INTERESTING Information!!

[daceman63]

This was sent to me today. It was intersting info. so I thought to post it here. There could be a few good discussion points contained within......


WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:



There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January . That's just one American city, about as deadly as

the entire war-torn country of Iraq.


When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:


a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us ;

Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.


c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.

North Korea never attacked us . From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.

d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us .

e. Lyndon B. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us .
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.
But !
- It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take

the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation.


We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.


It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took

Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.



It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB< /B> < I> !
The Military morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts -


But Wait there's more!

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13


Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive
impromptu spee ch, bu t it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.


This IS a typical, though sad, example of what
some who have n ever s erved t hink of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senatewhen you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"I served 23 years in the United St ates Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job,

where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank."


"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day...to a veteran's hospital and look those men ...with their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell

Them they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA
and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White,

Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...and you look those kids in the eye

and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember,

and you watch those waving flags.


You stand! there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME

that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?"

For those who don't remember
During WW.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney repres enting the Communist P arty in the USA. Now he's a Senator!


If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you a re rea ding it in English thank a Veteran.




It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating. God Bless America

 

[JonJ]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp
The 2nd part is Glenn's. The first part was by an anonymous author.
Good reading just the same.

 

[C-pher]

I was waiting for that Jon...

 

[daceman63]

I like the Kennedy comparison.

 

[Jaxon]

But Wait there's more!

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

No there isn't. Glenn said that during a 1974 debate with Howard Metzenbaum for the Democratic nomination to a U.S. Senate seat.

And Metzenbaum never said anything about having a job. He said "Colonel Glenn" had never "met a payroll".

If we're going to post obviously biased stuff, let's make sure its at least real, eh?

RJ

 

[Scrivener]

Old internet drivel, revived by those who post without checking, or even thinking. From the top:

"a. FDR led us into World War II."

HORSES***. Anyone who has even a minimal grasp of recent US history knows that the war in Europe had been raging for over 2 years and in the Pacific Rim for over 5 years before we entered WW II - AFTER we were attacked.

"b. Germany never attacked us ;"

More mendacity. Ever hear of the Reuben James? It was just ONE of the US Navy vessels sunk by German subs prior to the declaration of war.

"Japan did."

And Japan was part of WHAT international alliance of which Germany was the prime mover? And which country declared war on us after we declared war on Japan?

"c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea."

Another declaration by the mendacious for the ignorant. North Korea, aided and abetted by Communist China, attacked South Korea. In what way, shape, manner or form is that TRUMAN'S "starting" a war? Note also that the Korean War was NOT a unilateral action for the US; our forces were part of a UN action.

"North Korea never attacked us."

Really? That will come as quite a shock to anyone familiar with the Chosin Reservoir retreat....... Or the US Army units deployed along the border as peacekeepers and which were annhilated in the attack this author claims never occurred.

"d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us."

Another bald-faced lie. The Viet Namese had been fighting for independence since BEFORE WW II and resumed their fight against the French when the US and Britain - after conquering the Japanese in this former French colony - kowtowed to the Gallic invertebrates and let them resume "control" of Indochina.

And it was EISENHOWER who stepped up aid to the French (which actually had begun under Truman) after the their humiliating defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

"e. Lyndon B. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire."

From the simple issue it was before then, right? Note also that he inherited the major escalation Kennedy ordered.

"f. Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent."

And why would the consent of either be required for a US President to act?"

"g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people."

"Liberated?" If you are referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, the jury is still out on both incursions. Saddam and the Taliban are out of power in each, but the Taliban is not down and out in Afghanistan and is establishing itself elsewhere as well. Our forces in Iraq are a magnet for Islamic insurgents, who have turned the entire country into a terrorist training camp.

"The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But ! - It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation."

When did we "take Iraq?" It has been a couple of years since Bush declared "Mission accomplished;" the war has EXPANDED since his ostensible "victory." We don't even have an exit strategy, still less an actual date.

"It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!"

See above.

"Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB< /B> < I> !"

See above.........

"The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts"

NO, the author of this string of lies hopes - successfully, judging by the number of times I've seen it - that people are "too ignorant to realize the facts," too lazy to check them and too irresponsible to do so before they forward them......

 

[KMaurer]

Old internet drivel, revived by those who post without checking, or even thinking. From the top:

"a. FDR led us into World War II."

