DebunkCreation at Yahoo! Groups

Re: Republican party

Mike Torsberg — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:54:19 GMT

________________________________ From: Brian To: DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 3:02:26 PM Subject:

Re: SUSPECT: RE A Nixonic Statement

buck12ga2000 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:47:09 GMT

... Thanks for the warning, Clive. [:D] Buck

Re: Republican party

buck12ga2000 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:39:51 GMT

... to "disarm Saddam Hussein and eliminate his weapons of mass destruction". Done. Indeed, since there WERE no "weapons of mass destruction", we achieved our

Re: Republican party

Michael Brass — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:08:57 GMT

... Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: Republican party

Michael Brass — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:07:44 GMT

... Yes you might lose less soldiers but you do then end up with higher civilian casualties. -- Regards, Mike http://www.antiquityofman.com

Re: Republican party

Michael Brass — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:07:16 GMT

... that the Britons had to buy a very large number of arms for a large number of troops, and were used to tactics that did not require particularly good

SUSPECT: RE A Nixonic Statement

Clive — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:42:23 GMT

Buck <<>> Cricket is in numerical

Re: Republican party

Lenny Flank — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:14:28 GMT

... effort are achieved. Well, as far as Iraq is concerned, the "goals of the war effort" were to "disarm Saddam Hussein and eliminate his weapons of mass

Re: Republican party

Mark L. Bakke — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:28:57 GMT

... BAKKE "Victory" is when the enemy surrenders or when the goals of the war effort are achieved. How are you going to achieve any victory if you essentially

Re: Republican party

Lenny Flank — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:21:56 GMT

... fighting or not, once you are committed to the fight, it makes no sense whatsoever to not allow your soldiers to conduct that fight in such a way as to

Re: Republican party

Mark L. Bakke — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:27:19 GMT

... BAKKE Sorry, but you're wrong. Whether you agree with the reason for fighting or not, once you are committed to the fight, it makes no sense whatsoever to

Re: Republican party

RAY PERREAULT — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:52:50 GMT

________________________________ From: Anne Gilbert To: DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 2:33:31 PM

Re: Republican party

Steve S — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:55:35 GMT

... My problems with this article are: 1) It makes it sound like all these decisions by the U.S. command were made without any provocation whatsoever. 2) While

Re: Republican party

RAY PERREAULT — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:19:06 GMT

________________________________ From: Brian To: DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 4:47:11 PM Subject:

Re: Republican party

Brian — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:47:22 GMT

... As you point out, by the Second Anglo-Boer war, the British forces were not remotely as naive anymore, and I would guess that even in the beginning stages