up
with to call "success" now is not important.
I asked the question,
It was a typically sleazy jerry question, jerry. See below.
is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why? So, once
again, is success important or is it not important, and why?
What do you mean by "success", jerry? Why are you leaving that undefined,
jerry? Do you think you're being cute or clever by leaving it undefined,
shitbag?
And in direct response to your point, why is success now not important?
Define "success in Iraq", jerry.
Jez, Rudy. I just answered him the same way you did. You're becoming more
like me every day :)
I'm standing stock-still up on the moral high ground.
Since I responded before you, I'd say you're the one
making the shift.
Anyway, you'll have noted by now that jerry whiffed off
completely. I've seen him off on this kind of thing
before, and this is typical behavior for him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "snakehawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
15 Sep 2007 08:20:46 PM |
|
|
On Sep 15, 8:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13eok2b85diq500@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
You can't define any "success" for Iraq. Whatever ***** you come
up with to call "success" now is not important.
I asked the question,
It was a typically sleazy jerry question, jerry. See
below.
is success in Iraq important or is it not
important, and why? So, once again, is success important or is it not
important, and why?
What do you mean by "success", jerry? Why are you
leaving that undefined, jerry? Do you think you're
being cute or clever by leaving it undefined, shitbag?
And in direct response to your point, why is
success now not important?
Define "success in Iraq", jerry.
Success in Iraq is extremely important. It is important that Iraq
regain its sovereignty. It is important that Iraq remain intact. It
is important that Iraq retain the right to all of its oil, free from
interference from outside influences. It is important for Iraq to be
ruled by one government. It is important that the Kurds either pledge
their allegiance to a united Iraq or that the Kurds leave the
country. It is important that all foreign troops leave Iraq--
immediately. It is important that the United States pay Iraq damages
in the sum of approximately $5 billion annually for the next fifty
years--the money can be available by cutting off Israel's annual
welfare payments and shifting the payments to Iraq. That's only
fair. That is the only way the United States can truly say it
succeeded in Iraq. That is the only kind of success that is very
important.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
15 Sep 2007 10:59:35 PM |
|
|
snakehawk wrote:
On Sep 15, 8:08 pm, Rudy Canoza <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote:
Jerry Okamura wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-can...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:13eok2b85diq500@corp.supernews.com...
Jerry Okamura wrote:
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
You can't define any "success" for Iraq. Whatever ***** you
come up with to call "success" now is not important.
I asked the question,
It was a typically sleazy jerry question, jerry. See
below.
is success in Iraq important or is it not
important, and why? So, once again, is success important or is it
not important, and why?
What do you mean by "success", jerry? Why are you
leaving that undefined, jerry? Do you think you're
being cute or clever by leaving it undefined, shitbag?
And in direct response to your point, why is
success now not important?
Define "success in Iraq", jerry.
Success in Iraq is extremely important. It is important that Iraq
regain its sovereignty. It is important that Iraq remain intact. It
is important that Iraq retain the right to all of its oil, free from
interference from outside influences. It is important for Iraq to be
ruled by one government. It is important that the Kurds either pledge
their allegiance to a united Iraq or that the Kurds leave the
country. It is important that all foreign troops leave Iraq--
immediately. It is important that the United States pay Iraq damages
in the sum of approximately $5 billion annually for the next fifty
years--the money can be available by cutting off Israel's annual
welfare payments and shifting the payments to Iraq. That's only
fair. That is the only way the United States can truly say it
succeeded in Iraq. That is the only kind of success that is very
important.
No "success" is possible in
bush,jr's ill conceived fiasco.
The Iraqi "government" continued
to crumble as Moktar el Sadr
pulled his group out today.
The Iraqi parliament is as
empty as bush,jr's head and
the heads of his few
remaining supporters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
16 Sep 2007 01:36:57 AM |
|
|
Sid9 wrote:
No "success" is possible in
bush,jr's ill conceived fiasco.
That's not true. Since the war was the goal, the success was had on
"Mission Accomplished" day.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
15 Sep 2007 08:39:24 PM |
|
|
Jerry Okamura wrote:
I asked the question, is success in Iraq important or is it not
important, and why? So, once again, is success important or is it not
important, and why? And in direct response to your point, why is
success now not important?
Failing to define success, you only asked half of a question.
While that may be enough for half-witted Christians and Islamic
militants - it's not enough for decent, intelligent people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "never@million" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
15 Sep 2007 10:44:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:39:24 -0500, Sanders Kaufman
<bucky@kaufman.net> wrote:
Jerry Okamura wrote:
I asked the question, is success in Iraq important or is it not
important, and why? So, once again, is success important or is it not
important, and why? And in direct response to your point, why is
success now not important?
Failing to define success, you only asked half of a question.
While that may be enough for half-witted Christians and Islamic
militants - it's not enough for decent, intelligent people.
Have you met any decent intelligent people? How would you know?
DCI
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Must support the troops not a good argument |
17 Sep 2007 10:18:45 AM |
|
|
Mission was "accomplished" years ago.
"Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46ec4e43$0$32517$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Is success in Iraq important or is it not important, and why?
"grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message
news:13eljk99gfv91eb@corp.supernews.com...
Junior and his minions keep saying congress has to keep funding the
military because the troops need the money.
In other words preying on sympathy for the troops (reminds me of a
little boy insulting other boys while peeking around his mother's
skirts).
Doesn't anybody else see that junior and his minions are more than
willing to put these same troops into an untenable situation while
running them into the ground? Brenner even states their sacrifice is
worth it in the long run.
I guess their sympathy for the troops evaporates once they get the money.
.
|
|
|
|