HORSES***. Anyone who has even a minimal grasp of recent US history knows that the war in Europe had been raging for over 2 years and in the Pacific Rim for over 5 years before we entered WW II - AFTER we were attacked.

Of course I'm sure that the fact that we went out of our way to prevent them from obtaining the fuel and other industrial supplies their economy needed never entered into their decision to start the war. Even if that weren't true (but of course it is) the fact that the war had already started there doesn't say anything about how we came to enter it.

"b. Germany never attacked us ;"

More mendacity. Ever hear of the Reuben James? It was just ONE of the US Navy vessels sunk by German subs prior to the declaration of war.

Oh, do you mean those US Merchant Marine ships that were sunk after the Germans had cautioned us that continuing to send war supplies to England would make our ships de facto combatants and subject to sinking?

"Japan did."

And Japan was part of WHAT international alliance of which Germany was the prime mover? And which country declared war on us after we declared war on Japan?

You're right with this one; of course it was a pretty much pro forma act. The only attacks they ever made on us were on the troops that FDR was oh so happy to finally have an excuse to send there. BTW, since we were attacked by Japan, why was our primary effort against a country that couldn't do us much damage rather than the one that had actually attacked us in Hawaii, the Philippines and other locations?

"c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea."

Another declaration by the mendacious for the ignorant. North Korea, aided and abetted by Communist China, attacked South Korea. In what way, shape, manner or form is that TRUMAN'S "starting" a war? Note also that the Korean War was NOT a unilateral action for the US; our forces were part of a UN action.

"North Korea never attacked us."

Really? That will come as quite a shock to anyone familiar with the Chosin Reservoir retreat....... Or the US Army units deployed along the border as peacekeepers and which were annhilated (sic) in the attack this author claims never occurred.

Of course the only attack on "us" was on the troops that we had stationed there without their consent (unless you believe that conflict between north and south had all been settled and there was a mutual request for our troops to be there). Was Korea US territory? I don't think so. Do you think that if England, with the consent of some international body, had stationed troops in the Confederacy or send men-of-war to protect southern harbors in the 1861 that the Union just might have attacked them? Would you consider that to have been the Union starting a war with England or England jumping into an almost certain war? I might have been tempted to call it "nation building" and "peacekeeping".

"d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us."

Another bald-faced lie. The Viet Namese had been fighting for independence since BEFORE WW II and resumed their fight against the French when the US and Britain - after conquering the Japanese in this former French colony - kowtowed to the Gallic invertebrates and let them resume "control" of Indochina.

And it was EISENHOWER who stepped up aid to the French (which actually had begun under Truman) after the their humiliating defeat at Dien Bien Phu.

So why, once again were we there? BTW, both Truman and Eisenhower only send military advisors, not combat troops. Only when those advisors started acting as combatants rather than, well, advisors were there any US casualties.

"e. Lyndon B. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire."

From the simple issue it was before then, right? Note also that he inherited the major escalation Kennedy ordered.

And was, of course, powerless to make an independent decision not to change those orders before they were carried out?

"f. Bill Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent."

And why would the consent of either be required for a US President to act?"

Maybe for the same stupid reason that the left insisted that we had absolutely no business in either Afghanistan or Iraq without prior consent of the UN, which in case you're unfamiliar with the structure of the UN Security Council were require a fortiori the consent of the French.

"g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people."

"Liberated?" If you are referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, the jury is still out on both incursions. Saddam and the Taliban are out of power in each, but the Taliban is not down and out in Afghanistan and is establishing itself elsewhere as well. Our forces in Iraq are a magnet for Islamic insurgents, who have turned the entire country into a terrorist training camp.

To quote an old radio character, "vas you dere, Sharlie?" The boots on the ground whom I listen to, seem to be saying that they've both been liberated, and that with the exception of a small number of dead enders, so is the Taliban. Multiple free and relatively peaceful elections have been held in both places; people who had fled to Europe and the US under the previous dictatorial regimes are returning by the hundreds to reestablish their homes and establish businesses in both countries; people are lining up by the thousands to join the new police and military, despite constant attacks and death threats; Iraqi troops are regularly taking several times as many casualties from the "army of liberation" as the US troops. Sounds pretty good to me. Still not perfect, but I don't any place that is.

