30-year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War

In article <1192219219.868552.11410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,
recscubaposter@yahoo.com says...
-On Oct 12, 1:14 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-
-gmail.com> wrote:
-> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:20:55 -0700, RecScubaPoster
->
-> <recscubapos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-> > It's the title of an article fuckwit.
->
-> So, if they can't even do simple math correctly, you think that
-> anything else they say would be more accurate?
-
-Their arithmetic was spot on fuckwit.

right, WitLess
-
-
-
-

--
Bob Crownfield
crownfield@verizon.net

In article <1192229472.406596.287070@i38g2000prf.googlegroups .com>,
recscubaposter@yahoo.com says...
-On Oct 12, 3:10 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-
-gmail.com> wrote:
-> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:00:19 -0700, RecScubaPoster
->
-> <recscubapos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-> > Their arithmetic was spot on fuckwit.
->
-> Oh, so it's just an old fuckin' article that you posted without
-> correcting the date / elapsed time on... OK, perhaps their date
-> calculations don't make them an idiot... Unfortunately, you can't use
-> that same excuse...
->
-> --
-> "I'd insult you, but you're not bright enough to notice."
-
-It was the title of the article fuckwit.

"I'd insult you, but you're not bright enough to notice."

-
-

--
Bob Crownfield
crownfield@verizon.net

In article <1192229854.084539.207090@v23g2000prn.googlegroups .com>,
recscubaposter@yahoo.com says...
-On Oct 12, 3:14 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-
-gmail.com> wrote:
-> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:05:14 -0700, RecScubaPoster
->
-> <recscubapos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-> > Your inability to place it the context of current events doesn't
-> > surprise me one little bit fuckwit.
->
-> "I'd like to see it from your viewpoint, but I can't get my head that
-> far up my ass"
-
-"Youd hafta pull ya head outta ya cunt before you cun stick it
-up ya ass. Tha ain't hapnin punk."

.... said the anonymous blowhard...

-
-

--
Bob Crownfield
crownfield@verizon.net

"crownfield" <crownfield@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2179cbd8550cc73e9896b8@news.verizon.net.. .

<chop the typical Nisarel vomit>

> -It's the title of an article fuckwit.
>
> hey yourself, fuckwitless.
> the number is still wrong.
>
> your choice of authors shows your standards, or lack thereof.

Annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in
the armed forces from 1980 through 2004:
1980 .......... 2,392
1981 .......... 2,380
1982 .......... 2,318
1983 .......... 2,465
1984 .......... 1,999
1985 .......... 2,252
1986 .......... 1,984
1987 .......... 1,983
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 .......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 .......... 1,040
1996 .......... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 .......... 774
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1007
2003 .......... 1,410 ----- 534*
2004 .......... 1,887 ----- 900*
2005 .......... 919*
2006 .......... 920*
* Figures are Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
fatalities only.

Does this really mean that the loss from the two current conflicts in
the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during
Mr. Clinton's presidency?
Were we at war?

Now, are you confused when you look at these figures?

Especially look at 1980, during the reign of President "Nobel
Peace Prize, Jimmy Carter" himself, there were 2,392 US military
fatalities.

What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal
politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts
that support their agenda driven reporting.

Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that
these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities. Wrong
again - The latest census shows the following:

European descent (white) ... 69.12%
Hispanic .. 12.5%
African American ..... 12.3%
Asian ..... 3.7%
Native American ..... 1.0%
Other ..... 2.6%

Now, the fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom
are:
European descent (white) ..... 74.31%
Hispanic ..... 10.74%
African American ..... 9.67%
Asian ..... 1.81%
Native American ... .. 1.09%
Other ..... 2.33%


These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal
> politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts
> that support their agenda driven reporting.

Exactly.

For instance, look at Table 6 in your cite(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
natsec/RL32492.pdf)

It shows number of wounded from Operation Oil Freedom at 23,417, and
number of amputations at 472. In the Korean War, there were 103,284
wounded and 1,477 amputations. Therefore we've already run up a fifth
of the wounded toll and a fourth of the amputation toll of the entire
Korean War. And that was a real war. At least the kids in that war
lost their legs for something meaningful, i.e. ensuring South Korea
stayed free long enough to undercut the U.S. steel industry and bring
down the entire industrial half of the military-industrial complex.

"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end
in sight" -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Ret., former commander of all
U.S. forces in Iraq.

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:1192340705.377730.295640@v23g2000prn.googlegr oups.com...
> On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal
> > politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts
> > that support their agenda driven reporting.
>
> Exactly.
>
> For instance, look at Table 6 in your cite(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
> natsec/RL32492.pdf)
>
> It shows number of wounded from Operation Oil Freedom at 23,417, and
> number of amputations at 472. In the Korean War, there were 103,284
> wounded and 1,477 amputations. Therefore we've already run up a fifth
> of the wounded toll and a fourth of the amputation toll of the entire
> Korean War. And that was a real war.

