Thread
:
An OT question
View Single Post
#
62
posted to rec.boats
[email protected]
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,021
An OT question
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 02:16:24 -0400,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:20:34 -0700,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:23:57 -0400,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:42:45 -0700,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:48 -0400,
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:54:36 -0400, Harryk
wrote:
Why does there have to be outrage from the left? Where are the
Republicans who want the Afg. war to end right now? There aren't many.
Sounds to me like you're bitter about something. Perhaps you should
write Bush a letter and tell him how you feel about the two wars he
started, one of choice, while he pretty much ignored the one that had
some justification.
Actually I would write Obama a letter and ask him what happened to his
2007 and early 2008 promise to end BOTH wars.
Where's all the outrage about the Bosnian conflict? Oh wait, that was
Clinton's war..
I was never happy about Bosnia and we still have troops on the ground
there.
We still have troops in Germany, Korea, and Japan.
I don't understand Germany and Japan either.
Maybe we should remove them right now? Would that make you feel
better?
It's a start when we want to chip away at the $600 billion DoD budget
We are still at war with Korea ... as much as we ever were, this is
just a cease fire in an undeclared war.
So, we should just leave, right?
Maybe.
Sure thing. Screw the Japanese. Let them suffer. You're quite a
humanitarian.
What does Korea have to do with Japan?
Not a thing, but the same argument applies. Should we just abandon the
Koreans? You're quite a humanitarian.
Are you changing the subject again?
The troops in Bosnia are engaged in peacekeeping activities.
What the hell does that mean? If this is really "peace keeping", send
the peace corps, other wise it is a military adventure.
Really? Who have we shot at recently in Bosnia?
Are you saying we shouldn't be there either. Now we are getting
somewhere.
I'm saying we're doing a valuable job there, whether or not you like
it.
Didn't you just get through saying we stopped all the genocide and
scolded me because I said they still had two populations who hate each
other.
We stopped it, and we're preventing a redux. It's called peacekeeping.
It's a worthy job. FYI, it's a UN operation, not just the US, but of
course, the facts don't really matter, right? Mostly, it's monitoring,
but like I said, facts don't matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...eping_missions
What is this "valuable job"?
Iraq seems an "iffy" proposition. Many believe open warfare will break
out there as we begin pulling out in large numbers. I've always thought
Iraq was and would remain a disaster.
Count on it.
No, you count on it... the rest of us will go with the facts on the
ground.
The "facts on the ground" are that as soon as we pull back from a
place in Afghanistan, it goes back to the way it was like pulling your
foot out of a bucket of mud.
Maybe, but of course you're the expert in all things, so it's got to
be true.
I know a little about the history there. Evidently you don't.
So far, you haven't demonstrated that in this thread.
Afghanistan, now there's the rub. I have no idea why we are in
Afghanistan, and it is one of the issues I have with the Obama
administration.
We have always agreed there.
Sometimes I think we maintain these overseas positions in order to give
our boys in uniform something to do, possibilities for promotion, and
the ability to remain in uniform.
After all, if we weren't so active, we could cut the military budget in
half, at least, and muster out hundreds of thousands of marginal troops
like Herring.
We could still cut the budget in half but the real problem is, most of
the DoD budget is a pork barrel jobs program.
Which is, of course, Obama's fault. Certainly not Reagan's.
Probably more like George Washington, certainly FDR. Eisenhower tried
to warn us but JFK cranked up the arms race (on a lie about a
nonexistent missile gap) and it never stopped
Sure... Reagan, the God, couldn't be at fault.
What does Reagan have to do with the arms race? It started in 1960.
Reagan was still making movies.
Nothing. He just increased the Navy to... what was it... 600 ships or
something like that. He was a dove, according to you.
Reply With Quote
[email protected]
View Public Profile
Find all posts by
[email protected]