"The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But ! - It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation."

When did we "take Iraq?" It has been a couple of years since Bush declared "Mission accomplished;" the war has EXPANDED since his ostensible "victory." We don't even have an exit strategy, still less an actual date.

"Taking a country", that is defeating its organized military forces, capturing the major cities and military bases and occupying the country, is the same as "winning the war" only for those unacquainted with the reality of war. If the fact that we're still taking casualties in Iraq means that the country hasn't been liberated (see above) then the fact that our troops were taking casualties from Nazi dead enders in Germany until at least 1957 means that the Germany wasn't "taken" until then, VE day was just a big media stunt to help win elections, and the war there really lasted 12 years longer than all those damn, lying history books (and all the media) say it did.

I can't really fault your for the "mission accomplished" one, since the media has distorted it beyond any hint of reality, but Bush never said that our mission in Iraq had been accomplished, that we had achieved victory, or that the war was over. What he did was visit a single ship and congratulate the crew of that ship for having successfully completed their mission in assisting the invasion of the country and the subsequent capture of Baghdad. That's a bit like calling FDR a liar for congratulating the Doolittle raiders for achieving their mission over Tokyo.

"It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!"

See above.

(See above)

"Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB< /B> < I> !"

See above.........

(See above) That doesn't imply that he is, only that your "see above" doesn't even address, much less disprove the statement.

"The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts"

NO, the author of this string of lies hopes - successfully, judging by the number of times I've seen it - that people are "too ignorant to realize the facts," too lazy to check them and too irresponsible to do so before they forward them......

You must be right, since it was on the television and in the main stream media it must be G-d's own truth. I hope that you just got carried away with you own marvelous rhetoric here. If you actually believe that the mainstream media doesn't have a strong bias, and doesn't have an anti-Bush, anti-Republican, Anti-war agenda, then I've lost a lot of the respect I've previously had for your intelligence.

Ken

 

[jwilson]

John Glenn !!!! your the Beans!!!

 

[Scrivener]

Error - lost my text; see next page.

 

[Admin]

 

[Scrivener]

Of course I'm sure that the fact that we went out of our way to prevent them from obtaining the fuel and other industrial supplies their economy needed never entered into their decision to start the war. Even if that weren't true (but of course it is) the fact that the war had already started there doesn't say anything about how we came to enter it.

You invert cause and effect and have stated the case bass-ackwards.

We imposed the embargo in question BECAUSE of Japan's invasion of Korea and China (among other nations). Apparently you favor arming international bullies who engage in mass murder, slave labor and sex crimes.

Oh, do you mean those US Merchant Marine ships that were sunk after the Germans had cautioned us that continuing to send war supplies to England would make our ships de facto combatants and subject to sinking?

Had I meant "Merchant Marine," I'd have SAID "Merchant Marine." I said US Navy because I meant US Navy. Go here and cure your ignorance:

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww2timeline/reubenjames.html

You're right with this one; of course it was a pretty much pro forma act. The only attacks they ever made on us were on the troops that FDR was oh so happy to finally have an excuse to send there. BTW, since we were attacked by Japan, why was our primary effort against a country that couldn't do us much damage rather than the one that had actually attacked us in Hawaii, the Philippines and other locations?

So you're saying WW II, the War Against Fascism, was a hoax, presumably hatched by the Trilateral Commission and the International Zionists to keep us supplied with Volkswagens and Mercedes.

We fought a holding action against the Japanese because they were thousands of miles away, could not pose a serious threat to the homeland and did not threaten any viable allies.

We targeted Germany first because Britain was on the brink of collapse and, had it fallen, we would not have had a staging area from which to launch attacks on the Nazis, as anyone with more historical research than watching "Saving Private Ryan" realizes. Do you even OWN a globe?

Of course the only attack on "us" was on the troops that we had stationed there without their consent (unless you believe that conflict between north and south had all been settled and there was a mutual request for our troops to be there).

Really? That will be news to the South Koreans, who were damn glad to have us there in 1950; many are still glad we're there now.

So why, once again were we there? BTW, both Truman and Eisenhower only send military advisors, not combat troops. Only when those advisors started acting as combatants rather than, well, advisors were there any US casualties.

Another disingenous argument. The distinction between "advisor" and "soldier" is illusory, if not an actual fraud. Green Berets and spooks are combatants; not consultants.