Hmmm . . as I understood it, mayhap the Koreans called it a war, but the
'mercans called it a police action or the Korean conflict to avoid
polictical ramifications.

>At least the kids in that war
> lost their legs for something meaningful, i.e. ensuring South Korea
> stayed free long enough to undercut the U.S. steel industry and bring
> down the entire industrial half of the military-industrial complex.
>


> "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end
> in sight" -- Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Ret., former commander of all
> U.S. forces in Iraq.
>
>
>

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:1192340705.377730.295640@v23g2000prn.googlegr oups.com...
> On Oct 13, 6:03 pm, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal
>> politicians pick and choose, and they tend to present only those facts
>> that support their agenda driven reporting.
>
> Exactly.
>
> For instance, look at Table 6 in your cite(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
> natsec/RL32492.pdf)
>
> It shows number of wounded from Operation Oil Freedom at 23,417, and
> number of amputations at 472. In the Korean War, there were 103,284
> wounded and 1,477 amputations. Therefore we've already run up a fifth
> of the wounded toll and a fourth of the amputation toll of the entire
> Korean War.

Liberal logic at it's finest.

Ah.... do you know how long the Korean Conflict was, or are you trying to
make Scott's argument for him?

Thanks for pointing out that we've got 80% less casualties than an
excursion that was half as long.

We lost about 6600 Marines in 36 days on Iwo.

Good luck with the election.

> And that was a real war. At least the kids in that war
> lost their legs for something meaningful, i.e. ensuring South Korea
> stayed free long enough to undercut the U.S. steel industry and bring
> down the entire industrial half of the military-industrial complex.

"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
message news:13h3pt8djrhajb2@news.supernews.com...

> Liberal logic at it's finest.

Talk about "mutually exclusive";

Liberal

Logic

Finest

> Ah.... do you know how long the Korean Conflict was, or are you trying
to
> make Scott's argument for him?

Like always...

> Thanks for pointing out that we've got 80% less casualties than an
> excursion that was half as long.
>
> We lost about 6600 Marines in 36 days on Iwo.

Dont bore him with petty details, he is busy spinning another lie.

> Good luck with the election.

I cant wait.

Wonder what they'll blame it on this time...

On Oct 14, 2:55 am, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick"

> Thanks for pointing out that we've got 80% less casualties than an
> excursion that was half as long.

But that was a real war. We're not fighting anyone in Iraq now. The
war part is over, Bush declared victory, we got Saddam. And they've
stressed over and over again there's no civil war going on, just a
little bit of insurgency. We're merely occupiers of occupied
territory, dying for the "cause" whatever that is.

> Good luck with the election.

Thanks. Congratulations on your fellow Tennesseean winning the Peace
Prize.

On Oct 14, 3:58 am, "Scott" <pugetsounddi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Good luck with the election.
>
> I cant wait.
>
> Wonder what they'll blame it on this time...

So which one of the four conservative rich white guys are you rooting
for, the corrupt pro-choice Italian, the flip-flopping Mormon, the
Arizona guy running for his 15th time or so, or the guy who plays a
real politician on TV?

"Without reservation or any hesitation I am proud to endorse Hillary
Clinton to be the next Democratic nominee to be president of the
United States" -- Rep. John Lewis.

(The son of sharecroppers, Lewis, 67, rose to fame as one of the
"Freedom Riders" promoting civil rights in the South. He was badly
beaten by police during a nonviolent civil rights march from Selma to
Montgomery, Ala., in 1961, and still bears scars from the experience.
Lewis also served as director of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee, one of the major civil rights organizations of the era. He
was elected to Congress in 1986.)

Will Republicans rally aroud a pro-choice pro-gay candidate with
serious family values issues in his own family and hauntings of shady
business dealings in his past? Will they choose a Mormon instead,
someone who used to be pro-gay when it was politically expedient, but
now is anti-gay because it's politically expedient? What about John
McCain who's run in every single presidential primary since George
Washington's time?

Naw, it will probably be the standard Republican default candidate:
when in doubt, choose an actor. Worked for Reagan, worked for Arnie,
why not Thompson? As Dan Bartlett put it, the campaign's biggest dud.

The most recent poll is by NPR (Oct. 4-7), showing Hillary over Rudy
47 to 44, Hillary over Fred 50 to 42. The generic "Democrat" over the
generic "Republican" by an overwhelming 49 to 36 with 13% unsure, and
other polls have already indicated the undecideds are leaning Democrat
these days.

Rudy is already down by 3 and that's before the national campaign
publicizes all the dirt against him. That's the best thing about
Hillary - all the dirt's already out there and she's still ahead.

Madam President in 2008!