And was, of course, powerless to make an independent decision not to change those orders before they were carried out?

Powerless? NO. However, he did inherit the situation and also the team of advisors that helped get Kennedy into it. Can you say "momentum?" Suuuuuuuuuuure, you can!

Maybe for the same stupid reason that the left insisted that we had absolutely no business in either Afghanistan or Iraq without prior consent of the UN, which[,] in case you're unfamiliar with the structure of the UN Security Council[,] were [sic] require a fortiori the consent of the French.

Irrelevant to the point at hand. While a joint action may be desireable, unilateral action is NOT precluded. As should be amply evident now.....

The boots on the ground whom I listen to, seem to be saying that they've both been liberated, and that with the exception of a small number of dead enders, so is the Taliban.

IF that were true, the level of violence would be decreasing; it is not. Moreover, there is evidence of the Taliban growing stronger outside Kabul itself and becoming quite powerful in Pakistan.

The casualty rate is what it is, your rosy encomiums notwithstanding.
Time will tell.

I can't really fault your [sic] for the "mission accomplished" one, since the media has distorted it beyond any hint of reality, but Bush never said that our mission in Iraq had been accomplished, that we had achieved victory, or that the war was over.

Not merely false; egregiously so to the point of absurdity. BUSH made that declaration, made a media event of the declaration and is now wholly responsible for the failure to live up to his declaration. Media bias notwithstanding (and I NEVER said there was none), he said what he said. I believe the phrase is "Hoist on his own petard."

Time will show which of us has the more competent comprehension of events.

 

[KMaurer]

Yada, Yada, Yada, Yada.

I guess the old adage is right. Never try to teach a pig to sing; it only wastes your time and irritates the pig.

Ken

 

[Executive]

This is way better than anything on television.


Chris

(Anyone remember Star Wars, Episode 3 when Yoda has an epic battle with Palpatine?)

 

[threejean]

Advantage Scrivener (and +1 too)

 

[SiameseRat]

(Anyone remember Star Wars, Episode 3 when Yoda has an epic battle with Palpatine?)

too funny -but which one is using the dark side in this battle? i love them both... very informative argument however. these guys know their stuff.

and the "[sic] slaps" are outta control.

 

[Scrivener]

I guess the old adage is right. Never try to teach a pig to sing; it only wastes your time and irritates the pig.

Even when you give them the link.......

Oh - your reference is, as they say, "a day late and a dollar short." I already used that in the "New here - a question" thread, long about Post # 45:

Attempts to teach you are tedious and unproductive; reminiscent of Mark Twain's observations about porcine voice lessons. People can read the thread and draw their own conclusions.

It was valid then and is proven again so now.

 

[jwilson]

God dam Marshal plan!!!

 

[dwarven1]

Man, I love reading NES in the morning...

 

[MrsWildweasel]

Wow.

 

[Executive]

Yada, Yada, Yada, Yada.

Ken

Seinfeld, Episode 152.
George: Is "yada yada" bad?
Jerry: No, "yada yada" is good.

Excellent.


Chris

 

[Twigg]

Interesting first post on this thread no matter what. Good show too !

 

[Nickle]

To help stir the pot here, there's been a few omissions of facts.

Johnson escalted the war in Vietnam in 1965. He's the one that sent Combat Troops in, not Kennedy. He also was advised against it. For the record, he also voted against getting involved in 1954 or so.

China getting involved in the Korean War is OUR fault. IF we had stayed in South Korea, and had not invaded North Korea, China wouldn't have sent in troops. Scrivener, do YOU own a map? Chosin Reservoir is in Northern North Korea, near the Yalu River. Practice what you preach, do your research.

FDR had been itching to get involved in Europe's war (WW2) for quite some time. The US Navy was escorting convoys of war materials to Britain (and depth charging German subs). Does that sound like beligerent behavoir to you?

I'll echo Ken's comment on Iraq and Afghanistan. My sources have been there, and they tell me both countries are pretty much free. Quit watching Communist News Network (CNN) and talk to some of the troops that have been there. They'll really enlighten you with what's really going on, not what's reported by folks that don't leave the hotel in Baghdad.

[/rant mode]

 

[Scrivener]

Johnson escalted [sic] the war in Vietnam in 1965. He's the one that sent Combat Troops [sic] in, not Kennedy. He also was advised against it. For the record, he also voted against getting involved in 1954 or so.

Really? Ever read The Wall? It doesn't start in 1965 and Marines were sent on under Kennedy's watch.

China getting involved in the Korean War is OUR fault. IF we had stayed in South Korea, and had not invaded North Korea, China wouldn't have sent in troops.

China was "involved" at the outset; it supplied arms and material to North Korea for the proxy war. You ARE right about the insertion of Chinese troops. MacArthur triggered the massive Chinese counterattack by ignoring orders and passing the 38th Parallel.

FDR had been itching to get involved in Europe's war (WW2) for quite some time. The US Navy was escorting convoys of war materials to Britain (and depth charging German subs). Does that sound like beligerent [sic] behavoir [sic] to you?

Put accurately, FDR grasped the obvious, but was constrained by country still blinded by an isolationist mentality. The convoy issue is one of those chicken/egg questions; would the subs have been subjected to depth charging if they had NOT been attacking our merchant vessels in our waters?

I'll echo Ken's comment on Iraq and Afghanistan. My sources have been there, and they tell me both countries are pretty much free.

And yet, rah-rah jingoism aside, there is little, if any, tangible proof of your assertion and a fair amount of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Len-2A Training]

In 1970 I worked alongside someone who told me that he had served in VN in the early 1960s, working for one of the TLA agencies. They had DRUMS of LSD and were toying with the idea of "tainting" the water supply of the NVA back then.

I never had any reason to doubt what he told me.

Lots of stuff goes on "undercover" that the public is not made aware of.

We definitely had "advisors" in VN working for intelligence agencies much earlier than the public is aware of.

 

[Jaxon]

WOW Who says Drama is on TNT!

RJ

 

[Nickle]

Scrivener, I KNOW we had "advisors" on the ground in SVN in 1960 (one of the wife's relatives did exactly that), they traveled in civilian clothes and didn't wear US uniform insignia at that time, either. We had "advisors" on the ground well before that, the first American that died in Vietnam was 1954 or eariler, from what I've read.

That being said, the FIRST Combat Unit sent to SVN was a Marine Corps Brigade sent to protect Da Nang, and that was early 1965. Kennedy was killed on 22 Nov 1963. So, there's NO WAY Kennedy ordered it. I'm not saying Johnson started it (actually Eisenhower signed the SEATO Treaty), but he damn sure escalated it.

As to WW2, it was an inevitable outcome of the treaties ending WW1. If the punishment for Germany hadn't been so Draconian, WW2 might have been a small incident in the Far East, involving Japan.

There's lots of incidents of "Proxy Wars". China isn't the only player. I'd wager they don't back North Korea so quick next time.

As to recent events in Southwest Asia, I'll believe my son and my friends, and ignore the lying media. After you do a year there (other than work with media in Baghdad), I'll believe what you say as well.

Say what you like, but I'm done discussing this. Any further discussion on my part is getting close to Troll Baiting. (And nobody is in Troll Mode yet)

 

[KMaurer]

And yet, rah-rah jingoism aside, there is little, if any, tangible proof of your assertion and a fair amount of evidence to the contrary.

So there we have the bottom like: first hand accounts from people who actually spend the majority of their time each and every day patrolling the countryside, working side-by-side with Iraqis in small towns, or on the streets of Baghdad and other major cities are nothing more than "rah-rah jingoism" and provide "little, if any, tangible proof." In contrast whatever unnamed sourced Scrivner might have (John Murtha, Michael Moore, CNN, MCNBC, NY Times reporters in some luxury hotel in Baghdad?) constitute hard, irrefutable evidence proving beyond any reasonable doubt the lies and distortions those mouthpieces for the Halliburton-funded vast right-wing conspiracy.

 

[Scrivener]

Still attempting the scales, I see.

We await your refutation of the actual numbers, however. Document a DECREASE in the number of IEDs exploded, abductions perpetrated, suicide bombings, assassinations conducted, etc. and you might be taken seriously.

Until then......

 

[FPrice]

I now know why Mike Coronach came up with the comment I reference in my signature block.

 

[Adam_MA]

Until then......

Until then, WHAT?

Don't keep us hanging like that.... I just hate antici.......................................................................................................................pation.